аЯрЁБс;ўџ  ўџџџvчtrџp§nћlћџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџ§џџџ$ўџџџ%  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuw§џџџxyz{|}~€Rџџџџџџџџ РF€iзzw|К€CompObjџџџџџџџџџџџџ\WordDocumentџџџџџџџџз< ObjectPoolџџџџˆˆw|Кˆˆw|Кўџџџ ўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџўџџџџџ РFMicrosoft Word 6.0 DocumentўџџџNB6WWord.Document.6;џў ўџ ђŸ…рOљhЋ‘+'Гй0Й˜ф'< B N Zfn v‚Ÿ ЇБ џџџџџџџџDMeadowfoam:Applications:Word Processing:Microsoft Word 6.0.1:Normal&Economic Assesment of Commercial Fish Sheila Hurst Sheila Hurst'@^§v|К@мЅhOР eАз< ,ј~, ”, ””. ОR/ „\3 \3 вМ т6 т6 т6 т6 т6 і6 RH7 т6 я; ?H8 ђ:; (b; b; b; b; b; b; Ч; Щ; Щ; Щ; Щ; Щ; Щ; &.< X†< Qя; \3 b; пь *b; b; b; b; я; b; \3 \3 b; H8 b; b; b; b; \3 b; \3 b; Ч; \3 RЎ4 4ж/ R(1 4\3 \3 b; Ч; b; eb; INTRODUCTION The purpose of this analysis is to estimate the economic value of the following ocean-dependent activities: SYMBOL 183 \f "Symbol" \s 10 \h fishing SYMBOL 183 \f "Symbol" \s 10 \h mariculture SYMBOL 183 \f "Symbol" \s 10 \h kelp and sea vegetable harvesting SYMBOL 183 \f "Symbol" \s 10 \h offshore oil and natural gas production SYMBOL 183 \f "Symbol" \s 10 \h mineral production SYMBOL 183 \f "Symbol" \s 10 \h port activities: water transportation and ship and boat building and repair SYMBOL 183 \f "Symbol" \s 10 \h coastal tourism and recreation This study attempts to: SYMBOL 183 \f "Symbol" \s 10 \h provide a brief overview of these activities SYMBOL 183 \f "Symbol" \s 10 \h assess regional and statewide direct and indirect employment generated by these activities SYMBOL 183 \f "Symbol" \s 10 \h assess the direct and indirect income added by these ocean-dependent sectors to the state economy The definition of coastal counties and regions used in this assessment and the methodology followed to estimate direct and indirect employment and income are explained in the attached methodological appendix. Commercial Fisheries The California Fishing Industry California's fishing fleet consists of more than 4,000 vessels. Map 1 shows the distribution of the major landing ports in the state. In 1992, California commercial fishermen landed approximately 294 million pounds of fish and invertebrates worth over $131 million. Chart 1 shows the California share of U.S. total landings and the California share of U.S. ex-vessel revenues. Since 1970 commercial fishing has declined in the state. California's share of the U.S. harvest has declined from 14 percent in 1970 to 4 percent in 1990. Ex-vessel revenues followed a similar pattern. EMBED ExcelChart \s \* mergeformatThe main reason for the drop in share is that total finfish and shellfish landings in California declined by more than half from 1970 to 1990, while total U.S. landings almost doubled over the same period. This decline was primarily a result of the dramatic drop in tuna landings. Salmon, abalone, and anchovy landings have also fallen. The drop in tuna landings was due to increasing competition from imports of canned tuna and the movement of tuna processing operations from the state to American Samoa and Puerto Rico. In 1970 the proportion of ex-vessel revenues from tuna was 74 percent, while in 1990 it was only 17 percent. Despite the decline, tuna is still important. In 1992, 19.2 million pounds of tuna were landed into California, with a value of $10 million. Other factors that have affected the state fisheries are: interest rate changes, fluctuations in species abundance and availability, weather, and changes in the availability of support facilities (as other uses such as recreational boating, oil and gas exploration, cargo handling, tourism, and urbanization compete for waterfront space). Major oceanic fluctuations or disturbances such as El Nino events, also affect state fisheries. The California fishing industry today is less dependent on tuna fisheries. Some other species have gained in importance. For instance, mackerel landings have increased dramatically since the 1970's together with squid landings. A number of major fisheries are driven by the demand from markets in the Pacific Rim (especially Japan). Asia is the major market for red sea urchins, pacific herring, thornyheads, sablefish, and other species. Fresh sea urchin was California's major exported seafood product in 1990, accounting for 23 percent of the value of all seafood exported from the state. Chart 2 shows the 1992 value dollar of the top 10 commercial species. EMBED ExcelChart \s \* mergeformat Chart 3 shows 1992 poundage of commercial fish by coastal region and Chart 4 shows the 1992 value of landings into California by region. Main fisheries in the north of California are salmon, groundfish (i.e. rockfish, dover sole, and thornyheads) albacore, crab, herring, and shrimp. Main fisheries in Southern California are tuna and mackerel. The per pound value of landings by the fisheries of the north of California is considerably higher than that for the south (especially South Coast region). This difference is shown graphically in Charts 3 and 4. Chart 3 shows that the weight of total landings in Southern California exceeds the rest of the coast. Chart 4 shows that the value of landings of the North Coast exceeds the value of landings in the south. EMBED ExcelChart \s \* mergeformat EMBED ExcelChart \s \* mergeformat State Demand for Seafood There is a large demand for seafood in California. Assuming that per capita seafood consumption in California is equal to the national average (15.5 pounds in 1990), 4.5 billion pounds of seafood (edible meat) were consumed in the state during 1990. This estimate is likely to be low since Californians have a strong preference for seafood (reportedly due to higher degree of health-consciousness and the larger proportion of Asian immigrants in the state). State's Seafood-Trade Balance It is difficult to determine exactly how much of the seafood imported into the United States ends up in the state as well as how much of the imports that enter the state are actually consumed in California. Similarly, exports from California are not necessarily produced within the state. Despite the difficulty of determining exactly how much seafood California exports and imports, research have shown that the state's seafood trade deficit is substantial. According to one estimate, less than 10 percent of the seafood sold in California is derived from California fisheries and approximately 13 percent comes from other domestic markets (for instance Alaska and Pacific Northwest). That would leave the overwhelming majority of seafoodSYMBOL 190 \f "Symbol"about 75 percentSYMBOL 190 \f "Symbol"coming from foreign sources. Economic Impact of Commercial Fishing The commercial fishing industry is very important in the economy of many coastal communities as a source of food and as a source of employment. Some activities dependent on this industry are boat construction and repair yards, brokerage, dockhandling, trucking and other transportation, gear and rigging stores, fish processing, and commercial trade. Table 1 (next page) shows 1992 employment, payroll, costs, and value added for commercial fisheries and hatcheries by coastal region. Table 2 presents the estimated impact on regional total income and employment brought about by these activities. EMBED ExcelWorksheet \s \* mergeformat Table 3 shows total 1992 employment and payroll provided by fish processing and marine fish oil and fat processing. Regional data for these two classifications are not available. EMBED ExcelWorksheet \s \* mergeformat Source: California Employment Development Department. Table 4 summarizes statewide total costs and value added for commercial fishing, fish processing, and marine fish oil production. EMBED ExcelWorksheet \s \* mergeformat Table 5 presents a summary of the benefits to the state from commercial fishing, fish processing, and marine fish oil processing as measured by indirect and total income, and indirect and total employment generated by these activities. EMBED ExcelWorksheet \s \* mergeformat The total effect of the fishing industry (commercial fishing and fish processing) on California income is estimated as $466 million. The income effect of the marine fish oil industry is estimated as approximately $88 million. These industries provide employment (directly and indirectly) to nearly 17,000 workers. MARICULTURE Mariculture, or the farming of marine species has increased sharply since 1979, as indicated by the doubling of the areas used for this purpose. Map 2 shows the distribution of mariculture lease sites in California. Currently there are at least 4,872 acres leased for mariculture. The three most common mariculture crops in California are oysters, mussels, and abalone. Water quality is a primary concern in this industry, since the consumption of contaminated shell fish can pose serious threats to human health. Preliminary data for 1992 indicates that 157,900 pounds of abalone valued at $1,976,000 were produced in the state by marine farming. Nearly 91 percent of abalone production takes place in the South Central coast of California. The table below shows regional data on oyster and mussel amounts and value of production during 1991. The production of single oysters for the half-shell trade is increasing each year in all state-growing areas. Tomales Bay is the leader in single oyster production, with over $1 million produced in 1991. Statewide mussel production decreased substantially during 1991, because a major southern California grower ceased operations due to bacterial contamination of his mussels and consequent financial difficulties. The bulk of statewide mussel production (85 percent) continues to come from offshore oil production platforms in southern California waters. EMBED ExcelWorksheet \s \* mergeformat Source: Department of Fish and Game. No separate employment data for mariculture was available. Employment and payroll data for fish hatcheries, which includes mariculture, were presented on Table 1 (together with commercial fisheries). Consequently, the impact of mariculture on the California economy was already included in the economic assessment of commercial fisheries in Tables 1, 2, 4, and 5. KELP AND SEA VEGETABLE HARVESTING Map 3 shows the distribution of giant kelp areas (Macrocystis) along the California coast. Most of the kelp harvest is used for the extraction of algin, a product used as a binder, stabilizer, emulsifier, and molding material in pharmaceuticals, cosmetics and soaps, dental and food technology, and a wide variety of food and industrial products. Graph 5 shows the California Kelp Harvest in tons for the last 11 years. From 1970 to 1979, kelp harvest averaged nearly 157,000 tons. From 1980 to 1989 the average kelp harvest was only 80,400 tons. The harvest was low in the 1980's because the kelp forests were devastated by the 1982-1984 environmental and climatic disturbances generated by changes in the flow of the ocean current El Nino. In 1992, 91,251.25 tons were harvested, with a value of $2,933,721. EMBED ExcelChart \s \* mergeformat No separate employment data for kelp and sea-vegetable harvesting is available. Employment and payroll data for kelp harvesting were included in the commercial fishing category presented on Table 1. OFFSHORE OIL AND NATURAL GAS PRODUCTION The California's coastal zone has 11 sedimentary basins with favorable geologic structures for the accumulation of oil and gas deposits. These basins are the Southern California Shelf; the San Diego Offshore Area; the Los Angeles Basin; the Santa Barbara-Ventura Basin; the Santa Maria Basin; the Salinas Basin; the Santa Cruz Basin; the Bodega Basin; the Point Arena Basin; the Eel River Basin; and the Bear-Mattole Offshore Area. Though all of the basins may contain oil and gas deposits, up until now only the Los Angeles, Santa Barbara-Ventura, and Santa Maria basins have actually produced commercial quantities of oil and gas. Maps 4a and 4b show the location of offshore platforms in California. Oil Production California's crude oil production decreased significantly from 1987 to 1990, when it leveled off at approximately 350 million barrels per year through 1992. In 1992, the state's oil production was 348 million barrels (a 0.8 percent decrease from the previous year). Offshore oil production in 1992 was 65 million barrels. The table below shows 1991 and 1992 annual oil production for the state. EMBED ExcelWorksheet \s \* mergeformat Source: California Department of Conservation. Division of Oil, Gas. and Geothermal Resources. Chart 6 shows total state oil production and Chart 7 shows the share of offshore oil production of the state's total oil production. California's crude oil production is declining due to continuing instability in crude oil prices, coupled with a general depletion of aging reserves as well as government restrictions on areas that can be explored or used for production. Low oil prices along with reduced production per well have resulted in the shutting of many wells. EMBED ExcelChart \s \* mergeformat EMBED ExcelChart \s \* mergeformatSince overall oil and gas production are not ocean-dependent economic activities, this economic assessment will include only offshore oil and gas production. Table 8 shows offshore oil production data and the gross value of output evaluated at the average 1992 posted price of the oil produced in each county. The Table also shows the 1992 percentage of offshore oil production in total county oil production. EMBED ExcelWorksheet \s \* mergeformat Source: Department of Conservation. Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources. Table 9 shows 1992 employment and payroll data derived from oil and gas activities, by county. EMBED ExcelWorksheet \s \* mergeformat Sources: Employment Development Department and Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources. Total Income Effect of Offshore Oil Production in the State The income portion (or value added) of the 1992 offshore oil production output of $921,074,742 is estimated as $534,223,350. The total effect on California income is estimated as more than $801 million. Offshore oil production indirectly creates approximately 5,200 jobs. Table 10 shows the value added, indirect income effect, and total income effect on the state, and indirect employment generated by offshore oil production by region. EMBED ExcelWorksheet \s \* mergeformat Public Revenues Generated by the Petroleum Industry Direct tax revenues from the petroleum industry include royalties, bonuses, and other payments from oil and gas development projects in the state and federal royalties returned to the state. Oil and gas royalties and California's share of revenues from the Long Beach tidelands (offshore oil production) are a significant portion of the state's non-tax revenues. Total revenues from oil and gas royalties, Long Beach tidelands, and mineral royalties were $119 million during the fiscal year 1988-1989. These revenues support state education-related projects. Oil Reserves As 12/31/1991, state total reserves are estimated as 4,341 billion barrels and offshore reserves as 856 billion barrels. Natural Gas Production California's natural gas production in 1992 amounted to 360.3 billion cubic feet. Offshore production of natural gas represented 16.3 percent of the state total natural gas production. State offshore production was 7.2 billion cubic feet and federal offshore production was 51.6 billion cubic feet. Table 11 shows 1992 gas production data and the proportion of offshore natural gas in total natural gas production per county. The total value of offshore natural gas production (gross output) is estimated as $93,496,255. EMBED ExcelWorksheet \s \* mergeformat Source: Department of Conservation. Division of Oil and Gas and Geothermal Resources. The total effect of offshore natural gas production on California income is grossly estimated as $ 50.5 million. Table 12 shows value added, total and indirect effects on income, and indirect employment generated by natural gas production. EMBED ExcelWorksheet \s \* mergeformat Gas Reserves As of 12/31/91, California gas reserves were estimated as 3.3 trillion cubic feet and offshore gas reserves as 0.3 trillion cubic feet. Total federal gas reserves were estimated as 0.7 trillion cubic feet. All federal reserves are offshore. MINERAL PRODUCTION A wide variety of minerals exist in California's coastal zone and waters. Present production includes: 1) sand and gravel 2) production of salt (sodium chloride), magnesium and magnesium compounds, bromine, and other chemicals from sea water and brine 3) sand for filtration, glass making, abrasives, and other specialty uses 4) stone for rip rap and aggregate 5) sand and silt dredged for fill material. Other potential resources for offshore and onshore mining near the shoreline are: 1) sand and gravel for aggregate from various areas including the outer continental shelf of southern California 2) phosphorite nodules and crusts from the continental borderland of southern California to San Francisco 3) heavy mineral placers as sources of titanium, gold, rare-earth elements, and platinum 4) barite nodules from the continental shelf 5) manganese nodules from the abyssal ocean floor containing manganese, cobalt, nickel, and copper 6) deep ocean red clays as a source of alumina 7) calcareous and siliceous oozes 8) polymetallic sulfides on ridges (spreading centers) offshore northern California Salt Production Two areas of the California coast are sites of commercial salt production: San Diego Bay and San Francisco Bay. The Western Salt Company is located at the south end of San Diego Bay and produces 40 to 80 thousand tons of salt per year. Salt production at this site is for industrial uses only. The Cargill Company currently owns property in San Pablo Bay and in San Francisco Bay. The Cargill Company has ceased producing salt in north San Francisco Bay and has sold the property to the State of California for wildlife purposes. Cargill continues to produce salt on its property and property it has sold to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in south San Francisco Bay. The annual production of this firm is about 1.2 million tons. Only a small percentage of Cargill Company's salt production is sold as table salt, most of the production is for commercial and industrial uses. As an approximation, we can use the average price f.o.b.(free on board) mine and plant for salt from brine to assess the value of total salt output in these plants (5 dollars per ton). Therefore, the total value of salt production (gross output) in the state is approximately $6,400,000. The income portion of the total value of salt production (value added) is roughly estimated at $3,904,000. Total income (value added plus indirect income effects) added to the state by this sector is approximately $7,417,600. Sand and Gravel Licensed by the State Lands Commission, there are three dredging operations in the San Francisco Bay inland waters that mainly produce ordinary fill material and sand for asphalt and concrete mixes. The annual value of total sales from these operations is approximately $3 million, with a value added of nearly $1,620,000. The total income added by these operations to the California economy is estimated at $3,100,000. All three sites provide employment to 30 persons. In addition to these 30 jobs, these industries indirectly provide 26 jobs to the state economy. In addition to these operations, there are a few private dredging operations for commercial purposes which are located in the coastal zone. However, complete information these operations is not available. PORT ACTIVITY: WATER TRANSPORTATION AND SHIP AND BOAT BUILDING AND REPAIR There are six major commercial seaports in California handling over 90 percent of the state's inbound and outbound waterborne cargo: Los Angeles, Long Beach, San Francisco, Oakland, Hueneme, and Richmond. Map 5 shows California's deep water commercial ports. California's seaports are of great economic significance as service providers to promote commerce and as income and job generators. Port activities include cargo documentation, shipping lines, storage services, marine insurance, and freight forwarding. Ports are a basic part of the infrastructure of the U.S. market system. EMBED ExcelChart \s \* mergeformat In addition to the transportation of cargo, California's major commercial ports support foreign trade, ship bunkering and repair activities, commercial fishing, cruise ships and passengers, and recreation. Major repair services with dry docks for above and below waterline repairs are available at Los Angeles, Oakland, Richmond, San Diego, and San Francisco ports. Passenger and cruise ship services are concentrated at the ports of Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Francisco. In addition to the port of Oakland, these ports contain the most important state recreational facilities, for instance, Long Beach's Queen Mary complex and San Francisco's Fisherman's Wharf area. Water Transportation Table 15 shows 1992 employment and payroll for selected SIC codes of water transportation by region. Direct income has been calculated using an average of $56,470 of annual earnings per employee. EMBED ExcelWorksheet \s \* mergeformat Source: Employment and Payroll data from the California Employment Development Department. Table 16 shows direct and indirect income and employment effects by region derived from domestic and foreign transportation of freight, water transportation of passengers, and services incidental to water transportation. EMBED ExcelWorksheet \s \* mergeformat Table 17 shows, in more detail than Table 16, 1992 total employment, payroll, earnings, and direct income generated by water transportation in all coastal counties, by selected activities (SIC codes). To preserve confidentiality, comparable data at a regional level is not publicly available. EMBED ExcelWorksheet \s \* mergeformatSource: California Employment Development Department Table 18 shows 1992 direct and indirect income and employment effects on the California economy generated by water transportation in the coastal counties. The total income generated directly and indirectly by water transportation was estimated as $3.4 billion. EMBED ExcelWorksheet \s \* mergeformat Ship and Boat Building and Repair The projected cuts in defense represents a challenge for the shipbuilding industry. The Navy's proposed fiscal year 1993-1997 shipbuilding program averages 7 ships per year, compared to an average for earlier years of 19 ships. No commercial orders for new ships have been received in the state for the last two years. Closure of navy shipyards will probably reduce the size of this industry. The market for the construction and repair of smaller type vessels, barges, and small military and government owned vessels has also decreased. In 1990 these industries had a surplus capacity. Employment, payroll, earnings and direct income derived from ship and boat building and repair during 1992 are presented in Table 19. A proxy for income was estimated using the 1990 average earnings per worker employed in transportation equipment (approximately $45,000 dollars). EMBED ExcelWorksheet \s \* mergeformat Table 20 shows direct and indirect income and employment effects generated by ship and boat building and repair in the coastal regions. The total income effect (direct and indirect income) of this industry is roughly estimated as $2.6 billion. This industry provides (directly and indirectly) about 85,000 jobs in California. EMBED ExcelWorksheet \s \* mergeformat COASTAL TOURISM AND RECREATION We estimate that the value of tourism and recreation along the California coast in 1992 was $9.9 billion. Of this total, $6.6 billion is from direct spending and $3.3 billion is indirect spending estimated from economic income multipliers. These estimates were based on travel spending data and reflect actual spending, not theoretical economic value to consumers. As such, these numbers should not be confused with willingness to pay, which would be a much larger figure. Of the $6.6 billion direct value, about 90 percent is from travel-related spending on such goods and services as gasoline, rental cars, food, lodging, and other expenses incurred while traveling. The remaining 10 percent of our direct spending estimate, about $630 million, includes spending directly related to the ocean, such as fishing, boating, swimming, scuba diving, and other activities. However, this figure reflects all travel-related recreational activities in the coastal area, including those not necessarily related to the ocean, such as admissions to amusement parks. In the first section of this report, we describe various measures of recreational activity along the coast, including numbers of fishing licenses, marina berths, and attendance at coastal state parks. These measures are not directly included in our value estimate, but they provide another dimension of the scope of coastal tourism and recreation and they also provide collaborating quantitative measures of use of the California coastal resource for recreational purposes. The succeeding sections describe: SYMBOL 183 \f "Symbol" \s 10 \h the entire California travel and tourism industry SYMBOL 183 \f "Symbol" \s 10 \h our estimates of the coastal component of this travel SYMBOL 183 \f "Symbol" \s 10 \h our estimates of the secondary economic impacts of coastal travel SYMBOL 183 \f "Symbol" \s 10 \h the methodology we used in making these estimates Coastal Recreation Activities Coastal Recreational Activities Varied. The California coast has economic value as a resource for various tourism and recreational activities. Some of the more important recreational activities include fishing, boating, sailing, swimming, scuba diving, snorkeling, surfing, and various beach activities. Other recreational activities related to the coast include sunbathing, picnicking, camping, hiking and backpacking, nature appreciation, and visiting scenic areas. In addition to these activities, there are others that may qualify as coastal activities, but are not as well defined. For example, a sightseeing drive along the coast is also a use of the coastal resource. Both visitors and local residents enjoy such coastal activities. Measures of Coastal Recreational Activity Data collected by various state agencies provides some measures of use of coastal recreational resources. These include data on fishing licenses, sport fishing from commercial vessels, marina berths, and state park and recreation area attendance. Fishing Licenses. Over 2.2 million sport fishing licenses were issued by the California Department of Fish and Game in 1992. About two-thirds of the total 2.2 million licenses allow both ocean and inland fishing. Since these license holders can fish in both the ocean and inland, without further information it is difficult to estimate how many of them fish in the ocean. A total of 471,500 licenses issued are valid only for fishing in the Pacific Ocean. Sport Fishing on Commercial Boats (Party Boats). In 1991, there were approximately 270 commercial fishing vessels (party boats) providing open ocean access to sport fishermen. A total of 660,000 anglers caught 4.2 million fish while aboard these commercial fishing vessels. Rockfish and bass were the most popular types of species caught. Marina Berths. Table 1 shows an estimate of the number of marina berths located in California coast counties in 1991. There were approximately 56,000 coastal marina berths in the state out of a total of about 85,000 including inland marina berths. Over 50 percent of all coastal marina berths are located in the south coast counties of Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego. Table 1Marina Berths on the California CoastNumber ofNumber ofCountyMarina BerthsCountyMarina BerthsAlameda6,195San Diego 8,188Contra Costa3,436San Francisco2,169Del Norte532San Luis Obispo226Humboldt769San Mateo3,364Los Angeles16,123Santa Barbara1,000Marin2,928Santa Clara0Mendocino410Santa Cruz960Monterey1,137Solano1,274Napa0Sonoma434Orange5,112Ventura1,647Total Coastal Marina Berths: 55,904Total California Marina Berths: 85,276Source: California Department of Boating and Waterways State Parks and Recreation Areas. Attendance of California state parks and other recreation areas managed by the state and located along the coast is shown in Table 2. In 1991 attendance was 36.9 million person-days. Over 90 percent of total park use was by day-use attendees; the rest of attendance was by overnight campers. The coastal counties with the greatest attendance were San Diego (6.6 million person-days), Orange (5.2 million), Santa Cruz (4.6 million), and San Luis Obispo (4.5 million). These four counties accounted for over half of the total coastal park and recreation area attendance. Table 21992 California Coastal State Park And Recreation Area Attendance(Thousands of Persons)CountyDay UseOvernight CampingTotal AttendanceAlameda0.0 0.0 0.0 Contra Costa0.0 0.0 0.0 Del Norte59.4 37.0 96.4 Humboldt872.3 142.4 1,014.7 Los Angeles548.3 107.5 655.8 Marin1,653.1 44.7 1,697.8 Mendocino1,771.1 246.0 2,017.2 Monterey2,222.8 17.2 2,240.0 Orange4,923.8 279.0 5,202.8 San Diego 6,187.6 422.1 6,609.7 San Francisco231.5 0.0 231.5 San Luis Obispo3,861.0 603.0 4,464.0 San Mateo958.7 61.2 1,019.9 Santa Barbara791.1 596.4 1,387.5 Santa Clara0.0 0.0 0.0 Santa Cruz4,238.8 363.3 4,602.1 Solano396.8 0.0 396.8 Sonoma2,817.6 151.1 2,968.7 Ventura2,108.3 173.8 2,282.2 Total 33,642.2 3,244.6 36,886.8 Source: California Department of Parks and Recreation. The California Travel Industry Travel a $53 Billion Industry. Travel and tourism is an important activity taking place throughout California including the coast. According to the California Office of Tourism, spending on total travel and related activities in California was an estimated $52.8 billion dollars in 1992. This was 7 percent of total gross state product, and about the same size as defense spending in California. Such spending includes travel arrangements by travel agents, ground and air transportation, accommodations, meals, spending in retail stores while on the trip, and recreational spending such as admissions to amusement parks. The Office of Tourism defines travel as either spending at least one night away from home or traveling at least 50 miles from home. Los Angeles County Receives Most Travel Spending. Los Angeles County dominated other California counties in state travel spending in 1992, receiving $14.0 billion, 27 percent of the state total. San Francisco ($5.9 billion) and San Diego ($4.9 billion) were the second and third most popular county travel destinations. Seven of the top ten counties in travel spending were coastal counties. Travel Employs as Many Californians as Does High Technology. The California travel industry employed about 668,000 people in 1992, with a total payroll of $11.5 billion. This total number of California employees in the travel industry was about the same as the number employed in the state's electronics and aerospace industries combined in 1991. Average wages of paid full-time and part-time employees came to $17,173 per year. Because there are so many part-time employees and because industries associated with travel tend to be low-paying, wages per employee are considerably less than the average 1992 statewide wages of $31,703 per employee for all industries. Travel-Related Tax Revenues. The travel industry generated about $938 million in state and local tax revenues in 1992 excluding property taxes. More than half of this amount, $538 million in 1991-92, was from transient lodging tax receipts imposed by local governments. The rest was from sales and use taxes, excise taxes on gasoline, and various other state and local levies. Leisure Dominates Purposes of Travel. About 24 percent of California travel was for business purposes; the rest was for leisure time activities. Of all California business travel, 29 percent includes dual purpose business and leisure travel. Eight percent of business travel was to attend conventions. As shown in Chart 1, of all leisure travel, 38 percent was for vacations. Another 30 percent was to visit family and friends, and the rest was for various activities including going to special events, attending to personal business, stopping over on the way to other destinations, and other reasons. EMBED ExcelChart \s \* mergeformat Transportation Largest Travel Expense. Chart 2 shows a breakdown of total 1992 travel expenditures by type of business. Spending on all modes of transportation accounted for 36 percent of all travel spending, with air transportation comprising 18 percent of total spending and ground transportation another 18 percent. Transportation was followed by meals (restaurants and food stores) at 22 percent, retail sales (19 percent), accommodations (13 percent), and recreation spending (10 percent). Value of California Coastal Tourism In this study, we made estimates of 1992 coastal travel from the total county travel data provided by the California Trade and Commerce Agency Office of Tourism. Such travel includes all coastal recreation spending. A description of the travel survey and our methodology are discussed in the next section. EMBED ExcelChart \s \* mergeformat Local Residents Excluded. While we recognize that both local residents and travelers enjoy recreational coastal activities, we only include traveler values in this study. However, if we include local residents, it is not clear that the estimated would differ much. We are estimating market values, and local people spend relatively little money on coastal recreation compared to travelers. Most local and state beaches have nominal or no charges for day use. Furthermore, it would be difficult to estimate how much money local people do spend on coastal recreation. All Vacation Travelers Included. Though we exclude local people from the analysis, we do include all vacation travelers. A good share of the spending done by many travelers is not directly related to the ocean. For example, traveling from Sacramento to San Francisco to have dinner and see an opera is considered to be ocean-dependent spending in this study. We believe that including such travelers more than offsets excluding local spending directly related to coastal activities. Table 3 Total Coastal California Tourism Travel Spending CountySpendingPayrollsEmployment(Dollars in Millions)(Dollars in Millions)(Jobs)Coastal Counties$6,447.7$1,473.680,139 Del Norte50.910.1872 Humboldt62.112.51,091 Los Angeles1,527.6372.816,318 Marin44.310.3572 Mendocino34.37.0614 Monterey346.764.95,177 Orange451.693.95,915 San Diego1,733.4370.024,580 San Francisco1,593.8411.616,171 San Luis Obispo179.035.32,611 San Mateo14.83.5168 Santa Barbara172.633.22,555 Santa Cruz94.419.61,162 Sonoma97.319.91,683 Ventura45.19.0651San Francisco BayArea Counties:$182.0$41.82,139 Alameda118.828.11,346 Contra Costa3.60.844 Napa000 Santa Clara36.58.3472 Solano23.24.7277Total, All Ocean-DependentCounties: Direct6,629.71,515.482,278 Indirect 3,233.82,092.666,005TOTAL$9,863.5$3,608.0148,283Source: California Research Bureau Estimates. Total Value of Coastal Tourism Nearly $10 Billion. We estimate the total value of coastal tourism and recreation to be $9.9 billion in 1992 (see Table 3). This estimate includes the direct value of spending, estimated at $6.6 billion plus another $3.3 billion of indirect value associated with that spending. The $3.3 billion of indirect value comes from secondary spending associated with tourism; such value results from economic multiplier effects. For example, if a tourist spends part of their travel dollar to rent a boat, part of the price of the admission goes to pay personnel working at the marina. These employees will spend their income on food, shelter, clothing, transportation, and other consumer goods. This spending becomes income to people working in these industries, and in turn creates additional jobs through a number of "rounds" of spending. This type of spending is called the indirect value associated with coastal tourism. Direct Value 13 Percent of All California Travel Spending. The $6.6 billion of direct coastal California tourism and recreation spending is about 13 percent of the total $52.8 billion of California travel spending. As shown in Table 3, tourism spending within San Francisco Bay Area counties accounts for $0.2 billion and the rest of the coast adds $6.4 billion, bringing the total to $6.6 billion. San Diego Largest Coastal Tourism County. The majority of coastal tourism spending is located in the three coastal counties with the largest populations. San Diego County ranks first in spending at $1.7 billion, followed by San Francisco at $1.6 billion, and Los Angeles at $1.5 billion. These three counties account for nearly 75 percent of the total value of the coastal recreation and tourism. Coastal Tourism Employs Over 80,000 People. Approximately 82,000 jobs are related to total California coastal tourism, accounting for about $1.5 billion in payrolls. These include both full-time and part-time jobs, but do not include proprietors and unpaid family workers. Examples of travel-related employees include travel agents, airline employees, hotel and restaurant workers, retail store clerks, and service station operators. Meals Largest Travel Spending Category. Chart 3 shows coastal spending grouped into five major spending categories: (1) recreation, (2) meals (restaurants and food stores), (3) accommodations, (4) retail spending (gifts, souvenirs, and other items), and (5) ground transportation (gasoline and related auto expenses and car rentals). Air transportation and travel arrangement are excluded from this chart because the data does not allow geographic distributing of such spending. The chart shows that spending on meals is the largest single component, followed closely by retail sales and ground transportation. Spending on accommodations is next, followed by recreation spending. EMBED ExcelChart \s \* mergeformat Recreation Travel Spending. About 90 percent of all coastal travel spending goes to goods and services not directly related to recreation spending such as gasoline, food, lodging. Of the total $6.6 billion in spending, about $631 million is recreation travel spending according to our estimates (see Table 4). This spending includes admission to parks, boating facilities, aquariums, and tourist attractions. Coastal recreation spending was responsible for 8,250 jobs in California. Employment Multiplier Impacts The indirect income impacts resulting from tourism result in associated indirect jobs that are created as a result of tourism. Table 5 shows our estimates of these employment multiplier impacts. These indirect jobs occur statewide, depending on where goods and services purchased by people directly employed by the tourism industry are produced. In the boat rental example cited earlier, suppose the boat rental employee uses some of his/her income to purchase shoes. Some of the spending on shoes becomes income to the local shoe store proprietor, while much of the rest of the shoe sale value goes to the factory where the shoes were produced, which could be in Los Angeles. Since we are interested in California income and jobs, if the factory is in a foreign country or another state, it is assumed to add no California income or jobs. Multipliers Boost Employment by 80 Percent. Total jobs attributed to coastal travel including direct jobs and jobs created from multiplier effects are summarized in Table 5. As shown in Table 5, the 82,278 jobs directly related to coastal travel are responsible for another 66,005 jobs in other industries after taking into account multiplier spending. Coastal spending accounts for a total of 148,283 jobs including these secondary multiplier impacts. This total is about 80 percent more jobs than are directly attributable to travel. Table 4 California Coastal Recreation Travel Spending Estimates CountySpendingPayrollsEmployment(Dollars in Millions)(Dollars in Millions)(Jobs)Coastal Counties$616.3$175.88,077 Del Norte5.41.6153 Humboldt7.52.2213 Los Angeles141.844.3995 Marin4.21.149 Mendocino4.11.2118 Monterey32.36.3452 Orange58.616.1722 San Diego213.465.53,387 San Francisco93.924.91,098 San Luis Obispo15.33.0215 San Mateo1.00.312 Santa Barbara15.83.1221 Santa Cruz9.32.5109 Sonoma9.62.9274 Ventura4.10.858San Francisco BayArea Counties:$14.9$3.9174 Alameda8.92.3103 Contra Costa0.40.14 Napa000 Santa Clara3.30.939 Solano2.30.627TOTAL$631.2$179.78,251Source: California Research Bureau Estimates. Table 5 California Coastal Tourism Employment Multiplier Impacts CountyDirect EmploymentMultiplier ImpactsTotal Impacts(Jobs)(Jobs)(Jobs)Coastal Counties80,13964,256144,395 Del Norte8725631,434 Humboldt1,0917001,791 Los Angeles16,31814,89431,212 Marin572417989 Mendocino6143951,009 Monterey5,1773,4128,588 Orange5,9154,0579,971 San Diego24,58017,22641,807 San Francisco16,17116,30532,476 San Luis Obispo2,6111,9894,599 San Mateo168149317 Santa Barbara2,5551,7674,322 Santa Cruz1,1628001,962 Sonoma1,6831,1152,798 Ventura6514681,119San Francisco BayArea Counties:2,1391,7493,888 Alameda1,3461,1652,511 Contra Costa443175 Napa000 Santa Clara472357829 Solano277196473TOTAL82,27866,005148,283 Source: California Research Bureau Estimates. APPENDIX A: METHODOLOGICAL REMARKS 1. Regional Scope: This economic analysis is for five coastal regions which include 20 coastal counties. 1. North Coast includes the following three counties: Del Norte, Humboldt, and Mendocino. 2. North Central Coast, includes the following eight counties: Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma. 3. Central Coast includes the San Mateo, Santa Cruz, and Monterey counties. 4. South Central Coast includes the San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura counties. 5. South Coast includes the Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego counties. This classification was used to obtain more desegregated data on employment and payrolls, which may be not available at the county level due to the confidentiality of the information. Employment and Payroll Data: Employment and payroll data for the selected ocean-related activities singled out in this study were obtained from the State Employment Development Department (EDD). Whenever possible, four-digit-code employment figures were obtained. However, due to the confidentiality of the information, it was not possible to display four-digit-code data at the regional level. Assessment of Direct and Indirect Income and Employment Effects The economic assessment in this study was undertaken as follows: 1. Calculate the value added or direct income by industry. Value added differs from gross output. Gross output is the total value of production. Value added is the portion of gross output accruing to primary inputs. 2. Calculate indirect income or secondary effects derived from each ocean-related economic activities. These effects have been approximated by using statewide average multipliers calculated from the RIMS II model built by the U.S. Department of Commerce. Total income was calculated as the estimated value added times the multiplier. Indirect income is defined as total income minus value added. 3. Calculate indirect employment effects, or the creation of employment in other sectors brought about by the economic activities under analysis. These effects have been also assessed using employment multipliers to indirect income derived from RIMS II model. 4. Calculate total income. Total income is defined as the sum of direct and indirect income generated by the economic activity. As stated in point 3, it is actually computed as value added times the multiplier since indirect income is calculated as the difference between total income and direct income (or value added) 5. Calculate total employment. Total employment is the sum of direct employment (data collected from EDD) and indirect employment. The methodology followed in the calculation of direct income (value added) varied for each of the ocean-related activities analyzed and depended largely on the availability and quality of pertinent data. Commercial Fishing and Fish Processing. Calculation of Direct Income (Value Added) Value added: One way to approximate direct income or value added is to use total expenditures derived from the payment to factors of production (payments to labor, capital, etc.). Data on production costs are not available. To estimate total expenditures in commercial fishing we have used the fact that payrolls represent approximately 40 percent of the total cost of commercial fisheries . For fish processing, total costs are approximated as the total cost of commercial fishing plus processor's margin (mark up). Since the production cost of commercial fishing is included in the cost of fish processing, the value added of fish processing is equal to this quantity minus the value added of commercial fishing. As a rule of thumb this margin is 1.5 times the original price paid to the fisherman for the raw product, but we used a ratio of 1.7 since total payroll to workers engaged in fish processing industries was higher than the value added resulting from using a ratio of 1.5. To approximate the value added by commercial fishing, we have also assumed a ratio of costs-to-value added of 0.91. Marine Oil. Calculation of Direct Income (Value Added) Value added: Here we have also used payrolls and we have assumed a ratio of 40 percent labor costs to total production costs of marine oil. We have also assumed a ratio of total costs-to-value added of 0.91.(Please see footnote 4). Offshore Oil and Natural Gas. Calculation of Direct Income (Value Added). Value added: To roughly estimate the income portion of the 1992 offshore oil production output we have used the direct income coefficients for crude petroleum (0.58) and for natural gas (.36) that were estimated in the input-output model developed by the State Department of Water Resources. Value added by these activities were estimated as this coefficient times the value of state offshore oil production. Salt Production. Calculation of Direct Income (Value Added) and Indirect Income Effects Value added: To roughly estimate the income portion of the 1992 salt production output we have used the direct income coefficient of .61 derived from the input output model built by the State Department of Water Resources (Op. cit. in footnote 5). Value added was estimated as this coefficient times the value of salt production. Income Effects. In the absence of a specific multiplier for salt production, derived gains from this activity were estimated using as a proxy the standard economic multipliers for sand and gravel from the RIMS II prepared by the U.S. Department of Commerce. Total income was calculated as value added times the multiplier. Sand Production. Calculation of Value Added Value added: To roughly estimate the income portion of gross output (or annual sales) we have used the direct income coefficient of .54 derived from the input output model built by the State Department of Water Resources (Op. cit. in footnote 5) Water Transportation. Calculation of Direct Income (Value Added) Value added: In the absence of data on costs for the water transportation sector or on the value of output, we have used earnings and the ratio of earnings to income to approximate the value added by this sector. First, we have used the fact that California average earnings per employee for water transportation was $56,470 in 1991. Total earnings for the industry was calculated multiplying earnings per employee by total employment. The ratio of total earnings to direct income (value added) was estimated as .80, based on the relationship of these two variables observed in 1991. Ship and Boat Building and Repair. Calculation of Direct Income (Value Added) Value added: In the absence of data on costs of ship and boat building and repair, or the value of output, we have used earnings and the ratio of earnings to income to approximate the value added by this sector. First we have used the fact that California average earnings per employee for transportation equipment was approximately $45,000 in 1991 (Op.cit in footnote 6). Total earnings for the industry was calculated multiplying earnings per employee by total employment. The ratio of total earnings to direct income (value added) was estimated as .80, based on the relationship of these two variables observed in 1991 (Op. cit. in footnote 7). Selected Multipliers Used in the Analysis EMBED ExcelWorksheet \s \* mergeformat APPENDIX B: COASTAL TRAVEL METHODOLOGY Travel Industry Impacts Studies Used to Value Coastal Recreation and Tourism. While there are some studies covering parts of the California coast, there is a lack of comprehensive recreational activity data for the entire state coast. Because of this lack of data, the approach we used in this study was to use travel values as a method of estimating the value of recreation and tourism. Once we estimated the direct travel value of coastal tourism, we applied multipliers to determine the secondary spending. Local Residents Excluded. One disadvantage to such an approach is that use of the coast by local residents is not included. Taken by itself, this factor would tend to lower the value of our estimates. However, other assumptions made in our study tend to raise the estimates. One of these is that all travelers who came to coastal areas on vacation went there because of the ocean, not for other reasons. However, there are many other reasons to visit large coastal metropolitan cities such as San Francisco and Los Angeles, such as visiting other tourist attractions, attending theater, opera, ballet, museum showings, or other events. Trade and Commerce Agency Travel Studies. The California Trade and Commerce Agency, Office of Tourism participates in several comprehensive studies of California tourism. One of these, which in recent years has been done annually, is called California Travel Impacts by County. The latest of these studies was made for 1992. Major findings from the Impacts study were discussed earlier, and include estimates of total travel spending, payrolls, employment, and tax receipts by county and type of travel business. The study also has specific estimates for recreation spending as a part of total travel spending. Travel spending was estimated for all travelers, for both business and leisure purposes, who traveled 50 miles or more from their homes and met other criterion. The study used a variety of industry association and government data sources in addition to visitor surveys to make their estimates. The Trade and Commerce Agency also subscribes to a national survey study of visitor origins, attitudes and characteristics, by D.K. Shifflet & Associates. This survey provides a comprehensive portrait of California travelers, including such characteristics as business and leisure travel for California counties. Steps in the Estimation Process. We took the following steps to estimate coastal travel spending: SYMBOL 183 \f "Symbol" \s 10 \h Determine coastal counties. SYMBOL 183 \f "Symbol" \s 10 \h Define the coastal portion of these counties. SYMBOL 183 \f "Symbol" \s 10 \h Define travel for recreation and tourism. Once these apportionment factors were determined, we were able to estimate coastal tourism and recreation spending based on total county travel spending. Determination of Coastal Counties. The determination of coastal counties is different for recreational purposes than it is for commercial purposes. Along most of the San Francisco Bay there are relatively few areas with access to water-based recreation. While the beauty of the bay provides a scenic attraction, it is likely that tourist attractions such as amusement parks located near the bay would still draw vacationers even if the bay were not there. However, tourist attractions in some counties such as San Francisco and Marin depend heavily on the bay. In this study we separated the following San Francisco Bay area counties: Alameda, Contra Costa, Napa, Santa Clara, and Solano. These counties are not as dependent on the coast as a tourist attraction as the other coastal counties are. However, we do recognize that these counties have some value as a coastal recreational resource, so they are included in our total estimate. Coastal Portions of Counties. Even for coastal counties, vacation travel in parts of the county may be for purposes other than ocean-related. For example, in the north coast tourists may come both to see redwood forests and the ocean. In certain counties it is possible to further refine our estimates of coastal travel by apportioning coastal from noncoastal regions of the county by using transient lodging tax information. The Trade and Commerce Agency Travel Impacts study has transient lodging receipts and tax rates by city. From this information counties were split into coastal and noncoastal regions, using coastal cities as defined by the California Coastal Commission as a general guide. We made the assumption that all other types of travel-related spending followed spending on accommodations. In three counties, Del Norte, Marin and San Francisco, it was impossible to apportion coastal shares of counties. In the case of San Francisco, the city and county have identical boundaries. In Del Norte and Marin counties all the cities collecting the transient lodging taxes were in the coastal zone. Table B-1 shows our estimates of the coastal portion of travel in the coastal counties. The estimates range from as low as four percent in San Mateo County to 94 percent in San Diego. Coastal shares of the rest of the counties varied from 20 percent in Mendocino to 77 percent in Santa Barbara. Travel for Tourism Purposes. One more step we felt was necessary to refine our estimates was to as closely as possible define travel by tourists. The Shifflet & Associates study, provided to us by the California Office of Tourism, has comprehensive data on purposes of California travel. Tourism Assumed as Only Vacation Travel. The primary alternative in our study assumes a relatively strict definition of tourism: only vacation travel. All business travel is excluded, as well as leisure travel for purposes other than vacations, such as visiting friends or attending to personal business. Table B-1 California Coastal and Vacation Proportions of County Travel Spending CountyCoastal ProportionVacation ProportionVacation Proportionof Total County Travelof Total County Travelof Coastal County TravelCoastal Counties Del Norte100%58%58% Humboldt 723928 Los Angeles 681611 Marin1001616 Mendocino 206814 Monterey 645032 Orange 363111 San Diego 943836 San Francisco1002727 San Luis Obispo 416326 San Mateo 424 1 Santa Barbara 773023 Santa Cruz 594124 Sonoma 453717 Ventura 5411 6San Francisco BayArea Counties: Alameda 62%12% 7% Contra Costa 28 2 1 Napa 041 0 Santa Clara 25 8 2 Solano 5116 8Source: California Research Bureau Estimates and California Trade and Commerce Agency, Office of Tourism, Domestic Travel to California: Visitor Origins, Characteristics, and Attitudes, D.K. Shifflet & Associates, November, 1992. Business Travel Excluded. Business travel, other than for conventions, should be excluded by the definition of tourism. Business travel that includes leisure travel as a secondary purpose is more difficult to categorize. For purposes of this study we will exclude such travel. Since the primary purpose of the trip was business, presumably the trip and most associated spending would have occurred even if the destination of the trip were not a popular tourist destination. Furthermore, leisure purposes are not all for tourism purposes; for example, visiting friends accounts for 30 percent of all leisure travel. Also, the question remains as to whether the leisure travel can be assumed to be attributed to the coastal resource. Business Convention Travel Excluded. Business convention travel is also difficult to categorize because tourism is often a secondary travel purpose of attending conventions. As with business and leisure travel combined, even if tourism is a secondary purpose of ‚ƒ„…†‡ˆ‰Š‹ŒŽ‘’“”•–—˜™š›œžŸ ЁЂЃЄЅІЇЈЉЊЋЌ­ЎЏАБВГДЕЖЗИЙКЛМНОПРСТУФХЦЧШЩЪЫЬЭЮЯабвгдежзийклмнопрстуфхцш§џџџщъыьэюя№ёђѓєѕіїјљњћќ§ўџthe convention, the question remains as to whether such tourism should be ascribed as a value to the coast. For example, is a business convention in San Francisco taking place there solely because San Francisco is on the coast? Conventions also occur in inland cities such as Anaheim. Our primary estimate of coast tourism spending excludes conventions. Rural Coastal Counties Have Largest Vacation Shares of Total Travel Spending. The proportion of vacation travel of all travel for coastal counties is shown in Table B-1. In the three largest metropolitan areas, vacation travel varied significantly. In San Diego County 38 percent of all travel was for vacation purposes, in San Francisco the vacation share was 27 percent, and in Los Angeles County 16 percent. The proportions increased for rural coastal counties; in Mendocino County 68 percent of all travel was for vacation purposes. Income and Employment Multipliers From Other Sources. Once we estimated the direct travel values, we used multipliers from the U.S. Department of Commerce, adjusted for income shares of total gross output from ratios provided by the California Department of Water Resources. (See bibliography for references.) The Department of Commerce multipliers are from its Regional Input-Output Multiplier Study, commonly referred to as "RIMS II." The multipliers provided to us were gross output multipliers. In order to use these multipliers to estimate income impacts, they must be adjusted by the share of income to gross output in each relevant industry. The income shares were from the Department of Water Resources (DWR). The RIMS study also provided employment multipliers, which needed no further adjustments. Table B-2 shows the employment and income multipliers used for each spending category of tourism spending. In each spending category multipliers were used for the standard industrial classification codes that mostly closely matched the spending category from the RIMS and DWR studies. Table B-2Coastal Tourism Income and Employment MultipliersIncomeEmploymentMultiplierMultiplier(Per Dollar)(Per Job)Spending Category Accommodations1.071.71 Eating and Drinking Places1.901.50 Air Transportation1.312.73 Ground Transportation1.201.96 Recreation1.171.62 Retail Sales1.941.63 Travel Arrangement2.102.12Source of Multipliers: U.S. Department of Commerce, RIMS II Study. (See Bibliography.) BIBLIOGRAPHY California Department of Boating and Waterways. 1991 Marina Directory. California Department of Commerce. Office of Economic Research. California's Major Commercial Ports 1986. December 1986. California Department of Conservation. Division of Oil and Gas. 1992 California Oil and Gas Production Statistics and New Well Operations. Preliminary Report. Issued January 1993. California Department of Conservation. Division of Oil and Gas. 77th Annual Report of the State Oil and Gas Supervisor. 1991. Publication No PR06. California Department of Water Resources. Measuring Economic Impacts. The Application of Input-Output Analysis to California Water Resources Problems. Bulletin 210. March 1980. California State Lands Commission. California Comprehensive Offshore Resource Study. Draft 1993. California Trade and Commerce Agency, Office of Tourism. California Travel Impacts by County, 1991. Prepared by Dean Runyan Associates. April, 1993. California Trade and Commerce Agency, Office of Tourism. California Travel Impacts by County, 1992. Prepared by Dean Runyan Associates. February, 1994. California Trade and Commerce Agency, Office of Tourism. Domestic Travel to California: Visitor Origins, Characteristics, and Attitudes. Prepared by D.K. Shifflet and Associates, LTD., Mc.Lean, Virginia. November 1992. California Transportation Commission. Improving Access to California's Ports. February 1990. King, Dennis M and Flagg, Virginia G.. The Economic Structure of California's Commercial Fisheries 1982. A California Sea Grant College Program Working Paper. Working Paper No P-T-32. King, Dennis M. and Shellhammer, Kenneth L. Center for Marine Studies. San Diego State University. The California Interindustry Fisheries (CIF) Model: An Input-Output Analysis of California Fisheries and Seafood Industries. A California Sea Grant College Program Working Paper. Vol. 1 (Working Paper No. P-T-5) and Vol. 2 (Working Paper No P T 6). November 1981. Leet, William S., Dewees, Christopher M. and Haugen, Charles W. Editors. California's Living Marine Resources and Their Utilization. California Sea Grant. Sea Grant Extension Publication UCSGEP-92-12. Lyle, Virginia. Editor. Proceedings of the Ocean Studies Symposium, November 1982. Report funded by the William H. Donner Foundation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Chevron, USA. Mc.Ginnis Michael Vincent. The Multiple Uses of the Coastal Zone and Ocean Offshore California. California Sea Grant College. Working Paper No. P-T-51. 1990. Meyer Resources Incorporated, Davis, California. An Evaluation of Existing Regional/County Socio-Economic Data Relevant to Potential OCS Oil-Related Activities off the Coasts of Sonoma, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties. September, 1990. Radtke, Hans and Davis, Shannon W. Economic Description of Coastal Fisheries in the Pacific Northwest. April 1993. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census: Census of Manufacturers 1987. U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Analysis Division. Regional Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS II). Unpublished data. May 1992. U.S. Department of Commerce. International Trade Administration. U.S. Industrial Outlook 1993. January 1993. U.S. Department of the Interior. Bureau of Mines. Mineral Commodity Summaries 1992.  Ex-vessel revenues are revenues obtained from the sale of finfish right off the boat.   All dollar values are expressed in 1990 dollars.  The Department of Fish and Game publishes total landings and the value of landings by geographic area. The Department of Fish and Game geographic areas are: Eureka, San Francisco, Monterey, Santa Barbara, and Los Angeles. We have matched their areas with our regions. For instance, landings from Eureka are reported here as landings from the North Coast region. For the definition of the regions considered in this study, please read the methodological appendix. In Charts 2 and 3, Central includes both, North Central and Central Coast regions.  Source: Leet, William S., Dewees, Christopher M. and Haugen, Charles W. Editors. California's Living Marine Resources and their Utilization. California Sea Grant Extension Publication UCSGEP-92-12. 1992.  This estimate is also taken from: Leet, William S., Dewees, Christopher M. and Haugen, Charles W. Editors. California's Living Marine Resources and their Utilization. Op. cit.  Total costs or total expenditures in commercial fishing were estimated using payroll data as a proxy of labor costs. We have also used the fact that labor costs represent approximately 40 percent of the total cost of commercial fisheries. This proportion was obtained from Hans Radtke, a researcher on the fishery industry of the Pacific West Coast. This estimate is based on his previous research. Value added differs from gross output. Gross output is the money value of total production. Value added or direct income is gross output minus the value of intermediate products used in the production of output. For a complete explanation of the methodology used to estimate direct and indirect income and employment effects, please see the methdological appendix.  Derived gains in income from commercial fishing and hatcheries are estimated using standard economic multipliers from the RIMS II Regional Input-Output model prepared by the U.S. Department of Commerce. The indirect employment generated by commercial fishing and other economic activities was estimated using the RIMS employment multipliers.  For an explanation on the calculation of indirect effects, please see the methodological appendix.   The value of kelp harvested was estimated using the value of imported kelp from Mexico (the closest competitor).   Source: Department of Conservation. Division of Oil Gas, and Geothermal Resources. Data based on ten months of production, as full year was not available at the time of this analysis.  To roughly estimate the income portion of offshore oil gross production we have used the direct income coefficient for crude petroleum (0.58) that was estimated in the input-output model developed by the State Department of Water Resources. (Please see methodological appendix)  Total income and employment effects were estimated using multipliers derived from the RIMS II model developed by the U.S. Department of Commerce. The California average employment multiplier for crude petroleum derived from the same model was used to estimate indirect employment. (Please see methodological appendix).  County effects have been approximated using the statewide average multipliers. (Please sea methodological appendix).  Data from the publication: California State Lands Commission. Draft. California Comprehensive Offshore Resource Study. 1992.  The calculation of total income effects derived from natural gas is explained in the methodological appendix.  Indirect employment effects have been calculated using the RIMS II model California average employment multipliers for natural gas. Please see methodological appendix.  Source: California State Lands Commission. (Op. cit.).  Gross output or the value of shipments was estimated as $6,400,000. The estimation of value added or the income portion accruing to primary inputs is explained in the methdological appendix.  Total income effect on the state includes secondary effects. For the calculation of total income effects, please see methodological appendix.  We have used the 1991 California average earnings for water transportation. Data from Survey of Current Business. August 1992. Volume 72, #8.  For the calculation of indirect income and employment effects, please see methodological appendix.  For the calculation of direct income (or value added), please see methodological appendix.  We have used the 1991 California average earnings for transportation equipment as published in Survey of Current Business, August 1992, #78. Indirect effects shown on Table 20 are calculated using income and employment multipliers from the Rims II model developed by the U.S. Department of Commerce. (Please see methodological appendix).  The California Trade and Commerce Agency defines travel as trips made by all foreign visitors and U.S. residents of other states plus travel by California residents meeting the following criterion: (1.) The travel is not commuting or other periodic travel, (2.) a county boundary is crossed, (3.) travelers remain at the destination overnight or the destination is over 50 miles from the travelers' home. In addition to travel by tourists, this definition includes travel for business purposes, attending business conventions, visiting relatives, and other travel purposes. For purposes of this study, the terms "travel" and "tourism" are used interchangeably.  Based on RIMS II Regional Input-output model. To assess secondary effects, we have used California average multipliers throughout this analysis. These multipliers represent the total income generated in an economic region (in our case the state of California) for each dollar produced in a given industry. Indirect effects, and consequently regional multipliers, vary from region to region. Since regional impacts are calculated using the statewide average multipliers, regional impacts are just rough approximations.  Factor obtained from Hans Radtke, Natural Resource Economist. This estimate is based on his previous research. Using payroll data as a proxy for labor costs understates the actual labor costs of commercial fishing. This understatement occurs because payroll data do not include self-employed fishermen. There is a substantial amount of small boats operated by self-employed fisherman engaged in commercial fishing.  Source: Dewees Chris, Radtke, Hans and Smith, Frederick. "The Fishing Industry and Pacific Coastal Communities: Understanding the Assessment of Economic Impacts".  Based on the ratio of total costs to value added for all industries, as published by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census: Census of Manufacturers 1987.  See State of California: The Resources Agency. Department of Water Resources. "Measuring Economic Impacts. The Application of Input-output Analysis to California Water Resources Problems". Bulletin 210. March 1980.  Data from the Survey of Current Business. August 1992. Volume 72, #8  From data from the Survey of Current Business. August 1992. Volume 72, #8.  California Research Bureau Page PAGE55 of 54 California Research Bureau Page PAGE1 of xx ™(јVš:CQ/,.   … џџџ  8™ 'џџ ѓц.џџџ 'џџ  ўџџџ ћ8џ"MS Sans Serif;6-ћшўМTimes New Romanџџ-ћшўМ"MS Sans SerifЋ:--ћМ"System-'џџ-џџџ џўЁ, ў-'џџ-џџџ ўџ/+њ-њ--'џџ--џџџ ьЗ*ЌoЎ oЙ*оЎоЙ*M ЎM Й*М ЎМ Й*+ Ў+ Й*š Ўš Й* Ў Й*--'џџ--џџџ ўџ/+--'џџ--џџџ џМ*Ќќ- ЪˆM…ц@  У ќ^ З8:-cАшš kЃ"c& _&'т#*o'-ќџџџ--'џџ---џџџ ўџ/+Ў  ЎŠвoŠoвоŠовM ŠM вМ ŠМ в+ Š+ вš Šš в Š вЎЙ*мЎ$Ўмi$iм$ $$ мр $р м›$›мV$Vм$мЬ$Ьм‡$‡мC#$C#мў&$ў&мЙ*$Й*---'џџ---џџџ ўџ/+---'џџ---џџџ џўЁ, ў----'џџ---џџџ Ÿэ \z  2 iChart 1Ъ•‹}[H‹C2 Уг (California Share of U.S. Total Landings Ъ‹MM`†}•M‹Hš•‹}}H†`HЪHšHHЛ†[‹MHЛ‹•šM•‹nHK2 s› -California Share of U.S. Ex-Vessel Revenues Ъ‹MM`†}•M‹Hš•‹}}H†`HЪHšHHHЛ†[Ъ}nn}MHЪ}‹}••}nH2 # (Percent)[­}}}}•[[---'џџ---џџџ џўЁ, ў----'џџ---џџџ +7й …2 ИTSource: Data from "California's Living Marine Resources and Their Utilization". SeaЖžž`••[[Ъ•j•[j`žѕ[Х•CCjž`žC•[‹[•CšCžž[ў•`Cž•[Ж•‹žž`••‹[•žž[Вž•C`[ЪjCCC†•jCžž[[[Ж••$2 c‰Grant Publication. Ю`•žj[ЃžžCC••jCžž[[---'џџ---џџџ џўЁ, ў---'џџ---џџџ џўЁ, ў----'џџ---џџџ џўЁ, ў  2 Uœ1} 2 Фœ3} 2 3œ5} 2 Ђ œ7} 2  œ9} 2 € 11}} 2 я 13}} 2 ^15}}---'џџ---џџџ џўЁ, ў---'џџ---џџџ џўЁ, ў  2 4“1970}}}} 2 4N1975}}}} 2 4 1980}}}} 2 4Ф 1985}}}} 2 41990}}}} 2 4і1970}}}} 2 4Б1975}}}} 2 4l 1980}}}} 2 4'$1985}}}} 2 4т'1990}}}}---'џџ---џџџ џўЁ, ўћшў"MS Sans Serifћ9----'џџ---џџџ Юп)Љэ 92 .!Share of U.S. Ex-Vessel Revenues Жž•`•[žj[Ъ[Ж[[žš[Ъ•‹‹•C[Ж•š•žž•‹[---'џџ---џџџ џўЁ, ў---'џџ---џџџ Кх– 12 .Share of U.S. Total LandingsЖž•`•[žj[Ъ[Ж[[Вžj•C[••žžCžž‹---'џџ---џџџ џўЁ, ўќ- №-№№№№'џџndZ:CQ/,. мм џ < џџџ  8™ 'џџ ѓц.џџџ 'џџ  ўџџџ  ћџTimes New Roman-ћшўМTimes New Roman--ћМ"System-'џџ-џџџ џўЁ, ў-'џџ-џџџ ўџ/+њ-њ--'џџ--џџџ бВ*Db№` №Б*§`§Б* ` Б* ` Б*$`$Б*1`1Б*--'џџ--џџџ ўџ/+--'џџ--џџџ фЗ*1bќџџ- фЌф5фV їпф ?Š фЋљ4фU!офџ§ˆфЊj3фTнфў"Ф‡!фЈ&Љ1%фS*Єм(-ќџџџ--'џџ---џџџ ўџ/+ф` 1`ф4фŒ№4№Œ§4§Œ 4 Œ 4 Œ$4$Œ141Œф`фБ*И``И  ИЕ Е И_ _ И  ИГГИ^^ИИВВИ\#\#И''ИБ*Б*---'џџ---џџџ ўџ/+---'џџ---џџџ џўЁ, ў----'џџ---џџџ яН\R  2 ОChart 2Ъ•‹}[H‹.2 УКTop Ten Commercial SpeciesЛ†šHЛ}•HЪ†цц}}}M‹MHšš}}M}n32 st1992 Dollar Value of Landings‹‹‹‹HЪ†MM‹}HЪ‹M•}H†`HЛ‹•šM•‹n---'џџ---џџџ џўЁ, ў---'џџ---џџџ Яr  <2 ‰” #Source: Department of Fish and Gameš†•}}}[HЪ}š‹}[ц}•[H†`H­Mn•H‹•šHи‹ц}---'џџ---џџџ џўЁ, ў---'џџ---џџџ џўЁ, ў----'џџ---џџџ џўЁ, ў  2 k–2.5x>x 2 w–7.5x>x 2 „12.5xx>x 2 ‘ 17.5xx>x 2 ž 22.5xx>x 2 Ћ27.5xx>x 2 И32.5xx>x---'џџ---џџџ џўЁ, ў---'џџ---џџџ џўЁ, ў---'џџ---џџџ џўЁ, ўЎ{ j,ќџџ-№ $уу ЅДуу---'џџ---џџџ ьЄ ъС 2 яЁ Sea Urchin†jj>­Rjs:s---'џџ---џџџ џўЁ, ўё x  т М $lV Њ€ 0 3 lV ---'џџ---џџџ Ў „ F 2  Rockfish >ž}jxH:[s>---'џџ---џџџ џўЁ, ўn №  с6  $щ W" Ќ /щ W---'џџ---џџџ о Dq э  2 . Dungeness Crab­xsxjsj[[>žRjs---'џџ---џџџ џўЁ, ў™  О $34n]ї 34---'џџ---џџџ ъJ‚ u 2 = ’Pacific Herring†jj:H:j>­jRR:sx---'џџ---џџџ џўЁ, ў[• Ђ' $пA ып---'џџ---џџџ дњg ї 2 %  Swordfish†­}RxH:[s---'џџ---џџџ џўЁ, ўмЇ J) $лПшžšлП---'џџ---џџџ !Фš н 2 ф {Shrimp†sR:Вx---'џџ---џџџ џўЁ, ў+ R П $D7z^ D7---'џџ---џџџ Ю!a ” 2  Г Dover Sole­}sjR>†}:j---'џџ---џџџ џўЁ, ўє <#  V" $"€D"ЊЪ"\"€---'џџ---џџџ ю Э% ! 2 ? 7! Thornyhead•s}Rsnsjjx---'џџ---џџџ џўЁ, ў^7& UР% $m%ШБ%ѓ2&Љm%Ш---'џџ---џџџ >Х'ж 5$ 2  Q$ Sablefish†js:jH:[s---'џџ---џџџ џўЁ, ўЏ) ^k) $)б\)ќн)В)б---'џџ---џџџ ,†Œ' 2 (MackerelгjjxjRj:---'џџ---џџџ џўЁ, ўћџМTimes New Roman----'џџ---џџџ ЂЄ," 2 эAMillionsцC>>Cx†[---'џџ---џџџ џўЁ, ў----'џџ---џџџ  Ў щ  2 i Tuna•xsj---'џџ---џџџ џўЁ, ў › Ÿ $Хь@„уХќ-№-№№№'џџrnZ :CQ/,. мм † < џџџ  8™ 'џџ ѓц.џџџ 'џџ  ўџџџ  ћ8џ"MS Sans Serifn-ћшўМTimes New Roman-ћшўМ"MS Sans Serif,--ћшў"MS Sans Serif_,-ћМ"System-'џџ-џџџ џўЁ, ў-'џџ-џџџ ўџ/+њ-њ--'џџ--џџџ 'В*f2=2 =Б*A2AБ*E 2E Б*I 2I Б*M2MБ*Q2QБ*--'џџ--џџџ ўџ/+--'џџ--џџџ :З*R2ќ- 9Ё  т9С~ 9сs"9)›A"-ќџџџ--'џџ---џџџ ўџ/+92 Q299^==^AA^E E ^I I ^MM^QQ^929Б* 2e2 R eR  rer ‘ e‘  Б*eБ*---'џџ---џџџ ўџ/+---'џџ---џџџ џўЁ, ў----'џџ---џџџ я\_  2 ЇChart 3Ъ•‹}[H‹+2 У‚1992 Weight of Landings ‹‹‹‹H}M‹•[H†`HЛ‹•šM•‹nH%2 sФ(Millions of Pounds)[ MMMM†•nH†`H­†••šn[---'џџ---џџџ џўЁ, ў----'џџ---џџџ J оš  <2 cФ #Source: Department of Fish and GameЖžž`••[[Ъ•ž•`jѕ•žj[žj[šC‹ž[•žž[Ю•ѕ•---'џџ---џџџ џўЁ, ў---'џџ---џџџ џўЁ, ў----'џџ---џџџ џўЁ, ў  2 Ž0} 2 ’›20}} 2 –›40}} 2 š ›60}} 2 ž ›80}} 2 Ђ100}}} 2 І120}}}---'џџ---џџџ џўЁ, ў----'џџ---џџџ џўЁ, ў 2 >6 North CoastЪž`jž[Хž•‹j2 >•CentralХ•žj`•C2 >  South CentralЖžžjž[Х•žj`•C2 >€" South CoastЖžžjž[Хž•‹j---'џџ---џџџ џўЁ, ўќ- №-№№№№'џџ :!*5џ.:CQ/,. мм м < џџџ  8™ 'џџ ѓц.џџџ 'џџ  ўџџџ  ћ8џ"MS Sans Serif,-ћшўМTimes New Roman-ћшўМ"MS Sans Serif{/--ћшў"MS Sans Serif+,-ћМ"System-'џџ-џџџ џўЁ, ў-'џџ-џџџ ўџ/+њ-њ--'џџ--џџџ 'В*fЕ‘Ж ‘Б*щЖщБ*AЖAБ*™ Ж™ Б*ё Жё Б*I ЖI Б*Ё ЖЁ Б*љЖљБ*QЖQБ*--'џџ--џџџ ўџ/+--'џџ--џџџ :З*RЕќ- 9? ™k9~X Њ 9НЯ щ9ћ(m '"-ќџџџ--'џџ---џџџ ўџ/+9Ж QЖ9Š9т‘Š‘тщŠщтAŠAт™ Š™ тё Šё тI ŠI тЁ ŠЁ тљŠљтQŠQт9Ж9Б* ЖeЖ ѕ eѕ  4e4 r er  Б*eБ*---'џџ---џџџ ўџ/+---'џџ---џџџ џўЁ, ў----'џџ---џџџ яё\w  2 iChart 4Ъ•‹}[H‹*2 У˜1992 Value of Landings ‹‹‹‹HЪ‹M•}H†`HЛ‹•šM•‹nH'2 sˆ(Millions of Dollars)[ MMMM†•nH†`HЪ†MM‹}n[---'џџ---џџџ џўЁ, ў----'џџ---џџџ  о\  <2 c† #Source: Department of Fish and GameЖžž`••[[Ъ•ž•`jѕ•žj[žj[šC‹ž[•žž[Ю•ѕ•---'џџ---џџџ џўЁ, ў---'џџ---џџџ џўЁ, ў----'џџ---џџџ џўЁ, ў  2 Žœ0} 2 цœ5} 2 >10}} 2 –15}} 2 ю 20}} 2 F 25}} 2 ž 30}} 2 і 35}} 2 N40}} 2 І45}}---'џџ---џџџ џўЁ, ў----'џџ---џџџ џўЁ, ў 2 >Щ North CoastЪž`jž[Хž•‹j2 >GCentralХ•žj`•C2 >л South CentralЖžžjž[Х•žj`•C2 >q" South CoastЖžžjž[Хž•‹j---'џџ---џџџ џўЁ, ўќ- №-№№№№'џџZ):ИIщJЬ)y*jj   I џџџ  йЕ'џџ џџџ 'џџџџџ мИќџќџ'џџџџџ тОќџќџќ€џџ-  !№СА5B( ЏЏЏџџџџџџџџџ€її,џџ%џџџџ,20 џ_›-№ !№$АФќџџџџџ-№ !№GАч5B( ЏЏЏџџџџџџџџџ€її,џџ%џџџџ,20 џ_›-№ !№ЋА-ќџџ-№ !№еТ !№Бўџ !№RТ] !№Бу !№Б) !№Бгќџџџ-'џџ-џџџ мИќџќџћжџМ"MS Sans SerifЫL--ћМ"System-'џџ--џџџ мИќџќџћжџ"MS Sans SerifЗ:-ћЮџМ"MS Sans Serif‹1- џџџ 2 Table 2  --'џџ--џџџ тОќџќџ--'џџ--џџџ мИќџќџ џџџ F2 Pc*Commercial Fisheries and Fish Hatcheries.#++     $  --'џџ--џџџ тОќџќџ--'џџ--џџџ мИќџќџ џџџ I2 ’,1992 Employment and Income Effects by Region+ ++   --'џџ--џџџ тОќџќџ--'џџ--џџџ мИќџќџћжџМ"MS Sans Serif[1- џџџ 2 к<Indirect  2 кэTotal 2 кеIndirect  2 кCTotal  --'џџ--џџџ тОќџќџ--'џџ--џџџ мИќџќџ џџџ 2  Region 2 С Income Effect $2 C Income Effect $2 w Employment$ $2 Ж Employment$ $ --'џџ--џџџ тОќџќџ--'џџ--џџџ мИќџќџ џџџ  2 R@ 2 RЧ (Direct plus   --'џџ--џџџ тОќџќџ--'џџ--џџџ мИќџќџ џџџ 2 ”, (Dollars) 2 ”Ў (Dollars) 2 ” Indirect)   --'џџ--џџџ тОќџќџ  !№ЪўџЏ--'џџ--џџџ мИќџќџћжџ"MS Sans SerifЋ2-   2 ј} --'џџ--џџџ тОќџќџ--'џџ--џџџ мИќџќџ--'џџ--џџџ тОќџќџ--'џџ--џџџ мИќџќџћжџМ"MS Sans Serif2- 2 ‹ North CoastћжџМ"MS Sans SerifЛ1-  2 ‹ц 31,065,1242 ‹h 57,391,5002 ‹ѕ1,1132 ‹41,401--'џџ- -џџџ тОќџќџ--'џџ- -џџџ мИќџќџ- +2 Э (Del Norte, Humboldt and $ --'џџ--џџџ тОќџќџ--'џџ--џџџ мИќџќџ 2  Mendocino)& --'џџ--џџџ тОќџќџ--'џџ--џџџ мИќџќџ--'џџ--џџџ тОќџќџ--'џџ--џџџ мИќџќџ 2 “ North Central -  2 “ц 10,255,8272 “h 18,947,206 2 “368 2 “\599--'џџ- -џџџ тОќџќџ--'џџ- -џџџ мИќџќџ- *2 е (Alameda, Contra Costa, $--'џџ--џџџ тОќџќџ--'џџ--џџџ мИќџќџ 02  Marin, Napa, San Francisco,&  --'џџ--џџџ тОќџќџ--'џџ--џџџ мИќџќџ 92 Y !Santa. Clara, Solano and Sonoma )  $--'џџ--џџџ тОќџќџ--'џџ--џџџ мИќџќџ--'џџ--џџџ тОќџќџ--'џџ--џџџ мИќџќџ 2 н Central Coast -  2 н 7,805,8822 нh 14,421,036 2 н280 2 н\419--'џџ- -џџџ тОќџќџ--'џџ- -џџџ мИќџќџ- +2  (Monterey, San Mateo and&&--'џџ--џџџ тОќџќџ--'џџ--џџџ мИќџќџ 2 a Santa Cruz)--'џџ--џџџ тОќџќџ--'џџ--џџџ мИќџќџ--'џџ--џџџ тОќџќџ--'џџ--џџџ мИќџќџ $2 х South Central Coast -  2 х 5,892,6672 хh 10,886,453 2 х211 2 х\302--'џџ- -џџџ тОќџќџ--'џџ- -џџџ мИќџќџ- *2 ' (San Luis Obispo, Santa   --'џџ--џџџ тОќџќџ--'џџ--џџџ мИќџќџ %2 i Barbara and Ventura)--'џџ--џџџ тОќџќџ--'џџ--џџџ мИќџќџ--'џџ--џџџ тОќџќџ--'џџ--џџџ мИќџќџ 2 э South Coast-  2 эц 93,363,4002 эN 172,484,9252 эѕ3,3462 э44,115--'џџ- -џџџ тОќџќџ--'џџ- -џџџ мИќџќџ  '2 / (Los Angeles, Orange   --'џџ- -џџџ тОќџќџ--'џџ- -џџџ мИќџќџ  2 q and San Diego) --'џџ- -џџџ тОќџќџ--'џџ- -џџџ мИќџќџ--'џџ- -џџџ тОќџќџ--'џџ- -џџџ мИќџќџ- %2 љ All Coastal Counties   -  2 љЬ 148,382,9002 љN 274,131,1202 љѕ5,3182 љ46,836--'џџ- -џџџ тОќџќџ--'џџ- -џџџ мИќџќџ--'џџ- -џџџ тОќџќџ--'џџ- -џџџ мИќџќџ--'џџ- -џџџ тОќџќџ  !№3ўџўџ--'џџ- -џџџ мИќџќџ--'џџ- -џџџ тОќџќџ  !№loўџ !№Y‚Џќ- №№№№№№№'џџ ,, *!&џ.к:я6&B ИК  G c џџџ  #}'џџ џџџ 'џџџџџ "|'џџџџџ yќ€џџ-  !№ x5B( ЏЏЏџџџџџџџџџїїџџџџџџ-№ !№xќџџ-№ !№yўџ !№q !№ ќџџџ-'џџ-џџџ "|ћжџМ"MS Sans Serif‡6--ћМ"System-'џџ--џџџ "|ћжџ"MS Sans SerifE-ћжџМ"MS Sans Serif'6- џџџ 2 ѕTable 3  --'џџ--џџџ y--'џџ--џџџ "| џџџ c2 Aд=Fish Processing and Marine Oil. 1992 Employment and Payroll  &  $ $  --'џџ--џџџ y--'џџ--џџџ "|ћпџМ"MS Sans SerifW6- џџџ 2 ~fCanned and Cured   2 ~7 Prepared and     2 ~wMarine Fish Oils    --'џџ--џџџ y--'џџ--џџџ "| џџџ 2 ДxFish and Seafood   2 Д^ Frozen Fish  2 ДйSIC 2077   --'џџ--џџџ y--'џџ--џџџ "| џџџ 2 ъюSIC 2091  2 ъxSIC 2092   --'џџ--џџџ y--'џџ--џџџ "|--'џџ--џџџ y--'џџ--џџџ "|ћжџ"MS Sans Serif3K-  2 O Employment$ $ћжџМ"MS Sans Serifї5- 2 O2,0972 O›2,122 2 O$348--'џџ--џџџ y--'џџ--џџџ "|-  !2 … Payroll (Dollars)  - 2 …› 51,686,0662 …% 33,757,6892 …† 12,256,324--'џџ--џџџ y--'џџ--џџџ "|--'џџ--џџџ y--'џџ--џџџ "|--'џџ--џџџ y  !№ъўџw--'џџ--џџџ "|--'џџ--џџџ y  !№ъўџўџ !№? шuќ- №-'џџ-џџџ #}ќџџ-  !№} !№} !№ !№y- №№№№№№'џџ№IgІ<%ЄВџџ:k=‹г"/шш  [  џџџ  _A'џџ џџџ  'џџџџџ bDќџќџ'џџџџџ hJќџќџќ€џџ-  !№<5B( ЏЏЏџџџџџћћџџћћџџїїїїїїџџяяџџяяџџппппПППП-№ !№1<ќџџџџџ-№ !№:<C5B( ЏЏЏџџџџџџџџћћџџћћїїїїџџїїџџяяџџяяппппПППП-№ !№т<|ќџџ-№ !№3ўџ !№= !№3? !№3x !№3Yќџџџ-'џџ-џџџ bDќџќџћжџМ"MS Sans SerifГ†- -ћМ"System-'џџ--џџџ bDќџќџћжџ"MS Sans Serifƒ*-  ћпџМ"MS Sans Serifw=- џџџ 2 fTable 4  --'џџ--џџџ hJќџќџ--'џџ--џџџ bDќџќџћжџМ"MS Sans SerifЛ.- џџџ 2 AlP1992 Costs and Value Added of Commercial Fishing and Marine Fish Oil Production $$    &     --'џџ--џџџ hJќџќџ  !№: ўџ9--'џџ--џџџ bDќџќџ- џџџ 2 ~фEstimated Total      2 ~аValue   --'џџ--џџџ hJќџќџ--'џџ--џџџ bDќџќџ џџџ 2 ДˆCosts 2 ДУAdded   --'џџ--џџџ hJќџќџ--'џџ--џџџ bDќџќџ џџџ 2 щ` (Dollars)   2 щВ (Dollars)    --'џџ--џџџ hJќџќџ--'џџ--џџџ bDќџќџ--'џџ--џџџ hJќџќџ--'џџ--џџџ bDќџќџћжџМ"MS Sans SerifW- "2 q Commercial Fishing$$    ћжџМ"MS Sans Serifo-- 2 qо 114,430,8802 q0 125,748,220 --'џџ--џџџ hJќџќџ--'џџ--џџџ bDќџќџ--'џџ--џџџ hJќџќџ--'џџ--џџџ bDќџќџ- 2 н Fish Processing   - 2 но 194,532,4962 нJ 88,023,754 --'џџ--џџџ hJќџќџ--'џџ--џџџ bDќџќџ- $2  Marine Fish Oil (*)&   - 2 ј 30,640,8102 J 33,671,220 --'џџ--џџџ hJќџќџ--'џџ--џџџ bDќџќџ- 2 K TOTAL  -  2 K”(**)2 K0 247,443,193 --'џџ--џџџ hJќџќџ  !№8;--'џџ--џџџ bDќџќџ--'џџ--џџџ hJќџќџ--'џџ--џџџ bDќџќџћпџМ"MS Sans SerifЇ=-   j2 т B (*) Assumes that labor costs represent 40 percent of total costs.                  --'џџ- -џџџ hJќџќџ--'џџ- -џџџ bDќџќџ  p2 3 F(**) No total in this column because of overlap between the categories                  --'џџ- -џџџ hJќџќџ--'џџ- -џџџ bDќџќџ--'џџ- -џџџ hJќџќџ  !№cўџўџ !№" ?9ќ- №№№№№№№'џџ0?џџџџџџќ002к:ИIе!Ь)/jj  О u џџџ  џЕ'џџ џџџ 'џџџџџ Иќџќџ'џџџџџ Оќџќџќ€џџ-  !№‹А5B( ЏЏЏџџџџџ'џџџџїїџџџџ)џџ*+-№ !№ТАŽќџџџџџ-№ !№GАO5B( ЏЏЏџџџџџ'џџџџїїџџџџ)џџ*+-№ !№iА•ќџџ-№ !№еŒ !№Бўџ !№RŒ] !№БK !№Б‘ !№Бљќџџџ-'џџ-џџџ ИќџќџћжџМ"MS Sans Serif?2--ћМ"System-'џџ--џџџ Иќџќџћжџ"MS Sans Serif/;-ћЮџМ"MS Sans Serif{/- џџџ 2 Table 5  --'џџ--џџџ Оќџќџ--'џџ--џџџ Иќџќџ џџџ u2 PаI1992 Economic Impact of Commercial Fishing and Marine Fish Oil Production+ +#++    -  &   --'џџ--џџџ Оќџќџ--'џџ--џџџ ИќџќџћжџМ"MS Sans Serifg=- џџџ 2 ˜<Indirect  2 ˜эTotal 2 ˜еIndirect  2 ˜CTotal  --'џџ--џџџ Оќџќџ--'џџ--џџџ Иќџќџ џџџ 2 кС Income Effect $2 кC Income Effect $2 кw Employment$ $2 кЖ Employment$ $ --'џџ--џџџ Оќџќџ--'џџ--џџџ Иќџќџ џџџ  2 @ 2 Ч (Direct plus   --'џџ--џџџ Оќџќџ--'џџ--џџџ Иќџќџ џџџ 2 ^, (Dollars) 2 ^Ў (Dollars) 2 ^ Indirect)   --'џџ--џџџ Оќџќџ--'џџ--џџџ Иќџќџћжџ"MS Sans Serif“0-   2 Т} --'џџ--џџџ Оќџќџ--'џџ--џџџ Иќџќџ--'џџ--џџџ Оќџќџ--'џџ--џџџ ИќџќџћжџМ"MS Sans Serifл/- 2 U Fish Industry   ћжџМ"MS Sans SerifЧ=-  2 UЬ 252,250,9292 UN 466,022,9032 Uѕ9,0412 U14,833--'џџ- -џџџ Оќџќџ--'џџ- -џџџ Иќџќџ- 2 — Marine Fish Oil&   -  2 —ц 54,547,3762 —h 88,218,596      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrsu§џџџvwxyz{|}~€2 —ѕ1,8002 —42,148--'џџ- -џџџ Оќџќџ--'џџ- -џџџ Иќџќџ--'џџ- -џџџ Оќџќџ--'џџ- -џџџ Иќџќџ--'џџ- -џџџ Оќџќџ--'џџ- -џџџ Иќџќџ- 2 a Total -  2 aЬ 306,798,3062 aN 554,241,5002 aл10,8412 a16,981--'џџ- -џџџ Оќџќџ--'џџ- -џџџ Иќџќџ--'џџ- -џџџ Оќџќџ--'џџ- -џџџ Иќџќџ--'џџ- -џџџ Оќџќџ  !№ўџўџ !№ўџЏќ- №№№№№№№'џџ€ ,, М*!&џ.Z:ю;дћ!` шш  F џџџ  ”'џџ џџџ 'џџџџџ “'џџџџџ ќ€џџ-  !№5B( ЏЏЏџџџџџџџџџїїџџџџџџџџs  -№ !№ќџџџџџ-№ !№:#5B( ЏЏЏџџџџџџџџџџїїџџџџџџџџs -№ !№7\ќџџ-№ !№ўџ !№ !№ !№Xќџџџ-'џџ-џџџ “ћжџМ"MS Sans SerifgF--ћМ"System-'џџ--џџџ “ћжџ"MS Sans SerifЫE-ћжџМ"MS Sans SerifЇ<- џџџ 2 ATable 6  --'џџ--џџџ --'џџ--џџџ “ћЮџМ"MS Sans SerifOC- џџџ F2 Tx*1991 Value of Oyster and Mussel Production$ &-   --'џџ--џџџ --'џџ--џџџ “- џџџ 2   Region !2  №Oyster Production  !2  žMussel Production&   --'џџ--џџџ --'џџ--џџџ “ џџџ 2 тŸ (Dollars) 2 тc (Dollars)  --'џџ--џџџ --'џџ--џџџ “ћжџМ"MS Sans Serif=- .2  North Coast (Humboldt Bay)$ ћжџМ"MS Sans Serifw<- 2  2,640,2972 y12,981--'џџ--џџџ --'џџ--џџџ “- :2 Q "North Central (Tomales, Drake Bay) $ - 2 Q 1,725,196 2 Qе22--'џџ--џџџ --'џџ--џџџ “- 72 ‡ South Central Coast (Morro Bay,  &- 2 ‡У64,5102 ‡_127,693--'џџ--џџџ --'џџ--џџџ “- *2 Н  Santa Barbara)-  2 НК  2 Нe --'џџ--џџџ --'џџ--џџџ “--'џџ--џџџ --'џџ--џџџ “- 2 + Total - 2 + 4,430,0032 +_140,696--'џџ--џџџ --'џџ--џџџ “--'џџ--џџџ --'џџ--џџџ “--'џџ--џџџ   !№bўџўџ !№bўџќ- №-'џџ-џџџ ”ќџџ-  !№ !№ !№Œ !№Œ- №№№№№№'џџ:CQЈ+.С f B џџџ  (™ 'џџ @ч.џџџ 'џџ Фўџџџ ћ8џ"MS Sans Serif/>-ћшўМTimes New Roman-ћџМTimes New Roman--ћМ"System-'џџ-џџџ џЁ,Фў-'џџ-џџџ ўџ/+Цњ-њ--'џџ--џџџ OВ*"ьіъ іГ*ŒъŒГ*"ъ"Г*И ъИ Г*N ъN Г*ф ъф Г*zъzГ*ъГ*--'џџ--џџџ ўџ/+Ц--'џџ--џџџ bЗ*ьќ- aй< €a` Ыaц  amL aєт›azХ !a Јa‡ч .a#bЕ a•&| <$a*œ Т'-ќџџџ--'џџ---џџџ ўџ/+Цaъ ъaМaіМіŒМŒ"М"И МИ N МN ф Мф zМzМaъaГ*3ъъ3qq3ї ї 3~~33‹‹33˜˜3  3І#І#3,','3Г*Г*---'џџ---џџџ ўџ/+Ц---'џџ---џџџ џЁ,Фў----'џџ---џџџ ЌЕщ 2 Я„Chart 5Ъ•‹}[H‹(2  State Kelp Production š[‹[}Hи}MšH­}†š•}[M†•H2 /­(Tons) [Л†•n[H---'џџ---џџџ џЁ,Фў----'џџ---џџџ Q‘M B2 Ql'Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics†x†ejjR>­>†>>Ѓ†ejx†>xM>žx†xe>†RxRC[RCj[---'џџ---џџџ џЁ,Фў---'џџ---џџџ џЁ,Фў----'џџ---џџџ џЁ,Фў  2 Жв0}2 Kœ20,000}}C}}}2 сœ40,000}}C}}}2 wœ60,000}}C}}}2 œ80,000}}C}}}2 Ѓ 100,000}}}C}}}2 9 120,000}}}C}}}2 Я140,000}}}C}}}2 e160,000}}}C}}}---'џџ---џџџ џЁ,Фў---'џџ---џџџ џЁ,Фў  2 Д1982}}}} 2 ;1983}}}} 2 Т 1984}}}} 2 H1985}}}} 2 Я1986}}}} 2 V1987}}}} 2 м1988}}}} 2 c1989}}}} 2 щ 1990}}}} 2 p$1991}}}} 2 ї'1992}}}}---'џџ---џџџ џЁ,Фўќ-№-№№№'џџPБ Šd%@гшPšБ!П4џvz:Ъ/“я ЙК   N џџџ  чЅ'џџ џџџ 'џџџџџ ъЈќџќџ'џџџџџ №Ўќџќџќ€џџ-  !№Й 5B( ЏЏЏџџџџџУУџџ<<џџссїїџџ№№џџџџxx‡‡<<<<<<УУсс-№ !№c Мќџџџџџ-№ !№: 5B( ЏЏЏџџџџџУУџџ<<џџссїїџџ№№џџџџxx‡‡<<<<<<УУсс-№ !№V Wќџџџџџ-№ !№: Ќќџџ-№ !№Ёўџ !№™К !№Ё !№ЁS !№ЁЈ !№Ёсќџџџ-'џџ-џџџ ъЈќџќџћжџМ"MS Sans Serif?--ћМ"System-'џџ--џџџ ъЈќџќџћжџ"MS Sans Serifn-ћжџМ"MS Sans Serifч2- џџџ 2 ‰Table 7  --'џџ--џџџ №Ўќџќџ--