Urban development in the Louisiana coastal zone problems and guidelines

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

N T
11 It It A N 10 E V E11AD FOXI E
I N 1' H Ef, 1-440111INIANA
47 41 A S 7F A to 29 40 N E4
A

AND
GAI 110 I"54"'L 11 N E S

Frr
393
L8
U-73
1976

rvtt.eARED FOR THI 'IDUISIANA STATIE PLANNING 0"Fli"E BY
is 10 11 a it t Is 411* 41, x 111ST11111fe
UUMV, 11,xol ity 401 liew 40101ealn't

URBAN DEVELOPMENT IN THE LOUISIANA COASTAL ZONE:

PROBLEMS AND GUIDELINES

Anthony J. Mumphrey, Jr., Ph.D., P.E., A.I.P.
Associate Professor of Urban and Regional Planning
Project Director

Jane Schleichardt Brooks, M.L.A., Assoc. A.I.P.
Research Associate
Associate Project Director

John C. Miller, Jr., B.A.
Graduate Research Assistant

Urban Studies Institute
University of New Orleans
A Member of the Louisiana State University System

The preparation of this report was financed in part
through a grant from the U.S. Department of Commerce
under the provisions of the Coastal Zone Management
Act of 1972.

This study was completed under Contract Number SPO-77-05
Louisiana State Planning Office
Patrick W. Ryan, Executive Director

NOTICE

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of
the Louisiana State Planning Ofeice in the interest of
information exchange. The State of Louisiana assumes
no liability for its contents or the use thereof.

DECEMBER 31, 1976

ABSTRACT

The Louisiana Coastal Zone comprises all or a portion of

twenty-two parishes and encompasses almost seven million

acres. Within this extensive area are a number of thriving

urban centers which have developed directly as a result of

the easy access to shipping channels, oil and gas reserves,

seafood beds and other natural resources. However, expansion

of these urban areas has been hindered by the scarcity of

naturally dry land suitable for development. Nonetheless,

technology has made possible the spread of urbanization into

the wetlands, but this process is not without a number of

serious ecological drawbacks and developmental problems.

This study seeks to examine all steps in the urban development

process as it impacts wetlands and to identify resulting

problems and propose guidelines which mitigate them.

Chapter 1 reviews existing coastal zone ordinances,

regulations and codes at the parish level. An attempt is

made to show to what degree, if any, special wetland charac-

teristics have been considered in these ordinances. This

chapter also examines restrictive mechanisms placed on

wetlands development by the National Flood Insurance Program

and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permitting process.

Appendix 1.3 provides an annotated bibliography of existing

and proposed urban development regulations by parish.

A problem identification methodology is used in Chapter

2 to examine the urban development process as it occurs in

the coastal zone. Moving through each of the stages of wet-

lands development in sequence, this methodology is used to

identify potential developmental problems and their results

and to specify how the regulatory system for urban wetlands

development needs to be strengthened.

For those development practices determined to be not or

inadequately regulated, development guidelines are recommended

in Chapter 3. These suggestions are grouped into two broad

categories: 1) statewide policy guidelines are outlined

with a brief discussion of some other states' coastal zone

regulations, and 2) parish-wide ordinance amendments and

other restrictive measures applicable to specific development

stages are proposed.

Chapter 4 concludes the study with a brief discussion of

a process for developing future urban development regulations

in the coastal zone.

The information and suggestions presented in this study

are intended to assist local parish coastal zone regulatory

and planning efforts. Hopefully, the ultimate result will.

be improved planning and wiser use of the region's coastal

lands and resources.

PREFACE

The intent of this study is to survey existing urban

development practices in Louisiana's coastal zone, to identify

problem areas in wetlands development,and to assess the

adequacy of and suggest improvements for current coastal

zone development regulatory mechanisms. The development

guidelines proposed are presented as a step toward problem

mitigation and more beneficial urban development practices

for the coastal area.

A number of persons assisted in the preparation of this

study and many are named in references throughout the text.

They include representatives from various local parish plan-

ning and governmental bodies within the coastal zone as well

as individuals at regional planning and development commissions.

Also of great assistance in providing necessary information

were individuals at various state and federal agencies, private

firms, and universities. Danny Clement of the U.S. Soil Con-

servation Service and Roger Swindler of the U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers were particularly helpful in providing technical

advice. James Renner of the State Planning Office (SPO)

served as administrative coordinator between the SPO and the

Urban Studies Institute providing both assistance and guidance.

The authors wish to express their gratitude to all those who

provided valuable assistance.

AJM, Jr.
JSB
December 31, 1976

(iv)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE

1. EXISTING DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ..................... 1
INTRODUCTION ......................................... 1
ZONING ORDINANCES .................................... 4
Current Zoning Constraints ........................ 4
Calcasieu Parish ............................... 5
Jefferson Parish ............................... 5
Orleans Parish ............................... ;. 5
Plaquemines Parish ............................. 10
St. Bernard Parish ............................. 10
St. Charles Parish ............................. 10
St. Tammany Parish ............................. 11
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS ............. s--*,*-**** 12
Common Characteristics of Subdivi ion
Regulations ....................................... 13
Standards of Design and Improvements ........... 13
Procedural Requirements for Plan Approval ...... 13
Unique Characteristics in Various Parish
Ordinances ........................................ 14
Lafourche Parish ............................... 14
Plaquemines Parish ............................. 14
St. Martin Parish .............................. 15
St. Mary Parish ................................ 15
St. Tammany Parish ............................. 16
Terrebonne Parish .............................. 16
BUILDING CODES ....................................... 16
Southern Standard Building Code ................... 19
Orleans Parish Building Code ...................... 20
COASTAL ZONE MANAGE14ENT CONTROLS UNDER
CONSIDERATION ........................................ 21
Orleans Parish .................................... 22
St. Bernard Parish ................................ 23
H.U.D. FLOOD INSURANCE REGULATIONS ................... 24
Background of the National Flood Insurance
Program ........................................... 24
Stages of Regulation .............................. 26
Definitions .................................... 27
Requirements ................................... 29
CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMITTING PROGRAM ................ 34
Applications ...................................... 37
Public Notice ................. 39
APPENDIX 1.1--Location of U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers District and Divisional Offices ......... 40
APPENDIX 1.2--Mailing Addresses and Telephone
Numbers of the District Engineers ................. 41
APPENDIX 1.3--Annotated Bibliography of Existing
and Proposed Regulations .......................... 42

(v)

CHAPTER PAGE

2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT PRACTICES TO BE CONSIDERED
FOR REGULATION ....................................... 64
INTRODUCTION ......................................... 64
GENERAL PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT
PROCESS .............................................. 72
Subsidence ........................................ 72
Subsidence Causes .............................. 72
Soil Properties Related to Subsidence .......... 74
Subsidence Problems and Costs .................. 81
Flooding .......................................... 86
Pollution ......................................... 88
Developmental Effects of Removal of Wetlands
from the Ecosystem ................................ 90
STAGES IN THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS .................... 91
Development Process for Existing or Proposed
Fast Lands ........................................ 92
Pre-Development Stage .......................... 92
Stage 1--Apply for Corps of Engineers Permit ... 92
Stage 2--Build Levee ........................... 93
Stage 3--Obtain Loan and Purchase Land ......... 95
Stage 4--Drain Site ............................ 95
Stage 5--Clear Site ............................ 97
Stage 6--Fill Site ............................. 98
Stage 7--S.ubmit Plan for Approval .............. 99
Stage 8--Layout of Site ........................ 100
Stage 9--Lay Utilities ......................... 100
Stage 10--Fill and Grade Roadbeds and Build
Streets .......... 101
Stage 11--Fill and Grade Lots .................. 102
Stage 12--Obtain Building Permit ............... 102
Stage 13--Drive Piles .......................... 103
Stage 14--Lay Foundation ....................... 103
Stage 15--Build Structure ...................... 104
Stage 16--Lay Sidewalks, Driveways, Etc ........ 105
Stage 17--Collect and Dispose of Sewage, Waste
Water and Solid Waste ....................... 105
Development Process for Non-Fast Lands ............ 107

3. RECOMMENDED URBAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES ............. 112
INTRODUCTION ......................................... 112
STATEWIDE POLICY GUIDELINES .......................... 112
Control Techniques Used by Other States ........... 114
Suggested Control Technique for Louisiana ......... 118
LOCAL URBAN DEVELOPMENT REGULATORY GUIDELINES ........ 124
Hierarchy of Local Land Use Control Ordinances .... 125
Regulatory Guidelines Addressing Specific
Problem Areas ..................................... 126
Flood Protection Guidelines .................... 126
Subsidence Protection Guidelines ............... 130
Pollution Protection Guidelines ................ 133
Conclusions ....................................... 134

4. PROCESS FOR DEVELOPING FUTURE REGULATIONS ............ 137

(vi)

INDEX TO FIGURES

FIGURE PAGE

1.1 Boundary of the Coastal Zone of Louisiana ........... 2

2.1 Urban Development Problem Identification Process .... 65

2.1 (Insert) Generalized Corps of Engineers Application
and E.I.S. Review Procedure ......................... 69

2.2 Schematic Relationship of Soils to Land Form,
Vegetation and Parent Material ...................... 78

2.3 Design and Operation Methods for a Sanitary
Landfill ............................................ 108

3.1 State of Washington Shoreline Permit Procedure ...... 122

4.1 Planning Process for the Development of New
Regulations ......................................... 139

(vii)

INDEX TO TABLES

TABLES PAGE

1.1 Current Coastal Zone Parish Ordinances,
Regulations, and Codes -- December 31, 1976 ......... 6

2.1 Dangerous Effluents in Urban Drainage Water ......... 89

3.1 Land/Water Use Control Techniques Now Being
Employed by Coastal States .......................... 115

3.2 Land/Water Use Control Techniques Under
Consideration ........................................ 116

3.3 Summary of State Programs ........................... 119

(Viii)

CHAPTER 1

EXISTING DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS

INTRODUCTION

Of the thirty million acres of estuarine waters and

wetlands nationally in thirty-four coastal states and terri-

tories, Louisiana has about seven million acres, surpassing

all other states (Louisiana Advisory Commission on Coastal

and Marine Resources, 1973: 19). However, with the economic

blessing of a productive wetlands area rich in mineral,

marine and wildlife resources, goes a scarcity of land

suitable for urban land uses (Figure 1.1).

Various urban centers have developed along the Louisiana

coastline, thriving on the easy accessibility to shipping

channels, oil and gas fields, seafood beds, wildlife hunting

and trapping grounds, etc. Those Standard Metropolitan Sta-

tistical Areas (SMSA's) which are included in the Louisiana

coastal zone are New Orleans, Lake Charles, and a portion of
the Baton Rouge SMSA. 1 Major cities of coastal Louisiana as

well as smaller, satellite cities and towns have quickly

1The New Orleans SMSA is composed of Orleans, Jefferson, St.
Bernard and St. Tammany Parishes. St. Charles Parish, while
not formally a part of the SMSA, has already felt development
pressure from the expanding New Or-leans area. Calcasieu
Parish comprises the Lake Charles SMSA. Only the parishes of
Ascension and Livingston within the Baton Rouge SMSA (Ascen-
sion, Assumption, East Baton Rouge, West Baton Rouge, Living-
ston) are included in the definition*of the Louisiana coastal
zone. The Lafayette SMSA composed entirely of the parish of
Lafayette is not included in the defined coastal zone. A
thin strip of wetlands lies in the extreme eastern portion of
Lafayette Parish with most of the nearby wetlands lying in St.
Martin Parish (Mumphrey et al., 1975 and McIntire et al.,1975).

FIGURE 1.1

PROPOSED BOUNDARY OF THE COASTAL ZONE OF LOUISIANA

009
CAU_6f>1 F-U
0 -%.* I &MV
VT. M&IMW I-oo..*
Tur.
---h- - AA
0. Am

A64QMFn

VeAMIL4om

LAFOurt-mm U

PkIe41014 &CUNPAAle'@

Lq, 0 to " go 40 50

M Led>
dK

Source: Proposed by McIntire et al., 1975:3 to Louisiana State Planning
Actual boundary pending approval by Louisiana legislature.

utilized existing high ground on natural levees, etc. for

residential, commercial, and industrial centers. This left

reclamation of surrounding wetlands as the most common means

of urban expansion.

Considering the span of time over which the reclamation

process has taken place, it is only recently that the value

of viable wetlands has been recognized (Mumphrey et al., 1975:

96-137) and efforts made to control urban sprawl. Chapter 1

reviews current development ordinances and codes in the twenty-

two parish Louisiana Coastal Zone, showing to what degree

special wetland characteristics restricting urban development

potential have been considered.

For the purposes of this study, a distinction is made

between the terms non-fast land and fast land. Non-fast land

is herein defined as an area in its wetland state, subject

to tidal inundation. Fast land is defined as a former wet-

land which has been separated from the estuarine system by

means of a levee or floodwall and is no longer subject to

frequent flooding.

Current practices of parish-wide development regulation

(i.e. zoning ordinances, building codes, subdivision regula-

tions) apply to construction on dry land, with existing fast

lands falling into this category. Most large scale develop-

ment in coastal areas takes place only after the wetland has

been leveed, drained, cleared, and filled. Only minor

development such as residential camps and duck blinds takes

place on non-fast lands due to state and federal restrictions

related to flood insurance requirements, health standards,

navigation controls, etc. These restrictions on fast and

non-fast lands will also be discussed in this chapter.

Appendix 1.3 is an annotated bibliography of planning

and regulation documents which have been prepared in the

twenty-two coastal parishes.

ZONING ORDINANCES

Table 1.1 illustrates the current state of zoning in the

twenty-two parishes of Louisiana comprising the coastal zone.

The zoning ordinance is a governmental tool for controlling

the use of land in such a way as to make it compatible with

contiguous land uses.

Actually the zoning ordinance protects the
property owner by preserving the value of his
property. Adjacent property owners are also
controlled by the ordinance so that one cannot
jeopardize the value of his neighbor's property by
using his property in a manner which would have
this result (Imperial Calcasieu Regional Plan-
ning and Development Commission, 1975: 29).

While the usefulness of a zoning ordinance as a tool in

maintaining orderly growth and preserving private property

values has become more widely accepted, only approximately

30 percent of the coastal parishes have as yet adopted zoning.

A number of additional parishes are currently considering

zoning ordinances on a parish-wide scale.

Current Zoning Constraints

Of those parishes which have enacted zoning ordinances,

few restrictions are placed specifically on development in

fast and non-fast lands. Existing restrictive wetlands

districts in each of the currently zoned parishes are

described and compared in the following summary:

Calcasieu Parish U -- Unclassified District

This district includes wetlands located within the

parish. There are no zoning restrictions placed on

lands in this district and all land uses are allowed.

Structures built in the IIUII District are subject only

to the state sanitary code with no other building

code restrictions. Unclassified lands are termed

"under study" for possible future zoning changes

(Calcasieu Parish Police Jury, 1962).

Jefferson Parish U-1 -- Unrestricted District

This includes lands where "it has been determined that

development will be retarded due to the natural topo-

graphy of the area". All land uses are allowed other

than those which emit offensive odors, gases, noise,

etc. However these can be allowed by special permit

from the parish council (Jefferson Parish Council,

1974: 70).

Orleans Parish NU -- Non-Urban District

This district allows "limited development" in areas

outside the protective levees of the Board of Commis-

sioners of the Orleans Levee District. All land uses

are permitted subject to the provisions and performance

TABLE 1.1 CURRENT COASTAL ZONE PARISH ORDINANCES,
(See Appendix 1.3 -- Annotated Bibliography Under Parish

PARISH ZONING ORDINANCE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS

ASCENSION

ASSUMPTION Code Proposed, 1973; Code Proposed, 1973;
Not Adopted Not Adopted

Comprehensive Zoning
CALCASIEU Ordinance, 1962; Adopted Subdivision Regulations,
(Revised ordinance drafted, 1974; Adopted
not yet adopted)

CAMERON No Code No Code

IBERIA Code Proposed, 1974; Subdivision Regulations,
Not Adopted (n.d.); Adopted

IBERVILLE

Comprehensive Zoning Subdivision Regulations,
JEFFERSON Ordinance, As Amended, As Amended, 1972; Adopted
1974; Adopted

JEFFERSON DAVIS No Code No Code

Subdivision Regulations;
LAFOURCHE Ward 10 Code Proposed, Central (1975), South,
1974; Not Adopted Parish-wide, and Thibodaux;
Adopted

LIVINGSTON No Code Subdivision Regulations
currently being drafted

Comprehensive Zoning Regulations Governing
ORLEANS Ordinance, 1971 Revised; the Subdivision of Land
Adopted in New Orleans, La., 1950;
Adopted

REGULATIONS, AND CODES -- DECEMBER 31, 1976
Listing for Further Details On Existing Regulations)

BUILDING CODE REMARKS

No information available after contacting
both the parish government and the
Capitol Region Planning Commission, Baton
Rouge, Louisiana.

Code Proposed, 1973; Source: Letter from Assumption Parish Police
Not Adopted Jury, Oct. 12, 1976

Southern Standard Sources: Allen Cartier and Dean Ford,
Building Code; Adopted Imperial Calcasieu Regional Planning
(not enforced) and Development Commission

Southern Standard Source: Allen Cartier, Imperial Calcasieu
Building Code; Adopted Regional Planning and Development
(not enforced) Commission

Building Code Currently Sources: Bert Landry, Acadiana Planning and
under consideration Evangeline Economic Development
District; Acadiana Coastal Zone
Resources Inventory

No information available after contacting
both the parish government and the Capital
Region Planning Commission, Baton Rouge,
Louisiana

Building Code and Related
Regulations, 1952; Adopted

Southern Standard Building Source:Allen Cartier, Imperial Calcasieu
Code; Adopted (not enforced) Regional Planning and Development
Commission

Sources: Irwin Joubert, South Central
No Code Planning and Development Commission
Letter from Central Lafourche Plan-
ning Commission, Oct. 15, 1976

No Code Source: Letter from Livingston Parish
Planning Commission, Oct. 11, 1976

Building Code, Parish Also: Coastal Zone Management Plan, 1975;
of Orleans, 1975 Revised; Not Adopted (as of this date)
Adopted

TABLE 1.1 CURRENT COASTAL ZONE PARISH ORDINANCES,
See Appendix 1.3 -- Annotated Bibliography Under Parish

PARISH ZONING ORDINANCE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS

Comprehensive Zoning Subdivision and
PLAQUEMINES Ordinance, 1975; Adopted Resubdivision Ordinance,
1970; Adopted

Comprehensive Zoning Subdivision Regulations,
ST. BERNARD Ordinance, 1971; Adopted 1956; Adopted (not in use)
Revised Code Proposed,
1963; Not Adopted

ST. CHARLES Comprehensive Zoning Subdivision Regulations,
Ordinance, 1966; Adopted 1969; Adopted

ST. JAMES No Code No Code

ST. JOHN THE No Code Subdivision Regulations,
BAPTIST (n.d.); Adopted

Subdivision Regulations,
ST. MARTIN No Code 1969; Adopted
Updated to 1976

Subdivision Regulations,
ST. MARY No Code 1960; Adopted
Updated to 1974

Land Use Ordinance, Subdivision Regulatory
ST. TAMMANY 1972; Adopted Ordinance, As Amended,
1975; Adopted

TANGIPAHOA Code Proposed, 1973; Code Proposed, 1973;
Status of adoption not known Status of adoption not known

TERREBONNE No Code Subdivision Regulations,
1975; Adopted

VERMILION No Code Subdivision Regulations,
1975; Adopted

REGULATIONS, AND CODES -- DECEMBER 31, 1976
Listing for Further Details On Existing Regulations)

BUILDING CODE RE3L4LRKS

Building Code Ordin. No. 15,
As Amended, (n. d. ); Adopted
National Building Code,
Abbrev. Ed., As Amended; Adopted

Building Code, Parish of Also: Environmental Baseline Study, 1972
St. Bernard, 1965; Adopted Resource Management, St. Bernard
Parish Wetlands, 1976

Southern Standard Building Source: Letter from St. Charles Parish
Code Proposed, 1973; Not Police Jury, Oct. 11, 1976
Adopted

Building Code, (n.d.); Source: Irwin Joubert, South Central
Adopted Planning and Development Commission

No Code Source: Irwin Joubert, South Central
Planning and Development Commission

No Code Source: Letter from St. Martin Parish
Planning Commission, Oct. 15, 1976

Building Code Ordinance Source: Letter from St. Mary Parish
No* 777, 1973; Adopted Police Jury, Oct. 12, 1976

No Code Source: Craig Sinden, St. Tammany
Parish Planning Department

No confirmation of code adoption available
after contacting both the parish government
and the Capital Region Planning Commission,
Baton Rouge, Louisiana

No Code Source: Letter from Houma-Terrebonne Regional
Planning Commission, Oct. 12, 1976

Soarce: Bert Landry, Acadiana Planning and
No Code Evangeline Economic Development
District
9 A

standards of the Building Code of the City of New

Orleans (New Orleans City Council, 1971rev.: 92-93).

Plaquemines Parish FP -- Flood Plain District

This district comprises areas subject to periodic or

occasional inundation from stream overflows, storms and

tidal conditions which are not within publicly owned

hurricane protection levees and pump drainage systems.

All residential, commercial and industrial structures

are permitted if they meet the requirements of the

parish building and sanitary codes (Plaquemines Parish

Commission Council, 1975: 41).

St. Bernard Parish A-1 -- Rural District

This classifies all existing non-urbanized sections of

the parish under one district. The majority of the land

contained within this classification is wetlands. All

land uses are allowed by right, however, heavy industry

must comply with special conditions (St. Bernard Parish

Police Jury, 1971: 21).

St. Charles Parish A-1 -- Rural District

This district includes the major proportion of wetlands

within the parish and is set aside for agricultural and

low density residential uses. Structures built in the

A-1 District are subject to the state sanitary code with

no other building code restrictions at present.

Industrial, commercial, and high density residential.

developments are excluded from this district (St.

Charles Parish Police Jury, 1966).

St. Tammany Parish F -- Inundation District

This district is unique in that it applies special land

use regulations to areas subject to severe inundation

at frequent intervals, while permitting reasonable

economic use of such property. The "F" District requires

elevation of main floor levels for all structures to a

height of not less than one foot above the highest

recorded flood levels since 1921. Within the "Fl

District along the coast of Lake Pontchartrain,main

floor elevation is set at a minimum of eight feet above

mean sea level. In other inundation areas of the "Y'

District, floor levels may not be less than indicated on

the district map unless the level is amended by a report

of the parish engineer based on improved data. The

stated purpose of this control is "to protect human

life, prevent or minimize material losses and reduce the

cost to the public of rescuo and relief efforts occas-

sioned by the unwise occupancy of such flood areas"

(St. Tammany Parish Police Jury, 1972: 7).

Based on available data, the St. Tammany Parish Inunda-

tion District is the only currently enacted zoning control

which places special constraints on development in fast and

non-fast lands. This is accomplished by means of the

minimum required structural floor elevation above mean sea

level.

SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS

Another method of land use control currently in practice

in the coastal parishes is subdivision regulations. While

usually intended to work together with the zoning ordinance

to insure an orderly pattern of growth, many parishes have

adopted subdivision regulations without the accompanying

zoning controls. This immediate measure has been taken to

regulate the layout of numerous recently constructed sub-

division developments.

The subdivision regulation governs the parti-
tioning of land into smaller portions for the
eventual sale of these newly created areas. The
regulations include as a minimum, specifications
for road construction as well as drainage require-
ments.

The idea is not to limit or stop growth, but
rather to insure that the community will not suffer
in the future from ill-planned and ill-executed
development. This suffering on the part of a
community usually takes the form of having to
assume maintenance of roads and drainage that
were not constructed to acceptable specifications
(Imperial Calcasieu Regional Planning and
Development Commission, 1975: 33).

Twice as many (approximately 60 percent) of the Louisiana

coastal parishes have adopted subdivision regulations as

have enacted zoning ordinances. Common characteristics and

unique features of these regulations are examined next.

Common Characteristics of Subdivision Regulations

There are a number of standard items found in all

current parish-wide subdivision regulations. These include:

Standards of Design and Improvements

1. street alignment, construction specifications

and minimum width for all classes of thoroughfares

2. lot and block configuration and minimum sizes

3. minimum set-backs for structures on lots

4. sanitary provisions for water supply and sewage

disposal

5. drainage system design to accommodate runoff from

a specified storm intensity (as determined by the

local parish engineer)

6. utility servitudes for electric, gas, telephone,

water lines, etc.

Procedural Requirements for Plan Approval

1. preliminary plan submission with all specified

design information prior to commencing coastruction

2. final plat submission wtth proof that all required

roadway and utility improvements have been

completed

3. jurisdictional assignments as to which official

must certify various phases during the subdivision

construction process.

Unique Characteristics in Various Parish Ordinances

While extremely similar in basic format to the standard

subdivision regulatory ordinance pattern, there are unique

features of subdivision regulations in some parishes making
them more responsive to local coastal zone concerns.2

Lafourche Parish

Central Lafourche Planning Area Subdivision Regulations

specify that all drainage design must be predicated on

a ten year storm frequency of one hour duration. Areas

under five feet mean sea level must be indicated on the

final plat (Lafourche Parish Police Jury, 1975: 16, 20).

Plaquemines Parish

The Subdivision and Resubdivision Ordinance of the Parish

of Plaquemines requires the surface elevation of each

lot to be a minimum of one foot above mean sea level and

at least one foot above the street elevation. The floor

slab or first floor elevation for residences must be at

least 2j feet above mean sea level. Land to be sub-

divided must be within a public drainage district or

private drainage eystem meeting standards set by the

Corps of Engineers, the Louisiana Department of Public

2A selected number of parish subdivision regulations are
examined in this section. Other parishes which have adopted
regulations are as follows: Calcasieu, Iberia, Jefferson,
Orleans, St. Charles, St. John the Baptist, Vermilion (see
Table 1.1 and Appendix 1.3 accompanying this chapter).

Works and the Plaquemines Parish Commission Council.

However, these drainage provisions are not applicable

to campsites and subdivisions along waterways providing

they meet required parish construction provisions

(Plaquemines Parish Commission Council, 1970: 3, 6).

St. Martin Parish

The Subdivision Regulations of St. Martin Parish,

Louisiana state that land subject to flooding and land

deemed to be "topographically unsuitable" or below

certain flood elevations as established by the local

engineering authority cannot be platted for residential

occupancy, or "for any other uses that might increase

flood hazard, endanger health, life or property, or

aggravate erosion". Such land must be set aside for

uses not endangered by periodic inundation. Fill may

be used to raise land in areas subject to flood if the

fill proposed does not restrict the flow of water so as

to increase flood heights. Elevation requirements can

be met by raising floor levels to "safe" heights (St.

Martin Parish Police Jury, 1976: 17).

St. Mary Parish

Ordinance Number 655 - Governing the Subdivision of Land

in the Parish of St. Mary, Louisiana requires that the

final plat submitted to the parish engineer include

delineation of any areas whtch have been subject to

floods within a period of ten years prior to the date of

the final plat (St. Mary Parish Police Jury, 1960: 11).

St. Tammany Parish

The Subdivision Regulatory Ordinance of St. Tammany

Parish, Louisiana makes special provisions for subdivi-

sions with lots fronting on canals or water bodies

primarily used as recreational part-time residences.

Street grades must be of such elevations that they are

not inundated by normal high tides. Also the subdivi-

sion plat for any residential development must show

areas subject to inundation at flood stage (St. Tammany

Parish Police Jury, 1975 rev.: 9.01, 4.02).

Terrebonne Parish

Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana Subdivision Regulations

require that subsurface drainage be designed to accommo-

date a five year recurrent storm interval (Terrebonne

Parish Police Jury, 1975: 19).

Other parish subdivision regulations need to be reviewed

and updated by local authorities to include standards for

development in all flood-prone and subsidence-prone coastal

areas.

BUILDING CODES

As in the case of parish-wide zoning ordinances, not all

parishes have as yet adopted building codes. A large

percentage of those codes which are currently in use are not

thoroughly responsive to the special problems of construction

in wetlands.

The building code is designed primarily as a
device to protect the public health, safety and
general welfare of the community by establishing
minimum standards for the construction or reno-
vation of buildings.

The building code accomplishes two important
tasks, the first of which is to form or develop a
basic understanding between the builder and buyer
that the structure is in conformance with the
requirements of the code. Secondly, the building
code forms a basis for continuing understanding
between the community and each citizen as to what
exactly constitutes a safe and acceptable structure
(Imperial Calcasieu Regional Planning and Develop-
ment Commission, 1975: 7).

Of those parishes which do have building codes, the

majority have taken the simplest route and adopted, unaltered,

the regulations of one of the standard national codes. The

model codes considered acceptable by the U. S. Department of Hous-

ing and Urban Development (as quoted in Imperial Calcasieu

Regional Planning and Development Commission, 1975: 10) are

as follows:

Building Officials and Code Administrators (BOCA) BOCA Basic
Building Codes. 1975.

American Insurance Association (AIA) National Building Code.
1967.

Southern Building Code Congress, International (SBCC)
Southern Standard Building Code. 1973, with 1975
supplements.

International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO)
Uniform Building Code. 1973.

In some cases, the codes have been adopted in total. In
other instances, the standards have been selectively incor-

porated into specific parish-wide codes.

Orleans Parish exemplifies this second approach. Using
standard national codes as a basis, the parish has derived
its own more restrictive construction standards. Recently,

Orleans Parish has also updated various sections of its

building code to further increase controls (Gates, 1976).

Jefferson Parish's building code, which along with that of

St. Bernard Parish is based on the Orleans code, is currently

undergoing revisions as well which will make it more

restrictive on development practices (Chalona, 1976).

Among the standard national codes adopted by a number

of the twenty-two coastal parishes, the Southern Standard

Building Code (Southern Building Code Congress, 1973) is

perhaps the most widespread. Because it is a regional code,

it does relate to some of the local conditions of the southern

coastal states. Although comprehensive in its coverage of

general factors related to coastal development, the Southern

Standard Code makes no specially identified provisions for

construction on the unstable soils of fast lands which were

at one time part of the estuarine system.

Since the foundation code of each parish may be the

most significant aspect of the building code in terms of

coastal zone development guidelines, the following compara-

tive discussion of the Southern Standard and Orleans Parish

foundation codes will attempt to point out areas of special

concern in the existing building code structure.

Southern Standard Building Code

Chapter XIII of the code addresses itself to standards

for excavations, footings and foundations. Since it is

written in terms which can be applied to any locality through-

out the South, there is a great deal of emphasis placed on

design of footings and foundations down to natural solid

ground. Consideration is given to the presumptive bearing

capacities of soils indigenous to the South, with stricter

controls imposed than in other national codes because of the

existing substratums (Southern Building Code Congress, 1973:

13-3). The major problem with construction in the coastal

zone is a lack of natural solid ground at any reasonable

depth; therefore, many of these recommendationsare still

inappropriate for coastal Louisiana.

The Southern Standard Code does specify two sets of

figures for wind pressures as they apply to wind loads on

structures. One set of figures deals with normal inland

wind velocities and the other takes into consideration the

hurricane influence of the coastal area. An appendix to the

codo also deals with wood preservatives for pilings, etc.

which is of regional importance (N-Y Associates, Inc.,

1973: 2-2).

Orleans Parish Building Code

Part X, Chapter 28 of the Orleans code was published in

its newly revised form in July, 1975. This code, on excava-

tions, footings and foundations, has been strengthened in the

areas which apply specifically to coastal development,

namely specifications for pile foundations. Due to the

unstable conditions of the highly organic soils of former

wetlands, it is the "skin friction" between piles and soil

particles, rather than transfer of loads to a stable sub-

soil strata, which supports structures.

The following items are covered under the foundation code

and relate to construction in the coastal zone:

Subsoil investigation
Excavations
Spread foundations
Pile foundations
Design
Pile load
Splices
Timber piles
Treated
Untreated
Wood-concrete composite
Concrete piles
Precast
Cast-in-place
Steel piles
Combination piles
Lightly loaded piles
Wind pressure and combined loads
(New Orleans City Council, 1975 rev. Chapter 28).

The last two items are of particular concern for develop-

ment in both fast and non-fast lands. Special allowances are

made for pile support of light structures such as houses,

camps, etc. Required pile penetration is reduced from 50 to

30 feet and soil borings are not required. Also specific

attention is given to the danger of wind pressure from

hurricane force storms on pile supports. Bearing values

required for piles are increased by one-third when subjected

to wind and other loads and the combined load cannot exceed

the safe allowable capacity of the soil or pile (New Orleans

City Council, 1975 rev.: Chapter 28, 8-9).

The Orleans Parish foundation code, under Article 2805--

"Notification to City", also requires a minimum of 24 hours

notice to the Director of the Department of Safety and Permits

in advance of any pile driving. This allows for even greater

control through supervision on the quality of construction

materials and methods used in structural foundation support.

While it should not be considered as a model code, the

Orleans Parish building code is more strict in most aspects

of construction on former wetlands than the Southern Standard

code. Currently it is the most comprehensive available

building code among those in effect in coastal Louisiana.

COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT CONTROLS

UNDER CONSIDERATION

Certain of the coastal parishes have gone one step

further than their existing zoning, subdivision regulations

and building code controls by initiating coastal zone

management studies. Completed reports include information on

special problem areas of the parish wetlands as they are

impacted by urban development pressure, expansion of oil

and gas extractive operations, etc. Remedies for these

problems are suggested in some instances. The following

discussion briefly summarizes these ongoing parish efforts.

Orleans Parish

The three-volume Coastal Zone Management Plan (1975)

prepared by the City Planning Commission identifies distinct

environmental areas within the City of New Orleans and

recognizes the fact that present land use control devices do

not provide any real remedy for problems peculiar to the

wetlands. Subsidence problems in recently urbanized fast

lands and water pollution problems in Lake Pontchartrain and

the Mississippi River from urban sources are among those

concerns identified. Recommendations are made that alterna-

tive construction techniques for reclaimed wetlands be studied

along with alternative drainage methods reducing subsidence

for already leveed, but presently undeveloped areas. Also

the Coastal Zone Management (CZM) plan urges parish-wide

enforcement of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act

(U.S. Congress, 1972) and federal funding to construct

secondary sewage treatment facilities as a water pollution

abatement measure. The CZM plan incorporates minimum first

floor elevation restrictions and additional flood-proofing

3For a more complete discussion of coastal zone management
efforts in the New Orleans SMSA, see Mumphrey et al.,
1976: 137-161 and 342-357.

requirements as specified by the Federal Insurance Adminis-

tration (FIA) Flood Insurance Program (City Planning

Commission of New Orleans, 1975:: Volumes II and III).

St. Bernard Parish

While not having formally completed a CZM plan, St.

Bernard Parish has commissioned two comprehensive studies

dealing with wetland characteristics, present and potential

development problems, and proposed solutions. The Environ-

mental Baseline Study (1972) recommends a system of priority

uses and management policies for each of ten units within the

parish. The suggested management policies range from

preservation which prohibits any permanent structures, urban

services or canals, to some degree of urban use with adequate

flood protection and drainage provided (Coastal Environments,

Inc., 1972).

A recently completed report, Resource Management -- St.

Bernard Parish Wetlands (1976), delves further into the wet-

lands policy area. Spectfic opt@ons open to the parish for

wetlands control are discussed. These include direct acquisi-

tion of land, stronger regulatory controls and permitting

systems, transfer of development rights, etc. These policy

suggestions take into consideration existing parish programs

and regulations. Procedures for St. Bernard to use in iden-

tifying goals for wetland development or conservation are also

outlined (Coastal Enviroilments,Ine., 1976: 114-134).

In late 1976, all parishes in the Louisiana coastal

zone except Plaquemines, Livingston, Iberville, and Ascen-

sion have agree to participate with the Louisiana State

Planning Office in deriving parish CZM plans.

H.U.D. FLOOD INSURANCE REGULATIONS4

This section outlines restrictions placed on development

practices by the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and

the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973. The National

Flood Insurance Program, which was created by this legisla-

tion, is administered by the Federal Insurance Administration,

an arm of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Background of the NationalFlood Insurance Program

A 1965 flood insurance feasibility study undertaken by

the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development concluded

that many people in high flood risk areas are seriously unin-

formed about the risks of flood damage to their property.

However, when the inevitable flood disaster does strike,

they fully expect public assistance in re-building their

community. The study also found that the majority of people

in flood risk areas do not consider a requirement of flood

insurance as a condition for obtaining a loan on property to

be unreasonable (U.S. Congress, Senate, 1966).

4Derived from the Department of Housing and Urban Development
National Flood Insuranco Program Section 1910.3 -- Required
flood plain management regulations for flood-prone areas
(Federal Insurance Administration, 1975).

Congress was encouraged to declare that, as a matter of

national policy, all lending institutions with federally

insured savings or deposits would require flood insurance on

all new mortages in high risk areas as they now generally

require fire insurance. This requirement became mandatory

for identified special flood hazard areas within communities

under Section 102 of the Flood Disaster Protecion Act of 1973

(U.S. Congress, Senate, 1966).

The Federal Insurance Administration adopted the so-

called "100-year flood" as the standard for the identifica-

tion of special flood hazard areas and as the base flood

elevation for the adoption of local land use controls. The

term "100-year flood" is actually what the Corps of Engineers

refers to as an "intermediate" flood and is a compromise

between minor floods and the Corps' "standard project flood",

which is the greatest flood thought likely to occur in a

given area. In many cases, the 100-year or intermediate

flood is already far below the flood of record. The "100-

year flood" is simply the flood level that is estimated to

have a 1-percent chance of occurring each year in a given

location (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,

197-1: 47).

In justifying the 100-year flood standard, it was felt

that the National Flood Insurance Program could not look

merely at the local record flood in setting standards since

its whole purpose was to alert communities to the degree of

flood hazard before a flood occurs. Thus, the best available,

scientifically-valid standard was the predictable periodic

flood taking both history and probability into account. This

compromise standard is the 100-year flood level (U.S. Depart-

ment of Housing and Urban Development, 1974: 47).

Stages of Regulation

Regulation of practices within Section 1910.3 of the

Program is set up on an accelerating scale based on the amount

of flood data currently available for an area. When only

general information about the flood-prone nature of an area

is available, then restrictions on development practices are

broadly defined. As more detailed hydrologic and other

technical data is gathered for a particular community by

Federal or State agencies, consulting services, or the

Administrator of the Flood Insurance Program, then standards

for practices become more specific. Once flood insurance

regulations are adopted, any new development in a special

flood hazard area that does not meet the required construction

specifications will not be covered by subsidized flood

insurance (Keyes, 1976: 54).

Stages of regulation include the following:

1. The flood plain areas of a community are

identified as flood-prone. (Definition of

terms follows.)

2. Special flood hazard areas within a community

are defined with publication of a Flood Hazard

Boundary Map (FIIBM).

3. Water surface elevation data for the 100-year

flood within certain areas of special flood

hazards is provided.

4. Specific floodways are identified.

5. The coastal high hazard area is identified.

Definitions5

1. "Flood plain" or "flood-prone area" means a land

area adjoining a river, stream, watercourse, ocean,

bay, or lake, which is likely to be flooded.

2. "Flood" or flooding" means a general and temporary

condition of partial or complete inundation of

normally dry land areas from the overflow of

streams, rivers, or other inland water; or abnorm-

ally high tidal waters or rising coastal waters

proximately caused by severe storms, hurricanes,

or tsunamis. It also includes collapse or sub-

sidence of land along the shore of a lake or other

body of water as a result of erosion or undermining

caused by waves or currents of water exceeding

anticipated cyclical levels.

VOC101',11 Insurtance Administration,1976 rev.

3. "Special flood hazard area" or "flood plain area

having special flood hazards" means that maximum

area of the flood plain that, on the average, is

likely to be flooded once every 100 years (i.e.,

that has a 1-pereent chance of being flooded each

year).

4. "100-year flood" means the highest level of flood-

ing that, on the average, is likely to occur once

every 100 years (i.e., that has a 1-percent chance

of occurring each year).

5. "Floodway" means the channel of a river or other

watercourse and the adjacent land areas required

to carry and discharge a flood of a given magnitude.

6. "Coastal high hazard area" means the portion of a

coastal flood plain having special flood hazards

that is subject to high velocity waters, including

hurricane wave wash and tsunamis.

7. "Substantial improvement" (hereafter referred to as

"improvement") means any repair, reconstruction, or

improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals

or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the

structure either, (a) before the improvement is

started, or (b) if the structure has been damaged

and is being restored, before the damage occurred.

For the purposes of this definition "substantial

improvement" is considered to occur when the first

alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor, or other

structural part of the building commences, whether

or not that alteration affects the external

dimensions of the structure. The term does not,

however, include either (1) any alteration to comply

with existing state or local health, sanitary,

building, or safety codes or regulations;or (2) any

alteration of a structure listed on the National

Historic Places.

Requirements

The requirements for meeting Flood Insurance Program

standards are listed for each of the regulatory stages.

1. Minimum restrictions on practices at the stage of

information gathering are as follows:

Subdivision proposals and other proposals for new

developments must be reviewed by local authorities

to assure that

a. They are consistent with the need to minimize

flood damage.

b. All public utilities and facilities such as

sewer, gas, electri(-.al, and water sVstems are

located and constru(-ted to minimize or eliminate

flood damage.

C. Adequate drainage i.,; provided to reduce exposure

to flood hazards.

2. Publication of a Flood Hazard Boundary Map (FHBM)

for a community identifying special flood hazard

areas increases the regulations as follows:

a. Any available 100-year flood elevation data

must be utilized in administering the standards

for all flood plain areas.

b. Building permits are required for all proposed

construction and substantial improvements in

the special flood hazard area.

C. At the time a building permit is issued, infor-

mation must be obtained concerning the eleva-

tion of the lowest floor of the structure

(including basement) in relation to mean sea

level. Where the lowest floor is below grade

on one or more sides, the elevation of the floor

immediately above must be obtained. An official

record of this information must be maintained.

3. Notice of a final flood elevation determination

providing water surface elevations for the 100-year

flood within certain areas of specfal flood hazards

increases the regulations as follows:

a. Review by local authorities of building permit

applications for new construction and improve-

ments within the special flood hazard area is

required to assure that the proposed construc-

tion is designed (or modified) and anchored to

prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement

of the structure.

b. New or replacement water supply systems and

sanitary sewage systems within the special

flood hazard area must be designed to minimize

or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into

the systems and discharges from the system into

flood waters. On-site waste disposal systems

must be located to avoid impairment of them or

contamination by them during or subsequent to

flooding.

C. New residential structures and improvements

within the special flood hazard area for which

base (100-year) flood elevations have been

provided must have the lowest floor (including

basement) elevated to or above the level of the

100-year flood, unless an exception for base-

ments is granted.

d. New non-residential structures and improvements

within the base flood elevation specified area

must be flood-proofed (together with attendant

utility and sanitary facilities) to or above

the 100-year flood level if their lowest floor

elevation is below that level. Flood-proofing

must be in compliance with the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers' standards.6

6See U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1972) Flood-Proofing.
Regulations.

e. The adequacy of flood-proofing methods utilized

must be certified by a registered professional

engineer or architect to withstand the flood

depths, pressures, velocities, impact and uplift

forces and other factors associated with the

100-year flood. An official record of such

certificates must be maintained.

f. New mobile home parks, expansions or improvements

must require Mobile Home Manufacturers Associa-

tion (MHMA) standard ground anchors for tie

downs, adequate surface drainage and hauler

access, elevation of lots on compacted fill or

piers within the base flood elevation specified

area to the 100-year flood level, and placement

of pier foundations no more than 10 feet apart

with steel reinforcement for piers over 6 feet

high.

g. For mobile homes moving into existing parks, the

fact that the area is in a flood plain with

special flood hazards must be disclosed to the

purchaser or lessee in the purchase contract,

deed or lease. An evacuation plan indicating

alternate vehicular access and escape routes

must be filed with Disaster Preparedness

Authorities.

h. In riverine situations, until a floodway has

been designated, no use, including land fill,

may be permitted within the identified base

flood elevation area unless it is demonstrated

that the effect of the proposed use in combina-

tion with all other existing and anticipated

uses will not increase the 100-year flood water

surface elevation more than 1 foot anywhere

within the community.

4. Provision of data identifying a floodway(s) increases

the regulations as follows (regulations apply only

to the designated floodway):

a. All fill, encroachments, new construction and

improvements which would increase 100-year flood

heights within the community are prohibited.

b. Location of any portion of a new mobile home

park, expansion of an existing facility and

placement of a mobile home other than in an

existing facility is prohibited.

5. Identification of a coastal high hazard area increases

the development regulations as follows (regulations

apply only to the coastal high hazard area):

a. All new construction and improvements must be

located landward of the reach of the mean high

tide.

b. All new construction and improvements must be

elevated on adequately anchored piles or columns

to a lowest floor elevation (including basement)

at or above the 100-year flood level. Struc-

tures must be securely anchored to such piles

or columns.

c. New construction and improvments must have the

space below the lowest floor free of obstruc-

tions or be constructed with "breakaway walls"

intended to collapse under stress without

jeopardizing the structural support of the

building. This is intended to minimize the

impact of abnormally high tides or wind-driven

water on the building. Such temporarily

enclosed space shall not be used for human

habitation.

d. The use of fill for structural support shall be

prohibited.

e. Location of any portion of a new mobile home

park, expansion of an existing facility, and

placement of a mobile home other than in an

existing facility is prohibited.

CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMITTING PROGRAM

All small and large scale development -- residential,

commercial, or industrial -- occurring in so called "navi-

gable waters" including unprotected flood areas requires a

permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The

initial legislation that gave the Corps these powers was

known as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments

of 1972 (FWPCA), Section 404. Since then, more recent

administration and judicial interpretations of what consti-

tutes "navigable waters of the United States" has expanded

the Corps' scope of jurisdiction.

On May 6, 1975 the Department of the Army published four

alternative proposed regulations as a response to a court

order stemming from the trial Natural Resources Defense

Council, Inc. v. Callaway, 392 F. Supp. 685 (1975). Each

alternative pertained to the regulation by the Corps of

Engineers of those activities which involved the discharge

of dredge or fill material into navigable waters, and

included administrative definitions of the terms "navigable

waters", "dredged material", and "fill material". Comments

were solicited from private citizens and local and state

officials as to the final form the regulations should take

(U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1975: 31320). An interim

final regulation was published by the Corps and put into

effect on July 25, 1975 in order to implement a permit

program under Section 404 of the FWPCA. This would include

those waters which had recently come under the Corps'

jurisdiction as a result of the court action (U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers, 1975: 31320).

Implementation of the interim final regulation was

broken into three phases: Phase I became effective on

July 1, 1975 and extended the Corps' control of discharges

of dredged or fill material to contiguous or adjacent wet-

lands of all navigable coastal waters plus those contiguous

or adjacent wetlands relating to navigable inland lakes,

rivers, and streams already within the Corps' jurisdiction.

Phase II, effective July 1, 1976,further extended control to

primary tributaries (the main stems of tributaries directly

connecting to navigable waters of the United States).

Phase III will become effective July 1, 1977 and will complete

the Corps' control to all navigable waters as they have been
defined (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1975: 31326).7

The definitions of key phrases play an important role in

determining the extent of the Corps' control. Included in

the definition of "navigable waters" are these three specific

paragraphs which directly relate to any proposed wetland

development (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1975: 31325):

All coastal wetlands, mudflats, swamps, and
similar areas that are contiguous or adjacent to
other navigable waters. 'Coastal wetlands'
includes marshes and shallows and means those
areas periodically inundated by saline or brackish
waters and that are normally characterized by the
prevalence of salt or brackish water vegetation
capable of growth and reproduction.

7As of September 1976, each house of Congress had passed its
own version of a bill which would seriously interfere with
the Corps' authority to protect wetlands from developers.
The House version would lift regulations from many wetland
areas while the Senate's version would only divide authority
between the Corps and the EPA. Neither version passed.
However, it is obvious that the Corps' authority is being
challenged.

Freshwater wetlands including marshes, shallows,
swamps and similar areas that are contiguous or
adjacent to other navigable waters and that support
freshwater vegetation. 'Freshwater wetlands' means
those areas that are periodically inundated and
that are normally characterized by the prevalence of
vegetation that requires saturated soil conditions
for growth and reproduction.

The tern, 'discharge of fill material' means the
addition of fill material into navigable waters for
the purpose of creating fastlands, elevations of
land beneath navigable waters, or for impoundments
of water. The term generally includes, without
limitation, the following activities: placement
of fill that is necessary to the construction of
any structure in a navigable water; the building of
any structure or impoundment requiring rock, sand,
dirt, or other pollutants for its construction; site-
development fills for recreational, industrial,
commercial, residential, and other uses; causeways
or road fills; dams and dikes; artificial islands,
property protection and/or reclamation devices such
as riprap, groins, seawalls, breakwalls, and bulk-
heads and fills; beach nourishment; levees;
sanitary landfills ....

Some other relevant terms and phrases which were defined

included "dredged material" meaning that material excavated

or dredged from navigable waters; "discharges of dredged

material" meaning any deposition of material in excess of

one cubic yard,when used in a single or incidental operation,

into navigable waters; and "fill material" meaning the crea-

tion of fill in the traditional sense of replacing an aquatic

area with dry land or of changing the bottom elevations of a

water body for any purpose.

Applications

Permit applications to the Corps are classified as to

one of two types (depending upon the way in which they are

handled). General Permits are issued for those activities

which are determined by the Corps to have little or no

significant impact on the public interest. They normally

involve such small and routine activities as small docks for

individual residences or the necessary dredging of waterways

to maintain predetermined depths. Each Corps District

Office usually has the necessary personnel expertise to

review and expedite the issuance of these permits after the

application has complied with all the requirements (Swindler,

1976).

If the District Engineer decides that an application will

have significant impact on the public interest or the environ-

ment, he will guide it through a more complex procedure as

shown in Figure 2.1. Usually this procedure is followed

when it is determined by the District Engineer after his

initial review that due to the magnitude of the proposed

project or the nature of the area involved, an environmental

impact assessment is required (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

1975: 31333).

According to Swindler (1976), the formal responsibility

for the preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement

lies with the Corps of Engineers. Bu-'%-.- in reality the respon-

sibility lies with the potential developer through the require-

ment by law that he furnish all the relevant information

concerning the proposed project (Mumphrey et al., 1976: 261).

The following is an analysis of some of the more

critical steps as shown in Figure 2.1 plus additional

information which might be helpful to the potential developer

in obtaining a permit.

An instruction pamphlet entitled "Applications for

Department of the Army Permits for Activities in Waterways"

can be obtained from the Corps' District Offices and includes

all the necessary information for filing the permit applica-
tions. 8 The application requires a complete description of

the proposed activity; drawings and sketches; location,

purpose, and intended use; information concerning adjacent

owners; and approvals from the necessary Federal, State, or

local agencies (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1975: 31332).

Public Notice

The public notice is the primary method for soliciting

comments about and advising all interested parties of a

proposed activity for which a permit is being sought. Public

notices are of two types depending upon the type of activity

being proposed. If the activity involves the deposition of

fill material into navigable waters, interested parties are

allowed 30 days in which to file a protest with the Corps.

In all other cases, the allowed response time is 20 days

(U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1975: 31335).

8Appendix 1.1 shows the location of -the Corps District
offices. Appendix 1.2 gives the mailing addresses and
telephone numbers of the District Engineers (U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, 1974: F-1 and G-1).

APPENDIX 1.1

LOCATION OF U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS DISTRICT AND DIVISIONAL 0

SEA

W4L"
.If
VIIS - -------
1'0 R
IVER
E' N'T
0R.TH' C
D I v If 5 1.0
S 104
es 0 i(i ONA14A
7- (41.j
10,
I'A C
SAIV 111AN
C 14"A
C a
SAS CT"
>; 0 H 0 VIU141 Tom
C)
S'r Lou

0
Uj
-j - ftil %
*%AS-%a
to$ 4fttLtrs
SOU-NWESTERN
0 F.]a
AILOVUENQUE Lffnf. POCM ,I
AXTA "N
!@OUT L
D-IVISIC'N
N@ SAVO""
F0*7 101001, low ALULAS DIVI
-F-c\ ---- --

%
C1
THE ALASKA DISTRICT. HEADQUARTERS. Mtv OffiLtAKS
ANCHORAGE .ALASKA. IS INCLUDED IN
THE NORTH PACIFIC DIVISION.
tde
THE STATE OF HAWAII AND ISLANDS IN THE TERRITORY OF PUERTO RICO AND
THE PACIFIC ARE INCLUDED IN HONOLULU ADJACENT ISLANDS 15 INCLUDED
DISTRIC-T. PACIFIC OCEAN DIVISION. WITH IN JACKSONMLE DrSTRICT. SOUTH
HEADQUARTERS AT HONOLULU. HAWAII. ATLANTIC DWSION

Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1974: F-1.

APPENDIX 1.2

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
MAILING ADDRESSES AND TELEPHONE NUMBERS OF THE DISTRICT ENGINEERS

Address correspondence to: Area Code &
The District Engineer, U.S. Army Engineer Dist'rict Telephone No.

Alaska .............. PO Box 7002, Anchorage, Alaska 99510 ........................ 907 7534192
Albuquerque ......... PO Box 1580, Albuquerque, N. Mex. 87103 ...................... 505 766-2764
Baltimore ............ PO Box 1715, Baltimore, Md. 21203 ........................... 301 9624500
Buffalo ............. 1776 Niagara St., Buffalo, N.Y. 14207 .......................... 716 876-5454
Charleston ........... PO Box 919, Charleston, S.C. 29402 ........................... 803 577-4171
Chicago ............. 219 S. Dearborn St., Chicago, 111. 60604 ........................ 312 353-6436
Detroit ............. PO Box 1027, Detroit, Mich. 48231 ............................ 313 226-6813
Fort Worth .......... PO Box 17300, Ft. Worth, Tex. 76102 ......................... 817 334-2153
Galveston ........... PO Box 1229, Galveston, Tex. 77550 .......................... 713 763-1211
Huntington .......... PO Box 2127, Huntington, W. Va. 25721 ....................... 304 529-2318
Honolulu ........... Bldg. 96, Ft. Armstrong, Hon, Haw 96813 ....................... 808 543-2871
Jacksonville .......... PO Box 4970, Jacksonville, FL 32201 .......................... 904 791-2211
Kansas City .......... 700 Fed. Bldg, 601 E. 12th St., Kansas City, Mo. 64106 ............ 816 374-3756
little Rock .......... PO Box 867, Little Rock, Ark. 72203 .......................... 501 378-5296
Los Angeles .......... PO Box 2711, Los Angeles, Calif. 90053 ........................ 213 688-5637
Louisville ........... PO Box 59, Louisville, KY. 40201 ............................. 502 582-5607
Memphis ............ 668 Federal OR Bldg, Memphis, Tenn. 38103 ..................... 901 534-3471
Mobile .............. PO Box 2288, Mobile, Ala. 36628 ............................. 205 690-2511
Nashville ............ PO Box 1070, Nashville, Tenn. 37202 .......................... 615 749-5181
New Orleans ......... PO Box 60267, New Orleans, La. 70160 ........................ 504 865-1121
New York ........... 26 Fed. Plaza, New York, N.Y. 10007 .......................... 212 264-0184
Norfolk ............. 803 Front St., Norfolk, VA 235 10 ............................. 804 625-8201
Omaha ............. 6014 USPOI & Courthouse, 215 N 17 St . ........................ 402 221-4133
Philadelphia .......... U S Custom House, 2nd & Chestnut St., Philadelphia, PA 19106 ...... 215 597-2812
Pittsburgh ........... 2032 Fed. Bldg, 1000 Liberty Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15222 .......... 417 644-6872
Portland ............ PO Box 2946, Portland, Ore. 97208 ........................... 503 777-4359
Rock Island .......... Clock Tower Bldg, Rock Island, 111. 61201 ....................... 309 788-6361
Sacramento .......... 650 Capitol Mall, Sacramento, Cal. 95814 ....................... 916 449-2580
St. Louis ............ 210 No. 12 th St., St. Louis, Mo. 63101 ......................... 314 268-2106
St. Paul ............. 1210 USPO & Custom House, St. Paul, Minn. 55101 ............... 612 725-7557
San Francisco ........ 100 McAllister St.,,San Francisco, CA 94102 ..................... 415 556-5178
Savannah ............ PO Bo x 889, Savannah, GA 31402 ............................. 912 233-8822
Seatde .............. 4735 East Marginal Way South, Seattle, Wash 98134 ............... 206 764-3495
Tuls@a .............. PO Box 6 1, Tulsa, OK 74101 ................................. 918 581-7343
Vicksburg ............ PO Box 60, Vicksburg, Miss. 39180 ............................ 601 636-1311
Walla Walla .......... Bldg. 602, City-County Airport, Walla Walla, Wash. 99362 .......... 509 525-5626
Wilmington .......... PO Box 1890, Wilmington, N.C. 28401 .......................... 919 763-9971

Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1974: G-1.

APPENDIX 1.3

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF

EXISTING AND PROPOSED REGULATIONS

NOTE: Where applicable, documents contained within this

bibliography are noted as being either adopted or

not adopted by the local governmental authority.

ASCENSION

No information available after contacting both the parish
government and the Capital Region Planning Commission.

ASSUMPTION

Carl Heck Engineers, Inc. (1973) The Comprehensive Plan for
Assumption Parish Phase I - Parts I and II; a report
prepared for the Assumption Parish Planning Commission.
Thibodaux, Louisiana.

Proposes subdivision regulations, a building code, and

a zoning ordinance in Part II; places no special

constraints on construction in current or former

wetlands. Not adopted.

CALCASIEU

Calcasieu Parish Police Jury (1962) Ordinance Number 1097
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Calcasieu Parish,
Louisian a. Lake Charles, Louisiana: Calcasieu Parish
Police Jury.

Places no zoning restrictions on development in areas

within the "U"-- Unclassified District including the

majority of the parish's wetlands; all land uses are

allowed, subject only to the state sanitary code.

Adopted.

(1974) ordinance Number 1498 -- Subdivision
Regulatory Ordinance for Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana.
Lake Charles, Louisiana: Calcasieu Parish Police Jury.

Not available for review. Adopted.

Diversified Economic and Planning Associates, Inc. (1973)
Drainage_Study, Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana; a report
prepared for the Calcasieu Regional Planning Commission.
New Orleans, Louisiana.

Makes recommendations regarding compliance with federal

flood insurance requirements.**

(1973) Land Use Plan, Calcasieu Parish,
Louisiana; a report prepared for the Calcasieu Regional
Planning Commission. New Orleans, Louisiana.

Details methodology by which flood prone areas (as

defined by the Drainage Report) were considered in plan-

ning future growth patterns; the plan prohibits residen-

tial, commercial and industrial land uses in flood

prone areas.**

(1973) Modifications of Existing Work Elements,
Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana; a report prepared for the
Calcasieu Regional Planning Commission. New Orleans,
Louisiana.

Recommends amendments to the subdivision regulations

pertaining to flood plain regions; proposes changes

needed in the existing zoning ordinance to prevent

flood damage to urban structures.

CAMERON

No published information available (see Table 1-1).

**Status of adoption not known.

IBERIA

Iberia Parish Police Jury (n.d.) Ordinance Governing the
Subdivision of Land in Parish of Iberia, Louisiana.
Iberia Parish, Louisiana: Iberia Parish Police Jury.

Not available for review. Adopted.

Simmons J. Barry and Associates (1974) Comprehensive Plan for
Iberia Region, Louisiana; a report prepared for the
Iberia Regional Planning Commission. Baton Rouge,
Louisiana.

Not available for review. Zoning ordinance not adopted;

subdivision regulations adopted.

(1973) Future Land Use Plan, Iberia Region,
Louisiana; a repo rt prepared for the Louisiana Depart-
ment of Public Works. Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Details guidelines for future growth which include

prohibiting reclamation of the brackish marsh lands for

agriculture and establishing building codes for struc-

tures built in flood hazard areas.**

(1973) Storm Drainage and Flood Hazard Report,
Iberia Region, Louisiana; a report prepared for the
Louisiana Department of Public Works. Baton Rouge,
Louisiana.

Recommends adoption of a parish-wide zoning ordinance,

and preparation of a set of building codes for structures

in flood hazard areas.**

IBERVILLE

No information available after contacting both the parish
government and the Capital Region Planning Commission.

**Status of adoption not known.

JEFFERSON

Jefferson Parish Council (1952) Building.Code and Related
Regulations, Parish of Jefferson. Gretna, Louisiana:
Jefferson Parish Council.

Requires in Article 202, Lot Grade, that no structure

shall be erected until acceptable grade has been

established; this part of the code was revised in 1972

and 1975 making it more restrictive; the entire code is

currently undergoing revision to make it more comprehen-

sive in the area of construction on fast lands. Adopted.

(1972) Jefferson Parish Subdivision Regula-
tions, As Amended. Gretna, Louisiana: Jefferson Parish
Council.

Places no constraints specifically on housing develop-

ment in fast lands. Adopted.

(1974) Progressive Jefferson: Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance, As Amended. Gretna, Louisiana:
Jefferson Parish Council.

Imposes no special restrictions on development in fast

or non-fast lands; U-1 Unrestricted District encompasses

lands where "development will be retarded due to the

natural topography"; all land uses allowed; industrial

or commercial uses which may have offensive character-

istics require a special permit. Adopted.

JEFFERSON DAVIS

No published information available (see Table 1.1).

LAFOURCHE

Carl Heck Engineers, Inc. (1973-1975) Comprehensive Plan for
Central Lafourche, Phases I, II,_and III; a report
prepared for the Central Lafourche Regional Planning
Commission. Thibodaux, Louisiana.

Considers no specific restrictions on development in

fast or non-fast lands.**

Diversified Economic and Planning Associates, Inc. (1974)
Model Zoning Ordinance, Ward 10, Lafourche Parish,
Louisiana; a report prepared for the South Lafourche
Regional-Planning Commission. New Orleans, Louisiana.

Proposes a model zoning ordinance which does not consider

any special zoning constraints on development in either

fast or non-fast lands.**

(1974) Subdivision Regulations,.Ward 10,
Lafourche Parish, Louisiana; a report prepared for the
South Lafourche Regional Planning Commission. New
Orleans, Louisiana.

Sets forth no special standards for development on fast

or non-fast lands.**

Lafourche Parish Police Jury (1975) Subdivision Regulations
of Lhe Central Lafourche Planning Area. Lockport,
Loutsiana: Central Lafourche Planning Commission.

Requires that areas under 5 feet mean sea level be

indicated on the final plat; no restrictions on such

lands are specified. Adopted.

URS/Forrest and Cotton, Inc. (1976) Housing Study, Ward 10,
L,qfoureli(,-P,,Lrish,..Lotiisiana; a report prepared for the
South Lafourche Regional Planning Commission and the
Louisiana Commission on Intergovernmental Relations.
Metairie, Louisiana.

Describes flood protection levee construction by Corps

of Enginoers which is currently underway; identifies

**Status of adoption not known.

flood hazard area south of Golden Meadow which will have

"substantially higher costs for new development which

must conform to the requirements of the police jury's

ordinance controlling development in the 'flood hazard

area'".*

LIVINGSTON

No information received after contacting both the parish govern-
ment and the Capital Region Planning Commission.

ORLEANS

New Orleans City Council (1975 rev.) Building Code, Parish of
Orleans. New Orleans, Louisiana: New Orleans City
Council.

Details newly revised regulations for pile foundation

supports in Chapter 28; places more strict standards on

pile preparation and installation including considera-

tion for additional storm wind loads. Adopted.

(1971 rev.) Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance
for the @@ity of New Orleans. New Orleans, Louisiana:
New Orleans City Council.

Includes all areas that lie outside levee system in the

NU Non-Urban District; all land uses are permitted in

this district being "consistent with traditional

development in these areas"; all buildings are subject

to the performance standards of the Building Code of the

City of New Orleans. Adopted.

City Planning Commission (1975) Coastal Zone Management Plan
Volumes 1, 2, and 3. New Orleans, Louisiana: New Orleans
City Planning Commission.

*Adopted or not adopted not applicable.

Requires the minimum first floor elevation for new

residential construction and substantial improvements

to be at or above the 100-year base flood level as

determined by the Federal Insurance Administration (FIA)

Flood Hazard Boundary Maps (ranges from -4 to +12 feet

mean sea level); new non-residential construction must

either conform to the same elevation restriction or be

flood-proofed up to the 100-year base flood level along

with its attendant utility and sanitary facilities;

construction within special flood hazard areas must

utilize materials and utility equipment resistant to

flood damage and construction methods which minimize

such damage, including anchorage of structures in

accordance with the building code to prevent flotation,

collapse, or lateral movement. Not Adopted.

(1950) Regulations Governing the Subdivision
of Land in New Orleans, Louisiana. New Orleans,
Louisiana: New Orleans City Planning Commission.

Requires that subdivider tie into existing sanitary

sewer system if feasible; if septic tanks are necessary,

they must meet the standards of the Louisiana State

Sanitary Code and the New Orleans Board of Health;

provisions for storm water disposal are subject to 'the

approval of the Sewerage and Water Board. Adopted.

PLAQUEMINES

Plaquemines Parish Commission Council (1975) Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance of Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana.
Pointe-a-la-Hache, Louisiana: Plaquemines Parish
Commission Council.

Includes areas which are subject to periodic or occa-

sional inundation and which are not within publicly

owned hurricane protection levees and pump drainage

systems in the FP Flood Plain District; all commercial

and industrial uses are allowed along with residential

uses such as camps and mobile homes if they comply with

parish sewerage codes. Adopted.

(n.d.) Plaquemines Parish Building Code_,
Ordinance No. 15, as amended. Point-a-la-Hache,
Louisiana: Plaquemines Parish Commission Council.

Not available for review. Adopted.

(1970) Subdivision and Resubdivision Ordin-
ance of the Parish of Plaquemines. Point-a-la-Hache,
Louisiana: Plaquemines Parish Commission Council.

Requires the surface elevation of each lot (including

those in the above mentioned Flood Plain District) to be

a minimum of one foot above mean sea level and at least

one foot above the street elevation; the floor slab or

first floor elevation for residences must be at least 2@

feet above mean sea level; land to be subdivided must be

within a public drainage district or private drainage

system meeting certain standards (not applicable to
campsites and subdivisions along waterways provided that

they meet construction provisions required in the parish

building code as amended). Adopted.

ST. BERNARD

Burk and Associates, Inc. (1973) Interim Water Quality Manage@
ment Plan for Sewerage District No. 2, St. Bernard
Parish, Louisiana. New Orleans, Louisiana: Burk and
Associates, Inc.

Provides general information on cost effective water

pollution abatement strategies considering economic,

social and environmental factors.*

Coastal Environments, Inc. (1972) Environmental Baseline
Study St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana; a report prepared
for the St. Bernard Parish Police jury. Baton Rouge,
Louisiana.

Details background environmental conditions useful for

development of policy for future land use control in

the parish; describes various management units within the

wetlands valuable as a framework in evaluation of future

public expenditure and private property interests.*

(1976) Resource Management, St. Bernard Parish
Wetlands; a report prepared for the St. Bernard Parish
Police Jury -- preliminary. Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Proposes a series of policy options which are available

to the parish ranging from direct control of wetlands

to public relations efforts; an approach to setting and

implementing goals for resource management is also

nresented.*

Planning Services. Inc. (1963) Comprehensive Plan for St.
Bernard Parish, Louisiana; a report prepared for the
St. Bernard Parish Police Jury. New Orleans, Louisiana.

Proposes revised subdivision regulatory ordinance.

Not Adopted.

St. Bernard Parish Police Jury (1971) Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance of the Parish of St. Bernard, Louisiana.
Chalmette, Louisiana: St. Bernard Parish Planning
Commission.

Zones all non-urbanized sections of the parish (largely

wetlands) as A-1 Rural; all land uses are permitted in

*Adopted or not adopted not applicable.

this district, with the exception of heavy industry

which must comply with specified conditions. Adopted.

(1965) St. Bernard Parish Building Code.
Chalmette, Louisiana: St. Bernard Parish Police Jury.

Follows closely the restrictions detailed in the New

Orleans Building Code. Adopted.

(1956) Subdivision Regulatory Ordinance of the
Parish of St. Bernard, Louisiana. Chalmette, Louisiana:
St. Bernard Parish Police Jury.

Not available for review. Adopted, but not currently

in use.

ST. CHARLES

N-Y Associates, Inc. (1974) Existing Land Use and Future Land
Use Plan for St. Charles Parish, Louisiana; a report
prepared for the St. Charles Parish Planning Commission
and Police Jury. Metairie, Louisiana.

Proposes that certain areas of marsh remain undeveloped

in the future land use plan; current practices are said

to be such that "the parish and state agencies exercise

reasonable safeguards and control over these areas to

prevent pollution, fires and inappropriate uses of the

same".**

(1973) Initial Housing Study, Review of Codes,
Subdivision Regulations,Zoning Ordinance for St. Charles
Parish, Louisiana; reports prepared for the St. Charles
Parish Planning Commission and Police Jury. Metairie,
Louisiana.

Reviews the status of various codes within the parish and

recommends a number of additions; the study found that

there were currently both a zoning ordinance (dated 1966)

and subdivision regulations (dated 1969) in effect, but

**Status of adoption not known.

they were felt to be inadequate; adoption of the Southern

Standard Building Code was recommended; zoning ordinance

addendum proposes creation of a CO-Conservation District

with restricted land uses on designated fast and non-fast

lands.**

St. Charles Parish Police Jury (1969) St. Charles Parish Sub-
division Rerulations. Hahnville, Louisiana: St. Charles
Parish Police Jury.

Places no restriction on the minimum floor elevation

above mean sea level allowable for residences. Adopted.

(1966) The Zoning Ordinance of the Parish of
St. Charles, Louisiana. Hahnville, Louisiana: St.
Charles Parish Police Jury.

Includes the majority of wetlands within the A-1 Rural

District; agricultural and low density residential land

uses are allowed within this district with all structures

subject to the state sanitary code. Adopted.

ST. JAMES

N-Y Associates, Inc. (1973) Flood Plains and Storm Drainage
Study, Revised Population Projections and Future Land
Use Plan; Addendum to Subdivision Regulations -- Flood
Plains; Addendum to Zoning Ordinance -- Flood Plains;
Code Reviews and Recommendations -- Flood Plains; reports
prepared for the St. James Parish Planning Commission
and Police Jury. Metairie, Louisiana.

Details various land use controls which would assure

parish eligibility in the National Flood Insurance

Program; proposes flood plain subdivision regulations

and building codes which would reduce flood hazards and

damage; proposes creation of varying degrees of flood

prone districts with gradations in uses permitted and

required floor elevations above mean sea level.**

**Status of adoption not known.

(1973) Project Completion Report (for the pre-
vious study); a report prepared for the St. James Parish
Planning Commission and Police Jury. Metairie, Louisiana.

ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST

N-Y Associates, Inc. (1973) Flood Plains and Storm Drainage
Study, Revised Population Projections and Future Land
Use Plan; Addendum to Subdivision Regulations -- Flood
Plains; Addendum to Zoning Ordinance -- Flood Plains;
Code Reviews and Recommendations -- Flood Plains, for
ff-t.John the Baptist Parish, Louisiana; reports prepared
for the St. John the Baptist Planning Commission and
Police Jury. Metairie, Louisiana.

Details various land use controls which would assure

parish eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Pro-

gram; proposes flood plain subdivision regulations and

building codes which would reduce flood hazards and

damage; proposes creation of varying degrees of flood

prone districts with gradations in uses permitted and

required floor elevations above mean sea level.**

(1971) Public Utilities and Services for St.
John the Baptist Parish, Louisiana; a report prepared
for the St. John the Baptist Parish Planning Commission.
Metairie, Louisiana.

Proposes a zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations;

places no special construction constraints on fast lands.**

(1974) Zoning Ordinance for St. John the
Baptist Parish, Louisiana; a report prepared for the St.
John the Baptist Parish Planning Commission and Police
Jury. Metairie, Louisiana.
Contains no regulations pertaining solely to development

in fast lands. Not Adopted.

ST. MARTIN

Community Planners, Inc. (1969)The Comprehensive Plan for St.
Martin Parish, Louisiana; a report prepared for the St.
Martin Parish Planning Commission. Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

**Status of adoption not known.

Recommends adoption of a zoning ordinance which would

be used to limit construction in areas susceptible to

flooding and encourage their dedication for park land;

proposed zoning ordinance would include an "FlInundation

District. Zoning ordinance not adopted; subdivision

regulations adopted.

St. Martin Parish Police Jury (1976 rev.) St. Martin Parish
Subdivision Regulations. St. Martinville, Louisiana:
St. Martin Parish Police Jury.

Prohibits residential development on land subject to

flooding or otherwise deemed "topographically unsuit.Lble"

unless some method is used (i.e. fill) to raise floor

levels to a safe height (not specified). Adopted.

ST. MARY

Acadiana Planning and Development District (1975) Subdivision
Regulations of 1975 for the Parish of St. Mary, Louisiana;
a report prepared for the St. Mary Parish Planning
Commission. Lafayette, Louisiana: Acadiana Planning and
I)evelopment District.

Not available for review. Not Adopted.

(1973) Zoning Ordinance of 1975 for the Parish
of St. Mary, Louisiana; a report prepared for the St,
Mary Parish Planning Commission. Lafayette, Louisiana:
Acadiana Planning and Development District.

Not available for review. Not Adopted.

Planning Services, Inc. (1974) Comprehensive Plan for St. Mary
Parish Region No. 1, Analysis of Existing and Proposed
Land Use; a report prepared for the St. Mary Parish
Region No. 1 Planning Commission and the Police Jury.
New Orleans, Louisiana.

Contains no proposed restriction.,:; on construction in fast

Lands.**

**Status of adoption not known.

Professional Planning Associates in association with Com-
munity Planners, Inc. (1975) Comprehensive Plan for St.
Mary Parish Region No. 2; a report prepared for the St.
Mary Parish Region No. 2 Planning Commission and the
Police Jury. Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

.Not available for review.

St. Mary Parish Police Jury (1960, rev. to 1974) Ordinance
Number 655 -- Governing the Subdivision of Land in the
Parish of St. Mary, Louisiana. Franklin, Louisiana:
St. Mary Parish Police Jury.

Revised through Ordinances 680 (1962), 777 (1973), and

792 (1974); Ordinance Number 655 requires that the

final plat show any areas which have been subject to

flood within a period of ten years prior to the date

of the plat.

Ordinance Number 777 provides for the issuance of

building permits; requires that a proposed building

site be determined reasonably safe from flooding or that

structures be designed to minimize flood damage; out-

lines requirements for the design and construction of

water and sewerage systems to reduce flood damage

potential. Adopted.

ST. TAMMANY

Professional Engineering Consultants Corporation (1972)
St. Tammany Parish Comprehensive Water and Sewer Study;
a report prepared for the St. Tammany Parish Planning
Commission. Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Contains no restraints specifically dealing with develop-

ment problems in former wetlands; the study does point

out that most of the soil in St. Tammany Parish is

unsuitable for septic tanks;it is suggested that consid-

eration be given to absorption pits or oxidation ponds

in providing secondary treatment for septic tank

installation.*

St. Tammany Parish Pelice Jury (1972) Land Use Ordinance for
the Parish of St. Tammany. Covington, Louisiana: St.
Tammany Parish Police Jury.

Includes an 'IF" Inundation District which requires the

elevation of main floor levels to a height of not less

than one foot above the highest flood levels as recorded

since 1921; along the north shore of Lake Pontchartrain

this means main floor levels are not allowed to be

constructed at less than 8 feet above mean sea level.

Adopted.

(1975 amended) St. Tammany Parish Subdivision
Regulatory Ordinance.' Covington, Louisiana: St.
Tammany Parish Police Jury.

Places no special restrictions on fast lands construc-

tion (other than the above elevation requirement); how-

ever, the developer must provide information in the

preliminary plan on areas which are subject to inundation

at flood stage. Adopted.

TANGIPAHOA

Planning Services, Inc. and N-Y Associates, Inc. (1973)
Comprehensive Plan for Tangipahoa Parish Region,
Louisiana, Existing and Proposed Land Use; a report
prepared for the Tangipahoa Parish Regional Planning
Commission and Police Jury. New Orleans, Louisiana.

*Adopted or not adopted not applicable.

Suggests adoption of a zoning ordinance, subdivision

regulations and a building code; no specific restric-

tions are recommended for fast lands.**

(1974) Comprehensive Plan for Tangipahoa
Parish, Eouisiana, Proposed Subdivision Regulations;
a report prepared for the Tangipahoa Parish Regional
Planning Commission and Police Jury. New Orleans,
Louisiana.

Requires no special standards for construction on fast

or non-fast lands; sewerage disposal must either be

through existing public sanitary sewer system if

accessible, or by means of septic tanks in compliance

with the parish health unit and state sanitary code.**

(1973) Comprehensive Plan for Tangipahoa
Parish Region, Louisiana, Proposed Zoning Ordinance;
a report prepared for the Tangipahoa Parish Regional
Planning Commission and Police Jury. New Orleans,
Louisiana.

Proposes no restrictions dealing specifically with fast

lands.**

TERREBONNE

Diversified Economic and Planning Associates, Inc. (1974)
Comprehensive Plan 1973-1974, Houma-Terrebonne, .
Louisiana; a report prepared for the Houma-Terrebonne
Regional Planning Commission. New Orleans, Louisiana.

Considers that lands currently subject to periodic

flooding are useable if the area is covered under the

forced drainage program or if it appears that the area

could be adequately protected by a limited amount of

flood control work.**

**Status of adoption not known.

Terrebonne Parish Police Jury (1975) Subdivision Regulations_,_
Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana. Houma, Louisiana:
Terrebonne Parish Police Jury.

Contains no restrictions specifically dealing with

construction on fast lands. Adopted.

VERMILION

Vermilion Parish Police Jury (1975) Vermilion Parish Sub-
division Regulations. Abbeville, Louisiana: Vermilion
Parish Police Jury.

Not available for review. Adopted.

REFERENCES

Acadiana Planning and Development District (1976) Acadiana
Coastal Zone Resource Inventory. Lafayette, Louisiana:
Acadiana Planning and Development District.

American Insurance Association (1967) National Building Code.
New York, New York: American Insurance Association.

Assumption Parish Police Jury, Napoleonville, Louisiana,
(1976) Letter to Jane S. Brooks, October 12.

Brunner, Dirk R. and Daniel J. Keller (1972) Sanitary Land-
fill Design and Operation. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office.

Building Officials and Code Administrators (1975) BOCA Basic
Building Codes. Chicago, Illinois: Building Officials
and Code Administrators.

Calcasieu Parish Police Jury (1962) Ordinance Number 1097 --
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Calcasieu Parish,
Louisiana. Lake Charles, Louisiana: Calcasieu Parish
Police Jury.

Cartier, Allen (1976) Imperial Calcasieu Regional Planning
and Development Commission, Lake Charles, Louisiana,
telephone interview, September.

Central Lafourche Planning Commission, Lockport, Louisiana
(1976) Letter from Donald T. Bollinger, Secretary, to
Jane S. Brooks, October 15.

Chalona, Bert (1976) Division of Regulatory Inspection,
Jefferson Parish Department of Safety (Residential
Section), telephone interview, October 1.

City Planning Commission of New Orleans (1975) Coastal Zone
Management Plan Volumes 1, 2, and 3. New Orleans,
Louisiana: New Orleans City Planning Commission.

Coastal Environments, Inc. (1972) Environmental Baseline
Study, St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana. Baton Rouge,
Louisiana: Coastal Environments, Inc.

(1976) Resource Management, St. Bernard Parish
Wetlands, Draft. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Coastal
Environments, Inc.

Federal Insurance Administration, U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development (1975) "National Flood Insurance
Program." Federal Register, Vol. 40, No. 59, Part II,
July 25. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
Office.

(1976) National Flood Insurance Progra Title
24, Code of Federal Regulations. Chapter X, Subehapter
B. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Ford, Dean (1976) Imperial Calcasieu Regional Planning and
Development Commission, Lake Charles, Louisiana,
telephone interview, December.

Gates, Mark (1976) Plan Processing Section, New Orleans
Department of Safety and Permits, New Orleans, Louisiana,
telephone interview, November 5.

Houma-Terrebonne Regional Planning Commission, Houma, Louisiana
(1976) Letter from Cindy Richardson to Jane S. Brooks,
October 12.

Imperial Calcasieu Regional Planning and Development Commis-
sion (1975) Public Administration Study: Codes and
Ordinances. Lake Charles, Louisiana: Imperial Calcasieu
Regional Planning and Development Commission.

International Conference of Building Officials (1973)
Uniform Building Code. Pasadena, California: Inter-
national Conference of Building Officials.

Jefferson Parish Council (1974) Progressive Jefferson: Compre-
hensive Zoning Ordinance, As Amended. Gretna, Louisiana*
Jefferson Parish Council.

Joubert, Irwin (1976) South Central Planning and Development
Commission, Thibodaux, Louisiana, telephone interview,
September.

Keyes, Dale L. (1976) Land Development and the Natural
Environment: Estimating Impacts. Washington, D.C.:
The Urban Institute.

Lafayette Regional Planning Commission (1973) Flood Prone
Area Regulations. Lafayette, Louisiana: Lafayette
Regional Planning Commission.

Lafourche Parish Police Jury (1975) Subdivision Regulations
of the Central Lafourche PlanniTig Area. Lockport,
Louisiana: Central Lafourche Planning Commission.

Landry, Bert (1976) Acadiana Planning and Evangeline Economic
Development District, Lafayette, Louisiana, telephone
interview, September.

Livingston Parish Planning Commission, Livingston, Louisiana
(1976) Letter from Reymond D'Armond, Chairman, to Jane
S. Brooks, October 11.

Louisiana Advisory Commission on Coastal and Marine Resources
(1973) Louisiana Wetlands Prospectus: Conclusions,
Recommendations and Proposals. Baton Rouge, Louisiana:
Center for Wetland Resources, Louisiana State University
and Louisiana Office of State Planning.

McIntire, G. et al. (1975) A Rationale for Determining
Louisiana's Coastal Zone: Report No. 1, Coastal Zone
Management Series. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Center
for Wetland Resources, Louisiana State University.

Mumphrey, Anthony J. et al. (1975) Louisiana Metropolitan
Wetlands: A Plannin Pers2ective; a report to the
Louisiana State Planning Office. New Orleans, Louisiana:
Urban Studies Institute, University of New Orleans.

(1976) Coastal Zone Management in the Metropolitan
New Orleans Region; a report to the Louisiana State
Planning Office. New Orleans, Louisiana: Urban
Studies Institute, University of New Orleans.

N-Y Associates, Inc. (1973) St. Charles Parish, Louisiana:
Initial Housing Study, Review of Codes, Subdivision
Regulations, Zoning Ordinance for St. Charles Parish,
Louisiana; reports prepared for the St. Charles Parish
Planning Commission and Police Jury. Metairie,
Louisiana: N-Y Associates, Inc.

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Calloway, 392
Federal Supplement 685 (1975) United States District
Court, District of Columbia, March 27.

New Orleans City Council (1971 rev.) Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance for the City of New Orleans. New Orleans,
Louisiana: New Orleans City Council.

(1975 rev.) Building Code, Parish of Orleans. New
Orleans, Louisiana : New Orleans City Council.

Plaquemines Parish Commission Council (1970) Subdivision and
Resubdivision Ordinance of the Parish of Plaquemines.
Point-a-la-Hache, Louisiana: Plaquemines Parish
Commission Council.

(1975) Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of Plaquemines
Parish, Louisiana. Pointe-a-la-Hache, Louisiana:
Plaquemines Parish Commission Council.

St. Bernard Parish Police Jury (1971) Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance of the Parish of St. Bernard, Louisiana.
Chalmette, Louisiana: St. Bernard Parish Planning
Commission.

St. Charles Parish Police Jury (1966) The Zoning Ordinance of
the Parish of St. Charles, Louisiana. Hahnville,
Louisiana: St. Charles Parish Police Jury.

Hahnville, Louisiana (1976) Letter from Kevin
Friloux, Assistant Administrator, to Jane S. Brooks,
October 11.

St. Martin Parish Planning Commission, St. Martinville,
Louisiana (1976) Letter from Etienne Doiron, Sr.,
Chairman, to Jane S. Brooks, October 15.

St. Martin Parish Police Jury (1976 rev.) St. Martin Parish
Subdivision Regulations. St. Martinville, Louisiana:
St. Martin Parish Police Jury.

St. Mary Parish Police Jury (1960,rev. to 1974) Ordinance
Number 655 -- Governing the Subdivision of Land in the
Parish of St. Mary, Louisiana. Franklin, Louisiana:
St. Mary Parish Police Jury.

Franklin, Louisiana (1976) Letter from Linda P.
Landry to Jane S. Brooks, October 12.

St. Tammany Parish Police Jury (1972) Land Use Ordinance for
the Parish of St. Tammany. Covington, Louisiana:
St. Tammany Parish Police Jury.

(1975 amended) St. Tammany Parish Subdivision
Regulatory Ordinance. Covington, Louisiana: St.
Tammany Parish Police Jury.

Sinden, Craig (1976) Director, St. Tammany Parish Planning
Department, Covington, Louisiana, telephone interview,
September.

Southern Building Code Congress, International (1973)
Southern Standard Building Code. Birmingham, Alabama:
Southern Building Code Congress.

Swindler, Roger D. (1976) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New
Orleans, Louisiana, personal interview, September 22.

Terrebonne Parish Police Jury (1975) Subdivision Regulations,
Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana. Houma, Louisiana:
Terrebonne Parish Police Jury.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1972) Flood-Proofing_Regulations.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

(1974) Applications for Department of the Army
Permits for Activities in Waterways, Pamphlet No.
1145-2-1. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
Office.

(1975) "Permits for Activities in Navigable Waters
or Ocean Waters," Federal RegisterVol. 40, No. 144,
Part IV, July 25. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office.

U.S. Congress (1972) Public Law 92-500, Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act Amendments of 1972. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Congress, Senate (1966) Committee on Banking, Housing,
and Urban Affairs, Report No. 93-583. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (1974)
National Flood Insurance Progra Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office.

Weiss, Kenneth A. (1976) "Environmentalists Win on 14041,
The Times-Picayune, October 4.

CHAPTER 2

URBAN DEVELOPMENT 'PRACTICES TO BE

CONSIDERED FOR REGULATION

INTRODUCTION

This chapter examines the urban development process in

the coastal zone using a problem identification methodology

(Figure 2.1). The methodology moves through the stages of

the wetlands development process and presents problems which

occur at each stage. When a problem is identified, its

result is shown along with current and proposed regulations

and practices to mitigate the problem. After one has

iterated several times through the stages, a complete list-

ing of problems and solutions should exist. A similar

methodology could be used to analyze developmental problems

in other landscape environments. An explanation of the

stages in wetlands development is given and homeowner and

community concerns following residential occupancy are also

examined. This methodology is used to identify developmental

problems and to observe where and how the regulatory system

for urban wetlands development needs to be strengthened.

(See Chapter 3 for recommended guidelines for strengthening

the regulatory system.)

The methodology should prove useful to many parties

including developers, loan institutions, permitting agencies,

and prospective homeowners who have an interest in urban

CLL -ABJ019^-Ad 99
Ml-rJOO NO
driv, -3qqH0AIr, adNr)
I e'd-Avjtque7 -a
NO 07NIN'" HOLL-AT&L7HO-2
mati -AY0j02u
"omvinq,"
diag::@OJMAJ

N I -AI4

NV(71 dadtqrw A-1-1yVadgri
A*Iqvzwlo-A -Aqzi GA9'1 Ho *,5,-I,,a --jo 4WIllL-A
e7d-*V4HV-W 1^171
-@,, -J wa N 1-7 N a (V:JWN) @L-,?V A7rlOJ e7N0jj_Vjr7ar_j-
4 oaq:d -jo mg>J.00-2 1114-L"VIN"IANQ j
WNOLWN -Lt*a-Alrn

xLrildv-*Nf lv2lnj:7rrA-Lev
N,

-iaw.Na7 nw2o-l

139A-sri 41,10ev
-WN 50591xrm %"Wis 40
t-4 I-A vie7

N0IXV?IAJUN!0,dl
4aNv-ugm '5ri-II-A aIr"wtqwm a M10 aAd-JO-2

-Lmgt,-a -)tqLmca-j t,#oLL?rrLLept-a0,7 91AVI 54INW-usm -AWZOZI
wm.t? cN1,qvx 19 ItLavgmm "Ot0a d"Ilv -L"wnn-2 No ay&pv?ojJ
tWLW$UW O.L -Mk3VM A-Ul@q-,g U14i t-401-L-7V 0" W,,Ihj q@L COV I tlZDa-A -LNVV4JC"VAAd
al"I 11@1141-J%Lnv Arlj:@"14 tiolxW 24 AVV4 -"JO1'0^04 "M -11'tWxvv"-2*
1 r w -r+ X-T aw I

4NoLLIVIAld -90.4
-Ij-sr^g Wt'4rl
4MOcip MO-""
I Idt"I : aloti
JWV7 v 4qII14
J1 wwli 'Lipw 96vati ON
0 * Is'"07 . I I -
dt4vi NVO'l WaA'01 OIX"Ilj 0 x7grollu
al Ll VOW dAS14 VAI'97M

4W,fl.L+*ci-tIOM
00 ON

(;L, SIVISP --L";OWd 0-10A10A
r -LN-aKAO-TaNad

1!;,m I T-
FLAW,
LkV4 V IFi C wry
It06F-ep TO L.L-
C-j- 4,1 2714@ mtrrmoV

MAIN CA-axr-
MIN
.? v
-y -J.., ,,
(NOT 0 FI LA- wo

rhcorr LAW ApIris INIL4.5

RAW For-
WIFAOVXL@ HAN, oe_e_ur_
mof- TO TVK-

MY
OF CAWjl.L4C, OU-r CX444g.#:@, V4 I T-M
w -@@ ftTu F I LA.-
F:UV-rIAEV- I CZ-FAtwep
MIPATIOW OP ?E4kT V-uwcFxr- mr-ri4ope.,
Ar L-ow F-V- LAVS LAI - -

Wegrz
j7AA L-W7CZF4?- -M
1"@luw-y l7epizie-7

RommowmaiL Pir-pro"Mr F:itL,
co m it, Lir=,Tl 0 N OF rjeo&L.SMe
.. A,@, L*t4 p MP.TWOPGP VAjvY A&
0 94PAW 1 C- evo 11-4 4-A4 &e2pI 17&6- 9% rc7411 k& 'm 0Vse-"-L- "X-r,
TV-" r-jooV, 14 pZAW
91 CIPP-14 6011.@lrlsl Fcr@ A L, I -roTAL.
Tb @Omet:)WWES4.- eVL4 Se
Orriml.4m S-,CWT'iow
WAeZ;' TD I OENTir-y

lat.-WvXVION IS-PLAtIdEv--r -rc> rwle--14
9-P-ML41 V-S m sm-re.. FLAWNIN& in-ammilleAc*4
lse-r Iby Mpflzxl-@ Amv/m lpoue-s JUILY
FILCVP IN-6,41"NCZ

No e-UsL9-ZwT- "K"Nr- 6"ACENT MUL-AriON6 rLANNIN4. CVMHl-Q014
Ze.1vuLAnoWi. ) "twwt-jh,.rtcw4, ; INNP9-QL4jk-M ; le2l.IOULP rzvir_w
IFAW06e IWirIAL- rZopoeffe- 4*1119-owt.0 flgDrase TAXT-
PZAINA&r@ OF "-f-k 5l'AwPAVZwj- Fo%L gez4.Am,%nC*4 OF WoW WFL-L TUSY
-ro 1;7"rFVs;Fr C.L.ILA"N& Mmop" Wes e-oM wiri4 Fgo"mes,
t5vr-L-0 C)Fl 4f-,LWv4PeW6A
TWIE-44 HAAkMXIW PAF;D9CP-V7 rA.00 P I Ki ivi @ FbZCA@ 0 N
L-,6TIEP, V1, WATM Lave L-
66

rl&,Ugx-@ (Cownwuap) I

10 1 evTA&e, I 4jrA6e- I Z

LAY Fm@L- oVU i w
N @@ DUIWIN&l
I f-I 91-A p 0 @ @F@Tlsl
r vnwnstp

WITH 4@PU04APSW-zl wrp-pet;P IV4
INCXXA6@@ ) t-iAlVWWA, LVvr,-E7
MAI"TV.14411544"; For- PlL4, *., I
0" 5)(rSWeviV5 To
&PA6, LJf4rA-, aXSIW L.L- -ro 4_ff,,@.4 Flep
PXMA(wPP FLocv
foo,541 WATIgle- m At wrm ti A w e- S
PAMA&F, lb 1411LIll

P,XTr-A t?uvt4,(-- utp@ OF
CZkl@,T' SOW- tAffMIAL
MAt"TawAt-4ro ; For- r-iL-t- aZfiff*@-,
lu r i m a 14 6-oeTtv;
AW L447TAE@,L-g
,!$,SWAl,& WATEIL F-%TV-A 44XVTr-7

MAY 00- NF-SPF-V

W
C. D ME, 5) OKA I LVI N4- CDPSI-, c -ry kwv/ov-
L /, I
0 L4Tf LITY 6-OVW=7 PFOCA&M C-Z;IPF--t- rlLXPVA-rlOt4 VAIZI,(zp#4 PE47-M I T-
P15@1 &+A wm,@, rl'-;rrAePL@,,c!-A4F-C> f
(FOV- VAPOUS,
rr.09LACIr-5
Lj'
MkTIRIZAA C-"+
MLA I PH P. 14'r )

&L412ce 94ZEWT
F46,ULATIOW, V-r--@L*Tlow-cv "-&L4 L.Alrlc>kl-- F-9,6,ru L.N-ri ct4<-,
0 u
G
01

SPr"CTUeAL- PW47E:P- EYLAVAnoN Vi I VA-nclt4
SUreor--rs, rcV-- OF reAl- 0-15 @PUB-IMPIRS-we-S
UTILATY PPSPOr- "Czt4i r-F-P A9q/,jC rr4UCV, ANvor-
LAR" TV HOL44e; pbleipqF- 6UPft76rr -SLA0,CWAZ" ON
OF P-OPIP&OP, mor- it)

1 L-7!a H "0-7
-7H rJaLl HOW 17@@1401 ILLM -11017
@XvRnvl -1-119UNIti el"Itir"Zi 4MV
lalq-19 -40 4 V-K7 0.1- )9"l-l
Nolx\"lj-"aj\ A-Ll-'Llrl
-j-j Hqno L aey@c"j -LvtLL la-xwom 113H119" -Jaloldmu
-4ril
lo-LwM&@YN, I 0-v4"@q;aj-vrll
C7NOLEV-1rl-ral

a-L

NIV-140 -L-,t'W
H-;-favA -210 A-LI@2
XN -10-A-LIN07
rada-7 No)V-,.ad dqj@-2 t4g*7 "514 fl/@i -1 LL rl
Wutrt@ -4-aw M -a-A.-A (

"22" N 1

:ON'V
@,VV-4
90
-VQ 0042 -A-ajLv M 7nOti tL-MaM AVW
jo M 0 L-L r"-loj NCOILIVIA4 I A

14-
klWrZWVNI SO Avw --Us &A-"M-,p4 1,@, ji.LiM AVV-4

-Uo 'd-A'Aw
AVMV -At4r2fH,*r A-AHC30NH
aLHI 4 04W n4 VI -IV-Stl -Ap2Uev
_L f-o
"Mge7 d-aj-4---t*L zaO 9Hl-A,7fdV AriNamamn 9-1.6ae, 09t4 IA hU
p ,!PO o_i- Q*41e;r gr7n*7 anild AV N I-A nel
-j-Aotqn-o -s-axVM AV H K-3'1 4 L 0 "oone.- 4@w
4U'V-a%lNn Hl 4AA0LJLVUlA
ONION"

574114 qL
-1-1114A
4
Val Lr.01VT29

4110

A %"-d A

IS A"N m A
4,10 ',rSd Fo@tu? 0-1 ld

40 -=lxuc7ld 09

I g-714_16, e.1 "j,:-p

r-I COVIcip Cr- FWP'Naege@:'

YWV COJ

IT w

A&MW-Y Y"

ev"Wrop OUMIPS
No NAWA6

Mew
FCOIL
NCM( .0

4A"UFI
IMN414&
"o
ivACT-
imp
)< 'C'
yr@-

AVAF'rP.P FF-OM ML4MF'H;;LP-Y M-r AL.-

F- F. A$
or 9WOW
FIWAL-

Y94

'k&OWY

PV*Fr
No"-nW ww4riva
%ZYI

ME 94 .1
IoA

140

development in coastal areas, especially Louisiana. It

points out concerns involving subsidence problems, flood

hazards, etc. of which all parties should be aware. The

developer can benefit from the use of this system which

gives step-by-step instructions on what requirements must be

met and what permits need to be obtained at each development

stage. Governmental permitting agencies can use the method-

ology to carefully check and enforce quality control through-

out the development process.

The following discussion covers problems encountered in
building on both fast and non-fast lands.1 Construction on

non-fast lands is confined to mostly second-home camps, duck

blinds, etc. For these more limited types of development,

problems associated with water quality, sewage collection and

treatment methods, and flood hazard potential are examined.

However, the bulk of material presented applies to the concerns

of residential development on fast lands which comprises a

much larger percentage of urban coastal zone development.

Problems stemming from high subsidence potential such as

natural gas leaks, high home maintenance costs and flood

hazards are emphasized.

Non-fast land is herein defined as an area in its wetland
state, subject to tidal inundation. Fast land is defined
as a former wetland which has been separated from the
estuarine system by means of a levee or floodwall and is
no longer subject to frequent flooding.

GENERAL PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH

THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

This section examines the basic problem areas encoun-

tered by homeowners living on former wetlands and their

causes. Many of these problems are serious and do pose ques-

tions as to the amount and types of urban development which

should be permitted to occur in wetland areas. The discussion

also points out areas where development practices need to be

improved in order to reduce later homeowner expense.

Subsidence

Subsidence is a term used to describe a negative land

surface change. In the context of urban expansion in coastal

Louisiana, it is generally a regional or area-wide lowering

of surface elevation due to local factors. However, geo-

physical subconfinental movement does contribute to the

state's coastal subsidence problem (Earle, 1975: 73).

Subsidence Causes

Possible subsidence factors in coastal urban areas are

described by Earle (1975: 73-74). These causes of subsidence

are classified as to their relative involvement in creating

homeowner problems and costs. Lowering of the water table is

considered to be an important cause of subsidence problems.

The water table in most reclaimed areas was originally at or

near the surface. Using current reclamation practices (see

discussion later in this chapter), canals are constructed

and pumping lowers the regional water table leading to the

drying out and shrinkage of wet mineral soils, and decompo-

sition of organic soils resulting in soil oxidation and

shrinkage. Urbanization causes diversion of much of the water

that once replenished the groundwater supply into storm

drains to be lost as runoff. Absorption of rain water by

wetlands is limited as more areas are developed and paved.

Earle's study pointed out the fact that many of the

region's soils are of subaqueous origin, still containing a

large percentage of water. Wetland mucks high in organic

matter can undergo an 85 percent initial volume loss when

dried. Shrinkage continues at a fairly uniform rate until a

subsurface layer of mineral material, or the water tableis

reached (Earle, 1975: 78). If the water table is once again

raised, these organic soils will return to only 50 percent of

their original volume (D. Clement, 1976).

Oxidation of organic material plays a very important role

in urban coastal subsidence problems. Oxygen levels in the

organic soils of drained wetlands are increased with lower-

ing of the water table and subsequent displacement of water

with air in the pore spaces. This in turn accelerates

bacterial decomposition action on organic material. Subsi-

dence from this factor is a slow, long-term process

(D. Clement, 1976).

Other subsidence factors were deemed by Earle as impor-

tant, but less crucial, than those previously discussed in

terms of urban residential development. These included

tectonic movement of the entire coastal zone with its atten-

dant processes of geologic base level sinking, sea level

rise and consolidation of sediments (Earle, 1975: 77).

The decline in artesian pressure in water sands of confined

aquifers due to water withdrawal was proposed to be of

regional importance. Further land subsidence at a specific

project scale may also be attributed to loading of the land

surface with structures resulting in consolidation of clays.

Buildings not on pilings and roads, levees, and other con-

structions are of sufficient weight to consolidate subsurface

clay layers. Earle also postulated that the vibration of

land and homes during the construction phase of a subdivision

development and by nearby highway truck traffic may also be

important causes in clay consolidation and subsidence (Earle,

1975: 80). These last two problems are confined to a small

area of influence, whereas the shrinking and oxidation of

organic materials with lowering of the water table, along

with geologic substratum changes has a much broader impact.

Soil Properties Related to Subsidence

The basic reason behind the widespread subsidence

problems in urbanized areas of the coastal zone is the soil

and its associated properties. Several terms are used to

describe the difference between, the major soil categories,

mineral and organic. Mineral soils are dominated by mineral

particles which are fine rock fragments of sand or silt size

along with still smaller particles of clay minerals. The

layers of mineral soils are described in terms of soil

textures such as clay, silt loam, sandy loam, etc. These

mineral soils subside by the process of consolidation which

is removal of water due to loading of the soil (U.S. Soil

Conservation Service, 1976: Vl, V-4).

Organic soils are largely made up of decomposed or

partially decomposed plant remains. Materials that contain

more than 20-30 percent organic matter (based on dry weight)

are classified as organic soil materials. These are commonly

referred to as peat, muck, or "coffee grounds". Soils that

have organic surface layers more than 16 inches thick are

classified as organic soils. They are characterized by a

low bulk density (weight per unit volume) and subside through

a process of drying, shrinking and oxidation of organic

matter which is a biochemical decomposition process (U.S. Soil

Conservation Service, 1976: V-1, V-4).

Soils found in the surface layers of newly created fast

lands are frequently organic in content, classified as either

peat or muck. A distinction is made between these soil types

based on the stage of decomposition of the organic material

comprising them. In peat, the organic material residue is

still recognizable. When the material has undergone consid-

erable oxidation, it is classified as muck with fiber material

residues undiscernable in it (D. Clement. 1976).

Loss of surface elevation occurs when a soil with organic

or semifluid mineral layers is drained. This subsidence

takes place in two distinct phases (U.S. Soil Conservation

Service, 1976: V-4):

1. Initial soil subsidence. With lowering of the

water table, there is an overall 50 percent

immediate volume reduction in organic wetland

soils (considering that they are air dried then

wet again). This initial subsidence is

normally accomplished in about three years

after lowering the water table by drainage.

Thus, if the water table is lowered 10 feet,

the land surface will rapidly lose 5 feet in

elevation.

2. Continued soil subsidence. Bacterial decompo-

sition activity increases as more oxidants enter

the soil pore spaces following drainage. This

process of biochemical oxidation continues

gradually and steadily until a subsurface

mineral soil layer or the water table is reached.

The rate of continued subsidence depends upon

the thickness of organic material and depth to

water table, ranging from 0.5 to 2 inches per

year.

Farming speeds up the oxidation process for organic

materials. More oxygen is allowed into the soil by tilling,

and this in turn speeds up bacterial decomposition. On the

other hand, subsidence in an already developed area can be

slowed down by adding a good mineral soil fill to the land

surface. This helps to seal in the organic materials,

inhibit oxygen penetration and thereby slow down the oxida-

tion rate (D. Clement, 1976).

Organic soils are considered to be relatively young

(2-3,000 years old) in relation to stable mineral soils such

as Mandeville soil which is approximately 20,000 years old.

Due to their non-mature state, these organic soils tend to

shrink and oxidize when dried. Soils throughout the

Louisiana coastal zone as indicated in Figure 2.2 and their

associated properties include (U.S. Soil Conservation Service,

1976: V-17 to V-28 and D. Clement, 1976):

1. Commerce silt loam
This soil is found closest to the rivers and
along tributaries usually forming natural
levees. Because it is composed of well mixed
mineral soils carried as sediments by a river,
there are no problems associated with building
on this soil and no piles are needed. Few, if
any, subsidence problems are associated with

this soil.

2. Sharkey clay
This soil is found just inside the natural levees
and is composed of finer textured sedimentary
deposits. If air dried, this soil reduces in
volume by 10 percent and frequently cracks at
the surface. However, it will swell back to its
original volume when wet. A "floating slab"
system is recommended for building on this soil

'Oop OMN @-k-
ILL 6A L-T'
J001*

_ui
LAF- I TY15

ATF. OL

N 1k
4S,IL,T L@QW
Cf- L-OAM
00 F Flo m 0, L-@6y
PIK
'ssml P L-u I p e- L*%f

V- a y LAP: (TT15
151 L:r LOW X,q MUL-IL
y A,

14
m u 41r-
It rrp
mwe.1f.. M U Ot-
St L@T Low cl.-Ay -r@A i i,..k
RILM 'A LAYP,?-S,
kev It C*
y t F: Li-41 P
12
AIN p "Ay
C.Llky
4
p

E;@oiL.S "ro L@ANP F:OFM,\/5&5T-AT1UN A@@iv
M A7T-- Q A L
5 P-VAT I t.@ laF- 9-:,@ 1 C.4- / 19 1 v - I Lcl

since it adjusts with the shrink and swell
properties. Consolidation though loading of
the surface and resulting water removal does
cause subsidence problems with this soil.

3. Barbary soils
These soils are associated with swamplands and
are composed of 12 inches of organic deposits
over "supersaturated" mineral soils (clay).
While 50 percent water by volume is considered
normal for a wet clay, "supersaturated" clay
layers may hold as much as 200 percent water
by volume. The initial volume loss for normal
wet clay soils is 50 percent when dried out by
a lowering of the water table. There is no
further consolidation after this. "Super-
saturated" clay soils, however, reduce in
volume 4 times as much when initially dried.

4. Allemands soils

These soils are associated with freshwater
marshes and are composed of an organic surface
layer 16 to 50 inches thick over a semifluid,
clay layer. They are considered to be organic
soils with the water table at or a few inches

above the surface in their natural state.
Allemands soils consolidate,shrink, and lose
approximately 2 feet of surface elevation in
the first 1 or 2 years after drainage. Sub-
sidence continues at a rate of J to 2 inches
per year until the mineral soil or water table
is reached. Total potential subsidence is 16
to 50 inches and the surface will recede in
most places to elevations below sea level.

5. Kenner muck
This is a very unique soil found only in marsh

lands of the Louisiana coastal area. Its

uniqueness lies in the fact that there is no
clay (mineral) layer within at least the top
50 inches of the surface. As a predominantly
organic soil it will shrink and oxidize when
dried until it reaches the water table level or
a clay layer. Thus surface subsidence of this
soil may be 50 or more inches. Initial volume
reduction in this highly organic soil is 85
percent when air dried. This process consti-
tutes an irreversible shrinkage since the soil
will only return to 50 percent of its original
volume if it is once again wet.

6. Lafitte soils

These soils consist of organic materials to a
depth of 50 inches or more with an underlying
mineral layer of semifluid clay. In their
natural state, the water table is always at or
a few inches above the surface. If protected
and drained,Lafitte soils will consolidate,
shrink and lose approximately 3 feet of sur-
face elevation in -the first 1 or 2 years after
drainage. Subsidence will continue until the
water table or underlying mineral layer is
reached making total subsidence potential very
high.

7. Maurepas soil
These are extremely young soils with as much as
1-90 inches of organic material in the surface
layer. The large quantity of woody material
commonly found within these soils causes
irregular subsidence of the land surface as the

organic matter oxidizes and the volume shrinks.
Construction of roads, utility lines, etc. is
hindered by this woody debris.

Subsidence Problems and Costs

There are many serious problems associated with the

severe subsidence following wetland reclamation and its sub-

sequent development. Individual homeowners, the community-at-

large, developers, utility companies and local government

agencies are affected. These problems have associated costs

which are ultimately borne by the public. Earle (1975: 82-91)

identified a number of significant concerns for each of these

interest groups and some of the reasons behind them.

Homeowners in former wetlands must face direct problems

and costs by the outlay of capital, time and inconvenience.

There are four basic areas of concern (Earle, 1975: 83-84):

1. Landscape elements such as drives, walkways and
walks may crack, warp, sink, or suffer structural
failure. Plant growth may be inhibited by poor
drainage or soil conditions.

2. Sinking of the ground level and actual cracking
of the land surface may result in unsightly
gaps around foundation edges, etc.

3. Building elements such as walls, foundations and
roofs may crack or break with the settling, tilt-
ing and uneven stress related to land movement.

4. Utilities systems providing water, sewerage,
electricity, gas and telephone services may be
interrupted by leakage or breakage of service

lines.

In all cases the homeowner must assume all costs for

repair or replacement of damaged structures on his property.

Yearly maintenance charges may be computed by the number of

loads of fill needed to shore up around a house at about $25

per load. Major structural repairs may cost between $1,200

to $6,000 per home (Earle, 1975: 84).

Homeowner subsidence problems manifest themselves also

in strained and broken connections to air conditioner conden-

ser units and gas meters. This last item particularly has

caused great anxiety for both homeowners and utility companies

recently with an increasing incidence of natural gas leaks

and house explosions (The States-Item, Oct. 12, 1976 and

Frazer, The States-Item, Nov. 23, 1976).

One possible explanation of the natural gas explosion

problem in high subsidence areas has been advanced. As

organic soils shrink with lowering of the water table, cracks

form in the subsurface layers. Unsupported and sagging gas

lines connecting houses with the main utility line along the

street right-of-way may split apart at joints and leak.

"Curb cocks" or valves with screw-type threads located about

15 inches underground and approximately one foot on the house

side of the sidewalk are thought to be the weakest link

between the gas main and house. The sinking ground or trucks

loaded with additional fill material passing over underground

gas lines may place enough stress on the threaded curb cock

joints to break them. The leaking natural gas under 60 -to 80

pounds per square inch pressure can then travel through the

network of cracks underground and collect in the cavities

beneath pile supported house foundations. These cavities

were created as the land beneath the foundation subsided and

homeowners only replaced soil along the outer perimeter of

the foundation to cover unsightly gaps. By shoring up around

the foundation's edge, the homeowner effectively traps the

natural gas beneath the concrete foundation slab. It can

then travel up the hollow stud walls to the attic or creep

up along outside walls entering the attic through eave vents

where spontaneous combustion may take place causing an

explosion (Frazer, The States-Item, Nov. 20, 1976 and D.

Clement, 1976).

The recent natural gas incidents have brought forth a

rash of proposals to require ventilation of attics in all

building codes. However, there is some question as to

whether or not the additional oxygen found in ventilated
attics may actually increase the danger of spontaneous natural
gas combustion (Frazer, The States-Item, Oct. 30, 1976).

There has been concern over the charge that natural gas

leaks may also result from the pressure of heavy trucks roll-

ing on lawns over the gas lines while delivering fill

material. An ordinance in Jefferson Parish to prohibit heavy

trucks from rolling on lawns was recently proposed and

rejected because it was felt it would relieve the gas com-
pany of liability in the case of an explosion (Frazer, The
States-Item, Dec. 10, 1976). It has been noted that the

natural gas explosions do not always occur in the houses

where the leaks originate, since the gas can travel through

underground cracks to neighboring houses. While it would

prove impractical to try to eliminate cavities under all pile

supported foundations in order to prevent the formation of

gas pockets, measures should be taken to stop these gas leaks

from occurring.

Earle also examined the added costs of wetlands construc-

tion to the developer which are passed on to the consumer in

property and construction cost increases. Developers face

these added costs in three areas (Earle, 1975: 84):

1. The ground surface, buildings, roads and utili-

ties must be stabilized.

2. Buildings and sometimes roads must be elevated

on fill.

3. Excavations for utilities, drainage and founda-

tions must cope with on-site soil problems.

It is estimated by New Orleans contractors that the cost of

developing a subdivision (exclusive of homes) in recently

reclaimed wetlands is 50 percent greater than in natural dry

lands.

The average cost of raising a conventional slab house

with fill to meet flood insurance elevation standards in

reclaimed wetlands was estimated to cost between $400 for a

1 foot rise to $3000 for an 8 foot rise above the base

elevation (Earle, 1975: 85).

Earle's study also pointed out the problems faced by

utility companies in the installation and maintenance of

lines through fast lands. Soil problems such as high water

table and unstable trench walls necessitate the use of pumps

and shoring to prevent trench collapse. Trench excavation in

organic soils may also require removal of large trees and

other buried swamp debris. Special techniques must be used

for installation of water and sewerage pipes including

excavation, placement of several feet of shell fill, and

construction of a board frame or "cradle" which helps to balance

out local settling and prevents pipes from sinking or floating

to the surface. It is estimated that sewerage installation

costs are approximately twice as much in reclaimed wetlands

as in other more stable areas (Earle, 1975: 86-87).

The connection of the utility system to the building

and its foundation slab presents a critical point since the

structure is fairly stable on pilings while the utility line

subsides with the soil. This creates the danger of sewer,

water and gas line breaks. Maintenance problems create

additional costs to utility companies including the repair of

cracked and opened joints in pipes along with the need to

reset manhole covers at the subsided levels of streets and

sidewalks (Earle, 1975: 87-88).

Local as well as state and federal government subsidence

related problems and costs are categorized by Earle into four

major areas (Earle, 1975: 88):

1. Installation and maintenance of drainage and
flood protection facilities comprises a major
budget item.

2. Public facilities such as schools and parks
require continual maintenance.

3. Services such as street repairs and protection
from the fire hazards of underground organic
soil combustion must be provided.

4. Property values in neighborhoods must be retained
to prevent the creation of tax burdens if

serious deterioration is allowed.

These governmental expenditures to remedy subsidence-based

problems ultimately result in an increased burden on the

taxpayers.

Flooding

A major threat to urban development in Louisiana's

caostal zone is that of flood inundation caused either by

high river water levels or by the high tides and waves

associated with tropical storms. Flood damage results when

structures are erected in flood--prone areas either at a level

below projected flood heights or without regard to the effectof

flood flows on structures or vice versa.

Community problems resulting directly from flooding in

an urban development built on reclaimed wetlands include

(derived from Lafayette Regional Planning Commission, 1973:

14-15):

1. contamination of the water supply by toxic,
flammable or bacterial matter creating a
community health hazard;

2. reverse flow of sewage effluent into buildings
from septic tanks and other sewage disposal
systems;

3. structural damage by high velocity flood waters
and/or water-borne debris;

4. danger from inundated electric lines, circuits,
equipment and appliances;

5. property damage to building contents by flood
waters;

6. injury to community residents.

Large-scale public works projects (levees, flood walls,

channel dredging, etc.) have been undertaken in the past to

prevent or reduce flood damage. However, this approach has

proven to be only partially effective as urban development

spread rapidly outside the bounds of flood protection systems

into flood-prone areas. Emphasis has therefore been shifted

towards regulatory controls setting guidelines as to

permitted land uses and required construction standards in

areas of flood hazard. Regulatory system instruments

include flood-control zoning ordinances, subdivision regula-

tions, building and sanitary codes, open space and public

land acquisition programs, flood warning systems, and public

policy discouraging development extension into wetlands

(Kusler and Lee, 1972: 3).

Structural protection under the regulatory approach

applies to individual buildings rather than to levees, etc.

A building code may require new structures to meet appropri-

ate flood-proofing and elevation standards thus placing more

of the financial burden of flood protection on individual

homeowners (Kusler and Lee, 1972: 3). However, the National

Flood Insurance program has forced local and regional coastal

zone planning agencies to assume responsibility in consider-

ing the impact of flood hazards on proposed developments

which are supported with funds from federally-insured lending

institutions.

Pollution

Water pollution is a continuing problem of developments

located on former wetlands. In urban areas, this problem

centers mainly on the infiltration of biodegradable and

nonbiodegradable effluents into the storm sewer system along

with the lack of treatment for storm runoff.

Reclaimed wetlands which have been developed for

residential use require that all storm water be collected

and pumped over the protective levee system into a nearby

water body. This urban runoff normally contains a number of

dangerous chemical compounds listed in Table 2.1, along with

other street residues and raw sewage that seeps into the

system through cracks and leaks in underground sewer lines.

When storm runoff containing these materials is pumped

untreated into a water body, it can lead to unnatural algal

blooms (and resulting fish kills) as well as create a health

hazard to recreational users of the water body (Mumphrey

et al., 1975: 52-55).

TABLE 2.1

DANGEROUS EFFLUENTS IN URBAN DRAINAGE WATER

NONDEGRADABLES DEGRADABLES

Glass Petroleum

All Plastics Natural Fibers

Mercury Phosphates

Lead Steel

Zinc Nitrogen Oxides

Copper Paper

Sulfuric Acid Cellulose

Synthetic Insecticides Nitrogen

Synthetic Detergents Fertilizers

Synthetic Fibers Carbon Monoxide

Some Drugs

Asbestos

Aluminum

All Nonnatural Organic Compunds

Source: Commoner, 1971.

An additional water pollution problem is posed by the

existence of recreational camps located along the edge of

water bodies. Such structures do not fall under standard

subdivision statutes and may have totally inadequate sewage

disposal systems. This can lead to high water pollution

levels and present a public health menace (Stocks, 1974: 3).

Improvements are needed in both urban sewerage systems

and in the regulations which control sewage collection,

treatment and disposal methods.

Developmental Effects of Removal of

Wetlands from the Ecosystem

Reclamation of wetlands for urban development creates a

number of deleterious effects felt in the community-at -large.

These include the loss of such productive activities per-

formed by the estuarine system as (Mumphrey et al., 1975:
80-81): 1. assimilation of pollutants from urban runoff;

2. buffer from storm velocity wind and waves;

3. contribution to the local economy.

A healthy marsh has a high assimilation capacity, and

can substantially filter urban-generated as well as indus-

trial pollutants dumped into coastal waters. Wetlands also

function as a storm buffer zone for inland urban areas,

reducing wind and wave velocity by friction as the tropical

storm passes. Because wetlands serve as a prime nursery area

for many marine species their value is extremely significant

to the commercial fishing industry as well as to sports

fishermen and other recreational participants.

Loss of a tract of wetland by means of leveeing, drain-

ing and filling prior to development causes a loss to the

total estuarine system. With a reduction of nutrients from

the tract entering the system, plant and animal production

declines and there is a loss of habitat for migratory marine

animals. Thus the reclamation process irreversibly decreases

the natural productivity of the wetland ecosystem as a

whole (Mumphrey et al., 1975: 79-80).

STAGES IN THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

Figure 2.1 illustrates the various stages involved in

the conversion of current or former wetlands acreage into a

residential subdivision and the problems associated with each

stage. The development process for non-fast lands begins at

Stage 1. For fast lands which are already protected by a

levee system, the development process starts at Stage 3.

The chart also illustrates stages in the construction of

camps, duck blinds and other minimal types of development in

non-fast lands. A description of the process and problems

encountered occurs at the end of this chapter.

Development Process for Existing or

Proposed Fast Lands

Pre-Development Stage2

Prior to the first stage of development the subdivision

project is conceived by a developer. A determination is

made at that time as to whether or not construction of a levee

will be necessary. If the proposed project area is currently

non-fast land, then a levee must be constructed in order to

meet subsequent flood insurance, subdivision ordinance,etc.

requirements. The developer then proceeds to Stage 1 of the

process.

Stage 1 -- Apply for Corps of Engineers Permit

The developer applies to the Corps of Engineers for a

dredge and fill permit necessary before commencing levee

construction. Other means by which the levee building pro-

cess is initiated include: 1) a federal legislative mandate;

2) a state, local or private request to the Corps of

2This discussion refers only to development in wetlands.
Obviously, the problems mentioned could be eliminated by
using alternative, if available, dry land locations. Also
certain landscape architectural and structural design tech-
niques could be used to minimize the impacts of wetland
environments on development. For more information see
Georgia Department of Natural Resources (1975) Handbook:
Building in the Coastal Environment and Carroll (n.d.)
Developer's Handbook.

Engineers; or 3) self-initiation by the Corps of Engineers

to build a levee for flood control or other purposes

(Swindler, 1976).

If the Corps of Engineers has no objection to the

requested levee construction, they submit the proposal through

the process of impact assessment,public notice, and outside

agency review which is discussed in Chapter 1. The National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (N.E.P.A.) requires the

filing of an environmental impact statement (E.I.S.) on any

federally funded project before construction can begin if

preliminary investigation indicates a significant impact. if

an E.I.S. is required, the developer must usually provide the

Corps of Engineers with all necessary environmental data.

Granting of the permit allows the developer to proceed to

the next stage.

Stage 2 -- Build Levee

In the second stage of development, the Corps of Engin-

eers or a contractor under their direction physically con-

structs the levee. This process normally involves dredging

of a ditch accompanied by a piling up of the dredged material

alongside the ditch to create an earth berme. Additional

earth material may be brought in to stabilize and solidify

the levee. The Corps of Engineers sets standards for the

methods and materials to be used in levee construction

(Swindler, 1976).

When the Corps of Engineers undertakes a levee-building

project in which there is a strong possibility of creating

"windfall profits" for a developer, the Corps is required to

conduct a land ownership analysis of the affected area. if

project benefits are expected to arise from changes in the

land type and resulting intensification of land use, Corps'

policy requires that a cost-sharing system be used to finance

levee construction. Thus the developer must pay a certain

portion of the levee cost in order to receive the monetary

benefits of wetlands reclamation on his property (Save Our

Wetlands, Inc. v. Rush, et al., U.S. District Court, 1975).

Problems resulting from the erection of a levee include

disruption of the wetland ecological system. When the wet-

land is cut off from its natural source of water and nutrient

replenishment, the normal food chain and animal habitats are

destroyed. This in turn reduces the economic and recrea-

tional benefits derived from the wetland by commercial and

sport fishermen, hunters, etc. (Mumphrey et al., 1975:

Chapters 3 and 4).

Another problem associated with this development stage

involves the structural stability of the levee itself.

Material dredged from the upper soil layers of a wetland to

create a levee is normally very high in organic content (i.e.

peat) and low in mineral content soils (i.e. sandy or silty

clay). This organic material shrinks and cracks as it dries

and oxidizes making the levee more vulnerable to erosion and

breach in the event of high water levels. Only by adding to

the levee mineral soils dredged from the deeper layers of the

wetland or brought in from outside areas does it become solid

and stable (D. Clement, 1976).

Stage 3 -- Obtain Loan and Purchase Land

Once levee construction is assured, the developer may

proceed with negotiations for obtaining a loan and purchas-
ing the land for the subdivision.3 In most cases, the

developer will apply for a loan from a federally insured

lending institution. By doing so, he falls under the current

requirements of the H.U.D. Flood Insurance program detailed

in Chapter 1. In accepting a federally subsidized loan for

new residential construction, the developer must meet all

standards for elevation of structure above the base flood

level, flood-proofing of utilities, stability of raised

structural supports, etc.

Stage 4 -- Drain Site

Once the land has been sealed off by means of the levee

from further surface water interaction with the larger

coastal wetland zone, it is ready to be drained. This

involves the dredging of drainage canals and installation of

pumps to lower the water table. (See subsequent section,

3In some instances, the developer may purchase the land before
requesting a permit for levee construction (Swindler, 1976).

Stage 6 -- Fill Site,for discussion of reclamation techniques.)

The initial subsidence stage causes the upper layers of organic

material to rapidly lose up to 85 percent of their original

volume. Very quickly the land protected within the levee

subsides to an elevation below sea level. Pumps must be used

to continue lowering the water table and to pump the water up

and over the levee. The canals are initially dredged to a

depth of 4 to 6 feet. However, rapid subsidence of the sur-

rounding land and silting up of the canals with sediments

necessitates that they be dredged periodically (D. Clement,

1976). This procedure is often requested by the residents

themselves as a means of improving their drainage during

periods of heavy rainfall. However, the ultimate result of

this periodic lowering of the water table is that another

layer of organic material beneath the surface dries out,

oxidizes and causes increased homeowner subsidence problems

where previously they may not have been as serious (D.

Clement, 1976).

Problems associated with the site drainage stage include

the rapid oxidation of peat and accompanying land subsidence.

When the thick peat beds of former wetlands are rapidly

dried, air displaces water in the voids within the organic

materials. High oxygen levels can trigger underground

combustion of loosely packed organic soils commonly called

peat fires. These burn uncontrolled often for many days and

sometimes to depths 10 to 12 feet beneath the land surface.

While these fires do quickly oxidize a great amount of

organic material that could cause continued subsidence pro-

blems to homeowners,they also greatly increase air pollution

levels (Earle, 1975: 90).

Stage 5 -- Clear Site

When drainage of the land is sufficiently advanced to

allow bulldozers and other heavy equipment onto the site, the

clearing stage begins. This may involve only selective

clearing of some trees and underbrush, but more frequently is

an almost complete removal of all vegetative cover.

Problems associated with this stage include the rapid

drying, shrinking and cracking of upper organic soil layers

with removal of all vegetation. This leads to increased run-

off during periods of heavy rainfall and may initiate

erosion problems. Loss of all vegetation may also change the

microclimate of the immediate area.

Very costly homeowner problems result from improper

clearing practices, such as bulldozing under tree stumps,

trunks, roots, etc. rather than removing them from the site.

These buried objects can cause differential settlement as the

surrounding land subsides, and may lead to,cracked or tilted

house slabs and yard maintenance problems for homeowners

(D. Clement, 1976).

Stage 6 -- Fill Site

This stage involves the addition of fill material to the

entire site in order to replace all or a portion of the

surface elevation lost by initial and continued subsidence.

Two very different methods of wetland reclamation are avail-

able to the developer along with several variations of each

method. They differ greatly in terms of the amount of sub-

sidence each induces, the overall cost based on the amount of

fill added to the site, and the flood hazard potential of the

filled site.

The "Wet Method" or "Water Drawdown Method" is now the

most commonly used technique by developers. It involves

lowering of the water table by means of drainage canals and

pumps which work to maintain the depressed water table level.

Water removed from the site is pumped from the canals into

some large water body (e.g.,a lake). Some fill is placed

on the site to offset subsidence (Kaiser Engineers, 1974: 6).

The "Fill Method" or "Dry Method" dictates that the

water table be maintained at mean sea level and several feet

of fill be placed upon the site. With this method,land is

drained through a system of artificially created swales and

surface runoff into a canal system (Kaiser Engineers, 1974:

6-7 and Villavaso, 1975).

The "Fill Method" is not used by developers mainly

because of its high initial cost. Although it does provide

the highest degree of safety from flooding, it also causes

the highest initial and ultimate subsidence rates due to

consolidation and settlement of the fill material. Develop-

ers currently use the "Wet Method" of reclamation because

much less fill material is required and subsidence rates are

lower. However, the most promising reclamation methods for

future use would seem to be the "Modified Wet Method" which

depresses the water table more than the "Wet Method"; and

the "Modified Fill Method" which lowers the water table more

and reduces the amount of fill material required as compared

to the "Fill Method". Both systems reduce the amount of

initial and continued subsidence substantially (Kaiser

Engineers, 1974: Figure 3 and Villavaso, 1975).

All reclamation methods which add fill to a wetland are

regulated by the Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the

Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (see Chapter 1).

Stage 7 -- Submit Plan for Approval

Before any further site improvements can be made, the

developer must submit a plan of the proposed subdivision to

the parish planning commission or police jury for their

approval. This approval process normally involves several

steps. First, a conceptual plan is prepared for the site

which includes proof of utility agreements made by the

developer with various private utility companies to service

the new development. Next a preliminary plan is completed

which shows more specific street and lot arrangements for

the subdivision. Finally, an engineering plan for the site

must be submitted and approved. This shows exact dimensions

for streets and lots, placement of underground utilities,

etc. in accordance with current applicable zoning ordinances

and subdivision regulations (Terrebonne Parish Police Jury,

1973).

Problems may be encountered throughout this development

stage due to conflicting and confusing regulations. Later

homeowner problems may result if the regulations are not

adequately enforced and the plan is approved with major

deficiencies.

Stage 8 -- Layout of Site

This involves the actual staking out of streets, lots

and utility rights-of-way by surveyors on the site prior to

commencing improvements. The site layout must carefully

follow plans approved by the parish planning agency.

Stage 9 -- Lay Utilities

Trenches for electric, natural gas, telephone, water

and sewerage utility lines are prepared within utility rights-

of-way in this development stage. Lines are laid within these

corridors along with spur lines to connect with future house

sites. Special underground cradle structures are built to

support manholes, etc.

Problems encountered in this stage are due both to the

high water table usually found on the site and the high

100

subsidence potential. Utility lines may be damaged by water

during flood periods. If flood-proofing of utilities is

required, this adds to the expense of installation which is

passed on to consumers. Subsidence adds to the utility

problems by increasing the need for maintenance of cracking

feeder pipes by homeowners. There is also the danger of

natural gas, sewage and water leaks developing as the sub-

siding land places a stress on utility lines. Local excava-

tion for sewers, water lines, etc. can of itself contribute

to on-site subsidence (Earle, 1975: 81).

Standards for utility installation are set in parish and

local building codes along with more specific product design

codes.

Stage 10 -- Fill and Grade Roadbeds and Build Streets

The developer is responsible for the construction of

roads to parish specifications. This stage usually involves

"mucking" or removal of the top several inches of organic

material and placement of a sand and shell base course, but

not pilings. The asphalt or concrete street is then con-

structed according to product design code specifications.

For larger streets and highways the base preparation may be

more extensive, including removal of the top several feet

of organic material and laying of a much thicker base course.

Roads next to canals may require sheet piling alongside to

prevent them from sliding into the canals (Earle, 1975: 89).

101

The need for extensive excavation of organic soils and the

subsequent build-up of the roadbed with sand and shell

increases both the time needed to construct streets and their

cost.

It is the parish or city which takes over street mainten-

ance from the developer after construction and approval.

Thus the extra initial cost along with the maintenance charges

over the years on warping and cracking problems caused by

high subsidence are ultimately borne by the public-at-large.

Stage 11 -- Fill and Grade Lots

The parish or local building code normally specifies

the minimum lot grade which must be established before piles

can be driven and a structure erected. This should take into

account the elevation required under federally insured flood

insurance programs (see Chapter 1).

A problem which may be encountered in this stage is the

quality of fill material used on the lot. This should be a

good quality"spillway'sand or other comparable mineral soil

rather than a1pump"sand which may make surface consolidation

difficult and is also very infertile (D. Clement, 1976).

Stage 12 -- Obtain Building Permit

A permit must be obtained from the proper parish and/or

local authorities before actual improvements on each house

lot can begin. This permit is intended to insure that the

102

developer will construct each house in accordance with the

general building code and all special codes pertaining to

gas, electrical and plumbing lines; fire prevention measures;

health and sanitation precautions; etc. which may have been

adopted.

Stage 13 -- Drive Piles

This stage involves the driving of pile supports for the

structures to be built. Most commonly treated wood piles are

used at an even spacing around the house site. However,

points of greater load in the structure may require closer

spacing of piles. The piles are driven to a specified depth

or until they reach "refusal" and cannot be driven any deeper.

'tSkin friction" or the cohesion between the pilings and the

soil particles actually creates the supporting capability.

Reinforced concrete piles may also be used for larger

structures. However, the technology for pouring and joining

lengths of these piles is limited.

Vibration of the land surface by the driving of piles

on a house site may cause some subsidence problems in nearby

structrues already completed.

Stage 14 -- Lay Foundation

When the piles are in place, then a foundation can be
evenly supported. 4 Several types of foundations are possible

4If the house site was located on a stable topographic feature
sijch as a natural levee or if the "Fill Method" of reclamation
was used, it might be conceivable to build structures on grade
without piles. It i@; known that a pile foundation costs about
twice as much as a non-pile supported slab on sand foundation
(Mumphrey et al., 1975: 145).

103

for the structure. These include: 1) slab on grade secured

to the piles, or 2) structure on short piers with concrete

casings enclosing the protruding piles. A masonry wall may

also be used to conceal the piers on a raised house.

Severe subsidence problems may cause differential settle-

ment of the land surface leading to cracked or tilted slabs.

This in turn can create the danger of breaks in gas lines

leading from the gas meter to the house. Subsequent gas leaks

may form and therefore the explosion potential is increased.

More common homeowner problems stem from the shrinking

away of the yard and landscape features from the pile

supported house because of drying, shrinking, and oxidation

of the soil. This causes unsightly gaps between the land

surface and the base of the slab foundation. The homeowner

must then either assume the costs of periodically shoring up

around his house with fill material or face a loss in

property value (Earle, 1975: 83-84).

Houses raised on short piers experience the same problems

as the land surface subsides. There may be the additional

problem of termites and dampness attacking exposed joists

beneath the house.

Stage 15 -- Build Structure

Each house must be constructedin accordance with the

building code and specific utility codes. Subsidence

problems may result in cracking of interior floors, walls,

104

ceilings and exterior masonry walls. The homeowner must

assume all costs for repairs or suffer decreasing property

values (Earle, 1975: 83-84).

Stage 16 -- Lay Sidewalks, Driveways, Etc.

Subdivision regulations normally provide the specifica-

tions for size and placement of sidewalks and driveway aprons.

A shallow sand bed is normally the only base preparation

provided, with reinforced concrete as a surface treatment.

With continued subsidence of the land surface, these

landscape elements pull away from the more solidly supported

house foundation. Warped and cracked driveways, walkways,

sidewalks, fences, etc. are common in high subsidence areas.

In some communities the parish or local government

assumes the maintenance of sidewalks and driveway aprons,

replacing them periodically with no direct charge to the

homeowner. In other areas, the homeowner may be required to

pay half the replacement charge. However, the expense for

repair of walkways, driveways, and fences falls directly on

the homeowner along with the increased taxes to support other

public maintenance work (D. Clement, 1976).

Stage 17 -- Collect and Dispose of Sewage, Waste Water

and Solid Waste

Completion of the development, sale of the houses, and

assumption of responsibility for roads and utilities by the

parish and private utility companies usually terminates the

105

involvement of the developer in the project. However, the

regulatory process continues in effect during all stages of

occupancy including the generation and disposal of waste

materials.

Special problems are encountered in a community developed

on a former wetland with regard to waste disposal. Waste

water collected as street runoff during periods of heavy

rainfall must be pumped from the numerous collection

canals into a larger body of water which is usually at a

higher elevation. This falls under the current jurisdiction

of Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act

(1972). Treatment of this waste water may be required before

it is pumped. If not treated,receiving water bodies are

likely to be highly polluted by this effluent.

Because of the extremely poor soils of former wetlands

with the accompanying high water table, use of septic tanks

for sewage disposal is not allowed in most urban develop-

ments. The soils cannot perform an adequate job of filter-

ing sewage effluent, and bacterial contamination of ground

water is the inevitable result. Even in low density develop-

ments where septic tanks are marginally allowable, there is

a constant problem of system back-ups and actual floating to

the surface of waste materials during periods when the water

table is particularly high. A sanitary sewerage system with

primary and possibly secondary treatment of effluent is

usually necessary with any type of urban development in former

106

wetlands. Problems still occur as the land subsides and pipe

connections to individual houses crack and leak. The public

cost for maintaining an extensive sewerage system is also

high (Stocks, 1974).

Solid waste disposal poses another problem for communi-

ties built on former wetlands. Again the poor soils and high

water table make the use of sanitary landfills undesirable.

Unless greater expense is outlaid for sealing the landfill

site with an impermeable material such as clay, there is

always the danger that leachate will escape and contaminate

the groundwater (Figure 2.3) (Brunner and Keller, 1972: 19).

The most commonly used method of solid waste disposal in

coastal communities is incineration. This not only adds to

the public tax burden because it is an expensive disposal

method but also contributes to air pollution and resulting

health hazards.

Development Process for Non-Fast Lands

The development process in non-fast lands is greatly

limited by the constraints of flood hazard and standing

water. Therefore, development is minimal, being limited to

the construction of recreation-oriented camps and duck

blinds.

Permits are currently unnecessary from either the Corps

of Engineers or local government for erection of a duck blind

on non-fast land. Technically the Corps could require a

107

FIGURE 2.3

DESIGN AND OPERATION METHODS FOR A SANITARY LANDFILL

@PORTABLE FENCE TO
@CATCH SLOWING
PAPER
FINAL EARTH
COVER 12 FT.)

ORIGIN -INJ
G
R N COVER(O
OU.

COMPACTED
SOLID WASTE

In the area method of sanitary landfilling, a bulldozer spreads and compacts the waste an the
natural surface of the ground, and a scraper is used to haul the cover material at the end of the day's operations.

final
.................. ................

Vented got

Clay 6arrier
Coll

Clay 6arr;*r
Proposed final gr.d,
I - - - . . . . . . . . . . . . .I. . . . . . . . . . .

Vented gas

Call

Clay can be placed as a liner in an excavation or installed as a curtain wall to block underground gas flow.

Source: Brunner and Keller, 1972: 26,28.

108

permit for such construction, however this prerogative is not

currently exercised (R. Clement, 1976).

In the case of recreational camps, the local government

in conjunction with the Corps of Engineers may require

permits prior to construction. Local government definitely

maintains control over construction standards for all

habitable structures through the permit system. The Corps of

Engineers may require the granting of a permit for any signi-

ficant structure built on non-fast land under the terms of

Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act

(R. Clement, 1976).

For duck blinds and camps the stages of development

subsequen t to the building permit stage are illustrated

on Figure 2. 1. These include driving piles, building the

structure on raised pile supports, and disposal of wastes

following completion and use of the structure. The last step

creates perhaps the greatest problem in non-fast lands

because the commonly used system of septic tanks for waste

disposal is totally unsuitable. Percolation and detoxifi-

cation of waste effluent through the soil layers cannot take

place on lands where there is a high water table or standing

water. Instead pollutants are released untreated into the

surrounding waters creating a health hazard. New systems

for waste disposal should be developed and required for use

prior to the granting of any building permit in non-fast

lands.

109

REFERENCES

Brunner, Dirk R. and Daniel J. Keller (1972) Sanitary Land-
fill Design and Operation. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office.

Carroll, Allen (n.d.) Developer's Handbook. Hartford,
Connecticut: The Connecticut Department of Environ-
mental Protection.

Clement, Daniel W. (1976) District Conservationist, U.S. Soil
Conservation Service, Metairie, Louisiana, personal
interview, November 4.

Clement, Randolph (1976) Planner, City Planning Commission
of New Orleans, New Orleans, Louisiana, telephone
interview, November 15.

Commoner, B. (1971) The Closing Circle: Nature, Man, and
Technology. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.

Earle, Daniel W., Jr. (1975) Land Subsidence Problems and
Maintenance Costs to Homeowners in East New Orleans,
Louisiana. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Baton
Rouge, Louisiana: Louisiana State University.

Frazer, Tom (1976) "The Gas Mystery," The States-Item,
October 30.

(1976) "Gas Hazard: A Truck on a Lawn," The States-
Item, November 20.

(1976) "East Jefferson Map Shows Potential
Explosion Areas," The States-Item, November 23.

(1976) "Louisiana Gas Request Blasted in-Jefferson,"
The States-Item, December 10.

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (1975) Handbook:
Building in the Coastal Environment. Atlanta, Georgia:
Georgia Department of Natural Resources.

Kaiser Engineers and Burk and Associates, Inc. (1974)
Engineering: Pontchartrain New Town in Town; Supple-
mental Report. New Orleans, Louisiana: Kaiser Engineers.

Kusler, Jan A. and Thomas M. Lee (1972) Regulations for Flood
Plains, Planning Advisory Service Report No. 277.
Chicago, Illinois: American Society of Planning
Officials.

110

Larayette Regional Planning Commission (1973) Flood Prone
Area Regulations. Lafayette, Louisiana: Lafayette
Regional Planning Commission.

Mumphrey, Anthony J. et al. (1975) Louisiana Metropolitan
Wetlands: A Planning Perspective; a report to the
Louisiana State Planning Office. New Orleans, Louisiana:
Urban Studies Institute, University of New Orleans.

Save Our Wetlands, Inc. v. Rush et al. (1975) United States
District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, New
Orleans Division.

Stocks, Clare Hilliker (1974) Report on Water Quality in
Jefferson, Orleans, St. Bernard and St. Tammany Parishes,
unpublished paper prepared for the Implementation
Committee of the New Orleans Area Health Planning
Council, New Orleans, Louisiana. March 21.

Swindler, Roger D. (1976) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New
Orleans, Louisiana, personal interview, September 22.

Terrebonne Parish Police Jury (1975) Subdivision Regulations,
Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana. Houma, Louisiana:
Terrebonne Parish Police Jury.

U.S. Congress (1969) Public Law 91-190, National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office.

(1972) Public Law 92-500, Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Soil Conservation Service (1976) Gulf Coast Wetlands
Handbook. Alexandria, Louisiana: Soil Conservation
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Villavaso, Stephen D. (1975) Methods of Wetland Reclamation:
A Decision Framework; unpublished manuscript. New
Orleans, Louisiana: Urban Studies Institute, University
of New Orleans.

CHAPTER 3

RECOMMENDED URBAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES

INTRODUCTION

This chapter carries the problem identification method-

ology developed in the previous chapter one step further.

For those development practices deemed to be non or inade-

quately regulated, guidelines are recommended. The discussion

is divided into two major categories. First, proposed state-

wide policy guidelines are outlined along with a discussion

of examples of coastal zone regulatory schemes from other

states. The second section details proposed parish-wide

ordinance amendments and other restrictive measures which

apply to specific stages in the development process.

STATEWIDE POLICY GUIDELINES

The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 in Section 306

suggests any one or a combination of three different tech-

niques for control of land and water uses within the coastal

zone. They are as follows:

(A) State establishment of criteria and
standards for local implementation,
subject to state administrative review
and enforcement of compliance;

(B) Direct state land and water use
planning and regulation;

112

plans, projects, or land and water
use regulations, including excep-
tions and variances thereto,
proposed by any state or local
authority or private developer,
with power to approve or disap-
prove after public notice and
an opportunity for hearings.

Under (A), local implementation of standards and cri-

teria as set forth by the state is achieved by the adoption

of suitable local zoning ordinances or regulations. Enforce-

ment by both state and local governments would be on a contin-

uing basis and determined by local conditions. Administra-

tive review at the state level of local regulations would

provide consistency with the state criteria and standards

but the state would not review the merits of specific cases.

If the local government fails to adopt the necessary ordin-

ances and regulations or fails to enforce existing statutes,

then the state would have the authority to assume regulatory

control (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA), 1975: 11-10). The State of Washington uses this

technique.

Under subsection (B), the state would have all control

and be responsible for land and water use planning and

regulation. The traditional role of local control would be

abolished and the state would assume all decision-making

responsibilities. Maine is an example of a state which

utilizes this particular technique (NOAA, 1975: 11-10).

The third technique used by Florida, subsection (C),

would allow the local level of government to adopt its own

113

zoning ordinances or regulations without the restrictions of

state criteria and standards. State control would intervene

when certain predetermined circumstances come under considera-

tion (NOAA, 1975: 11-10). The primary difference between the

first and third techniques is that the first one sets up

criteria to establish ordinances and regulations, while the

third allows existing regulations and ordinances to remain but

reviews special cases.

To point out a general inclination of other coastal

states towards one of the regulatory techniques, Table 3.1

shows those states which have enacted some specific coastal

zone legislation (not CZM Program) as of May 1975. Table 3.2

indicates the technique which each state is considering

using to implement its coastal zone management program.

Control Techniques Used by Other States

The state of Washington has enacted its Shoreline

Management Act of 1971 which utilizes the first technique.

State and local units work together to compose a final set

of guidelines. Planning and regulation of the state's

shorelines is essentially done by the.local levels of

government (Berger, 1975: 23).

A summary of Washington's progran involves the following

steps (Berger, 1975: 24):

1. State Department of Ecology issues proposed
guidelines;

2. Local governments comment and negotiate with
the Department of Ecology;

114

TABLE 3.1

LAND/WATER USE CONTROL TECHNIQUES NOW

BEING EMPLOYED BY COASTAL STATES

STATE
STATE CRITERIA/ STATE ADMINISTRATIVE
LOCAL REGULATION REGULATION REVIEW
STATE (A) (B) (C)

Alabama X
Alaska X
California X
Connecticut X
Delaware X
Florida
Georgia X
Hawaii
Illinois
Indiana
Louisiana
Maine X
Maryland X
Massachusetts X
Michigan X
Minnesota X
Mississippi X
New Hampshire X
New Jersey X
New York X
North Carolina X X
Ohio
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island X
South Carolina
Texas
Virginia X
Washington X
Wisconsin X
American Samoa
Guam
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands X

Source: Berger, 1975: 20.

115

TABLE 3.2

LAND/WATER USE CONTROL TECHNIQUES

UNDER CONSIDERATION

STATE
STATE CRITERIA/ STATE ADMINISTRATIVE
LOCAL REGULATION REGULATION REVIEW
STATE (A) (B) (C)

Alabama X
Alaska
California X X
Connecticut X
Delaware X
Florida X X X
Georgia
Hawaii
Illinois X X
Indiana X
Louisiana X
Maine X
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan X X
Minnesota X
Mississippi
New Hampshire X
New Jersey X
New York
North Carolina X
Ohio X X
Oregon X
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island X
South Carolina X X
Texas X X
Virginia
Washington X
Wisconsin

Source: Berger, 1975: 22.

116

3. Public hearings;

4. Final guidelines;

5. Comprehensive inventory of shorelines by
local governments;

6. Development of master programs by local
governments based on state guidelines;

7. Public hearings;

8. Approval/revision of local master
programs by the Department of Ecology;

9. State plan from combined individual
master plans; and

10. Local administration of a permit program
based on the master plans by local
governments.

The State of Florida's Environmental Land Water Manage-

ment Act uses the third technique of administrative review

for consistency with the state management program. Basically,

it strives to determine the type and degree of use that

special areas of the coastal zone can withstand without

further deterioration of their basic resources. It does so by

dividing the coastal zone into three major categories:

Preservation, Conservation, and Development (FloridaCoastal

Coordinating Council, 1973: 2).

The Preservation category specifies no further modifi-

cation to those areas which fall under its classification.

These areas have overriding ecological, hydrological,

physiographic, historLeal, or socio-economic importance to

the public-at-large. The Conservation category allows for

117

some controlled modification, while the Development category

places few controlling restrictions on potential developers

(Florida Coastal Coordinating Council, 1973: 2).

Table 3.3 provides a summary and comparison of the

three controlling techniques used by Washington, Florida, and

Maine.

Suggested Control Technique for Louisiana

The primary concern of the people of Louisiana towards

the establishment of a coastal zone management program is

who will actually have control -- federal, state, or local

authorities -- of the decision-making process once the

program is in effect. While they are somewhat divided about

givi ng responsibility to local or state levels, there is a

very strong concensus that the federal government should

play a minor role in the regulatory process (Lindsey et al. ,
1976: 1).1

In a continuation of this theme for reduced federal

control in the coastal zone, it is suggested that the state

of Louisiana adopt a controlling technique similar to the

first type described in this chapter -- "State establishment

of criteria and standards for local implementation, subject

to state administrative review of local regulations and

state enforcement of compliance". This is recommended

lEnvironmentalists, skeptical of state and local resolves
to manage the coastal zone wisely, prefer the alternative
(if existing and expanded federal control.

118

TABLE 3.3

SUMMARY OF STATE PROGRAMS

WASHINGTON MAINE FLORIDA

WHO State guide- State Local regulation
lines; local regulation (or state when
regulation appropriate)

WHAT 1. Ocean shore- All develop- All developments
lines of state; ments occu- of regional
2. Other shore- pying 20 or impact
lines of state- more acres
wide signifi-
cance

HOW Guidelines; Permit Administrative
establishment system; review of all
of master appeals to plans, projects,
programs; Supreme and regulations;
permit systems; Court of appeals through
default clause; state state review
appeals to process
state

ENFORCE- By Attorney By Attorney By state or local
MENT General with General with level with
civil and no penalties injunctive relief;
criminal no other penalties
penalties

Source: Berger, 1975: 28.

119

because local control is maintained as traditional in

Louisiana and the state role is to establish criteria and

enforce regulations. State criteria would ensure uniformity

over parishes and state enforcement would allow economies of

scale to be gained. Also, the federal role would be greatly

diminished in line with the desires of Louisiana citizens.

The states of Washington and Oregon utilize this particular

technique. It reduces federal control by assuming many of

the responsibilities such as the permit program and enforce-

ment of air and water quality standards which were

previously held by federal agencies.

Section 303 of the Coastal Zone Management Act in part

requires:

(c) for all Federal agencies engaged in
programs affecting the coastal zone to
cooperate and participate with state
and local governments and regional
agencies in effectuating the purposes
of this title, and (d) to encourage
the participation of the public, of
Federal, state, and local governments
and of regional agencies in the develop-
ment of coastal zone management programs

and Section 307 states:

(e) Nothing in this title shall be construed
(1) to diminish either Federal or state
jurisdiction, responsibility, or
rights in the field of planning,
development, or control of water
resources, submerged lands, or
navigable waters ....

There is, however, an indication that the State of

Washington's program broadly interprets these guidelines since

It provides that "Federal agencies issuing licenses or permits

120

for any activity affecting the coastal zone are generally

constrained from doing so until the state certifies that the

proposed activity is in fact consistent with its management

program" and the "Federal agencies are in most cases

restricted from assisting proposals affecting the coastal

zone unless they are consistent with the coastal management

program" (Office of Coastal Zone Management, 1976: 98). A

lack of Federal control can be seen in Figure 3.1, which

shows Washington's Shoreline Permit Procedure and its empha-

sis upon local regulation (Office of Coastal Zone Management,

1976: 23).

Also, Oregon's Draft Coastal Zone Management Program

has attempted to curtail Federal control by requiring that

federal agency licenses and permits be certified by the

state's lead agency in the program, The Land Conservation

and Development Commission. The following is a list of

federal agencies and their respective licenses and permits

which would have been designated by Oregon to have a signi-

ficant effect on its coastal zone (Oregon Land Conservation

and Development Commission, 1976: 90-91):

Environmental Protection Agency

1. Permits and licenses required under Sections
402 and 405 of the Federal Water Pollution

Control Act of 1972 and amendments.
2. Permits and applications for reclassification
of land areas under regulations for the preven-
tion of significant deterioration (PSD) of air
quality, unless EPA has delegated all such PSD
review authority to the State of Oregon.

121

FIGURE 3.1

STATE OF WASHINGTON

SHORELINE PERMIT PROCEDURE

APPLICANT SUBMITS
TIME SCHEDULE APPLICATION TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT

1 0

APPLICANT PUBLISHES
17 DAYS NOTICE IN LOCAL NEWSPAPER TWICE

COMMENTS BY
INTERESTED CITIZENS

37 DAYS LOCAL GOVERNMENT AC I lu-N

PERMIT GRANTED, PERMIT DENIED
DOE & STATE ATTY. GEN.
NOTIFIED

APPLICANT APPLICANT
PERMIT REVISES PLANS -
PERMIT RECEIVED APPEALS
APPEALED BY
BY DOE AGGRIEVED
CITIZENS APPEAL
CERTIFIED
PERMIT NOT PERMIT BY DOE/AG
APPEALED APPEALED
APPEAL
BY DOE BY D OE CERTIFIrD
BY DOEAG

NO FURTHER
APPEALS
182DAYS HEARINGS BOARD ACTION

CONSTRUCTION
START

UPHELD PERMIT REPEALED

NO FURTHER APPEALS APPLICANT APPLICANT
APPEALS i APPEALS REVISES PLANS
SUPERIOR COURT ACTION
START
CONSTRUCTION
@A
L
IFI
0E irADG

Source: Office of Coastal Zone Management, 1976: 23.

122

Department of Defense - U.S. Army'Corps of Engineers
1. Permits and licenses required under Sections

10 and 11 of the River and Harbor Act of 1899.
2. Permits and licenses required under Section 103
of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries
Act of 1972.
3. Permits and licenses required under Section 404
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of

1972 and amendments.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Permits and licenses required for siting and
operation of nuclear power plants.

Department of Interior - Bureau of Land Management

Permits and licenses required for off-shore
drilling and mining on public lands.

Department of Transportation - U.S. Coast Guard

Permits for construction of bridges under
33 U.S.C. 401, 491-507, and 525-534.

Department of Transportation - Federal Aviation Administration

Permits for operation of airports.

Federal Power Commission

1. Permits and licenses required for power
plant siting and transmission lines.
2. Permits and licenses required for interstate
pipelines.
3. Licenses for construction and operation of
facilities needed to import or export
natural gas.

Since Washington's program has been approved by NOAA for

compliance with the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972,

123

and yet provides for the greatly diminished federal role,

it seems likely that Louisiana could achieve a similar status

by adopting the recommended technique of land/water use

control.

LOCAL URBAN DEVELOPMENT REGULATORY GUIDELINES

In keeping with the expressed desires among Louisiana

citizens of emphasizing local government control of coastal

zone issues, the following discussion suggests various local

regulatory measures which could be adopted. These suggestions

or guidelines are organized around the major problem areas

encountered in urban development of wetlands with specific

references to the stages of development where they should be

applied (Figure 2.1). In addition, the regulatory mechanisms

available for incorporating and implementing these guidelines

are presented.

It is recognized that the adoption of these local

regulations would increase lot and house costs to consumers.

However, since these increased costs are spread out over the

life of the mortgage, their impact on the consumer would be

mitigated. The homeowner would have fewer subsidence, flood-

ing and pollution related problems with less annual mainten-

ance work involved. This would tend to balance the increased

mortgage payments.

124

Hierarchy of Local Land Use Control Ordinances

As a preparatory step in the creation of coastal zone

management guidelines, each parish should adopt and implement

� comprehensive zoning ordinance, subdivision regulations and

� building code. (See Chapter 1.) Each of these three

documents must be authorized and duly passed by the local

governing body (police jury). These three ordinances each

have a separate role to perform in the total regulatory

scheme.

The comprehensive zoning ordinance is the most all-

encompassing local land use control. It serves as a govern-

mental tool for controlling the use of land in such a way as

to make it compatible with contiguous land uses. Thus

orderly growth is maintained and private property values are

preserved. In the case of wetlands, it is the zoning which

generally determines whether or not development will be

allowed in a sensitive area.

Subdivision regulations area second level of land use

control generally governing the partitioning of land into

lots for eventual sale. These controls come into effect

once the decision to build In an area has been made though

the zoning ordinance. Subdivision regulations normally

include requirements as to maximum development densities,

lot sizes and configurations, road design and construction

standards, minimum drainage requirements, etc. They may also

include minimum floor elevations for structures. These

regulations are imposed to insure orderly community growth.

125

Building codes mark the third layer of local land

ordinances and apply at a more detailed level than either

the zoning ordinance or subdivision regulations. Building

codes regulate all aspects of actual on-site construction

including lot grade, piling and foundation preparation,

utility installation and structural specifications. Product

design and performance standards also work at the same level

as the building code. This type of ordinance is most useful

for insuring structural safety, uniformity and stability

within the community.

Regulatory Guidelines Addressing

Specific Problem Areas

The three levels of land use regulatory ordinances

should consider the problem areas of flooding, subsidence and

pollution associated with urban development in the wetlands.

Each of these problems is discussed with regard to the types

of development practices which should be regulated.

Flood Protection Guidelines

Permitted Uses in Flood Prone Areas (Imperial Calcasieu

Regional Planning and Development Commission, 1974: 48-51)

- Agriculture (all forms)

- Industrial and commercial (e.g. loading and parking
areas)

- Public uses of an essentially open space nature not
requiring a substantial amount of permanent
structures (e.g. airport landing strips,
maintenance yards)

126

- Private recreational uses of an essentially open space
nature not requiring large, permanent structures
or extensive storage of floatable or potentially

hazardous materials

- Uses associated with residences such as lawns, gardens,
parking and play areas, but not including permanent
habitations

Permitted Uses Under Special Exceptions

Uses which involve low damageable values, temporary use;

or safely, easily, and quickly evacuated uses which will not

increase flood heights or velocities (e.g. circuses, carnivals,

drive-in theaters, car lots, extractive operations, marinas,

storage yards for equipment, kennels and stables).

Permitted Uses Under General Exceptions

All uses which meet the following provisions:

- Structures elevated to a minimum specified height
above the 100 year flood level

- Structures constructed to minimize flood damage
potential -- see below.

1. Construction practices minimizing flood damage (N-Y
Associates, Inc., 1973: 3-14 and Lafayette Regional
Planning Commission,1973: 14-15).

- Structures anchored to resist flotation and lateral
movement, or additional mass or weight incorpora-
ted into structure (Stage 14).

- Watertight doors, bulkheads, and shutters installed
(Stage 15).

- Walls reinforced to resist damage due to water
pressures or floating debris,or first floor
washout walls installed (Stage 15).

127

- Paints, membranes or mortars used to reduce seepage
of water through walls (Stage 15).

- Pumps installed to lower water levels in structures
(Stage 15).

- Water supply and waste treatment systems constructed
to prevent the entrance of flood waters, flammable
liquids or other toxic materials that could be
hazardous to public health, safety and welfare.
Construction of these systems should be in a manner

which will assure that the facilities are situated
at protected elevations or are adequately flood-
proofed to prevent flotation or damage of storage
containers releasing toxic materials into flood
waters (Stage 17).

- All electric lines, circuits, equipment and appliances
installed where they will not be in danger of
flooding by the 100-year storm (Stage 15).

- Valves installed in sewerage and drainage systems to
prevent the reverse flow of liquids and other
materials into buildings (Stage 15).

2. Suggested practices for particular site improvements
(Lafayette Regional Planning Commission, 1973: 12).

A. Building site
- Building sites or slabs elevated to a specified
elevation (Stage 11 or 14).

- Fill area extended beyond the limits of the
intended structure (15 feet or more). If the
subdivision is not to be sewered, this fill
extension must include areas for on-sitewaste
disposal (Stage 11).

- Commercial or industrial land uses allowed at lower

elevations (see above) with the use of such pro-
tective measures as flood-proofing (Stage 15).

128

B. Drainage system

- Drainage structures designed to minimize the water
runoff onto other lands located adjacent to the
proposed development (Stage 9).

- Surface wate r flow controlled in a manner which
will protect persons and property from damage
(Stages 9 and 10).

- Ample drainage provided along streets and away from
sewerage disposal facilities and buildings.
Drainage openings large enough to remove flood
waters without substantially increasing flood
heights (Stages 9 and 10).

- Underground system provided to accommodate frequent
floods along with a secondary surface drainage
system to accommodate larger, less frequent
floods. These systems should comply with
requirements of the city and/or parish
engineer (Stage 9).

- Drainage plans of development made consistent with
local and regional drainage plans (Stage 7).

C. Sewerage system (Diversified Economic and Planning
Associates, Inc., 1973: 19-20).

- Installation of sewage disposal facilities requiring
soil absorption systems prohibited where such
systems will not function due to high ground
water, flooding, or unsuitable soil character-
istics (Stage 7).

- Subdivider must provide, specifically in writing
both before and at the time of closing the sales
transaction, a statement of the fact that soil
absorption fields are prohibited in designated
areas (Stages 3 and 7).

129

Subdivider required to follow prescribed methods
for waste disposal such as connecting with a
nearby sanitary sewer system where practical
(Stage 7).

D. Streets (D, E, and F from N-Y Associates, Inc., 1973:
3-11 to 3-13).

- Finished elevations of all streets must conform to
specified minimum elevation requirements
(Stage 10).

- Drainage openings must be sufficient to insure
drainage at all points along streets (Stage 10).

E. Water system

- All public and private water systems shall be flood-
proofed to above the flood protected elevation
(Stage 9).

- If there is an existing public water system on or
near the subdivision, the subdivider may be
required to connect to this system (Stage 9).

F. Gas system

All public and private natural gas systems shall
be flood-proofed to above the flood protected
elevation (Stage 9).

Subsidence Protection Guidelines (Florida Coastal Coordina-

ting Council, 1973: 14-15).

Where subsidence of structures or the land surrounding
the structures is anticipated, the degree of sub-
sidence expected (as indicated on parish-wide Soil
Subsidence Potential Maps prepared for the Louisiana
State Planning Office, 1976) should be included in
writing as a consumer warning to any prospective land
or structure purchaser both before and specifically at
the time of closing the transaction (Stages 3 and 12).

130

- Residential subdivisions should not be permitted in
areas where local government will inherit unnecessary
subsidence maintenance problems from the developer
(Stages 7 and 12).

- Roads, sidewalks, water and sewer lines, and storm
drainage systems within residential subdivisions
permitted on former wetlands must meet rigid sub-
sidence abatement construction standards before
projects are accepted for maintenance by local
government (Stage 7).

- Subdivision regulations should be performance-oriented
rather than means-oriented if possible to allow for
flexibility in the techniques used to achieve
desired subsidence abatement goals of local govern-
ment (Stage 7).

Construction Practices Minimizing Subsidence Damage

- Natural gas feeder lines to residences should be
designed and installed to minimize the possibility
of breaks. All "curb cock" usage (Chapter 2) should
be eliminated (Stage 9) (Frazer, The States-Item,
November 23, 1976).

- Homeowners should be made aware of the danger of
ruptured natural gas and other utility lines caused
by heavy trucks rolling over lawns when delivering
additional landscape fill material (Chapter 2) and
should discourage this practice (after construction)
(Frazer, The States-Item, November 20, 1976).

- Utility feeder lines should be adequately supported
at the point where they enter the house as well as
along the entire distance from the main line (Stagres
9 and 14).

131

Utility feeder line connections should be flexible at
the point of entrance to the residence to allow for
some subsidence-caused movement without breakage
(Stage 14).

-Foundation slabs should be ventilated to reduce the
explosion potential from natural gas leaks (Chapter 2)
or from the build-up of gases released by decom-
posing organic material under house.

- Pilings should provide adequate support for structure
(Stage 13).

- Pilings should be properly tied in with the slab
foundation (Stage 14).

- Walkways and driveways connecting with the house should
have adequate support to minimize their sinking
away from the house foundation (Stage 16).

- Initial drainage of a wetland prior to development
should be as deep as will ever be desired to
eliminate the necessity for post-development lower-
ing of the water table causing further oxidation of
organic materials, drying of clays, and subsequent
subsidence (Chapter 2). After oxidation and land
subsidence have occurred for a period long enough to
allow most of the subsidence to take place (follow-
ing initial drainage), and the land has been filled
to the required elevation, then the water table
should be maintained at as high a level as feasible
without creating the danger of flash flooding.
Constrtiction may then proceed (Stage 4) (D. Clement,
1976).
This means that in anticipation of future
development with Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) or
other growth, certain areas should be drained and set
aside for some time period to allow a large percentage
of land subsidence to take place before development

occurs.

132

- New reclamation methods should be developed for wetlands
to reduce subsidence damage to residential property
(Chapter 2) (Stage 6).

Pollution Protection Guidelines (Florida Coastal Coordinating

Council, 1973: 15).

- Storm water systems carrying street runoff and waste
water systems carrying untreated sewage should be
separate with treatment facilities for both (Stages
9 and 17).

- Catchment basins should be constructed at storm sewer
outfalls to prevent silt and other pollutants from
entering water bodies (Stage 9).

- Septic tanks should not be allowed in residential
subdivisions built on soils having low permeability
(i.e. clay) because the sewage effluent cannot
adequately percolate down through the soil layers
for aeration and treatment. Conditions of high
water table or high organic matter soil content also
make septic tanks infeasible because of the ineffec-
tive filtering of effluent in both cases (Stages 7
and 12).

- Permanent use of septic tanks should be confined to
rural areas. For urban subdivisions and high
density use areas, septic tanks should not be
considered as a permanent answer to sewage disposal,
regardless of soil conditions, because the capacity
of the land to handle the sewage effluent will be
exceeded (Stage 7).

- Septic tank drainfields should be located at distances
far enough away from water bodies to preclude drain-
field seepage from entering the water bodies
(Stage 12).

133

- Fishing camps and other developments in non-fast lands
should be required to tie into adequate sewerage
systems. Septic tanks in non-fast lands should be
prohibited because of high water table (Stage 12).

- Sanitary landfill operations should be planned for by
local government and monitored to prevent contamina-
tion of groundwater and nearby water bodies with
inadequately filtered leachate (Chapter 2) (Stage 17).

- Solid waste management programs should be coordinated
between municipalities, parishes and multi-parish
planning districts and should be in accordance with
a well thought out long term plan (Stage 17).

Conclusions

Zoning ordinances, subdivision regulations and building

codes should be developed as legal controls for all coastal

parishes to address the problem areas identified in wetlands

development. The concerns previously discussed and guidelines

suggested should be considered when drafting these three

ordinance levels. The topics contained in each of these

guideline sections may be incorporated, as appropriate,

directly in the zoning ordinance, subdivision regulations and

building code. In any case, coordination among the various

pieces of legislation is necessary.

134

REFERENCES

Berger, Ann H. (1975) Method of Control of Land and Water
Uses In the Coastal Zone. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office.

Clement, Daniel W. (1976) District Conservationist, U.S. Soil
Conservation Service, Metairie, Louisiana, personal
interview, November 4.

Diversified Economic and Planning Associates, Inc. (1973)
Modifications of Existing Work Elements, Calcasieu -
Parish, Louisiana; a report prepared for the Calcasieu
Regional Planning Commission. New Orleans, Louisiana.

Florida Coastal Coordinating Council, Department of Natural
Resources (1973) Recommendations for Development Activi-
ties in Florida's Coastal Zone. Tallahassee, Florida:
Florida Department of Natural Resources.

Frazer, Tom (1976) "Gas Hazard: A Truck on a Lawn," The
States-Item, November 20.

(1976) "East Jefferson Map Shows Potential
Explosion Areas," The States-Item, November 23.

Imperial Calcasieu Regional Planning and Development Commission
(1974) Pre-Disaster Plan, Volume II. Lake Charles,
Louisiana: Imperial Calcasieu Regional Planning and
Development Commission.

Lafayette Regional Planning Commission (1973) Flood Prone
Area Regulations. Lafayette, Louisiana: Lafayette
Regional Planning Commission.

Lindsey, Joel L., Karen W. Patterson, and Alvin L. Bertrand
(1976).Citizen Perception of Coastal Area Planning and
Development: A Study of the Attitudes and Knowledge of
Louisianians. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Center for
Wetland Resources, Louisiana State University.

Louisiana State Planning Office (1976) Soil Subsidence
Potential Maps; prepared by Burk and Associates, Inc.
New Orleans, Louisiana.

N-Y Associates, Inc. (1973) Initial Housing Study, Review of
Codes, Subdivision Regulations,. Zoning Ordinance for St.
Charles Parish, Louisiana; reports prepared for the
St. Charles Parish Planning Commission and Police Jury.
Metairie, Louisiana: N-Y Associates, Inc.

135

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Depart-
ment of Commerce (1975) "Coastal Zone Management
Program Administrative Grants," Federal Register Vol.
40, No. 6, Part I. January 9. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office.

Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce
(1976) State of Washington Coastal Zone Management
Program : Final Environmental Impact Statement. Washing-
ton, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission (1976)
Oregon Coastal Zone Management Progra , Draft. Salem,
Oregon: Oregon Land Conservation and Development
Commission.

U.S. Congress (1972) Public Law 92-583. "Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972." Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office.

136

CHAPTER 4

PROCESS FOII DEVELOPING FUTUREI REGULATIONS

Some practices associated with urban development in

wetlands that should be regulated may have been omitted from

the problem-recognition methodology and guidelines previously

developed in Chapters 2 and 3. Also the regulation of

practices along the lines suggested in Chapter 3 may result

in a synergistically negative effect. As an example of

synergism, it was suggested to the Jefferson Parish Council

by the local gas company that an ordinance be adopted which

would prevent heavy trucks and equipment from rolling over

residential lawns with underground natural gas lines. While

such an ordinance might help to abate the natural gas

explosion problem, it might essentially relieve the gas

company of any liability in the event of an explosion,and

place the burden of proof upon the homeowner (Frazer, The

States-Item, December 10, 1976). As a consequence, the

wisdom of enacting such an ordinance is questionable. There-

fore new and revised guidelines may have to be instituted

from time to time.

Developers of tracts in former wetlands cannot be

expected to expose to local government and the public-at-

large problems that they encounter which would be appropri-

ate for regulation. This might be financially detrimental

to their interests. Therefore, local authorities should be

constantly vigilant in spotting new problems which may

137

develop as well as in noting any which may arise as a result

of regulation of wetlands development.

If a new problem occurs, the development stage at which

it occurs should be examined to determine why the problem

exists. Also other stages should be examined to locate

possible cause-and-effect relationships with the new problem.

Related existing guidelines should be examined for

possible modification to handle this new problem. If none of

the available guidelines are appropriate, then new ones

specifically dealing with the problem in question have to be

developed. Such guidelines could be incorporated into local

zoning ordinances, subdivision regulations, or building codes.

Under certain circumstances, a new problem may be

encountered which would be so rare that the subsequent

development of guidelines to handle it would not be appropri-

ate. In such an instance, the local coastal zone commission

or other appropriate parish body may be required to mediate

such situations on a case by case basis.

In writing new regulations or mediating one-time situa-

tions, appropriate qualitative and quantitative data have to

be collected. These include pollution, flood, and subsidence

information. Knowing the goals of local coastal zone manage-

ment and having gathered the necessary information, then

alternative guidelines and practices for regulating the

situation can be generated. Obviously, the alternative best

meeting the goals should be the one selected. Figure 4.1

shows a planning process which could be utilized to develop

now local guidelines and regulations.

138

FIGURE 4.1

PLANNING PROCESS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW REGULATIONS

LOCAL CZM -COMPARE NEW
GOALS WITH
1POSSIBLE REVISION STATE CZM
OF GOALS GOALS

DATA GATHER-
ING AND
ANALYS S

SUGGESTED
ACTIONS

_J000,

ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE
2 3

COST-BENEFIT
ISUBSEQUENT ANALYSIS
r
ONITORING
ND
OSSIBLE
VDIFICATION
JOF Ne
IREGULATORY
1C ONTROLS REVISED
GUIDELINES

L END OF IMMEDIATE TIME PERIOD
Source: The Authors.

139

In some instances, it is conceivable that new problems

may be of such scope and magnitude that local officials may

be forced to re-evaluate the goals of their respective coastal

zone management programs. Bobo, Mumphrey, and VanLandingham

(1976: 42 and Mumphrey et al., 1975: 217-22"1)present a goals

program model which can be utilized by local officials to

guide them in either the formulation or evaluation of their

programs. The model attempts to formalize a set of

attributes which goals programs should possess and which

can be used to evaluate these programs.

When officials are faced with the decision of choosing

the best alternative in the process of developing new goals

and guidelines, a particularly helpful tool is benefit-cost

analysis. Mumphrey et al., (1975: 190-217) discuss

extensively the use of cost-benefit analysis in decision

making. They present various types of models and recommend

one which includes goals; distributional effects; and monetary,

nonmonetary, and intangible costs and benefits.

Regulations controlling coastal wetlands development for

urban uses in general have to be constantly monitored*and

modified to insure achievement of the goals of local coastal

zone management. Data resulting from monitoring aids in

exposing the significant problem areas which might require

further regulation in order to meet local goals. As an

example, monitoring systems could be installed to indicate

total land subsidence over a specified time period resulting

from a reclamation practice in a developed tract of former

140

wetland. Monitoring could also be used to gather information

related to pollution and flood-hazard abatement measures.

Through analysis of the collected data, already implemented

regulatory controls could be upgraded to better deal with

problem areas of urban development in the wetlands.

In summary, the process for developing new guidelines

as shown in Figure 4.1 requires a) the articulation of goals

by local CZM governing bodies; b) comparison of the new

local goals with those of the state CZM regulatory body

(revision of local goals may be necessary); c) data

gathering and analysis (derived from carefully monitoring

problem areas); d) suggestions for alternative actions;

e) cost-benefit analysis to pick the best of these

alternative actions; f) development of revised regulatory

guidelines to meet the desired goals; and g) subsequent

monitoring and possible modification of regulatory controls

to meet new and changing problems.

141

REFERENCES

Bobo, James R., Anthony J. Mumphrey, Jr. and H. Wade
VanLandingham (1976) "Metropolitan Goals Programs --
A Model and Evaluation of the Dallas and New Orleans
Programs," Town Planning Review, Vol. 47, No. I,
January.

Frazer, Tom (1976) "Louisiana Gas Request Blasted in Jefferson,"
The States-Item, December 10.

142

! @

-i
@ 111011111IM17111
3 6668 14109 5333