**REPORT TITLE**: Inventory and Evaluation of California Coastal
Recreation and Aesthetic Resources.

**STUDY TITLE**: California Coastal Recreation and Aesthetics Study.

CONTRACT NUMBER(S): BLM: CT0‑63; MMS: 14‑12‑0001‑29019.

SPONSORING OCS REGION: Pacific.

APPLICABLE PLANNING AREA(S): Southern California; Central and Northern
California.

FISCAL YEAR(S) OF PROJECT FUNDING: 1980; 1981.

COMPLETION DATE OF REPORT: May 1981.

COST(S): FY 1980: \$155,353; FY 1981: \$80,623; CUMULATIVE PROJECT COST:
\$235,976.

PROJECT MANAGER(S): T. Miller.

AFFILIATION: The Granville Corporation.

ADDRESS: 1133 15th Street N.W., Suite 1100, Washington, D.C.  20005.

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR(S)\*: T. Miller.

KEY WORDS: Southern California; Central and Northern California;
socioeconomics; recreation; aesthetics; coastal zone; tourism; modeling;
mitigation; inventory.

ACCESS NUMBER: 29019

**BACKGROUND**: The existence of summary information pertaining to the
coastal recreation of California shorelines and offshore areas is
extremely sparse.  Available information is found scattered in a variety
of publications.  The California Department of Parks and Recreation has
kept records for several years of the attendance at State‑owned beach
facilities.  \"Seasonal Participation in Boating Activities, 1980\" and
\"Seasonal Participation in Sport Fishing Activities, 1978\" summarize
the seasonal boating, party, and charter boat operations in the State. 
Aesthetic resources of the California coastline have been analyzed in
several previous studies, including the Final Environmental Impact
Statement for Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lease Sale 53 off Central
and Northern California, the California Coastal Plan, Comprehensive
Ocean Area Plan, California Coastline Preservation and Recreation Plan,
and several locally‑sponsored documents.

**OBJECTIVES**: (1) To catalog the recreational resources of the
California coastline and to provide data on the level of usage by
recreationists; (2) To catalog and evaluate the aesthetic resources of
the California coastline; (3) To develop information on the dollar value
of recreational activities to recreationists; (4) To obtain data on
daily per capita tourist expenditures; (5) To develop data on the
importance of recreation and tourism to California\'s coastal economies;
(6) To evaluate the potential effects of OCS development on the
aesthetic ranking of coastal landscape units; and (7) To devise a method
to determine the extent to which changes in the aesthetic ranking of a
coastal landscape unit will change the level of participation in
recreational activities in that unit.

**DESCRIPTION**: Aesthetic and recreational data were organized in such
a manner as to be applicable to the Bureau of Land Management\'s onshore
oil spill risk assessment model and the model\'s unit of measure‑‑the
coastal segment (50 segments averaging 27 mi in length).  Landscape
units were used to further refine the characteristics/resources assigned
to each segment.  Descriptions of coastal and offshore recreational
activities and resources were divided into: beach use, boating, and
sport fishing.  Levels of recent and current participation in these
recreational activities were reported.  Projections of anticipated
participation levels through the year 2010 were based upon 43 regression
analyses for which long‑term historical data were available. 
California\'s coastal aesthetic resources and aesthetic quality were
rated by landscape unit, based on an aesthetic resource classification
system developed specifically for the California coast.  The
classification system divided aesthetic resources into scenic resources
and other aesthetic considerations.  The potential effects of five
hypothetical OCS‑related scenarios were evaluated in terms of how the
development could alter aesthetic perceptions.  Scenarios included the
presence of: (1) a single platform 3 mi (5 km) offshore; (2) a group of
four platforms 3 mi (5 km) offshore; (3) a storage and treatment
facility located 3 mi (5 km) offshore; (4) a 5‑acre onshore processing
plant; and (5) a 25‑acre onshore supply and operations base.

The potential economic effects on recreation and tourism resulting from
OCS oil and gas activities in California were also provided.  Three
types of economic values included: a dollar estimate of the loss to
human welfare of recreationists who choose to forego a coastal
recreation participation day due to OCS development activities; the
average dollar amount spent by a tourist during a coastal recreation
participation day; and a listing of multipliers which indicate the total
effects on area economic activity, earnings, and employment that will
result from changes in tourist spending.  Regression models were also
developed to approximate the relationships between OCS operations and
the level of participation in recreational activities.

**SIGNIFICANT CONCLUSIONS**: Most of California\'s shoreline
recreational activity occurs during summer months, with peak activity in
July.  Beach recreational activities, open beach activities, and
water‑related recreational activities were identified, in decreasing
order of popularity, as the predominant forms of beach use.  Study
results indicated a preponderance of coastal segments evaluated as being
of high, medium‑high, and medium value.  Development on the OCS is
expected to decrease to some extent the aesthetic value of nearly half
of California\'s coast.

**STUDY RESULTS**: A majority of the recreational activity along
California\'s shoreline occurs during the summer months
(June‑September), with a peak activity evident in July (1980 data). 
Beach recreational activities, including sunbathing and walking, were
the predominant forms of activities and were generally followed in
decreasing order of popularity by open beach activities (outdoor sports,
hanggliding) and water‑related recreational activities (e.g., swimming,
wading).  Between Big Sur and Gaviota, water‑related activities were
notably more popular than open beach activities.  Water contact
recreation were also minimal in segments north of Pt. Reyes (segment
14).  Participation in pleasure boating off the California coast
normally was four to six times more common than participation in
sailing.  Sport fishing activities were almost uniformly divided (about
30% each) between private vessels and man‑made structures (e.g., piers,
jetties), and fishing from the shoreline.  The remaining 10% consisted
of party or charter boat activity (in Central and Northern California
only).  In Southern California, party or charter boat activity was
higher (22%) and shoreline fishing decreased to 18%.  Fishing activity
was seasonally dependent.  Major seasonal activities include salmon
fishing (February to April) and fishing for bottom fish (June to
October).  The tourist influx during summer (June to September) also
increased the participation levels evident in fishing activity
statistics.  Detailed recreational resource descriptions (major beaches,
coastal recreational sources, peak use periods, and prominent
sightseeing or recreational points) were presented by coastal segment. 
In general, beach use in future years is expected to increase, although
identified decreases in usage on more remote coastal segments were
expected to continue to decline.  Sport fishing was also expected to
increase in regions where heavy activity was noted.

In terms of the aesthetic value scores assigned to each coastline
segment, the study results indicated a preponderance of high,
medium‑high, and medium scores for the entire California coast.  The
classification system developed and utilized in this study was based on
the Visual Management System (VMS); the VMS was modified and scenic (70
points maximum) and aesthetic resources (30 points maximum) were then
evaluated.  Medium scores indicate a point total of at least 49 points. 
Regarding the potential effect (i.e., negative aesthetic value impact)
of the five OCS development scenarios, the study noted that 50% of the
landscape units along the California coast, including 75% of those in
Central and Northern California, would realize some deterioration in
aesthetic ratings as a result of OCS development.  In general, the
proposed presence of only one offshore platform had the least effect. 
Offshore facilities will also be less aesthetically detrimental than
onshore facilities, although careful site selection and design of
onshore facilities can obviate negative impacts in most landscape units;
the exceptions to this finding included those landscape units that
received high overall aesthetic ratings ([\>]{.underline}83 points).  In
these cases, site selection and design solutions will not be able to
satisfactorily mitigate the negative impact on aesthetic resources.

Identified changes in tourist spending indicated that the largest local
economic impact per dollar of reduced tourist expenditure would occur in
Southern California (i.e., Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego
Counties).  The smallest impact would be exhibited in Northern
California (i.e., Del Norte, Humboldt, and Mendocino Counties).

Results from the regression models indicated that Northern and Central
California beach usage: (1) increased if commercial facilities (e.g.,
hotels, restaurants) were near the beach; (2) generally decreased in
areas where numerous shore facilities were present and generally
increased in more pristine wilderness areas; (3) increased when the
extent of aesthetically pleasing trails increased; and (4) increased
when the acres of aesthetically pleasing day‑use area increased. 
Limited data on day‑use acreage and miles of trails existed.  For
Southern California, beach usage: (1) increased when the amount of
aesthetically pleasing beach front increased; (2) decreased when the
amount of wetlands along the beach front increased; and (3) decreased
when the distance to the beach from the nearest parking area increased.

**STUDY PRODUCT(S)**: Miller, T.  1981.  Inventory and Evaluation of
California Coastal Recreation and Aesthetic Resources.  A final report
by the Granville Corporation for the U.S. Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Land Management Pacific OCS Office, Los Angeles, CA.  Vol. I ‑
NTIS NO. PB82‑192295; Vol. II ‑ NTIS No. PB82‑192303.  Contract
No. AA550‑CT0‑63.  POCS Tech. Paper No. 81‑5.  693 pp.

\*P.I.\'s affiliation may be different than that listed for Project
Manager(s).