Beach Health Indicators

Indicator Focus

Featured Indicator – Surfing Areas

SURFING AREAS -- THREATS AND PROTECTION

**NEW** Check out the companion presentation PREVENTING THE ULTIMATE WIPEOUT: POLICY APPROACHES FOR PROTECTING SURFING AREAS that was given by our Summer 2008 intern Brycen Swart at the Coastal Zone '09 conference.

Introduction
The protection and enjoyment of waves is a central focus of Surfrider Foundation’s Mission. Surfing areas represent rare natural resources that provide recreational opportunities and environmental, aesthetic, and economic benefits. Many surfing areas around the globe are currently threatened or degraded by water quality problems, access restrictions, or coastal development such as the construction of harbors, groins, or jetties.

By identifying surfing areas, we can demonstrate their existence and level of use to local and state governments, as well as coastal developers. Armed with this information, surfers can prevent the further loss of great surf spots such as "Killer Dana" in California, which was lost due to construction of the breakwater and jetty that created Dana Point Harbor.

California and Hawaii are the prime examples of states that provide the location of surfing areas as part of their coastal access program. These states also recognize waves as natural resources to be protected, and specifically consider impacts to surfing resources when evaluating proposed coastal development projects. Other states, including North Carolina, New Jersey and Delaware, do consider surfing areas during coastal planning. Surprisingly, some states where surfing is quite popular (Massachusetts, New York, Florida) either do not consistently take surfing areas into account when planning and evaluating coastal projects or they fail to identify surfing areas and the surfing activity as part of their coastal access program.

An important aspect to be considered when evaluating the benefits of surfing areas is the positive economic impacts that these areas may bring to the surrounding communities. Several researchers in a relatively new field of study termed Surf Economics are exploring this issue.

Surfrider Foundation has developed the following objectives, actions and desired outcomes with regard to the protection of waves and surfing areas:

Prevent the loss or degradation of the world’s limited number of surfing areas
Promote understanding of the importance and economic value of surfing areas
Create surfing parks—protected surf breaks—throughout the world.

Research and publish literature on the economic value of surfing areas
Create tools and information to evaluate the value of surfing areas
Partner with other organizations around the globe to protect surfing areas
Develop grass-roots initiatives that protect important surf spots by designating their unique breaks as historically and culturally significant
Work with key agencies and enact legislation to make recreation a component in the environmental review of projects

There will be no loss or degradation of surfing areas
Surfing areas will be recognized as important resources that are worth protecting
Low-impact coastal recreational opportunities will be protected worldwide

In response to the threats to surfing areas identified above and discussed in more detail below, Surfrider Foundation evaluated available legal and regulatory mechanisms to achieve long-term protection of surfing areas.

THREATS TO SURFING AREAS

Beach Access
Restricting public beach access is perhaps the most direct and visible threat to surfing areas. In most states, beaches are public trust resources and opportunities to access to them may be threatened directly or indirectly by various landowners, government regulations, and coastal development. Although the boundary between public and private lands varies from state to state and beach to beach, the ability to walk along the beach, called lateral or horizontal beach access, is, in most states, a public right. Because much of the land between where people can park and where they can enjoy the beach is often privately owned, the ability to enjoy beaches often depends on the quality and availability of access between roads and parking lots and the beach, known as perpendicular or vertical beach access. Although in most states the area above the high tide line is subject to private ownership, the public often has the right to use perpendicular access routes or to use the dry sand area under the common law of prescription, dedication, customary use, or regulation.

Surf Zone Water Quality
Poor water quality resulting from urban, industrial, agricultural, and forestry activities can threaten the health of surfers, other beach and coastal water users and marine life. Scientific research indicates that swimming in water with high bacteria levels can increase the swimmer's risk of experiencing adverse health conditions like fever, nausea, gastroenteritis, sore throat, and various infections. Beyond harmful levels of bacteria, other pollutants that can be found in the surf zone include heavy metals such as lead and arsenic, organic chemicals such as pesticides and oil, other pathogens such as viruses, and nutrients that can create harmful algal blooms. Sewage spills and poor water quality in the surf zone from other sources may lead to beach health advisories and closures, which may prevent access to the surf, increase the risk of disease, or make the surfing experience less pleasurable.

Water pollution falls under two types – point source pollution and non-point source pollution. Point source pollution refers to pollutants discharged directly into water from discrete points such as factories or sewage treatment plants. Since the passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972, there have been great strides in protecting and cleaning up waters by targeting point source pollutants. Despite this, major sewer spills still occur, generally because of aging and poorly maintained infrastructure or due to overflows during major rain events. Non-point source pollution, or polluted runoff, has proven even more difficult to control. Today, non-point source pollution poses the largest threat to coastal water quality in the United States.

Unlike point source pollution that comes from a single source, non-point source pollution comes from many sources. As rain water, snow melt, or even water from a garden hose washes over impervious surfaces such as roads and walkways, construction sites, agricultural fields or forestry sites, it picks up pollutants from the ground and transports them into coastal creeks, rivers and estuaries. Pollutants frequently swept up in runoff include fertilizers, lawn chemicals, herbicides, salt from roadways, oil and gasoline leaked from automobiles, soil from construction sites, and untreated sewage from boats, pets, and failing septic systems.

Coastal Development
Coastal development that alters the coastline and interrupts natural beach processes is another threat to surfing areas. Coastal development can displace sandy beaches, limit both lateral and vertical access to the beach, disrupt the natural flow of sand, and destroy the open spaces remaining along our coasts. Installation of shoreline structures such as seawalls, rock revetments, jetties, groins, and other hard structures inevitably leads to loss of sand from beaches – sand trapped underneath and behind the structure and sand eroded directly in front and down-drift of the structure. In addition, these structures may destroy surfing areas by blocking waves, compromising wave quality or creating more dangerous surfing conditions.

Beach fill, where sediment from a source such as dredging from a harbor, offshore, or an upland site is placed on a beach to widen it, has the potential to negatively affect surfing areas. Issues associated with beach fill include sand compatibility/quality, ecological effects, changes to the beach and offshore bottom contours, effects on wave quality, and damage to offshore reefs.

Another type of coastal development that is gaining popularity and has the potential to negatively impact surfing areas is offshore alternative energy projects. Although the Surfrider Foundation recognizes technologies that utilize ocean waves, tides, currents and wind may offer important benefits as renewable sources of energy that will reduce emissions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, we also believe that these projects must be carefully planned and sited to minimize impacts to the ocean and coastal environment and to ocean recreation opportunities. For instance, wave energy projects utilizing offshore buoys or other devices may adversely impact local wave patterns and affect littoral transport of sand, increasing erosion.

Additionally, anticipated sea level rise will have the potential to impact surfing areas through direct loss of beaches and may also indirectly lead to future coastal development in order to protect coastal properties and respond to increased erosion.

Coastal Ecosystem Impacts
Surfing in a healthy wild ocean with an intact marine ecological system has positive intrinsic and aesthetic benefits to surfers and the surfing experience. Beaches and coastal areas are diverse and productive systems that serve as a critical link between marine and terrestrial environments. They support populations of coastally-dependent plant and animal species, including some that are threatened or endangered and many that are commercially and recreationally important, by providing habitat, serving as breeding grounds and functioning as areas of high primary production. Beaches and coastal wetlands also provide protection against the effects of coastal storms, filter nutrients and other pollution from runoff and support local recreation and tourism opportunities.

A degraded coastal ecosystem can threaten surfing areas and ruin the surfing experience. For example, an excess increase of nutrients (such as nitrogen or phosphorus) in the water, known as eutrophication, can cause excessive growth of algae (an algae bloom). Eventually the algae dies and decomposes, resulting in a decrease of oxygen that degrades water quality, kills fish and other animal populations, and stinks. Also, it should be remembered that part of the aesthetic of surfing is experiencing and interacting with the terrestrial and aquatic habitat at the beach (or on the way to the beach), so any diminishment of the coastal ecosystem diminishes the surfing experience.

SURF ECONOMICS

An under-appreciated aspect of surfing area protection is the economic benefit that surfing areas bring to beach communities. Buckley estimates the economic scale of the surfing industry, including travel, surf-branded clothing and the manufacture of surfboards, to be in the order of $10 billion per year and reaches into most countries on the planet. Work by Lazarow (2007a) and Nelsen (2006) indicate that while this number includes the clothing and retail arms of the major surf apparel companies, it is likely to significantly under-account for the total economic value of recreational surfing. Surfing represents a very profitable market, a growing industry, and a reason people move to coastal areas. Surfing plays a major part in the recreation and tourism strategies for many coastal locations. Any negative impact to the surfing amenity in these locations may have serious consequences for the resident surfing population, visitors to the area, the local surf industry and the entire local coastal economy.

The documented positive economic impact of visitors to surfing areas such as Trestles in southern California; Brevard County, Florida; Mundaka in Spain; and along the Gold Coast in Australia is substantial. The study of surfers visiting Trestles estimated a range for the annual economic impact to the city of San Clemente that could be from $8 million/year to $13 million/year.

SURFING AREA PROTECTION

Surfing areas and the surrounding natural coastal areas provide outstanding recreational and economic opportunities, and continue to humble users with their beauty, solace, inspiration, and connection with nature. As noted above, surfing involves using the coastline and the quality of the surfing experience is affected by aesthetics involving the nature and character views from the water toward the land. The surfing experience itself is extremely subjective to each individual, but relies heavily on the major factors of coastal access, and wave, water, and beach quality. The cumulative impacts of restrictions to beach access, poor water quality, coastal development and a degraded coastal ecosystem all threaten the aesthetics and intrinsic values of the beach-going experience.

Protection of surfing areas is necessary now more than ever. It is estimated that the global surfing population is over 20 million (Kampion 2003). According to the 2000 National Survey on Recreation and the Environment, 1.59% of the U.S. population or 3.37 million people, 16 years old or older participated in surfing. In addition, the number of trips per participant for surfing is highest among outdoor recreational activities at almost 22 trips per year, equaling 75.2 million total trips per year. As the population increases in the future, there is an estimated increase in surfing participants to 3.81 million in 2010, representing a 13.1% increase from 2000. The net effect is an estimated increase in total days of participation to 81.9 million in 2010, reflecting a 9.0% increase from 2000 (NRES 2000).

Just as terrestrial protected areas incorporate recreational use as a component of their management goals, the Surfrider Foundation believes that protected marine areas (surfing areas) should accommodate and enhance coastal and ocean recreation. Many coastal recreational activities such as surfing, sailing, kayaking and diving are non-extractive and have little or no discernable impact on the marine environment. Recognizing coastal-dependent recreational activities is an important part of our coastal legacy. Surfrider Foundation believes that protection of, and continued access to special coastal places, including those that are unique surfing areas, is important to allow the education of future generations about our coastlines and oceans.

The Surfrider Foundation is working to create surfing protected areas in order to:

Enhance the coastal experience by preserving wild recreational areas. Full enjoyment of the marine environment by surfers, divers, kayakers and other non-extractive users can be achieved through the implementation of fully protected surfing areas.
Protect special coastal and ocean places from dredging and dumping, oil drilling, ocean pollution, large commercial vessel traffic, poorly planned coastal development and water quality problems, while promoting marine recreation. Current and future generations deserve special coastal places where we can immerse ourselves in a natural setting.
Restore ecosystem health in marine, estuarine and beach habitats. Recognition of our goal to protect surfing areas requires controlling what is added to the environment as well as what is removed. Restoration efforts include restoring habitat and natural processes in watersheds, estuaries, beaches and dunes, intertidal and subtidal environments. These efforts can restore natural habitats, improve recreation opportunities and reduce costly mitigation efforts.

Surfing areas are unique in that they incorporate both the terrestrial and aquatic environment. Creating a surfing protected area can be a complicated and task because land and marine resources are often managed separately. For instance many national and state parks strictly protect only terrestrial areas, whereas marine protected areas usually only apply from the high tide line to a certain distance out to sea. It is critical that surfing protected areas include both terrestrial and marine areas.

Current Legal Approaches for Protecting Surf Breaks in United States

Various statutory approaches, common law doctrines, state constitutional laws and other approaches have been and can be used for protecting surf breaks in the United States (Oram and Velarde 1994). It should be noted that although these various strategies can be successfully used to protect surf breaks, they are all reactionary measures. The objective behind creating a surfing protected area is to be proactive. That way threats of restricted beach access, poor water quality, coastal development, and degraded coastal ecosystem to surf breaks can be prevented.

Statutory Approaches:
National Environmental Policy Act
Many projects that threaten surf breaks, such as construction of new harbors, breakwaters, and groins, require federal agency approval. The United States Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) is responsible for the maintenance of all harbors and coastal structures. Placement of any dredged or fill material into navigable waters is also subject to permit approval by the ACOE. Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), federal agencies such as the ACOE must prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) describing the environmental impacts and alternatives to the proposed action whenever a federal or federally-permitted project may significantly affect the environment.

The NEPA process helps protect surf breaks in a number of ways. First, an EIS gives environmental groups opportunities to use legal means to force the ACOE to look at the environmental impacts of the project and to consider alternatives and mitigation actions that would avoid destroying surf breaks. Second, because the ACOE has to comply with NEPA requirements, the project timeline is long enough to allow concerned citizen groups and the general public to become active stakeholders and participant in the project planning process. Greater awareness of potential environmental impacts reduces the chances that the ACOE would undertake a damaging project.

In addition to potential environmental impacts, the ACOE is required by statutory guidelines to consider national, state, and local economic development. It must choose the project alternative with the highest positive return and can deviate from that option only when there is strong justification. One of the main problems with the ACOE’s policy of choosing a development alternative is that all environmental costs and recreational benefits may not be properly factored into the analysis. With respect to the value of surfing areas, there is no single accepted method of valuation, there is often not enough information available, and values may be too difficult to quantify. This usually results in just ignoring these costs, meaning that the value of a lost surfing site may be left out of a cost/benefit analysis because it is too difficult to quantify.

State Environmental Protection Acts
Many states have enacted environmental statutes designed to subject the actions of state agencies, and in some cases private parties, to procedural requirements similar to those contained in NEPA. These are referred to generally as state environmental protection acts (SEPAs). For example, in California there is the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Many state’s SEPAs require state agencies and local governments to conduct an environmental assessment for actions having significant effects on the environment. An assessment is also required from private developers where they are subject to regulation by land control plans.

Like NEPA, SEPAs can be used to force consideration of alternatives. But SEPAs share NEPA's weakness of only mandating compliance with procedural requirements. With this limitation in mind, however, SEPAs are important tools for surf-break protection because they apply to state-regulated developments that do not come within NEPA's jurisdiction.

Coastal Acts
Unlike NEPA and SEPAs, which are general environmental laws, the 1972 federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) focuses specifically on coastal zone issues. The CZMA provides grants to encourage state participation in a Coastal Zone Management (CZM) program. To qualify, a state program must comprehensively organize the uses of coastal areas so that they are compatible with the state's own management goals. The CZMA sets up detailed procedural requirements for a state CZM program to qualify for grants, but the states are given discretion in determining program content. As a result, the various CZMA qualified coastal plans are diverse in terms of goals, management tools, and distribution of decision-making authority. The state coastal acts therefore must be used differently from state to state in order to protect surf breaks.

Legal Protection:
The Public Trust Doctrine
Under the public trust doctrine, navigable waters, the submerged land beneath them, and the tidelands are held by the State in trust for the benefit of all people. The doctrine protects all navigable tidewaters including the waters off the coast. Because surf breaks are located along the coast, arguably they fall within the scope of the public trust. While no state has yet to recognize a surf break as a natural resource to be protected under the public trust doctrine, California (and perhaps other states) have held that doctrine can be used to protect access to a beach used for surfing and boating.

Custom
The English common law doctrine of “custom” establishes a specific right of the public to have access to privately held land. For instance, courts in Oregon, Texas and Hawaii have adopted the custom doctrine to protect the public’s right of access to beaches. In addition, California law provides that under certain conditions, long-term public access across private property may result in the establishment of a permanent public easement. This is called a public prescriptive right of access. California’s Coastal Public Access Program includes a prescriptive rights element whereby the Coastal Commission researches and inventories the historic public use of areas with the potential for significant public access benefits. Where research indicates that the public use is substantial enough to create potential prescriptive rights, the Attorney General's Office has the authority to proceed with the legal action necessary to protect those areas. This right may or may not provide protection against development. Only a few states have adopted the custom doctrine and even states that do acknowledge custom have not always used it generously and even have limited its scope. Surf breaks can conceivably be protected by the custom doctrine, but unless courts start to apply the doctrine more expansively, custom does not provide realistic legal protection.

Alternative Strategy: Political Activism
One of the most effective ways to challenge a coastal development project is to organize public opposition to the project. Surfers have effectively blocked destructive projects in a number of instances by organizing with other concerned groups, lobbying local city councils, and/or attracting wide publicity.

Models for Protecting Surfing Areas

We have identified three different types of models available to protect surf breaks. They are:

Surfing Reserves
Protected Areas (including Marine Protected Areas)
Heritage Sites

Each model is unique in that it has a different focus, establishment, jurisdiction, and legal authority.

Surfing Reserves
One means of protecting a surf break is through creation of a surfing reserve. To date, this has only been done in Australia and is being considered in New Zealand. According to National Surfing Reserves Australia (NSRA), a surfing reserve is a part of the coastal environment recognized by NSRA and the local community for the quality and consistency of its surf and its long-term and on-going relationship between the surf and surfers (Farmer and Short 2007). It usually encompasses the beach and adjacent surf zone, but may include features of the marine and coastal zone, which intrinsically enhance aspects of the surfing experience, including structures such as surf clubs or localities such as the birthplaces of surfing in a region, or a place considered sacred by surfers for a particular reason (Farmer and Short 2007). A surfing reserve does not attempt to exclude any user group and no statutory provisions are attached therein.

A surfing reserve achieves three purposes (Farmer and Short 2007; Lazarow 2007b):

formally recognizes the site as an area of surfing with significant and quality surf;
recognizes the long and close links between surfers and the surf; and
assists in the long term preservation of the site for future surfers.

A reserve could be declared for all three of these reasons or just one. There is no fixed model for a reserve as there is much variety among surf breaks and what is appropriate for one area may not work somewhere else. The standout factors are: surf quality; ongoing support from and benefit to the local community; and local involvement in the ongoing management of the surfing asset.

Examples of Surfing Reserves
In 2005 a small group of surfers decided to act to recognize and preserve Australia’s premier surfing sites and formed a committee called the National Reference Group of Surfing Reserves Australia. The committee members include representatives from Surfing New South Wales (NSW), Surf Lifesaving NSW, NSW Government and the National Parks Association. The aim of this committee is to facilitate the identification, nomination and dedication of surfing reserves in each state. The following are descriptions of surfing reserves in Australia.

In New South Wales, the surfing reserves of Angourie (January 2007), Lennox (February 2008), Crescent Head (June 2008) and Cronulla (September 2008) are located on Crown Land (or public land) and therefore come under the Crown Lands Act of 1989 (NSW Department of Lands 2008). The Crown Lands Act 1989 provides for the equitable sharing of Crown land resources in accordance with the principles of environment protection, consevation and ecological sustainability, public use and enjoyment, as well as encouragement of multiple uses (EnviroProperty 2007). This Act provides for preparing plans of management for Crown reserves in consultation with the community. Crown land is generally subject to the planning controls and requirements of other authorities; in particular, Local Environmental Plans administered through local councils. Statewide plans and policies may also apply, including State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs), certain Regional Environmental Plans and NSW Coastal Policy.

The Department of Lands, Crown Lands Division has moved to legally reserve declared sites as Crown reserves for the public purpose of ‘surfing recreation’ under the Crown Lands Act of 1989. This offers legal protection to a national surfing reserve and highlights the significance of the Crown estate in the surfing culture and Australian lifestyle. Surfing reserves are gazetted by the Department of Lands and extend from mean high tide mark to 500 meters out to sea. Under the Crown Lands Act, a board of management can be established to manage the reserve (NSW Department of Lands 2008). The board is representative of the local surfing community and reports directly to the Minister for Lands. The board can (Lennox National Surfing Reserve 2008):

Provide the local surfing community with a voice on matters concerning the reserve.
Develop a management plan to provide clear goals regarding the custodial and stewardship responsibilities associated in managing the reserve.
Mitigate, negotiate and engage stakeholders with any environmental issues/problems within the reserve area.
Be proactive in the maintaining of historical records within the reserve area.
Be proactive in maintaining the cultural significance of the reserve area.
Be supportive and active in considering developments or issues within or adjacent to the reserve area.
Be supportive and active in considering changes in rights to use the reserve area by individuals or groups.
Enhance surfing facilities and other recreational, environmental and cultural activities adjacent to the reserve through federal, state and local collaboration & grants.

The board cannot:

Ban any individual or group from participating in their chosen sport or activity within the reserve area.
Change, alter or make any ‘laws’ to exclude individuals or groups from participating in their chosen sport or activity within the reserve area.
Take control, develop or build within the reserve area.

Bells Beach
Many years prior to creation of Surfing Reserves in New South Wales, Australia’s first surfing reserve was officially gazetted by the Victorian government at Bells Beach in 1973. Home to six surf breaks, the Bells Beach Surfing Recreation Reserve is managed by the Surf Coast Shire, a regional municipality in Victoria. In 2001 the Surf Coast Shire initiated the development of the Bells Beach/Winki Pop Master plan to manage Bells Beach (Surf Coast Shire 2008). In addition to creating a surfing reserve, Bells Beach is apart of the management plan for Point Addis Marine National Park.

Proposed Future Sites
To date, some 24 sites along Australia’s 37,000 km coastline have been identified for dedication by the Sites National Reference Group. Gold Coast sites, including Burleigh Heads and Kirra, probably extending to Snapper Rocks were scheduled for dedication in 2008. The NRGSRA committee has also been approached by individuals regarding Duranbah Beach, Catherine Hill Bay, North Narrabeen Beach, Bondi Beach, Manly Beach and has begun discussions with community representatives at Cactus in South Australia and Margaret River in Western Australia with regard to their surfing sites (Farmer and Short 2007).

Discussion
Surfing Reserves are currently the only example of a protected area status that specifically targets surf breaks. As the Australian case studies show, they receive official recognition and dedication by the government. Their big advantage is the fact that they receive legal protection under the Crown Lands Act of 1989. Another advantage of this model is that it is flexible to fit the various needs of the diverse surf breaks. Surfing reserves, so far, have been relatively easy to implement in Australia. But no such models exist outside of Australia, so it may not be as politically, legally and socially feasible in other countries. There is also a concern within the surfing community that a surfing reserve may attract more surfers to the area. Surfing reserves are also a relatively new concept (compared to the more established protected areas and heritage sites) so there is no precedent to set the extent of their legal protections.

Protected Areas

Protected areas are locations that receive protection because of their environmental, cultural or similar value. There are numerous examples of protected terrestrial areas in natural states for the long-term benefit of ecosystems while providing for recreational lifestyles, including wilderness areas, parks, reserves, preserves, conservation areas, and sanctuaries.

Protected areas perform many functions. They are essential for conserving biodiversity, and for delivering vital ecosystem services, such as protecting watersheds and soils and shielding human communities from natural disasters. They are places for people to get a sense of peace in a busy world - places that invigorate human spirits and challenge the senses. Protected landscapes embody important cultural values; some of them reflect sustainable land use practices. They are important also for research and education, and contribute significantly to local and regional economies, most obviously from tourism (IUCN 2008).

In the marine environment, protected areas can serve the same purpose: establishing places where certain human activities are limited or prohibited so plants and animals have a safe place to live, reproduce, and grow in as natural a state as possible. These areas can also allow for non-extractive recreational activities that provide for urban lifestyle stress relief and outdoor education.

United States
Protected Areas surf break protection in the United States at the federal level is through the National Park System (NPS). The NPS is a complex aggregate of some 370 units falling into 20 separate categories. They represent, in principle, the finest America has to offer in scenery, historical and archaeological relics, and cultural definition. The system attempts to explain America's history, interpret its culture, represent and preserve its varied ecosystems, and provide, incidentally, for the recreation of its 300 million people. The parks have been called "the crown jewels" of America (Dilsaver 1994).

The NPS is managed by the National Park Service, whose purpose is “to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations (NPS Organic Act U.S.C., title 16, sec. 1.).” The original mandates of the NPS clearly reflect a dual mission that combines preservation and recreation (NPS 2008a).

All the NPS designations (i.e. parks, monuments, seashores, recreation areas, historic landmarks, etc.) are rooted in the National Park System’s legislative and administrative history. Regardless of their titles, all System units are referred to generically as “parks” (NPS 2006).

On their Web site, the NPS lists surfing as a recreational activity at many of their managed lands. There are already quite a few surf spots in NPS managed lands. A joint project by the NPS and the Surfrider Foundation identified 85 surf spots in 25 separate units (NPS 2002). In theory, these surfing areas are under protection. In order for new surf areas to be designated as protected under the NPS they must meet certain criteria.

Every unit of the national park system has individual and specific legal authorities, which are only applicable within the park's boundary. The management of a park unit is based on its authorizing Congressional legislation or Presidential Proclamation, applicable federal laws, NPS Management Policies, and its general management plan. These laws, regulations, and policies are further refined and implemented through the “Superintendent’s Compendium”. When incorporating a surfing protected area into an NPS area, each issue should be addressed on a case-by-case basis.

State Level
As at the federal level, the state level park systems have a mandate of preservation and recreation. Although the state park systems in America are quite diverse, they are similar in their mission to preserve unique cultural, historical, and natural resources, and provide recreational opportunities. In addition they all follow the same area type designations. State Parks, State Recreation Areas, State Natural Areas, and State Historic Areas are all state owned lands that could be used towards surf break protection.

Example: California
The California State Parks system was created in 1928 with the purpose “to preserve outstanding natural, scenic, and cultural values, indigenous aquatic and terrestrial fauna and flora, and the most significant examples of ecological regions of California.” The California State Parks system is managed by the California Department of Parks and Recreation and the California State Park and Recreation Commission. Their function is to acquire, protect, develop, and interpret for the inspiration, use, and enjoyment of the people of the state a balanced system of areas with outstanding natural and cultural resource values and recreational opportunities. These areas are to be held in trust as irreplaceable portions of California's natural, cultural, and historic heritage. The latest strategic plan by the Department cites the basis for all actions on the Great Law of the Iroquois Confederacy, which states that “…In our every deliberation, we must consider the impact of our decisions on the next seven generations (California State Parks 2001).”

Today, there are 278 units within the California State Park System. 125 of the units are coastal and cover about 25 percent of California’s coastline (280 miles). In addition, the State Park System has 22 marine parks and reserves (33,755 acres), or nearly 28% of the total 95 marine areas managed by the state of California (California State Parks 2008a). Eight of its state beaches and parks officially recognize surfing as a recreational activity on their Web site, although many would argue that there are numerous additional California state parks and state beaches that offer surfing.

In order to classify a unit that would include a surfing area into the state park system, the California Department of Parks and Recreation must prepare the following to the State Park and Recreation Commission for approval:

In addition, a public hearing is scheduled by the State Park and Recreation Commission to consider each matter of classification of a unit and of approval of the department's general plan for a unit.

Discussion
Protected Area designation at either the federal or state level could be used as an option towards surfing area protection. The focus of these areas is on ecosystem protection with management objectives being both preservation and recreation. Numerous examples of surfing areas in national and state parks currently exist. One advantage of having such a designation is that they have been established for a long time and are officially recognized at the appropriate level of government, incorporating funding, monitoring, legal protection and enforcement. The disadvantage of this process, especially at the federal level, is that it requires quite an extensive nomination process, in some cases requiring legislation, which typically takes a lot of time, money, and politics, making implementation difficult. In addition, once in place, a protected area requires funding in order to monitor, protect and enforce, which may not always be a high priority in government spending, especially in times of economic recession.

Marine Protected Areas
While the protected areas described above mostly aim towards terrestrial areas, marine protected areas specifically target the marine environment. Marine Protected Area (MPA) is often an umbrella term covering a wide range of marine areas with some level of restriction to protect living, non-living, cultural, and/or historic resources. MPAs help protect important habitats and representative samples of marine life and can assist in restoring the productivity of the oceans and avoid further degradation. They are also sites for scientific study and can generate income through tourism and sustainable fishing. MPAs provide a range of benefits for fisheries, local economies and the marine environment including (ADEH 2003):

conservation of biodiversity and ecosystems;
arresting and possibly reversing the global and local decline in fish populations and productivity by protecting critical breeding, nursery and feeding habits;
raising the profile of an area for marine tourism and broadening local economic options;
providing opportunities for education, training, heritage and culture; and
providing broad benefits as sites for reference in long-term research.

Because the term MPA has been used widely around the globe, its meaning in any one country or region may be quite different than the one above. There are many related terms such as Specially Protected Area, Marine Reserve, Marine Park, No-Take Zone, or Area of Special Conservation, which have specific types of restrictions associated with them, as defined by the laws of the state or country. The permissions given within an MPA often depend on the objectives of its establishment.

Examples of MPAs that include Surfing Area Protection
While most MPAs have a focus towards biodiversity and protection of marine resources, there are at least two international case study examples of MPAs that explicitly include surfing area protection as one of their management goals.

Bells Beach, Victoria, Australia
Point Addis Marine National Park, which includes Bells Beach, is an example of a marine protected area that includes surfing. In the 2005 management plan, Victoria Parks identifies surfing as a strategy for visitors. Specifically, they state that their aim is to “Provide opportunities for surfing that are consistent with the protection of the park and sanctuary values.” Under their management plan they maintain:

“Surf breaks, including those at Bells Beach, will remain protected and accessible for recreational and competitive surfers” and “Surfing has minimal impact on environmental values and most surfers exercise surfing etiquette designed for safety and to avoid conflicts with other users. However, some activities associated with accessing the water could impact on the park or sanctuaries through loss of intertidal habitats, litter, or loss of adjacent vegetation.” (Parks Victoria 2005)
Based on the Point Addis Management Plan, the park’s future management strategies include:

Continue to permit recreational surfing in accordance with overlay prescriptions and conditions prescribed by legislation or permits.
Liaise with surfing groups and the Bells Beach Advisory Committee on park management issues affecting surfers, including events, water quality and safety.
Increase awareness in the surfing community of park and sanctuary conservation values.

Tres Palmas, Rincon, Puerto Rico
Another international example of a marine protected area that includes protecting a surf break is the Tres Palmas Marine Reserve in Rincon, Puerto Rico. The reserve was established by the passage of bill "P. de la C. 2983" in 2004. The main objective of establishing the marine reserve is to protect the coral reef from such threats including development, sedimentation and overfishing. In addition, the legislation mentions surfing as a compatible recreational activity within the marine reserve (as translated) “Within the human activities that at the moment are realized in this area, ‘surfing’ is a sport that does not affect the health of the reef, thus this is perfectly compatible with its advantage within the context of being handled like a reserve.”

The establishment of this marine reserve was a community-based grassroots effort spearheaded by the Surfrider Foundation and with the help of several other groups including the Liga Ecológica de Rincón, Liga Ecológica del Noroeste, Environmental Defense, Puerto Rico Sea Grant, GuardAguas and Surfers' Environmental Alliance, who formed a coalition, La Coalición Pro Calidad de Vida en Rincón. Together they collected over 7,000 local signatures and over 35,000 international signatures in support of the campaign (Surfrider 2006).

United States
In the United States, a marine protected area is defined as (NOAA 2008):

“…any area of the marine environment that has been reserved by federal, state, territorial, tribal, or local laws or regulations to provide lasting protection for part or all of the natural and cultural resources therein.”
NOAA has created an MPA Classification System using five key functional characteristics to describe any MPA (NOAA 2008):

Conservation Focus
Level of Protection
Permanence of Protection
Constancy of Protection
Ecological Scale of Protection

Taken together, these characteristics influence the site’s effects on local ecosystems and human users, and thus its role in contributing to the conservation of healthy marine ecosystems. Based on the above categories, a marine protected surfing area could fall under either natural heritage or cultural heritage as its conservation focus. A surfing area not only has natural features that create the break itself and the surrounding ecosystem, but often there is also a cultural heritage connection to a surf break. The ideal level of protection would be “no impact”, which would still allow surfers to access the area as surfing is an activity which does not harm the site’s resource or disrupt the ecological or cultural resources they provide. An MPA for a surf break would have permanent and year-round protection. Currently there are no marine protected areas designated at the federal level that include surfing area protection as one of the objectives.

State Level
In addition to having a federal level of MPAs, several states have their own definition of an MPA. States use a wide variety of site designation authorities to protect and manage natural and cultural coastal and marine resources. Nationwide, there are more than 100 state, territorial, and commonwealth agencies with area-based management authority.

Example - California
In 1999 the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) was passed by California legislators in order to create and manage a network of MPAs along the California coastline. In addition, the Marine Managed Areas Improvement Act (MMAIA) of 2000 created a new Marine Managed Areas (MMA) classification system in California. The new system mandates that all MMAs fall within one of the following six classifications:

Each classification is characterized by the purpose for which an area is to be managed, and the scope of protection that may/must be afforded to areas within each classification. MPAs constitute a subset of MMAs. MPAs are distinguishable from other classes of MMAs because they are designated primarily to protect or conserve marine life or habitat. State Marine Reserves, State Marine Parks, and State Marine Conservation Areas are considered MPAs. Although Cultural Preservation Area, Recreational Management Areas, and Water Quality Protection Areas can also be used to protect marine life and habitat, these areas are not considered MPAs under the MMAIA.

With surfing being a non-extractive recreational activity that has little or no discernable impact on the marine environment, protection of a surfing area could fall under any of the six classifications. State Marine Reserves provide the highest level of protection and would be the ideal for protecting surfing areas in California. In addition, any single area may be designated under more than one classification. For example, the Department of Fish and Game has stated that the designation of an area as a Marine Reserve may give some impetus to an overlaying designation as a Water Quality Protection Area. It also seems conceivable that an area designated as a Water Quality Protection Area, and/or Marine Reserve may also be designated as a Marine Recreational Management Area. For example, the area including Surfrider Beach in Malibu is already designated as an Area of Special Biological Significance (ASBS) and will automatically become a Water Quality Protection Area. Because the lagoon provides unique habitat for steelhead, tidewater goby, marine birds, and other threatened marine life, it might make a reasonable area for protection as a Marine Reserve. Finally, because it is one of the best-known surfing spots in the world, it could be a site for recognition and protection as a Marine Recreational Management Area (Surfrider Foundation 2002).

Discussion
MPAs could serve well for protected status for surfing areas because there is official recognition (and legal protection) at various government levels, a broad scale of criteria and objectives options to choose from to create the MPA to protect the surfing area, and there is regular monitoring and enforcement.

However, much of these benefits come at a cost. Significant financial and technical resources, trained staff, and data are required in order to design, create, monitor, enforce, evaluate, and adaptively manage MPAs. Another potential disadvantage is that any increase in visitors and human recreational activities resulting from MPA designation could result in impacts to marine communities from, for example, walking over inter-tidal areas or causing destruction of sea grass. Although the impact of surfing on the marine environment has not been studied, it is has been understood that surfing is a non-extractive recreational activity that has little or no discernable impact on the marine environment.

Heritage Sites

The third potential model for surfing area protection is heritage sites. While surfing reserves provide more of a recreation protection focus and protected areas provide more of an ecosystem protection focus, heritage sites provide a cultural and historical protection focus. According to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), “heritage is our legacy from the past, what we live with today, and what we pass on to future generations. Our cultural and natural heritage are both irreplaceable sources of life and inspiration (UNESCO 2008)”.

United States
A national heritage area is a designated area by the United States Congress to encourage the preservation of history in areas of distinctive human impact on the landscape. National Heritage Areas do not preserve or control any land but seek to promote tourism and to conserve natural, cultural, historic, and scenic features and preserve the traditions, customs, beliefs, and folk life that are a valuable part of the national story. Congress has established 40 National Heritage Areas around the country in which conservation, interpretation and other activities are managed by partnerships among federal, state, and local governments and the private sector (NPS 2008b). After a heritage area is designated by Congress, NPS staff partner with local community members to plan and implement activities that emphasize heritage-centered interpretation, conservation and development projects (NPS 2008b).

Newly designated National Heritage Areas have three years to develop a management plan, which, upon completion, must be approved by the Secretary of the Interior. The plan defines the mission, vision and goals of the National Heritage Area and outlines the strategies that the coordinating entity, partners and residents will use to achieve these objectives. Implementation of the plan rests in the hands of local citizens, officials, organizations and businesses - not the Federal government (NPS 2008b).

State Level
Like protected areas that exist at the state level, heritage sites also exist at the state level. Every state and territory across the nation has its own bureaus, departments, and divisions that are in charge of identification, recognition and preservation of cultural and natural heritage. Following is an example of an agency that is in charge of state level heritage resources and designations in California.

Example - California
The California Register of Historical Resources is the California state government program used by state and local agencies, private groups and citizens to identify, evaluate, register and protect California's historical resources. The Register is the authoritative guide to the state's significant historical and archeological resources. The California Register program encourages public recognition and protection of resources of architectural, historical, archeological and cultural significance, identifies historical resources for state and local planning purposes, determines eligibility for state historic preservation grant funding and affords certain protections under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (COHP 2008).

In order for a resource to be designated a historical landmark, it must meet the following criteria (COHP 2008):

Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States.
Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history.
Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values.
Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation.

The effects of a historical landmark designation include (COHP 2008):

Environmental review may be required under CEQA if property is threatened by a project.
Local building inspector must grant code alternatives provided under State Historical Building Code.
Local assessor may enter into contract with property owner for property tax reduction (Mills Act).
Owner may place his or her own plaque or marker at the site of the resource.

Discussion
Since surfing areas are both important natural and cultural sites, either federal or state-recognized heritage sites or areas could be used towards surfing area protection. The significance of this designation relies in its heritage recognition. The benefits of this include funding for identifying, preserving and promoting the heritage site, emergency assistance, the potential for increased collaboration among other agencies, and increased public attention and tourism. In some instances there is even limited protection, but overall the main disadvantage in this designation is that it does not provide much legal protection. Also, the increased public attention and tourism may eventually negatively impact the surfing area and could be viewed as a disadvantage.

Conclusion

Established surfing areas are unique natural resources that provide not only recreational opportunities, but also environmental, aesthetic, cultural and economic benefits to the surrounding coastal area. Many of our favorite surfing areas may be threatened or degraded by access restrictions, water quality problems, coastal development or disturbance to coastal ecosystems. Due to these threats protection of surfing areas has become necessary.

Various statutory approaches, common law doctrines, state constitutional laws and other alternative approaches have been and can be used for protecting surf breaks in the United States, but they provide a reactive approach to the situation. Surf area protection models instead provide a proactive approach to prevent the threats to surf breaks from happening in the first place.

Three different model types for surfing area protection were discussed: (1) surfing reserves (2) protected areas (including marine protected areas) and (3) heritage sites. Each model offers its own unique objectives, establishment, jurisdiction, and legal authorities.

Surfing reserves specifically focus on the recreational activity of surfing and protecting surf breaks. In Australia, a surfing reserve is a part of the coastal environment officially recognized by National Surfing Reserve Australia, the local community and the government for the quality and consistency of its surf and its long-term and on going relationship between the surf and surfers. One of their advantages is they receive legal protection under the Crown Lands Act of 1989. In addition, surfing reserves are flexible to fit the various needs of diverse surf breaks. Surfing reserves, so far, have been relatively easy to implement in Australia but no such models exist outside of Australia, so this model may not be as politically, legally and socially feasible to employ in other countries. There is also a concern within the surfing community that a surfing reserve would attract more surfers to the area. Surfing reserves are also a relatively new concept (compared to the more established protected areas and heritage sites) and there is no precedent to set the extent of their legal protections, so it remains to be seen how effectively they actually are.

The various protected area models provide a multitude of objectives and criteria for implementation but overall the main focus is ecosystem preservation while still being able to provide for, and protect recreation opportunities. A number of examples of surfing areas in national and state parks currently exist and there are a few examples of marine protected areas that recognize surfing areas. In most places creating a protected area is already an established process at the federal and state level. Within a protected area, a surf break can be officially recognized at the appropriate level of government, which provides for funding, monitoring, legal protection and enforcement. The disadvantage of this process, especially at the federal level, is that it requires quite an extensive nomination process, in some cases requiring legislation, which usually takes a lot of time, money, and politics and is therefore difficult to implement. In addition, once in place, a protected area requires funding in order to monitor, protect and enforce, which may not always be a high priority in government spending, especially in difficult economic times.

Heritage sites offer a third surfing area protection model. Their focus is often on preserving the historical and cultural aspects of surfing areas. Official heritage recognition can occur at either the international, federal, or state recognized level. The benefits of this include funding for identifying, preserving and promoting the heritage site, emergency assistance, the potential for increased collaboration among other agencies, and increased public attention and tourism. In some instances there is even limited protection but overall the main disadvantage in this designation is that it does not provide much legal protection. Also, the increased public attention and tourism may eventually negatively impact the surfing area and could be viewed as a disadvantage.

The Surfrider Foundation, along with other like-minded non-governmental organizations, would like to facilitate the creation of a series of protected surfing areas in order to minimize the threats of beach access restrictions, water quality problems, coastal development and degradation of coastal ecosystems to surf breaks and the surrounding coastal environment.

ADDENDUM

World Surfing Reserves Program Gains Global Leadership
Save The Waves establishes WSR Vision Council and Selection Committee

June 3, 2009, Davenport, CA – Save The Waves announces the official formation of the World Surfing Reserves Vision Council and Selection Committee for 2009. The Vision Council will provide high-level guidance and oversight for the new program, which aims to proactively designate, enshrine and preserve outstanding surfing waves, surf zones and their surrounding environments. The Selection Committee will be charged with paring down nominated candidates from around the world, and creating the initial list of potential World Surfing Reserves sites.

The WSR Vision Council includes surfing and environmental visionaries such as International Surfing Association president Fernando Aguerre, former ASP president Wayne “Rabbit” Bartholomew, big wave champion Greg Long, environmental attorney and activist Mark Massara, Mavericks pioneer and contest director Jeff Clark, Surfrider executive director Jim Moriarty, World Championship Tour Top 44 surfer Tiago Pires, and National Surfing Reserves Australia co-founders Prof. Andy Short and Brad Farmer (for a complete list see below).

The World Surfing Reserves program was launched at the Value of Waves Roundtable on December 5th, 2008, in Half Moon Bay, California. The Roundtable brought together an international group of surfers, industry leaders, environmentalists and journalists to approve and set forth a blueprint for the WSR program.

The WSR program will have three working bodies: the Vision Council, the Selection Committee and the Field Team. All three bodies will be working in different functions to select and enshrine the yearly wave nominations submitted by the International Surfing Association recognized National Governing Bodies as well as other nationally recognized environmental entities.

Vision Council: Fernando Aguerre, Will Henry, Jim Moriarty, Tony Butt, Terry Gibson, Len Materman, Miles Walsh, Wallace J. Nichols, Steve Hawk, Wayne “Rabbit” Bartholomew, Tiago Pires, Greg Long, Mark Massara, Chris LaFrankie, Chad Nelsen, Neil Lazarow, Brad Farmer, Jeff Clark, Manolo Lozano, Juca De Barros, Drew Kampion, Professor Andy Short, Professor Ben Finney.

Selection Committee: Wayne “Rabbit” Bartholomew, Tiago Pires, Greg Long, Mark Massara, Jeff Clark, Steve Hawk, Juca De Barros, João De Macedo, Dean LaTourrette, Drew Kampion, Professor Andy Short.