First published on: 24 November 2010

Transcription

1 This article was downloaded by: [Smythe, Tiffany] On: 24 November 2010 Access details: Access Details: [subscription number ] Publisher Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: Registered office: Mortimer House, Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Coastal Management Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: Can Coastal Management Programs Protect and Promote Water- Dependent Uses? Tiffany C. Smythe a a Department of Marine Affairs, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, Rhode Island, USA First published on: 24 November 2010 To cite this Article Smythe, Tiffany C.(2010) 'Can Coastal Management Programs Protect and Promote Water-Dependent Uses?', Coastal Management, 38: 6, , First published on: 24 November 2010 (ifirst) To link to this Article: DOI: / URL: PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

2 Coastal Management, 38: , 2010 Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: print / online DOI: / Can Coastal Management Programs Protect and Promote Water-Dependent Uses? TIFFANY C. SMYTHE Department of Marine Affairs, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, Rhode Island, USA Introduction Anecdotal evidence indicates that commercial and recreational water-dependent uses have been under development pressure in recent years, and in some cases have been converted to other uses. The conversion of water-dependent uses, which range from commercial shipyards to recreational marinas, may have many public costs, including the loss of access to public trust waters, the loss of jobs and associated economic activity, and the loss of traditional working waterfronts. This two-part study investigated the role of five coastal management programs in the northeastern United States in managing, monitoring, and protecting water-dependent uses. First, coastal managers in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York and New Jersey were interviewed to assess the conversion problem. Second, in collaboration with New York City-based Regional Plan Association, follow-up interviews were conducted with coastal managers and local planners in Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey to gain greater insight into the role of coastal management programs and local governments in managing and promoting water-dependent uses. This article presents select findings from this study and discusses recommendations for improving the capacity of coastal management programs and local governments to manage water-dependent uses for the benefit of the public. Keywords coastal management, Coastal Zone Management Act, land use planning, waterfronts, water-dependent uses, working waterfronts Anecdotal evidence indicates that water-dependent uses in the northeastern United States have been under development pressure in recent years, and in some cases have been converted to other uses. These water-dependent uses, which range from large shipyards to small, family-owned marinas, provide a host of benefits to coastal communities, including water access to individuals and businesses and jobs for skilled marine trades professionals. A conversion of a water-dependent use may have many public costs, including the loss of access to public trust waters, the loss of jobs and associated economic activity, and the loss of traditional working waterfronts, which have been widely identified as having social, cultural, and economic value (Breen & Rigby, 1985; Walker & Arnn, 1998). Water- The author thanks Dr. Robert Thompson, who has been her academic advisor throughout all of this research. Part 2 of this research was supported in part by NSF IGERT grant DGE to the University of Rhode Island Coastal Institute and was hosted by Regional Plan Association. Address correspondence to Tiffany Smythe, Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Marine Affairs, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI 02881, USA. tcsmythe@my.uri.edu 665

3 666 T. C. Smythe dependent uses are, by definition, functionally dependent on their locations on the water s edge, and cannot be located elsewhere. Moreover, coastal-dependent uses are a priority under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, 16 U.S.C et. seq. (CZMA), and as such should be given priority by state coastal management programs. This two-part study is an investigation of the role of five northeastern state coastal management programs in managing, monitoring, and protecting water-dependent uses. First, the author interviewed coastal managers in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey with the goal of determining whether these coastal management programs identified the conversion of water-dependent uses to other uses as a management problem, and if so, how these programs were responding to this problem. Second, in collaboration with New York City based Regional Plan Association, the author conducted follow-up interviews with coastal managers and local planners 1 in Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey, with a particular focus on the greater New York City metropolitan area (Long Island, western Connecticut, and northern New Jersey), to gain greater insight into the role of coastal management programs and local governments in managing and promoting water-dependent uses. This article presents select findings from this study and discusses recommendations for improving the capacity of coastal management programs and local governments to manage water-dependent uses for the benefit of the public. Water-Dependent Uses A water-dependent use is, simply put, a land use whose function or purpose requires direct siting on, over, or adjacent to the water. Water-dependent uses are unique: by definition they must be located on waterfront land in order to exist. Remove an existing water-dependent use from the waterfront, and it must find another waterfront location or it will cease to exist. Examples include industrial, commercial, and recreational facilities ranging from large industrial-scale port facilities to small marinas and recreational docks (Walker & Arnn, 1998). This study focuses on water-dependent maritime uses in other words, those that support commercial shipping or recreational boating. While discussion of shipyards and marinas may conjure up images of boats and inwater facilities, all water-dependent uses, whether commercial or recreational in nature, require some type of in-water use as well as some type of upland use and appropriate adjacent land uses. For example, a cargo terminal will require in-water piers, bulkheaded wharves, and deep water access; upland space for discharging and short-term storage of cargo; and, via adjacent land, access to intermodal connections to transport the cargo. Similarly, a full-service recreational marina will require in-water piers or floating docks and appropriate water depth for its client vessels; upland space for boat storage and repair services; and, on adjacent land, parking and access to support services. Such facilities also require adjacent land uses that are compatible with their operations; for example, a parcel adjacent to a shipyard may not be appropriate for residential development, as the noise and lights associated with the yard s 24-hour operations may be considered undesirable to neighbors (Breen & Rigby, 1985).The fact that water-dependent uses require both in-water and upland facilities, as well as appropriate adjacent land uses, emphasizes both their uniqueness in siting requirements and their vulnerability to upland development. Eliminate the upland or adjacent uses that support the in-water facilities and it is unlikely to survive. This is one of the reasons that water-dependent uses are a management priority of both state coastal management programs and local governments (Walker & Arnn, 1998).

4 CM Programs and Water-Dependent Uses 667 Water-dependent uses also require priority consideration because they are of significant economic, social, and cultural value and confer a variety of public benefits to coastal communities (e.g., Colgan, 2004; Marine Law Institute, 1988a; Walker & Arnn, 1998). While it may be apparent that water-dependent uses like marinas, boatyards, and ports provide important services to their most visible users boaters, shippers, and fishermen it may be less apparent that these uses provide a broader array of benefits to coastal communities and regions. Commercial uses such as cargo terminals, shipyards, and maritime support services provide water access to water-dependent businesses like shipping companies. These businesses in turn provide not only jobs to skilled workers and support services to mariners, but also broader consumer access to goods ranging from fuel oil to cars to groceries. Recreational uses such as marinas and boatyards also provide water access to water-dependent businesses, jobs to skilled workers, and support services to boaters. Both commercial and recreational uses also generate broader economic activity. For example, the National Ocean Economics Program reports that in 2004, marinas in the states of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey together provided over $202 million in wages and contributed over $428 million to the GDP, while marine transportation services in those same states provided over $750 million in wages and contributed over $1.2 billion in GDP (National Ocean Economics Program, 2010). Water-dependent uses also provide individuals with access to public trust waters. Many recreational facilities such as marinas and piers provide formal public access, whereas many others are privately owned but publicly accessible, providing both physical and visual water access for tourists and visitors (Breen & Rigby, 1990; Marconi & Biego, 2004; Young, 1998). Finally, many water-dependent uses such as working ports and shipyards are widely considered to be of social and cultural value and represent an important connection to coastal communities maritime heritage (Breen & Rigby, 1985; Marine Law Institute, 1988b). Why the Loss of Water-Dependent Uses May Be a Policy Problem Although water-dependent uses confer a wide range of public benefits both to the host community and to the region, they are inherently a limited resource and, because of their unique siting requirements, must be located on an already limited amount of appropriate waterfront space. As a result, water-dependent uses are forced to compete for waterfront space with other non-water-dependent uses such as residential and commercial developments. Given the wide range of public benefits associated with water-dependent uses access to public trust waters; access to jobs, goods, and marine-related support services; and a connection to our maritime heritage the loss of water-dependent uses would represent a loss to society and therefore a potential policy problem. Yet anecdotal evidence suggests that over the past decade, water-dependent uses in a variety of coastal locations are under increasing pressure from this competition and in some cases have converted to other uses. Anecdotal evidence further suggests that the socalled conversion problem has elicited a variety of responses by policymakers, planners, and the general public. For example, in 2004, the Florida Senate studied the conversion of commercial and recreational water-dependent uses and the resultant loss of waterfront access (Florida Senate Committee on Community Affairs, 2004), and subsequently passed a Working Waterfronts Act (2005 Fla. Laws 157), which includes provisions to mitigate the loss of such uses. In 2006, North Carolina convened a Waterfront Access Study Committee to study the loss of waterfront access for fishermen, boaters, and others, with the goal of indentifying tools to preserve such facilities (North Carolina Sea Grant,

5 668 T. C. Smythe 2007). And in 2007, Maine Sea Grant published the results of a national survey to characterize coastal access issues, which documents the loss of commercial and recreational water-dependent facilities ranging from fishing piers to recreational boating infrastructure in a variety of other states including Maryland, Mississippi, and California (Maine Sea Grant, 2007). 2 While none of these studies and initiatives were able to quantify the loss of water-dependent uses in their respective states, 3 all amassed significant anecdotal data on the whole or partial conversion of commercial and recreational uses, and characterized the public costs in similar way a loss of water access for a variety of users; a loss of the economic benefits associated with such uses; and in many cases a loss of historic heritage and community identity (Maine Sea Grant, 2007). This confluence of evidence suggests that the loss of water-dependent uses is not limited to any one particular state or region and is considered problematic by a wide range of policymakers, planners, and private citizens. Managing Water-Dependent Uses under the Coastal Zone Management Act The role of state coastal management programs in managing water-dependent land uses is shaped by the federal Coastal Zone Management Act. The CZMA requires participating states to develop coastal programs that address a series of broad objectives including the protection of coastal resources, the management of coastal development to minimize impacts on coastal resources and communities, and public coastal access. It also specifies that the states provide for priority consideration of coastal-dependent uses, although the term is not explicitly defined (16 U.S.C. 1452). While the CZMA outlines these broad requirements, it allows participating states significant flexibility in how they address these coastal management goals. For example, states have a choice of three different institutional arrangements and regulatory structures through which to implement their coastal programs: direct permitting agencies, a network of multiple agencies, or local implementation (Beatley et al., 2002; Davis & Thompson, 2004). In addition, the CZMA does not include specific provisions for monitoring states progress in achieving these goals. Participating states must establish policies and program elements, but are not required to track the outcomes of these policies and programs through any sort of systematic monitoring or reporting system; (Beatley et al., 2002; Davis & Thompson, 2004; Hershman et al., 1999). The result is that coastal programs, and the ways in which they address management priorities such as water-dependent uses, vary significantly from state to state. While the CZMA is a federal program, it relies entirely on the states for implementation in part because the type of land use planning and management required was primarily within the traditional domain of state and local governments (Kalo et al., 2002, 192). Many of the CZMA provisions direct the states to exert more control over coastal land use than is customary. Most state coastal programs, in turn, rely on local governments, to varying degrees, to implement many state coastal program goals, because most states have delegated most land use authority to local governments through planning and zoning enabling acts (Platt, 2004). Hershman et al. (1999) note how local governments are often at the front lines of implementing state coastal policies through the use of land use powers. Beach (2002, 23) notes that this places a limitation on the reach of a coastal program: although some coastal zone programs include a link to land-use plans, in most cases that link is timid and has little real impact on local decisions. This suggests a tension in the implementation of coastal management: many state coastal programs have limited practical ability to control local decisions (Davis & Thompson, 2004) and rely on local governments to achieve state coastal management policy goals, yet local governments may not always share these goals.

6 CM Programs and Water-Dependent Uses 669 Burby and May (1998) describe this problem as a commitment conundrum in which local governments may be resistant to or simply disinterested in state environmental management goals. Study Objectives and Methods The goal of this two-part study was to examine the role of several state coastal management programs in managing, protecting, and promoting water-dependent uses. As the CZMA requires state coastal programs to give priority consideration to such uses, state coastal programs would be expected to have policies in place to achieve this goal, as well as some insight into the status of water-dependent uses in their respective states. Five northeastern states (Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey) were chosen with the goal of obtaining a regional perspective. All of these states have approved coastal management programs with varying institutional arrangements and means of addressing water-dependent uses, and all of these states have delegated local planning and zoning authority to local governments, such that local governments play an important role in managing water-dependent uses through local zoning and permitting decisions. This study was conducted in two phases. Part I was an initial inquiry into the five northeastern states and sought to answer two key research questions: (1) What is these coastal management programs assessment of the scope of the problem in which waterdependent land uses are being converted to other uses? and (2) How do these state coastal management programs monitor and manage these uses? To address these questions, the author conducted background research on the institutional arrangements and policies and regulations of these five coastal management programs as well as in-depth interviews with seven coastal managers from the five programs. Interview subjects were identified by contacting each coastal program and asking to speak with the persons who would be most familiar with water-dependent uses in the state; they included five upper-level managers with oversight responsibility and two regional coordinators who work directly with municipalities. 4 Interviews, conducted during 2005 and 2006, employed the semistructured interview method (Yin, 2003) and comprised a series of prompts and questions to address the two main research questions noted earlier, with a particular focus on recreational water-dependent uses. Interviews also included questions about objective or quantitative sources of information through which to assess the conversion problem, as well as particular cases of conversions. Part II of the study was conducted in collaboration with New York City based Regional Plan Association, and sought to follow up on findings from Part I by conducting in-depth research and case study analysis in three of the five states. Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey, with a particular focus on the greater New York City metropolitan area. In addition to conducting additional background research on these coastal programs and specific cases within these states, the author conducted 14 additional interviews with coastal managers and local planners. Interviews included a total of ten coastal managers from the three states coastal management programs (eight upper-level managers and two regional coordinators). In addition, the author conducted additional interviews with four local planners from municipal or regional government in New York City, Long Island, and Connecticut. 5 As with Part I, these interviews, conducted during , employed the semi-structured interview method and addressed the two main research questions noted earlier, although focused more broadly on the conversion of recreational as well as commercial waterdependent uses. These interviews also sought detailed input on specific cases, as well as

7 670 T. C. Smythe input on a third research question which emerged from Part I findings: How do state coastal management agencies work together with local governments to manage these uses? Part I Results and Discussion In Part I of this study, all coastal managers confirmed that there is, in general, a problem in which some water-dependent uses are wholly or partly converted to other, non-waterdependent uses. To illustrate this, coastal managers provided anecdotal evidence on the whole or partial conversion of recreational water-dependent uses to other uses, identifying 12 current or recent completed, proposed, or in-progress conversions in four of the five states (all but RI) for the time period Examples included Admiral Cove in Stonington, Connecticut, where a five-home subdivision with residential docks now occupies a site that once hosted a 60-slip marina (Battista, 2006). However, the most significant finding of these interviews was unexpected: coastal managers indicated that for a variety of reasons, their respective coastal programs were unable to provide more specific or detailed information about the status of water-dependent uses within their respective states, nor were they able to direct the author to a comprehensive source of such information. 6 The fact that coastal management programs were unable to provide comprehensive information about the status of water-dependent uses is, in itself, an important finding that provides insight into how coastal management programs work. This finding can be better understood by examining coastal managers explanations of how their coastal programs monitor and manage water-dependent uses. Coastal managers interviewed for this study indicated that the coastal management programs they represent were unable to comprehensively assess the status of water-dependent uses within their respective states because of two main reasons: the challenges of defining the so-called conversion problem; and the limited practical authority of these coastal management programs in managing waterfront land uses. First, interviews with coastal managers revealed that the conversion of water-dependent uses to other uses is not a simple or easily defined problem. This is both because of the nature of water-dependent uses themselves as well as the nature of the conversions identified by coastal managers. There are no universal definitions of marinas, boatyards, or even waterdependent uses, and as such, it may be difficult to define when such a facility has been converted to another use. Even though each of these five state coastal programs have definitions of water-dependent uses (all of which are different), their definitions may not capture all conversions. For example, as noted earlier, water-dependent uses comprise both in-water and upland uses; however, in New Jersey, the definition of water-dependent uses includes only boat storage for vessels greater than 24 feet (N.J. Administrative Code 7:7E- 1.8) meaning that a conversion of small boat storage space to another use may not be considered by the state to be a conversion. Moreover, state definitions of water-dependent uses may differ from municipal definitions of water-dependent uses which are applied in local planning and zoning decisions. These reasons may explain, in part, why none of the five states reviewed for this study maintain inventories or databases of commercial and recreational water-dependent uses. 7 Second, conversions themselves are not easily characterized. Most of the conversions identified by coastal managers through Part I were not, in fact, outright conversions of entire water-dependent uses to non-water-dependent uses. Rather, they were partial conversions cases in which in-water facilities remained or were modified, while the facility s upland property was converted to residential or mixed-use development. One coastal manager described this phenomenon as one in which businesses take over fledging mari-

8 CM Programs and Water-Dependent Uses 671 nas and... both keep them as marinas and build a residential use... on the upland... which eventually sort of hurts the marina because it loses the industrial support services that it needs boat repair, engine repair, storage (Szymanski, 2005). In addition, whereas the author initially sought to assess the problem of recreational water-dependent uses being converted to other uses, coastal managers indicated that they viewed the problem more broadly defined by partial conversions; cases of commercial or industrial water-dependent uses being converted to other uses; and conversions of one water-dependent use to another kind of water-dependent use. Examples that illustrate this broader definition of the conversion problem include the former Perth Amboy Dry Dock in New Jersey, an industrial shipyard that serviced large commercial and military vessels, which has been converted to The Landings at Harborside, a mixed-use development comprising an expansive new recreational marina as well as new condominiums (McCay et al., 2005); and Grey Lady Marine in Nantucket, MA, a full-service boatyard which has been converted to a new, upscale yacht club, comprising largely non-water-dependent facilities such as a pool, clubhouse, and restaurant (Finer, 2005). These cases illustrate that the problem of converting recreational water-dependent uses to other uses is not so easily defined, much less counted in a systematic manner. It is for these reasons, in part, that these coastal management programs cannot easily define much less monitor the scope of the problem. Coastal management programs are also limited in their capacity to assess the conversion problem because the programs reviewed for this study have, to varying degrees, limited practical involvement in or regulatory jurisdiction over water-dependent uses. While coastal managers were able to provide anecdotal evidence of conversions, the particular cases they identified were all cases with which the coastal management agency had been involved, whether through the permitting process or because of some controversy or litigation involving the conversion. However, coastal managers in these states are not involved in all such conversions. In all five states, coastal managers acknowledged that, for various reasons, there may be numerous other cases with which their offices had not been involved. One coastal manager, in stating that conversions were indeed happening in his state, explained, I don t have any statistics and we don t really keep track of this...you d have to actually look at each town to get hard numbers [of conversions] (Blatt, 2005). Another coastal manager offered a similar explanation, stating, the reason why I couldn t come up with any specific ones for you... where waterfront uses had been wiped out and replaced by residential or other uses, [is] because those are primarily done at the local level, and we have no way of knowing what s going on, because we don t get permit applications for those things, because there s no federal or state involvement in them (Resler, 2005). While data on the conversion of water-dependent uses may exist in local planning and zoning offices, these coastal management programs do not collect or review this information as a means of monitoring the conversion problem. These coastal management programs may not be directly involved in all such conversions because, as noted earlier, while state coastal programs are charged with managing water-dependent uses, conversions and other such coastal land use decisions are typically a local matter. Land use planning and zoning is traditionally the domain of local governments, and many state coastal programs are structured such that the permitting of waterfront developments are handled by town planning offices and zoning boards (Beach, 2002; Platt, 2004). This means that many state coastal programs have in practice very limited jurisdiction over local waterfront development. In the cases of the five coastal programs reviewed for this study, this limitation plays out in a variety of different ways. In some cases, a state coastal program s programmatic boundary may differ from the jurisdiction of one or more enforceable waterfront development regulations: for example, the Massachusetts

9 672 T. C. Smythe coastal management program s boundary extends inland 100 feet beyond the first major transportation route, but the Chapter 91 Massachusetts regulations that pertain to waterdependent uses apply only to tidelands and filled tidelands (Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management, 2002). In other cases, a state may not review every land use change within its regulatory boundary; many waterfront land use decisions may be made by local governments without the involvement of the state. For example, the Connecticut coastal boundary extends inland to the 100-year flood zone line as indicated under the National Flood Insurance Program, but coastal managers only review coastal site plans in certain circumstances, such as in permits involving a flood/erosion structure or a zoning change. Connecticut s coastal program is designed such that local governments conduct their own coastal site plan reviews for consistency with state coastal policies, and municipalities are not required (but are encouraged) to consult with the state coastal program on all waterfront development proposals (State of Connecticut, 2000). Some state coastal programs have institutional arrangements and regulatory programs that do not allow for consistent oversight of the conversion of water-dependent uses, or other coastal land use changes. Whereas all five states reviewed for this study have definitions and policies regarding water-dependent uses, only one coastal program Rhode Island is a centralized permitting agency that directly enforces those policies by either issuing or reviewing coastal development permits. Yet Rhode Island s coastal program only permits developments over six units or with greater than 40,000 feet of impervious surface (Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council 2008). Both New Jersey and Massachusetts have networked coastal programs, and while both states issue permits for many types of waterfront development, both coastal programs are limited in their review of such projects. In New Jersey, coastal management rules vary throughout the state depending on the applicable law, and the state office that issues permits under these rules is the Division of Land Use Regulation, which functions somewhat separately from the state coastal management program; because of this, New Jersey s coastal program does not consistently review all coastal development projects (Urban Harbors Institute 2003a, 2003b). In Massachusetts, the state issues permits for development on tidelands and filled tidelands through its Chapter 91 program, and local governments may apply and modify this state regulatory program through the development and approval of Municipal Harbor Plans (Ducsik, 2008). However, these regulatory mechanisms may not encompass all relevant development, such as upland portions of some water-dependent uses that are not located on filled tidelands. In all three of these states, local governments retain the power to independently make local planning and zoning decisions on a variety of projects that may include all or part of a water-dependent use. While local governments in all five states play a role in managing water-dependent uses, coastal managers in Connecticut and New York are particularly reliant on local decision makers. In Connecticut, regional coordinators work with the individual towns to implement coastal management in those localities, because, as discussed above, the coastal site plan review process is primarily conducted by local governments. In New York, local decision makers are consistently at the front lines of decision-making out of the five states reviewed for this study, New York s coastal management program has the least direct involvement with local waterfront development decisions. New York s program has a series of broad coastal policies, including one addressing water-dependent uses, but also offers incentives to municipalities to refine these coastal policies through their own Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs (LWRPs) (New York Department of State, 2001). Through this system, waterfront development decisions are made at the local level, and reviewed by the municipality for consistency with the LWRP. Yet not all local governments

10 CM Programs and Water-Dependent Uses 673 have adopted LWRPs; for example, of 50 New York municipalities on Long Island Sound, only 10 (including New York City) have approved LWRPs (New York Department of State, 2010). If there is no LWRP in place, local decisions are not reviewed at the local level for consistency with state coastal policies. State coastal managers only conduct consistency reviews of projects involving a federal action, such as a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, to ensure consistency with the municipal LWRP or the relevant state coastal policies. As such, New York s coastal program neither issues permits for nor conducts regular review of local waterfront development changes (New York Department of State, 2001). Clearly, all of the state coastal programs reviewed for this study have some practical limitations in their ability to manage, monitor and respond to the conversions of water-dependent uses. These limitations, which vary by state, are due in some cases to the limited jurisdictions of coastal programs enforceable policies and permit review authority, and in other cases to the coastal program s institutional arrangement. As noted earlier, local governments in practice play an essential role in the implementation of state coastal management goals. Given the limitations of some of these state coastal programs in managing water-dependent uses, coupled with the mandate of the CZMA that state coastal programs prioritize coastal-dependent uses, it is important to consider how state coastal programs work together with municipalities to monitor and respond to the conversions of water-dependent uses to other uses. Part II Findings and Discussion In Part II of this study, interviews with coastal managers, coupled with background research and case study analysis, provided additional insight into the role of coastal management programs in managing water-dependent uses. As noted earlier, Part II interviews were conducted with coastal managers in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut and with local planners in New York City, Long Island, and Connecticut, and sought to further examine the role of state coastal management programs in managing water-dependent uses, in part through in-depth case studies of conversions. In addition, Part II interviews sought to respond to Part I findings by defining the conversion problem more broadly, and by addressing a third research question that emerged from Part I findings: How do state coastal management agencies and local governments work together to manage these uses? Part II interviews corroborated the complexity of managing water-dependent uses as well as the limited capacity of state coastal management programs to address this problem. Coastal managers and local planners described several potential or actual conversions within their respective states that illustrated the important relationship between state coastal management programs and local governments in managing water-dependent uses. Coastal manager interviews revealed three key aspects of this relationship: (1) these state coastal management programs rely heavily on municipalities to protect water-dependent uses as well as to achieve other state coastal policy goals; (2) municipal priorities may differ significantly from state or regional priorities for waterfront land; and (3) many state coastal policies are only as strong as their application through local implementation. Local government interviews confirmed these themes, and also illustrated a fourth aspect of this relationship: (4) local governments and state coastal programs may share the same goals for water-dependent uses, but may differ in their approach as to how best to accomplish them. Two cases explored through these interviews illustrate the importance of municipalities in protecting water-dependent uses in these states as well as the complexities inherent in these decision-making processes.

11 674 T. C. Smythe In New York City, the case of the former Todd Shipyard illustrates the critical role of the city itself in protecting water-dependent uses. Under New York City s state-approved LWRP, six areas within New York City s five boroughs are designated as Significant Maritime and Industrial Areas (SMIAs). The SMIAs are best described as overlay zones within which land use decisions must be reviewed for consistency with city and state coastal policies, including a series of policies which prioritize water-dependent maritime and industrial uses (New York City Department of City Planning, 2002). Consistency review is conducted at the municipal level. The former Todd Shipyard, located on the Red Hook waterfront in Brooklyn, New York, was located within one of the SMIAs. This active shipyard has now been replaced by an IKEA store, its graving dock paved over for the store parking lot. The decision to replace the shipyard with a big-box retail store was deemed to be consistent with the SMIA and the city s coastal policy goals in part because it allowed for preservation of nominal water-dependent uses which included a new ferry landing to serve the store s customers (New York City Planning Commission, 2004). This decision was later challenged by a citizens group in state court and upheld as consistent with the city s LWRP (Coalition to Revitalize Our Waterfront Now v. City of New York, NY Supreme Court 2005). The case of Brewer s Yacht Haven Marina in Stamford, CT further illustrates the key role of municipalities in implementing state coastal management goals. Brewer s Yacht Haven Marina is a large recreational marina and full-service boatyard and one of few remaining boatyards on Long Island Sound equipped to service deep-draft recreational vessels (Brewer s Yacht Haven Marina, 2010). A large-scale waterfront redevelopment plan proposed by the property s owners would displace up to half of the boatyard s upland storage and maintenance area (Kallenberg, 2008). As part of this redevelopment plan, the city of Stamford approved a zoning change for the Brewer s property from a waterfront to a mixed-use district, thus allowing a host of non-water-dependent uses on the site (Wingfield, 2007). Connecticut coastal managers have commented extensively on the proposal and the zoning change, indicating their concern for the long-term viability of the boatyard, recommending alternative zoning changes, and emphasizing the provisions of the Connecticut Coastal Management Act that mandate protection of water-dependent uses (Wingfield, 2007; Thompson, 2007; Kallenberg, 2007). However, this redevelopment decision is primarily in the hands of the municipality as well as the developer. It should be noted that, to date, this partial conversion has not yet been completed. The Todd Shipyard and Brewer s Yacht Haven Marina cases highlight the fundamental importance of local governments in New York and Connecticut in managing waterdependent uses, as well as the limitations of these state coastal management programs in ensuring the future of these uses. First, as noted above, both New York and Connecticut s coastal programs rely very heavily on municipal governments, and in particular on local planning and zoning authorities, in protecting and preserving water-dependent uses. This is due to the institutional arrangements and regulatory structures of these coastal programs. Neither state has a waterfront development permitting program through which to enforce coastal management goals regarding water-dependent uses; instead, review for consistency with state goals takes place primarily at the local level. New York s state coastal program provides incentives for municipalities to develop and implement their own LWRPs through which to address state coastal policies at the local level, whereas in Connecticut, coastal site plan review is conducted at the municipal level, with state coastal managers occasionally providing input. While local review gives these cities and towns great flexibility, it limits the ability of these state coastal programs to manage or monitor water-dependent uses.

12 CM Programs and Water-Dependent Uses 675 Both cases also illustrate how municipal priorities may differ significantly from state priorities with regard to the best uses of waterfront property. In the case of the Todd Shipyard, New York City leaders determined that the IKEA redevelopment project, which would bring thousands of new people to Red Hook s waterfront, was a more beneficial use of this waterfront land. Whereas coastal managers interviewed for this study indicated concern that this decision was problematic because of the loss of an actively used graving dock, city planners emphasized the site s apparent underuse and its adjacency to a strong, emerging community. In the case of Brewer s Yacht Haven Marina, the city of Stamford s actions thus far have suggested that this large-scale redevelopment project is viewed by some as more beneficial to the city than the preservation of this water-dependent use. These decisions are not necessarily surprising and highlight the commitment conundrum (Burby & May, 1998) inherent in many such state-local partnerships. Whereas state managers and planners are guided by big picture goals or legal mandates under federal and state laws, local decision makers are typically guided by municipal goals, such as economic revitalization and increasing property tax revenue, and these and other such conversions of water-dependent uses may be viewed as steps toward these goals. This aspect of conversions is further illustrated by one coastal manager s comment that some municipalities view many water-dependent uses especially older commercial/industrial uses as part of the old economy (Kozak, 2008). Differing local priorities for waterfront uses may explain, in part, the challenges of implementing state coastal policies at the local level. Both the Todd Shipyard and the Brewer s cases highlight points raised in all coastal manager interviews: state coastal policies require appropriate implementation in order to be effective. In the Todd Shipyard case, a key component of New York City s local coastal program the SMIA designations and associated policies failed to preserve a shipyard. A New York coastal manager emphasized this, indicating that the city s consistency review process may not be working as expected due to both practical constraints, such as staffing, as well as differing views about how issues should be prioritized during the consistency review process. She further noted that for some local governments, including New York City, priorities like public access are often an easier sell than tougher decisions about waterfront land uses (Welsh, 2008). Effective policy implementation may also be a matter of political will at both the state and local levels. In Connecticut, even if the state reviews a permit application or zoning decision and finds it to be inconsistent with the state coastal policies, the local government may not revise the decision and the state may not pursue the matter. As a Connecticut coastal manager noted, hearings are costly, you have to pick your battles, and smaller-scale waterfront development projects may not be the state s top coastal management priority (Kallenberg, 2010). These implementation issues further highlight the commitment conundrum, and suggest that local decision makers must believe in the importance of preserving water-dependent uses in order to effectively implement such state policies at the local level. The Brewer s case illustrates a fourth finding that highlights the complexity of the working relationship between state coastal management programs and local governments: state coastal programs and local governments may share the same goals for the waterfront, but may differ in their views as to how best to achieve those goals. In the Brewer s case, the city rezoned the Brewer s property and the adjacent parcels to a mixed-use district allowing non-water-dependent uses, despite the state coastal program s request that the boatyard parcel be zoned exclusively for water-dependent uses in order to preserve the boatyard (Wingfield, 2007). Yet a local planner saw it differently, explaining his view that zoning this parcel with the rest of the development district which includes several incentives to retain water-dependent uses and the inclusion of a permanent deed restriction to ensure

13 676 T. C. Smythe continued use of the property as a boatyard in the site s development plan would better ensure the boatyard s survival, whereas zoning it separately would increase the risk of the parcel being sold off into separate ownership or converted to non-water-dependent uses (Cole, 2010). When asked about his response to the state s concerns, he indicated his support for maintaining this and other water-dependent uses, and noted, we know zoning better than they do (Cole, 2010). While state coastal programs and local governments may agree on the desired outcome, they may rely on or prefer very different regulatory tools to achieve these outcomes. While these municipal decisions regarding the use of waterfront land are perhaps understandable and certainly not surprising, they highlight the limitations faced by these coastal management programs in managing and monitoring water-dependent uses. Whereas water-dependent uses confer public benefits to coastal communities and regions, many water-dependent uses are largely subject to local decision-making due to the tradition of local land use control as well as the structure of a state s coastal management program. While the state coastal programs reviewed for this study all seek to prioritize waterdependent uses of coastal lands, they are all limited, in some ways, in their ability to do so by local governments zoning and permitting authorities, lack of commitment to state coastal management priorities, or differing views as to how best to manage water-dependent uses. State coastal programs may also be limited in their ability to manage water-dependent uses because of the limitations of their own regulations or oversight authority. Additionally, as states face increasing budget shortfalls, well-intentioned coastal management programs may have even less ability to oversee the big picture. As a result, decisions that result in the loss of water-dependent uses may take place without the state coastal management programs oversight or intervention. Conclusion and Recommendations This two-part study has highlighted the limited role that some state coastal management programs play in managing, monitoring, and responding to the conversion of water-dependent uses. This limitation is due in part to the complex nature of water-dependent uses and conversions themselves, as water-dependent uses are diverse, multi-faceted uses that may be transformed in any number of ways. Perhaps more importantly, this limitation is due to the nature of some coastal management programs themselves, and their limited involvement in conversions and other such local coastal development decisions. While the CZMA requires that participating states establish a method of prioritizing water-dependent uses of the coast, many state coastal programs abilities to act on this mandate are limited by the very nature of the coastal programs themselves and the extent to which they directly engage in local waterfront decision-making. Local governments are, clearly, essential partners for state coastal management programs in achieving state coastal policy goals. Whereas this study sought to assess the role of state coastal management programs in managing water-dependent uses, it has highlighted the fact that local governments are often at the front lines of protecting such uses. Decisions regarding water-dependent uses are, in many cases, made at the local level with limited state oversight or involvement. Yet the role of local governments in such decisions varies significantly from state to state, and even within a state, and merits additional, in-depth investigation. Accordingly, further research is recommended on local governments role in managing water-dependent uses, and how local governments can work most effectively with state coastal programs to protect and promote these uses of public benefit.

14 CM Programs and Water-Dependent Uses 677 Finally, this study has highlighted how these coastal management programs do not monitor water-dependent uses, despite the fact these programs are mandated by the CZMA to ensure their priority consideration. While this study reviewed a diverse group of coastal programs representing a range of possible institutional arrangements and regulatory structures, none of the programs reviewed for this study had a mechanism for systematically monitoring or reviewing the conversions of water-dependent uses, or, for that matter, any other type of coastal land use change. These coastal programs do not monitor or review these conversions because they are simply not set up to do so; moreover, in many cases, such local land-use changes are largely left to the municipalities. Coastal management programs ability to monitor and, ultimately, mitigate the conversion of water-dependent uses to other uses can be improved through the development of collaborative partnerships between state coastal management programs and municipalities. Such a partnership should be focused on accomplishing the following tasks: 1. Inventory and monitor water-dependent uses: Water-dependent uses are a priority of the CZMA and also generate significant economic, social, and cultural benefits for the coastal communities and the region. Accordingly, state coastal management programs must develop baseline inventories for use in monitoring the potential conversion of water-dependent uses. This study has shown that municipalities must be collaborators in the development of such an inventory as they have the needed information about water-dependent uses as well as conversions. Developing an inventory will not be a simple task, given the lack of clear definitions for waterdependent uses, but existing inventories such as the Rhode Island Commercial Ports and Harbors Inventory (Becker et al., 2010) may provide useful models for developing such an inventory in collaboration with academic institutions and other agency partners. 2. Collaborative planning for water-dependent uses: This study has highlighted the important but tenuous role that municipalities play in implementing state coastal management goals; it has also underscored the ways in which state and municipal priorities may not always align. Such a disconnect may be addressed by collaborative, targeted planning for water-dependent uses. The SMIAs that are part of New York City s local coastal program might be such a mechanism for join municipalstate planning if they were strengthened and effectively implemented to ensure that they better reflected state coastal priorities. Another example for collaborative planning for water-dependent uses is a Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) such as the Metro Bay SAMP developed by the RI Coastal Resources Management Council. SAMPs are identified in the CZMA (16 U.S.C ) and are commonly used in Rhode Island as a means in-depth planning for discrete areas of the coastal zone. The Metro Bay SAMP is being developed for Rhode Island s urban coast; its goals include managing the large concentration of water dependent uses in this region that risk being shut out by condominiums and office spaces, resulting in an inaccessible and homogenous waterfront (Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council and Rhode Island Sea Grant/Coastal Resources Center, n.d.). A baseline inventory and monitoring program, coupled with collaborative, targeted planning efforts through which state coastal programs and local governments work together to plan for the future of water-dependent uses, may together improve the capacity of state coastal management programs to monitor, protect, and promote water-dependent uses. Such a program would be appropriate given the unique siting requirements and vulnerabilities of water-dependent uses and their priority

15 678 T. C. Smythe status under the CZMA. More importantly, such a program would benefit coastal communities by ensuring them continued access to the range of economic, social, and cultural benefits associated with such uses. Given the many benefits provided by commercial and recreational water-dependent uses, and the wide-ranging costs that may be associated with their loss, these uses merit priority attention by coastal managers, local planners, and other policymakers. Notes 1. In this study, coastal managers refers broadly to employees of coastal management programs, and may include upper-level managers as well as coastal/environmental planners and municipal liaisons; and local planners refers broadly to municipal land use and environmental planning staff. 2. These are only a few examples of such initiatives; others are summarized in the proceedings of the 2007 Sea Grant Working Waterways and Waterfronts conference and in the abstracts for the forthcoming 2010 Sea Grant Working Waterways and Waterfronts conference, both available at 3. Review of these and other initiatives have illustrated that it is very difficult to accurately quantify the scope or magnitude of the conversion because of the lack of baseline inventory data, the difficulty of clearly defining marinas and other water-dependent uses, and the labor-intensive nature of developing baseline inventory data. See, for example, Florida Senate Committee on Community Affairs (2004) and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (2009). 4. In both Connecticut (Office of Long Island Sound Programs) and Massachusetts (Office of Coastal Zone Management), the author was directed to one upper-level manager with oversight responsibilities, as well as one regional coordinator responsible for working directly with several municipalities. In Rhode Island (Coastal Resources Management Council), New York (Department of State Division of Coastal Resources), and New Jersey (Coastal Management Program), the author was directed to upper-level managers with oversight responsibilities as none of these three programs has regional coordinators. 5. Part II coastal manager interviews included three upper-level managers in New York; three upper-level managers in New Jersey; and two upper-level managers and two regional coordinators in Connecticut. Local planner interviews included planners from: New York City; Oyster Bay (Long Island), NY; Stamford, CT; and the Hempstead Harbor Protection Committee, a government-funded harbor planning body representing eight coastal villages and towns on Long Island. 6. Discussions with coastal managers and local planners further illustrated the difficulty in attempting to quantify the conversion problem. In cases where states directly issue permits for waterfront developments (Rhode Island, New Jersey, and Massachusetts), one would need to search through files and review individual permits. In two cases, the author was told that she would need to visit the office and manually review paper files. In cases where such permits are issued primarily at the local level, one would need to contact each individual town 36 in Connecticut, and in New York, 50 on Long Island Sound alone to review such permit files. 7. Whereas four of these states (Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New Jersey) publish inventories of formally designated public access points, none of these states maintain inventories of water-dependent uses. References Battista, C. 2006, February. Connecticut Cove: From eyesore to jewel. Soundings 1 2: Beach, D Coastal sprawl: The effects of urban design on aquatic ecosystems in the United States. Arlington, VA: Pew Oceans Commission.

16 CM Programs and Water-Dependent Uses 679 Beatley, T., D. J. Brower, and A. K. Schwab An introduction to coastal zone management (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Island Press. Becker, A., A. Wilson, R. Bannon, J. McCann, D. Robadue, and S. Kennedy. Eds. August Rhode Island s Ports and Commercial Harbors: A GIS-Based Inventory of Current Uses and Infrastructure. Prepared for the Rhode Island Statewide Planning Program. Blatt, D Personal communication (phone interview). Breen, A., and D. Rigby Caution: Working waterfront. Washington, DC: TheWaterfront Press. Breen, A., and D. Rigby Whose waterfront is it, anyway? Planning 56(2): Brewer s Yacht Haven Marina Available at Burby, R., and P. May Intergovernmental environmental planning: Addressing the commitment conundrum. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 41(1): Colgan, C. S The Contribution of Working Waterfronts to the Maine Economy. Maine s Working Waterfront Coalition. Coalition to Revitalize Our Waterfront Now v. City of New York, NY Supreme Court Cole, N Personal communication (phone interview). Davis, B. and R. Thompson Years on the Edge: The Past and Future Influence of the Coastal Zone Management Act. Paper presented at the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning Conference, Baltimore, MD. Ducsik, D Planning Working Waterfronts in Massachusetts. Paper presented at the 21st International Conference of The Coastal Society, Redondo Beach, CA, July 1, Finer, J. 2005, January 3. Battle over the Grey Lady roils sleepy Nantucket. Washington Post, p. A03. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Florida Boating Access Facilities Inventory and Economic Study. Florida Senate Committee on Community Affairs Working Waterfronts (No ): Florida Senate. Hershman, M. J., J. W. Good, T. Bernd-Cohen, R. F. Goodwin, V. Lee, and P. Pogue The effectiveness of coastal zone management in the United States. Coastal Management 27: Kallenberg, K. 2007, October 15. Letter from CTDEP to Urbitran. Kallenberg, K Personal communication. (in-person interview, Hartford, CT). Kallenberg, K Personal communication (phone interview). Kalo, J. J., R. G. Hildreth, A. Rieser, D. R. Christie, and J. L. Jacobson Coastal and ocean law: Cases and materials (2nd ed.). St. Paul, MN: West Group. Kozak, D Personal communication (in-person interview, Hartford, CT). Maine Sea Grant Access to the Waterfront: Issues and Solutions Across the Nation. Marconi, R., and V. Biego The planning of marinas as a guarantee of sustainable development and a restraint to territorial decay An Italian experience. Bulletin of the Permanent International Association of Navigation Congresses 115: Marine Law Institute. 1988a. Guidebook to the Economics of Waterfront Planning and Water Dependent Uses. Portland: Marine Law Institute, University of Maine School of Law. Marine Law Institute. 1988b. Managing the Shoreline for Water Dependent Uses: A Handbook of Legal Tools. Portland: Marine Law Institute, University of Maine School of Law. Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Plan. Available at program plan 02.pdf McCay, B. J., D. Mans, S. Takahashi, and S. Seminski Public access and waterfront development in New Jersey: From the Arthur Kill to the Shrewsbury River. Keyport, NJ: New York New Jersey Baykeeper. National Ocean Economics Program Ocean Economy Data. Available at oceaneconomics.org/market/ocean/oceanecon.asp (accessed July 13, 2010). New York City Department of City Planning The New Waterfront Revitalization Program. Available at New York City Planning Commission. 2004, September 8. Commission Reports: Red Hook Ikea, Nos Available at

17 680 T. C. Smythe New York Department of State New York State Coastal Policies. New York State Department of State. New York Department of State List of Approved Coastal Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs. Available at Status.asp (accessed July 13, 2010). North Carolina Sea Grant Waterfront Access Study Committee Final Report, April 13, Platt, R. H Land use and society (Revised ed.). Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Resler, S Personal communication (phone interview). RI Coastal Resources Management Council RI Coastal Resources Management Program, As Amended. Available at Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council and Rhode Island Sea Grant/Coastal Resources Center. n.d. Metro Bay SAMP: Issues. Available at metrosamp/issues.html (accessed February 15, 2010). State of Connecticut Connecticut Coastal Management Manual. Available at ct.gov/dep/lib/dep/long island sound/coastal management manual/manual 08.pdf Szymanski, C Personal communication (phone interview). Thompson, B. 2007, May 21. Letter from CTDEP to Stamford Zoning Board. Urban Harbors Institute. 2003a. Institutional Structure of the New Jersey Coastal Zone Management Program. Boston, MA. Urban Harbors Institute. 2003b. New Jersey Coastal Program Boundary. Boston, MA. Walker, K., and M. Arnn Preserving Waterfronts for Water Dependent Uses. Available at pdf/wdu.pdf Welsh, N Personal communication (phone interview). Wingfield, B. 2007, August 10. Letter from CTDEP to Stamford Zoning Board. Yin, R. K Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Young, D Marinas must reconcile berth holders and the public. The Dock and Harbour Authority 79(887):43.