Oregon’s Non-Consumptive Recreational Ocean User Community Understanding an ocean stakeholder

Christopher S. Eardley Marine Resource Management Program, OSU

Flaxen D. L. Conway Oregon Sea Grant Extension Oregon’s Non-Consumptive Recreational Ocean User Community Understanding an ocean stakeholder

Christopher S. Eardley Marine Resource Management Program, OSU

Flaxen D. L. Conway Oregon Sea Grant Extension

© 2011 by Oregon State University. This publication may be photocopied or re- printed in its entirety for noncommercial purposes. To order additional copies of this publication, call 541-737-4849. This publication is available in an accessible format on our Web site at http://seagrant.oregonstate.edu/sgpubs/onlinepubs.html

For a complete list of Oregon Sea Grant publications, visit http://seagrant.oregon- state.edu/sgpubs

This report was prepared by Oregon Sea Grant under award number# NA16RG1039 (project number A/ESG-07) from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Sea Grant College Program, U.S. Department of Commerce, and by appropriations made by the Oregon State Legislature. The state- ments, findings, conclusions, and recommendations are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of these funders.

Oregon Sea Grant Corvallis, OR

ORESU-S-11-001 Contents

Executive summary...... 3

Introduction and context...... 5 Why study the non-consumptive recreational ocean user (NROU) community?...... 6

Methods...... 8

Who are Oregon’s non-consumptive recreational ocean users?...... 10 Waveriders...... 11 Where are waveriders recreating?...... 13 Waveriders support and are part of coastal communities...... 15 Divers...... 17 Where is diving occurring?...... 18 Boaters and kayakers...... 19 Sailors...... 21 Kayakers...... 22 Power boaters...... 23 Boat-based wildlife viewers...... 24 Who are the boat-based wildlife viewers?...... 25 Where are boat-based wildlife viewers recreating?...... 26 Boat-based wildlife viewers bring business to the coast...... 27

NROU and marine renewable energy...... 28

Conclusions...... 31

References...... 32

Glossary of terms...... 35

Acknowledgments...... 36

2 Oregon’s Non-Consumptive Recreational Ocean User Community Executive summary

Executive summary

Oregon is in the midst of major of Oregon’s coast. This new ocean changes to the way it manages use of use has the potential to conflict with the ocean off its shores. Consideration existing uses, if not carefully planned. for all stakeholder groups will contrib- Our study aims to provide informa- ute to defensible decisions regarding tion on the NROU community to help Othe use of ocean and coastal resources. facilitate sound ocean planning for all This relies on an understanding of uses and users. the various stakeholders in ocean resources, which is lacking for some Summary of major findings groups. • Ocean recreation is a highly impor- This research sought to improve the tant part of the lives of the NROU understanding of one such group, community and it is important to which to date has not been thoroughly their well-being. documented: the non-consumptive • Residents of Oregon’s coastal and in- recreational ocean user (NROU) com- land communities and visitors from munity. The NROU group includes out of state and abroad make up the surfers, kayakers, boaters, divers, and NROU community. many others, and it makes economic, cultural, and environmental contribu- • The NROU community makes tions to Oregon’s coastal communi- important economic and cultural ties. Members of this group are both contributions to Oregon’s coastal residents of coastal communities and communities. In a sense, they are visitors from other regions of Oregon, a renewable resource for Oregon’s and their numbers are expected to coastal communities. grow. • In choosing where to recreate, the NROU community is motivated first This report details what we have by proximity, followed by condi- learned from research about this group tions, accessibility, facilities, crowd as a whole and by the subgroups that levels, aesthetics, and familiarity comprise this community of inter- (order varies by recreation type and est: what they require for recreation, individual). their values and opinions, and where they are recreating. We also sought to • The NROU community of Oregon gauge their attitudes toward alternative enjoys their recreation for fun; ex- energy, specifically marine renew- periencing nature and viewing and able energy, which is an emerging interacting with wildlife; physical use and stakeholder of the ocean off exercise; mental challenge and sense

Oregon’s Non-Consumptive Recreational Ocean User Community 3 Executive summary

of accomplishment; and for solitude, escape, and relaxation. The NROU community of Oregon enjoys their recreation • Longitudinal shoreline structures for fun; experiencing nature and viewing and interact- such as jetties and headlands are ing with wildlife; physical exercise; mental challenge and some of the most important loca- tions for non-consumptive recre- sense of accomplishment; and for solitude, escape, and ational ocean use. Others include relaxation. underwater reefs, sandbars, emer- gent rocks and islands, underwater banks and upwelling areas, density fronts, and river plumes. • Other factors valued by the NROU community include parking, launch ramps and associated facilities (bathrooms, benches), crossable bars (jetties), charter availability, and trails. • The NROU community has a keen understanding of and unique con- nection with the ocean. They are adept at understanding and predict- ing favorable conditions. • This group as a whole relies heavily on Internet sources of information (such as regarding conditions), on personal visual observation, and on observation made by family and The NROU group includes surfers, kayakers, boaters, divers, and many others, and friends. it makes economic, cultural, and environmental contributions to Oregon’s coastal • Ocean issues of concern to the communities. NROU community include water quality, marine reserves, fishing patterns, and changes to biological divers, fishing with boaters, and regulations, climate change, and communities and habitat. wildlife-viewing was mentioned by each of our four groups as a valued marine renewable energy. • Many people participate in multiple component to their main type of • The Oregon NROU community is forms of ocean recreation that may recreation. Boat-based nature view- sensitive to changes in ocean and include additional non-consumptive ers are on the water to encounter coastal management such as certain and consumptive uses. This sort of wildlife, but so too are waveriders, ocean area exclusions, restrictions “crossover” is common in recreation divers, and boaters. to access at certain locations on land and also exists among Oregon’s (access points, facilities), changes in ocean recreationalists. Some forms • There remains much to learn about oceanographic characteristics and of ocean recreation add value to this community to aid in planning others; crabbing is popular with and decision-making.

4 Oregon’s Non-Consumptive Recreational Ocean User Community Introduction and context

Introduction and context

Oregon is rich with recreational To many Oregonians, this is obvious, avenues through which to seek thrills, and various forms of surfing, div- to exercise, or simply to escape. The ing, kayaking, boating, and wildlife Northwest generally has higher levels watching are all popular in the state’s of participation in outdoor recre- more than 1,000 square miles of ocean Oation than the national average, and and the waters beyond. Driving along Oregon, in particular, is very active. A Route 101, one is sure to encounter 2001 study by the Oregon Parks and passing vehicles with surfboards Recreation Department (OPRD) found and kayaks bound to their roofs. On that 73 percent of households statewide windy days, the sky may be colored had recreated outdoors in the previ- with oversized kites towing kiteboards ous year (OPRD 2003). Oregon offers along the coast. And weekends in mountains, forests, rivers, desert, and Newport, Depoe Bay, Garibaldi, and the ocean; it is a paradise for outdoor elsewhere may feature the excited buzz recreation and a land of roof-racked of whale watchers returning from a vehicles for good reason. day on the water.

Ocean recreation, in particular, serves Surfers, kayakers, kiteboarders, and as an example of the hardiness and boat-based nature viewers, along fortitude of Oregonians. Regular sea with divers, wind surfers, boat- temperatures that hover in the low- to ers, and many others, are Oregon’s mid-50s, near-constant wind, and non-consumptive recreational ocean up to 190 rainy days a year can make users. They are neighbors and business the ocean a harsh place to recreate owners, community leaders and family in Oregon (Oregon Climate Service members, employees and friends. They 2009). On the other hand, that same are an important group of people mak- wind is harnessed by sailors and wind- ing economic and cultural contribu- surfers and contributes to the regular tions to coastal communities, and one surf enjoyed by waveriders. Add abun- with a stake in the outstanding public dant wildlife, natural beauty, lower ocean resources near and far from crowds than elsewhere on the west Oregon’s shores. They are often stew- coast, and guaranteed public access to ards of the beaches and sea, and they the shore, and it’s clear: Oregon’s coast are coming to play on the ocean from offers outstanding opportunities for all over Oregon and beyond. They are ocean recreation. also currently underrepresented in the literature, and are poorly understood.

Oregon’s Non-Consumptive Recreational Ocean User Community 5 Introduction and context

Why study the non- coastal resources are being incor- energy and marine-reserves planning, consumptive recreational porated into management decisions two contemporary ocean planning ocean user (NROU) with this in mind in what is known as challenges. ecosystem-based management (EBM) community? This reshaping of ocean planning falls (McLeod et al. 2005). under the umbrella of what is known While some types of ocean use—such The number of people recreating as coastal and marine spatial planning as recreational and commercial fish- on the ocean off the Oregon coast is (CMSP), an effort to facilitate efficient ing—have received research attention, growing (OPRD 2003). At the same spatial and temporal allocation of little research has been directed at time, the state has launched several human uses, where productivity and this important community of interest: ambitious projects that will reshape efficiency is maximized and impact Oregon’s non-consumptive recre- the planning and use of its territo- and conflict is minimized (Ehler ational ocean users (NROU). That is, rial sea. Understanding and includ- 2008). It is also a tool used to imple- those recreating on the ocean without ing all stakeholders, including the ment an EBM approach to managing removing its resources. NROU community, in planning and these resources. When used prop- Oceans are supporting more human decision-making will be important erly, CMSP could be used to protect activities than ever before, with more to the long-term success of ocean re- ecologically sensitive areas, site energy on the horizon. Increasingly, humans source management and conservation. installations with minimal impacts, are being recognized as a part of the Stakeholder inclusion is consistent and route shipping lanes to avoid mi- marine ecosystem, rather than as with Oregon’s participatory natural re- grating mammals. exogenous, or separate, influences. source planning traditions and official CMSP has gained traction nationally. Human interactions with ocean and mandate with both marine renewable In an overhaul of the way in which

6 Oregon’s Non-Consumptive Recreational Ocean User Community Introduction and context

U.S. coasts, oceans, and Great Lakes Unfortunately, some information In September of 2009, Oregon State are managed, President Obama’s July required to make management deci- University researchers launched 2010 Final Recommendations of the sions has typically not been collected a baseline study of this group of Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force by management approaches of the past Oregon’s ocean users. In partnership lays out marine EBM as the frame- (Evans and Klinger 2008), and social with Oregon Sea Grant, the Surfrider work to make informed, deliberate, data is frequently thin. Foundation Oregon Chapters, and transparent choices among multiple the Oregon Wave Energy Trust, we With Oregon in the midst of a variety objectives, and CMSP is the way to offer the first baseline assessment of of planning challenges, our study was apply this framework by helping to Oregon’s non-consumptive recre- developed to fill the void in informa- guide ocean decision-making. ational ocean users.

This is important to Oregon, which has a Territorial Sea Plan that contains elements of CMSP and is party to Increasingly, humans are being recognized as a part of the May 2008 West Coast Governors’ the marine ecosystem, rather than as exogenous, or Agreement on Ocean Health Action separate, influences. Plan. This plan for west coast ocean planning also contains elements of CMSP, and spatial management of the ocean is currently prominent in the tion about the NROU community and The objectives of this research were to state’s political conversation. address a historic lack of regard af- • identify, describe, and document the forded human dimensions of resource Documenting a baseline profile of non-consumptive recreational ocean management (Hannah pers. comm., Oregon’s NROU community is critical user (NROU) community, Conway et al. 2010). One such plan- to understanding the needs, values, ning challenge in particular, wave • document NROU use (extent/level/ and contributions of this stakeholder energy development, represented an depth/location), group; to facilitate their engagement in opportunity to highlight the need for • document the environmental, eco- future decision-making; and to make this information. While supporters of nomic, and socio-cultural contribu- defensible decisions regarding ocean wave energy development in Oregon tions the NROU community brings places. Indeed, recognizing the inter- point to its role in transitioning to to Oregon’s coastal ocean places, and dependency between ocean resources renewable energy, the creation of jobs and ocean users means that identifica- • provide baseline data that will be in coastal communities, and a position tion and understanding of different informative and could be helpful for Oregon as a national leader in wave stakeholders, their practices, expecta- toward the NROU community’s energy, the idea also comes with con- tions, and interests is key to successful continued access of the multi-use cerns (Hunter 2009). Apprehensions CMSP (Pomeroy and Duvier 2008). ocean. include potential impact on commer- Research has demonstrated that in cial and recreational fishing and on making CMSP decisions, understand- the environment. Impacts on fish- ing and engaging stakeholders can im- ing are routinely considered in wave prove trust, communication, and good energy projects globally (Neumann et faith among constituencies (Morin- al. 2006) and in Oregon (Koch 2008). Dalton 2005, Pomeroy and Duvier Biological and environmental im- 2008). Doing so early and in all stages pacts are also gaining much attention improves the success of planning and concern in Oregon (Koch 2008, efforts by allowing for identification Hunter 2009). However, information and avoidance of potential problems on the impacts on non-consumptive and resistance (National Oceanic and forms of ocean recreation, such as Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] surfing and diving, is lacking. 2005).

Oregon’s Non-Consumptive Recreational Ocean User Community 7 Methods

Methods

We had four target groups (waverid- We built a mailing list for the survey ers, divers, boaters, boat-based wildlife portion of the study by accessing viewers) in each geographical region potential participants via snowballing of the Oregon coast (Table 1). Efforts of key informants. We found that, in were made to interview a diversity of part due to informants’ hesitation to Wages and genders. provide direct access to mailing lists, listserves, etc., that the NROU com- Using a “snowball” methodology, munity can be difficult to reach. While where several key informants were some informants provided direct identified as starting points, we began access, most were instead willing to reaching out to the NROU community share hard and electronic copies of (Berg 2001). These individuals (n=20) our project summary and our contact were typically well-connected indi- information with people in their net- viduals as business owners or leaders works. Additionally, informants were in interest organizations and were willing to provide contact information selected based on interest group and for a few specific individuals within geographical location. their networks whom they believed Key individuals were first interviewed would be able to contribute to our using a semi-structured format in study, and recommend additional which predetermined questions rep- contacts themselves. Recommended resented a loose guiding framework individuals were then contacted and (Robson 2002). Interviews were re- asked to participate in our survey corded and later analyzed for thematic and recommend more individuals to content. our study, directly or by sharing our

8 Oregon’s Non-Consumptive Recreational Ocean User Community Methods

Interview participants Survey User group Region* respondents**

North-central South-central Willamette North coast coast coast South coast Valley Waveriders 1 1 1 1 2 107 Divers 1 1 1 1 2 45 Boaters 1 1 0 1 1 55 Boat-based nature viewers 0 2 0 1 1 24

Table 1. Distribution of interviewees by geographical region of Oregon and by main type of non-consumptive ocean recreation. *North coast = WA border to Neskowin; North-central coast = Neskowin to Florence; South-central = Florence to just north of Cape Blanco; South = Cape Blanco to CA border. Survey respondents by main type of recreation. **There were 259 valid respondents; however, 28 were excluded due to incompatibilty with our target population (lived out of state, participated in onshore recreation only, did not complete critical sections of survey).

project information. This was repeated our study population, their familiar- with all contacts. Additional recruit- ity with alternative energy sources, ing efforts included posting project and their attitudes about current and information to blogs, message boards, future domestic energy policy. The and Facebook pages. While the NROU survey instrument was peer-reviewed community was difficult to reach and went through two rounds of test- initially, inquiries from interested indi- ing and three rounds of review. Once viduals have continued—a year so far administered under the protocols out- after sampling ended. line by Salant and Dillman (1994), the response rate was 53 percent (n=259). Using these combined approaches, we built a survey mailing list of 490 Our combination of interviews, a mail people with which to conduct a mail survey, literature review, and obser- survey. The survey was 10 pages long vational data-gathering enabled us and contained questions designed to paint a picture of Oregon’s NROU to learn baseline information about community and initiate an under- standing of this important group of ocean users.

Oregon’s Non-Consumptive Recreational Ocean User Community 9 Who are Oregon’s non-consumptive recreational ocean users?

Who are Oregon’s non-consumptive recreational ocean users?

Respondents from the mail survey This sort of “cross-over” is common in represented 17 Oregon counties, with recreation and exists among Oregon’s a considerable number of surveys ocean recreationalists. Some forms of also received from Washington and ocean recreation add value to others. California and as far away as New Crabbing is popular with divers, fish- Brunswick and Texas. In our analysis, ing with boaters, and wildlife-viewing Rwe considered only Oregon residents. was mentioned by each of our four groups as a valued component to their For our study, we lumped these users main type of recreation. Boat-based into four main categories: waveriders nature-viewers are on the water to (surfers, wind-surfers, kayak surfers, encounter wildlife, but so too are wa- kite-boarders), divers (scuba, freedive, veriders, divers, and boaters. snorkel), boaters (sailors, power boat- ers, kayakers), and boat-based wildlife Our survey population was largely viewers (charter and private boat). middle-aged, highly educated, liberal This was done for ease of organiza- males (Table 2). This is not atypical of tion. Surveys revealed that a diversity those involved in ocean and coastal of uses exists within our four main recreation. One study of Oregon categories, and we considered this in coastal recreationalists found that peo- our analysis. ple with high incomes generally visit the beach more (Oregon Department Interviews revealed that many people participate in multiple forms of ocean recreation that may include additional RESPONDENT DEMOGRAPHICS non-consumptive and consump- tive uses. Of survey respondents, 56 Average age: 48 percent indicated that they enjoyed Sex: 67% male waveriding as either a primary (40 Education: 78% college graduates percent) or secondary form of ocean recreation. For example, many surfers Employment: 54% full time, 16% retired also enjoy fishing, and many boaters also described themselves as wildlife Average length of Oregon viewers. One national study found that residence: 27 years divers were 1.6, 1.39, and 1.25 times Political affiliation: 16% very more likely to participate in snorkel- liberal; 43% liberal; 22% moder- ing, sailing, and surfing/windsurf- ate; 12% conservative; 3% very ing, respectively, than the general conservative population (Diving Equipment and Marketing Association [DEMA] 2010). Table 2. Respondent demographics.

10 Oregon’s Non-Consumptive Recreational Ocean User Community Who are Oregon’s non-consumptive recreational ocean users?

of Human Services [ODHS] 2005), and Since native Hawaiians were first 1,200 surfers and other recreational a national study of ocean recreation documented riding waves on wooden users in Oregon (Stevenson 2009), but found that surfers, divers, windsurf- planks in 1779, modern surfing has this accounts for only a fraction of the ers, snorkelers, and power boaters are grown into an industry conservatively total surfers in Oregon (Plybon pers. heavily (by a margin of 14-48 percent) estimated at at$7.48 billion nation- comm.). Surf culture is evident on male-dominated, and that sailing, kay- ally (Surf Industry Manufacturers the Oregon coast, and our study finds aking, and wildlife viewing are slightly Association [SIMA] 2007). Surfers that waveriders are making important (by 4 to 6 percent) male-dominated. are making important economic and economic, cultural, and environmental contributions to coastal communities.

Waveriders pursue recreation despite Surfing is the primary activity from autumn through cold waters and potentially dangerous spring and is the most common ocean-based (non- conditions. They are also undeterred about potential health and safety swimming) recreation at Oregon’s beaches. concerns such as their higher risk of contracting gastrointestinal illness from water-borne sources (Stone et Bird watching is slightly (by 4 percent) cultural contributions worldwide and al. 2008) and extoses of the ear canal female-dominated (NOAA 2005). include 3.8 million participants in the (Deleyiannis et al. 1996), and their U.S. (NOAA 2005). In Oregon, surf- Nonetheless, we make no claims of higher risk of shark attack (McCosker ing plays an important role in coastal broad representativeness. Rather, we and Lea 2006). Waveriders also brave communities. The state supports at present what we learned from the often dangerous conditions and recre- least 30 surf shops, with many more population we did study. ate year-round. Why? independent surfboard-shapers, surf- Waveriders ing camps, and related organizations. Waveriding is a significant part of life Annual surf contests and events are for this group of ocean recreationalists. The Oregon coast is a waverider’s held coast-wide, and Lincoln City Indeed, 97 percent of our waverid- paradise. Surf is frequent, crowds are even boasts a big-wave contest that is ing respondents indicated that their sparser than those experienced in included on the Big Wave World tour, recreation was “important” (with 85 other locales, and a network of state one of only five stops for the tour. The percent rating it as very important). parks offers ample access. Oregon Surfrider Foundation counts a network Several participants indicated that waveriders are hardy individuals; (members and contacts) of more than they had altered their professional and immersing in the cold ocean involves cramming into a wetsuit nearly 1/4- inch thick (5–6 mm) or a cumbersome drysuit. Surfers are the most identifi- able of Oregon’s waveriders, but this group also includes kayak surfers, body boarders, body surfers, windsurf- ers, and kite boarders.

Waveriders made up our largest respondent group, at 46 percent of respondents (n=107 out of 231) (Table 1). The majority of these were surfers (including shortboard, longboard, and paddleboard). For this reason, we allot more attention to surfing than other forms of waveriding. A wetsuit-clad shortboarder enjoys one the state’s many sandbar breaks.

Oregon’s Non-Consumptive Recreational Ocean User Community 11 Who are Oregon’s non-consumptive recreational ocean users?

cally in responses to our survey included spirituality, soli- tude, reflection, and therapy. A feeling of mental challenge was also a repeat response. Interviewees and respondents to our survey described the psychological, mental, and spiritual benefits as being as central to their sport as the Figure 1.—Motivations for ocean recreation by preferred recreation group. Value on vertical axis physical benefits. This represents percentage of respondents who indicated that they somewhat agreed or strongly agreed with element of surfing, provided motivation for recreation. in particular, has personal lives to accommodate their Abbott (2009) found that 100 percent long been espoused recreation or had plans to do so in the of surfing respondents they surveyed by the sport’s adherents, and Taylor future. Most are pursuing their form of agreed that “connecting with nature” (2007) even describes a sort of “surf- waveriding recreation simply for fun, was a goal of surfing, and that surf- ing religious movement” that holds but they also highly value the physi- ers have long portrayed themselves as the “sensual practice” of surfing as its cal exercise and challenge offered by environmentally concerned and linked “sacred center.” waveriding (Figure 1). Oregon is rich to nature (Hill and Abbott 2009). Further, we found that waveriding with opportunities to view and inter- A key motivation for waveriding is the sports such as surfing are considered act with nature, and waveriders highly “escape” factor, with 86 percent of our by many adherents to be a “life- value spending time amongst and respondents listing it as a key reason style” as much as a sport or hobby. interacting with nature—including for recreating. This has also been iden- It is an individualistic endeavor; it is wildlife—as part of their experience tified in other studies (Lazarow 2007) less social than the other recreation and motivation (in fact, this was true as a central motivation of surfing. groups examined in this study. Only of all the groups we studied). Hill and Other motivations mentioned specifi- 40 percent of waveriders we surveyed were strongly motivated to recreate to spend time with friends; 15 percent with family—second-lowest among all groups and below the total means. Clearly, part of its appeal is that it is a less socially oriented sport, free from the constraints and regulations of more traditional, organized sports, and an endeavor done for oneself (Hill and Abbott 2009).

Indeed, this form of recreation seemed to be a frequent part of the lifestyle for waveriders. Of our respondents, 47 percent of waveriders indicated that they recreate at least once a week, Figure 2.—“Other” write-in motivations provided by NROU respondents (all groups). the highest frequency of recreation of

12 Oregon’s Non-Consumptive Recreational Ocean User Community Who are Oregon’s non-consumptive recreational ocean users?

kayak surfers and surfers, and such conflict was also noted by one kayak surfer responding to our survey.

Body surfers and boogie boarders com- monly use waves closer to shore than surfers and kayak surfers do, although some may venture farther offshore, especially with the help of fins. Boogie boarders were the second-most com- monly observed water-based activity (non-swimming) behind surfing in a 2005 study by the Oregon Department of Human Services. But these activities are commonly complementary rather Figure 3.—Frequency of ocean recreation by group. than the primary motivation for a visit to the beach (ODHS 2006). any group we surveyed (Figure 3). No pears to be the most common destina- surfing respondents reported recreat- tion for ocean-based windsurfing in WHERE ARE WAVERIDERS ing fewer than several times per year. Oregon. Our windsurfing respondents RECREATING? Several participants described surf- indicated that the south coast was a While the occurrence of ridable, ing as “a way of life.” Our results are common destination for ocean wind- breaking waves on Oregon’s coast is similar to earlier studies—Stone et al. surfers, and Shelby and Tokarczyk dependent on several factors, there are (2007) found that 44 percent of Oregon (2002) observed more windsurfers some reliable components to the recipe surfers they surveyed were recreating than any other type of ocean recre- (Table 3). Headlands are the most im- 5 to 10 or more days per month, with ation on the southern Oregon coast. portant features of Oregon’s coastline a mean of 77 days per year, and that Kiteboarding, a relatively new sport, for waveriding, particularly surf- most surfers recreated year-round. occurs in low numbers on Oregon’s ing. Waveriders value spots that are Further, other studies have found oceans when conditions favor, with protected from Oregon’s often harsh that surfing is the primary activity much of it instead occurring in the coastal winds, which have the ability to at Oregon’s beaches from autumn Columbia River Gorge and in freshwa- degrade the surf. During the summer, through spring (Benedict et al. 2004) ter. When using the ocean, kitesurfers and is the most common ocean-based and windsurfers value many of the (non-swimming) recreation at Oregon same characteristics as surfers—in- beaches (Shelby and Tokarczyk 2002, cluding parking and easy access, and Place characteristics favorable Matsler 2009). features that offer some protection to Oregon waveriding from wind-induced chop—such as Out there too, in smaller numbers, are • Protective, wave-focusing jetties. windsurfers, kite-boarders, kayak surf- structure (headland, jetty) ers, body boarders, and body surfers. Surfing waves on a kayak may be done • Sandbar or rocky substrate Oregon was estimated to have about as a primary pursuit or may accom- facilitating breaking wave 24,000 windsurfers in 2003, although pany other forms of kayaking. Some • Offshore-flowing rip currents not all of these are ocean windsurfers. kayakers include playing in the surf • Parking Most windsurfers appear to be using zone as but one component of their the Columbia River Gorge and various planned recreation. Kayak surfers may • Visual access to check conditions freshwater bodies, and windsurfing as use some of the same areas as surfers, • Low crowds a whole is in decline in Oregon—down and are thus likely to value some of the nearly 14 percent from 1987 to 2002 same characteristics of a spot, al- (OPRD 2003). The south coast ap- though we observed conflicts between Table 3. Waveriding place characteristics.

Oregon’s Non-Consumptive Recreational Ocean User Community 13 Who are Oregon’s non-consumptive recreational ocean users?

spots located on the southern side of to break waves or offering rocky sub- occasionally (several times a year to headlands and jetties (also important) strate that produces a consistent break. once a month). Waveriders are most offer protection from northern winds, For example, one study found that at frequently using the Internet to receive while the opposite is true in some least nine Oregon surf breaks im- information, with 88 percent using locations when winds originate from proved following the installation of jet- Web sites more than once a month to southerly directions in fall and winter. ties, which facilitated nearby sandbar seek information such as ocean and formation (Corne 2009). Headlands weather conditions. The use of NOAA Headlands and jetties also offer con- and jetties are also frequently the buoys and Web sites linked to NOAA structive influence over local ocean- guiding walls of offshore-flowing rip buoy data is specifically common ography, helping in the deposition of currents, which serve as conveyor belts and comes with relatively high levels sand that creates the sandbars needed to transport waveriders beyond the of trust. The use of Web cams is also breakers to favorable wave-catching fairly common. Waveriders are skilled Areas with important positions. at reading and understanding oceano- waveriding spots graphic parameters relevant to their Swell direction, wind speed and direc- recreation, and they can plan their • Seaside tion, beach orientation, and tides are recreation with confidence. • Ecola State Park just a few of the other factors influenc- ing whether a location will be favor- Additional factors influence waverid- • Cannon Beach able to waveriders, and as a group, they ers’ decisions on when and where to • Arcadia Beach have become adept at predicting such recreate. Proximity to home or work is • Manzanita occurrences. the biggest driver in deciding where to recreate, followed by conditions, which • Oswald West State Park Visual observations and reports from are subject to personal preferences • Cape Lookout personal social networks (friends and and skill level. Familiarity, accessibil- family) are the most trusted sources of • Pacific City ity, and aesthetics are also important. information—particularly for insight • Neskowin Parking is important for accessibil- on conditions—and are often used in ity, as 96 percent of waveriders take a • Lincoln City concert with other tools. Our waverider personal vehicle to their recreation site • Gleneden Beach/ respondents reported high frequency and many waveriders rely on first-hand Boiler Bay of use (73 percent more than once a observation of conditions prior to month) and trust in visual observation, • Otter Rock recreating. One surfer we spoke with often personally visiting favored loca- • Newport stated that vehicle access at beaches tions to check conditions, as also found near protective headlands made for the • Yachats in a Winchester Bay study by Matsler most-important spots. In some places, • Winchester Bay (2009). We also found that moderate to parking is limited or subject to compe- high trust is placed in obtaining infor- • Oregon Dunes NRA tition by other ocean and coastal users. mation from friends and family such as • Coos Bay A north coast surfer complained about reports on conditions, and 46 percent competing with tourists and boaters • Bandon report using their network of friends for parking and not being afforded the • Seven Devils or family more than once a month. same access rights as other users, such Waveriders appear to rely regularly on • Bullard’s Beach as dory boaters. Parking and access their network to receive updates on • Port Orford issues have persisted at Newport’s conditions, with several mentions of Agate Beach wayside. Overall, how- • Gold Beach text-message updates (one interviewee ever, Oregon’s coastal public access • Pistol River received a wave report via text message policies and network of state parks are during our interview). • Brookings advantageous to ocean users and not Other sources of information for wave necessarily enjoyed by recreationalists Table 4. Important waveriding spots, riders include activity-related organi- in other states. north to south. zations, which waveriders report using

14 Oregon’s Non-Consumptive Recreational Ocean User Community Who are Oregon’s non-consumptive recreational ocean users?

Distance from home or work was they enjoyed visiting these regions of surf, windsurf, of kayak surf (Figure 4). identified as the top reason for not the coast for lack of crowds as well as While waverider respondents reported using an area, followed by conditions, conditions, and several waveriders the lowest average distance traveled unfamiliarity, and crowds. Surfers are from the northern half of the coast- to recreate, 35 percent were traveling specifically affected by crowding, and line reported their intentions to retire more than 150 miles per round trip, are motivated to seek out uncrowded to locations on the southern half of and 53 percent came from a noncoastal locations. Table 4 lists areas in Oregon Oregon’s coastline. community. An equal percentage (35 percent) reported short travel dura- tions, with 25 or fewer round-trip Headlands and jetties are the most important features miles to get to their favored location of Oregon’s coastline for waveriding, particularly surfing. and 39 percent living in the coastal community closest to their favored spot. Spots important for bodysurfing coin- with important waveriding spots. cide with beaches popular for swim- Most waveriding respondents (64 Surfers are territorial, and in some ming: Short Sands, Cape Kiwanda, percent) are making day trips; those Oregon locations, such as Cannon Cannon Beach, Seaside, Manzanita, visiting from outside a coastal com- Beach and Seaside, aggressive behavior and South Beach top the list (ODHS munity reported staying for a few by local surfers toward visiting surfers 2005), and on more than one occasion hours (38 percent for 1 to 3 hours, 34 and other ocean recreational users has we observed body surfing at Agate percent 4 to 6 hours), with an average been observed. An Internet wave cam- Beach as well. These waveriders are stay of 4.9 hours, the lowest of our four era has even reportedly been vandal- using beaches with protection from recreation groups (Figure 5). Nearly a ized in Seaside, with territorial surfers the roughest surf and winds, and coves quarter are staying more than a day, suspected by some. This behavior is in particular are favorable. and those staying overnight average due to the recognition that quality surf just over 2 days per stay, the second spots are a limited resource, and the WAVERIDERS SUPPORT AND ARE lowest of our four groups. Windsurfers addition of another waverider to a spot PART OF COASTAL COMMUNITIES appear more driven by conditions than takes opportunity from others using other waveriders (and less deterred by the spot. Waves are what economists With an average roundtrip distance distance), and we found that they are consider a rival good, and conflict of 109 miles traveled (from home or therefore averaging more miles trav- over this resource, especially among office) to recreate on the ocean, many eled per trip and slightly longer stays surfers, is well documented (Rider of our waveriding respondents were than other waveriders. 1998, Daskalos 2007). Our survey no stranger to traveling a distance to respondents most frequently reported crowding as a reason waveriders were not using areas in the north and north- central parts of the Oregon coast. Others have documented this region of Oregon’s coast as the one receiving the most ocean and coastal recreation (Shelby and Tokarczyk 2002).

The south-central and south coasts are renowned for comparably empty waves, and our survey respondents noted visiting as part of road trips as a common reason for using these re- gions of Oregon’s coast. All interview Figure 4.—Mean round-trip distances (in miles) traveled for ocean recreation by respondents from non-south-central group. Respondents were asked to estimate the distance typically driven to pursue and south-coast regions stated that their preferred NROU activity.

Oregon’s Non-Consumptive Recreational Ocean User Community 15 Who are Oregon’s non-consumptive recreational ocean users?

Waveriders spent the least on lodging, multiple boards, and regular surfers facilitate their surfing lifestyle, and gas, and restaurant/bar, but the most may replace some gear (gloves, booties) part of that was living at the coast. on shopping and gear, when spend- annually. Drysuits, often used by kayak Others began surfing because they ing on these items (Table 5). With surfers, may cost from $600 to $2,000, lived at the coast. Waveriders are a new surfboards priced at roughly and kayaks may cost several hundred group connected to Oregon’s ocean $500–1000 or more, wetsuits roughly to over $3,000 (REI 2010, West Marine place, and many consider themselves $150–600 (Oregon Surf Shop, Ocean 2010). as stewards of the ocean and coastal Pulse Surf Shop, Seaside Surf Shop), environments. Surfrider Foundation, Many waveriders live close to where and outlets for gear readily avail- an organization established by surfers they recreate, in Oregon’s coastal able on the Oregon coast, surfers are which counts surfers as a large part of communities. Several surfers we spoke spending considerable sums on gear. its membership, is active in providing to described shaping their lives to Many of the surfers we spoke with own environmental contributions to the Oregon coast. This organization runs the Blue Water Task Force, a program that monitors water quality at numer- ous beaches on the Oregon coastline, benefitting all NROU as well as the over one-million Oregonians who visit the state’s beaches annually (OPRD 2003). Surfrider Foundation and other organizations also help to coordinate beach and river and highway cleanups and work on environmental advocacy issues. We observed surfers partici- pating in the state’s marine reserve community team meetings. Surfers also participate in the organization of community events such as surf contests and benefits, including, for ex- ample, their recent support of a cancer survivor struggling with medical bills Figure 5.—Average length of recreation-related stay indicated by respondents. Large and a fund to build a skate park for the pie graph indicates percentages staying overnight when recreating on the ocean vs. children of Pacific City. those making day trips. Inner pie graph indicates length of day trips indicated by Lazarow et al. (2009) describe surfing’s respondents. role in communities:

“It is clear that surfing’s influence Average spending by recreation group per round-trip extends beyond recreation and tourism + + User group Gas Bar/restaurant Gear Shopping Lodging** and it can bring a “social fabric” that Waveriders $32 $23 $72 $42 $81 helps define communities and people. Surfing as an activity and as a culture Divers $41 $38 $35 $36 $145 in particular link generations, bring Boaters $33 $42 $90 $43 $146 people together, provide an avenue Boat-based $38 $51 —- $40 $143 for outdoor-based physical activity, be nature-viewers good for business, and can help build towns communities.” Table 5. Average expenditures by group. +When spending on indicated item. **Per multi-day trip, when spending on lodging.

16 Oregon’s Non-Consumptive Recreational Ocean User Community Who are Oregon’s non-consumptive recreational ocean users?

It is evident from our study that this regional, national, and international), In addition to being a unique nature is true of surfing and Oregon’s coastal and 20 percent of diver respondents to experience, diving contains a social communities. the survey specifically wrote in “travel” element. Divers reported valuing their as a motivator to dive. Many divers ven- recreation as a chance to spend time Divers ture to destinations, such as those with with friends and family more highly warm, clear waters and reefs; wrecks; than any other group. Preparing for a Our study looked at both professional walls; or some other feature that attracts dive with dive partners and recounting and recreational divers, and respon- a diversity of marine life. Many more an underwater adventure afterward dents were largely recreational scuba travel regionally, diving in the Puget (“après dive”) are important parts divers, but this group also includes free Sound and Hood Canal in Washington of the dive experience. Group trips divers and snorkelers. as well as the California coastline and are not uncommon with divers, as British Columbia. Oregon shops and clubs organize local, Like waveriding, diving in Oregon is regional, and international trips. The not for the faint of heart. Cold, rough, Still, diving is popular in Oregon, and social element is also a safety precau- and frequently turbid waters make doing so in cold water comes with a tion: most divers recognize the danger Oregon diving far from the Caribbean pride element. in their recreation (there were at least reef experience. Oregon divers are 12 dive-related fatalities in Oregon wa- instead accustomed to wearing thick We had no difficulty accessing div- ters between 1990 and 2006, at least 92 wetsuits or drysuits and heavy weight ers for our study. Of our respondents, reported decompression illness treat- belts. They are used to waiting for 56 percent dive at least once a month, ments between 1990 and 2003, and narrow windows when the ocean is while 31 percent dive several times an- many more injuries) and avoid going calm and tides are right, and for dry nually (Figure 3). Divers are recreating alone (Divers Alert Network [DAN] spells that make for clearer bay waters. for some of the same reasons that wa- 2008). In a question asking why divers Conditions can change season-to- veriders are, particularly to spend time enjoyed diving with family members, season and hour-to-hour, and diving with nature and view wildlife (73 per- the most popular write-in response in general requires planning. cent of respondents; Figure 1). Diving undoubtedly requires a certain level of related to safety reasons. Diving with Indeed, Oregon divers are tough, fitness, and many divers are strongly a partner involves trusting that person but they are out there in abundance. motivated by the physical challenge of in a potentially dangerous environ- The Professional Association of Dive diving (40 percent of respondents), but ment, and divers develop special Instructors (PADI), the world’s largest as a group they are less driven by the relationships with their “dive partners” recreational dive training organization physical challenge than waveriders are. or “dive buddies.” As a group, they (and the only organization certifying divers in Oregon), has certified nearly 9,000 entry-level divers from Oregon since 2006 (PADI pers. comm.). The state supports at least 34 dive shops and dive travel outlets (Oregon Business Registry Database 2010), most of which are located on the coast or in the Willamette Valley, as well as several dive clubs. The state had about 40,000 divers and snorkelers in 2001, and this number has grown considerably (OPRD 2003). Of course, this com- munity is not always diving in Oregon. Diving contains a travel element: all interviewees mentioned travel as a major component of diving (including Divers typically undergo training and recreate with a partner.

Oregon’s Non-Consumptive Recreational Ocean User Community 17 Who are Oregon’s non-consumptive recreational ocean users? are highly trained, with 82 percent of challenge—relating to the exploration overlap with slack tide to avoid battling our respondents having taken formal of a drastically different environment a current for the entire dive. They must lessons, and serious divers take pride than the one humans inhabit—and also beware of boaters, with whom oc- in continuing dive education. Training the challenge of familiarizing one- casional conflict occurs. organizations offer specialties from selfwith the wild denizens of the dive Oregon also has some respected dive altitude diving to deep-water diving, area. Many divers become skilled in spots farther from shore. These include and indeed, Oregon diving takes place the identification of marine flora and nearshore rocky areas, such as those in freshwater, too. fauna. marked by Whale Head Rock off of The necessity of certification and WHERE IS DIVING OCCURRING? Brookings, and Seal Rock south of education helps to link divers with dive Newport. Headlands such as Cape shops and dive-related organizations. In general, diving focuses on a specific Lookout also offer good diving, with In our study, divers were the most attraction, such as a rock wall, reef, protection depending on prevailing likely group to use gear suppliers (49 wreck, or biological community ocean conditions. Diving near shore, percent at least once a month) and the (Bowers et al. 2010), and it is heavily where dive sites can be accessed by second-most likely to use activity-re- reliant on natural areas (Davis and swimming from the beach, offer dif- lated organizations (48 percent at least Tisdell 1996). Favored Oregon dive ferent challenges. These sites are often once a month) as sources of informa- sites (Table 6) are frequently influ- difficult to get to, requiring a walk tion. In general, divers are a fairly enced by the quality of the marine- with (or while wearing) heavy gear. well-organized community, centered life viewing opportunities they offer. Waves and rocky shores offer hazards, around shops and organizations as Additional considerations are required and divers must be wary of changing well as clubs and online communities. for diving in Oregon, and much diving conditions. Wind, waves, and summer This contributes to the social aspects here occurs in areas protected from the plankton blooms can make visibility of diving revealed by our participants. raging surf and currents. Bays, river poor. As a group, high trust in information mouths, and jetties are particularly Farther from shore, rocky reefs such provided by friends and family was popular. Bay and jetty sites are typi- as the Pinnacles off Newport and Gull reported, and 79 percent use their cally more accessible, with parking, Rock off Depoe Bay offer abundant social networks for information—such facilities, and easier entry points that wildlife, kelp forests, and impres- as condition reports—at least once don’t require a boat. In addition to sive structures. These require boats monthly. As with waveriders, the high- calmer waters, jetties offer structure to access as well as the availability est trust was associated with visual for wildlife habitat. In these locations, of a harbor from which to launch or observation, which 73 percent of divers however, tides can be a concern, and charter-boat operators to facilitate use more than once monthly—the divers typically time their dives to a dive offshore. Such dives are also most frequent means of obtaining in- highly dependent on ocean conditions, formation relevant to their recreation. with calm days infrequent on the This may include in-person condition Place characteristics favorable to Oregon coast. checks or use of online sources, such diving as NOAA buoy data and tide tables. As • Protective structure (headland, Proximity (to home or work) weighs with waveriders, divers have a keen un- jetty, bay) in as the most important factor in the derstanding of the ocean environment, • Underwater structure (reef, dock) preference of certain Oregon loca- motivated by the necessity of planning tions over others. Respondents listed their recreation. • Biological communities proximity as the chief reason for • Access (parking, proximity, trail) choosing an area of the Oregon coast, Divers also highly value their rec- and distance as the biggest deterrent. reation: 83 percent of respondents • Facilities (bathroom, benches, lad- der, boat launch, crossable bar, etc.) Conditions (including marine life) are indicated that it was “important” (with the next-most important incentive for 58 percent rating it as “very impor- • Low crowds using an area, and accessibility/avail- tant”). Other reasons described as ability of facilities is also important. motivations to dive included mental Table 6. Diving place characteristics.

18 Oregon’s Non-Consumptive Recreational Ocean User Community Who are Oregon’s non-consumptive recreational ocean users?

offering favorable features, too (Table volunteer divers have been recruited Important diving areas 7). A common motivation for divers to maintain oceanographic equipment from the north and north-central coast and boats. • Barview County Park to use the south and south-central Much of diving in Oregon is actually • Nehalem Bay State Park Oregon coast was the appeal of a road- consumptive. Divers are very often trip destination. Seventy-six percent • Tillamook Bay docks motivated by the harvest of Dungeness of diving respondents indicated that • Cape Lookout and red rock crab and other shellfish, they travel from noncoastal communi- as well as numerous fish species, with • Cape Kiwanda ties; the average round-trip distance to spear-guns and slings. Indeed, many • Siletz Bay recreate was 149 miles (Figure 4), the of the diving sites considered some of second-highest of the groups surveyed. • Yaquina Bay docks Oregon’s best overlap with produc- The largest segment (48 percent) of • Newport jetties tive habitat for crab and clams. Part divers travels between 101 and 150 of the social element of the après-dive • Newport Pinnacles miles round-trip, and the presence of described by interviewees included • Alsea Bay dive shops in Willamette Valley cities preparing and cooking the day’s catch. further demonstrates that many divers • Florence jetties In Oregon, where visibility often can likely travel from inland communi- • Winchester Bay jetties be quite poor and divers sometimes ties. Divers were the most likely of our can’t recreate to simply enjoy the view, • Oregon Dunes groups to stay overnight (43 percent) it should be no surprise that consump- National Recreation Area for their recreation, but they also tive diving, where one needs only to • Orford Reef indicated the shortest average length see far enough to scoop up a crab or of multiple-day stays of all groups (1.85 • Port Orford/Redfish Rocks spear a fish, is popular. days; Figure 5). Day trips averaged • Whale’s Head Rock, Brookings 6.8 hours, and divers represented the second-longest day trips of all groups. Boaters and kayakers Table 7. Important diving areas. Divers spend the most on gas ($41) per Boating in Oregon involves a diversity Other commonly mentioned reasons trip and the second most on lodging of forms. Our survey reached sea kay- for not using certain areas included per trip when staying overnight ($145; akers, estuarine (bay) kayakers, power lack of facilities and unfamiliarity. Table 2). This group spent the least boaters, sailors, and rowers. Kayakers Most divers (95 percent) are using a on shopping and gear, which involves in general made up a large percentage personal vehicle to get to their rec- more of an initial investment than an (56 percent) of this group and were our reation location and thus require ongoing one, but much of which is third-largest respondent group overall parking facilities. Parking in proximity expensive. Air fills, gear rental, take (13 percent of total; n=31 out of 231; to a dive entry is important and is an permits, parking fees, and access fees Table 1). influence for those diving from shore, are some of the recurring expenses Oregon has more than 1,000 square as it minimizes the distance gear must incurred by diving recreation. miles of ocean, in addition to its bays be lugged and allows for visual check In addition to economic contributions, and estuaries and access to federal of conditions. Matsler (2009) similarly divers are active in coastal communi- waters beyond 3 miles offshore. found that proximity of parking to a ties. Dive shops typically offer classes, Boaters have access to more of this dive spot was important to divers. Our and the Oregon Coast Aquarium, area than any other non-consumptive participants also mentioned appreciat- a staple for tourists and locals alike recreational group. But while power ing diving access improvements, such in the Newport area, is dependent boaters and sailors are able to venture as ladders and steps, as well as bath- on volunteer divers to maintain its farther offshore, kayakers are more rooms and tables—features typically display tanks. Divers also occasionally likely to stay closer to shore and in found at state parks. contribute to research, as the Oregon bays and estuaries. Among the variety Although divers say proximity is im- Department of Fish and Wildlife of boating forms we explored is a cor- portant, they will travel to destinations does not have its own program, and responding variety of values, needs,

Oregon’s Non-Consumptive Recreational Ocean User Community 19 Who are Oregon’s non-consumptive recreational ocean users?

percent of Oregon’s recreational boat- In addition to the challenging ocean ing is done in lakes, reservoirs, and conditions, Oregon’s recreational rivers; 6 percent in bays; and only 4 ocean boaters also must contend with percent in the Pacific Ocean (exclud- regulations, permits, access limita- ing nonmotorized boats under 12 feet, tions, and crowds. Parking is impor- such as kayaks and small sailboats). tant, as 85 percent of our surveyed boaters use a personal vehicle to travel Further, boating is frequently done to their place of recreation. Power to facilitate other activities, including boaters require extra parking space for wildlife-viewing and diving, creat- trailers at launch sites (kayakers and ing overlap among our target groups. sailors may use trailers, too). Parking A large number of the boaters we was identified as an issue in some approached did so to facilitate fishing places, and most complaints among and crabbing. OSMB (2002) estimated sailors and power boaters with public that 92 percent of recreational ocean- facilities were aimed at launch lines, boating days and 94 percent of bay- launch fees, and a lack of facilities in boating days are fishing/crabbing trips. general. Kayakers were less limited by Boaters rely on a safe bar crossing—no Consumptive recreational activities are facilities but still rely on parking and guarantee in coastal Oregon—to access highly popular among Oregon coastal put-ins. the ocean. boaters, yet not within the main scope of the interests of this study. Boating is also expensive. Our boat- and perspectives. Oregon’s oceangoing They are worth mentioning, however; ing respondents indicated that when non-consumptive boaters were our besides representing a large percent- spending on gear, they spent 60 most diverse group and also our most age of Oregon’s ocean recreationalists, percent more on average than the difficult to reach. there is evidence that they also value next-highest-spending group (wa- non-consumptive aspects of their veriders). In addition to fueling their The rough nature of Oregon’s ocean primary, more-consumptive recre- automobiles, power boaters must fuel presents difficulties to boating. The ation. A national study on recreational their boats. Other expenses include state is notorious for its hazardous fishing and boating estimates that insurance, launch fees, registration, bar crossings where bays enter the 43 percent of all boating and fishing maintenance, repairs, and the boats sea (Tillotson and Komar 1997); the participants also enjoy nature obser- and kayaks themselves (Table 2). Columbia is reputed to be the second- vation while boating and fishing. The Boaters also outspent other groups most treacherous in the world, and same study suggests that an additional Tillamook has a similar reputation 8 percent also enjoy snorkeling and that a deadly capsizing in 2003 didn’t scuba diving while boating and fishing Place characteristics favorable to help (although conditions have since (Recreational Boating and Fishing boating improved). The Oregon State Marine Foundation and Outdoor Foundation • Launch & mooring facilities (put-in, Board provides cautionary chartlettes 2009). Our findings confirm that tie up, ramp, parking) to aid specifically in crossing the such crossover is occurring among • Crossable bar Yaquina and Rogue River bars in ad- Oregon’s ocean recreationalists and dition to the Columbia and Tillamook that non-consumptive activities can be • Open space bars. Over 900 shipwrecks have important enhancers to consumptive • Protective structure (headlands and occurred off Oregon’s coast (N. Reed activities, and vice-versa. All power jetties) pers. comm.). boaters we approached were boating • Biological communities & aesthetics Due to such hazards, most recreational primarily to fish or crab, and all boat- • Facilities (bathroom, benches, lad- boating in Oregon is done in calmer ers indicated that experiencing nature der, boat launch, crossable bar, etc.) waters. An Oregon State Marine Board and viewing wildlife wereimportant (OSMB) survey (2002) found that 90 parts of their experience. Table 8. Place characteristics for boating.

20 Oregon’s Non-Consumptive Recreational Ocean User Community Who are Oregon’s non-consumptive recreational ocean users? on lodging (10 percent more than favorable; boaters are more inclined to under 12 feet (such as small sailboats), the next-highest), “other” items (46 remain in bays and estuaries during which do not need to be registered. percent more than the next-highest), winter months. Use of small sailboats does occur in and spent the second most on shop- freshwater and occasionally in saltwa- While similarities exist with our boat- ping and when visiting a restaurant ter, but is less likely in the ocean and in ing subgroups, kayakers, power-boat- or bar than other groups we surveyed. bays due to the decreased stability of ers, and sailors differ in many aspects They were also the most likely to be these small vessels in choppier waters. of their recreation as well. either employed full-time or retired (82 Sailing also appears to have decreased percent) and the second-most likely to have at least a college degree (82 per- cent). The Oregon State Marine Board suggests that boating is more popular with mature adults—the average age of boat owners in Oregon in 2002 was 54 (OSMB 2002). The average age of boat- ers taking our survey was just over 55.

Like other ocean recreation types, boaters become adept at reading ocean conditions. All types of boating respondents to our survey reported using visual observations frequently (44 percent more than once a month), with power boaters and sailors more likely to do so than kayakers. Power boaters and sailors were also more driven by proximity and more deterred Sailing commonly takes advantage of protected baywaters. by distance when choosing a recre- ation location than were kayakers. All SAILORS in popularity drastically overall in groups relied on Internet sources for Oregon, with registrations having de- information, including NOAA buoy Sailing is popular in Oregon, with at clined by 83 percent from 1990 to 2002. data, weather reports, and tide tables. least 48 yacht clubs and sailing associa- This represented the largest decline This group was also most likely to use tions statewide; a 2003 study by OPRD amidst an overall 25 percent decline in and trust activity-related organiza- estimated 21,000 Oregon sailors in boating registrations during this time tions, such as kayaking clubs and yacht 2001–02. The vast majority of these, (OSMB2002). Another study found clubs, as sources of information (56 however, are located in, or associ- a similarly drastic decline in sailing percent at least once a month) and ated with sailing freshwater, such as popularity (59 percent in user occa- the most likely to use newspapers and lakes, rivers, and reservoirs (Oregon sions) from 1987 to 2000 (OPRD 2003). media (38 percent occasionally). Business Registry Database 2010)—the Columbia River and Willamette River Nonetheless, there is no shortage of Boaters are typically recreating on the systems are particularly popular. And wind on Oregon’s ocean and bays. coast for four- to six-hour day trips while sailing also occurs in bays and Based on data from studies by OPRD (Figure 5). Multi-day trips are typi- the adjoining ocean, sailing represents (2003) and OSMB (2002), we estimate cally two to three days, with one-night only 8–14 percent of Oregon’s ocean that there are 800 ocean sailors in stays more common. Boaters were the boating by days and only 2 percent Oregon and about 1,300 bay sailors. second-most likely to stay overnight of Oregon’s total bay-boating activi- And Oregon’s active sailors appear of all groups, behind divers. Most ties (OSMB 2002, OPRD 2003). These to be a close group. Well-organized, ocean boating occurs from June to numbers exclude unmotorized boats sailing enthusiasts have established September, when conditions are most

Oregon’s Non-Consumptive Recreational Ocean User Community 21 Who are Oregon’s non-consumptive recreational ocean users?

yacht clubs in several coastal locations. distance of 70 miles, sailors had the KAYAKERS Our survey respondents cite “spend- shortest commute to recreate. Many are With the flexibility to launch from the ing time with family and friends” as members of coastal communities, and roof of a car and off the beach or the important parts of their recreation—a some have the option of staying on their trail, kayakers are not limited by the theme common to all boaters—and boat as well; this group was second- same facility needs as other boaters. over a quarter of them were taught to lowest in lodging expenditure per trip While still depending on put-ins, sail by a friend. Yacht clubs and sail- when staying overnight (Table 2). parking, and permitting consider- ing associations contribute to coastal Sailors responding to our survey ations, kayakers have freer access communities by organizing and ranged widely in their frequency of to the ocean and estuarine waters. participating in events such as Blessing recreation, with answers distributed Exploration, in fact, was a common of the Fleet ceremonies, boat shows, fairly evenly (ranging from several motivational theme among kayak- seafood festivals, and a few regat- times weekly to several times annu- ers. Kayakers appear to more com- tas, although most races and regattas ally). The highest percentage of sailors monly use estuaries and bays than the occur in freshwater. They also offer responding to our survey indicated ocean (especially during non-summer boating education courses, operate recreating several times per month (30 months), although Oregon’s nearshore boat-rental services, organize high- percent), with the second-highest (23 ocean has many spots worthy of ex- school sailing programs, and organize percent) indicating that they were sail- ploring by paddle; some kayakers also charity fundraisers. The Yaquina Bay ing several times weekly. Most Oregon enter the surf zone to waveride. Trips Yacht Club and the Astoria Yacht Club recreational boating, including sailing, along the Oregon coast that involve appear to be the two Oregon organi- occurs late spring–early fall, peaking exploration of bays, sloughs, and the zations most active in bay and ocean in August, when conditions are best ocean together are not uncommon. waters; they are also active within their (OSMB 2002). This appears to be true Due to this freedom, kayaker respon- local communities, hosting regattas, of coastal sailors as well, and those dents indicated a higher willingness a Yaquina-Astoria ocean race, and responding that they recreated fre- to travel than other boaters, indicating other events. The Yaquina Bay Yacht quently probably do so in peak season, that they were less likely to be influ- Club even includes among its mis- while sailing less from late fall to early enced by proximity and more likely sions the promotion of civic benefits to spring, or remaining in bays if they do. to be influenced by conditions and area communities. The Astoria Yacht aesthetics than other boaters. They are Club reports a membership of 131 Most sailors participating in this study also more likely to travel from their (Astoria Yacht Club pers. comm.), and rated recreation as a big part of their nearest coastal community to visit a the Port of Astoria reports that about lives. The majority (59 percent) rated distant coastal community to recreate. 13 percent of the slips in their port sailing as very important, with an ad- Kayakers spend the second highest (73 sailboats in 565 occupied slips) ditional 32 percent stating that sailing are occupied by sailboats (G. Nielson was an important part of their lives. As pers. comm.). The Yaquina Bay Yacht with other groups surveyed, observing Important sea-kayaking areas Club boasts 90 members and has been wildlife and experiencing nature were • Cannon Beach a fixture in Newport since the 1940s major motivations to sailor recreation (Yaquina Bay Yacht Club pers. comm.). (77 percent strongly agreed). Sailors • Nehalem Bay also enjoy the tradition associated with Sailors are the second-likeliest group • Barview County Park their sport, and a majority (53 percent) to have taken lessons (behind divers), • Tillamook Bay also felt strongly that having done it for commonly offered by yacht clubs and a long time was a motivation. Mental • Netarts Bay sailing associations. Sailors report a and physical challenge and a sense of • Cape Kiwanda sense of community with their fel- improvement or achievement were also low boaters at the dock, especially if • Agate Beach commonly mentioned themes by inter- they lease a slip, and 58 percent of our • Oregon Dunes National viewees and survey participants, and, surveyed sailors came from the closest Recreation Area as with each of our groups, the “escape/ coastal community in which they were solitude” theme was also prominent. recreating. At a mean round-trip travel Table 9. Important sea-kayaking areas.

22 Oregon’s Non-Consumptive Recreational Ocean User Community Who are Oregon’s non-consumptive recreational ocean users?

POWER BOATERS

Power boats, including motor boats and personal water craft (PWC), such as jet skis, are useful for many types of recreation, including water-skiing, cruising, and fishing. Water-skiing and related sports do not occur in Oregon’s oceans at any level of significance (OPRD 2003), with rough conditions and cold water the likely impediments. Only about 2 percent of ocean boating Kayakers explore estuaries, coastlines, and the surf zone off Oregon’s coast. is via PWC such as jet skis, the users of which enjoy Oregon’s waves (OSMB of all recreation groups we surveyed A 2003 report (OPRD) estimates that 2002). Pacific City has played host to on lodging per multi-day trip ($163; Oregon is home to about 26,000 sea an international jet-ski competition, average multi-day trip 2.4 days), were kayakers, recreating a total of 100,000 including charity fundraising, at Tierra the most likely of boaters to spend user days. The same report estimates Del Mar since 2009. on lodging, and were the most likely that 43 percent of these are using the to mention camping as a recreation- ocean for their recreation, making for Only 1 percent of recreational ocean related expense (Table 2). Sea kayaking just over 11,000 sea kayakers using wa- boating and 3 percent of bay boating also has an expedition component, and ters off Oregon’s coast (OPRD 2003). in Oregon is done for cruising, which “touring” may last multiple days. Kayaking has surged in popularity in most frequently accompanies fishing recent decades both nationally and in (OSMB 2002) anyway. It is estimated Kayakers we surveyed are especially Oregon (James Kent Associates 2009), that about 11,000 Oregonians par- motivated to recreate to spend time and the number of sea kayakers in ticipated in pleasure (non-fishing, with nature (93 percent strongly Oregon has likely increased from this non-water-skiing) power boating in agreed) and wildlife observation was 2003 estimate. The same study found, the ocean off Oregon in 2002 (OSMB the most-common response to our as we did, that most sea kayaking 2003). Most power boating in Oregon’s “other” category. Treasured experiences occurs along the north/north-central described by some respondents (includ- coast, which is closer to major popula- ing paddling with orcas in Puget Sound tion centers. Respondents from these Popular Oregon bar-crossing and sea lions in Oregon) cement this regions indicated that the south/ locations love for sea kayaking. With nooks and south-central coast was important • Columbia River* crannies along its rocky coast, complete to them as trip destinations and that with arches and immense rocks—many • Nehalam they visited for conditions (including hosting seabird colonies and pinniped aesthetics), exploration, and lack of • Tillamook Bay* haul-outs—the Oregon coast is de- crowds. Another study suggests that • Depoe Bay* scribed by kayakers as a nature-lover’s as a percentage of population, how- paradise. Aesthetics were commonly • Yaquina Bay* ever, more Oregonians in south and mentioned as why certain areas were • Siuslaw River/Florence* south-central coast communities are chosen for recreation. sea kayakers (OPRD 2003). Some sea • Winchester Bay* Additional incentives for kayakers kayakers in Oregon belong to one of • Coos Bay* include enjoyment of solitude, and the many paddling clubs available that • Bandon physical exercise. Sea kayaking also has offer excursions, events, lessons, and • Brookings* an artistic side, and some participants community. mentioned constructing their own *Also has USCG station kayaks and having an appreciation for “traditional” kayaking cultures. Table 10. Bar crossing locations.

Oregon’s Non-Consumptive Recreational Ocean User Community 23 Who are Oregon’s non-consumptive recreational ocean users?

including dining, shopping, and facilities required by these users—such Place characteristics favorable to sightseeing, especially when traveling as restrooms, ramps, tie-ups, parking, power boating from a distance. Power boaters are also and pump-out facilities. This infra- • Protective structure (headland, using their boats to view scenery and structure, in addition to the jetties jetty, bay) wildlife, and there was overlap here required by boating in Oregon, is also used by other non-consumptive, • Crossable Bar with the boat-based wildlife-viewing group we looked at. recreational ocean users, including • Underwater structure divers, wildlife viewers, kayakers, and • Biological communities Power boaters are heavily influenced by waveriders. In this way, boaters are a proximity when choosing where to rec- • Access (parking, proximity, trail) sort of a “keystone species” for ocean reate; they usually rely on the closest of recreation off Oregon’s coast. • Facilities (bathroom, benches, Oregon’s 13 U.S. Coast Guard-regulated ladder, boat launch, etc.) bar crossings to access the ocean, Boat-based wildlife viewers • Low crowds although many use bays exclusively and there are several that are popular with Oregon has spectacular wildlife re- Table 11. Power boating place boaters, yet don’t offer reliable access sources, a fact not lost on Oregonians. characteristics. to the ocean. Most Oregon boaters Wildlife viewing is a popular and are using vessels under 16 feet long, fast-growing type of recreation in the ocean, bays, and estuaries involves but it appears that average boat size is U.S., and is popular in Oregon, where fishing or crabbing, and launch points growing, with inboard/outboard mo- 44 percent of the total state popula- can become extremely crowded on tors becoming more popular (OSMB tion engages in bird watching or other important fishing dates. Our survey 2002). Larger boats and more powerful wildlife viewing. Growing from an participants indicated that although engines are more favorable to ocean estimated 1.5 million to 1.7 million many boaters fish for fun, some feel boating, although no recent data on participants statewide between 1999 that catching fish represents a return ocean-boating trends could be found. (NSRE 2000) and 2008, wildlife view- on their boat investment. Our power- ing also grew 170 percent in user occa- Power boaters also pay for launch fees, boating participants reported feeling sions between 1987 and 2002 statewide permits, and other recreation costs that their power-boating recreation (OPRD 2003). that provide income for maintaining was sensitive to fishing conditions and regulations. We found that charter fishing is also an important tourist at- traction on the Oregon coast and thus, important for coastal economies in attracting visitors from Oregon as well as regionally. Some of the boat-based wildlife viewers we surveyed noted that they also go charter fishing when visiting the coast, and some companies specializing in charter fishing are also beginning to offer whale-watch tours.

Relaxation is an important incentive for boaters pursuing their form of recreation. One interviewee described an “island time” associated with their power boating on the ocean, where time seems to slow and stress is absent. Many boaters also seek a “whole pack- age” when recreating at the coast— Boat-based wildlife viewing, such as whale watching, makes economic and cultural contributions to coastal communities.

24 Oregon’s Non-Consumptive Recreational Ocean User Community Who are Oregon’s non-consumptive recreational ocean users?

were estimated at over $159 million (40 recreation, and recognize that this may percent of all such wildlife-viewing ex- include charter and personal power penditures statewide), which was more boat, sailboat, or kayak. than fishing and shellfishing-related The ocean is, to many, the last frontier. travel expenditures in the same regions Existing visible human impacts on the combined (Dean Runyan Associates sea are often less conspicuous than 2009). those on land, and the ocean repre- Clearly, wildlife viewers are making sents a wide-open expanse unmatched contributions to Oregon’s coastal com- on terra firma. To many, this expanse munities. These numbers represent is a chance to escape and a chance those viewing wildlife both on the to explore. Survey respondents from ocean and from shore, which is very this group described “just being out popular. Shelby and Tokarczyk (2002) there” as a motivation, and aesthetics found that wildlife (67 percent) and were important to this group’s experi- tidepools (65 percent) were the most- ence overall, an opportunity to spend common subjects Oregon beachgoers time in a vastly different environment were most interested in learning about and to be charmed by its inhabitants. on their visits, and our study heard Whether watching swarming seabirds Charter boats offer tourists and locals from several people wishing to partici- from a surfboard, photographing sea alike access to wildlife viewing off pate as shore-based wildlife viewers. lions from a boat, or inspecting seast- Oregon’s coast. However, our studywas primarily ars from a kayak, wildlife viewing adds learning about those participating in value to many types of recreation. Up The Oregon coast, in particular, is boat-based wildlife viewing, whether to 44 percent of wildlife viewing may a destination for wildlife watchers, via charter or private boat (including indeed be incidental (Dean Runyan many of whom come to the coast to power boat, sailboat, and kayak). Associates 2009). Many do visit the see marine mammals and birds as well ocean specifically to see wildlife, and as fishing boats. On the Oregon coast, WHO ARE THE BOAT-BASED charter companies exist because of this consumptive recreation such as fishing WILDLIFE VIEWERS? market. and crabbing is extremely popular and lucrative. But perhaps overshadowed by We found that wildlife viewing is an Some view nature from their own boat; such forms of consumptive wildlife-re- important part of each of the modes others rely on charters to access this lated recreation are the millions of trips of ocean recreation we looked at. non-consumptive resource—especially annually that involve non-consumptive Wildlife viewing and the enjoyment to view those species that are diffi- wildlife viewing in Oregon’s coastal of nature were consistently listed by cult or impossible to see from shore. travel regions. One study estimated waveriders, divers, and boaters alike Regardless, all of our respondents view 2.3 million trips to Oregon’s coast by as major motivations and components their recreation as an important part wildlife-viewing-related tourism in to their favored types of recreation. As of their lives (59 percent feel it is very 2008 (Dean Runyan Associates 2009). a result of this overlap, we found that important, while 94 percent feel it is at The study estimated that local recre- accurately defining boat-based wildlife least important). Those using charter ation-related expenditures by this group viewers includes those on power boats, services to view wildlife were more in 2008 (which included shore-based sailboats, charter boats, and kayaks as likely (67 percent) to rank their recre- wildlife viewers) totaled $11.1 million well as those on the water primarily ation as very important; those viewing (33 percent of total local wildlife-view- to view wildlife and those for whom from their own boat (43 percent) were ing-related expenditures for Oregon) wildlife viewing was complementary less likely to rank it as very important, in Oregon’s coastal travel regions in to another boat-based pursuit. Here, likely because many viewing wildlife 2008. Travel-related expenditures by we present what we learned from those from their own boat are doing so as a this group (those traveling 50+ miles who identified boat-based wildlife compliment to their primary boat- one-way) for the same regions in 2008 viewing as their primary type of ocean based pursuit (fishing, cruising, etc.).

Oregon’s Non-Consumptive Recreational Ocean User Community 25 Who are Oregon’s non-consumptive recreational ocean users?

Boat-based wildlife viewers are prac- Forty-eight percent indicated traveling ticing this form of recreation once a over 150 miles to do so, with another year (36 percent) to several times per 19 percent traveling between 101 and year (55 percent)—less frequently than 150 miles round-trip. This was mostly the other groups we researched (Figure driven by those using charter boats to 3). Charter-based wildlife viewers are view wildlife (173 miles on average); often limited by availability of char- distance traveled by those using their ters as well as cost, and they recreate own boat was much lower (98 miles on less frequently than those who have average). their own boat. As a group, they are Wildlife off Oregon’s coast attracts pursuing their recreation for fun and visitors from all over, and the Oregon as a chance to spend time with nature, coast is also a destination for out-of- particularly to interact with wildlife. state wildlife watchers (Southwick They are less social in their recreation Associates, Inc. 2007). A north-coast than other groups we looked at, and whale-watch company we interviewed are more likely to recreate with friends stated that customers were mainly than family—although this may be coming from Oregon and other western truer of birders than charter whale- states, but with a fair number from far- watch patrons. Only 18 percent of ther away—even overseas. One charter survey respondents indicated learn- guide interviewed for our study stated ing wildlife viewing from a parent; 27 that one-third of his customers are percent taught themselves. The waters off Oregon’s coast are home newcomers, with another third being Theirs is a personal pursuit, and the to abundant wildlife, such as Steller’s out-of-state visitors to Oregon, and the “escape” theme was prevalent in sur- and California sea lions, as seen from a final third being regulars. whale-watch charter off Newport. vey and interview responses. Another major motivation for boat-based WHERE ARE BOAT-BASED were not as evident with boat-based wildlife viewers’ recreation is the sense WILDLIFE VIEWERS RECREATING? wildlife viewers. of achievement and self-improvement Proximity was a major driver of use of gained in practicing their identifica- Most wildlife viewers—both boat-based place for wildlife viewers as a group, tion skills, adding to their “life lists” and shore-based—are coming from although those using their own boat of species identified, and learning. non-coastal communities. A study for were more likely to list proximity as a Several survey respondents indicated ODFW and Travel Oregon by Dean reason to use an area and distance as a that they enjoyed the mental challenge Runyan Associates (2009) estimates reason not to, which is consistent with presented by their recreation. that Oregon’s coastal travel regions see our findings concerning boaters. They millions of trips annually that involve As a group, boat-based wildlife viewers are also influenced by availability of wildlife viewing in these areas (2.3 are using a variety of sources for their facilities/accessibility and conditions. million trips in 2008). This study found recreation-relevant information. Survey Those using charters were less likely that the number of wildlife-viewing- respondents indicated using visual ob- to list proximity as being of primary related trips to Oregon’s coastal travel servation, friends and family, and an ac- importance than those using their own regions trips is overwhelmingly from tivity-related organization several times boat, although proximity was still rated visitors traveling from over 50 miles per year each. They are using Internet- as influential. Also important to char- away or staying overnight (73 percent related sources more frequently, several ter wildlife viewers were conditions, in- in 2008), vs. locals (those traveling times per month (50 percent, including cluding the likelihood of seeing certain fewer than 50 miles). Our boat-based charter-company Web pages and online wildlife as well as ocean and weather wildlife-viewing survey respondents field guides. The clearly favored sources conditions. Accessibility is crucial, as indicated traveling a mean round-trip of recreation-relevant information we charter-boat wildlife viewers must go distance of 151 miles to recreate, highest observed with other recreational groups where charter boats are available and of all groups we surveyed (Figure 4).

26 Oregon’s Non-Consumptive Recreational Ocean User Community Who are Oregon’s non-consumptive recreational ocean users?

are willing to accommodate wildlife facilities, nearby parking, and safe bar elsewhere in local communities. In one viewers. While the number of ports crossing. study, 52 percent of people indicating offering wildlife-viewing charter trips they were viewing marine mammals at Oceanographic and ecological features is few, companies are adding wildlife Oregon’s coast were staying overnight, such as density fronts and upwelling trips to their offerings in recognition of and another 27 percent were traveling areas are important to all boat-based this market. Depoe Bay, Newport, and from more than 50 miles away (Dean wildlife viewers, as these areas attract Garibaldi are major whale-watch char- Runyan Associates 2008). Our partici- and concentrate wildlife. Pelagic bird- ter ports, and Brookings, Charleston, pants also indicated the second-longest ing trips are focused around offshore and Rockaway all have companies of- multi-day trips on average of all banks, such as Perpetua Bank, and fering such tours as well. Newport and groups we looked at (2.19), the longest they frequent waters beyond Oregon’s Charleston also accommodate pelagic day trips on average (7.5 hours; Figure three-mile territorial sea boundary. birding trips, which are growing in 5), and an equal likelihood to plan day Wildlife may gather at river plumes, demand. trips and overnight trips when using a attracting wildlife viewers. Located charter service for their wildlife-view- One guide mentioned that availabil- onshore of one of the world’s great ing recreation (Table 2). Wildlife view- ity of a charter boat alone was only whale migrations, Oregon makes for ers were the most likely of the groups part of the equation and that the size a good site to view gray whales, which we surveyed to indicate that they were and capabilities of the boat were also surface close to shore. Boats need not traveling from a lodging destination to important in reaching wildlife located stray far from ports such as those of- recreate; they indicated spending the farther from port and accommodat- fering charters to view gray whales and second-most of all groups on lodging ing crowds. The time of year was also other wildlife, though whale watching ($143 per trip) when using their own a factor, driven by wildlife behav- may occur offshore too, where other boat to view wildlife, although those ior, ocean conditions, and demand. species of whales, as well as birds, using charter boats were more likely to During summer months, whale- sharks, and other marine life, may be spend on lodging. They are also spend- watching trips are offered regularly, viewed. Those viewing wildlife from ing more ($51 per trip) at restaurants with trips scheduled less regularly kayaks and power boats may frequent and bars than our other user groups, during spring, fall, and winter. One structures such as jetties, emergent and second-most on shopping ($40). charter company estimated that they rocks, and islands, and Oregon waters Those using their own boats are also take 100 to 125 people per day (in four offer a network of federal wildlife paying launch and permit fees, as well to five trips) for whale-watching tours refuges used by numerous species. as parking fees in some locations, and in peak season (June-September); These areas, in addition to bottom they share many of the same expenses about 40 people per day in spring/fall; habitat, are important to birds, marine outlined for boaters. and about 25 people per day in winter mammals, and other marine life, and (presumably on days when conditions thus, wildlife viewers. It can be said In addition to economic contributions, allow trips). Pelagic birding trips are that, like wildlife, wildlife viewers rely wildlife viewing offers cultural contri- generally organized by independent on habitat. butions. Depoe Bay has branded itself guides or organizations a handful of as Oregon’s “whale watch capital,” and Poor conditions, inaccessibility to or times per year, on special reservation whale-watch operators are fixtures at lack of charters, lack of facilities, and with charter companies. One guide we Newport’s Historic Bayfront village. distance were the most commonly spoke to leads about six to eight trips Such tours offer family entertain- listed reasons for not using certain annually, based on demand. ment, educational opportunities, and areas of the coast. jobs. They are also collaborating with Other requirements include parking, universities for research, and are spon- as 82 percent of boat-based wildlife BOAT-BASED WILDLIFE VIEWERS soring charity events. Whale-watch viewers travel to their recreation areas BRING BUSINESS TO THE COAST charter operators also participated in via personal vehicles. Those using their Another charter company we spoke marine reserve planning meetings, own boat have some of the same re- with explained that many whale-watch contributing to community planning quirements as previously outlined for customers spend time and money processes. boaters and kayakers, including launch

Oregon’s Non-Consumptive Recreational Ocean User Community 27 NROU and marine renewable energy

NROU and marine renewable energy

Oregon’s NROU community has expressed confidence in alternative evolved to take advantage of the state’s energy sources, at least somewhat ocean recreation resources. Changes agreeing that new energy technology are on the horizon, however, as Oregon will make energy available to all in Omoves toward defined spatial manage- the future. There was little variation ment of its ocean. One emerging ocean between recreation types, although use is the development of marine waveriders were slightly more likely renewable energy, such as wave energy. to believe that energy independence is Identified by the state’s renewable important and that the country does energy portfolio as a renewable energy not have enough energy resources. source with the potential to reduce Also worth noting is that boat-based dependence on fossil fuels (Kulongoski wildlife viewers are most likely to at and Bradbury 2008) and in an effort least somewhat agree (91 percent) that to strengthen coastal economies, wave it is possible to both increase energy energy in Oregon will be a reality. In supplies and protect the environment. addition to seeking baseline informa- Impacts of renewable-energy develop- tion on Oregon’s NROU, our study ment on wildlife are a central con- sought to learn about this communi- cern associated with terrestrial wind ty’s attitudes toward energy policy and installations, for example, and impacts their familiarity with its various forms. and similar concerns exist for marine- renewable energy (Inger et al. 2009). As a group, the NROU community strongly agreed (63 percent) that Our survey also assessed the familiar- energy independence is important ity of the NROU community with spe- and that it is possible to both increase cific types of renewable energy sources. energy supplies and protect the envi- Overall, there was variability in levels ronment (58 percent). They are slightly of familiarity with alternative energy concerned that the country does not sources, with fairly high familiarity have enough energy resources (52 with each (Table 12). The highest level percent at least somewhat agree) and of familiarity among all groups was about being personally affected by a with solar and wind energy, unsur- shortage (51 percent at least somewhat prising since these are the two most agree). As a group, they appear to be globally developed alternative-energy in favor of alternative-energy develop- sources included on the list (Blaabjerg ment, as 76 percent at least somewhat et al. 2006). The lowest overall fa- agree (48 percent strongly agree) that miliarity was with offshore wind not enough money is being spent on power—perhaps due to confusion over alternative energy. Sixty-nine percent the difference between offshore wind

28 Oregon’s Non-Consumptive Recreational Ocean User Community NROU and marine renewable energy

Table 12. Familiarity with renewable energy sources by recreation type. an attachment to a particular place, whether for functional reasons or for Renewable energy Recreation group¹ nostalgic ones, as has been demon- Waveriders Divers Boaters Widlife viewers strated in recreation literature (Moore Biofuels 2.83 2.87 2.55 2.73 and Graefe 1994). While subordinate to proximity and conditions, our survey Wind 3.05 2.87 2.89 3.05 respondents frequently (45 percent Solar 3.08 3.03 2.98 3.05 somewhat or strongly agree) enjoy Wave 2.83 2.56 2.46 2.59 their recreation because it is done near Off-shore wind 2.40 2.21 2.15 2.32 a place loved ones like to frequent. Sentimentality and the presence of ¹Cell entries are mean familiarity values on a 1-4 scale where 1=“Not familiar” and friends or family nearby were themes 4=“Very familiar.” identified as reasons why a place is used, and one interviewee spoke of enjoying visits to where they had first and terrestrial wind energy—and wave reduction in wave height shoreward of learned to surf. energy. With both offshore wind en- wave-energy devices (Halcrow Group ergy and wave energy in contemporary Limited 2006, ASR 2007) and may also All phases of wave energy installation planning conversations, improving influence sediment-transport patterns may have the potential to impact non- familiarity amongst other ocean stake- important to the provision of break- consumptive marine recreation—from holders may be prudent in the interest ing waves. Cases of coastal develop- installation to operation to mainte- of sound decision making. ment having detrimental impacts on nance, and from the wave energy parks waveriding are plentiful, and in some themselves to the ports servicing them Waveriders, out of all of our respon- cases developers have been found liable (construction, dredging, engineering). dents, had the most familiarity with for the resulting loss of recreational Recreationalists may rely on a combi- wave energy. In the interview portion amenity (Henriquez 2004). nation of access, facilities, and proxim- of our study, waveriders were the most ity—in addition to conditions—for a likely group to mention wave-energy Waveriders are not alone in their place to be suitable for recreation. This development in answers to questions concern and for their potential to be means that wave energy or other devel- about concerns with current ocean impacted by wave-energy development opment has the potential to negatively issues in Oregon. Hunter (2009) found in Oregon. Divers and boat-based impact ocean recreation via different concern among surfers regarding po- wildlife viewers may object to nega- pathways. Members of the NROU tential negative impacts of wave energy tive impacts of wave energy or other community are concerned about on their ability to recreate. Ideal wave development on biological communi- restricted access due to wave energy breaks are relatively rare, relative to the ties or habitat, or in a resultant limit in development, whether on ocean space size of the Oregon coast, and indeed access to certain areas (both land and or as impediments to access points on much needs to go right for a wave to sea). Boaters may be impacted by being land. Displacement to an area with break perfectly for surfing (Henriquez forced to use alternative transit routes, inferior conditions, less-supportive 2004). Ocean and coastal development which may have economic and safety infrastructure, and a lower level of has the ability to alter oceanographic consequences. Where proximity is the familiarity will likely be greeted with characteristics important to waverid- primary driver in preferring a place of objections. All groups value aesthetics ers. Surfers are traditionally defensive recreation, the NROU community will in their recreation, and any perceived about any activity in the vicinity of likely object to being displaced and blight on the visual environment may their favorite surf break—and for good forced to travel farther. Displacement impact another theme identified as reason, as their rights have at times may cause resentment by regular users important to the NROU community. been ignored and surf breaks have of locations receiving the displaced as been destroyed by coastal modifica- well as crowding, potentially leading to Coastal communities losing recre- tion (Scarfe et al. 2003). Wave energy a diminished recreational experience ation areas and the benefits brought specifically may cause a 3 to 30 percent and conflict. Individuals may also feel by the NROU community will suf-

Oregon’s Non-Consumptive Recreational Ocean User Community 29 NROU and marine renewable energy

fer. Examples of negative impacts of coastal development on waves and thus, waveriders, are not in short sup- ply (see Scarfe et al. 2003, Henriquez 2004, Lazarow 2007, and Lazarow 2009). Nelson et al. (2007) describe that many surf breaks in California have been degraded by coastal devel- opment, with three “world famous” breaks being completely destroyed. Here in Oregon, a surf break in Lincoln City was found to have de- clined in quality after the construction of a coastal engineering structure (rip- rap) interfered with sand flow (Corne 2009). Lazarow (2008) remarks that O negative impacts to a surfing amenity in important surfing areas may have “serious consequences” for local com- munities and suggests that this may Wave energy is an emerging stakeholder in the ocean off Oregon’s coast. have already occurred in at least one popular (and well-studied) surfing wildlife; they also facilitate boat- are unclear (Inger 2009). Further, location in Australia. Examples of how ing and boat-based wildlife viewing. benefits of marine-renewable energy to wave-energy development specifically Docks have also become important marine life may be useless to recre- might negatively impact waveriding diving areas in several locations in ation if it is ultimately restricted in exist too: a study of wave farms in Oregon. A 2008 report on wave- energy-development areas, and the lit- England found a 13 percent reduction energy development in neighboring erature concerning impacts on ocean in wave height of typical surfing waves California suggests that wave energy recreation seems sparse and frequently on the landward side of wave farms sites may benefit diving, as they may speculative. (Halcrow Group Limited 2006). create fish aggregating structure (H. T. Harvey and Associates 2008). There Due to the potential impacts of wave- On the other hand, ocean and coastal is evidence of marine-renewable energy development on the noncon- development is not always detrimen- energy structures benefiting local sumptive recreational ocean users of tal to ocean recreation. At least nine fish abundance (Wilhelmsson 2006) Oregon, stakeholder understanding Oregon surf breaks improved after the and serving as artificial reefs (Linley and inclusion in planning will be installation of jetties that altered sand et al. 2007)—including wave-energy important for the long-term success of movement (Corne 2009). Several of devices specifically (Langhamer and wave energy and other planning chal- the same structures are now impor- Wilhelmsson 2007). However, the lenges in Oregon. tant diving areas, due to improved impacts—negative or positive—of access and habitat creation for marine marine-renewable energy on wildlife

30 Oregon’s Non-Consumptive Recreational Ocean User Community Conclusion

Conclusions

Oregon is home to a hardy crowd of 2005). Surely, this will also occur in subgroups that comprise it should be ocean recreationalists undeterred by Oregon, as the Pacific Northwest rec- further studied to improve under- wet, windy weather and unforgiving reates at a higher per-capita rate than standing of expectations, needs, and ocean conditions. Their pursuits are the national average. Further, Oregon’s contributions, and they should be con- Oimportant to them for exercise, chal- population continues to grow, mean- sidered in policy decisions concerning lenge, social interaction, connecting ing more people will potentially be Oregon’s ocean and coastal resources. with nature, and escape. Whether they pursuing ocean recreation, increasing Current and future ocean and coastal are recreating multiple times weekly or their importance to coastal communi- uses have the potential to negatively once a year, they value their recreation ties and increasing demand on ocean impact the NROU community using highly—even altering parts of their lives and coastal resources. As the U.S. and Oregon’s ocean. Limiting access to to accommodate their recreation. They Oregon population ages and more certain spaces—such as with physical or are coming from communities all over retirees move to the Oregon coast, a legal barriers—may exclude users from the state of Oregon, and Oregon’s ocean higher dependence on facilities aiding areas important to their recreation. It and coastal places are also enjoyed by access to recreational resources may be may make entry difficult, unsafe, or visitors from out of state and farther needed. A shift toward more-passive even impossible. Development may abroad, some of whom are seasonal activities, such as wildlife viewing alter characteristics about a place residents. All are bringing money to (which is already the fastest-growing important to users, such as interference Oregon’s coastal communities. Hotels form of non-consumptive recreation in with sediment transport and waves or and RV parks, restaurants and bars, and the U.S. and Oregon), may also occur displacement of wildlife. Displacement scores of local shops are just some of the (OPRD 2008, Hall et al. 2009). of recreationalists for any of these beneficiaries of their economic contri- The growing and changing NROU reasons may force recreationalists to use butions. They also open businesses and community using Oregon’s ocean and other areas, which may lead to crowd- pay local taxes and recreation-related coastal places should be welcomed ing and conflict with other users as fees that help support facilities and ser- because of the “renewable” contribu- their recreational experiences are indi- vices used by many. Non-consumptive tions they make to Oregon’s coastal rectly impacted. Diminishment of other recreation has been important to the communities. They provide economic, important parts of their recreational culture of Oregon’s coastal communi- cultural, and other benefits to coastal experience—such as aesthetics, water ties as well. Some locations have built communities, and they represent quality, and escape—is also a concern. their identities around such recreation, existing sources of income to local and many more benefit from commu- The needs of the non-consumptive communities, with minimal conflict or nity events and organizations related to recreational ocean user community interference with existing ocean uses such activities. are simple and definable. Avoiding or and users. This group may be sensi- minimizing conflict with this integral Nationally, beach visitation is expected tive to changes in ocean planning, and established segment of Oregon’s to increase, and so too are snorkeling, and negative impacts to this group coastal community is possible and diving, surfing, windsurfing, sailing, will have detrimental impacts on the should be a priority in future ocean power boating, jet skiing, rowing, kay- coastal areas and communities they and coastal planning. aking, and wildlife viewing (NOAA use. The NROU community and the

Oregon’s Non-Consumptive Recreational Ocean User Community 31 References

References

ASR Limited Marine Consulting and Dean Runyan Associates. 2009. Research (ASR). 2007. Review of Wave Fishing, Hunting, Wildlife Viewing, Hub technical Studies: Impacts on and Shellfishing in Oregon:2008 State inshore surfing beaches. Raglan, New and County Expenditure Estimates. Zealand. Prepared for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and Travel Oregon. Benedict, R. 2004. Evaluating Oregon’s Portland, OR. beach sites for application to United States Environmental Protection Delayiannis, F., B. Cockcroft, and E. Agency’s BEACH Act criteria. Marine Pinczower. 1996. Extoses of the exter- Pollution Bulletin 49. nal auditory canal in Oregon surfers. American Journal of Otolaryngology Bowers, R., J. Harn, S. Rosebrough, T. 17(5). O’Keefe, B. Shelby (ed.), R. Thapaliya, R. Thoreson, and D. Whittaker (ed.). Divers Alert Network (DAN). 2008. 2010. Hydrokinetic Energy Projects Annual Diving Report: 2008 Edition. and Recreation A Guide to Assessing www.diversalertnetwork.org/medical/ Impacts. Public Review Draft prepared report/index.asp. (Accessed February for National Park Service Hydropower 2011). Assistance Program. U.S. Department of Energy-Hydropower Reform Diving Equipment and Marketing Coalition. Association (DEMA). 2010. Most Active Recreational Diver Cross-over Activities Conway, F., J. Stevenson, D. Hunter, M. Study. www.dema.org. (Accessed Stefanovich, H. Campbell, Z. Covell, February 2011). and Y. Yin. 2010. Ocean space, ocean place: The human dimensions of wave Ehler, C. 2008. Conclusions: Benefits, energy in Oregon. Oceanography 23(2). lessons learned, and future challenges of marine spatial planning. Marine Corne, N. 2009. The implications of Policy 32: 840–843. coastal protection and development on surfing. Journal of Coastal Research Evans, K. E., and T. Klinger. 2008. 25(2). Obstacles to bottom-up implementa- tion of marine ecosystem management. Daskalos, C. 2007. Locals Only! The Conservation Biology 22(5): 1135–1143. impact of modernity on a local surfing context. Sociological Perspectives 50(1). Halcrow Group Limited. 2006. Wave hub development and design phase. Davis, D., and C. Tisdell. 1996. Coastal Processes Study Report. Economic management of recreational Prepared for the South West of England scuba diving and the environment. Regional Development Agency. Journal of Environmental Management 48. Henriquez, M. 2004. Artificial Surf Reefs. Master’s thesis. Delft University of Technology. H. T. Harvey and Associates. 2008.

32 Oregon’s Non-Consumptive Recreational Ocean User Community References

Developing Wave Energy in Coastal recreational surfing to specific locales. National Oceanic and Atmospheric California: Potential Socio-economic Journal of Coastal Research 50. Administration (NOAA). 2005. and environmental effects. PIER Final Projected Participation in Marine Lazarow, N., M. Miller, and B. Project Report. Prepared for California Recreation: 2005 & 2010. National Blackwell. 2009. The value of recre- Energy Commission Public Interest Survey on Recreation and the ational surfing to society. Tourism in Energy Research (PIER) Program and Environment Project, 2000. Marine Environments 5(2–3): 145–157. California Ocean Protection Council. Nelson, C., L. Pendleton, and R. Linley, E., T. Wilding, K. Black, A. Hill, L., and J. and Abbott. 2009. Vaughn. 2007. A socioeconomic study Hawkins, and S. Mangi. 2007. Review Representation, identity, and environ- of surfers at Trestles Beach. Shore & of the Reef Effects of Offshore Wind mental action among Florida surfers. Beach 75(4). Farm Structures and Their Potential Southeastern Geographer 49:2. for Enhancement and Mitigation. Neumann, F., J. Tedd, M. Prado, I. Hunter, D. 2009. Addressing Perceived Report from PML Applications Ltd Russell, S. Patrício, and V. La Regina. Community Impacts of Wave Energy in and the Scottish Association for 2006. Licensing and environmen- Coastal Oregon Communities. Master’s Marine Science to the Department for tal issues of wave energy projects. thesis. Available from Oregon State Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Proceedings of the World Renewable University Scholars Archive (http:// Reform (BERR), Contract No: Energy Congress (WREC) IX, Florence, hdl.handle.net/1957/11840). (Accessed RFCA/005/0029P. Italy. February 2011). Matsler, M. 2009. Winchester Bay Ocean Pulse Surf Shop Web site. Inger, R., M. Attrill, S. Bearhop, A. Coastal User Survey: A look at the inter- www.oceanpulsesurf.com. (Accessed Broderick, W. Grecian, D. Hodgson, section of recreational use and renewable February 2011). and B. Godley. 2009. Marine renewable energy project siting on the Oregon coast. Oregon Business Registry Database. energy: potential benefits to biodiver- Master’s thesis. Yale School of Forestry http://egov.sos.state.or.us/br/pkg_ sity? An urgent call for research. Journal and Environmental Studies. web_name_srch_inq.login. (Accessed of Applied Ecology. McCosker, J., and R. Lea. 2006. February 2011). James Kent Associates. 2009. A White shark attacks upon humans in Oregon Climate Service. 2009. Recreation Assessment of Northwest California and Oregon, 1993–2003. www.ocs.oregonstate.edu/. (Accessed Oregon: Current Conditions, Trends, Proceedings of the California Academy February 2011). and Opportunities. Prepared for Oregon of Sciences (PCAS) 57(17). Department of Forestry. Contract # McLeod, K. L., J. Lubchenco, S. R. Oregon Department of Human PSK# 08025. Palumbi, and A. A. Rosenberg. 2005. Services, Office of Environmental Public Health. 2006. Oregon Beach Koch, L. 2008. The promise of wave Scientific Consensus Statement on Monitoring Program Summer 2005 energy. Golden Gate University Marine Ecosystem-Based Management. Survey Report. Environmental Law Journal 166(2). Signed by 221 academic scientists and policy experts with relevant expertise ———. 2008. Oregon Beach Monitoring Kulongoski, T., and B. Bradbury. 2008. and published by the Communication Program Summer 2008 Survey Report. Executive Order No. 08-07 Directing Partnership for Science and the Sea. State Agencies to Protect Coastal http://compassonline.org/sites/all/files/ Oregon Parks and Recreation Communities in Siting Marine Reserves document_files/EBM_Consensus. Department. 2003. 2003–2007 Oregon and Wave Energy Projects. www. (Accessed February 2011). Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor oregon.gov/Gov/docs/executive_orders/ Recreation Plan. www.oregon.gov/ eo0807.pdf?ga=t. (Accessed February Moore, R., and A. Graefe. 1994. OPRD/PLANS/SCORP.shtml. 2011). Attachments to recreation settings: The (Accessed February 2011). case of rail-trail users. Leisure Sciences Langhamer, O., and D. Wilhelmsson. 16(1). Oregon State Marine Board. 2002. 2007. Wave Power Devices as Artificial Boating in Oregon Triennial Survey Reefs. Proceedings of the 7th European Morin-Dalton, T. 2005. Beyond Results. www.oregon.gov/OSMB/ Wave and Tidal Energy Conference, Biogeography: A Framework for library/TriSurvey01.shtml. (Accessed Porto, Portugal. Involving the Public in Planning of U.S. February 2011). Marine Protected Areas. Conservation Lazarow, N. 2007. The value of coastal Biology 19(5): 1392–1401. Oregon Surf Shop Web site. www.or- recreational resources: A case study egonsurfshop.com. (Accessed February approach to examine the value of 2011).

Oregon’s Non-Consumptive Recreational Ocean User Community 33 References

Pomeroy, R., and F. Douvere. 2008. The Archive (http://ir.library.oregon- engagement of stakeholders in the ma- state.edu/xmlui/handle/1957/13498). rine spatial planning process. Marine (Accessed February 2011). Policy 32: 816–822. Stone, D. L., A. K. Harding, B. K. Recreational Boating and Fishing Hope, and S. Slaugther-Mason. 2008. Foundation and Outdoor Foundation. Exposure Assessment and Risk of 2009. A Special Report on Fishing and Gastrointestinal Illness Among Boating. Surfers. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health A71(24): REI Web site. www.rei.com. (Accessed 1603–1615. February 2011). Surf Industry Manufacturers Rider, R. 1998. Hangin’ ten: The com- Association (SIMA). 2007. No Slowing mon pool resource problem of surfing. Down for Surf Industry. www.sima. Public Choice 97. com/news-information/news-detail/ Robson, C. 1993. Real World Research: id/25.aspx. (Accessed February 2011). A Resource for Social Scientists and Taylor, B. 2007. Surfing into Spirituality Practitioner-Researchers. Cambridge, and a New Aquatic Nature Religion. Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers. Journal of the American Academy of Salant, P., and D. A. Dillman. 1994. Religion 75(4). How to Conduct Your Own Survey. New The Outdoor Foundation and the York, New York: John Wiley and Sons Recreational Boating and Fishing Publishing, Inc. Foundation. 2009. A Special Report on Scarfe, B., M. Elwany, K. Black, and S. Fishing and Boating. www.rbff.org/up- Mead. 2003. Categorizing the Types of loads/Research_section/SpecialReport Surfing Breaks around Jetty Structures. onFishingandBoatingWEBFINAL.pdf. Scripps Institution of Oceanography (Accessed February 2011). Technical Report, Scripps Institution Tillotson, K., and P. D. Komar. 1997. of Oceanography, UC San Diego. The wave climate of the Pacific Available from the University of Northwest (Oregon and Washington): California eScholarship archive at A comparison of data sources. Journal http://escholarship.org/. (Accessed of Coastal Research 13(2): 440–452. February 2011). West Marine Web site. www.westma- Seaside Surf Shop Web site. www.sea- rine.com. (Accessed February 2011). sidesurfshop.com. (Accessed February 2011). Wilhelmsson, D., T. Malm, and M. Ohman. 2006. The influence of offshore Shelby, B., and J. Tokarczyk. 2002. windpower on demersal fish.ICES Oregon Shore Recreational Use Study. Journal of Marine Science 63. Prepared for Oregon Parks and Recreation Department. Southwick Associates, Inc. 2007. State- Level Economic Contributions of Active Outdoor Recreation. Technical report on methods and findings. Prepared for Outdoor Industry Foundation. Stevenson, J. 2009. Mapping the Political Landscape of Wave Energy Development in Oregon. Master’s thesis. Available from Oregon State University Scholars

34 Oregon’s Non-Consumptive Recreational Ocean User Community Glossary of terms

Glossary of terms

Accessibility—Refers to the ability Cruising—The use of a boat for travel- NROU—Non-consumptive recre- to use a certain place, and may be ing about for pleasure, relaxation, or ational ocean user. influenced by availability of viable sight-seeing. This may be an aimless Slack tide—the period of reversal be- entry and egress as well as infrastruc- jaunt or a planned, multi-day excur- tween incoming (flood) and outgoing ture such as parking, boat availability, sion, and may be the central form of (ebb) tidal flow that results in relatively crossable bar, etc. boat-based recreation for the user or simply one component of the recre- still water. Birder—One who views birds for ational experience. Pelagic birding—Recreational viewing recreation. Divers—An ocean recreation group of birds (and other wildlife) that spend Boaters—An ocean recreation group that explores the ocean via underwater much of their lives at sea and are dif- that recreates through use of a vessel. immersion. This group includes scuba ficult or impossible to see in nearshore This group includes power boaters, divers, snorkelers, and free divers. or onshore environments. sailors, and kayakers. Ecosystem-Based Management Recreation—A pastime or diversion Boat-based wildlife viewers—An (EBM)—An integrated approach to providing personal benefits such as re- ocean recreation group that pursues natural-resource management that laxation, exercise, thrill, or enjoyment. the passive watching of wildlife from considers the entire ecosystem, includ- Stakeholder—An individual or group a vessel. This group includes those ing humans, and seeks to maintain that has an interest in a particular re- watching wildlife from private boat, ecosystems in healthy, productive, and source, project, organization, or other charter boat, and kayak, and may resilient conditions for provision of entity. include birders and whale watchers, the services humans want and need among others. (McLeod et al. 2005). Territorial Sea (Oregon)—That portion of the nearshore ocean Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning Estuary—The interface where a river that lies from the mean-lower low (CMSP)—A means of spatially manag- meets the ocean and freshwater and water (MLLW) to three nauti- ing the ocean according to manage- saltwater mix. In Oregon, most saltwa- cal miles offshore and from the ment goals, recognizing that not all ter bays and harbors are located in the Washington-Oregon border to the ocean uses are compatible (Ehler 2008). estuaries of major rivers. These areas California-border. Consumptive recreation—Recreation are important as recreation sites and as Waveriders—A group relying on that involves a harvest element, or the access points for ocean recreation. breaking waves for their ocean rec- removal of resources from the place Non-consumptive recreation— reation. This group includes surfers, of recreation by the recreational user. Recreation that does not involve paddle-boarders, body-boarders, This includes fishing, crabbing, agate a harvest element, or the physical kayak surfers, kite surfers, windsurf- hunting, and shell gathering, among removal of a resource from the place ers, and body surfers. others. of recreation by the recreational user. This group includes waveriders and boat-based wildlife viewers, as well as some divers and boaters.

Oregon’s Non-Consumptive Recreational Ocean User Community 35 Acknowledgments

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank everyone who participated in this research, including survey respondents, interviewees, and those who provided contact, guidance, and other information. We would also like to thank the Oregon Wave Energy Trust, Oregon Sea Grant, and the Surfrider Foundation Oregon Chapters Tfor their support of this project.

Photo credits:

All photos © Oregon Sea Grant except as noted below:

Cover background, page 4: © Scott Mahon Cover divers, page 8: © iStockphoto.com/simon gurney Page 6: © iStockphoto.com/image-2-photography Page 17: © iStockphoto.com/Don Bayley Page 21: © iStockphoto.com/Kacey Baxter

36 Oregon’s Non-Consumptive Recreational Ocean User Community Oregon Sea Grant

Oregon State University 322 Kerr Administration Bldg. Corvallis, OR 97331-2131

Phone: 541-737-4849 Fax: 541-737-7958

Web: http://seagrant.oregonstate.edu

ORESU-S-11- 001