[3] 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.

[4] 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.

⁵ 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.

[6] 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.

[7] 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.

⁸ For an explanation on the calculation of indirect effects, please see the methodological appendix.  [9] The value of kelp harvested was estimated using the value of imported kelp from Mexico (the closest competitor).

 [10] 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.

[11] 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)

[12] 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).

[13] County effects have been approximated using the statewide average multipliers. (Please sea methodological appendix).

[14] Data from the publication: California State Lands Commission. Draft. California Comprehensive Offshore Resource Study. 1992.

[15] The calculation of total income effects derived from natural gas is explained in the methodological appendix.

[16] Indirect employment effects have been calculated using the RIMS II model California average employment multipliers for natural gas. Please see methodological appendix.

[17] Source: California State Lands Commission. (Op. cit.).

[18] 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.

[19] Total income effect on the state includes secondary effects. For the calculation of total income effects, please see methodological appendix.

[20] We have used the 1991 California average earnings for water transportation. Data from Survey of Current Business. August 1992. Volume 72, #8.

[21] For the calculation of indirect income and employment effects, please see methodological appendix.

[22] For the calculation of direct income (or value added), please see methodological appendix.

[23] 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).

[24] 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.

[25] 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.

[26] 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.

[27] Source: Dewees Chris, Radtke, Hans and Smith, Frederick. "The Fishing Industry and Pacific Coastal Communities: Understanding the Assessment of Economic Impacts".

[28] 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.

[29] 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.

[30] Data from the Survey of Current Business. August 1992. Volume 72, #8

[31] From data from the Survey of Current Business. August 1992. Volume 72, #8.