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