**1998 Year of the Ocean**

**COASTAL TOURISM AND RECREATION**

# 

**Contents**

1\. INTRODUCTION F-2

2.  COASTAL TOURISM AND RECREATION AND

> THE U.S. ECONOMY F-3

3\. POLICY FRAMEWORKS FOR COASTAL RECREATION AND

TOURISM: AN ASSESSMENT F-8

4\. FINDINGS F-19

5\. REFERENCES F-21

6\. DOMESTIC LEGAL REGIME F-25

7\. LIST OF ACRONYMS F-33

This Year of the Ocean document was prepared as a background discussion
paper and does not necessarily reflect the policies of the U.S.
Government or the U.S. Government agencies that participated in its
preparation.

**INTRODUCTION**

Coastal tourism and recreation are important parts of the largest and
most rapidly growing activity in the world\-\-- international tourism.
Tourism and recreation-related development is one of the major factors
shaping development patterns in the coastal zones of the United States.
Foreign tourism to the United States, much of it coastal-motivated,
provides significant economic benefits that relate directly to the U.S.
position in an increasingly competitive global economy (Houston, 1995).
Hence, any analysis of U.S. interests in coasts and oceans must take
account of this very significant grouping of interrelated activities.
Government at all levels must assume appropriate proactive roles to
shape and guide coastal tourism development. This paper reviews the
importance of coastal tourism and recreation to the United States and
its citizens and identifies gaps where action is needed.

In this presentation, the term "coastal tourism and recreation" embraces
the full range of tourism, leisure, and recreationally oriented
activities that take place in the coastal zone and the offshore coastal
waters. These include coastal tourism development (hotels, resorts,
restaurants, food industry, vacation homes, second homes, etc.), and the
infrastructure supporting coastal development (retail businesses,
marinas, fishing tackle stores, dive shops, fishing piers, recreational
boating harbors, beaches, recreational fishing facilities, and the
like). Also included is ecotourism and recreational activities such as
recreational boating, cruises, swimming, recreational fishing,
snorkeling and diving. Coastal tourism and recreation in this
presentation likewise includes the public and private programs affecting
all the aforementioned activities.

Of all the activities that take place in coastal zones and the
near-shore coastal ocean, none is increasing in both volume and
diversity more than coastal tourism and recreation. Both the dynamic
nature of this sector and its magnitude demand that it be actively taken
into account in government plans, policies, and programs related to the
coasts and ocean. Indeed, virtually all coastal and ocean issue areas
affect coastal tourism and recreation either directly or indirectly.
Clean water, healthy coastal habitats, and a safe, secure, and enjoyable
environment are clearly fundamental to successful coastal tourism.
Similarly, bountiful living marine resources (fish, shellfish, wetlands,
coral reefs, etc.) are of critical importance to most recreational
experiences. Security from risks associated with natural coastal hazards
such as storms, hurricanes, tsunamis, and the like is a requisite for
coastal tourism to be sustainable over the long term.

The United States is currently a major beneficiary of international
tourism, which is the most rapidly expanding economic sector in the
world today. In 1995, travel and tourism are estimated to have provided
\$746 billion to the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP), about 10% of
U.S. output, making travel and tourism the second largest contributor to
GDP just behind combined wholesale and retail trade (Houston, 1995).
Travel and tourism is America's largest employer, employing 14.4 million
annually (in contrast, for example, all U.S. manufacturing industries
from IBM to General Motors to Intel employ only 18 million people
(Houston, 1995).

Although precise figures are difficult to obtain, estimates based on
foreign tourism data from coastal states like Florida and California
suggest that as many as one-half of foreign tourists are drawn to the
U.S. because of the attractive coastal shorelines and beaches found in
this country. In spite of the attractiveness of inland national parks
like Yellowstone and the Grand Canyon, 85 percent of all U.S. tourist
revenues are earned by coastal states and 90 percent of all tourist
spending occurs in these states (Houston, 1996).

However, attractive coastal amenities exist in many foreign locations as
well. Indeed, tourists from Northern Europe can travel to Mediterranean
or Caribbean beaches at least as easily as they can to U.S. coastal
resorts. Japanese tour groups have choices that include Australia's Gold
Coast or Fiji's very attractive beaches in addition to those found in
Hawaii. Coastal tourism is becoming a highly competitive business as
nations actively seek to draw increased numbers of visitors (and
increased foreign earnings) to their shores. Moreover, given today's
rapid pace of communications, the existence of poor water quality or
degraded or eroding beaches is quickly communicated among networks of
travel agents and others in the tourism marketing business.

The nation's coasts and coastal waters are of great value to the
American people both for their personal enjoyment and for the economic
benefits these areas generate for coastal communities, coastal states,
and for the nation as a wholebenefits that can be sustainable
indefinitely with proper foresight and enlightened public policies. But,
these benefits cannot be taken for granted. Coastal habitats and the
resources they support must be protected and, where necessary, restored.
The quality of coastal waters must be maintained at a sufficiently high
level to provide a healthy and aesthetically pleasing environment for
water-based recreation. Similarly, swimming beaches must be maintained
at an attractive and functional level even in the presence of
accelerating sea-level rise and associated erosion, and possible
increases in the frequency of coastal storms. The maintenance of safe
conditions for recreational boating and underwater recreation (e.g.,
adequately marked waterways, timely weather information, rescue
services, hyperbaric chambers, etc.) is also of great importance.

**Organization of the Paper**

Following a review of the importance of coastal tourism and recreation
to the U.S. economy, including the contribution of foreign coastal
tourism, a description of the existing policy framework affecting
coastal tourism and recreation is provided. This covers such topics as:

-   governmental promotional efforts regarding tourism;

-   coastal planning and management (especially for siting of tourism
    facilities and provision for public access);

-   efforts at attaining clean water and healthy coastal ecosystems;

-   beach restoration programs;

-   management of coastal security (including natural hazards and marine
    safety); and

-   special management challenges posed by ecotourism activities.

A discussion of the adequacy of the existing management framework in
each of these areas is provided. Existing tools, programs, and
arrangements for achieving sustainable coastal tourism are addressed,
with emphasis on relevant developments on sustainable tourism at the
international level. The final section of this paper presents options
for consideration regarding the areas covered, and opportunities for
cooperative action with coastal states and communities, the private
sector, and nongovernmental organizations.

**COASTAL TOURISM AND RECREATION AND THE U.S. ECONOMY**

**Growth in International Travel and Tourism**

Travel and tourism is the world's largest industry. As reported by the
World Tourism Organization, travel and tourism involved more than 528
million people internationally and generated \$322 billion in receipts
in 1994. In 1995, travel and tourism generated an estimated \$3.4
trillion in gross outputcreating employment for 211.7 million people,
producing 10.9 percent of world gross domestic product, investing
\$693.9 billion in new facilities and equipment, and contributing more
than \$637 billion to global tax revenues (quoted in an undated
publication by the World Trade and Tourism Council, pp. 33-34).

The mammoth global tourism industry is a "massive consumer of energy and
resources" (Rearden, 1993, p. 166), and is expected to continue to grow
significantly in the future. In 1995, the World Tourism Organization
forecasted international arrivals worldwide to reach 661 million by the
year 2000, up from 528 million in 1994, with arrivals predicted to reach
937 million by 2010 (Savignac, 1995). By 2005, it is estimated that the
industry will have expanded globally, generating employment for 305
million people, producing 11.4 percent of world gross domestic product,
investing \$1,613 billion in new facilities and equipment, and
contributing more than \$1,369 billion in tax revenue (WTTC et al., p.
34). This growth in world tourism is related to three main factors:
increased personal incomes and leisure time, improvements in
transportation systems, and greater public awareness of other areas of
the world due to improved communications (UNEP, 1992, p. 3).

Foreign tourism has been a very important factor for the U.S. economy.
In 1994, 45.5 million international visitors came to the United States,
according to the Department of Commerce, and spent \$60 billion dollars
(Wildavsky, 1995). The U.S. travel and tourism industry, with 6 million
jobs, represents the second-largest employer in the United States after
health care (Wildavsky, 1995). In 1986, the United States was the
world's leading tourism destination (Miller, 1993). However, since that
time, the U.S. leadership position in world tourism has been eroding; in
1996, France became the world's leading tourism destination. In 1995,
the Commerce Department projected a 2.5 million dip in the number of
international visitors to the United States and a dip in tourism
revenues of 2.7 percent (Wildavsky, 1995). Continuing economic
difficulties in Europe and the strengthening of the U.S. dollar could
account for some of this decline.

**Balance of Payments Contributions of International Travel and
Tourism**

In 1994, the Wall Street Journal estimated that the United States
receives over 45 percent of the developed world's travel and tourism
revenues and 60 percent of its profits (Houston, 1996). While the United
States runs a substantial merchandise trade deficit, it has a trade
surplus in the service sector, with travel and tourism accounting for
the largest and most rapidly growing part of this surplus. According to
Business Week, "foreign visitors spend about \$80 billion a year in the
United States, producing a \$26 billion U.S. trade surplus in travel and
tourism" (quoted in Houston, 1996). Likewise, this publication reports
1.4 million U.S. jobs are supported by foreign tourismten times the
number of jobs in the U.S. steel industry.

Foreign tourism to the United States in 1995 was expected to generate a
trade surplus of \$26 billion compared to a surplus of \$17 billion in
1992 and a deficit of \$7 billion in 1986. U.S. employment due to
international tourism has been projected to grow by as much as 18
percent annually during the 1995-2000 period, doubling the number of
tourism-related jobs every four years. The Department of Commerce has
estimated that foreign tourist spending in the United States will rise
to \$132 billion dollars in the year 2000 (Houston, 1996).

**Tax Revenue Contributions of International Travel and Tourism**

It has been estimated that travel and tourism produces tax revenues for
all levels of government of about \$58 billion annually (Houston, 1996).
Of this total, foreign tourism is responsible for tax revenues of about
\$7.5 billion, about \$4 billion of which goes to the federal
government. Houston has observed that federal expenditures for beach
re-nourishment have averaged only \$34 million a year between 1950 and
1993 (in 1993 dollars), noting that the federal government receives tax
revenues from foreign tourism that are 180 times its expenditure on the
nation's beaches.

**Promotion of International Tourism to the United States**

The United States lags far behind other nations on spending on tourism
promotion. Ronald Allen, chairman of Delta Air Lines, Inc., notes
"\...The Republic of Ireland, with a population of less than 4 million
people, spends \$45 million in public funds annually to promote tourism.
This country, with 260 million people, spends less than \$17 million in
federal money" Wildavsky, 1995, p. 2280). Spain, with its attractive
beaches and climate, spends 10 times more than the United States in
advertising to attract international tourists. The United States ranks
31st in the world in international tourist market advertising (Houston,
1996, p. 3).

Indeed, there has been a debate at the national level in the United
States on whether a greater national presence concerning tourism
promotion is needed, with industry advocates arguing for a greater role
to eliminate "creeping neglect \[of the industry\] by public policy
makers" (Wildavsky, 1995, p. 2280). Opposition to this has been
expressed by economists and others who argue that private companies, not
taxpayers, should bear the costs of promotional activities that benefit
the U.S. tourism industry (Wildavsky, 1995).

**Coastal and Marine Tourism in the United States**

The precise magnitude of foreign and domestic tourism in U.S. coastal
and marine areas is not clear, since no separate statistics are kept for
foreign or domestic tourists to these areas. Figures on foreign tourism
receipts are generally based on surveys of departing travelers,
generating data which are "imperfect and cannot be compared over time
with precision" (Wildavsky, 1995, p. 2279). Data on tourism in coastal
areas cannot easily be disaggregated from national-level statistics, but
impressionistic evidence as well as a number of recent works on the
subject suggest continued growth of tourism in coastal and marine areas
in the United States and worldwide (see, for example, Miller, 1993;
Miller and Auyong, 1991). Detailed information on the economic impact of
domestic tourism has been difficult to find, but growth in all forms of
recreation in coastal areas in which both foreign and domestic tourists
partake is readily apparent. Such activities include beach going,
recreational boating, cruises, marine mammal watching, recreational
fishing, underwater recreation, bird watching, nature appreciation, and
the like.

In terms of U.S. tourism, studies have shown that beaches are the
leading tourist destination while national parks and historic sites are
the second most popular destination (Houston, 1996). Consistent with
these findings, approximately 180 million people visit the coast for
recreational purposes, with 85 percent of tourist related revenues
generated by coastal states. In addition to growing numbers of visitors,
the permanent population of U.S. coastal regions is also increasing at a
faster rate than the population as a whole. The population of coastal
counties has increased by approximately 25 percent since 1970
(Cunningham and Walker, 1996; Houston, 1996).

In California, for example, Wilson and Wheeler (1997) provide the
following estimates for the annual contribution of various ocean
industries to the California economy. Their study shows that tourism
(predominantly coastal) is the largest contributor at \$9.9 billion,
with the next largest contributor being ports at \$6.0 billion. Offshore
oil accounted for \$860 million, and fisheries and mariculture combined
contributed \$550 million. Similarly, between June 1995 and May 1996,
2.5 million visitors to Monroe County, Florida (in the Florida Keys)
spent about \$1.2 billion. Recreation and tourism (all coastal)
accounted for over 60 percent of output/sales, 45 percent of income, and
over 46 percent of all employment (English et al., 1996).

Recently the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) undertook a national
study on the benefits of water quality improvement in terms of numbers
of people involved and the economic value of the activities in which
they participate (EPA, 1996). This study provides some valuable
quantitative information on the importance of coastal tourism and
recreation:

-   Saltwater fishing generates expenditures of over \$5 billion
    annually, a total economic output of \$15 billion, total earnings
    (wages) of over \$4 billion, and over 200,000 jobs.

-   Over 77 million Americans participate in recreational boating (NMMA,
    1996). The number of recreational boats in the United States almost
    doubled from 1970 to 1990 (16.2 million), and is expected to
    increase by a further four million by the year 2000 (EPA, 1996). In
    1996, Americans spent approximately \$17.7 billion on boats and
    directly related items (NMMA, 1996).

-   

-   

-   Over 80 million Americans participate in outdoor (non-pool)
    swimming, with visitors to beaches and lakes increasing from 18
    million in 1981 to 23 million in 1989. In seven states, beachgoers
    spent \$74 billion with the most popular recreational activities
    being swimming, sunbathing, and walking in coastal areas (EPA,
    1996).

-   Birdwatching is estimated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to
    generate spending of about \$18 billion per year by over 24 million
    "birders" and other wildlife watchers, a generous proportion of
    which occurs in coastal regions (EPA, 1996).

A number of the estuary programs that make up EPA's National Estuary
Program have undertaken studies of the economic activity generated by
the coastal and estuaries resources in their region. Some findings
related to coastal tourism and recreation are given below (EPA, 1997):

**Corpus Christi, Texas**. Nature tourism in Corpus Christi is the
fastest growing component of a tourism sector that generates \$23
billion annually. Recreational fishing provides aggregate net benefits
to the area of \$83 million, including \$37 million per year in state
and local taxes, with a regional economic impact of \$546 million.
Non-fishing coastal recreational activity adds another \$23 million in
state and local taxes, and \$340 million in regional economic impact.

**Long Island Sound, New York**. The economic impact of water
quality-dependent uses in Long Island Sound, including boating,
commercial and sport fishing, and swimming, is estimated at more than
\$5 billion annually. Commercial and recreational fishing contributed
more than \$1.2 billion to the total, while beachgoing has a direct
benefit of more than \$800 million annually.

**Indian River Lagoon, Florida**. The Indian River Lagoon region is a
popular resort and vacation destination which received over six million
visitors in 1995 and provided economic benefits of approximately \$730
million.

**Santa Monica Bay, California.** Tourism is the Los Angeles region's
second largest industry with 392,000 full and part-time jobs
contributing \$3.6 billion annually to the region's payroll. With nearly
four million tourists annually, and over 45 million beach visits per
year, Santa Monica Bay contributes significantly to the regional
economy.

**San Francisco Bay, California**. The economy of the 12 counties
bordering this estuary exceeds \$175 billion and supports more than four
million jobs. Many of these jobs are dependent on the estuary's natural
resources or are water-related. Revenues from maritime activities exceed
\$5.4 billion each year, and marinas annually generate some \$167
million. Tourism, which generates over \$4 billion annually, is likewise
strongly tied to the aesthetic values of the estuary.

**POLICY FRAMEWORKS FOR COASTAL RECREATION AND**

**TOURISM: AN ASSESSMENT**

**Understanding Tourism**

A perusal of the literature on tourism suggests that it is easy to make
generalizations: on the positive side, to extol its huge economic
development potential; on the negative side, to decry impacts on the
environment, overuse of resources and energy, ignorance of local
culture, and absence of local benefits. For analytical purposes, it is
best, however, to consider tourism in neutral terms as an agent of
development and change which may have both positive and negative
effects, as the following quote suggests:

> "As Butler (1990) points out, tourism, like other industries, is an
> agent of development and change and must be recognized as such. It is
> consumptive like any other industry and the level of consumption is
> determined by the scale and style of tourism development. At low
> levels and with careful design, tourism may be able to operate at a
> sustainable level. However, controlling the level and style of
> development over the long term presents challenges which, to this
> point, have not been successfully met. Because of its potentially high
> impact, tourism should be considered in the same manner as any other
> industry and should be subjected to the same environmental and social
> impact assessment processes during the planning stages" (Woodley,
> 1993, p. 137).

Butler suggests the following working definition of sustainable
development in the context of tourism: "tourism which is developed and
maintained in an area (community, environment) in such a manner and at
such a scale that it remains viable over an indefinite period and does
not degrade or alter the environment (human and physical) in which it
exists to such a degree that it prohibits the successful development and
well being of other activities and processes" (Butler, 1993, p. 29).

Tourism has often been ignored by public sector agencies. Where it has
been considered as a specific development feature, it has often been
viewed as a "soft" option, which can be pursued relatively easily and
which does not require much in terms of specific planning or resources
(Butler, 1993). While this view has changed somewhat in recent years as
the magnitude and importance of tourism has begun to be appreciated,
ignorance about tourism and many of the processes associated with it is
still widespread.

The lack of attention by public agencies to tourism is especially
problematic in the case of marine and coastal tourism. In most
countries, there usually is no coordination between programs that
promote and market tourism and those that manage coastal and marine
areas. Integrated coastal management often tends to be done within
environmental or planning agencies. On the other hand, agencies dealing
with the promotion of tourism are not involved with the evaluation of
its effects or with advance planning and management of the adverse
impacts of tourism through avoidance, mitigation, and compensation
strategies (Cicin-Sain, 1993). Hence, one of the greatest challenges
facing coastal managers in the United States and elsewhere is how to
integrate tourism development within the ambit of integrated coastal
management, and thus increase the likelihood of long-term sustainability
(Cicin-Sain and Knecht, 1998).

**The Role of the Federal Government in Coastal Tourism Management**

As an economic activity, tourism is difficult to influence and manage
directly. Like most coastal development in market economies,
tourism-related development is driven largely by the private sector and
its assessment of economic opportunities. Miller and Auyong (1991) point
out that tourism involves mainly three sets of actors: tourists, locals
(those who reside in the region of tourism destinations but are
unconnected to the tourism industry), and two categories of brokers
(those in the private sector who are engaged in the business of tourism,
and those in the public sector who in one way or another monitor,
manage, or govern tourism). Tourism tends to be globally driven by
market forces influenced by such factors as advertising (by public or
private agents at the tourist destination), the perceptions of the
traveling public about security, amenity values, etc., and, in the case
of international tourists, by currency factors.

Notwithstanding these difficulties, there is much that the federal
government, working with the states and localities, does to ensure that
coastal tourism is conducted in a sustainable manner, thereby ensuring
long term economic and environmental benefits for coastal communities
and the nation. Sustainable development of coastal tourism is dependent
on:

1\. *good coastal management practices* (particularly regarding proper
siting of tourism infrastructure and the provision of public access);

2\. *clean water and air, and healthy coastal ecosystems*;

3\. *maintaining a safe and secure recreational environment though the
management of coastal hazards (such as erosion, storms, floods), and the
provision of adequate levels of safety* for boaters, swimmers, and other
water users;

4\. *beach restoration efforts* that maintain the recreational and
amenity values of beaches; and,

5\. *sound policies for wildlife and habitat protection.*

While there are separate federal programs dealing with each of these
areas, some more successfully than others, in recent years there has
been a growing realization among a number of federal agencies that these
factors are interconnected and that all are needed to achieve healthy
ecosystems and sustainable economies in coastal communities. To cite
just one example, the Sustain Healthy Coasts 5-year Implementation Plan,
developed by NOAA's Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
(March 1997), defines the following objective: "Foster well-planned and
revitalized coastal communities that are compatible with the natural
environment, minimize the risk from natural hazards, and provide access
to coastal resources for the public's use and enjoyment."

In the sections that follow, existing efforts by federal agencies the
categories outlined above are reviewed and assessed. The small but
growing sector of ecotourism, and the need to manage this activity
carefully to avoid adverse impacts on protected species and sensitive
habitats, is also discussed.

**Coastal Management and Planning**

The United States has the oldest national coastal management and
planning program in the world, initiated under the Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972. The program, administered by NOAA's Office of
Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, now includes coastal management
programs in 31 U.S. states and territories, covering 97.2 percent of the
U.S. shoreline (Uravitch, 1997). The program uses incentives (in the
form of grants to the states and the "federal consistency" provision) to
assist states in the preparation and implementation of coastal
management plans. These state efforts have been multifaceted and have
addressed, through a variety of means (regulatory, planning, public
awareness raising), all uses of coastal areas.

Three management practices under the Coastal Zone Management (CZM)
program are especially important for ensuring sustainable tourism
development: (1) provisions for the management of coastal development;
(2) provisions to improve public access to the shoreline; and (3)
provisions to protect (and, where necessary, to restore) coastal
environments.

*Management of Coastal Development*

All CZM programs have elements which, in effect, help manage coastal
development. Two of these are especially relevant to tourism
development: (1) encouragement of water-dependent uses in the coastal
zone and (2) the appropriate siting of new facilities in the coastal
zone.

*Encouragement of water-dependent uses*

State CZM programs actively encourage and facilitate the use of land
adjacent to the shoreline for those purposes which require such a
location. This policy helps ensure that proposals for tourism and marine
recreation projects receive appropriate consideration in the government
review process. It also helps ensure that meritorious coastal tourism
developments are not crowded out of the coastal zone by uses that do not
require a shoreside location.

*Appropriate siting of facilities*

Construction of new facilities in the coastal zone must meet the setback
requirements of state CZM programs. While states differ in their
requirements, the trend is to relate setback lines to annual erosion
rates and, thus, to require the greatest setbacks from the high tidemark
in those areas having the largest erosion rates. Facilities siting
policies also help ensure that new tourism construction is not located
in hazardous areas from the standpoint of coastal storm damage and
flooding.

*Improvement of Public Access to the Shoreline*

A strong emphasis in the federal Coastal Zone Management Act relates to
the importance of ensuring adequate public access to the nation's
shorelines for recreational pursuits. All 31 state programs are actively
pursuing this goal. Recognizing the limitations of simply planning for
access, Congress added section 306A to the CZMA in 1980 to allow states
to acquire land and fund low cost construction projects to provide
public access ways to the beach and coastal waters (Cunningham and
Walker, 1996).

Since 1980, for example, the California Coastal Program has acquired
over 2,300 public access ways along the coast while the San Francisco
Bay Conservation and Development Commission has increased public access
around the perimeter of San Francisco Bay from 4 miles in 1977 to more
than 96 miles in 1990 (Cunningham and Walker, 1996). Under the CZM
program, states and localities use grant funding and regulatory tools to
secure improved public access for recreational purposes.

*Protection of Coastal Habitats*

The existence of healthy coastal habitats (wetlands, beaches and dunes,
sea grass beds, mangroves, coral reefs, estuaries) is important to
coastal recreation and tourism. State CZM programs represent one of the
important management avenues in obtaining this protection. Within
specified coastal zone boundaries, states and/or their local governments
regulate activities which could adversely impact these habitats. Other
federal programs, such as those under the Clean Water Act's Section 404
(dredge and fill program) and Section 320 (National Estuary Program),
the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act (which controls ocean
dumping), the Coastal Barrier Resources Act, the National Seashore
Program, the Endangered Species Act, and the Marine Mammal Protection
Act, also serve to protect coastal habitats. Furthermore, a national
system of estuarine research reserves aimed at providing a
representative system of natural field laboratories for
management-related research and monitoring also exists as an adjunct to
the national CZM program.

**Management of Clean Water and Healthy Ecosystems**

Clean water and healthy coastal ecosystems are essential to the
maintenance of coastal tourism and recreation. Foreign tourists and the
recreating domestic public stop going to areas where the waters are
polluted, beaches are closed, or fish are tainted. For example, it is
reported that the State of New Jersey lost \$800 million in tourism
revenues following reports that medical wastes had washed up on some of
its beaches (Bookman, 1997). According to EPA estimates, coastal and
marine waters support 28.3 million jobs, generate \$54 billion in goods
and services, contribute \$30 billion to the U.S. economy through
recreational fishing, and provide a destination for 180 million
Americans to recreate each year (EPA web page, November 1997).

In the past 25 years, there have been extensive efforts made by federal
agencies, especially EPA and NOAA, in association with the coastal
states, to improve coastal water quality. Under programs authorized by
the Clean Water Act of 1972 (as amended) and administered by EPA,
significant improvements in water quality have been realized. Point
sources have been largely controlled under the National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Significant challenges remain
regarding the control of non-point sources of water pollution (resulting
from such sources as agricultural practices, urban and storm water
run-off, and air deposition), especially in coastal areas abutting
agricultural lands. EPA's non-point source program (under Section 319 of
the Clean Water Act), and NOAA's program under Section 6217 of the CZM
Act, have been used in combination in a number of coastal states to
begin more effective measures to control non-point sources of pollution.

Protection of the marine environment is one of the critical services
provided by the U.S. Coast Guard. This includes prevention of
environmentally threatening marine accidents and responses aimed at
minimizing adverse effects should accidents occur., This also includes
protection of living marine resources and marine sanctuaries. The
implementation of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 is resulting in safer
ships entering U.S. ports, safer vessel operators, and hence, cleaner
coastal waters. NOAA's National Ocean Service provides safe navigation
services, such as nautical charts, and information on water levels and
currents, that help prevent marine accidents. It also performs hazardous
material spill response activities. NOAA's role in pollution monitoring
(National Status and Trends Program) and damage assessment are also
important aspects of managing clean water and healthy ecosystems.

In addition, special planning and management efforts, largely directed
at improving water quality and habitats, have been made in many of the
nation's estuaries under the aegis of EPA's National Estuary Program
(NEP). Under the NEP, 28 estuaries, designated as estuaries of national
significance, have been the beneficiaries of substantially increased
research and management attention. Management conferences convened in
each estuarine area are used to oversee the characterization of each
estuary, and the preparation and implementation of Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plans (CCMPs). These include resource and
water-quality related goals and the action plans necessary to meet these
goals. An enduring commitment from NEP stakeholders at all levels is
vital to the successful implementation of the CCMPs and the long-term
health and sustainability of these estuarine resources. This commitment
must include the acquisition and leveraging of sufficient funds by state
and local governments, follow-through on commitments agreed to by the
implementors, and the full use of appropriate authorities. The
continuing involvement of the federal government, notably the EPA, in
the oversight and support of the NEP is also likely to be critical to
the long-term success of the program.

The direct contribution to coastal economies made by cleaning up coastal
waters is often not fully recognized. A recent report by the EPA
indicates that in seven estuaries alone[^1], tourism and beach going
activities generate economic benefits of more than \$16 billion to their
respective regions (EPA, 1997). Clearly, these benefits depend on the
maintenance of clean coastal waters and attractive ecosystems.

While substantial progress has been made in improving coastal water
quality since 1972, much remains to be done. Meanwhile, reauthorization
of the Clean Water Act has been stalled for several years, the national
policy framework for dealing with non-point source pollution remains
somewhat unclear, and funding levels for water quality improvement
programs are inadequate. Furthermore, the nation needs to decide if the
current largely voluntary approach to non-point source pollution will be
sufficient, especially for dealing with agricultural run-off problems.

**Management of Coastal Hazards**

In siting coastal resorts and other facilities, there is understandably
a predilection for locating in beautiful but high-risk zones that are as
close as physically possible to the edge of the sea, or otherwise take
advantage of scenic views and proximity to beaches and ocean recreation.
Of course, it is precisely these areas that are most vulnerable to both
long-term and episodic coastal hazards: such as erosion, storms, and
floods.

While government cannot be expected to protect individuals from their
own recklessness, it does have a responsibility to provide the
information necessary to permit informed decisions to be made with
regard to the kinds and degrees of risk associated with living in
various parts of the coastal zone. Furthermore, coastal areas that are
clearly hazardous as building sites should be reserved for other uses.
Government also has the responsibility to provide adequate warnings of
impending storms or other hazardous conditions, and to develop plans for
coping with such emergencies. Several government programs exist to meet
these needs as discussed below.

At the federal level, FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and
the Coastal Zone Management Program exist, in part, to address these
problems. The NFIP offers flood insurance to coastal landowners in
communities that have met government standards for building in coastal
areas (elevating structures above a designated flood level, designation
of high hazard areas where no building is allowed, etc.). FEMA is also
responsible for supporting and facilitating the work of state emergency
preparedness offices in the preparation of coastal evacuation plans and
plans to deal with disasters such as hurricanes both during the event
and during the clean-up and reconstruction phases. NOAA's National
Weather Service devotes considerable resources to the job of providing
timely "state-of-the-art" forecasts and predictions of hurricanes and
other coastal storms.

Through the federal CZM program, coastal states build in their own
regulatory approaches such as construction setback lines,
storm-resistant building codes, acquisition programs for hazardous
areas, and the like. Recognizing the connections that should exist
between the planning and management efforts under CZM, and cognizant of
the lessons being learned during storm events by the emergency
management programs, NOAA and FEMA are initiating a series of workshops
to strengthen the coordination between these programs.

Advanced planning and follow-up are required to maintain a safe and
secure environment for visitors. Tourists take their safety for granted
when they go to the beach or visit a coastal resort or even rent a
sailboat for the day.. Yet the coast is inherently a place with real
risks, even under good weather conditions. Swimmers can drown and boats
can collide or go aground, poisonous jellyfish can sting. And, of
course, episodic large storms and hurricanes can have devastating
consequences in coastal areas heavily populated with visitors.

Increasing numbers of Americans find themselves on the nation's
waterways in connection with recreational boating, fishing, traveling to
and from coral reefs for snorkeling and diving, and so on. Maintaining
an adequate level of safety and accident prevention requires properly
marked channels, rescue services, oversight of boating safety
requirements (e.g., life jackets and other emergency equipment), and
monitoring and enforcement of boating operations, including so-called
"thrill craft." While some of these duties can be performed by local and
state authorities, the maintenance of safe and well-marked waterways and
maritime safety in general has traditionally been a federal government
responsibility. In any event, the federal government is in the best
position to ensure than an adequately comprehensive safety program is in
place in coastal areas. The U.S. Coast Guard is the primary federal
agency with responsibility for coastal search and rescue, enforcement of
maritime laws, and maintenance of a national waterway marking system.
The Coast Guard is also the coordinator of the national recreational
boating safety program aimed at ensuring the safety of boats and
associated equipment, and their safe operation by boaters. Through the
production of accurate nautical charts and related products, NOAA
provides essential information for navigating the nation's coastal
waters.

**Beach Restoration Programs**

The federal government, acting through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
has long played an important role in the maintenance and restoration of
the nation's beaches and shores. Experience in shore protection efforts
has shown that soft solutions involving beach re-nourishment have
produced better, more economical results than hard solutions such as
seawalls and groins in many circumstances.

Seawalls and revetments first developed as the field of coastal
engineering emerged. , While these measures are often successful at
protecting the development and infrastructure behind a beach, they do
not address the real cause of beach erosion, which is a lack of sediment
in the system. As understanding of coastal systems has grown through
research and data collection programs, solutions to such problems has
progressed. Today, beach re-nourishment represents a sound engineering
solution that is economically feasible and environmentally sensitive.
Only in areas with very high erosion rates and substantial shoreside
facilities to protect are hard structural solutions considered.

The shift of population to coastal counties and the increased demand for
coastal tourism destinations has exacerbated many existing beach erosion
problems. Development in areas with high erosion rates (U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, 1971) and building on or in front of sand dunes, rather
than behind them, are major factors contributing to increased beach
erosion problems. Relative sea-level rise caused primarily by subsidence
is another major factor in some areas. The interruption of sand flowing
along the coast by natural or stabilized inlets is also an aggravating
factor.

The Corps has conducted assessments of many of the nation's important
beaches and has assisted coastal communities in the funding of beach
nourishment projects. The bulk of the costs of these projects have been
borne by the federal government with the local share generally being
about 30 to 35 percent of the total cost. Just as the federal government
is reconsidering its policies in this regard, coastal erosion and
increasing relative sea-level rise in some parts of the country (notably
the middle Atlantic and Gulf coasts) are increasing the need for beach
replenishment projects.

As statistics cited earlier show, America's beaches are an important
element in this country's attractiveness as an international tourist
destination. A case in point concerns Miami Beach which virtually had no
beach left by the mid 1970s as a result of erosion. Beach re-nourishment
(at the cost of \$52 million) in the late 1970s rejuvenated Miami Beach
and enabled its beach to be reopened to the public. Beach attendance
subsequently increased from 8 million in 1978 to 21 million in 1983.
Annual governmental revenue obtained from foreign tourism in Miami Beach
alone is about 40 times the cost of the beach re-nourishment project
that has lasted over 15 years (Houston, 1995).

Given the role played by beach tourism in the nation's balance of
payments and its impact on government revenues and regional and local
economies, it is crucial that these assets be maintained at levels that
promote and enhance their recreational use. If budgetary constraints
make it necessary to reduce federal assistance for beach restoration and
maintenance, a gradual and predictable approach should be adopted and
states and coastal communities assisted in developing viable alternative
funding arrangements.

**Coastal Tourism and the Need to Coordinate Federal Policies And
Programs**

While the issues discussed above are usually considered separately, all
are of central importance to sustainable coastal tourism. Any one, be it
poorly planned development, poor coastal water quality, unsafe or
hazardous conditions, or eroding beaches, could seriously impact the
tourism potential of a coastal area. Furthermore, policies and programs
in each of these areas need to be developed and implemented in an
integrated fashion, each taking account of the others. Failure to do
this can result in such undesirable outcomes as erosion control
structures that impair the recreational experience, or poorly designed
development that causes water pollution or beach erosion.

**Management of Ecotourism**

Ecotourism or nature tourism is: "Tourism that involves traveling to
relatively undisturbed or uncontaminated natural areas with the specific
object of studying, admiring, and enjoying the scenery and its wild
plants and animals, as well as any existing cultural areas."[^2] While
still relatively small, ecotourism is one of the fastest growing
segments of the tourism industry and presents special management
challenges.

Internationally, ecotourism is growing at a moderate rate with the
financial impacts greatest in rural areas near important ecotourism
activities (Eagles, 1997). In 1988, international ecotourists numbered
236 million worldwide, with an estimated economic impact of \$233
billion (U.S.) (Eagles, 1997). In 1994, the number of international
ecotourists rose to 317 million with direct economic impact of \$250
billion (U.S.) (Ecotourism Society, 1997).

Although specific data on coastal ecotourism are difficult to obtain,
market surveys in the United States show good prospects for ecotourism
growth. In 1992, a U.S. Travel Data Center survey indicated that 7
percent of U.S. travelers had taken at least one trip that they
considered ecotourism and 30 percent claimed they would take one within
the next three years (Eagles, 1997).

In the United States, some coastal states have begun promoting
ecotourism and nature-based tourism through the preparation of guides to
ecotourism attractions and other publications. For example, the Marine
Advisory Service of the Delaware Sea Grant College Program produced a
guidebook to ecotourism sites in the state (Falk, Small, and Rector,
1997). In 1996, the State of South Carolina, with the collaboration of
the South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium, produced a handbook entitled
*Guidelines and Recommendations for Nature-Based Tourism Planning and
Practice in South Carolina* (Bacon and Kibler, 1996). Yet another
example is the California Coastal Conservancy, which devoted its Summer
1997 issue of *California Coast & Ocean* to nature tourism.

Ecotourism in association with marine and estuarine protected areas,
especially the National Marine Sanctuary Program and National Estuarine
Research Reserve Program, has a great potential (Koss, 1995). However,
for ecotourism activities to be sustainable, they must be managed
properly and with special care. Unless properly managed, the impacts of
ecotourism (for example, to remote pristine areas) may be worse than
those of tourism to clearly defined and confined resorts (Butler, 1993,
p. 28).

In the United States, for example, concerns have been raised about the
impacts of ecotourism on marine mammals, which are protected under the
Marine Mammal Protection Act. Commercial cruises to observe and "feed
wild dolphins" operating in such areas as Texas, South Carolina, and
Florida, were found to harm dolphins by making them reliant on accepting
food from humans and decreasing their ability to survive in the wild.
Threats to the marine mammal populations and to humans in these
situations include: (1) substantially altering the natural behavior of
marine mammals, including foraging for food and migration, (2) the loss
of wariness by humans, which places the animals at increased risk of
injury or death from interaction with vessels, (3) animals receiving
inappropriate or contaminated food, and (4) increased injuries to humans
as the habituated animals become predictably more aggressive when they
lose their wariness of humans and compete for handouts (NOAA/NMFS/OPR,
1994, 1995, and 1998).

**Management of Coastal Recreation Activities**

The last decade has seen a great increase in the nature and magnitude of
coastal recreation activities, which as has been shown, generate
billions of dollars in economic activity. Recreational uses of a
consumptive nature include hunting, fishing, shellfishing, shell
collection, and the like, while non-consumptive uses include swimming,
surfing, sun-bathing, boating, wind-surfing, jet skiing, bird watching,
snorkeling, diving, glass-bottom boating, and many more. As coastal
recreation activities have proliferated, the need for active management
has increased as well.

At least three sets of concerns related to the management of coastal
recreation activities must be dealt with, namely, environmental/resource
concerns, amenity concerns, and safety concerns. Environmental/resource
constraints include the maintenance of good water quality, and habitats
and living resources which are free of health hazards**,** and which
have good air quality, healthy coral reefs, healthy shellfish areas,
etc. Amenity concerns include adequate controls on congestion, noise,
landscape degradation, and the like. Safety concerns include adequate
lifeguard systems, first aid facilities, telephones, codes of conduct
for beach users, and notice systems for beach and water hazards (such as
jellyfish, underwater obstructions, etc.) and for weather-related risks
(such as high waves, undertows, dangerous currents, etc.).

In most cases, the responsibility for meeting these concerns is divided
between the beach "owner" (often a local government or state government,
but sometimes federal or private), resort and/or recreation facility
operators, and state environmental or health departments. In general,
nationwide standards for recreational beach operation do not exist, even
with respect to beach closings. This would appear to be an area where
additional attention at the national level is needed.

A promising start in this area is a new program recently launched by the
EPA and designated the Beaches Environmental Assessment, Closure, and
Health (BEACH) Program. This program is designed to encourage government
agencies at all levels to strengthen beach water quality standards and
testing methods using predictive water pollution models, to better
inform the public about beach water quality conditions, and to make
information about the risks associated with swimming in contaminated
beach water available to the public.[^3]

**Emerging Tools and Techniques**

Although coastal tourism constitutes a strong force (both positive and
negative) in shaping coastal communities and local, regional, and
national economies, coastal tourism is generally not seen as a specific
sector requiring policy, planning, and management attention and
resources. This is due, in part, to the fact that data and information
tend not be gathered and aggregated under this heading. Hence, the
magnitude and importance of leisure and recreationally motivated
development in the coastal zone tends to be understated, understudied,
and under-managed.

However, certain aspects of this situation may be changing. Since the
Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, a number of new initiatives for
sustainable tourism practices have appeared. For example, in 1993, a new
periodical entitled *Journal of Sustainable Tourism* appeared, focusing
on applying the principles of sustainable development to the tourism
field. In 1997, on the occasion of the five-year review of the
implementation of Earth Summit agreements, three organizations: The
World Travel and Tourism Council, the World Tourism Organization, and
the Earth Council; jointly published *Agenda 21 for the Travel and
Tourism Industry: Towards Environmentally Sustainable Development* (WTTC
et al, no date). This report presents a summary of Agenda 21 (one of the
main outputs of the Earth Summit), and the role that travel and tourism
can play in achieving the goals of Agenda 21. It also outlines a program
of action. Planning for sustainable tourism development is one of the
priority areas of the program, which calls for complementarity between
tourism and coastal development by adopting suitable policies such as
the Global Blue Flag Program (WTTC et al.). The Blue Flag Program is a
European campaign started in the 1980s which encourages local
authorities to provide clean and safe beaches for local populations and
international tourists. Blue Flag awards go to beaches that achieve
certain standards in water quality, beach management and safety, and
environmental information and education.

A guide for tourism managers has also been developed by the World
Tourism Organization (WTO, 1996) on the formulation and use of
indicators of sustainable tourism. Indicators signal unacceptable levels
of impacts or stress, and these can in turn lead to the development of
standards to govern tourism activities. Core indicators developed by the
WTO include use intensity (persons per meter of accessible beach),
species counts (number of species, change in composition), pollution
levels (fecal coliform, heavy metal counts, etc.), and accident rates
(WTO, 1996).

New tools are also being developed in connection with coastal tourism
and natural disasters, such as hurricanes. The University of Florida,
for example, in cooperation with the Florida Hotel and Motel
Association, has prepared *The Hurricane Preparedness Handbook for
Hotels and Motels*. In a slightly different direction, Clemson
University (Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism Management) has
prepared a handbook to guide communities and their tourism industries
through crises of various types including those associated with natural
hazards such as hurricanes (Sonmez et al. ). As outlined in its
introduction, this guidebook "is intended to serve as a guideline to
facilitate tourism recovery by protecting or rebuilding a local area's
image of safety and attractiveness; reassuring potential visitors of the
safety of the area; reestablishing the area's functionality and
attractiveness; and aiding the local travel and tourism industry members
in their economic recovery efforts" (Sonmez et al., p. v).

**FINDINGS**

As detailed above, coastal tourism and recreation involve major economic
activity in U.S. coastal and ocean areas, and must be planned and
managed with special care to insure that the environmental quality on
which coastal tourism and recreation depend is maintained and enhanced.
Major findings and areas of future work are summarized below:

**1. Economic importance of coastal tourism and recreation.** Coastal
tourism and recreation provide a huge positive economic benefit in the
United States, both in terms of jobs and earnings and in terms of
balance of payments and governmental revenues. As discussed, over 90
percent of foreign tourism spending is concentrated in coastal states
where beaches are the leading tourism destination (Houston, 1996). For
example, Miami Beach reported more tourist visits (21 million) than were
made to any National Park Service property (Houston, 1995). The federal
government, moreover, receives about 6 times as much tax revenues
annually from foreign tourism spending at Miami Beach than it spends to
restore beaches in the entire nation (Houston, 1996). Yet, these values
often go unrecognized, and are not the subject of concerted attention by
federal, state, and local policymakers.

**2. There is little information on marine and coastal tourism.** There
is no systematic collection of data and information on the magnitude,
nature, and economic and social impacts of tourism and recreation in the
nation's coastal zone. This is, in part, responsible for a general
under-appreciation of this set of activities and for the failure to
devote adequate planning and management attention to the relevant issues
that are raised for coastal tourism and recreation. To properly guide
coastal tourism in a sustainable development manner, better data focused
on coastal and marine areas will be needed. The types of information
needed include:

-   Systematic collection and interpretation of coastal tourism data on
    a coastal county basis;

-   Collection and interpretation of data on coastal and marine
    recreation activities;

-   Expansion of existing databases, such as, for example, the Sea Grant
    Coastal Recreation and Tourism web service (organized by Oregon
    State University, in collaboration with many other Sea Grant
    programs);

-   Conduct of studies on the dynamics of tourism in coastal and marine
    areas. For example, what constitutes an optimal type and scale of
    coastal tourism? Who gets what, when, and where from expanded
    tourism? What is the distribution of benefits from tourism?
    (Richter, 1983).

**3. U.S. promotional efforts to attract foreign tourists to U.S.
coastal areas lag significantly behind those of other nations.** Foreign
tourists use U.S. coastal areas very frequently and contribute
significantly to jobs, earnings, and tax revenues in coastal
communities. Foreign competition in marketing other world coastal
destinations, however, is increasing. In contrast to many other
governments, the U.S. government spends very little in tourism
promotion.

**4. Federal policies and programs essential for the maintenance of
healthy coastal tourism and recreation (coastal planning and management,
clean water, beach nourishment, management of coastal hazards and of
coastal safety) are interrelated and should be treated as a whole.** The
economic viability and sustainability of coastal tourism and recreation
are directly affected by at least four sets of federal policies and
programs:

-   Coastal planning and management (CZM) programs, especially in
    relation to the appropriate siting of tourism development and in
    ensuring public access, are of central importance in sustainable
    coastal tourism.

-   Clean water and healthy ecosystem programs are vital to sustainable
    coastal tourism.

-   Programs to ensure a safe coastal environment, especially with
    reference to natural hazards such as hurricanes and storms and to
    the maintenance of safe marine recreational and boating conditions,
    are essential for sustainable coastal tourism.

-   Programs to maintain recreational beaches, by means of beach
    re-nourishment to combat erosion and relative sea-level rise, are
    also of central concern to sustainable coastal tourism.

-   

-   Programs to protect wildlife and coastal habitats are also essential
    to sustainable coastal tourism.

While a variety of federal efforts are focused on different programs of
importance to coastal tourism, these have not been successfully
coordinated. To remedy this situation, consideration could be given to
the creation of an interagency initiative devoted to coastal tourism
among the major federal agencies with programs in this area (e.g., NOAA
(NOS \[OCRM, NMS, NERRS\], NMFS, OAR), the Department of Interior
(Coastal Barrier Program, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park
Service), EPA, FEMA, Army Corps of Engineers, Coast Guard, etc.).
Related options could entail the mobilization of a public-private
partnership to work in conjunction with the federal inter-agency group
(involving such entities as state coastal programs, state tourist
offices, aquaria, and waterfront redevelopers), and the development of a
public awareness and outreach program focused on the determinants of
successful coastal tourism.

**5. Little guidance (in the form of standards, codes of conduct,
manuals, etc.) is currently available to states and communities for
guiding appropriate tourism development in coastal areas.** While
individual coastal communities and coastal states have taken initiative
in preparing guides and codes of conduct related to coastal tourism and
recreation, many others have not yet done so. The federal government can
play a useful role here in providing guidance to states and communities
in their attempts to manage coastal tourism and recreation
appropriately. Useful activities include the development of standards,
guides, and manuals for managing coastal tourism, in cooperation with
relevant non-governmental organizations, the private sector, and
international entities working on these issues. Also, management
standards for recreational beaches, for example, those developed for the
European Blue Flag program, could play a valuable role in improving
conditions at some U.S. beaches.

**REFERENCES**

Bacon, R. and Kibler, T. 1996. "Nature-Based Tourism Development in
South Carolina." South Carolina Sea Grant Extension Program, South
Carolina.

Bramwell, B. 1991. "Shades of Green Tourism." *Leisure Management*,
Spring: 41-42.

Bookman, Charles, 1997. Personal communication, November 20, 1997.

Butler, R.W. 1993. "Tourism: An Evolutionary Perspective." *Tourism and
Sustainable Development: Monitoring, Planning, Managing*. J. Nelson, R.
Butler, and G. Wall, Eds. University of Waterloo: Heritage Resources
Centre Joint Publication Number 1.

Caballos-Lascurain, Hector. 1988. "The Future of Ecotourism." *Annals of
Tourism* Research 18: 26-40.

Cicin-Sain, B. 1993. "Sustainable Development, Integrated Coastal
Management and Tourism: Challenges to Mediterranean Countries," MEDCOAST
\'93 Proceedings, Antalya, Turkey.

Cicin-Sain, B. and Robert W. Knecht. 1991. "The Role of Government in
Tourism Development." Proceedings, International Conference on Marine
and Coastal Tourism. Honolulu, Hawaii.

Cicin-Sain, B. and Robert W. Knecht. 1998. *Integrated Coastal and Ocean
Management: Concepts and Experiences*. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Cunningham, C and Walker, K. 1996. "Enhancing Public Access to the Coast
through the CZMA." *The Journal of Marine Education*, Volume 14,
Number 1. pp 8-11.

Eagles, P.F.G., 1997. Understanding the Market for Sustainable Tourism.
Internet source: http://www.ecotourism.org/textfiles/eagles.txt

Ecotourism Society. 1997. Ecotourism Statistical Fact Sheets. Internet
source: http://www.ecotourism.org/textfiles/stats.txt

English, Donald B.K., Warren Kriesel, Vernon R. Leeworthy, and Peter C.
Wiley, 1996. *Economic Contribution of Recreating Visitors to the
Florida Keys/Key West.* Report.

Prepared in collaboration among NOAA (Strategic Environmental
Assessments Division, Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and
Assessment, National Ocean Service; also Office of Ocean and Coastal
Resource Management/Sanctuaries and Reserves Division/Florida Keys
National Marine Sanctuary), USDA-Forest Service (Outdoor Recreation and
Wilderness Assessment Group, Southern Forest Research Station),
Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of
Georgia); the Nature Conservancy Florida Keys Initiative, the Monroe
County Tourist Development Council, Bicentennial Volunteers, Inc.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1996. *Benefits of Water Quality
Improvement*.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1997. *Natural Resource Valuation:
A Report by the Nation's Estuary Program*[.]{.underline}

Falk, James M., Cindy Small and Rob Rector. 1997. *Delaware
Eco-Discoveries: The 1997 Guide to Nature-Based Travel in Delaware.*
Published by Atlantic Publications, Inc. in cooperation with the
Delaware Sea Grant College Program and the Southern Delaware Convention
and Tourism Commission, Lewes, DE.

Farrell, B. H. and D. Runyan. 1991. "Ecology and Tourism." *Links*, 1:
3.

Houston, James R., "The Economic Value of Beaches," CERCular, Coastal
Engineering Research Center, Vol. CERC-95-4, December 1995.

Houston, James R., "International Tourism and US Beaches," *Shore and
Beach* (1996).

Koss, Jennifer, 1995. "Ecotourism and Marine Protected Areas," Master's
thesis, Marine Policy Program, Graduate College of Marine Studies,
University of Delaware.

Lindberg, Kreg. 1993. *Policies for Maximizing Nature Tourism's
Ecological and Economic Benefits*. Washington, D.C. World Resources
Institute.

Miller, M. 1993. "The Rise of Coastal and Marine Tourism." Special Issue
on Ecotourism in Marine and Coastal Areas," *Ocean and Coastal
Management*, 21 (1-3): 183-199.

Miller, M. and J. Auyong, 1991. "Coastal Zone Tourism: A Potent Force
Affecting Environment and Society." *Marine Policy*, 15 (2): 75-99.

National Marine Manufacturers Association. 1996. *Boating 1996*
(prepared by the Marketing Services Department of the National Marine
Manufacturers Association, 200 East Randolph Drive, Suite 5100, Chicago,
Illinois 60601).

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine
Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources, *Report to Congress on
Results of Feeding Wild Dolphins: 1988-1994*, July 1994. 23 p. with
appendix.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine
Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources, 1995. "Flipper's Myth
Proves Harmful". *MMPA Bulletin* (6):3.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine
Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources, 1998. "NMFS Continues
Campaign to Halt Feeding and Harassment of Wild Dolphins'. *MMPA
Bulletin* (10):1.

Rearden, Philip. 1993. "Cultural Aspects of Tourism and Sustainable
Development: Tourism and the Hilltribes of Northern Thailand." *Tourism
and Sustainable Development: Monitoring, Planning, Managing*. J. Nelson,
R. Butler, and G. Wall, Eds. University of Waterloo: Heritage Resources
Centre Joint Publication Number 1.

Richter, Linda K., "Tourism Politics and Political Science: A Case of
Not So Benign Neglect," *Annals of Tourism Research*, Vol. 10 (1983),
pp. 313-335.

Savignac, Antonio Enriquez. 1995. "Foreword." *World Tourism Directory
'95/'96, Part 1: Europe*. Third Edition. New Providence: K.G. Saur and
Reed Travel Group.

Scace, Robert C. 1993. "An Ecotourism Perspective." *Tourism and
Sustainable Development: Monitoring, Planning, Managing*. J. Nelson, R.
Butler, and G. Wall, Eds. University of Waterloo: Heritage Resources
Centre Joint Publication Number 1.

Sonmez, S.F, Backman, S.J and Allen, L.A. No Date. *Managing Tourism
Crises: a Guidebook*. Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism
Management. Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina.

United Nations Environment Programme, World Tourism Organization, and
Foundation for Environmental Education in Europe. 1996. Awards for
Improving the Coastal Environment: The Example of the Blue Flag. United
Nations Environment Programme, Paris, France; World Tourism
Organization, Madrid, Spain; and Foundation for Environmental Education
in Europe, Kobenhaum, Denmark. 50 pp.

Uravitch, Joseph, Office of Coastal Programs, NOAA/OCRM, 1997. Personal
communication, November 5, 1997, Silver Spring, Maryland.

Wildavsky, B. 1995. "Travel Advisory." *National Journal*, September 6,
1995.

Wilson, Pete and Douglas P. Wheeler. 1997. *California Ocean Resources:
An Agenda for the Future.* Sacramento, California, The Resources Agency
of California, Ocean Resources Management Program.

Woodley, A. 1993. "Tourism and Sustainable Development: The Community
Perspective." J. Nelson, R. Butler, and G. Wall, Eds. University of
Waterloo: Heritage Resources Centre Joint Publication Number 1.

World Tourism Organization. 1996. "What Tourism Managers Need to Know: A
Practical Guide to the Development and Use of Indicators of Sustainable
Tourism." World Tourism Organization, Madrid, Spain. 73 pp.

World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC), World Tourism Organization, and
Earth Council. No date. Agenda 21 for the Travel and Tourism Industry:
Towards Environmentally Sustainable Development. World Travel and
Tourism Council, London, United Kingdom; World Tourism Organization,
Madrid, Spain; and Earth Council, San Jose, Costa Rica. 78 pp.
(presented at the June 1997 United Nations General Assembly, "The Earth
Summit plus Five," New York City)

**DOMESTIC LEGAL REGIME**

**Contents**

-   Abandoned Shipwreck Act (43 U.S.C. §§ 2101 [et]{.underline}
    [seq]{.underline}.)

-   Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. §§ 431 [et]{.underline}
    [seq]{.underline}.)

-   Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 U.S.C. §§ 470aa
    [et]{.underline} [seq]{.underline}.)

-   Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 3501 [et]{.underline}
    [seq]{.underline}.)

-   Coastal Zone Management Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 1451 [et]{.underline}
    [seq]{.underline}.)

-   Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, also called the
    Clean Water Act as amended (CWA), 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 [et]{.underline}
    [seq]{.underline}.

-   National Flood Insurance Reform Act

-   National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. §§1431 [et]{.underline}
    [seq]{.underline}.)

-   National Park Service Organic Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 1)

-   National Wildlife Refuge System (16 U.S.C. § 668dd)

-   National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 470
    ([et]{.underline} [seq]{.underline}.)

-   National Wilderness Preservation System (16 U.S.C. § 1131)

-   Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. §§ 2701 [et]{.underline}
    [seq]{.underline}., [inter]{.underline} [alia)]{.underline}

The legal regime covering this topic is based on a collection of
important federal statutory authorities. The following is a brief
description of some of those authorities relating to recreation and
tourism. The list is selective and is designed to illustrate some major
recreation and tourism acts. The list is not meant to be comprehensive.

**[Abandoned Shipwreck Act (ASA)]{.underline}**, 43 U.S.C. §§ 2101
[et]{.underline} [seq]{.underline}.

Under the ASA, the United States asserts title to shipwrecks that are
embedded in the submerged lands of a state. The federal government
transfers title to the state whose submerged lands contain the
shipwreck, except when the wreck is located on public or Indian land, or
is a U.S. warship that has not been affirmatively abandoned. The public
is given notice of the location of any shipwreck when title is asserted
under the ASA.

Pursuant to the ASA, states manage a broad range of living and nonliving
resources in their waters and submerged lands. Shipwrecks protected
under the ASA offer recreational and educational opportunities for
divers, tourists, users of biological sanctuaries, and historical
researchers. States are encouraged to provide public access to the
shipwrecks through the adoption of guidelines for the creation of
underwater parks.

The Secretary of the Interior, through the National Park Service,
publishes guidelines to maximize the enhancement of shipwrecks as
cultural resources; foster a partnership among sport divers, salvors,
and other interests to manage shipwreck resources; facilitate access and
utilization of the shipwrecks; and recognize the interests of groups
engaged in shipwreck discovery and salvage.

**[Antiquities Act of 1906]{.underline}**, 16 U.S.C. §§ 431
[et]{.underline} [seq.]{.underline}

The Antiquities Act has two main components: (1) a criminal enforcement
component, which provides for the prosecution of persons who
appropriate, excavate, injure, or destroy any historic or prehistoric
ruin or monument, or any object of antiquity on lands owned or
controlled by the United States; and (2) a component that authorizes,
through the issuance of a permit, the examination of ruins, the
excavation of archeological sites, and the gathering of objects of
antiquity on lands owned or controlled by the United States. The
Antiquities Act has been applied in the marine environment. Where the
United States has ownership or control of the submerged lands in or on
which submerged cultural resources are located, the Antiquities Act
permitting provision can be used to regulate salvage. It appears,
however, that its reach may be limited to regulating salvage only in
marine protected areas in which the United States has the authority to
protect submerged cultural resources.

**[Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979
(ARPA)]{.underline}**, 16 U.S.C. §§ 470aa [et]{.underline}
[seq.]{.underline}

The Archaeological Resources Protection Act, is another historic
preservation statute that has been applied to the marine environment.
ARPA was specifically designed to prevent looting and destruction of
archeological resources. Like the Antiquities Act, ARPA has both an
enforcement and a permitting component. The enforcement provision
provides for the imposition of both criminal and civil penalties against
violators of the Act. ARPA's permitting component allows for the
recovery of certain artifacts consistent with the standards and
requirements of the Federal Archeology Program. While ARPA is applicable
to the marine environment, its reach in this context is limited.
Pursuant to the express language of the Act itself, ARPA can only be
applied to such areas as national parks (with federally-owned submerged
lands) and wildlife refuges. Additionally, ARPA specifically states that
it does *not* apply to activities occurring on the outer continental
shelf.

**[Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA)]{.underline}**, 16 U.S.C. §§
3501 [et]{.underline} [seq.]{.underline}

The purpose of the CBRA is to promote more appropriate use and
conservation of coastal barriers along the Atlantic, Gulf, and Great
Lakes coastlines. Coastal barriers are defined as bay barriers, barrier
islands, and other geological features composed of sediment that protect
landward aquatic habitats from direct wind and waves. They provide
essential habitats for wildlife and marine life, natural storm buffer
zones, and areas of scientific, recreational, historic, and
archeological significance. The CBRA seeks to minimize the loss of human
life, wasteful federal expenditures on shoreline development, and damage
to wildlife, marine life, and other natural resources by restricting
future federal financial assistance, establishing a coastal barrier
resources system, and considering the means of achieving long-term
conservation of barrier resources.

**[Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)]{.underline}**, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1451
[et]{.underline} [seq.]{.underline}

The CZMA encourages states to develop coastal zone management programs
that allow for growth and development that is compatible with the
protection of natural resources. The CZMA provides financial and
technical incentives for states to manage their coastal zones consistent
with CZMA standards and goals.

The CZMA mentions in several places concepts related to recreation and
tourism. For example, the congressional findings cite recreational and
esthetic resources as being of value to the present and future
well-being of the nation. The findings note that increasing and
competing demands upon lands and waters of the coastal zone, including
requirements for recreation, have resulted in the loss of important
cultural, historic, and esthetic values in the coastal zone, which are
essential to the well-being of all citizens. Further, the findings
state, new and expanding demands for recreation activities in coastal
and ocean waters are placing stress on these areas and are creating the
need for resolution of serious conflicts among important and competing
uses and values in these waters.

Management programs under the CZMA are required to include, among other
things, certain elements related to recreational concerns, including
planning processes for the protection of, and access to, public beaches
and other public coastal areas of environmental, recreational,
historical, esthetic, ecological, or cultural value, as well as
procedures whereby specific areas may be designated for the purpose of
preserving or restoring them for their conservation, recreational,
ecological, historical or esthetic values.

The CZMA also allows the Secretary to make grants to coastal states to
meet objectives including preservation or restoration of areas notable
for their conservation, recreational, ecological, or esthetic values,
and the provision of public access to beaches and other public coastal
areas.

The CZMA also includes the National Estuarine Research Reserve System
(NERRS), which consists of a network of representative estuarine
ecosystems suitable for long-term research. In order to be designated as
part of the NERRS, a reserve must serve to enhance public awareness and
understanding of estuarine areas and provide suitable opportunities for
public education and interpretation.

**[Federal Water Pollution Control Act]{.underline}**, as amended, also
called the **[Clean Water Act]{.underline}**, as amended (CWA), 33
U.S.C. §§ 1251 [et]{.underline} [seq]{.underline}.

The CWA establishes the basic scheme for restoring and maintaining the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation\'s waters.
The primary mechanism in the CWA regulating the discharge of pollutants
is the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), which is
administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Under the
NPDES program, a permit is required from EPA or an authorized state for
the discharge of any pollutant from a point source into the waters of
the United States. This includes discharges associated with oil and gas
development on federal leases beyond state waters. An NPDES permit for
certain stormwater discharges also is required. Permit discharge limits
are technology-based and, where technology-based limits would not
protect desired water quality for a particular water body in which the
discharge takes place, based on state water quality standards, which are
developed by the states using EPA guidance and are intended to protect
the designated uses of the water body. In the case of discharges to the
territorial sea or beyond, permits are also subject to the ocean
discharge criteria developed under section 403 of the act. Permits for
discharges into the territorial sea or internal waters may be issued by
states following approval of their permit program by EPA; in the absence
of an approved state permit program, and for discharges beyond the
territorial sea, EPA is the permit-issuing authority.

The CWA was amended in 1987 to include the current non-point source
(NPS) program. Under this program (section 319), states must develop
management programs to address NPS runoff, including the identification
of best management practices and measures. In addition, section 319
authorizes grants to assist the states in implementing their approved
management programs.

The CWA generally prohibits discharges of oil and hazardous substances
into coastal or ocean waters except where permitted under the Protocol
of 1978 Relating to the International Convention for the Prevention of
Pollution from Ships. The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) investigates and
responds to discharges of oil and hazardous substances into coastal or
ocean waters in accordance with the National Contingency Plan (NCP). The
USCG, with the cooperation of EPA, generally administers the NCP when
oil or a hazardous substance is discharged into coastal or ocean waters.
Regional contingency plans and area contingency plans are developed to
implement the NCP.

The CWA (section 312) requires vessels with installed toilet facilities
and operating on the navigable waters of the U.S. to contain operable
marine sanitation devices certified as meeting standards and regulations
promulgated under section 312. Section 312 also allows establishment of
zones where discharge of sewage from vessels is completely prohibited.
Amendments made to section 312 in 1996 will require, where appropriate,
the use of marine pollution control devices for operational, non-sewage,
discharges from vessels of the Armed Forces.

Publicly owned sewage treatment facilities must, at a minimum, meet
effluent reductions by secondary treatment, except for certain
facilities discharging to coastal waters for which EPA has approved a
waiver under section 301(h).

Section 320 of the CWA establishes the National Estuary Program, which
uses a consensus-based approach for protecting and restoring estuaries.
There are currently 28 estuaries in the program.

The Army Corps of Engineers (COE) implements the section 404 permit
program. Under section 404, a permit is required for the discharge of
dredged or fill materials into the waters of the U.S. that lie inside of
the baseline for the territorial seas and fill materials into the
territorial seas within three miles of shore. Although COE has the
permitting responsibility under the section 404 program except in
certain waters of two states (Michigan and New Jersey), which have
assumed the authority, EPA is authorized to review and comment on the
impact of proposed dredge and fill activities and to prohibit discharges
that would have an unacceptable impact on municipal water supplies,
shellfish beds and fishery areas, wildlife and recreational areas. EPA,
in consultation with COE, is charged with developing guidelines to be
used in evaluating discharges subject to section 404. ([See]{.underline}
40 C.F.R. Part 230.) The section 404 permit requirement is the
cornerstone for the current wetlands regulatory program. If COE or EPA
determines that a certain property is a jurisdictional wetlands, no one
can discharge dredged or fill materials into it without a section 404
permit. COE and EPA also have cooperative agreements with the Natural
Resources Conservation Service and rely on its determinations as to the
presence of wetlands on agricultural lands.

**[National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994 (NFIRA)]{.underline}**

The NFIRA established the Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) program. The
purpose of FMA is to plan and carry out activities designed to reduce
the risk of flood damage to structures covered under contracts for flood
insurance under this title. Section 1366 of the NFIRA assigns the FEMA
Director the authority and responsibility for carrying out the program.
42 U.S.C. § 4104c. Section 1367 establishes the National Flood
Mitigation Funds to fund FMA grants. 42 U.S.C. § 4104d.

The Flood Mitigation Assistance program, unlike the Stafford Act
programs, are pre-disaster programs. There are three types of FMA
grants. *Planning grants* assist states and communities in developing
flood mitigation plans. Under section 1366 of the NFIRA, a FEMA-
approved Flood Mitigaton Plan (FMP) is required in order for a state or
community to receive a FMA project grant. *Project grants* fund eligible
flood mitigation projects. FEMA encourages states to prioritize the
mitigation activities outlined in their FMPs and fund projects that will
greatly reduce or eliminate the risk of flood damage to buildings,
manufactured homes, and other NFIP-insurable structures. Mitigation of
repetitively or substantially damaged structures is a high priority.
*Technical assistance grants* assist states in providing technical
assistance to applicants in applying for the program or in implementing
approved projects.

**[National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA)]{.underline}**, 16 U.S.C.
§§1431 [et]{.underline} [seq.]{.underline}

The NMSA provides the Secretary of Commerce with the authority to
designate and manage nationally significant marine areas as national
marine sanctuaries. The NMSA lists recreational and esthetic qualities
as among the things that might give an area special national
significance.

The NMSA\'s stated purposes and policies include comprehensive and
coordinated conservation and management; enhancing public awareness,
understanding, appreciation and wise use of the marine environment; and
facilitating, to the extent compatible with the primary objective of
resource protection, all public and private uses of resources not
prohibited pursuant to other authorities.

Among the factors the Secretary must consider in determining whether an
area merits designation as a national marine sanctuary are present and
potential uses of the area that depend on maintenance of the area\'s
resources, including commercial and recreational fishing, other
commercial and recreational activities, and research and education; the
public benefits to be derived from sanctuary status, with emphasis on
the benefits of long-term protection of nationally significant
resources, vital habitats, and resources which generate tourism.

**[National Park Service Organic Act]{.underline}**, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2-4

This act creates the National Park Service (the Service) in the
Department of the Interior. The Service is charged with promoting and
regulating the use of federal areas known as national parks, monuments,
and reservations. Such areas are established by Congress through
specific legislation.

**[National Wildlife Refuge System]{.underline}**, 16 U.S.C. § 668dd

This section of law consolidates the authorities relating to the various
categories of areas administered by the Secretary of the Interior for
the conservation of fish and wildlife by designating all such areas part
of the National Wildlife Refuge System (the System). The law prohibits
knowingly disturbing, injuring, cutting, burning, removing, destroying,
or possessing any real or personal property of the United States,
including natural growth, in any area of the system, or taking or
possessing any fish, bird, mammal, or other wild animals within any such
area without a permit. The Secretary may permit areas within the System
to be used for hunting, fishing, and public recreation when the
Secretary determines such uses are compatible with the major purposes
for which such areas were established.

Another section of law, 16 U.S.C. § 460k, recognizes the mounting public
demands for recreational opportunities on areas administered by the
Secretary of the Interior for fish and wildlife purposes, including
areas within the System. This section provides that the Secretary may
administer such areas as public recreation areas when the Secretary
determines that public recreation is an appropriate incidental or
secondary use. Such public recreation may be permitted only to the
extent that it is not inconsistent with the primary objectives for which
the particular area was established.

**[National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)]{.underline}**, 16 U.S.C.
§§ 470, [et]{.underline} [seq.]{.underline}

The NHPA is the largest piece of federal historic preservation
legislation. It has two major components that affect the
responsibilities of federal agencies managing submerged lands. First,
under section 106 of the NHPA, federal agencies are to consider the
effects of their undertakings (including the issuance of permits, the
expenditure of federal funding and federal projects) on historic
resources that are either eligible for listing or are listed on the
National Register of Historic Places. Section 110 of the NHPA imposes
another obligation on federal agencies that own or control historic
resources. Under this section, federal agencies must consider historic
preservation of historic resources as part of their management
responsibilities.

**[National Wilderness Preservation System]{.underline}**, 16 U.S.C. §
1131

This program establishes a system of federally owned \"wilderness
areas,\" which are administered for the use and enjoyment of the
American people in such a manner as will leave the areas unimpaired for
future use and enjoyment as wilderness. Such areas are managed by the
Department of the Interior and by the agency that had jurisdiction over
the area before its inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation
System.

**[Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA)]{.underline}**, 33 U.S.C. §§ 2701
[et]{.underline} [seq]{.underline}., [inter]{.underline}
[alia]{.underline}

OPA amends section 311 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (the
Clean Water Act or CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1321 [et]{.underline}
[seq]{.underline}., to clarify federal response authority, increase
penalties for spills, establish U.S. Coast Guard response organizations,
require tank vessel and facility response plans, and provide for
contingency planning in designated areas. OPA, however, does not preempt
states\' rights to impose additional liability or other requirements
with respect to the discharge of oil within a state or to any removal
activities in connection with such a discharge.

OPA is a comprehensive statute designed to expand oil spill prevention,
preparedness, and response capabilities of the federal government and
industry. OPA establishes a new liability regime for oil pollution
incidents in the aquatic environment and provides the resources
necessary for the removal of discharged oil. OPA consolidates several
existing oil spill response funds into the Oil Spill Liability Trust
Fund (Trust Fund), resulting in a \$1-billion fund to be used to respond
to, and provide compensation for damages caused by, discharges of oil.
In addition, OPA provides new requirements of response planning by both
government and industry and establishes new construction, manning, and
licensing requirements for tank vessels. OPA also increases penalties
for regulatory noncompliance and broadens the response and enforcement
authorities of the federal government.

Title I of OPA contains liability provisions governing oil spills
modeled after the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601 [et]{.underline}
[seq]{.underline}., and section 311 of the CWA. Specifically, section
1002(a) of OPA provides that the responsible party for a vessel or
facility from which oil is discharged, or which poses a substantial
threat of a discharge, is liable for:

\- certain specified damages resulting from the discharged oil; and

\- removal costs incurred in a manner consistent with the National
Contingency Plan.

The scope of damages for which there may be liability under section 1002
of OPA includes:

\- natural resource damages, including the reasonable costs of assessing
these damages;

\- loss of subsistence use of natural resources;

\- real or personal property damages;

\- net loss of tax and other revenues;

\- loss of profits or earning capacity; and

\- net cost of additional public services provided during or after
removal actions.

**LIST OF ACRONYMS**

CCMP Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan

CZM Coastal Zone Management

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

NEP National Estuary Program

NERRS National Estuarine Research Reserve System

NFIP National Flood Insurance Program

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NMS National Marine Sanctuary

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOS National Ocean Service

OAR (Office of) Oceanic and Atmospheric Research

OCRM (Office of) Ocean and Coastal Resource Management

[^1]: Casco Bay (Maine), Long Island Sound (New York, Connecticut),
    Massachusetts Bay (Massachusetts), Albermarle-Pamlico Sounds (North
    Carolina), Galveston Bay (Texas), San Francisco Bay (California),
    and Santa Monica Bay (California))

[^2]: Caballos-Lascurain, 1988, as quoted in Lindberg, 1993, p. 3

[^3]: The EPA web site HYPERLINK is
    http://www.epa.gov/ost/beaches/overview.html.