Protecting Surf Breaks and Surfing Areas in California

by

Michael L. Blum

Date: Approved:

Dr. Michael K. Orbach, Adviser

Masters project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Environmental Management degree

in the Nicholas School of the Environment

of Duke University

May 2015 CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... vi

LIST OF FIGURES ...... vii

LIST OF TABLES ...... vii

LIST OF ACRONYMS ...... viii

LIST OF DEFINITIONS ...... x

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... xiii

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1

2. STUDY APPROACH: A TOTAL ECOLOGY OF SURFING ...... 5

2.1 The Biophysical Ecology ...... 5

2.2 The Human Ecology ...... 7

2.3 The Institutional Ecology ...... 9

2.4. A Protected Surf Break Reflecting the Total Ecology Approach ...... 10

3. SURF BREAK CONSERVATION: PROTECTION FROM WHAT? ...... 10

3.1 Loss of California Surf Breaks ...... 11

3.2 Restricted Access ...... 12

3.3 Impaired Water Quality ...... 13

3.5 Ocean Industrialization ...... 14

3.6 Sediment: Too Much or Not Enough ...... 16

3.7 Coastal Armoring ...... 16

ii 3.8 Reduced Associative Value ...... 17

3.9 Conflicting Uses ...... 18

4. STUDY METHODOLOGY ...... 20

4.1 Literature Review...... 21

4.2 Interviews and Formal Correspondence ...... 21

4.3 Case Studies ...... 22

4.4 Policy Review ...... 22

4.5 Qualitative Analysis ...... 23

5. INTERNATIONAL SURF BREAK CONSERVATION ...... 23

5.1 Case Study: Angourie National Surfing Reserve, New South Wales, Australia ...... 24

5.2 Case Study: Surf Breaks of National Significance, New Zealand ...... 26

5.3 Case Study: Reserve Marina Tres Palmas de Rincón, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico ..... 29

6. CALIFORNIA SURF BREAK CONSERVATION ...... 32

6.1 Case Study: Trestles Historic District, San Diego County ...... 32

6.2 Case Study: Malibu World Surfing Reserve, Los Angeles County ...... 36

6.3 Case Study: Santa Cruz World Surfing Reserve, Santa Cruz County ...... 39

7. COMMON THEMES AND COMPONENTS OF SURF BREAK CONSERVATION ...... 41

7.1 Concept Integrity ...... 42

7.2 Grow Slow and Harvest Quickly ...... 43

7.3 Part of a Whole ...... 44

iii 7.4 Non-Exclusivity ...... 44

8. TRACKS TO CONSERVE SURF BREAKS AND SURFING AREAS AND SUPPORTED

BY EXISTING COASTAL CONSERVATION PROGRAMS ...... 45

8.1 Recreational ...... 45

8.2 Cultural or Historical ...... 47

8.3 Natural Heritage ...... 48

9. POLICY REVIEW...... 49

9.1 National MPA System ...... 50

9.2 California Coastal Act...... 53

9.3 National Historic Preservation Act ...... 55

9.4 Marine Managed Areas Improvement Act ...... 56

10. RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 58

10.1 National Register of Historic Places ...... 59

10.2 State Marine Cultural Preservation Areas ...... 60

10.3 State Marine Recreational Management Areas ...... 62

10.4. State Marine Water Quality Protection Areas ...... 63

10.5. California Coastal Act Local Coastal Programs ...... 64

11. CONCLUSIONS...... 66

12. REFERENCES ...... 75

iv Appendix A: Annual “Beach Bummer List” of Poor Water Quality at California Beaches, 2014- 2005 Appendix B: Case Study Interview Question List Appendix C: Multi-Jurisdictional Resource Management at Malibu Surfrider Beach, Los Angeles County Appendix D: United States Cultural Heritage Marine Protected Areas Appendix E: Australia National Surfing Reserves Appendix F: New Zealand Surf Breaks of National Significance Appendix G: World Surfing Reserves, Dedicated and Approved Appendix H: Index of California Surf Breaks Based on Wave Quality

v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I thank those, present and past, who have given me their wisdom, generosity, forbearance, and support. Yours is a steadying influence and source of deep personal pleasure. I thank my adviser, Dr. Mike Orbach who, with equal measures of good cheer and keen insight, guided me through the theoretical and practical worlds of policy making. In all aspects of this study, he endeavored to keep my feet far away from my mouth. I thank members of the surf break conservation community who work diligently to protect and recognize these important coastal places. In particular, I thank those who participated in the development of the case studies by responding – sometimes across time zones and date lines – to my interview requests. I thank Dr. Norm Christensen, James Kraska, and Steve Roady at Duke University, Dr. Charlie Wahle at NOAA, and Joe Geever for conversations on coastal and marine conservation. I thank Justin Rauzon for comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.

vi LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. The Total Ecology Approach to Policy Making…………………………...……….. 67

Figure 2. California County Map…………...…………………………………………..…….. 68

Figure 3. New South Wales, Australia Map……….….…………………………………...….. 69

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. A Total Ecology Description for Surfing………...……………………………...….... 70

Table 2. Forming Surfing Reserves. Common Themes of Creating Surfing Reserves Identified Through Key Informant Case Study Interviews, November 2014 - January 2015……...…..... 71

Table 3. Managing surfing reserves. Common Themes of Reserve Management Identified Through Key Informant Case Study Interviews, November 2014 - January 2015…...... …...... 72

Table 4. Modifications to Sediment Transport Processes.…………………………..…...…..... 73

vii LIST OF ACRONYMS

BOI Board of Inquiry

BRC Beach Report Card

CCA California Coastal Act

CHMPA Cultural Heritage Marine Protected Area

DNER Department of Natural and Environmental Resources

ESHA Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area

FPO Federal Preservation Officer

ISA International Surfing Association

LCP Local Coastal Program

LIP Local Implementation Plan

LSC Local Stewardship Council

LSP Local Stewardship Plan

LUP Land Use Plan

MBNMS Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary

MLA Military Land and National Defense Act

MLPA Marine Life Protection Act

MMA Marine Managed Area

MMAIA Marine Managed Areas Improvement Act

MPA Marine Protected Area

NHMPA National Heritage Marine Protected Area

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NMS National Marine Sanctuary

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

viii NSSA National Scholastic Surfing Association

NSR National Surfing Reserves

NSW New South Wales

NZCPS New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement

NZRMA New Zealand Resource Management Act

OHP Office of Historic Preservation

PNZCPS Proposed New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement

RMTP Reserva Marina Tres Palmas de Rincón

SCRA Sensitive Coastal Resource Area

SMCPA State Marine Cultural Preservation Area

SMRMA State Marine Recreational Management Area

SMWQPA State Marine Water Quality Protection Area

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer

SHRC State Historic Resources Commission

SPS Surfbreak Protection Society

STWC Save The Waves Coalition

TCA Transportation Corridor Agencies

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

WSA Western Surfing Association

WSR World Surfing Reserves

ix LIST OF DEFINITIONS

Coastal Beach – A shoreline area extending from the edge of the sea landward to the first line of vegetation, the toe of a coastal bluff, a coastal road, or some other differentiating natural or physical feature. Coastal beaches are often provided with easy access and, as such, may also include public improvements such as: beach facilities, parking lots, pedestrian stairways and accessways, landscaping, and drains.1

Cultural Heritage – The legacy of physical artifacts and intangible attributes of a group or society that may be inherited, maintained in the present, and bestowed for the benefit of future generations.2

Cultural Resource – The array of stories, knowledge, people, places, structures, and objects, together with the associated environment, that contribute to the maintenance of cultural identity.3

Marine Managed Area – A discrete marine or estuarine area designated by law or administrative action that protects part of, or all of, the area’s natural, physical, or cultural resources and provides for a management plan of human activities in that area.4

Marine Protected Area – A discrete marine or estuarine area designated by law or administrative action that protects marine species and habitat. A Marine Protected Area is a type, or may be a part, of a Marine Managed Area.5

Surf Break – An area representing a combination of natural, physical, and cultural features which give rise to surfable waves and supports the local activity and culture of wave-riding. While multiple types of wave riding may possible at a particular surf break, through tradition or policy, only a certain number are usually practiced. Surf breaks are most often coastal areas, but

1 Adapted from Birnbaum, B.B., and Stroh, R.C., 2001. Coastal Processes and Engineering Geology of San Diego, California. San Diego, CA: San Diego Geological Society, 145 pp. 2 From the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), unesco.org. 3 From the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Marine Protected Areas Center, marineprotectedareas.noaa.gov. 4 Adapted from Calif. Pub. Res. Code § 36602(d). 5 Adapted from Calif. Pub. Res. Code § 36700(e).

x can also be non-traditional areas such as: tidal bores, standing waves, and along lakeshores. A surfable wave is a wave caught and ridden for the purpose of wave riding.

Surfboard – A type of specialized equipment designed for surfing that allows a surfer to catch a wave under their own power (and without assistance from other equipment) and, once standing erect and wave riding, to control their speed and position relative to the wave. While other equipment may allow skilled riders to ride waves in a manner similar to a surfboard, a surfboard’s distinctive design purpose is to allow surfers to ride waves while standing. Modern surfboards represent a compromise between their length, shape, curvature, and volume to offer a level of paddling and wave riding performance for a given set of surfing conditions. A surfboard may be constructed from a variety of materials and may possess fins or other features on its underside to act as control surfaces.

Surfing – A type of water-based, active recreation and specific form of wave riding. Surfing is distinguished from other categories of wave riding in three ways. First, surfing employs a surfboard as its equipment for wave riding. Second, surfers stand erect for most, if not all, of their wave riding (cf., bodyboarding, kneeboarding). Lastly, surfing requires catching a wave, defined as the initial process of matching (or temporarily exceeding) a breaking wave so that wave riding can occur, under a surfer’s own power and without external assistance (cf., windsurfing, tow-in surfing).

Surfing Area – A complex of proximate surf breaks, each of which is conducive for wave riding. Depending on conditions, wave riders may connect their rides from one surf break to another within a surfing area.

Surfing Reserve – A surf break or surfing area recognized for its cultural, historical, or recreational importance. Depending on the conservation program, recognizing a surf break or surfing area as a reserve may deliver a number of benefits such as: increased awareness and appreciation, resolution regarding conflicting uses of the area, the availability of conservation grants, or legally binding conservation protections.

xi Wave Riding – A general type of water-based, active recreation defined by a physical interaction with the surf in which a person(s) rides a breaking wave over some distance. Types of wave riding are commonly categorized by the equipment used (e.g., surfing, bodysurfing, bodyboarding, bellyboarding; paddle-assisted wave riding including: canoeing, surfskiing, stand- up paddleboarding).

xii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In California, surfing is part of a 24 billion dollar coastal economy, a form of water-based recreation recognized in state coastal policy, and is positively identified with the state’s broad history and culture. Where surfing occurs there exist recreational opportunities, history and culture, and economic impact. Yet, surfing’s value is often not recognized or is ignored altogether in coastal management and development decisions. Consequently, the surfing experience diminishes by a variety of threats. These threats may have broad impacts on coastal environments, but they are particularly acute for surfing, which depend on surf breaks, good water quality, and public access – both as a site-specific biophysical amenity and a cultural focusing point. When fully developed, these threats have resulted in the permanent loss of surf breaks and attendant amenities. This study examines if proactive, place-based protection frameworks exist and apply to California surf breaks.

The first section describes a Total Ecology Approach to policy making (Orbach, 2014). This approach describes three dimensions, or ecological systems, which can define how, and in what way, behaviors are regulated to achieve biophysical or socioeconomic objectives. A Total Ecology Approach compliments alternative typologies which describe impacts to surfing or surfing’s social, cultural, economic, and environmental value.

The second section describes various threats to surf breaks, often manifested from coastal management, coastal development, and contested coastal resources. A surf break’s value is diminished by changes in coastal resources, access to those resources, or changes in its suite of associative features.

The third section compares three international case studies of protection achieved through statutory-based resource management to three recent cases in California. The case studies were developed through key informant interviews, together with a literature review of surf break management and protection. Four emergent case study themes are: 1) integrity; 2) grow slow and harvest quickly; 3) surfing as part of a whole; and 4) non-exclusivity. These themes describe the manner in which the protection efforts were undertaken.

xiii The fourth section identifies three conservation paths, or tracks, for surf break protection: recreational, cultural, and natural heritage. These pathways are examined with respect to existing local, state, and federal coastal and marine policy to identify candidate statutory frameworks for the protection of California surf breaks: The California Marine Managed Areas Improvement Act (2000), California Coastal Act (1976), and National Historic Preservation Act (1966). However, to date in California and, more generally in the United States, marine areas overwhelmingly protect imperiled species and habitat. In California, over 90% of state marine managed areas protect species and habitat, five protect coastal recreation, and zero protect cultural heritage.

Key points and recommendations of this study:

 The case studies, while differing in location and achieved level of protection, nevertheless describe a similar manner in which communities and authorities can collaborate on protecting surf breaks and related amenities.

 Place-based, proactive statutory frameworks exist for surf breaks, but are underutilized compared to protected areas for marine species and habitat.

 Surf breaks are site-specific, and protecting them will likely require custom combinations of legal frameworks.

 Developing program-level capacity to recognize and protect other sources of coastal resource value – such as cultural, historical, and recreational value – for areas such as surf breaks provides communities an opportunity to more fully express their interests in the coastal and ocean public trust context.

xiv 1. INTRODUCTION

Surfing continues to ride a wave of worldwide popularity and importance. From its roots in the traditional cultures of Polynesia, Hawai’i, and Peru (Kampion, 2003; Booth, 1999), surfing since the 1920s, and in particular since the 1950s, has grown to support multi-billion dollar apparel and hardgoods industries, surf-based travel destinations, media coverage, organizing associations for professional and amateur competition, and recognizable expressions throughout the performing and visual arts as a youthful, and sometimes rebellious, pursuit (Lazarow et al.,

2007; Booth, 1999; Augustin, 1998; Finnegan, 1992). Millions of participants consider surfing their form of “serious leisure” and create local, social fabrics linking multiple generations in appreciation of surfing and resident surf breaks. (i.e., Stebbins, 1992; Nelsen et al., 2013;

Peryman, 2011; Lazarow et al., 2009; Walther, 2009; Lazarow et al., 2007). This pervasive, generally positive economic and cultural presence has not always been so, where an image persists of a stereotyped surfer as a countercultural, drug–taking, slacker, pursuing a sport lacking utility (Nelsen, 2012; Lazarow et al., 2007; Booth, 1999; Johnson and Orbach, 1986).

The Windansea Pump House Gang (‘60s; Wolf, 1968), Jeff Spicoli (‘80s; Heckerling, 1982), the

Z-Boys (‘00s; Peralta, 2001), and Lobster Boy (‘10s; Halloran, 2013) are decadal examples of this role in popular culture. Through its participants surfing itself, then, is seen as a lower social standing form of coastal recreation, inhibiting its legitimate place in coastal management decisions (Nelsen et al., 2008; Booth, 1999; Johnson and Orbach, 1986).

Surfing is an important economic, as well as recreational, coastal activity: in 2000,

Californians spent more days surfing (22.6 million) than either fishing or diving (Nelsen et al.,

2008). However, calculated community economic benefits from surfing are relatively unknown and have only recently received attention (Nelsen et al., 2013; Lazarow et al., 2007; Pendleton

1 and Kildow, 2006). Oram and Valverde (1994) summarized how a natural resource is described in economic terms, and reviewed the calculated mitigation cost for a lost surf break. Similarly,

Chapman and Hanemann (2001) reviewed calculated penalties for lost recreation, including surfing, due to an oil spill in Southern California. The final settlement of $16 million (US) represented a combination of 34 days of lost recreation, including surfing, and environmental damages (Lazarow et al., 2007; CDoJ, 1999). Nelsen (2012) estimated the annual impact of the renowned surf break Trestles (San Diego County) on the local economy at $8-12 million (US) and its annual non-market (consumer surplus) value at $24 million (US).

Like many other forms of outdoor recreation, surfing is site-specific. Different surfing styles or performance standards are associated with specific surf breaks (Scarfe et al., 2009a;

Scarfe et al., 2009b; Scarfe et al., 2003; Scarfe, 2002; Walker et al., 1972; Walker and Palmer,

1971; Bascom, 1964).6 Surfing is also site-dependent, requiring an explicit, and often contested, set of coastal resources (Skellern et al., 2013; Rider, 1998). Swimming, wading, and sunbathing may take place at a beach, but surfing must take place where there are surfable waves.7 Site- specific and site-dependent surfing resources incorporate: 1) beaches and nearshore areas where waves collapse – or “break” – in shallow water and in consistent patterns as to support surfing, 2) larger surfing areas – as a complex of proximate surf breaks, and 3) other physical and associative features which, collectively, make a site unique (Scarfe et al., 2003a; Scarfe et al.,

2003b) . Other definitions of surf breaks incorporate larger spatial scales to include both

6 Surfing is a form of wave riding (see List of Definitions). As some surf breaks may favor different forms of surfing, others are incompatible for surfing at all, but conducive for alternative forms of wave riding. Multiple forms of wave riding, and surfing, may occur at a surf break concurrently. 7 Indeed, surfing has become popularized in such freshwater, non-coastal areas as: tidal bores, standing waves in rivers, along lakeshores, and upon the stern waves of large vessels. Also, several groups are working to perfect inland, artificial wave pools for surfing. Nevertheless, in this study I focus on ocean surfing, as opposed to less common freshwater or artificial forms (Cooper, 2015; Gray, 2014; Langfit, 2014; Meyer, 2012).

2 nearshore areas where waves break and broader resource corridors which contribute to wave quality and recreational value (NZDoC, 2013; Reiblich, 2013; Skellern et al., 2013).

Coastal resources important for surfing, then, possess two qualities for management authorities (Pratte, 1983). First, surfing takes place at the intersection of specific land- and ocean- based resources and environments influenced by larger oceanic and coastal processes (Edwards and Stephenson, 2013; Short, 2006). Second, surfing exemplifies the human dimension of coastal places; identifiable locations upon which a human culture, i.e., surfing culture, depends (Preston-

Whyte, 2002). Through surfing, connections to other cultural participants are developed as are connections to the location itself.

Generally speaking, where surfing occurs there exist recreational opportunities, history and culture, and economic impact. Yet, surfing’s local value is often not recognized or is ignored altogether in coastal management and development decisions (Nelsen et al., 2013; Scarfe et al.,

2009; Lazarow et al., 2007). As a result, the surfing experience diminishes by a variety of threats. These threats may have broad consequences for coastal environments, but they are particularly acute for surfing, which depend on surf breaks both as a necessary biophysical amenity and a cultural focusing point. Coastal development (Caldwell and Segall, 2007), poor water quality (Appendix A), and upstream structures (Slagel and Griggs, 2006), among other factors, affect the quality of surf breaks, often reducing “surfing capital” (Lanagan, 2002) and benefits to local communities (Nelsen et al., 2013; Hearin, 2012; CSMW, 2010; Lazarow et al.,

2009; Nelsen et al., 2008; Benedet et al., 2007; Corne, 2007; Mead et al., 2007; George, 2004;

Black et al., 1998b). In many cases, these threats have resulted in the irreversible loss of surf breaks (Mondy, 2015; Connelly, 2014; Early, 2014), with social and cultural consequences in addition to immediate recreational losses (Lazarow et al., 2009).

3 In response to these threats, and to recognize their endemic surfing history, Australia

(Farmer and Short, 2007; Short and Farmer, 2012), New Zealand (NZDoC, 2013; Skellern et al.,

2013), and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (Nelsen and Richter, 2005) were among the first governments to develop statutory frameworks conserving important surf breaks, creating state or national reserves as protected surfing areas. The nonprofit organization Save The Waves

Coalition has developed the World Surfing Reserve program (WSR; worldsurfingreserves.org), an analog to UNESCO’s World Heritage Sites, dedicated to enhancing the historical value and environmental stewardship of iconic surf breaks. However, the WSR is, like World Heritage

Sites, a non-statutory program without binding commitments to conservation.8 In most places, including California, protections for surf breaks – and therefore protection of their social, economic, recreational, and cultural values – remain absent.

This study examines a growing interest in recognizing California surf breaks through public-sector statutory, or even private-sector, frameworks conferring place-based protections. I compare international cases of protection achieved through statutory-based resource management to recent cases in California. I utilize the emergent themes from these cases to inform conservation paths, or tracks, for surf break protection. Finally, I compare these pathways to existing local, state, and federal coastal and marine policies to identify frameworks for binding protection of California surf breaks.

8 Under new leadership, the Save The Waves Coalition has shifted the World Surfing Reserves program to long-term conservation through outreach, planning and community capacity building. Two current campaigns of the Save The Waves Coalition to protect international surf breaks at Punta de Lobos, Chile and Arroyo San Miguel, Mexico reflect this new approach (STWC (a), n.d.; STWC (b), n.d.).

4 2. STUDY APPROACH: A TOTAL ECOLOGY OF SURFING

Conceptually, surfing is an interaction among three dimensions, or ecological systems

(Figure 1). First, surfing requires direct interaction with a specific, and complex, biophysical environment (AS&BPA, 2011; Walther, 2007; Scarfe, 2006; Scarfe et al., 2003a). Second, it is a human activity possessing recreational, historical, and cultural attributes. Lastly surfing activities, as well as other activities which influence the quality of the biophysical environment in which surfing takes place, are governed by various authorities. These three dimensions – biophysical, human, and institutional – form a “Total Ecology” framework: an approach by which each dimension maps onto each other to define how, and in what way, regulated behaviors may achieve biophysical and socioeconomic objectives (Orbach, 2014). The Total Ecology approach compliments alternative typologies which describe impacts to surfing or surfing’s social, cultural, economic, and environmental value (Lazarow et al., 2007; Lanagan, 2002).

2.1 The Biophysical Ecology

Surfing’s biophysical ecology is comprised of six distinct features: hydrodynamic; sedimentary; orientation; human infrastructure; environmental quality; and physical, cultural or associative.

1. Hydrodynamic. Surfing’s hydrodynamic features include: the energies which influence wave size and form, i.e., wind, fetch, current, and the water that transmits them; the beach profile and near-shore bathymetry as features which cause waves to break; and the breaking waves themselves (AS&BPA, 2011; Schrope, 2006; Short, 2006; Dally, 1989; Walker

1974a; Bascom, 1964).

2. Sedimentary. Surf breaks may also depend on sediments, and so they possess sedimentary features. Sediment supplies which nourish beaches or create natural, offshore

5 structures conducive for surfing are sedimentary features. In addition, entire “sediment areas” such as a watershed, a cliff, or a creek are potential contributing, sedimentary features, as well

(Short; 2006; Slagel and Griggs, 2006; Nelsen, 1996).

3. Orientation. Similarly, the orientation of the coastline to the ocean (which way a surf break “faces”), defines a “swell corridor” that wave energy passes through (NZCPS, 2010). For example, Malibu Surfrider Beach (Los Angeles County), a primary Southern California surf break, is at the northern end of Santa Monica Bay and faces almost directly southward. As a result, its swell corridors are generally from the south-southwest or west-southwest and can extend through the Pacific basin to the Southern Ocean (Wright, 1973; Kaner, n.d.). Other swell corridors, from the north-northwest for instance, rarely bring waves to Surfrider Beach. North- northwest swells, however, typically influence surf breaks with west-facing beaches (Wright,

1973; Bascom, 1964).

4. Human Infrastructure. Particular surf breaks may result from, or are affected by, coastal human infrastructure. The Wedge in Newport Beach (Orange County) is known for its large waves which break in relatively shallow water because of the angle between a channel- stabilizing rock jetty and the adjacent sand beach (Connelly, 2014; Wright, 1973; Mathieson, n.d.). With the right swell direction, waves reflect directly off the nearby jetty (the west side of

Newport Harbor) and interact with the next, incoming wave. The resulting interaction

(constructive interference) creates a wave larger than the energy contained in the original swell.

Under the right conditions, waves of 5-8 m at The Wedge are possible (Connelly, 2014; Wright,

1973; Mathieson, n.d.). Similarly, piers, groins, and breakwaters worldwide alter sediment transport and create sandbars conducive for surfing. The Sandspit (Santa Barbara County),

Huntington Beach Pier (Orange County), and the Newport Beach jetties (Orange County) are

6 examples of California sandbar surf breaks formed by coastal human infrastructure (Scarfe et al.,

2009; George, 2004; Wright, 1973).

5. Environmental Quality. Because surfing requires direct contact with the physical environment, its biophysical ecology also includes environmental quality features such as water quality and beach quality. Among other things, environmental quality affects human health and aesthetics (Feldman, 1990; Appendix A).

6. Physical, Cultural, or Associative. Finally, because surfing is a human activity that often occurs in the proximity of other current or historic human activities, a surf break may possess physical, cultural, or associative features which identify, even define, it within the surfing community. This may include previously mentioned structures such as piers or jetties which contribute directly to quality of surfing waves. However, cultural or associative features may include other landmark features, too. Surfing at Steamer Lane (Santa Cruz County), for example, takes place in view of the landmark Santa Cruz/Mark Abbott Memorial Lighthouse

(Marcus, n.d.). References to identifying features at surf breaks such as: “Four Doors” (San

Onofre, San Diego County); “The Shack” (Windansea, San Diego County); “Trestles” (Trestles,

San Diego County); “The Pit” (Malibu Surfrider Beach, Los Angeles County); or “The Rock”

(Morro Bay, San Luis Obispo County) (Wright, 1973) suggest that surfers describe local surf breaks, in part, through associative aspects of the physical environment.

2.2 The Human Ecology

Surfing’s human ecology includes four non-exclusive constituent groups that comprise a family of persons, organizations, and associations related to the sport, business, and culture of surfing.

7 1. Surfers. Surfers themselves, active participants in the sport, form one group. Surfers may identify themselves at differing levels of specificity, for example: a surfer, a

California/mainland surfer, a local surfer, a professional surfer (Booth, 1999; Kaffine, 2009).

Surfers often possess a set of cultural norms largely defined by those at their primary surfing area, creating both the area’s unique identity as well as its reputation. This identity is promoted to, hidden from, or defended against others (Martin, 2012; Daskalos, 2007; Kaffine, 2009).

2. Non-surfers. Non-surfers include people who identify with surfing in some way, but who are not themselves surfers. Non-surfers do not possess a unified culture, but they may possess a reference to, or identification with, surfers or surfing. References may come through an aspect of surfing culture – adopting a “beach” lifestyle, wearing surf-related apparel, or even watching a surfing contest or owning an unused surfboard. Alternatively, non-surfers may recreate in, or near, a portion of a particular surf break’s biophysical ecology (e.g., swimming or

“beach-going”) and thereby come to identify with an area’s surfers. Diving, swimming, sailing, and fishing are examples of related, but non-surfing, recreation.

3. Surf Industry. Surfing-related industries form a third group. These include companies, for example, that design or manufacture surfing equipment, accessories, or apparel as well as their distributors and retailers. The group also contains companies that organize and produce surfing-related events and media companies that report on the events or, more generally, the sport as a whole.

4. Surf-related Organizations. The last group is surf-related organizations. These are associations which organize competition on a regional, international, or professional basis such as: International Surfing Association (ISA, isasurf.org), National Scholastic Surfing Association

(nssa.org), Surfing America (surfingamerica.org), Surfing Australia (surfingaustralia.com),

8 Western Surfing Association (surfwsa.org), and World Surf League (worldsurfleague.com). The

ISA, the world governing authority for surfing, currently recognizes over ninety state surfing federations (ISA, 2015).

Other organizations may reflect the social or political interests of surfers through programs of humanitarian aid, environmental advocacy, adaptive or therapeutic surfing, and curating the artifacts and stories related to surfing. Examples of these social organizations include: California Surf Museum (surfmuseum.org), Mauli Ola Foundation (mauliola.org),

Operation Comfort (operationcomfort.org), SurfAid (surfaid.org), Surfing Heritage & Culture

Center (surfingheritage.org), Surfers Healing (surfershealing.org), the Surfrider Foundation

(surfrider.org), and THERAsurf (therasurf.org).

2.3 The Institutional Ecology

Surfing’s institutional ecology consists both of public-sector management authorities which directly influence the behavior of participants in surfing’s human ecology as well as those which indirectly affect behaviors related to its biophysical ecology through legislative and administrative regulation. For example, by ordinance local government and service agencies may control both the beach and nearshore areas as well as the times of day during which surfing takes place. The City of Newport Beach (Orange County), like many other heavily-accessed beach communities, prohibits surfing in certain areas, at certain times of the day, and during certain seasons, through its “blackball” policy. This refers to the black circle/yellow background signal

flag lifeguards use to identify when the policy is in effect.9 This is one type of control of

9 Newport Beach, California, Municipal Code §11.16.020-070.

9 surfing’s human ecology. Alternatively, Los Angeles County recognizes Malibu Surfrider Beach exclusively for surfing, i.e., no swimming, an example of a permissive control of surfing.10

In addition to these conspicuous interactions with surfing, other authorities collectively establish a regulatory structure for how activities and behaviors indirectly affecting surfing are managed. Resource authorities are also responsible for: water quality, sedimentation (Dally and

Osiecki, 2007), land use and management (Benedet et al., 2007; do Carmo et al., 2010; Hearin,

2012), beach access and maintenance (Caldwell and Segall, 2007), marine structures (Corbett et al., 2005), wildlife, recreational activities, and historic sites. Between direct and indirect control of its human ecology, surfing’s institutional ecology directs its protections both as a recreational activity and through a surf break’s particular biophysical ecology.

2.4. A Protected Surf Break Reflecting the Total Ecology Approach

A Total Ecology Approach is a framework describing the physical and cultural extent of surf breaks (biophysical), their participants (human), and their management (institutional)

(Orbach, 2014; Table 1). The framework provides a conceptual definition of a protected surf break: A protected surfing break or surfing area is one in which its constitutive biophysical ecology is conserved against various threats, through the management authorities of its institutional ecology, and with the support and engagement of its human ecology.

3. SURF BREAK CONSERVATION: PROTECTION FROM WHAT?

Surfing depends on a complex and dynamic interaction of coastal resources. As a cultural activity, surfing depends on associative features, recognized from the land and the sea, unique to a surf break. A surf break’s value diminishes by changes in coastal resources, by access to those

10 Los Angeles, California, County Code § 17.12.510.

10 resources, or changes in the suite of associative features which degrade its recreational or cultural value.

3.1 Loss of California Surf Breaks

More than 41% of the global population lives within coastal areas, i.e., within 100 km of the coast (Martínez et al., 2007). Twenty one of world’s 33 megacities are within these coastal areas (Martínez et al., 2007). This desire to live near the coast is so great that floating islands,

“seasteads,” are often alternatives to serve transportation, commercial, even residential, requirements (McCauley et al., 2015). In the United States, seven of the top 20 – and three of the top five – coastal counties that showed the greatest population increases between 1960 and 2008 are in California, where 68% of the state population lives along its 1,7000 km coastline (Wilson and Fischetti, 2011; Figure 2).

Coastal development most often manifests as a set of pressures and effects on surfing that, when fully realized, have permanently altered California’s surf breaks. A lost surf break either never breaks or is significantly diminished in its wave quality. The surf breaks Killer Dana

(Orange County) and Corona Del Mar (Orange County) were lost in construction of the Dana

Point Harbor and the Newport Harbor jetties, respectively (Connelly, 2014; Early, 2014; Wright,

1973). Stanley’s Reef (Ventura County) was lost by a 1970 alignment and extension of U.S.

Route 101 (SSG, 2015). In Los Angeles County, the Long Beach surf break was lost during

WWII by construction of a protective breakwater for military vessels and the Port of Long Beach

(SFLBC, n.d.). State Beach in northern Los Angeles was lost after a constructed breakwater widened the beach by more than 75 m (R. Wilken, pers. comm.). A realignment of Pacific Coast

Highway and costal parking lot following a landslide eliminated Hoshi Reef (Los Angeles

County) (R. Wilken, pers. comm.). While coastal development is often irreversible, a campaign

11 initiated by the environmental nonprofit the Surfrider Foundation aims to remove the Long

Beach breakwater and thereby deliver, among other benefits, restored surfing at Long Beach

(SFLBC, n.d.).

3.2 Restricted Access

California beaches are public resources identified in the state’s Public Trust Doctrine, providing the public unrestricted access below the mean high water mark. This level of access is diminutive compared to other states. Hawai’i, North Carolina, and Oregon, for example, all extend Public Trust access beyond the mean high water mark up to the vegetation line.11 For surfers and the public, having convenient accesses directly from the land (i.e., vertical access) to both meet demand and preserve access through existing points remains an ongoing challenge.12

In 2014, the California Coastal Commission, the state authority regulating coastal zone access and resource use, had approximately 650 open cases of municipal and private beach access violations (TEB, 2014). The City of Dana Point (Orange County) was found to unnecessarily restrict access to Strands Beach and the surf break there, by erecting gates and limiting hours to two access points (Papagianis, 2013). At Paradise Cove, Malibu (Los Angeles County), the

Paradise Cove Land Co. restricted access to the Paradise Cove and Little Dume surf breaks by charging a $20 walk-in fee and erecting signs that (illegally) prohibited surfing in the area

(Groves, 2014a; Groves, 2014b). In San Mateo County, a private property owner restricted public access to Martins Beach by closing and locking a trail gate, and erecting “Beach Closed,”

“No Trespassing,” and other signs meant to restrict signs (CCC, 2014). The property owner also

11 Haw. Rev. Stat. § 200-1; NC Gen. Stat. § 77-20; OR Rev. Stat. § 390.605. 12 Surfers themselves also restrict access to certain surf breaks, treating out-of-area, “non-local” surfers aggressively, even violently, to maintain an exclusive social order (Kaffine, 2009; Nazer, 2004; Schmidt, 2004; Kampion, 2003; Rider, 1998).

12 restricted access by staffing armed guards to keep beachgoers and surfers from the access trail

(CCC, 2014; Fimrite, 2014). In each of these recent cases, the Coastal Commission determined that the municipality or property owner violated the CCA by restricting beach access to surfers and the public.13 The general problem is that although the ocean, water, and the shore below the mean high water mark are public trust environments, the adjacent property above the high tide mark is most often privately owned. Thus, the question is: How does the public (including surfers) reach “their” public trust spaces?

3.3 Impaired Water Quality

Surfing is a water-contact form of recreation. Surfing in clean water has both health and aesthetic benefits. In contrast, polluted coastal waters, often in the form of fecal contamination increases risk of gastrointestinal illness and as well as eye and ear infection (Dwight et al.,

2004). In January 2015, an otherwise healthy San Diego surfer died from an S. aureus infection

(KABC, 2015). The surfer ignored the commonly violated “72-hour rule” advising against water contact recreation for 72 hours following a rainstorm as bacteria counts in nearshore waters often exceed California Department of Public Health standards (Busch, 2009). Appendix 1 summarizes the annual “Beach Bummer” list between 2014-2005 of ten California beaches with the worst average water quality, as compiled by the nonprofit environmental organization Heal the Bay. Several surf breaks (in bold) are repeated “Beach Bummers,” including popular

“nursery breaks” (i.e., beginning surfing) at Cowell’s (Santa Cruz County) and Doheny (Orange

County). In a study of 28 Southern California beaches, Given et al. (2006) estimated that 50,000 annual cases of gastro-intestinal illness occurred from swimming at the surf breaks Malibu (Los

Angeles County) and Doheny (Orange County) during the April-October dry weather season.

13 Surfrider Foundation v. Martins Beach LLC et al. Super. Ct. San Mateo County, CIV520336 (Cal. 2014).

13 Additional illnesses at the two beaches represented a $2 million (US) annual cost, and a $21-51 million (US) annual cost across the 28-beach study group (Given et al., 2006). Shuval (2003) estimated the annual cost of increased illness from recreational contact in contaminated coastal waters at $12 billion (US) globally. Planned municipal wastewater infrastructure improvements near the popular Malibu (Los Angeles County) and Rincon (Santa Barbara County) surf breaks were designed to eliminate local existing septic systems and provide sanitary sewer service

(CSD, 2006).

Degraded coastal ecosystems may also threaten surf breaks. Trash and nutrients

(commonly nitrogen and phosphorous) are not, per se, usually harmful to human health.

However, each is a regulated pollutant harmful to coastal ecosystems. Increased nutrient levels can cause excessive, localized algal growth. Eventual algal death and decomposition drastically reduces dissolved oxygen levels, killing biological populations. Marine species may ingest or become entangled by trash causing individual death. Surfing is an outdoor recreational activity whose value, in part, derives from interacting within a coastal ecosystem. Impaired water quality manifested in a degraded costal environment reduces surfing’s human and aesthetic value.

3.5 Ocean Industrialization

An increasing demand for ocean resources – whether for food, oil and gas, tide/wind energy, or water – has driven industrial expansion and the technologies that serve them

(McCauley et al. 2015). In Europe, offshore wind farm installations have grown from 89 to

1,483 MW installed between 2004 and 2014 (EWEA, 2015). In California, total mariculture acreage doubled between 1979 and 1994 (CSLC, 1994). During the same period, more than 90% of commercial kelp harvests were limited to Northern California, resulting from a combination of implementing protected areas and overexploitation of viable beds in Southern and Central waters

14 (CSLC, 1994). In 2011, a wave energy project was proposed for 3,100 MW, consisting of 11,000 generators, over a 5 km2 area adjacent to the surfing areas of San Onofre and Trestles (both San

Diego County) (Barboza, 2011). In Los Angeles County, an on-shore, directional drilling project, containing one drilling rig and up to 34 wells, was proposed at Hermosa Beach to access an oil

field 560 m beneath the sea floor (E&BNR (a), n.d.; E&BNR (b), n.d.; HtB, n.d.).14 While

California has long opposed oil and gas exploration and extraction in federal waters of its coast between 3 and 200 nm offshore (i.e., in the Economic Exclusive Zone), it continues to promote such activities within its coastal waters (e.g., E&BNR (a), n.d.). Encouraging exploration and extraction activity is consistent with the goals of the California State Lands Commission and with the California Coastal Act (TCA), the primary law regulating the state’s coastal zone development.15 In San Diego County, Poseidon Water is constructing a 50 mgd desalination plant, served by a 100 mgd intake, in proximity to Terra Mar and Warm Water Jetties surf breaks

(Brennan, 2014).

The TCA aims to maximize public recreational opportunities within the coastal zone, including recreation such as surfing. However, the TCA prioritizes coastal-dependent development – including electrical generation facilities, offshore petroleum and gas development, and ports – to support the state’s economy (Oram and Valverde, 1994).16 Although these activities may not directly interfere with wave quality at surf breaks, they represent long- term investments in coastal infrastructure which may affect social and economic surfing value.

14 The City of Hermosa Beach “Measure O” ballot proposal to adopt an ordinance granting the City approval to the oil and gas drilling project was defeated 80% No, 20% Yes in the March 3, 2015 municipal elections (CoHB, 2015). 15 Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 30001.5. 16 Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 30001.2; 30001.5.

15 3.6 Sediment: Too Much or Not Enough

Coastlines are affected by a dynamic interaction of oceanographic, geologic, and human processes. Beach and nearshore profiles depend on offshore and inland sediment supplies.

Altering transport processes by trapping, impounding, and excavating material (Table 4), or by stabilizing shorelines to slow natural erosion, effectively removes sediments from beaches and nearshore areas. In California, 54 beaches are concern areas (i.e., Beach Erosion Control Areas, or BECA; CSMW, 2010) because of interrupted sediment supplies and altered beach profiles

(CSMW, 2010). In contrast, coastal structures such as piers, groins, jetties, and breakwaters alter shoreline transport processes, trap sediments, and effectively widen updrift beaches and narrow downdrift ones (SF, 2013; CCC, 2002; CDBW, 2002). Widening also occurs through direct beach nourishment – placing discrete sand supplies from offshore, dredged, or occasionally inland sources onto beaches. All nourishment projects, at least initially, affect the characteristics of waves conducive for surfing (AS&BPA, 2011; Benedet et al., 2007). Proposed California nourishment projects have been abandoned through activist campaigns focused on the negative project effects on surfing (Oram and Valverde, 1994; Lee, 1992; Matthews, 1985). Too little sediment – through erosion or interrupted transport – or too much sediment – through widening – affects the resource balance considered necessary for surfable waves.

3.7 Coastal Armoring

Armoring places hardened shoreline structures to prevent coastal erosion, increase resilience, and in some historic cases actually create developable land out into the sea (e.g., San

Francisco Bay and Los Angeles and Dana Point Harbors). Vertical seawalls and bulkheads, slope-stabilizing revetments, and riprap mounds are examples of coastal armoring structures.

Armoring protects private property, improvements, and public infrastructure (Benedet et al.,

16 2007; CDBW, 2002). A 2002 survey of California’s coastline estimated 165 km (9%) is armored in some fashion; 93 km (57%) protecting coastal lowlands and the remaining 72km (43%) protecting sea cliffs (CDBW, 2002). By design, armoring structures inhibit seaward sediment transport, altering beach profiles (CSMW, 2010; CDBW, 2002). On the seaward side, armoring alters wave patterns by deflecting incoming wave energy (Benedet et al., 2007). This increases erosion at the structure site, and again, alters beach profiles. As large hardened features creating altered beach profiles armored structures also inhibit vertical and horizontal (i.e., shoreline) beach access.

Recent investigations have pursued offshore, multi-purpose artificial reefs as alternatives to coastal armoring (Black and Mead, 2009; Corbett et al., 2005; Anon, 1999; Mead and Black,

1999a; Mead and Black, 1999b). In theory, properly engineered and sited artificial reefs would cause waves to break offshore, dissipating some of their erosional force (Black and Mead, 2009;

Benedet et al., 2007; Black, 2001b). Artificial reefs may substitute for armored structures and provide the public a full range of value with access to beach resources (Challinor, 2003; Mead,

2001; Mocke et al., 2003; Weight, 2003). Also artificial reefs may create a recreational amenity for surfing or other forms of wave riding (Black and Mead, 2009; Black, 2001a; Black and

Mead, 2001; Mead, 2001; Black et al., 1998a). Presently, artificial reefs have not, or only intermittently have, realized their theoretical potential, either as a preferred alternative to coastal armoring or as a recreational amenity (Black and Mead, 2009; Borrero and Nelsen, 2003; Mack,

2003; Mocke et al., 2003).

3.8 Reduced Associative Value

Because surfing takes place outdoors it possesses associative features, whether natural or physical, which define a site-specific, cultural context. Local landmarks possess associative value

17 identify surf breaks. In 1999, the 59 meter-high Cape Hatteras Lighthouse Station, NC, the iconic structure of the Cape Hatteras surfing area, was relocated 0.9 km inland as protection from the retreating shoreline (NPS, n.d.). Presently, the surfing area is still named Cape Hatteras, but the lighthouse is no longer in immediate view of the surf breaks. In California, the early surf shacks of Malibu (Los Angeles County) and the shaping room of pioneering surfboard builder Dale

Velzy underneath the Manhattan Beach Pier (Los Angeles County), which both functioned as reference points and social centers for area surfers, no longer remain (Kaufman, 2012; Carlson,

2005). In both Southern (Los Angeles) and Central (Santa Cruz) California, surfers in the water can often see the distant snow-capped mountains where they also ski and snowboard.

Coastal views, as seen from offshore vantage points, provide associative context for a surf break. In this way, changes to coastline, ridgelines, and viewsheds may reduce the aesthetic and associative value of a surf break (Skellern et al., 2013; Lazarow et al., 2009). The Coastal

Act considers the coastal zone’s scenic and visual qualities a resource of public importance.17 In

National Audubon Society v. Superior Court of Alpine County,18 the California Supreme Court held that recreational resources, including scenic views, were protected by the public trust doctrine (Oram and Valverde, 1994). However, with the increasing development and urbanization of coastal areas it is likely that some viewshed changes are unavoidable.

3.9 Conflicting Uses

Surfing may conflict with other activities that require utilization of site-specific coastal resources (Edwards and Stephenson, 2013). Conflicts may exist at different spatial scales and are resolved by a variety of mechanisms. At large spatial scales surfing, or the vertical and horizontal

17 Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 30251. 18 National Audubon Society v. Superior Court of Alpine County (Mono Lake Case), 658 P.2d 709 (Cal. 1983).

18 access to surf breaks, may conflict with security requirements of restricted areas such as military installations and public infrastructure assets. In these cases, surfing or access is prohibited to unauthorized individuals.

At smaller scales, surfers may compete with other recreational user groups for the same area. Coastal structures such as piers and jetties alter longshore sediment transport and often create nearby sand bars conducive for surfing (Benedet et al., 2007; George, 2004). At the same time, these structures serve as primary sites for marine recreational fishing. Which group receives preferential use rights is largely cultural; dependent upon a group’s place in society and its values and perceptions (Johnson and Orbach, 1986). Lazarow et al. (2007) added a group’s socioeconomic impact, organization, and ability to provision public improvements as additional factors in determining use rights. Local government may grant usage rights by exercising extra- jurisdictional authority in coastal waters. For example, the City of San Diego has created four, purpose-driven activity zones, thereby granting exclusivity to specific recreation user groups: board surfing, non-board surfing, swimming, and boat launching.19 The zones extend seaward

305 m (1000 ft) from the mean high water mark and its lateral boundaries are determined by the

City Council, with modification by lifeguards based on prevailing conditions.20

At the individual scale, surfers may conflict with each other as surfable waves are contested resources (recreation competition). Surfers may also conflict over differing identifications with surfing. The equipment used for wave riding, preferred styles of wave riding, skill level, and primary surf break all contribute to an identity within the surfing community

(social competition). The community of surfers at the big-wave surf break Mavericks (San Mateo

County) clashed over the simultaneous presence of both traditional surfers, who paddle by hand

19 San Diego, California, Municipal Code § 63.20.2. 20 San Diego, California, Municipal Code § 63.20.2(b).

19 to catch waves, and more modern, tow-in surfers who, as the name suggests, are towed behind a personal water craft and released at speed to catch waves (Dixon, 2002). Traditional surfers characterized tow-in surfing as noisy, environmentally harmful and, at an extreme, not meeting a definition of surfing (Dixon, 2002; see List of Definitions). To tow-in surfers, traditional surfing was regressive and limited the surfing potential at Mavericks (Dixon, 2002). NOAA, the marine authority at Mavericks as the surf break is within the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine

Sanctuary, bans tow-in surfing except from December 1 through February 28 when a National

Weather Service High Surf Warning is in effect (NOAA, 2011).21

Surfing takes place in an increasing crowded environment and under increasing competition for coastal resources. Coastal development, and subsequent protection of its assets, can result in various threats to surf breaks and define both a context and motivation for protection. The increasing popularity of coastal recreation brings surfing into conflict with other activities. This includes intramural conflicts, as surfing itself becomes more popular and surf breaks, as a fixed recreational resource, become increasingly crowded (Nazer, 2004; Schmidt,

2004).

4. STUDY METHODOLOGY

This study utilized qualitative research methods to evaluate opportunities for surf break protection in California. Primary information was collected through a series of general and case study interviews. Secondary information was collected through a policy review and a review of relevant literature.

21 Personal water craft are also used by expert operators to rescue swimmers or surfers in distress. The specific role of personal water craft in lifesaving at Mavericks, a deadly surf break, was also debated.

20 4.1 Literature Review

A literature review was conducted focusing on concepts important to managing and protecting surf breaks as well as how surfing is defined by management authorities, and general public policies regarding coastal environments and resources. Sources were collected through online searches, printed resources, and from case study interviews.

4.2 Interviews and Formal Correspondence

Key informant interviews were conducted with 16 individuals over 30 hours as part of a case study analysis (Marshall, 1996). The interviews explored how surf breaks were initially protected, which protections they were granted, and how the areas are currently managed. Some interview subjects were initially identified through their leadership roles in surf break protection initiatives at the case study locations and others through snow-balling sampling (i.e., asking interviewees who else I should speak with). Most interviewees served within non-governmental organizations dedicated to surfing-related, environmental issues generally, or surf break protection specifically. At least two interviewees represented each case study location.

Preceding the interview, interviewees were provided a set of twenty questions, divided into two sections of ten questions each. The first ten questions focused on defining and developing the protected surfing area: the second ten with its ongoing management.

Interviews were conducted via telephone or voice-over IP between November, 2014 and

January, 2015. Notes were taken during the interview, with further annotations made immediately following the interview’s conclusion. In one case, an interviewee responded directly to interview questions via email.

21 4.3 Case Studies

A case study approach was utilized to compare a set of international surf break protection efforts to protection efforts in California. The international cases, selected because of their prominent history of surf area protection, were:

1. The Angourie National Surfing Reserve of Australia;

2. The New Zealand surf breaks of national significance protected under the 2010

Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS);

3. And the Reserva Marina Tres Palmas de Rincón (Tres Palmas Marine Reserve of

Rincon), of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

The California cases, which were selected to represent the different geographical areas of

Southern and Central California where most surfing takes place, were:

1. The Trestles Historic District nomination to the National Register of Historic Places;

2. The Malibu World Surfing Reserve;

3. And the Santa Cruz World Surfing Reserve.

4.4 Policy Review

A review of national and California marine protected areas (MPAs) inventoried under the

NOAA National MPA Center was undertaken to inform the California case studies. The review identified patterns of marine managed areas in state, federal, and territorial waters. Protected areas were created under a number of legislative and executive actions. The Magnuson-Stevens

Fishery Conservation and Management Act (legislative), the National Marine Sanctuaries Act

22 (legislative), the Dry Tortugas National Park22 (legislative) and the Papahānaumokuākea Marine

National Monument (executive)23 are examples of enabling actions of marine protected areas.

To identify potential paths for surf break protection in California a review of existing local, state, and federal statutory frameworks for both cultural and historical protection and coastal zone protection was also performed.

4.5 Qualitative Analysis

A qualitative analysis of case study themes was conducted to understand how protections could confer to California surf breaks. Notes from the key informant interviews were reviewed to identify initial themes and supplemented with other themes identified through the literature review.

5. INTERNATIONAL SURF BREAK CONSERVATION

Internationally, several examples now exist of geographically bounded areas protected for surfing. These areas exist through cooperative engagement between communities and non- governmental organizations on one hand, and management authorities at the state, regional, or national level on the other. The areas are protected by a range of policy and management tools, and represent different approaches to cover land- and sea-based physical resources.

Local, immediate threats to a surfing resource have often brought communities and non- governmental organizations together, providing an animating force for surf break protection.

22 The Dry Tortugas National Park was established as a National Monument by executive order in 1935. Protected areas may be revised over time and assume different boundaries, protections, and authorities. 23 50 C.F.R. §§ 404.1 - 401.12. The founding action, Proc. No. 8031, 3 C.F.R. (2006), originally named the area the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument. Proclamation 8031 was revised in February, 2007 to rename the area Papahānaumokuākea National Monument.

23 Many protected surf breaks internationally also represent proactive efforts to recognize the importance of surfing in the absence of an immediate threat.

5.1 Case Study: Angourie National Surfing Reserve, New South Wales, Australia

The National Surfing Reserves is a nonprofit, collaborative group established to recognize

Australia’s important surf breaks and to provide a model for such reserves globally (Short and

Farmer, 2012; NSR (b), n.d.). NSR has established three categories of reserves: regional, national, and world surfing reserves based on a surf break’s quality, renown and use, as well as its importance to local, national, or international audiences (NSR (b), n.d.). There are an estimated twenty-plus Australia surf breaks which satisfy the NSR reserve criteria (Anderson,

2013).24 NSR reserves are inherently proactive designations dedicated without the protections of management authorities. The NSR template for World Surfing Reserves, to proactively recognize surf breaks of exceptional quality and importance to the global surfing community, was later adapted by the nonprofit organization Save The Waves Coalition for their World Surfing

Reserves program (see Malibu World Surfing Reserve (2010) and Santa Cruz World Surfing

Reserve (2012) case studies).

The State of New South Wales possesses a 100-year history of surfing and surf lifesaving and is a center of Australia’s surfing culture, history, economy, and current interest in the sport

(Booth, 2009; Farmer and Short, 2007; Kampion, 2003). New South Wales represents nearly one-third of Australia’s overall population and, within it, the country’s largest surfing population

(ABS, 2014). In 2005-2006, NSR developed a cooperative relationship with the Department of

24 An estimated 100-plus Australia surf breaks satisfy regional surfing reserve criteria. Australia’s first Regional Surfing Reserve is expected to be dedicated in 2016 (A. Short, pers. comm.).

24 Lands25 to utilize the Crown Lands Act 1989 (NSW) §§ 78-91 as a statutory framework to recognize and protect areas as Crown reserves specifically for surfing and enjoyment by the general public (Farmer and Short, 2007). Protections under the Crown Lands Act are conferred by requiring consistency between a reserve’s purpose and its use (NSW (a), 2010). In this way, development proposals that may affect a reserve must evaluate impacts and initiate a consent process with the Crown Lands office (NSW (a), 2010). As Skellern et al. (2013) noted, a proposal, “…triggers planning mechanisms for stating objections or working to mitigate impacts, involving stakeholders and finally the right to a legal appeal.”

The Crown estate controls approximately one half of all NSW lands, including many of the state’s historic and scenic areas, and the areas which contain the state’s important (i.e., nationally important) surf breaks (NSW (b), 2010). The underwater jurisdiction of the Crown

Lands Act extends three nautical miles to sea from the mean high water mark, so Crown surfing reserves can include both land and sea surfing resources (NSW (b), 2010). Ongoing management of Crown reserves is conducted through a local committee, approved and funded by Crown

Lands (Farmer and Short, 2007).

The Angourie National Surfing Reserve (approximately 675 kilometers north of Sydney;

Figure 3) was dedicated in January 2007 and officially gazetted as the first Crown Surfing

Reserve, joining a portfolio of over 35,000 places within the Crown system (Short and Farmer,

2012; Farmer and Short, 2007; Gibson and Frew, 2007). The reserve boundaries incorporated nine proximate surf breaks and extended 500 m seaward from the mean high water mark (Scarfe et al., 2012; Short and Farmer, 2012; Farmer and Short, 2007). The dedication ceremony included representatives of NSR, the Minister for Lands, and members of the native Yaegl

25 Now the Department of Primary Industries, dpi.nsw.gov.au.

25 People, traditional custodians of the NSW north coast for over 60,000 years (Farmer and Short,

2007). Seven Crown Surfing Reserves have been dedicated since the Angourie NSR, the most recent at Manly-Freshwater in 2010. These eight Crown reserves represent the only protected surfing areas within the NSR system (NSR (a), n.d.; Appendix E).26

5.2 Case Study: Surf Breaks of National Significance, New Zealand

New Zealand’s Resource Management Act 1991 (NZRMA) is the nation’s primary law for environmental resource management, including coastal zone resources (NZDoC, n.d.). The

NZRMA defines resource development requirements and the granting conditions for “resource consent” (NZMfE (b), n.d.). The NZRMA also develops national policy statements as instruments to describe the goals and policies for matters of national significance. In this way, the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS) puts into effect the NZRMA within the coastal zone (NZMfE (a), n.d.). Through the NZCPS, local authorities receive guidance on day- to-day management of costal resources and, in turn, include NCZPS provisions within their official land use plans (Skellern et al., 2013). The NZCPS has a broad geographical scope: extending in coastal waters from the mean high water mark seaward to 12 nm, (the limit of New

Zealand’s territorial sea) and includes coastal, foreshore, and seabed lands (NZDoC, n.d.). The

first NZCPS was released in 1994. Until 2007, when the review process leading to the current

NZCPS was initiated, surf breaks were not included in either NZRMA or NZCPS consent application impact assessments (Skellern et al., 2013; BOI, 2009). That is, New Zealand surf breaks were not protected under the NZRMA or NZCPS.

26 Gazetted in 1973 (a world first), the Bells Beach Surfing Recreation Reserve (Barwon South West, Victoria, AU) is a protected area recognizing Bells Beach’s surfing history, its natural setting, and the long-standing, annual contest held there. Presently, the Bells Beach Surfing Recreation Reserve is not part of the National Surfing Reserve system. The reserve boundaries only include landward resources, and not the Bells Beach surf breaks.

26 The NZRMA also defines how resource management is undertaken in relationship to the native

Māori people, recognizing the Māori ethic of kaitiakitanga – a way of managing environmental resources based on a deep connection between humans and the natural world (NZDoC, n.d.). The

NZRMA requires national policy statements, such as the NZCPS, to seek and consider comments from Māori tribal (iwi) authorities. Finally, the NZRMA and NZCPS must account for the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi), the 1840 agreement (and subsequent legislation) meant to reconcile the Crown and the Māori in management decisions

(NZDoC, n.d.).

The Surfbreak Protection Society (SPS) is a nonprofit organization formed to,

“…promote the conservation and protection of surf breaks throughout New Zealand” (Skellern et al., 2013; SPS, n.d.). In 2007, as the Ministry of Conservation initiated the NZCPS review process, SPS submitted a proposal to protect six surf breaks of national significance from inappropriate use and development, first, by classifying them as a coastal resource, then by including them as resources for protection directly within the NZCPS (Skellern et al., 2013;

Skellern et al., 2009). The national significance criterion was based on wave quality and cultural importance (BOI, 2009).

The proposal was accepted with some modifications and incorporated into a Proposed

NZCPS (PNZCPS) released for public comment. SPS, together with a network of academics and professionals including: coastal planners, engineers, lawyers, and geographers, participated in the

2008 PNZCPS public comment process (Skellern et al., 2009). The group advocated protecting additional surf breaks of national significance and refining the proposed surf break protections.

The Board of Inquiry (BOI) accepted these ideas; validating the importance of some of New

27 Zealand’s surf breaks, their constituent biological and physical resources, their recreational value, and economic benefit:

Some of New Zealand’s surf breaks are nationally and even internationally significant, attracting visitors from around the world, as well as providing a variety of surfing opportunities including some for learning on nursery surf breaks. The quality of the wave can potentially be compromised by developments in the swell corridor seaward of the break, and the enjoyment of surf breaks by surfers compromised by discharges, limitations on access, and changes to natural character. Some nationally significant surf breaks can and should be named (on an inclusive basis) to ensure recognition of their national priority for protection. There are no other mechanisms available to protect such surf breaks. We note this is in line with developments occurring internationally, with other mechanisms available in Australia for example. The economic value of surfing to tourism and the social benefits should not be underestimated. (BOI, 2009)

To determine the national significance of a surf break, the BOI accepted a published guide of 470

New Zealand surf breaks (i.e., Wavetrack, Morse and Brunskill, 2004; Skellern et al., 2013) as a proxy for wave quality. From the index, the BOI identified 27 surf breaks, covering 19 surfing areas on the North and South islands, as nationally significant and incorporated them directly into the final NZCPS 2010 (Skellern et al., 2013; NZDoC, n.d.).

The NZCPS protections prevent adverse uses that affect the enjoyment of surfing.

Specific protections cover water quality and coastal development. Protections extend beyond the nearshore break itself to include a “swell corridor” – a protected zone out to 12 nm through which wave energy travels as it approaches a surf break (NZDoC, n.d.). As surf breaks directionally face the ocean, their swell corridors are also directional.

Because NZCPS implementation requires consistency throughout local governments, a two-fold process was initiated upon release of the NZCPS 2010. First, surf breaks of national

28 significance were incorporated into regional and local planning frameworks, including any additional protections. This brings the NZCPS into effect at local levels of government. Second, other surf breaks of regional or local significance can be identified and listed within those planning frameworks. This provides local jurisdictions opportunities to protect important surf breaks, albeit of lesser quality, valued for their social, cultural, or historical importance; dimensions not considered in the surf breaks of national significance (Skellern et al., 2013;

Peryman, 2011; Skellern et al., 2009).

5.3 Case Study: Reserve Marina Tres Palmas de Rincón, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico

Where surf protection efforts in Australia and New Zealand were largely proactive, Las

Palmas in Rincón, Puerto Rico provides an example of a surfing reserve established in reaction to an imminent threat, and summarized by Nelsen and Richter (2005). Coastal development has an increasing effect on natural resources in and around Rincón, a city of 15,000 residents on the northwest side of the island. The area is known for its tropical setting, clear water, and varied surf breaks. Tres Palmas, in particular, produces some of the Caribbean’s largest, most-consistent surf – the result of wave energy focused through a nearby undersea canyon onto adjacent coral reefs.

Tourism, including surfing travel, is the main economy of the region and depends upon high-quality natural resources for its success: an estimated sixty percent of Rincón’s workforce and forty percent of its income are related to coastal tourism (Nelsen and Richter, 2005). In the early 2000s, three large tourism development projects were proposed to serve Rincón’s growing popularity. With anticipated increased wastewater discharges and increased sedimentation that often accompanies such projects, tensions between economic growth, public access, environmental stewardship, and community development came into relief. Added to this was the

29 identification at Rincón of one of the Caribbean Sea’s last regions of extensive Elkhorn coral thickets (Acropora palmata), a threatened species throughout its range under the Endangered

Species Act.27

This combination of factors: imperiled marine resources, the need to protect tourist- driven recreation (including surfing), desired economic growth, and the lack of local coastal and marine planning brought environmental groups, community representatives, citizens, and local officials together to in a collaborative process. The environmental nonprofit organization the

Surfrider Foundation initiated, and largely funded, a community-led campaign to halt the development projects and begin planning discussions on a marine reserve at Rincón. Activities supporting the campaign were driven by recognition that the area’s natural resources (upon which surfing depends) and local prosperity were linked, and that ongoing community involvement was a critical factor for sustainable growth (Nelsen and Richter, 2005).

The Surfrider Foundation primarily led the community-driven process, with support from the nonprofit organization Environmental Defense Fund, and they executed their work through

five steps (Nelsen and Richter, 2005):

1. Extensive community outreach and education, beyond the surfing community;

2. Establishment of vertical “linkages” between the community and levels of

government;

3. Supplying technical support where needed;

4. Creation of “horizontal linkages” within the community to establish goals; and

5. Commit to open, consistent, and transparent communication.

27 50 C.F.R. § 223.102; 71 Fed. Reg. 26852, May 9, 2006.

30 To establish a reserve at Rincón, multiple administrative and legislative options were pursued simultaneously, engaging different levels of the local, commonwealth, and federal government.

In 2004, the Governor of Puerto Rico signed legislation establishing the Reserva Marina Tres

Palmas de Rincón (RMTP, Tres Palmas Marine Reserve of Rincon), the commonwealth’s first mainland marine reserve of any kind (Nelsen and Richter, 2005). The authority of the RMTP: prohibits rod and reel fishing, spearfishing, specimen collecting, damaging or removing corals, and recognizes areas for surfing (SFRC, n.d.). The RMTP considers surfing as a compatible activity within the reserve area protected for its natural heritage: “Within human activities currently performed in this area, “surfing” is a sport that does not affect the health of the reef, so this is perfectly compatible with its use within the context of being handled as a marine reserve”.28 In this way, the RMTP protects specific natural resources within a bounded area, delivering direct (e.g., fishing) and indirect (e.g., surfing or diving tourism) benefits to the nearby

Rincón community.

The RMTP boundaries were a compromise between initiative stakeholders, and the final boundaries cover less than one half of the original, proposed area. As a result some coral thickets, other important biological resource areas, and several, lower-quality surf breaks were not included in the RMTP (SFRC, n.d.).

Subsequent to establishment of the RMTP, a community-led and expert-supported process was undertaken to develop a reserve management plan. The RMTP Management Plan was completed in 2008 and mandates joint management between a local stakeholder committee

28 Translated from: “Dentro de las actividades humanas que actualmente se realizan en esta área, el “surfing” es un deporte que no afecta la salud del arrecife, por lo cual ésta es perfectamente compatible con su aprovechamiento dentro del contexto de ser manejado como una reserva marina.”

31 and the commonwealth’s Department of Natural and Environmental Resources (DNER) (Nelsen and Richter, 2005; SFRC, n.d.).

6. CALIFORNIA SURF BREAK CONSERVATION29

Efforts to protect California surf breaks have been undertaken only recently. It is not that threats do not exist. Rather, activist campaigns to protect surf breaks against imminent threats have usually relied on two, non-exclusive strategies. Neither strategy applies to surf breaks, per se. One strategy opposes projects based on protection frameworks which apply to resources other than surfing or surf breaks (CCC, 2012; Reynolds and Nagami, 2011). The other relies on frameworks which recognize coastal activities, such as surfing, but are not site-specific (Reiblich,

2013; Oram and Valverde, 1994). In this way, protections do not confer to a surf break, but rather to recreation or other activities that occur there. In contrast to activist campaigns, proactive conservation efforts of California surf breaks are, indeed, place-based. Most initiatives recognize surf breaks for their contribution to the sport’s history through a non-binding designation or title

(e.g., “Surf City” (Surfer Magazine, 2010b)).

6.1 Case Study: Trestles Historic District, San Diego County

San Onofre State Beach, in northern San Diego County, is set among the last undeveloped, publicly accessible coastal areas in Southern California and contains the high quality surfing areas of Trestles (four proximate surf breaks, and named for a nearby railroad trestle) at its far northwestern end, Surf Beach (three proximate surf breaks) in its middle, and the

29 Disclosure: I was involved in the three California efforts which form the case studies – as a subject-matter expert preparing the Trestles Historic District nomination, as a community liaison for the Malibu World Surfing Reserve dedication, and as a member of the body reviewing the Santa Cruz World Surfing Reserve application. Presently, I also serve as a member of the Malibu World Surfing Reserve Local Stewardship and World Surfing Reserve Vision Councils, both in an uncompensated, volunteer capacity. I referred to my project roles during the key informant interviews, but only used interviewee responses to form the case study narratives and to identify themes.

32 Bluffs Campground at its far southeastern end (one surf break) (CSP, 2010). The area is within the Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, and leased to the state from the United States

Department of the Navy (CSHRC, 2013). Tidal and submerged lands are under the authority of the California State Lands Commission (CSHRC, 2013).

In 2007, the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency (TCA), the joint powers authority created to plan, finance, construct, and manage Orange County’s toll roads, submitted a request for Consistency Certification to the Coastal Commission (CCC, 2008). The proposed project extended TCA’s 241 Toll Road several kilometers to connect with the Interstate 5 (I-5) freeway, providing an alternative route to the heavily trafficked section of I-5 between north San

Diego and south Orange counties (CCC, 2008). TCA’s chosen alignment of the 241 Toll Road passed through a portion of San Onofre State Park, was near the Pahne Native American cultural site and, because of the required grading and construction, potentially threatened sensitive habitat, listed species, and the wave quality at Trestles (CCC, 2008). The Coastal Commission rejected TCA’s application at a heavily-attended public hearing in February, 2008. In December of that year, the Department of Commerce upheld the Coastal Commission’s decision upon TCA appeal, determining the proposed 241 Toll Road alignment was inconsistent with the Coastal Act

(USDoC, 2008).

As part of the February, 2008 public hearing, the California State Historic Preservation

Officer (SHPO), at the request of the Coastal Commission, testified regarding significant cultural and archaeological resources along TCA’s proposed route. The SHPO described two potentially significant resources. One was the aforementioned Pahne Native American site; the other was the Trestles/San Onofre surfing area (Donaldson, 2008). The testimony described San Onofre

first surfed in 1934, the exploration of Trestles in the 1950s as surfing equipment became more

33 refined, through to today with Lower Trestles a primary site for elite amateur and professional surfing competitions (Donaldson, 2008). This was an affirmation by the historic preservation community, even informally, of a California surf break’s historical and cultural significance.

Following the hearing, the SHPO, staff from the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), the nonprofit environmental organization the Surfrider Foundation, and a small group subject- matter experts began work on a National Register of Historic Places nomination for the Trestles and San Onofre surfing areas (Trestles Historic District) (Donaldson, 2008). The nomination included seven surf breaks within the Trestles and San Onofre surfing areas. Its boundaries extended 500 m seaward. For convenience, the northwestern boundary was formed at the San

Diego County line, excluding the proximate surf break Cotton’s of south Orange County.

Similarly, the southeastern-most boundary ended at the fence just east of the surf break, excluding the farther Trails surf break. The landward boundaries contained the walking trails used to access the District’s surf breaks and ultimately the I-5 freeway. Landscape-level resources, such as the upper reaches of San Mateo Creek which transfer sediment to Trestles, were not included in the District boundaries. Similarly, cultural or associative resources within the boundary, including the eponymous railroad trestle, were not included.

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) is the primary federal law protecting structures and areas of historical or cultural significance.30 The NHPA creates the National

Register of Historic Places and 50 state Offices of Historic Preservation. Resources listed on the

National Register require federal agencies to perform an administrative review (“a Section 106 review”) of any project that may affect the resource.31 In California, listed resources immediately become state landmarks, and a similar impact assessment is required for state agencies as well.

30 16 U.S.C. § 470. 31 Section 106, 16 U.S.C. § 470f.

34 The National Register represents a portfolio of the nation’s history and culture, and serves as a qualifying designation to other history- and culture-based protections.

The Trestles Historic District nomination review process has been complex. The nomination was originally submitted in 2012 by OHP as a federal nomination, and reviewed by

Marine Corps and Navy Federal Preservation Officers (FPO). The Navy FPO rejected the application and refused to nominate the District to the National Register. OHP subsequently appealed to the Keeper of the National Register. The appeal was sustained in late 2012, with the

Keeper acknowledging Trestles’ importance to the history and culture of surfing under National

Register qualifying Criteria A (“…association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history” (NPS, 2002)) and Criteria G (“…properties that have achieved their significance within the past fifty years” (NPS, 2002)). However, the Navy

FPO still refused to sign the nomination as the Certifying Official. In February, 2013, the

California State Historic Resources Commission (SHRC) recommended the nomination to the

Keeper of the National Register for listing, with support of over 1,200 letters and 3,700 petition signatures from the general public (CSHRC, 2013).

With the sustained appeal in force, but without a signature from the Certifying Official,

H.R.135: The Military Land and National Defense Act (MLA) was introduced in January 2015, in the first days of the 114th Congress (CSHRC, 2013). The MLA would amend the National

Historic Preservation Act, allowing federal agencies to object for reasons of national security to nominations of agency property to the National Register or designations as National Historic

Landmarks. If enacted, the MLA would transfer the final approval authority of the nomination from the Keeper to the Marine Corps or Navy FPO, and indefinitely keep the Trestles Historic

35 District nomination from listing on the National Register until the FPO objection is withdrawn.32

Presently, the MLA is assigned to the United States House Natural Resources Subcommittee on

Federal Lands.

While the future of the Trestles Historic District nomination remains uncertain, the affirmation by both the SHRC and the Keeper that a surf break is associated with “…events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history” (i.e., National Register

Criteria A (sensu NPS, 2002)) suggests other California surf breaks may be eligible for National

Register listing.

6.2 Case Study: Malibu World Surfing Reserve, Los Angeles County

Any number of resources may be mobilized reactively to challenge an immediate or imminent threat to a surf break. However, the idea of securing place-based protections for surf breaks suggests a proactive program. In 2009, the U.S.-based nonprofit organization Save The

Waves Coalition initiated the World Surfing Reserves (WSR; worldsurfingreserves.org); an analog to UNESCO’s World Heritage Sites and based on the Australian NSR World Surfing

Reserves model (Farmer and Short, 2007). The WSR program is dedicated to enhancing the historical value and environmental stewardship of iconic surf breaks. Like UNESCO’s World

Heritage Sites, WSR was originally conceived as a promotional program without binding legal commitments to preservation. The rapid development of the WSR portfolio was offset by a lack of policy protections. The first World Surfing Reserves were dedicated under this structure. More

32 The Military LAND Act, H.R. 135 § 2(3), “…If the head of the agency managing any Federal property objects to such inclusion or designation for reasons of national security, such as any impact the inclusion or designation would have on use of the property for military training or readiness purposes, that Federal property shall be neither included on the National Register nor designated as a National Historic Landmark until the objection is withdrawn.”

36 recently, WSR applications have incorporated binding protections for surfing resources (STWC

(a), n.d.; STWC (b), n.d.).

Specifically, WSR is a proactive program charted to develop an international network of recognized sites that preserve valuable waves, surf breaks, and the surrounding environment.

Local stakeholder groups apply for WSR recognition and applications are evaluated by a WSR

Vision Council Committee on four criteria, “1) Quality and consistency of the wave or surf zone;

2) Environmental characteristics of the area; 3) Surf culture and history of the area; 4) Local community support” (WSR, 2015; Short and Farmer, 2012). Applications are usually accompanied by support from noted area surfers as well as relevant authorities or elected officials. WSR applications also require a community-authored Local Stewardship Plan (LSP).

The LSP articulates a set of reserve management goals, and the activities to support those goals.

The LSP can also describe how its work supports existing, ongoing activities by area NGOs and authorities.

Once dedicated, reserve management is tasked to a Local Stewardship Council (LSC) that promotes the reserve and the overall WSR program. There are no restrictions on the LSC composition and participation is on a voluntary, unpaid basis. LSC members may come from within, and outside of, the local surfing community. The LSC is responsible for serving as ambassadors for the reserve, implementing the reserve LSP, and liaising with the Save The

Waves Coalition as well as other reserve Local Stewardship Councils.

With this background, in 2010 members of the Malibu (Los Angeles County) surfing community contacted the Save The Waves Coalition to express interest in having Malibu

Surfrider Beach dedicated as the first World Surfing Reserve. As this was the first reserve project for both the Malibu and the Save The Waves Coalition groups, there was little established

37 process or learned best practices. The groups agreed to focus on four goals: 1) describing Malibu within the context of the World Surfing Reserve program, 2) organizing the dedication ceremony and other events, 3) securing support from agency and elected officials, and 4) community outreach.

The reserve boundaries incorporated all three of Malibu’s surf breaks and, following the examples of the Australian National Surfing Reserves and the Trestles Historic District nomination, extended 500 m seaward from the mean high water mark. On the landward side, boundaries separating public (State Parks and Los Angeles County) from private parcels provided a convenient outline for the Malibu WSR. Though an area without binding protections, the reserve boundaries explicitly avoided private parcels and did not incorporate associative structures such as the Malibu Pier and historic Adamson House (Short and Farmer, 2012; STWC,

2010). Because of the WSR’s environmental stewardship goal, the reserve boundaries also included Malibu Lagoon, which drains the 225 km2 Malibu Creek watershed and connects the creek to Surfrider Beach (Short and Farmer, 2012; STWC, 2010).

The Malibu LSC formed within two weeks of the WSR dedication ceremony, and all representatives came from the local surfing community. The Malibu LSP was not developed at the time of the dedication ceremony and was rescheduled as an LSC, post-dedication activity.

The Malibu World Surfing Reserve, the first WSR, was dedicated in October, 2010, with declarations of support from city, county, and state officials (Short and Farmer, 2012; Barboza,

2010). The Coastal Commission passed a resolution supporting the WSR program generally, and its implementation in California, specifically (CCC, 2010). Members of the Save The Waves

Coalition, National Surfing Reserves, the Malibu WSR Local Stewardship Council, elected officials, the local surfing community and general public, and representatives of the Native

38 American Chumash, the traditional custodians of the northern Los Angeles coast attended the dedication ceremony (Barboza, 2010).

Prior to the Malibu WSR dedication, California State Parks and Recreation released plans for an $8 million (US) wetland restoration project in Malibu Lagoon (KPCC, 2013; MLRP,

2012). The project plans generated intense opposition within certain segments of the area’s environmentalist community. Some activists, including some surfers, opposed the project; concerned that once completed, a reshaped lagoon would permanently degrade Malibu’s high- quality surf (Martin, 2012). The resulting antagonism between project supporters and opponents created a difficult, if not impossible environment for the LSC to successfully operate and draft its

LSP. The Malibu LSC was functionally disbanded during this time. The 1st District Court of San

Francisco denied an appeal by project opponents in May 2012, construction began later that year, and all construction activities were completed in 2013 (KPCC, 2013; CSP, 2012). Malibu was the first WSR, but presently does not have an LSC or LSP.

6.3 Case Study: Santa Cruz World Surfing Reserve, Santa Cruz County

World Surfing Reserve dedications at Ericeira, Portugal (2011) and Manly-Freshwater,

Australia (2012) followed Malibu. Concurrently, a well-organized and broadly supported WSR application was prepared by a local stakeholder group in Santa Cruz (Santa Cruz County).

Support of the Santa Cruz WSR included: area environmental nonprofits, local businesses, elected representatives from city, county, state, and federal offices, and the Monterey Bay

National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS) – the management authority for the large-area National

Marine Sanctuary within which the proposed Santa Cruz WSR boundary resides. The early stakeholder engagement also led to several outreach participants volunteering to serve on the first

Santa Cruz WSR LSC.

39 A feature of the Santa Cruz WSR application is the overall size of the reserve. The coastline boundary extends 11 km and incorporates at least 26 surf breaks, from Natural Bridges

State Park at the west to just outside the City of Capitola to the east. The Santa Cruz WSR is the one of the longest and continuous boundaries for any surfing reserve; reflecting a flexibility in the WSR system by allowing communities to determine the scope of their stewardship. The non- binding nature of WSR areas also permits this flexibility. A large, protected coastal area would likely produce overlap, if not conflict, with other authorities.

Extending through such a large area, the Santa Cruz WSR recognized the non-exclusive authority over activities within its boundaries. As long as an activity was consistent with management authorities, surfing, other forms of wave riding (e.g., bodyboarding), or non-wave riding (e.g., fishing) occur equally within the Santa Cruz WSR. Similarly, prohibited activities such as personal water craft use outside Santa Cruz Harbor are prohibited within the Santa Cruz

WSR. The Santa Cruz WSR was dedicated in April, 2012, a month following the Manly-

Freshwater (AU) WSR dedication.

In 2014, the Santa Cruz LSC and new leadership at the Save The Waves Coalition agreed to update the LSP. A planning conference was convened to:

1. Reinvigorate the LSC;

2. Initiate an ongoing relationship between the LSC and the Save The Waves Coalition;

3. Develop clear stewardship strategies;

4. Define an effective operating approach within the existing environmental community;

5. Identify desired stewardship outcomes; and

6. Generate a list of scheduled, support activities necessary to achieve the outcomes.

40 The revised LSP identified three stewardship areas relevant to Santa Cruz: water quality, marine debris/trash, and sea level rise (Hoppin, 2014). The LSP also defined a “support and convene” approach to the LSC’s work: support ongoing, established community work and convene groups to address problems. This approach reflects both the LSC’s limited resources – a volunteer, participatory group with no budget – and its diverse composition, operating as a broad network of community representatives. The role of engaged, elected officials on the LSC is important in this sense. Using the authority of their office, elected officials help to identify, even remove, barriers to the LSC’s progress. Some directly provide staff resources to support LSP activities. The Save The Waves Coalition considers the Santa Cruz WSR, with its updated LSP framework and diverse LSC structure, as a model for future World Surfing Reserves.

7. COMMON THEMES AND COMPONENTS OF SURF BREAK CONSERVATION

Key informant interview responses to questions regarding the formation and management of protected surfing areas are summarized in Tables 2 and 3, respectively. Despite the diversity of case study locations, a number of common themes emerged from the interviews. The themes describe: 1) validating the physical features and cultural relevance of a surfing break and identifying appropriate agents to propose, authorize, and manage a protected break, 2) operating on a long timeline that can adjust quickly as opportunities arise, 3) what follows from protecting a surf break, and 4) surf break protection as non-exclusionary with respect to other wave riding and recreational activities. Each theme may influence others and therefore all themes should be considered in improving systems of surf break protection. This section introduces and describes the four themes resulting from case study interviews.

41 7.1 Concept Integrity

Integrity in the physical, historical, and cultural features of the surf break as well as in its recreational uses was a recurring theme in key informant interviews. Interviewees responded that identifying an important surf break, or reacting to a threat to an important surf break, was a primary consideration in their protection efforts. In this sense, important means a surf break’s contribution to the surfing community, and was defined through indices of wave quality (New

Zealand) or combinations of wave quality and cultural importance (Australia, Malibu, and Santa

Cruz). Implicit in this identifying step was defining the spatial scale of protection. The extent of surfing reserves varied between a single surf break of a hundred meters at Meatworks, New

Zealand, for instance, to a span of several kilometers comprising several surfing areas in Santa

Cruz. This scale is not synonymous with a reserve’s boundaries, but rather reflects the number of surf breaks, surfing areas, or collected surfing areas characterized as a cohesive whole and worthy of protection.

The assemblage of physical, biological, and cultural features circumscribed by the reserve boundaries also created integrity. While many features were site-dependent, there was variation in large-scale, physical processes contributing to surf quality. Notably, New Zealand’s protected surf breaks include a seaward “swell corridor,” a twelve-nautical mile offshore zone through which wave energy travels (Reiblich, 2013; NZCPS, 2010). Additionally, New Zealand and the Malibu WSR considered landward watershed and lagoon/creek systems, respectively, as contributing features to surf quality (NZCPS, 2010; STWC, 2010). Despite these differences, each reserve considered a biophysical ecology that represented both land and sea features, suggesting that proper surf break protection requires a “mixing zone” perspective of both sets of resources. However, reserves were likely to not include landmark structures or other associative

42 features that make surf breaks unique. While interviewees spoke of local surfing culture or a surf break’s history, they stated that physical structures were more appropriately included in separate preservation efforts.

7.2 Grow Slow and Harvest Quickly

Building community support for a surfing reserve or the internal capacity within a formal organization to protect surf breaks is a slow-moving, long-term process. Interviewees responded that significant efforts were made to engage members of the local municipal or surfing communities; to appreciate and explain the opportunity for – and appropriateness of – a protected surf break. In Rincón, Malibu, and Santa Cruz, this engagement eventually resulted in formal declarations of community support, for example signed petitions or the creation of advisory councils. Other interviewees described the slow process involved in understanding under what authority a surf break is protected. In other words, how protection would be achieved. Either through community outreach or internal capacity-building, interviewees stated there was an initial period of slow program building.

Interviewees stated that slow periods were sometimes punctuated by rapid progress as external partners and authorities became engaged. These stakeholders often accelerated timelines as they provided new resources, utilized their professional networks, or used the authority of their office to advance the project. In other cases stakeholders, once engaged, created paths for surf break protection previously unconsidered. Interviewees described a desire to simultaneously work on long-term, local capacity-building while responsive enough to realize more immediate opportunities.

43 7.3 Part of a Whole

The case studies reveal that specific surf break protection efforts connect to subsequent, follow-on opportunities. In Australia, Malibu (CA), and Santa Cruz (CA), dedicated reserves are part of larger programs to develop national or worldwide portfolios of protected surf breaks. In

New Zealand, the NZCPS2010, which protected twenty-seven surf breaks of national significance, also gave effect to regional councils. Through these regional councils, the Surfbreak

Protection Society and their partners currently work to protect surf breaks of regional or local significance. The nomination of the Trestles Historic District (CA) to the National Register of

Historic Places is the first application for a surfing area, expanding the notion of historic and cultural places. The Reserva Marina Tres Palmas in Rincón, Puerto Rico was the most explicitly community-driven effort of the case studies. Social capital constructed during the reserve planning has led to, not additional protected surf breaks, but to increased community participation in coastal stewardship.

7.4 Non-Exclusivity

Nearly all interviewees responded that protected surf breaks are non-exclusive, leaving any management to existing regulations and informal, self-correcting behavior. This multiple-use approach refers to general recreation as well as other forms of non-surfing wave riding. Non- exclusivity respects the site-specific character and history of each surf break – some areas are better for certain forms of wave riding. Two other benefits emerge from an inclusive approach.

First, it avoids conflict among user groups during the sensitive period between a reserve’s planning and dedication. Second, it reduces the overall burden of management authorities to monitor both the reserve and possible activities within it. Only one interviewee favored

44 exclusivity – that future protected surf breaks in their area would exclude stand-up paddleboarding, a non-surfing form of wave riding.

The attributes of non-exclusivity and respect for historical use suggest efforts to protect surf breaks are a misnomer, a convenience and context brought about by surfers initiating the effort. Protection efforts really apply to wave riding areas, and should reflect the site-specific use

(see List of Definitions).

8. TRACKS TO CONSERVE SURF BREAKS AND SURFING AREAS AND

SUPPORTED BY EXISTING COASTAL CONSERVATION PROGRAMS

Surfing’s defining characteristics are: a coastal recreational and economic activity, possessing historical and cultural attributes, and dependent upon a supporting natural environment. These characteristics suggest alternative pathways by which surf break are protected: that is, as a recreational-, cultural- and natural resource-based activity. Yet, defining protection within a context of surfing is not enough. There must also be existing conservation programs, or tracks, which themselves match surfing’s qualities.

8.1 Recreational

Public lands almost always are multiple use resources and often challenging to manage because of conflicts between user groups (Gerber and Shyong, 2015; Lazarow et al., 2007;

Johnson and Orbach, 1986). Conflicts are sometimes resolved by complete segregation of use, e.g., “No Surfing” areas33 or, alternatively “No Swimming” areas.34 This segregation is spatial, based on certain areas, or temporal, based on the time of day, day of the week, or annual season.

33 e.g., Newport Beach, California, Municipal Code §11.16.020-070. 34 e.g., Los Angeles, California, County Code § 17.12.510.

45 Surf breaks are recreation sites for non-surfers, too. Other wave riders – from bodysurfers to bodyboarders – may enjoy particular surf breaks, even some breaks whose waves are more conducive for their wave riding than for board surfing itself (see List of Definitions). Beach goers also derive recreational value from surf breaks. It is not uncommon for California beaches to be highly crowded with non-surfers, both on the beach and in the water, when surfing conditions are good.

Increasingly, authorities are placing a priority on the recreational aspects of the resources and environments they manage. This is seen in recent initiatives such as America’s Great

Outdoors, which established the Federal Interagency Council on Outdoor Recreation (FICOR) in

2010 to support increased outdoor access and connections with federal public lands, waters, and shores for a variety of recreational uses (FICOR, 2012). Long-standing programs also exist. The

Bureau of Land Management, operating under a mandate to simultaneously conserve its areas and provide recreational opportunities within them, permits off-road recreational vehicles in the least sensitive portions of its Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area (Bureau of Land

Management, Imperial Valley County) (BLM, 2013; Havlick, 2002). Similarly the Stanislaus

National Forest (US Forest Service, Tuolumne County) promotes a number of seasonal recreational activities within its broader forest management mandate (USFS, 2010).

In California, the Coastal Act (CCA) recognizes the recreational value of coastal resources and aims to maximize lower-cost recreational opportunities such as surfing.35 The

CCA also favors non-transferable activities.36 That is, unlike other forms of coastal recreation – bathing or swimming, for instance – surfing cannot easily take place elsewhere. In November,

2012 the Coastal Commission denied an application for the Pacific Gas & Electric to perform

35 Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 30213. 36 Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 30220.

46 underwater, high-energy seismic surveying to map tsunami threats near its Diablo Canyon Power

Plant (San Luis Obispo County) (CCC, 2012). The permit was denied, in part, because ocean- based recreation, such as surfing, may have been compromised during the testing period (CCC,

2012). The Coastal Commission protects coastal recreational activities themselves, but also access to locations where they occur (Caldwell and Segall, 2007). In Dana Point (Orange

County), Malibu (Los Angeles County), and Martins Beach (San Mateo County) the Coastal

Commission has sided with surfers (and the public) against property owners restricting beach access (CCC, 2014; Fimrite, 2014; Groves, 2014a; Groves, 2014b; Kinney, 2014; Papagianis,

2013).

Surfing is foremost a recreational activity. Authorities are increasingly aware of the recreational value of their resources, and have protected both the activity and beach access to it.

Conservation programs that recognize an area’s exceptional recreational value suggest pathways for surf break protection. Exceptional in this sense may take several forms. Certainly, it may refer to a surf break’s outstanding wave quality. But it could equally describe a surf break’s consistency, local importance as a nursery for young or beginning surfers, proximity to population centers, or convenient access along with other improvements (i.e., total social, recreational, and economic value).

8.2 Cultural or Historical

California surfing has both a recorded history and identifiable, endemic culture

(Kampion, 2003; Chapman and Hanemann, 2001; Booth, 1999). More broadly, surfing has also made contributions to the larger landscape of California’s state history and popular culture: in music, film, and television, in amateur and professional competition, and as a center for surfing- based corporations and surf media (SIMA, 2009; Kampion, 2003). As sites which create (and

47 affirm) surfing’s history and culture, California surf breaks may be considered historical and cultural resources. The value test is one of adjudged “significance” – is the resource, a surf break, historically or culturally significant? The evaluators are state and federal historic preservation authorities. Recognition of historical significance offers a qualifying test to other concurrent, and more expansive, cultural heritage protections (NMPAC, 2014).

Not all buildings or birthplaces possess appreciable historical or cultural significance.

Equally, not all surf breaks presumably meet these standards, either. The Trestles Historic

District (San Diego County) nomination to the National Register was the first effort in the United

States to evaluate this significance question with respect to a surfing area. A successful application would suggest other surf breaks may merit cultural or historical protection or that, ultimately, Trestles is the only qualified surf break. An unsuccessful application may indicate a limitation of Trestles itself. A more general conclusion is surf breaks of any kind fail the significance test. Presently both the Keeper of the National Register and the California State

Historic Preservation Commission have determined the Trestles Historic Nomination eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Additionally, the California State Lands Commission has not objected to the nomination. However, one of the nomination’s Certifying Officials, the

United States Navy Federal Protection Officer, has refused to approve the nomination.

8.3 Natural Heritage

Natural features such as sandbars, reefs, kelp beds, and nearshore canyons can directly contribute to a surf break’s quality by focusing wave energy or reshaping (i.e., “grooming”) breaking waves – making areas possessing them conducive for surfing (Bascom, 1964). But surfing’s constitutive natural and physical features, its biophysical ecology, naturally have separate ecological functions, too. Traditionally, coastal conservation efforts focus on resource

48 values of this kind, on protecting specific marine species or habitat (NOAA, 2014; NMPAC,

2008). Robust state and federal marine natural heritage programs exist, essentially defining how, in an analogy to land-based protections, marine parks or even wilderness areas come to exist.

California has dedicated over 150 new marine natural heritage areas in the past 15 years through a multi-agency, multi-stakeholder process, more than doubling their portfolio (NOAA, 2014).

Ecologically important features which exist in, even form, surf breaks are protected under natural heritage programs. While these programs are fulsome, protections for surfing itself are indirect, and therefore diminished. Natural heritage protections tie to features, to a specific biophysical ecology, and not the activity which may (or may not) result from it. In short, surfing depends on a biophysical ecology, which may be protected. The reverse, a biophysical ecology dependent upon protected surfing recreation, is certainly not true.

Surfing protections can ride upon natural heritage protections. The example of Reserva

Marina Tres Palmas de Rincón exemplifies a rationale combining the positive economic, cultural, and recreational values of surfing with site-specific natural features of a deep-water canyon and a healthy stand of threatened Elkhorn coral (Nelsen and Richter, 2005). Increasing recreational activities within the reserve supports the program and does not present a conflicting use regarding its natural heritage features.

9. POLICY REVIEW

Surfing is a relevant part of California’s history, economy, and culture. Nevertheless, coastal development eliminated some surf breaks (Connelly, 2014; Early, 2014; Wright, 1973;

SFLBC, n.d.). Presently binding surf break protections exist internationally, but have yet been implemented in California. This study assumes place-based protections of surf breaks preserve or

49 enhance coastal recreational, economic, and cultural benefits. This study also assumes lasting paths for surf break protection are proactive. It does not consider possible statutory frameworks which are inherently reactive (Reiblich, 2013; AS&BPA, 2011; Oram and Valverde, 1994).

Given surfing’s recreational, cultural, and natural heritage features, what existing policies can protect California’s surf breaks? I examine this question by reviewing the NOAA National

MPA System as an inventory of state, federal, and territorial protected areas. I then review the

California Coastal Act, the National Historic Preservation Act and California Marine Managed

Areas Improvement Act as candidate surf break protection frameworks.

9.1 National MPA System

Pursuant Executive Order 13158 (2006), NOAA established a National System of MPAs, and was charged with collecting and coordinating information across several federal and state resource authorities on issues regarding marine protection.37 The National System of MPAs is not, in itself a statutory framework. Rather, it is a conceptual framework into which various state and federal MPA programs fit. Within this framework, an inventory of more than 1,700 MPAs

(regardless of managing authority) supports at least one of three conservation foci: protecting cultural heritage, protecting natural heritage, and sustainable production (NOAA, 2014). The ongoing work within the National System of MPAs supports authorities as they build capacity within these themes (NMPAC, 2014).

Cultural Heritage MPAs (CHMPA)

There are 125 Cultural Heritage MPAs (CHMPAs), representing less than 8% of all

MPAs, defined as an inventoried, National System MPA with a primary and secondary

37 Exec. Order No. 13158, 3 C.F.R. 34909 (2000).

50 conservation focus (sole focus) of cultural heritage (NOAA, 2014). Just four states (FL, MA, MI,

WI) represent over 80% of CHMPAs, and none are established in California (NOAA, 2014).

The overwhelming majority of CHMPAs, 97%, protect maritime archaeological sites, i.e., shipwrecks and other underwater relics. In other words, only 3 MPAs of the entire 1,700 inventory protect non-archaeological areas for cultural heritage (NOAA, 2014). This may reflect the Cultural Heritage track’s organic development more than specific criteria. The inclusive vision for the Cultural Heritage track suggests alternative areas may satisfy the Cultural Heritage focus:

Achieving and maintaining healthy coastal and marine ecosystems requires a fundamental understanding of the relationships between people and the environment. Cultural heritage, which belongs to all people, emphasizes these connections, whether that heritage takes the material form of, for example, maritime resources (such as shipwrecks), natural resources (such as marine species and habitats), or sacred places. Through the national MPA system, cultural relationships among people and historic, natural, and place-based heritage resources are preserved and perpetuated in ways that recognize and share multiple cultural voices and knowledge systems for the benefit of all. (NMPAC, n.d.)

As CHMPAs protect maritime culture, a threshold qualification is listing, or eligibility, for the National Register of Historic Places (NMPAC, 2014). That National Register listings may include not only structures but also places (including surf breaks) supports the idea that different types of CHMPAs are possible. Also, a National Register listing is a qualifying standard for complimentary CHMPA protections (NMPAC, 2014). Federal or state programs supporting

CHMPAs are candidate frameworks for surf break protection.

Natural Heritage MPAs (NHMPA)

51 Most MPAs within the National System protect natural heritage – and most of those protect commercial marine resources of one form or another. Only 28 (1.6%) of National

Heritage MPAs (NHMPA) protect both natural heritage and cultural heritage (NOAA, 2014).

Still, opportunities similar to Reserva Marina Tres Palmas de Rincón, where natural resources and a surf break coincide, may exist: protecting natural features may protect the surf break.

An example of a possible surfing-focused NHMPA is the Cortes Bank, a shallow seamount 153 km southwest of Los Angeles and contains extensive kelp and shellfish beds subject to periodic overfishing (Dixon, n.d.).38 Cortes Bank also possesses both a unique maritime history and natural heritage. In 1985 the nuclear aircraft carrier U.S.S. Enterprise

(CVN–65) struck Cortes Bank, damaging her outer hull as well as three of her four propellers

(NavSource Online, 2015). Additionally, there were two separate efforts to transform the Bank into an island nation and secure sovereign rights to its marine resources (Dixon, 2011).

Geologically, the Cortes Bank is considered the outermost feature of the Channel Islands chain

(Dixon, 2011; Holzman, 1952). Five of the Channel Islands are already protected as both a

National Park39 and as one of 14 National Marine Sanctuaries.40 National Marine Sanctuaries prevent oil and gas exploration, mineral extraction, and provide additional protections to endangered or threatened species within their boundaries. At Bishop Rock, Cortes Bank’s most shallow point, waves of up to 23 m can break in water less than 3 m deep (Dixon, 2011). Cortes

Bank is surfed at most a few times a year, due to its remote location and requiring a specific combination of swell and tide. Cortes Bank was first surfed in the early 1960s but only

38 The Cortes Bank is outside California state waters and technically not a California surf break. Nevertheless, the Cortes Bank is presented as an example of a possible surfing-focused Natural Heritage MPA. 39 16 U.S.C. §§ 410ff - 410ff7. 40 16 U.S.C. §§ 1431 - 1445c; 15 C.F.R. §§ 922.7 - 922.74.

52 consistently ridden by elite, big-wave riders within the past 15 years (Dixon, 2011; Dixon 2008;

Dixon, n.d.).

9.2 California Coastal Act

The California Coastal Act (CCA) is the primary law under which management decisions, in consultation with local governments, along the state’s 1,770 km coastline are made.41 The CCA is intended to balance utilization of coastal resources and as well as ensure access to those resources. The CCA established the 12-member the California Coastal

Commission, granting it management authority to meet the goals of the CCA. The CCA requires permits for all coastal zone development projects and either the Coastal Commission itself or local municipalities, through ratified Local Coastal Programs (LCP), determine a permit’s consistency with the CCA. The Coastal Commission reviews permit applications taking place on public trust lands and marine areas below the mean high water mark while local jurisdictions review permits within their LCP boundaries. Local governments are responsible for their own

LCP land use strategies and the specific Land Use Plans (LUP) and Implementation Plans (LIP) which support them.42 A municipality with a ratified LCP may issue development permits for projects related to that LCP.

For surfing specifically, the CCA aims to maximize lower-cost, water-based recreational opportunities and recreation not readily provided at inland areas.43 Compared to other technical sports, surfing is relatively inexpensive and satisfies a lower cost criterion. That surfing does not

(yet) translate to inland areas satisfies the exclusivity criterion. Through these CCA protections, the Coastal Commission has recognized surfing waves as resources whose amenity loss is

41 Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 30000 - 30900. 42 Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 30500 - 30504. 43 Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 30213; 30220.

53 mitigated or compensated. In 1993, the Coastal Commission required Chevron Corporation to mitigate for the loss of a surfing break caused by the construction of the 274 m El Segundo groin

(Los Angeles County) that protected their local refinery’s underwater pipelines (Nelsen, 1996;

Nelsen and Howd, 1996; Oram and Valverde, 1994). The agreed mitigation was the construction of the first U.S. artificial surfing reef – Pratte’s Reef – using nearly two hundred, sand-filled geotextile bags placed in 4.6 m of water (Borrero and Nelsen, 2003; Mack, 2003; Nelsen, 1996;

Oram and Valverde, 1994). Built in 2000 and reinforced in 2001, Pratte’s Reef never produced a consistent surf break and was removed in 2008 (Pool, 2008). Yet, the Coastal Commission’s recognition of surfing as valuable recreational activity and surfing waves as a resource mitigated upon loss is notable. Pratte’s Reef and subsequent attempts to construct artificial surfing reefs elsewhere have produced incomplete results, affirming the idea that naturally occurring surf breaks are unique, complex, and site-dependent coastal resources (Scarfe, 2006; Black, 2001a;

Nelsen, 1996; Oram and Valverde, 1994).

In 1990, the single-hull S/T American Trader ran over its anchor, puncturing its starboard hull and releasing 400,000 gallons of Alaska crude oil in the vicinity of Huntington Beach

(Orange County). The spill affected 155 km2 of ocean and 22.5 km of beaches (Chapman and

Hanemann, 2001). Most beaches re-opened to the public within 30 days. In 1999, the State negotiated a $16 million (US) settlement compensating for lost recreational use and environmental damage caused by the spill (CDoJ, 1999). The settlement left intact California precedent to value beach use, boating, and notably surfing, as compensatory activities (Chapman and Hanemann, 2001; CDoJ, 1999).

A 2012 application by Pacific Gas & Electric to conduct underwater, high-energy surveying near its Diablo Canyon Power Plant (San Luis Obispo County) was denied by the

54 Coastal Commission in part, because water-based recreation – including surfing – may have been compromised during the testing period (CCC, 2012). The Coastal Commission has determined that both the features that comprise a surf break, and the activity of surfing itself, are resources mitigated for loss (CCC, 2012; Oram and Valverde, 1994).

While surfing exemplifies water-based recreational activities favored under the CCA, and while the Coastal Commission recognizes surf breaks as a valued resource requiring mitigation when lost, the Coastal Commission does not proactively recognize surf breaks for their exceptional recreational value, nor is total resource value – including social, cultural, and historical value – considered.

9.3 National Historic Preservation Act

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) is the primary law protecting the United

States’ historic and cultural resources and, through it, established both the National Register of

Historic Places within the Department of Interior and 50 statewide Offices of Historic

Preservation, mostly through state Departments of Parks and Recreation.44 While the NHPA is most often associated with buildings, battlefields, and bridges, it is not limited to them.

Recognized, non-traditional sites include the cables and trailways marking the ascent of

Yosemite National Park’s Half Dome45 and the St. Augustine, FL Alligator Farm Historic

District.46 In California, several surf breaks are important as advancing the global sport and have largely defined the state’s beach-centric culture. However, as objects qualified for protection under the NHPA, they have not yet been recognized (Perry, 2013). The Trestles Historic District nomination is the first effort to protect a surf break under the NHPA.

44 16 U.S.C. § 470. 45 National Register No. 12000494; nps.gov. 46 National Register No. 92001232; alligatorfarm.com.

55 National Register recognition confers several protections. National recognition requires administrative review, known as a “Section 106 review”, to evaluate the effects of federal project, or federally funded projects, on listed sites.47 Also, the independent Advisory Council on

Historic Preservation is provided opportunity to comment on project effects.48 Listing on the

National Register immediately receives listing on the state’s California Register of Historic

Resources. Similar to the federal “Section 106 review,” state listing requires impact assessments of state funded or permitted projects.49 Select preservation grants are also available to recognized sites and, through them, encourage partnerships with community groups, state and local government, and the private sector (COHP, 2015).

National Register listing is a threshold designation to complimentary and more expansive protections offered through the complete CHMPA track (NMPAC, 2014).

9.4 Marine Managed Areas Improvement Act

The State of California is the primary authority in coastal waters for managing valuable marine biological, cultural, and other economic resources. The managed units are Marine

Managed Areas (MMA), of which MPAs represent a specific set. The Marine Managed Areas

Improvement Act of 2000 (MMAIA) reclassified eighteen MMA categories, condensed over fifty years of legislative, executive, and ballot actions, to just six categories.50 The MMAIA grants authority to the Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Department of Parks and Recreation, and the State Water Resources Control Board to designate, manage, and retire specific MMAs within their jurisdiction and in consultation with each other. The MMAIA coordinates with other marine

47 Section 106, 16 U.S.C. § 470f. 48 16 U.S.C. § 470s. 49 Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 5024.5. 50 Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 36600 - 36900.

56 resource statutes, notably the California Marine Life Protection Act of 1999 (MLPA), which utilizes MPAs as the management unit for vulnerable marine species and habitats.51 Together, the MLPA and MMAIA are the founding legislation for California’s establishment of a statewide

MPA network.

Most California MMAs protect marine species and habitats, the result of MLPA implementation between 2007 and 2012. Of 166 California MMAs represented by the six

MMAIA classes, 154 (93%) are directed toward protection of marine species and habitat through

“no-take” or areas of limited fishing/harvesting opportunity (NOAA, 2014). Within the group of

154 marine species and habitat MMAs, 72 are State Marine Conservation Areas (managed by

Department of Fish and Wildlife); 48 are State Marine Reserves (managed by Department of

Fish and Wildlife); and 34 are State Water Quality Protection Areas (managed by State Water

Resources Control Board) (NOAA, 2014).

Of the remaining three MMA classes defined by the MMAIA, two are consistent with conservation tracks specific to protecting surf breaks. State Marine Recreational Management

Areas (SMRMA) are, “…nonterrestrial marine or estuarine area(s) designated so the managing agency may provide, limit, or restrict recreational opportunities to meet other than exclusively local needs while preserving basic resource values for present and future generations.”52

California has established five SMRAs; each manages coastal waterfowl hunting through the

Department of Fish and Wildlife (NOAA, 2014). SMRAs are established through proposals to either, depending on the type of recreation, the Fish and Wildlife Commission or the Parks and

Recreation Commission. Management authority is granted to the department designating the

SMRA.

51 Cal. Fish & G. Code §§ 2850 - 2863. 52 Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 36700(e).

57 State Marine Cultural Preservation Areas (SMCPA) are, “…nonterrestrial marine or estuarine area(s) designated so the managing agency may preserve cultural objects or sites of historical, archaeological, or scientific interest in marine areas.”53 Despite California’s extensive maritime history, including the history of Native American tribes living along the coast, no

SMCPAs are established (NOAA, 2014). The MMAIA grants authority to the State Park and

Recreation Commission to designate, manage, and retire SMCPAs. SMCPA are managed by the

Department of Parks and Recreation.

Both SMRMA and SMCPA, created in the founding legislation for California’s network of marine protected areas, are possible frameworks for surf break protection. They are underutilized conservation tracks within the California MPA network.

10. RECOMMENDATIONS

Both within California and the larger National MPA System, place-based protections focus on imperiled marine species and habitat. Through these systems, however, policy tools exist which

fit the cultural heritage, natural heritage, or recreational value conservation tracks proposed to protect surf breaks. The following section builds upon these conservation tracks to describe pathways for surf break protection in California. These pathways are not exclusive. Surf breaks are site-specific, and custom combinations of legal frameworks tailored to each site are likely required to protect them. In all pathways, work is informed by the identified case study themes of

Integrity, Go Slow and Harvest Quickly, Part of a Whole, and Non-exclusivity.

53 Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 36700(d).

58 10.1 National Register of Historic Places

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) creates the National Register of Historic

Places as a portfolio of the nation’s places and structures of historical or cultural significance.54

The Trestles Historic District nomination is animated by the idea that California surf breaks possess appreciable historical and cultural value. Both the Keeper of the National Register and the State Historic Preservation Officer concurred that the Trestles Historic District is eligible for the National Register (CSHRC, 2013). Other California surf breaks may similarly be eligible based on their exceptional contributions to the surfing community. These likely constitute only a small group of premier surf breaks.

To protect California’s premier surf breaks, a list of candidate areas should be developed from complimentary sources. In 2009 the Save The Waves Coalition selected six California surf breaks – Blacks Beach (San Diego County), Trestles (San Diego County), Malibu (Los Angeles

County), Rincon (Ventura County), Santa Cruz (Santa Cruz County), and Mavericks (San Mateo

County) – from a worldwide request for nominations as potential World Surfing Reserves sites.

The ultimate dedication of the Malibu (2010) and Santa Cruz (2012) World Surfing Reserves resulted from this nominating process. Other, premier California surf breaks which meet

National Register criteria, namely Criteria A: “…association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history” (NPS, 2002), can be identified by re- opening this process, and facilitated through the Save The Waves Coalition or another organization. Nominations can be reviewed through examination of California’s surfing human ecology: surfers, surfing historians, academics, and surf media. Final selections may be determined by a select committee of those members.

54 16 U.S.C. § 470.

59 In the examined case studies, initial surf break protection initiatives did not include collaboration with representatives of indigenous peoples. In Australia and New Zealand, ongoing efforts consult with local Aborigine and Māori councils, respectively. Still, consultation with

California coastal tribes is recommended, if only to avoid redundancy or conflict with independent coastal protection proposals. In central California, a nomination for a new National

Marine Sanctuary was submitted by the Northern Chumash Tribal Council. The proposed sanctuary extended over 2,000 km2 and recognized the cultural value of biological and physical resources to the Chumash Tribe.55

It is expected that representatives of California’s human surfing ecology and coastal

Native Americans would revise the original list of six potential California World Surfing

Reserves. This updated list would form the portfolio of premier, historically important surf breaks nominated for cultural heritage protection.

National Register nominations begin with submission to the California Office of Historic

Preservation, a division of the Department of Parks and Recreation. Nominating groups make in- person presentations to the nine-member State Historical Resources Commission. Upon

Commission approval, the State Historic Preservation Officer submits nominations to the Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places for review.56

10.2 State Marine Cultural Preservation Areas

The California Marine Managed Areas Improvement Act creates a class of protected areas, State Marine Cultural Preservation Areas, based on a site’s cultural or historical

55 The Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary nomination was declined by NOAA in March, 2015, with an invitation to revise the nomination’s supporting materials and resubmit at a later date (NOAA, 2015). 56 36 C.F.R. § 60.6(k).

60 importance.57 Selected California surf breaks, through either exceptional wave quality, important surfing history, or both, may qualify. However defined, these are the California surf breaks of exceptional significance also considered for National Register listing. While this class of MMA exists, it is rarely used. There are no Cultural Heritage MPA areas in California and only 125 in

US state, federal, or territorial waters. Nearly all (>95%) areas protect underwater archaeological sites (NOAA, 2014).

Proposals for National Register consideration and Marine Cultural Preservation require similar information such as: a legal description of the site, boundary map, description of current use, and a narrative statement of historical importance.58 National Register protections do not interfere with, and in fact support, Marine Cultural Preservation Area proposals.

State Marine Cultural Preservation Area nominations are submitted to the designating entity, in this case the Park and Recreation Committee of the California Department of Parks and

Recreation. The nominating documents would also include a recommendation for the Coastal

Commission and local government to incorporate the area into the respective Local Coastal Plan.

This recommendation joins state coastal policy to local planning frameworks, and incorporates representative marine- and land-based resources defining a surf break. A National Register listing, together with a State Marine Cultural Preservation Area designation and management plan, would classify these premier surf breaks as Cultural Heritage MPAs under the National

MPA System (NMPAC, 2014).

57 Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 36700 - 36900. 58 Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 36870.

61 10.3 State Marine Recreational Management Areas

Surf breaks are protected for their active and passive recreational value. Surfing is foremost a recreational activity and some surf breaks offer higher quality surfing opportunities than others.

Published lists, guides, maps, or online surveys, which California’s surf breaks, can be used to identify surf breaks of high recreational value. Quantitative indices of wave quality

(Scarfe et al., 2003a; Scarfe et al., 2003b; Scarfe, 2002; Hutt et al., 2001) can supplement lists and qualitative assessments. In the New Zealand case study, a published guide to New Zealand surfing provided an index of wave quality from which to select surf breaks of national significance (i.e., Wavetrack, Morse and Brunskill, 2004; Skellern et al., 2013). A similar list of over 120 California surf breaks from the online surf forecasting and travel site Surfline.com is presented in Appendix H. More than ten surf breaks of high wave quality (rated 9 or 10 on a 10- point scale) listed in Appendix H are not already on the initial World Surfing Reserve nomination list. Other sources besides the Surfline.com index can form a portfolio of California’s high quality surf breaks.

Recreational value is derived not just from high quality surf breaks, but within an overall experience. This includes surf breaks of lesser wave quality which provide other forms of recreational or social value. In this way, “surfing nurseries,” which are local, lower wave quality surf breaks where children or inexperienced surfers learn to surf, should be considered as areas of high social and recreational value. Members of an area’s local surfing community (i.e., surfing ecology) collaboratively develop a list of regionally important surf breaks. Community representatives may include: surfers, municipal leaders, business owners, and organizations such as surfing clubs, surf teams, competitive associations. Attention should be given to identify

62 locally, or regionally, important surf breaks, as California’s exceptional and high-quality surf breaks are identified through other processes.

However, it is possible for a regionally important surf break to reside near a high-quality, or even exceptional, surf break. As a collection of proximate surf breaks are considered, and protected, as a surfing area some regionally important surf breaks may not require an individual protection effort. That is, they are protected under other surfing area conservation efforts. The

Trestles Historic District nomination, which includes both the exceptional quality surf breaks of

Upper Trestles and Lower Trestles, also includes the proximate surfing “nursery” at Old Man’s

(CSP, 2010). Not all are breaks within the District boundaries have the same wave quality but, together, they define a surfing area with an identifiable culture and history.

Working through the State Park and Recreation Committee, the process for nominating and designating SMRMAs is similar to SMCPAs. Designating documents for SMRMAs would include a recommendation for the Coastal Commission and local government to incorporate the area into the respective Local Coastal Plan.

10.4. State Marine Water Quality Protection Areas

Like National Marine Sanctuaries, the idea of State Marine Water Quality Protection

Areas protecting surf breaks is based on the Natural Heritage conservation track: areas of important marine natural heritage proximate to, or resulting in, high quality surf breaks. Under the direction of the State Water Resources Control Board, areas of impaired water quality affecting marine habitat or imperiled marine species can be designated a SMWQPA. Several

California surf breaks routinely receive poor water quality grades (Appendix A). Malibu

Surfrider Beach (Los Angeles County), a renowned California surf break, is federally listed as an

63 impaired water body for coliform bacteria, DDT, and PCBs.59 The adjacent estuarine Malibu

Lagoon is habitat for federally listed species: two endangered fish and two endangered bird species. One of the fish, the anadramous steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), spends portions of its life history in the impaired coastal waters at Surfrider Beach.60

10.5. California Coastal Act Local Coastal Programs

The California Coastal Act (CCA) manages access to coastal resources and how those resources are appropriately used .61 The Coastal Commission has reacted to the complete or temporary loss of surf breaks as an event requiring compensation or mitigation, respectively.

Still, the CCA does not specify particular surf breaks for protection, and does not recognize marine areas for their exceptional cultural or recreational value. The Coastal Commission supports surfing, but it does not specify where it best takes place.

However, the CCA contemplated placed-based protections for valuable recreational areas. Sensitive Coastal Resource Areas (SCRA) are defined in the CCA as, “…identifiable and geographically bounded land and water areas within the coastal zone [and] include the following: areas possessing significant recreational value.”62 SCRA areas were to be catalogued by the commission, and then referred to the Legislature for review. Following the passage of the CCA,

SCRA recommendations were placed under a fixed, two-year time period for final designation.

Ultimately, the sunset widow closed and no SCRAs were designated.

While there are no SCRAs, the CCA does recognize site-specific land areas:

Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA). ESHA is an analog to SCRA. ESHA meet

59 Clean Water Act; 33 U.S.C. §1313(d). 60 50 C.F.R. § 224.101; 71 Fed. Reg. 834, Jan 5, 2006. 61 Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 30000 - 30900. 62 Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 30116; 30502; 30502.5.

64 three criteria: geographically bounded, contain imperiled species or habitat, and must be easily disturbed by human activity.63 ESHA is designated directly by the Coastal Commission in cases where certified LCPs do not exist and by local government in cases where they do. Because

ESHA incorporates a landscape-level view of coastal resources, designated areas likely cross multiple property and planning zone boundaries. ESHA designation has been used by the Coastal

Commission and local government to deny coastal develop permits which are determined to threaten such sensitive habitat.64

Certified LCPs are periodically reviewed by the Coastal Commission for conformity with planning objectives and the Coastal Act. During this review phase, local government and members of the local surfing ecology can work collaboratively to include protected surf breaks into their respective LCP. These areas would then be incorporated into the Land Use Plan (LUP) planning maps, designating certain parcels as contributing to a surf break. The local government and local citizens could determine the landward extent of that contribution, i.e., the number and extent of the contributing parcels. Many California surf breaks are accessed through public lands, managed by one or several authorities (Appendix C). In this most narrow sense, the parcels zoned Public Open Space (POS) proximate to quality surf breaks would be listed as contributors.

Other parcels may contribute, as well. TCA provides mechanisms to identify and protect environmentally sensitive habitat land areas. Similarly, LCP amendments can define valuable recreational resources, such as local surf breaks.

63 Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 30107.5. 64 Douda v. California Coastal Commission 159 Cal. App. 4th 1181 (2008). Sierra Club v. California Coastal Commission 12 Cal. App. 4th 602 (1993).

65 11. CONCLUSIONS

A Total Ecology approach, as the interaction between biophysical, human, and institutional ecologies to direct behaviors toward desired outcomes, presents a useful model demonstrating how binding, place-based protections are established for California surf breaks. In

California, surfing is part of a 24 billion dollar coastal economy (Dwight et al., 2012), is a form of water-based recreation recognized in state coastal policy, and is positively identified with the state’s broad history and culture (Short and Farmer, 2012; Nelsen et al., 2007; Kampion, 2003;

Finnegan, 2002; Booth, 1999). Federal and state statutory frameworks recognizing exceptional cultural, historical, and recreational value exist and apply to spatially explicit areas such as surf breaks. Efforts to protect surf breaks elsewhere were initiated either as a reaction to an imminent threat to a surfing resource or through a proactive interest in recognizing its value, and have required new collaborations between project proponents and management authorities. In

California, where efforts have honored surf breaks more than protected them, such collaborations have yet to form, and community- or organization-led initiatives have yet to emerge.

The human dimension of coastal places recognizes the value of recreational and other activities which occur at beaches and along coasts. Indeed, the California Coastal Act, the state’s primary law regulating coastal zone management, declares as a goal the need to, “…maximize recreational opportunities in the coastal zone,”65 which includes surfing as an opportunity. The

Coastal Commission has required compensation or mitigation resulting from lost recreational value to surfing.

The human dimension of coastal places is also contextual, enriched by the history and culture of site-specific areas. Federal statutory frameworks recognizing historical significance

65 Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 30001.5.

66 exist but have yet to be successfully applied to surf breaks (NOAA, 2014). State frameworks recognizing the exceptional cultural and recreational value of coastal areas also exist, but are underutilized in general and in particular for surf breaks (NOAA, 2014; NMPAC, 2008).

Presently, marine managed areas have protected living marine resources. Developing program areas to recognize and protect culturally and historically significant coastal places – in this study, surf breaks – provides communities an opportunity to more fully express their interests in the coastal and ocean public trust context.

67 INSTITUTIONAL ECOLOGY

HUMAN ECOLOGY

BIOPHYSICAL ECOLOGY

Figure 1. The Total Ecology approach to policy making, adapted from Orbach (2014). The Total Ecology Approach emphasizes the role of managing behaviors more than resources. The Biophysical Ecology affects Human Ecology (behavior) and vice versa. The Human Ecology affects the Institutional Ecology (e.g., participation in government). The Institutional Ecology affects the Human Ecology (laws, regulations.) affects Biophysical Ecology (and vice versa). Science studies both the Biophysical Ecology (biological and physical sciences) and the Human and Institutional Ecologies (social sciences), providing input into the Institutional Ecology’s governance.

68

Figure 2. California county map.

69 N

Figure 3. New South Wales (NSW), Australia map. Angourie is highlighted in black (top), Sydney in red, a distance of approximately 675 km.

70 ECOLOGY TYPE FEATURE EXAMPLE

Biophysical Hydrodynamic Nearshore bathymetry Biophysical Sedimentary Cobblestone reef Biophysical Orientation Beach direction Biophysical Human Infrastructure Jetty Biophysical Environmental Quality Water quality Biophysical Physical, Cultural, or Associative Landmark Human Surfers All professional surfers Human Non-surfers Ocean swimmers Human Surf Industry Surfing hardgoods manufacturer Human Surf-related Organizations Surfing-focused nonprofit Institutional Authority California Coastal Commission

Table 1. A Total Ecology description for surfing. Adapted from Orbach (2014).

71 INTERNATIONAL CASES CALIFORNIA CASES THEME AU NZ PR TR MA SC Australia New Zealand Puerto Rico Trestles Malibu Santa Cruz

Forming the Reserve 1. Catalyzing event was P P R P P P proactive (P) or reactive (R). 2. Reserve contains both Y Y Y Y Y Y land- and sea-based resources. 3. Reserve boundaries N N Y Y Y N selected to avoid conflicts. 4. Reserve boundaries N Y N N N N consider watershed-level scale. 5. Reserve boundaries N Y N N N N include important cultural features. 6. Reserve planning Y N Y N Y Y driven by local community. 7. Reserve planning N Y N N N N included native peoples. 8. Reserve excludes non- N N N N N N surfing recreation. 9. Financial costs that N N N N N N affected timeline or outcomes. 10. Reserve protections E E New E n/a n/a based on new (New) or existing (E) policy.

Table 2. Forming surfing reserves. Common themes of creating surfing reserves identified through key informant case study interviews, November 2014 – January 2015. Abbreviations: AU: Angourie Crown Surfing Reserve, Australia; NZ: Surf Breaks of National Significance, New Zealand: PR: Reserva Marina Tres Palmas de Rincón (Tres Palmas Marine Reserve of Rincon), Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; TR: Trestles Historic District, California; MA: Malibu World Surfing Reserve, California; SC: Santa Cruz World Surfing Reserve, California; N: No; P: Proactive effort; R: Reactive effort; Y: Yes; n/a: Not applicable; E: Existing.

72 INTERNATIONAL CASES CALIFORNIA CASES THEME AU NZ PR TR MA SC Australia New Zealand Puerto Rico Trestles Malibu Santa Cruz

Managing the Reserve 1. Reserve management Y N Y n/a N Y is driven by local community. 2. Reserve has high Y Y Y n/a N N awareness in local surfing community. 3. Reserve has strong Y Y Y n/a N n/a support in local surfing community. 4. Reserve has high Y Y Y n/a N N awareness in local community 5. Reserve has strong Y Y Y n/a n/a n/a support in local community. 6. Reserve overlaps with Y Y N Y N Y other, protected areas

7. Conflicts exist with N N n/a Y n/a Y overlapping management authorities. 8. Financial costs that N N N n/a N N affect ongoing management.

Table 3. Managing surfing reserves. Common themes of reserve management identified through key informant case study interviews, November 2014 – January 2015. Abbreviations: AU: Angourie Crown Surfing Reserve, Australia; NZ: Surf Breaks of National Significance, New Zealand: PR: Reserva Marina Tres Palmas de Rincón (Tres Palmas Marine Reserve of Rincon), Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; TR: Trestles Historic District, California; MA: Malibu World Surfing Reserve, California; SC: Santa Cruz World Surfing Reserve, California; N: No; Y: Yes; n/a: Not applicable.

73 AREA ACTIVITY/STRUCTURE EFFECT

Inland Dam/Debris basin Impounding Inland Sand mining Excavation Inland Coastal urbanization Trapping Inland Flood control Trapping Coastal Armoring Erosion Coastal Harbor/Jetty Dredging Coastal Groin/Breakwater Beach widening Coastal Beach nourishment Beach widening Coastal Pier Beach widening

Table 4. Modifications to sediment transport processes.

74 12. REFERENCES

American Shore & Beach Preservation Association (AS&BPA), 2011. White Paper: Surfers as Coastal Protection Stakeholders. Ft. Meyers, FL. 9 pp.

Anderson, S., 2013, March 15. “Victoria Gets its First National Surfing Reserve.” ABC. Retrieved January 14, 2015 from http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2013/s3716376.htm

Andrews, C.J., 1997. Sandy Shoreline Response to Offshore Reefs. Hamilton, New Zealand: The University of Waikato, Master’s Thesis, 137p.

Anon, 2003. Working for a New Ocean Ethos; Ocean Activism on the Shoreline: An Interview with Christopher Evans. Multinational Monitor, 24(9): 26.

Anon, 1999. Artificial Reef to Benefit Surfing, Protect Shoreline. Civil Engineering, 69(9): 24.

Augustin, J.P., 1998. Emergence of Surfing Resorts on the Aquitaine Littoral. The Geographical Review, 88(4): 587-595.

Australia Bureau of Statistics, 2014, May 5. “Census.” Retrieved January 14, 2015 from http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home/data?opendocument&navpos=200

Barboza, T., 2011, March 30. “San Onofre Wave Farm Idea Churns up Concerns.” Los Angeles Times. Retrieved January 14, 2015 from http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/30/local/la-me- wave-farm-20110330

Barboza, T., 2010, October 10. “Malibu Surfrider Beach Declared First-Ever World Surfing Reserve.” Los Angeles Times. Retrieved January 14, 2015 from http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/10/local/la-me-surf-breaks-20101010

Bascom, W., 1964. Waves and Beaches: The Dynamics of the Ocean’s Surface. New York, NY: Anchor Books, Inc.

Benedet, L., Pierro, T., and Henriquez, M., 2007. Impacts of Coastal Engineering Projects on the Surfability of Sandy Beaches. Shore and Beach, 75(4): 3-20.

Black, K.P. (ed.), 2001a. Natural and Artificial Surfing Reefs for Surfing and Coastal Protection. Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 29, 152p.

Black, K.P., 2001b. Natural and Artificial Surfing Reefs for Erosion Control and Amenity: Theory and Application. Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 34, pp. 1-4. International Coastal Symposium (ICS2000).

Black, K.P., and Mead, S., 2009. Design of Surfing Reefs. Reef Journal. 1(1): 177-191.

75 Black, K.P., and Andrews, C.J., 2001a. Sandy Shoreline Response to Offshore Obstacles, Part 1: Salient and Tombolo Geometry and Shape. Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 29., pp. 82-93.

Black, K.P., and Andrews, C.J., 2001b. Sandy Shoreline Response to Offshore Obstacles, Part 2: Discussion of Formative Mechanisms. Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 29., pp. 94-101.

Black, K.P. and Mead, S.T., 2001. Wave Rotation for Coastal Protection. In: Proceedings of the 2001 Coasts and Ports Conference (Gold Coast, Australia), 25-28 September, pp. 120-127.

Black, K.P., Hutt, J.A., and Mead, S.T., 1998a. Narrowneck Reef Report 2: Surfing Aspects. Technical Report Prepared for the Gold Coasts City Council, June 1998, Hamilton, New Zealand: Centre of Excellence in Coastal Oceanography and Marine Geology, The University of Waikato and NIWA, 120 pp.

Black, K.P., Hutt, J.A., and Mead, S.T., 1998b. Takapuna Boat Ramp: Surfing Impact Assessment and Reef Feasibility Study. Report for the North Shore City Council.

Board of Inquiry, 2009. Board of Inquiry Report on the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement, Volume 1: Findings, Recommendations, and Recommended NZCPS. Wellington, NZ. 55pp. Retrieved March 15, 2015 from http://www.doc.govt.nz/Documents/getting- involved/consultations/closed-consultations/nzcps/NZCPS-2008-board-of-inquiry-vol-1.pdf

Booth, D., 1999. Surfing: The Cultural and Technological Determinants of a Dance, Sport in Society. 2(1): 36-55.

Borrero, J.C., and Nelsen, C., 2003. Results of a Comprehensive Monitoring Program at Pratte’s Reef. In: Black, K.P. and Mead, S.T. (eds.), Artificial Surfing Reefs 2003: The 3rd International Conference (Raglan, New Zealand). CD-ROM, pp. 83-98.

Brennan, D.S., 2014, August 24. “1st Big Desal Plant for Thirst County.” San Diego Union- Tribune. Retrieved January 14, 2015 from http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/aug/24/environment-san-diego-desalination/

Buckley, R., 2002a. Surf Tourism and Sustainable Development in the Indo-Pacific Islands: The Industry and the Islands. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 10(5), 405-424.

Buckley, R., 2002b. Surf Tourism and Sustainable Development in the Indo-Pacific Islands: Recreational Capacity Management. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 10(5), 425-442.

Bureau of Land Management, 2013. Record of Decision for the Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area Management Plan and Amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area Plan. El Centro, CA. 328 pp. Retrieved January 15, 2015 from http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/ca/pdf/elcentro/planning/2010.Par.89984.File.dat/isdra _rod-ramp_final.pdf

76

Busch, J., 2009. Surfer and Beachgoer Responsiveness to Coastal Water Quality Warnings. Coastal Management, 37(6): 529–549.

Caldwell, M., and Segall, C. H., 2007. No Day at the Beach: Sea Level Rise, Ecosystem Loss, and Public Access Along the California Coast, Ecology Law Quarterly. 34: 533-578.

California Coastal Commission, 2014. Peter Allen to Steve Baugher, San Jose, CA, December 8, 2014. Retrieved March 1, 2015 from http://www.surfrider.org/images/uploads/publications/CCC_December_8_2014_Martins_Notic e.pdf

California Coastal Commission, 2012. Combined Consistency Certification and Coastal Development Application No. CC–027–12 (W13b). Retrieved January 14, 2015 from http://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2012/11/W13b-11-2012.pdf

California Coastal Commission, 2010. Resolution to Support Designation of World Surfing Reserves (TH32a). Retrieved January 14, 2015 from http://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2010/1/Th32a-1-2010.pdf

California Coastal Commission, 2008. Revised Staff Report and Recommendation on Consistency Certification No. CC–018–07 (W8b). Retrieved January 14, 2015 from http://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2008/2/W8b-2-2008.pdf

California Coastal Conservancy, 2002. Impact of Sand Retention Structures on Southern and Central California Beaches, CCC No. 00–149. Sacramento, CA. 117 pp. Retrieved January 14, 2015 from http://www.dbw.ca.gov/csmw/PDF/CASandRetStruct.pdf

California Department of Boating and Waterways and State Coastal Conservancy, 2002. California Beach Restoration Study. Sacramento, CA. 280 pp. Retrieved January 14, 2015 from http://www.dbw.ca.gov/PDF/Reports/BeachReport/FUll.pdf

California Department of Justice, 1999, September 14. “Attorney General Lockyer Announces $16 Million Settlement for American Trader Oil Spill.” Retrieved January 14, 2015 from http://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-lockyer-announces-16-million- settlement-american-trader-oil

California Office of Historic Preservation, 2015. “Potential Funding Sources for Historic Preservation.” Retrieved January 14, 2015 from http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=22174

California State Historic Resources Commission, 2013. Quarterly Minutes, February 8, 2013. Retrieved January 14, 2015 from http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1067/files/shrcminutes_2013- 02-08_final.pdf

California State Lands Commission, 1994. California Comprehensive Offshore Resource Study. Sacramento, CA. 416 pp.

77

California State Parks, 2012, May 25. “1st District Court Denies “Stay” for Malibu Lagoon Restoration, Project to Proceed.” Retrieved March 15, 2015 from http://www.restoremalibulagoon.com/downloads/NewsReleas-AppealsCourtDeniesStay.doc

California State Parks, 2010. San Onofre State Beach. Sacramento, CA. 4pp. Retrieved January 14, 2015 from http://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/647/files/SanOnofreFinalWebLayout092710.pdf

Carlson, M., 2005, July 1. “Dale Velzy.” The Guardian. Retrieved January 14, 2015 from http://www.theguardian.com/news/2005/jul/02/guardianobituaries.usa

Carpinteria Sanitary District, 2006. Final Supplemental Impact Report: Carpinteria Sanitary District’s South Coast Beach Communities Septic to Sewer Project (Rincon Point, Sand Point Road, Sandyland Cove, Padaro Lane and Beach Club Road Communities) SCH#2003071115. Carpinteria, CA. 255pp. Retrieved January 14, 2015 from http://www.ci.carpinteria.ca.us/agendas/pc/pcagit6bS030110.pdf

Challinor, S., 2003. Environmental Impact Assessment for Artificial Surfing Reefs: A UK Perspective. In: Black, K.P., and Mead, S.T. (eds.), Artificial Surfing Reefs 2003: The 3rd International Conference (Raglan, New Zealand). CD-ROM, pp. 328-348.

Chapman, D.J., and Hanemann, W.M., 2001. Environmental Damages in Court: The American Trader Case. In: Heyes, A. (ed.), The Law and Economics of the Environment. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. pp. 319-363.

City of Hermosa Beach, 2015. Exhibit “A”: City Clerk’s Certificate of Canvas, Measure O. Retrieved March 15, 2015 from http://www.hermosabch.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=5658

City of Newport Beach, 1995. Resolution No. 95-116: A Resolution of The City Council of The City of Newport Beach Designating Surfing Areas, Establishing Dates and Hours When Surfing Areas May Be Used, and Rescinding Resolution No. 93 - 33. Retrieved January 14, 2015 from http://newportsurfcouncil.com/wp- content/uploads/2013/11/1995SurfingRegulationsRes95116.pdf

Coastal Sediment Management Workgroup, 2010. California Beach Erosion Assessment Survey 2010. Sacramento, CA. 72 pp. Retrieved January 14, 2015 from http://www.dbw.ca.gov/csmw/pdf/CBEAS_Final_10252010a.pdf

Connelly, L., 2014, May 19. “Film on PBS Explores how Newport’s Wedge Surf Break Came to Be.” Orange County Register. Retrieved January 14, 2015 from http://www.ocregister.com/articles/harbor-614847-wedge-rogers.html

Cooper, B., 2015, March 12. “Trips That Flip the Script.” Wall Street Journal. Retrieved March 25, 2015 from http://www.wsj.com/articles/unpredictable-trips-that-flip-the-script-1426184986

78 Corbett, B.B., Tomlinson, R.B., and Jackson, L.A., 2005. Reef Breakwaters for Coastal Protection: Safety Aspects and Tolerances. In: Townswend, M., and Walker, D. (eds.), Proceedings for the 2005 Coasts and Ports Australasian Conference (Adelaide, South Australia) 20-23 September 2005, pp. 673-678.

Corne, N.P., 2007. The Implications of Coastal Protection and Development on Surfing. Journal of Coastal Research, 25(2): 427-434.

Dally, W.R., 2001a. The Maximum Speed of Surfers. Journal of Coastal Research, 29: 33-40.

Dally, W.R., 2001b. Improved Stochastic Models for Surfing Climate. Journal of Coastal Research, 29: 41-50.

Dally, W.R., 1989. Quantifying Beach ‘Surfability.’ In: Proceedings of the Beach Technology Conference (Tampa, Florida), pp. 47-58.

Dally, W.R., and Osiecki, D.A., 2007. Sculpting Beach Nourishment to Improve Surfing. Shore and Beach. 75(4): 38-42.

Daskalos, C.T., 2007. Locals Only! The Impact of Modernity on a Local Surfing Context. Sociological Perspectives, 50(1): 155-173.

Davis, B., Lopez, J., and Finch, A., 2004a. State Policies and Programs Related to Marine Managed Areas: Issues and Recommendations for a National System. Coastal States Organization, Washington, DC. 58pp.

Davis, B., Lopez, J., and Finch, A., 2004b. Case Studies of State-Level Marine Managed Areas. Coastal States Organization, Washington, DC. 38pp.

Diehm, R., and Armatas, C., 2003. Surfing: an Avenue for Acceptable Risk-Taking, Satisfying Needs for Sensation Seeking and Experience Seeking. Personality and Individual Differences, 36: 663-677.

Dixon, C., 2011. Ghost Wave: The Discovery of Cortes Bank and the Biggest Wave on Earth. San Francisco, CA: Chronicle Books.

Dixon, C., 2008, January 9. “Surfer Defy Giant Waves Awakened by Storm.” New York Times. Retrieved March 15, 2015 from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/09/sports/othersports/09surf.html

Dixon, C., 2002, February 22. “Machine Age Clash Among Surfers.” New York Times. Retrieved March 15, 2015 from http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/25/us/machine-age-clash-among- surfers.html

Dixon, C., “Keepers of the Last Kelp Forest.” The Surfer’s Journal. Retrieved March 15, 2015 from http://www.surfersjournal.com/harrison-ealey-cortes-bank-brad-mongeau

79 do Carmo, J.A., Reis, C.S., and Frietas, H., 2010. Working with Nature by Protecting Sand Dunes: Lessons Learned. Journal of Coastal Research, 26(6): 1068-1078.

Donaldson, M.W., 2008. Wipeout at San O. Preservation Matters: The Newsletter of the California Office of Historic Preservation, 1(2): 1.

Dudley, N. (ed.), 2008. Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. 143pp.

Dwight, R.H., Catlin, S.N., and Fernandez, L.M., 2012. Amounts and Distribution of Recreational Beach Expenditures in Southern California. Ocean & Coastal Management, 59: 13-19.

Dwight, R.H., Brinks, M.V., Sharavana Kumar, G., and Semenza, J.C., 2007. The Human Tide: Beach Attendance and Bathing Rates for Southern California Beaches. Ocean and Coastal Management, 50: 847-858.

E&B Natural Resources (a), “Phase 4 – Ongoing Operations.” Retrieved March 15, 2015 from http://www.hermosaoilrecovery.com/hermosa-oil-recovery-project/facility/proposed- development-phases/phase-4/

E&B Natural Resources (b), “Safe On–Shore/Directional Drilling.” Retrieved March 15, 2015 from http://www.hermosaoilrecovery.com/hermosa-oil-recovery-project/safe-on- shoredirectional-drilling/

Early, C., 2014, August 7. “Birth of Dana Point Harbor Meant Death of Killer Wave.” Orange County Register. Retrieved January 14, 2015 from http://www.ocregister.com/articles/dana- 631074-harbor-point.html

Edwards, A., and Stephenson, W., 2013. Assessing the Potential for Surf Break Co- Management: Evidence from New Zealand. Coastal Management, 41(6): 537-560.

European Wind Energy Association, 2015. The European Offshore Wind Industry – Key Trends and Statistics 2014. Brussels, BE. 25 pp. Retrieved March 1, 2015 from http://www.ewea.org/fileadmin/files/library/publications/statistics/EWEA-European-Offshore- Statistics-2014.pdf

Farmer, B., and Short, A.D., 2007. Australian National Surfing Reserves – Rationale and Process for Recognizing Iconic Surfing Locations. Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 50, pp. 99-103.

Federal Interagency Council on Outdoor Recreation, 2012. Federal Interagency Council on Outdoor Recreation. Washington, D.C. 10 pp. Retrieved March 15, 2015 from http://www.fws.gov/whhcc/doc/FICOR%20overview%20for%20WHHCC%202-12.pdf

80 Feldman, P., 1990, May 12. “Making Political Waves: Environmental Disasters Make Activists Out of Laid-Back Surfers.” Los Angeles Times, p. VCA3.

Fimrite, P., 2014, September 25. “Billionaire Must Let Public Access Martins Beach, Judge Says.” San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved March 15, 2015 from http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Billionaire-must-allow-public-to-access-Martins- 5778533.php

Finnegan, W., 1992. Playing Doc’s Games – I. The New Yorker, August 24, pp. 34-59. Retrieved March 15, 2015 from http://aspwedge.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Playing-Docs- Games.pdf

Fletcher, S., Bateman, P., and Emery, A., 2011. The Governance of the Bomscombe Artificial Surf Reef, UK. Land Use Policy, 28: 395-401.

George, S., 2004. When it Comes to Making Waves can Mother Nature Compete with Man’s ‘Happy Accidents”? Surfer Magazine, April, pp. 130-137.

Gerber, M., and Shyong, F., 2014, July 5. “Shark was Hooked on Line for Nearly an Hour Before Attack.” Los Angeles Times. Retrieved January 14, 2015 from http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-shark-was-hooked-on-line-for-nearly-an-hour- before-attack-20140705-story.html

Gibson, J., and Frew, W., 2007, January 13. “Safe Harbour: Surfing’s Hallowed Waters Consecrated.” Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved March 15, 2015 from http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/01/12/1168105180999.html

Given, S., Pendleton, L.H., and Boehm, A.B., 2006. Regional Public Health Cost Estimates of Contaminated Coastal Waters: A Case Study of Gastroenteritis at Southern California Beaches. Environmental Science & Technology, 40: 4851–4858.

Gray, L., 2014, October 14. “‘Riding the Wake Behind Tankers: That’s So Texas.’” Houston Chronicle. Retrieved March 15, 2015 from http://www.houstonchronicle.com/local/gray- matters/article/Surf-Texas-5820265.php

Groves, M., 2014a, December 18. “Surfers Regain Access to Malibu’s Paradise Cove: Pier to be Unlocked.” Los Angeles Times. Retrieved March 15, 2015 from http://www.latimes.com/local/westside/la-me-paradise-cove-access-20141219-story.html

Groves, M., 2014b, November 2. “Paradise Cove Gets Coastal Commission Warning Over Beach Access.” Los Angeles Times. Retrieved March 15, 2015 from http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-paradise-cove-access-20141102-story.html

Halloran, L., 2013, September 19. “Lobster Boy Looms Large in Food–Stamp Debate.” National Public Radio. Retrieved March 15, 2015 from

81 http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/09/19/223796325/lobster-boy-looms-large-in- food-stamp-debate

Havlick, D., 2002. No Place Distant: Roads and Motorized Recreation on America’s Public Lands. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Heal the Bay, “Myths vs. Facts: Oil Drilling in Hermosa Beach.” Retrieved March 15, 2015 from http://www.healthebay.org/blogs-news/myths-vs-facts-oil-drilling-hermosa-beach

Hearin, J.M., 2012. A Detailed Analysis of Beach Nourishment and its Impact on the Surfing Wave Environment of Brevard County, Florida (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest LLC (UMI 3504831).

Heckerling, A., 1982. Fast Times at Ridgemont High. Universal Pictures.

Holzman, J.E., 1952. Submarine Geology of the Cortes and Tanner Banks. Journal of Sedimentary Research. 22(2): 97–118.

Hoppin, J., 2014, April 25. “Surfing Reserve Sees First Summit.” Santa Cruz Sentinel. Retrieved March 15, 2015 from http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/general-news/20140425/surfing- reserve-sees-first-summit

Hutt, J.A., Black, K.P., and Mead, S.T., 2001. Classification of Surf Breaks in Relation to Surfing Skill. Journal of Coastal Research, 29: 66-81.

International Surfing Association, 2015, February 23. “International Surfing Association Expands Global Reach with the Addition of 92nd and 93rd Members Federations.” Retrieved March 15, 2015 from https://www.isasurf.org/international-surfing-association-expands-global- reach-addition-92nd-93rd-members-federations/

Johnson, J.C., and Orbach, M.K., 1986. The Role of Cultural Context in the Development of Low-Capitol Ocean Leisure Activities. Leisure Sciences, 8(3): 319-339.

KABC, 2015, January 6. “San Diego Surfer Dies from Staph Infection Possibly Caused by Storm Bacteria.” Retrieved March 15, 2015 from http://abc7.com/health/surfer-dies-from-staph- infection-possibly-caused-by-storm-bacteria/464528/

KPCC, 2013, May 2. “Newly Restored Malibu Lagoon State Beach Set to Reopen Friday (Photos).” Retrieved March 15, 2015 from http://www.scpr.org/news/2013/05/02/37061/newly-restored-malibu-lagoon-state-beach-to- reopen/

Kaffine, D.T., 2009. The Surf Gangs of California. Journal of Law and Economics, 52(4): 727- 743.

Kampion, D., 2003. Stoked! A History of Surf Culture. Layton, UT: Gibbs Smith, Inc.

82

Kaner, J., “Surfline.com Travel Guide: Malibu.” Retrieved January 14, 2015 from http://www.surfline.com/surfdata/report_breakdata.cfm?id=4209&sef=true

Kaufman, L., 2012, August 26. “Terry Tracy, Model for Big Kahuna, Dies at 77.” New York Times. Retrieved January 14, 2015 from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/27/us/tubesteak- tracy-surfer-featured-in-gidget-dies.html

Kinney, A., 2014, December 11. “Martins Beach. Khosla Accused of Defying Judge’s Order, Keeping Gate to Beach Locked.” San Jose Mercury News. Retrieved March 15, 2015 from http://www.mercurynews.com/san-mateo-county-times/ci_27117343/martins-beach-khosla- accused-defying-judges-order-keeping

Lanagan, D., 2002. Surfing in the Third Millennium: Commodyfing the Visual Argot. Australian Journal of Anthropology, 13(3): 283-291.

Langfit, F., 2014, September 12. “Riding the ‘Silver Dragon,’ Surfers Tame China’s 10-Foot River Waves.” National Public Radio. Retrieved March 15, 2015 from http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2014/09/12/347950272/riding-the-silver-dragon-surfers- tame-chinas-10-foot-river-waves

Lazarow, N., 2008. A Socio-Economic Study of Recreational Surfing on the Gold Coast, Queensland: Research Report No. 89. Griffith Centre for Coastal Management. Nathan, AU. 57pp.

Lazarow, N., and Nelsen, C., 2007. The Value of Costal Recreational Resources: A Case Study Approach to Examine the Value of Recreational Surfing to Specific Locales. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Coastal Zone 2007. (Portland, Oregon).

Lazarow, N., Miller, M.L., and Blackwell, B., 2009. The Value of Recreational Surfing to Society. Tourism in Marine Environments, 5(2-3): 145-158.

Lazarow, N., Miller, M.L., and Blackwell, B., 2007. Dropping In: A Case Study Approach to Understanding the Socioeconomic Impact of Recreational Surfing and its Value to the Coastal Economy. Shore & Beach, 75(4): 21-31.

Lee, J.H., 1992, February 1. “Surfrider Makes Waves in Effort to Protect Endangered Coastline.” Los Angeles Times. Retrieved March 15, 2015 from http://articles.latimes.com/1992-02- 01/local/me-761_1_surfrider-foundation

Luntz, S., 2002. Riding the Wave. Australasian Science, 23(3), 38-39.

Mack, I.D., 2003. Quantitative Assessment of the Surfability of Pratte’s Artificial Surfing Reef Santa Monica Bay, California. (Master’s Thesis). Retrieved from ProQuest LLC (UMI 1414847).

83 Malibu Lagoon Restoration Project, 2012. “History.” Retrieved January 15, 2015 from http://www.restoremalibulagoon.com/history/

Marcus, B., “Surfline.com Travel Guide: Steamer Lane.” Retrieved January 14, 2015 from http://www.surfline.com/surfdata/report_breakdata.cfm?id=4188&sef=true

Marshall, M.N., 1996. The Key Informant Technique. Family Practice, 13(1): 92-97.

Martin, C., 2012. Malibu’s Epic Battle of Surfers vs. Environmentalists. Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved January 14, 2015 from http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-places/malibus- epic-battle-of-surfers-vs-environmentalists-84638230/

Martin, S.A., and Assenov, I., 2014. Investigating the Importance of Surf Resource Sustainability Indicators: Stakeholder Perspectives for Surf Tourism Planning and Development. Tourism Planning & Development. DOI: 10.1080/21568316.2013.864990.

Martin, S.A., and Assenov, I., 2013. Measuring the Conservation Aptitude of Surf Beaches in Phuket, Thailand: An Application of the Surf Resource Sustainability Index. International Journal of Tourism Research. DOI: 10.1002/jtr.1961

Martínez, M.L., Intralawan, A., Vázquez, G., Pérez–Maqueo, O., Sutton, P., and Landgrave, R., 2007. The Coasts of Our World: Ecological, Economic, and Social Importance. Ecological Economics, 63: 254–272.

Mathieson, B., “Surfline.com Travel Guide: Wedge.” Retrieved January 14, 2015 from http://www.surfline.com/surfdata/report_breakdata.cfm?id=4232

Matthews, N., 1985, September 24. “Sandstorm.” San Diego Reader. Retrieved March 15, 2015 from http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/1985/sep/23/sandstorm/

McCauley, D.J., Pinsky, M.L., Palumbi, S.R., Estes, J.A., Joyce, F.H., and Warner, R.R., 2015. Marine Defaunation: Animal Loss in the Global Ocean. Science, 347, 1255641. DOI: 10.1126/science.1255641

Mead, S.T., 2001. Incoroporating High-Quality Surfing Breaks Into Multi-Purpose Reefs, Hamilton, New Zealand: University of Waikato, Ph.D. thesis, 213p.

Mead, S.T., and Black, K.P., 2005. Development of a Multi-Purpose Reef at Orewa Beach, New Zealand. In: Townsend, M. and Walker, D. (eds.), Proceedings of the 2005 Coasts and Ports Conference (Adelaide, South Australia), 20-23 September 2005, pp. 679-684.

Mead, S.T., and Black, K.P., 1999a. A Multipurpose, Artificial Reef at Mount Maunganui Beach, New Zealand. Coastal Management, 27:335-365.

84 Mead, S.T., and Black, K.P. 1999b., Configuration of Large-Scale Reef Components at a World- Class Surfing Break: Bingin Reef, Bali, Indonesia. In: Proceedings of the 1999 Coasts and Ports Conference (Perth, Australia), volume 2, pp. 438-443.

Mead, S.T., Borrero, J.C., Black, K.P., Anderson, D., and Frazierhurst, J., 2007. Multi-faceted Beach Management at St. Francis Bay Beach, South Africa: “Endless Summer III”. Shore and Beach, 75(4): 43-54.

Meyer, Z., 2012, September 16. “You Haven’t Lived Here Until…You, Like, Totally, Go Surfing in Lake Michigan.” Detroit Free Press. Retrieved March 15, 2015 from http://archive.freep.com/article/20120916/NEWS06/309160192/You-haven-t-lived-here-until- You-like-totally-go-surfing-in-Lake-Michigan

Mocke, G., Smith, F., Fernando, S., and Al Zahed, K., 2003. Coastal Protection and Amenity Value of an Artificial Surf Reef for Dubai. In Black, K.P. and Mead, S.T. (eds.), Artificial Surfing Reefs 2003: The 3rd International Conference (Raglan, New Zealand), CD-ROM, pp. 180-195.

Mondy, B., 2015, February 9. “Surfing’s Endangered and Extinct Waves.” GrindTV.com. Retrieved March 15, 2015 from http://www.grindtv.com/travel/endangered- waves/#vJp7iWqcX7SaeJkE.97

Morse, P., and Brunskill, P., 2004. Wavetrack New Zealand Surfing Guide. Mount Maunganui, NZ: Greenroom Surf Media Limited.

Murphy, M., and Bernal, M., 2008. The Impact of Surfing on the Local Economy of Mundaka, Spain: A Report for Save The Waves Coalition. Davenport, CA. 31 pp. Retrieved January 15, 2015 from http://www.limmatwave.com/Presse/SurfonomicsStudieMundaka.pdf

National Marine Protected Areas Center, 2014. Updated Framework for the Marine Protected Areas of the United States of America. Silver Spring, MD. 49 pp. Retrieved March 15, 2015 from http://marineprotectedareas.noaa.gov/pdf/national-system/framework-mpa-oct14.pdf

National Marine Protected Areas Center, 2008. The State of U.S. Marine Managed Areas: West Coast. Silver Spring, Maryland. L.Wooninck, and R. Grober-Dunsmore, eds.

National Marin Protected Areas Center, Cultural Heritage Resources and Marine Protected Areas. Silver Spring, MD. 2 pp. Retrieved March 15, 2015 from http://marineprotectedareas.noaa.gov/pdf/helpful- resources/factsheets/cultural_heritage_mpas_mar2011x2.pdf

National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, 2015. Daniel J. Basta to Fred Collins, San Luis Obispo, March 6, 2015. Retrieved March 25, 2015 from http://www.nominate.noaa.gov/nominations/chumashheritage_responseletter_030615.pdf

85 National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, 2014. “National Marine Protected Areas Center MPA Inventory.” Web. Retrieved January 15, 2015 from http://marineprotectedareas.noaa.gov/dataanalysis/mpainventory/

National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, 2011. Maria Brown to Greg Munks, San Francisco, CA, 2011. Retrieved March 15, 2015 from http://farallones.noaa.gov/manage/pdf/sac/11_05/MPWC_Letter.pdf

National Park Service, 2002. National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. 54 pp. Washington, DC. Retrieved January 15, 2015 from http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/pdfs/nrb15.pdf

National Park Service, “Moving the Cape Hatteras Lighthouse.” Retrieved January 14, 2015 from http://www.nps.gov/caha/learn/historyculture/movingthelighthouse.htm

National Surfing Reserves (a), “Dedicated Reserves.” Retrieved March 15, 2015 from http://www.surfingreserves.org/maroubra.php

National Surfing Reserves (b), “What is WSR?” Retrieved March 15, 2015 from http://surfingreserves.org/what-is-nsr.php

NavSource Online, 2015, January 2. “Aircraft Carrier Photo Archive: Enterprise (CVAN–65) Later (CVN–65).” Retrieved March 15, 2015 from http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/65.htm

Nazer, D., 2004. The Tragicomedy of the Surfers’ Commons. Deakin Law Review, 9(2): 655- 713.

Nelsen, C., 2012. Collecting and Using Economic Information to Guide the Management of Coastal Recreational Resources in California (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest LLC. (UMI 3532463).

Nelsen, C., 1996. Mitigation through Surf Enhancement. A Coastal Management Case Study in El Segundo, California. (Master’s thesis). Duke University. Retrieved from http://www.beachapedia.org/Mitigation_Through_Surf_Enhancement

Nelsen, C., and Richter, L., 2005, July 17-21. Salva Tres Palmas: A Community-Driven Effort to Protect Coastal and Marine Resources in Rincon, Puerto Rico. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 14th Biennial Coastal Zone Conference. New Orleans, LA.

Nelsen, C., and Howd, P., 1996. Surf as Coastal Resource: The Wave of the Future. Geotimes, December, pp. 19-22.

Nelsen, C., Cummings, A., and Tagholm, H., 2013. Paradise Lost: Threatened Waves and the Need for Global Surf Protection. Journal of Costal Research, 65: 904-908.

86 Nelsen, C., Lazarow, N., Bernal, M., Murphy, M., and Pijoan, P., 2008. The Socioeconomics and Management of Surfing Areas: International Case Studies from Mexico, Spain, California, and Australia. Paper presented at the 21st International Conference of The Coastal Society (TCS21). Redondo Beach, CA.

Nelsen, C., Pendleton, L., and Vaughn, R., 2007. A Socioeconomic Study of Surfers at Trestles Beach. Shore and Beach, 75(4): 32-37.

New South Wales (a), 2010. “Trade & Investment Crown Lands: Crown Lands.” Retrieved January 14, 2015 from http://www.lpma.nsw.gov.au/crown_lands/about_crown_land

New South Wales (b), 2010. “Trade & Investment Crown Lands: National Surfing Reserves.” Retrieved January 14, 2015 from http://www.lpma.nsw.gov.au/crown_lands/about_crown_land

New Zealand Department of Conservation, “New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS).” Retrieved August 29, 2013 from http://doc.org.nz/publications/conservation/marine-and- coastal/new-zealand-coastal-policy-statement/new-zealand-coastal-policy-statement-2010/

New Zealand Ministry for the Environment (a), “National Policy Statements.” Retrieved August 29, 2013 from http://www.mfe.govt.nz/rma/rma-legislative-tools/national-policy-statements

New Zealand Ministry for the Environment (b), “RMA Process and How to Get Involved.” Retrieved August 29, 2013 from http://www.mfe.govt.nz/rma/rma-processes-and-how-get- involved

O’Leary, P., 2012. A Walk in the Park: A Legal Overview of California’s and State and Federal Parks and the Laws Governing their Use and Enjoyment. Natural Resources Journal, 52: 237- 263.

Oram, W., and Valverde, C., 1994. Legal Protection of Surf Breaks: Putting the Brakes on Destruction of Surf. Stanford Environmental Law Journal, 13: 401-448.

Orams, M.B., and Towner, N., 2013. Riding the Wave: History, Definitions, and a Proposed Typology of Surf-Riding Tourism. Tourism in Marine Environments, 8(4): 173-188.

Orbach, M.K., 2014. A Brief Essay on the Nature of (and in) Environmental Policy. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, DOI: 10.1007/s13412-014-0170-3.

Ostberg, K., Hasselstrom, L., and Hakansson, C., 2012. Non-market Valuation of the Coastal Environment – Uniting Political Aims, Ecological and Economic Knowledge. Journal of Environmental Management, 110: 166-178.

Papagianis, A., 2013, September 12. “High Court Denies Petition to Review Strand Access Cases.” Dana Point Times. Retrieved March 15, 2015 from http://www.danapointtimes.com/high-court-denies-petition-to-review-strand-access-cases/

87 Pendleton, L. and Kildow, J., 2006. The Nonmarket Value of Beach Recreation in California. Shore & Beach, 74(2): 34-37.

Peralta, S., 2001. Dogtown and Z-Boys. Sony Pictures Classics.

Perry, T., 2013, February 18. “Surfers, Marines, in a Tussle over Trestles.” Los Angeles Times. Retrieved January 14, 2015 from http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/18/local/la-me-trestles- 20130219

Peryman, B., 2011. Surfbreak Identification and Protection in the Gisborne District. Gisborne, NZ. 65 pp. Retrieved January 14, 2015 from http://www.gdc.govt.nz/assets/Files/Environmental-Planning/RCEP-Surf-Break-Report.pdf

Pool, B., 2008, October 9. “Wave Goodbye to Reef Experiment that Failed.” Los Angeles Times. Retrieved January 14 2015 from http://articles.latimes.com/2008/oct/09/local/me-reef9

Pratte, T.P., 1983. Surfing Interests in Coastal Planning. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management (San Diego, California), pp. 2683-2705.

Preston-Whyte, R., 2002. Construction of Surfing Space at Durban, South Africa. Tourism Geographies, 4(3): 307-328.

Raheem, N., Colt, S., Fleishman, E., Talberth, J., Swedeen, P., Boyle, K.J., Rudd., M., Lopez, R.D., Crocker, D., Bohan, D., O’Higgins, T., Willer, C., and Boumans, R.M., 2012. Application of Non-Market Valuation to California’s Coastal Policy Decisions. Marine Policy, 36: 1166-1171.

Reiblich, J., 2013. Greening the Tube: Paddling Toward Comprehensive Surf Break Protection. Environs: UC Davis Environmental Law and Policy Journal, 37(1): 45-71

Reynolds, J.R., and Nagami, D.K., 2011. Lines in the Sand: Contrasting Advocacy Strategies for Environmental Protection in the Twenty-First Century. UC Irvine Law Review, 1: 1125-1166

Rider, R., 1998. Hangin’ Ten: The Common-Pool Resource Problem of Surfing. Public Choice, 97: 49-64.

Ruhl, J.B., 1998. Valuing Nature’s Services: The Future of Environmental Law? Natural Resources & Environment, 2: 359-361.

Save The Waves Coalition, 2010. Malibu World Surfing Reserve. Davenport, CA. 18 pp.

Save The Waves Coalition (a), “Punta de Lobos por Siempre.” Retrieved March 15, 2015 from http://www.savethewaves.org/punta-de-lobos-por-siempre-2/

Save The Waves Coalition (b), “Pushing for Permanent Protection.” Retrieved March 15, 2015 from http://www.savethewaves.org/savesanmiguel-pushing-for-permanent-protection/

88

Scarfe, B.E., 2006. Oceanographic Considerations for the Management and Protection of Surfing Breaks. Hamilton, New Zealand: The University of Waikato, Ph.D. thesis, 307p. + appendices.

Scarfe, B.E., 2002. Categorising Surfing Manoeuvres Using Wave and Reef Characteristics. Hamilton, New Zealand: The University of Waikato, Master’s thesis, 181p.

Scarfe, B.E., Healy, T.R., and Rennie, H.G., 2009a. Research-Based Surfing Literature for Coastal Management and the Science of Surfing – A Review. Journal of Coastal Research. 25(3): 539-557.

Scarfe, B.E., Healy, T.R., Rennie, H.G., and Mead, S.T., 2009b. Sustainable Management of Surfing Breaks – Case Studies and Recommendations. Journal of Costal Research. 25(3): 684- 703.

Scarfe, B.E., Elwany, M.H.S., Mead, S.T., and Black, K.P., 2003a. The Science of Surfing Waves and Surfing Breaks: A Review. In: Black, K.P. and Mead, S.T. (eds.), Artificial Surfing Reefs 2003: The 3rd International Conference (Raglan, New Zealand), CD-ROM, pp. 37-59.

Scarfe, B.E., Elwany, M.H.S., Black, K.P., and Mead, S.T., 2003b. Categorizing the Types of Surfing Breaks Around Jetty Structures. Scripps Institute of Oceanography Technical Report, 8p.

Schmidt, D., 2004. Wiping Out the Ban on Surfboards at Point Panic. University of Hawai’i Law Review, 27: 303-329.

Schrope., M. 2006. Oceanography: Creating the Perfect Wave. Nature, 444(7122): 997-999.

Short, A.D., 2006. Australian Beach Systems – Nature and Distribution. Journal of Coastal Research, 22(1): 11-27.

Short, A.D., and Farmer, B., 2012. Surfing Reserves – Recognition for the World’s Surfing Breaks. Reef Journal, 2: 1-14.

Shuval, H., 2003. Estimating the Global Burden of Thalassogenic Disease: Human Infectious Disease Caused by Wastewater Pollution of the Marine Environment. The Journal of Water and Health. 1(2):53–64.

Silva, S.F., and Ferreira, J.C., 2014. The Social and Economic Value of Waves: An Analysis of Costa de Caparica, Portugal. Ocean & Coastal Management, 102: 58-64.

Skellern, M., Perryman, B., Orchard, S., and Rennie, H., 2013. Planning Approaches for the Management of Surf Breaks in New Zealand. Auckland, NZ. 98 pp. Retrieved January 14, 2015 from http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/aboutcouncil/planspoliciespubli cations/technicalpublications/planningapproachesformanagementsurfbreaksnz.pdf

89

Skellern, M., Rennie, H.G., and Davis, M., 2009. Working Towards the Protection of Surf Breaks. Coastal Planning, 12-15.

Slagel, M., and Griggs, G., 2006. Cumulative Losses of Sand to the California Coast by Dam Impoundment, Final Report to the California Coastal Sediment Management Working Group and the California Department of Boating and Waterways. Santa Cruz, CA. 47 pp. Retrieved March 15, 2015 from http://www.dbw.ca.gov/csmw/PDF/Slagel&Griggs_CA_Dams_Manuscript.pdf

Smith, M. E., 1977. Comments on the Heuristic Utility of Maritime Anthropology. Maritime Anthropology 1(1): 2-5.

Snider, A., Hill, J., Luo, S., Buerger, B., and Herstine, J., 2011. Implications for Place Attachment in Coastal Reserve Management. Ocean & Coastal Management, 54: 612-620.

Stanley’s Surf Gear, 2015. “Stanley’s Diner.” Retrieved April 15, 2015 from http://www.surfcrazy.com/stanleys/index.html

Stebbins, R.A., 1992. Amateurs, Professionals, and Serious Leisure. London, UK: McGill- Queen’s University Press.

Surf Industry Manufactures Association (SIMA), “Surf Industry Riding Out the Economic Storm,” 7 July, 2009. Retrieved January 14, 2015 from http://www.sima.com/news‐ information/news-detail/id/68.aspx

Surfbreak Protection Society, “About Us.” Retrieved January 14, 2015 from http://www.surfbreak.org.nz/about-us/

Surfer Magazine, “How to Create a Marine Reserve.” 22 July, 2010a. Retrieved March 15, 2015 from http://www.surfermag.com/features/prmarinereserve

Surfer Magazine, “What Do People Really Think About Huntington vs. Santa Cruz?” 22 July, 2010b. Retrieved March 15, 2015 from http://www.surfermag.com/features/surfcityusa/#Jrvx2PpKcRTPFtB1.97

Surfrider Foundation, 2013. “State of the Beach Report: Beach Erosion.” Retrieved January 14 2015 from http://www.beachapedia.org/State_of_the_Beach/State_Reports/CA/Beach_Erosion

Surfrider Foundation Long Beach Chapter, “Sink the Breakwater.” Retrieved January 14 2015 from http://www.lbsurfrider.org/sink-the-breakwater/

Surfrider Foundation Rincón Chapter, “Tres Palmas Marine Reserve.” Retrieved January 14, 2015 from https://rincon.surfrider.org/programs/tres-palmas-marine-reserve/

90 Times Editorial Board, 2014, July 1. “Editorial: Will the Threat of Big Fines Force Better Beach Access?” Los Angeles Times. Retrieved March 15, 2015 from http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-beach-access-fines-coastal-commission- 20140702-story.html

United States Department of Commerce, 2008. Decision and Findings by the U.S. Secretary of Commerce in the Consistency Appeal of the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency and the Board of Directors of the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency from an Objection by the California Coastal Commission, December 18, 2008. Washington, DC. 28 pp. Retrieved January 14 2015 from http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/images/TCA%20decision.pdf

United States Forest Service, 2010. Stanislaus National Forest Plan Direction April 2010. Sonora, CA. 202 pp. Retrieved January 14 2015 from http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5154788.pdf

Walker, J.R., 1974a. Recreational Surfing Parameters. Honolulu, Hawaii: University of Hawaii, Department of Ocean Engineering, LOOK Laboratory Technical Report No. 30, 311p.

Walker, J.R., and Palmer, R.Q., 1971. Surf Parameters: A General Surf Site Concept. Honolulu Hawaii: University of Hawaii, Department of Ocean Engineering, LOOK Laboratory Technical Report No. 18, 48p.

Walker, J.R., Palmer, R.Q., and Kukea, J.K., 1972. Recreational Surfing on Hawaiian Reefs. In: Proceedings of the 13th Coastal Engineering Conference (Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, ASCE 0-87262-049-2), pp. 2609-2628.

Walther, M., 2007. Guest Editorial: Combining Surfing and Shore Protection. Shore and Beach. 75(4): 2.

Weight, D., 2003. Economics of Surfing Reefs. In: Black, K.P. and Mead, S.T. (eds.) Artificial Surfing Reefs 2003: The 3rd International Conference (Raglan, New Zealand), CD-ROM pp. 351-359.

Wilson, S.G., and Fischetti, T.R., 2010. Coastline Population Trends in the United States from 1960 to 2008: Population Estimates and Projections (P25–1139). Washington, D.C. 28 pp. Retrieved March 15, 2015 from https://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p25-1139.pdf

Wolfe, T., 1968. The Pump House Gang. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus, & Giroux.

World Surfing Reserves, 2015. “The Process.” Retrieved April 15, 2015 from http://www.savethewaves.org/programs/world-surfing-reserves/the-process/

Wright, A., 1973. Surfing California: A Complete Guide to the California Coast. Redondo Beach, CA: Mountain & Sea Publishing.

91 APPENDIX A: 2014-2005 annual water quality “Beach Bummer List” by the Los Angeles environmental nonprofit Heal the Bay (HtB; healthebay.org), representing California sites with the poorest dry weather water quality, based on the HtB Beach Report Card (BRC). The BRC is calculated weekly for over 350 monitoring sites along the coast from Oregon to the Mexico border as an A (high water quality) to F (poor water quality) score based on three bacteria indicators, including fecal waste. Higher grades represent lower risk of human illness. Sampling data are provided by local health agencies and dischargers as part of routine, ongoing beach water quality monitoring. California surf breaks on the Beach Bummer List are listed in bold. At least one surf break is on each Beach Bummer List between 2014-2005. More information on the BRC online at healthebay.org/brc.

No. Year Beach County

1 2014 Cowell’s Beach Santa Cruz 2 2014 Marina Lagoon San Mateo 3 2014 Mother’s Beach, Marina Del Rey Los Angeles 4 2014 Cabrillo Beach, San Pedro Los Angeles 5 2014 Stillwater Cove Monterey 6 2014 Clam Beach County Park Humboldt 7 2014 Santa Monica Municipal Pier Los Angeles 8 2014 Pillar Point Harbor San Mateo 9 2014 Capitola Beach Santa Cruz 10 2014 Windsurfer Circle San Francisco

1 2013 Avalon Beach, Catalina Island Los Angeles 2 2013 Cowell’s Beach Santa Cruz 3 2013 Poche Beach Orange 4 2013 Cabrillo Beach, San Pedro Los Angeles 5 2013 Malibu Pier Los Angeles 6 2013 Marina Lagoon San Mateo 7 2013 Doheny State Beach Orange 8 2013 Redondo Beach Pier Los Angeles 9 2013 Windsurfer Circle San Francisco 10 2013 Tijuana Rivermouth San Diego

1 2012 Avalon Beach, Catalina Island Los Angeles 2 2012 Cowell’s Beach Santa Cruz 3 2012 Puerco Beach, Malibu Los Angeles 4 2012 Surfrider Beach, Malibu Los Angeles 5 2012 Solstice Canyon Los Angeles 6 2012 Cabrillo Beach, San Pedro Los Angeles 7 2012 Doheny State Beach Orange 8 2012 Poche Beach Orange 9 2012 Escondido Beach, Malibu Los Angeles 10 2012 Topanga State Beach Los Angeles

1 2011 Cowell’s Beach Santa Cruz 2 2011 Avalon Beach, Catalina Island Los Angeles 3 2011 Cabrillo Beach, San Pedro Los Angeles 4 2011 Topanga State Beach Los Angeles 5 2011 Poche Beach Orange 6 2011 Doheny State Beach Orange 7 2011 Arroyo Burro Beach Santa Barbara 8 2011 Baker Beach San Francisco 9 2011 Colorado Lagoon Los Angeles 10 2011 Capitola Beach Santa Cruz

1 2010 Avalon Beach, Catalina Island Los Angeles 2 2010 Cowell’s Beach Santa Cruz 3 2010 Cabrillo Beach, San Pedro Los Angeles 4 2010 Poche Beach Orange 5 2010 Santa Monica Municipal Pier Los Angeles 6 2010 Colorado Lagoon Los Angeles 7 2010 Baker Beach San Francisco 8 2010 Capitola Beach Santa Cruz 9 2010 Vacation Isle North Cove Beach San Diego 10 2010 Will Rogers State Beach Los Angeles

1 2009 Avalon Beach, Catalina Island Los Angeles 2 2009 Cabrillo Beach, San Pedro Los Angeles 3 2009 Pismo Beach Pier San Luis Obispo 4 2009 Colorado Lagoon Los Angeles 5 2009 Santa Monica Municipal Pier Los Angeles 6 2009 Long Beach – LA River outlet Los Angeles 7 2009 Poche Beach Orange 8 2009 Surfrider Beach, Malibu Los Angeles 9 2009 Campbell Cove State Beach, Bodega Bay Sonoma 10 2009 Doheny State Beach Orange

1 2008 Avalon Beach, Catalina Island Los Angeles 2 2008 Santa Monica Municipal Pier Los Angeles 3 2008 Poche Beach Orange 4 2008 Doheny State Beach Orange 5 2008 Marie Canyon Storm Drain, Malibu Los Angeles 6 2008 Cabrillo Beach, San Pedro Los Angeles 7 2008 Long Beach – multiple locations Los Angeles 8 2008 Campbell Cove State Beach, Bodega Bay Sonoma 9 2008 Clam Beach County Park Humboldt 10 2008 Pismo Beach Pier San Luis Obispo

1 2007 Long Beach – multiple locations Los Angeles

2 2007 Castlerock Storm Drain Los Angeles 3 2007 Marie Canyon Storm Drain, Malibu Los Angeles 4 2007 Avalon Beach, Catalina Island Los Angeles 5 2007 Surfrider Beach, Malibu Los Angeles 6 2007 Santa Monica Municipal Pier Los Angeles 7 2007 Campbell Cove State Beach, Bodega Bay Sonoma 8 2007 Venice Beach at Fisherman’s Creek San Mateo 9 2007 Arroyo Burro Beach Santa Barbara 10 2007 Cabrillo Beach, San Pedro Los Angeles

1 2006 Municipal North Santa Monica Bay Beaches Los Angeles 2 2006 Will Rogers State Beach Los Angeles 3 2006 Avalon Beach, Catalina Island Los Angeles 4 2006 Surfrider Beach, Malibu Los Angeles 5 2006 Santa Monica Municipal Pier Los Angeles 6 2006 Pillar Point Harbor San Mateo 7 2006 Doheny State Beach Orange 8 2006 Tijuana Rivermouth San Diego 9 2006 Topanga State Beach Los Angeles 10 2006 Cabrillo Beach, San Pedro Los Angeles

1T 2005 Doheny State Beach Orange 1T 2005 The Tijuana Slough San Diego 3 2005 Cabrillo Beach, San Pedro Los Angeles 4 2005 Campbell Cove State Beach, Bodega Bay Sonoma 5 2005 Avalon Beach, Catalina Island Los Angeles 6 2005 Baby Beach, Dana Point Harbor Orange 7 2005 Pacific Beach Point, Pacific Beach San Diego 8 2005 Pillar Point Harbor San Mateo 9 2005 Redondo Beach Municipal Pier Los Angeles 10 2005 Paradise Cove, Malibu Los Angeles

APPENDIX B. Case study interviewee question list. A copy of the list was provided to the interviewee prior to interviewing. Interviews took place between November 2014 and January 2015 via phone or voice over IP. In one case, an interviewee responded to the questions via email, and those answers were taken for a complete interview.

DEFINING AND DEVELOPING THE RESERVE

1. Which individuals or group(s) initiated discussions of the reserve? 2. What local/state/national laws and policies did you rely on to develop the reserve? 3. What are the goals and objectives of the reserve? 4. How are the reserve boundaries defined? 5. What activities are allowed, restricted, or prohibited in the reserve? 6. Does the reserve prohibit non-surfing activities (e.g., bodyboarding, stand up paddling)? 7. What features – physical, biological, cultural – are included within the reserve boundary? 8. What features – physical, biological, cultural – are excluded from the reserve boundary? 9. What financial needs were necessary to establish the reserve? Who assumed these costs? 10. Does the reserve address state/national coastal policy challenges?

SUPPORTING AND MANAGING THE RESERVE

1. Who are the current local partners? 2. Who are the current state/national partners? 3. How is the reserve managed? And by whom? 4. What ongoing costs are associated with the reserve? Who assumes these costs? 5. What threats exist to the reserve? 6. Do institutional conflicts exist between reserve partners? What are they? 7. Is there local support or opposition to the reserve? By whom? 8. Is there continued local/state/national willingness to support the reserve? 9. Have activities been continued across local/state/national administrations? 10. How does the reserve relate to other existing management programs and activities?

APPENDIX C: Management of California surf breaks is multi-jurisdictional. Malibu Surfrider Beach (Los Angeles County) is a high-quality surfing area in Southern California. Surfing at Malibu takes place up to 100 m offshore with rides up to 300 m long, where surfers ride (mostly) parallel to the coast – southwest to northeast – toward Malibu Pier. Malibu is typical of most California beaches: a complex of natural and physical resources managed by different local, state, and federal authorities. Image from Google Maps, maps.google.com. Note: While Surfrider Beach lies well within the City of Malibu limits, it has no direct management authority over the property or its resources. This is not unheard of for other California surf breaks.

Landside Resource Management 1. Los Angeles County (shown in BLUE). Los Angeles County owns the property representing Malibu Surfrider Beach south of Pacific Coast Highway to the mean high water mark, and extending westward along the beach from 23038 Pacific Coast Highway to approximately the eastern outflow of Malibu Lagoon. Operationally, Los Angeles County Department of Beaches and Harbors (LACDBH) maintains the beach and its public improvements, including: shower, restrooms, public stairway, landscaping, and parking lot.

2. California State Parks (shown in PINK). California State Parks (CSP) owns the property of Malibu Lagoon, lower Malibu Creek and some of its adjacent riparian areas, the beachside areas between the Lagoon and the mean high water mark, and the Adamson House (National Register No. 77000298), a historic home and its grounds adjacent to the Lagoon. Operationally, California State Parks and LACDBH, in consultation with CSP, manage these areas.

3. US Army Corps of Engineers. The US Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) regulates the work or structures in, or affecting, US navigable waters (e.g., Malibu Lagoon). Also, ACOE regulates the discharge of material in US waters. In this way, ACOE is a regulating agency of California beach nourishment projects.

4. California Coastal Commission. The California Coastal Commission is an independent, quasi-judicial state agency that implements the California Coastal Act of 1976. The Coastal Commission has decision-making authority over land use, water use, public works, and public access in the California coastal zone. On land, the coastal zone varies in width from approximately 100 m in urban areas up to several kilometers in rural areas. At sea, the coastal zone extends 3 nm from the mean high water mark.

Foreshore/Offshore Resource Management 1. Los Angeles County. Los Angeles County has extra-jurisdictional authority over its beaches’ waters, extending from the shoreline one thousand feet seaward.

2. California Coastal Commission. As mentioned above, the Coastal Commission has jurisdiction of water use within the California coastal zone, which extends three nautical miles offshore (i.e., coastal waters).

3. California State Lands Commission. The California State Lands Commission (SLC) has jurisdiction over lands held by California in the public trust, i.e., sovereign lands, including:

tidal and submerged lands along the California coast and offshore islands from the mean high water mark to three nautical miles offshore (coastal waters). In certain circumstances, the SLC has granted portions of these sovereign lands to local municipalities as authorization to construct public facilities such as harbors, marinas, or ports. The granting of tidal and submerged lands to the City of Newport Beach (Orange County) for the construction of Newport Harbor is an example of such an SLC sovereign land grant.

Natural Resource Management 1. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) manages and protects California’s plant, fish, and wildlife resources, and its habitats. The CDFW oversees all uses of these resources: recreational, commercial, educational, and scientific. All of Malibu’s non-threatened or endangered species are managed by CDFW.

2. National Marine Fisheries Service. The NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has jurisdiction over 125 threatened and endangered marine species in the United States. For Malibu Lagoon, this includes the endangered steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), an anadromous species.

3. US Fish and Wildlife Service. The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has jurisdiction over most threatened and endangered species in California: 137 animal species and 184 plant species. For Malibu Lagoon, endangered (E) and threatened (T) species include: the tidewater goby (E) (Eucyclogobius newberryi), the California least tern (E) (Sterna antillarum browni), and the Western snowy plover (E) (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus).

APPENDIX D: Inventoried United States Marine Protected Areas (MPA) whose primary and secondary conservation focus are exclusively Cultural Heritage conservation and management. Management by specific state, territory, or federal agency is listed, as is MPA catalog number. Of the 125 Cultural Heritage MPAs, 120 are shipwrecks or other underwater archaeological sites, and three are shore-based, historical military sites. Abbreviations: BOEM: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management; GU: Guam; MP; Northern Mariana Islands; NMS: National Marine Sanctuary (NOAA). Data from the NOAA National Marine Protected Areas Center (marineprotectedareas.noaa.gov).

Mgmt MPA Site Name BOEM BOEM17 Anona BOEM BOEM13 U-166 and Robert E. Lee Battle Site BOEM BOEM14 USS Hatteras BOEM BOEM16 Western Empire FL FL854 City of Hawkinsville Underwater Archaeological Preserve FL FL862 Georges Valentine Underwater Archaeological Preserve FL FL858 Half Moon Underwater Archaeological Preserve FL FL859 Lofthus Underwater Archaeological Preserve FL FL861 Regina Underwater Archaeological Preserve FL FL853 San Pedro Underwater Archaeological Preserve FL FL856 SS Copenhagen Underwater Archaeological Preserve FL FL857 SS Tarpon Underwater Archaeological Preserve FL FL852 Urca de Lima Underwater Archaeological Preserve FL FL855 USS MA (BB-2) Underwater Archaeological Preserve FL FL860 Vamar Underwater Archaeological Preserve GA GA6 Fort King George Historic Site GA GA8 Fort Morris Historic Site GU GU15 Aratama Maru GU GU14 Cormoran GU GU13 Tokai Maru HI HI34 Kaho’olawe Island Reserve MP MP3 Managaha Marine Conservation Area MD MD1 U-1105 Black Panther Historic Shipwreck Preserve MA MA058 Albert Gallatin Exempt Site MA MA059 Alice M. Colburn Exempt Site MA MA060 Alice M. Lawrence Exempt Site MA MA061 Ardandhu Exempt Site MA MA062 Barge and Crane Exempt Site MA MA063 California Exempt Site MA MA064 Charles S. Haight Exempt Site MA MA066 Chelsea Exempt Site

MA MA065 Chester A. Poling Exempt Site MA MA067 City of Salisbury Exempt Site MA MA068 Corvan Exempt Site MA MA069 Dixie Sword Exempt Site MA MA070 Edward Rich Exempt Site MA MA096 French Van Gilder Exempt Site MA MA095 H.M.C.S. Saint Francis Exempt Site MA MA071 Henry Endicott Exempt Site MA MA072 Herbert Exempt Site MA MA073 Herman Winter Exempt Site MA MA074 Hilda Garston Exempt Site MA MA075 James S. Longstreet Exempt Site MA MA076 John Dwight Exempt Site MA MA077 Kershaw Exempt Site MA MA078 Kiowa Exempt Site MA MA079 Lackawana Exempt Site MA MA080 Lunet Exempt Site MA MA081 Mars Exempt Site MA MA082 Pemberton Exempt Site MA MA083 Pendleton Exempt Site MA MA084 Pinthis Exempt Site MA MA085 Port Hunter Exempt Site MA MA086 Pottstown Exempt Site MA MA087 Romance Exempt Site MA MA088 Seaconnet Exempt Site MA MA089 Trojan Exempt Site MA MA090 U.S.S. Grouse Exempt Site MA MA091 U.S.S. New Hampshire Exempt Site MA MA092 U.S.S. Triana Exempt Site MA MA093 U.S.S. Yankee Exempt Site MA MA094 U.S.S. YSD Exempt Site MA MA097 Vineyard Sound Lightship Exempt Site MI MI136 Alger GL State Bottomland Preserve MI MI142 Detour Passage GL State Bottomland Preserve MI MI175 Grand Traverse Bay State Bottomland Preserve MI MI148 Keweenaw GL State Bottomland Preserve MI MI155 Manitou Passage GL State Bottomland Preserve MI MI156 Marquette GL State Bottomland Preserve MI MI159 Sanilac Shores GL State Underwater Preserve MI MI174 Sanilac Shores State Bottomland Preserve MI MI163 Southwest Michigan GL State Bottomland Preserve MI MI164 Straits of Mackinac GL State Bottomland Preserve MI MI166 Thumb Area Great Lakes State Bottomland Preserve

MI MI173 Thunder Bay State Bottomland Preserve MI MI171 Whitefish Pt. GL State Bottomland Preserve NMS NMS10 NOAA’s Monitor NMS NMS NMS14 Thunder Bay NMS and Underwater Preserve NJ NJ2 Fort Mott State Park NC NC562 Permuda Island Area of Environmental Concern NC NC97 USS Huron Historic Shipwreck Preserve SC SC21 Ashley River Heritage Canoe Trail SC SC20 Cooper River Heritage Dive Trail WI WI003 A.P. Nichols Shipwreck (1861) WI WI020 Appomattox Shipwreck (1896) WI WI021 Big Bay Sloop Shipwreck WI WI022 Byron Shipwreck WI WI004 Christina Nilsson Shipwreck (1871) WI WI023 Continental Shipwreck (1882) WI WI024 Daniel Lyons Shipwreck (1873) WI WI025 Empire State Shipwreck (1862) WI WI005 Fleetwing Shipwreck (1867) WI WI006 Forest Shipwreck (1857) WI WI007 Francis Hinton Shipwreck (1889) WI WI008 Frank O’Connor Shipwreck (1892) WI WI026 Gallinipper Shipwreck (1846) WI WI027 Green Bay Sloop Shipwreck WI WI028 Hetty Taylor Shipwreck (1874) WI WI029 Home Shipwreck (1843) WI WI030 Ida Corning Shipwreck (1881) WI WI031 Iris Shipwreck (1866) WI WI032 Joys Shipwreck (1884) WI WI033 Kate Kelly Shipwreck (1867) WI WI009 Lightship 57 Shipwreck (1891) WI WI010 Louisiana Shipwreck (1887) WI WI011 Lucerne Shipwreck (1873) WI WI034 Lumberman Shipwreck (1862) WI WI035 Marquette Shipwreck (1881) WI WI012 Meridian Shipwreck (1848) WI WI036 Moonlight Shipwreck (1874) WI WI013 Niagara Shipwreck (1846) WI WI014 Noquebay Shipwreck (1872) WI WI037 Northerner Shipwreck (1851) WI WI038 Oak Leaf Shipwreck (1866) WI WI039 Ocean Wave Shipwreck (1860) WI WI015 Ottawa Shipwreck (1881) WI WI016 Pretoria Shipwreck (1900)

WI WI017 R.G. Stewart Shipwreck (1878) WI WI018 Rosinco Shipwreck (1916) WI WI040 Rouse Simmons Shipwreck (1868) WI WI019 Sevona Shipwreck (1890) WI WI041 T.H. Camp Shipwreck (1876) WI WI042 Tennie and Laura Shipwreck (1876) WI WI044 unidentified wreckage (n) WI WI043 Wisconsin Shipwreck (1880-81)

APPENDIX E: List of dedicated National Surfing Reserves Australia. Reserves declared as Crown Reserves for the purpose of surfing recreation and public enjoyment under the New South Wales Crown Lands Act 1989 are listed in bold. Abbreviations: NSW: New South Wales; WA: Western Australia; QLD: Queensland; SA: South Australia; VIC: Victoria. Data from surfingreserves.org and crownland.nsw.gov.au.

Reserve Year

Noosa Heads (QLD) 2015 Phillip Island (VIC) 2013 Point Sinclair (SA) 2013 Daly Head (SA) 2013 Snapper / Kirra (QLD) 2012 Currumbin Alley (QLD) 2012 Burleigh Heads (QLD) 2012 Yallingup (WA) 2011 Manly-Freshwater (NSW) 2010 Kalbarri (WA) 2010 Margaret River (WA) 2010 North Narabeen (NSW) 2009 Killalea (NSW) 2009 Merewether (NSW) 2009 Cronulla (NSW) 2008 Crescent Head (NSW) 2008 Lennox Head (NSW) 2008 Angourie (NSW) 2007 Maroubra (NSW) 2006

APPENDIX F: List of New Zealand surf breaks of national significance, gazetted in the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS) 2010. Data from doc.org.nz.

Surf Break Region

Ahipara Bay, Peaks Northland Ahipara Bay, Shipwreck Bay Northland Ahipara Bay, Pines Northland Ahipara Bay, Super Tubes Northland Ahipara Bay, Mukie 1 Northland Ahipara Bay, Mukie 2 Northland Raglan Waikato Raglan, Manu Bay Waikato Raglan, Whale Bay Waikato Raglan, Indicators Waikato Whangamata Bar Waikato Waiwhakaiho Taranaki Stent, Stent Road Taranaki Stent, Backdoor Stent Taranaki Stent, Farmhouse Stent Taranaki Makorori, The Point Gisborne Makorori, Centres Gisborne Wainui, Stockroute Gisborne Wainui, Pines Gisborne Wainui, Whales Gisborne The Island Gisborne Mangamaunu Canterbury Meatworks Canterbury The Spit Otago Karitane Otago Whareakeake Otago Papatowai Otago

APPENDIX G: List of dedicated and approved World Surfing Reserves, a program of the nonprofit organization Save The Waves Coalition. Data from worldsurfingreserves.org.

Dedicated Reserves Year

Bahia Todos Santos (MX) 2014 Huanchaco (PE) 2013 Santa Cruz (US) 2012 Manly Beach (AU) 2012 Ericeira (PT) 2011 Malibu (US) 2010

Approved Reserves Year

Punta de Lobos (CL) 2014

APPENDIX H: Rating of California surf breaks and surfing areas, adapted from the surfing forecast, travel, and content website Surfline/Wavetrak, Inc. (surfline.com). Index rating is equivalent to the surf break’s maximum listed score on the Surfline.com “Perfect-O-Meter” – an arbitrary scale of wave quality (1=Lake Erie (poorest quality); 10=Jeffrey’s Bay (highest quality). High quality surf breaks, receiving a score of 9 or 10 are listed in bold. Surf breaks included in the index, but not rated on surfline.com, are listed as nr.

Region Surf Break County Rating

Northern South Beach Humboldt 3 Northern Patricks Point Humboldt 6 Northern Westhaven Humboldt 3 Northern Humboldt Harbor Entrance Humboldt 8 Northern North Jetty Humboldt 8 Northern Shelter Cove Humboldt 6 Northern Westport Mendocino 3 Northern MacKerricher Mendocino 3 Northern Caspar Beach Mendocino 3 Northern Mendocino Township Mendocino 3 Northern Point Arena Mendocino 9 Northern Black Point Beach Sonoma 3 Northern Russian Rivermouth Sonoma 6 Northern Salmon Creek Sonoma 5 Northern Doran Beach Sonoma 2 Northern Point Reyes Marin 2 Northern Bolinas Jetty Marin 3 Northern Stinson Beach Marin 2 Northern Fort Cronkite / Rodeo Beach Marin 4 Central Fort Point SF / San Mateo 5 Central Ocean Beach, SF SF / San Mateo 10 Central Sharp Park SF / San Mateo 4 Central Pacifica / Lindamar SF / San Mateo 5 Central Pedro Point SF / San Mateo 5 Central Montara SF / San Mateo 5 Central Mavericks SF / San Mateo 10 Central Princeton Jetty SF / San Mateo 5 Central Half Moon Bay SF / San Mateo 3 Central Tunitas Creek SF / San Mateo 4 Central Pescadero SF / San Mateo 4 Central Pigeon Point SF / San Mateo nr Central Ano Nuevo SF / San Mateo 6

Central Waddell Creek Santa Cruz 7 Central Scott’s Creek Santa Cruz 8 Central Davenport Santa Cruz 7 Central 4 Mile Santa Cruz 7 Central Natural Bridges Santa Cruz 8 Central Mitchell’s Cove Santa Cruz 8 Central Steamer Lane Santa Cruz 10 Central Cowells Santa Cruz 5 Central The Harbor Santa Cruz 10 Central 26th Avenue Santa Cruz 6 Central Pleasure Point Santa Cruz 9 Central 38th Avenue Santa Cruz 9 Central Manresa Santa Cruz 8 Central Moss Landing Monterey 10 Central Lover’s Point Monterey 7 Central Boneyard Monterey 6 Central Asilomar Monterey 7 Central Mole Point Monterey 6 Central Carmel Beach Monterey 10 Central Big Sur Rivermouth Monterey 4 Central Sand Dollar Beach Monterey 4 Central Willow Creek Monterey 5 Central Pico Creek San Luis Obispo 4 Central San Simeon San Luis Obispo 4 Central Santa Rosa Creek San Luis Obispo 3 Central Cayucos Pier San Luis Obispo 3 Central Morro Bay San Luis Obispo 5 Central Pismo Beach Pier San Luis Obispo 3 Southern Jalama Santa Barbara 5 Southern Point Conception Santa Barbara nr Southern El Capitan Santa Barbara 10 Southern Sands Santa Barbara 7 Southern Coal Oil Point Santa Barbara 7 Southern Campus Point Santa Barbara 7 Southern Sandspit Santa Barbara 7 Southern Hammond’s Santa Barbara 7 Southern Tarpits Santa Barbara 2 Southern Rincon Santa Barbara 10 Southern Oil Piers Ventura 5 Southern Stanley’s Ventura 4

Southern Pitas Point Ventura 7 Southern Mondos Ventura 3 Southern Solimar Ventura 8 Southern Gold Coast Ventura 3 Southern Summer Beach Ventura 3 Southern Emma Wood Ventura 7 Southern Ventura Overhead Ventura 8 Southern Ventura Point Ventura 6 Southern C Street Ventura 6 Southern Ventura Harbor Ventura 4 Southern Oxnard Ventura 7 Southern County Line Los Angeles 5 Southern Leo Carillo Los Angeles 6 Southern Zuma Los Angeles 9 Southern Malibu Los Angeles 9 Southern Topanga Beach Los Angeles 7 Southern Venice Beach Los Angeles 4 Southern Shitpipe Los Angeles 6 Southern El Porto Los Angeles 8 Southern Manhattan Beach Los Angeles 3 Southern Hermosa Beach Los Angeles 3 Southern Redondo Breakwater Los Angeles 8 Southern Torrance Beach / Haggerty’s Los Angeles 8 Southern Lunada Bay Los Angeles 8 Southern Seal Beach Orange 4 Southern Surfside Orange 4 Southern Bolsa Chica State Beach Orange 7 Southern Goldenwest Orange 7 Southern 17th Street Orange 7 Southern HB Pier, North Orange 7 Southern HB Pier, South Orange 7 Southern Huntington State Beach Orange 7 Southern Santa Ana River Jetties Orange 10 Southern West Newport Orange 10 Southern 54th/56th Street Orange 10 Southern 40th Street Orange nr Southern 36 Street Orange 7 Southern Newport Point Orange 10 Southern The Wedge Orange 9 Southern Corona Del Mar Orange 7 Southern Brooks Street Orange 7

Southern Salt Creek Orange 6 Southern Doheny State Beach Orange 3 Southern T-Street Orange 5 Southern Cottons San Diego 7 Southern Upper Trestles San Diego 9 Southern Lower Trestles San Diego 9 Southern Middles San Diego 7 Southern Church San Diego 7 Southern The Point San Diego 6 Southern Old Man’s San Diego 5 Southern Trails San Diego 6 Southern Oceanside Harbor San Diego 7 Southern Oceanside Pier, North San Diego 7 Southern Oceanside Pier, South San Diego 7 Southern Tamarack San Diego 4 Southern Ponto San Diego 5 Southern Swami’s San Diego 9 Southern Pipes San Diego 5 Southern Cardiff San Diego 7 Southern Seaside Reef San Diego 6 Southern Del Mar San Diego 4 Southern Blacks San Diego 8 Southern Scripps San Diego 6 Southern Windansea San Diego 8 Southern Bird Rock San Diego 8 Southern Pacific Beach San Diego 7 Southern Mission Beach San Diego 5 Southern Ocean Beach. SD San Diego 6 Southern Sunset Cliffs San Diego 7 Southern Imperial Beach Pier, North San Diego 6 Southern Imperial Beach Pier, South San Diego 6