Physical Sci .Lib. TC 82^ C2 A2 NO. 58 Appx.A IPYSICAL SCI.. Lib. ?V STATE OF CALIl ^ DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES ^ f, DIVISION OF RESOURCES PLANNING FUTURE POPULATION, ECONOMIC AND RECREATION DEVELOPMENT OF CALIFORNIAS NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES APPENDIX A OF -^.^^ BULLETIN NO. 58 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION GOODWIN J. KNIGHT ^^^^^^M HARVEY 0. BANKS Governor Kt^ "^I^A^ "I Director of Water Resources JULY, 1957 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DIVISION OF RESOURCES PLANNING FUTURE POPULATION, ECONOMIC AND RECREATION DEVELOPMENT OF CALIFORNIA'S NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES APPENDIX A OF BULLETIN NO. 58 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION GOODWIN J. KNIGHT R^^Si"^ HARVEY 0. BANKS Governor IJt^^ "^^^^ '/ Director of Water Resources JULY, 1957 STATE OF CAUFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DIVISION OF RESOURCES PLANNING INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT The Northeastern Counties Investigation was conducted by the State of California, Department of Water Resources, under legislative authorization which provided for the determination of the ultimate water needs of 15 northeastern California counties, predicated upon full devel- opment of all natural resources. To assist in the analysis of the expanding water needs of these counties that will inevitably result from population increases and the growth of industry and commerce, including recreation, the Department employed the firm of Harold F. Wise and Associates, con- sultants in planning and urban economics. This appendix report, prepared by the firm of Harold F. Wise and Associates, sets forth the data and conclusions relating to ultimate pop- ulation, economic development that might result from full use of the natural resources, and recreation potential which could be expected under ultimate conditions. These data are the basis for the Department's estimates of water requirements for urban, domestic, industrial, and recreation uses, as pre- sented in Department of Water Resources Bulletin No. 58, "Northeastern Counties Investigation". NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION I. Probable Ultimate Population and Economic Development. 1 1 , Potential U Itimate Recreation Development. Report prepared by Harold F. Wise & Associates, Consultants in Planning and Urban Economics for the State of California Department of Water Resources AAarch 1957 Harold F. Wise & Associates 707 Forum Building Sacramento 14, California PLANNING AND URBAN ECONOMICS HAROLD F. WISE & ASSCX:iATES 707 Fonim Building, Sacramenio 14, California March 15/ 1957 fUphon* Giibrt 2^87? Mr. Wllllcm L. Berry Chief, Division of Water Resources Planning California State Department of Water Resources P. O. Box 1079 Sacramento 5, California Dear Mr. Berry: There Is submitted a report in two parts, on probable ultimate population, economic and recreation development in California's northeastern counties, predicated upon full development of their natural resources. The report Is Intended to assist the Department in its determinations of ulti- mate water requirements In the northeastern counties. The first part of the report deals with population and the probable future pattern of economic development. It Is estimated that domestic water requirements will be those of a population of approximately 1,750,000, of whom about 70 percent will live in urban areas. No unusual water require- ments are now anticipated for Industrial purposes, apart from processing of pulp and paper products. The second part of the report deals with potential development of recreation resources, including recreation use of reservoir areas. The study indicates that the area can support a very great expansion of recreation facilities and recreation use. It Is anticipated that the bulk of the population of the north- eastern county area will ultimately be supported by activities related to de- velopment and use of Its recreation resources, and its desirability as a place to live. Sincerely, >amuel E. Wood Resident Partner. ;ipal office: 546 University Avenue, Palo Alto, California r offices: Ravenswood, West Virginia; Tulsa, Oklahoma; Abilene, Texas; New York City, New York NOTE The consultant's report has been prepared in two parts, one dealing with projections and forecasts of probable ultimate popu- lation, employment and general economic development in the north- eastern counties; the other with the potential development and use of the recreation resources of the area, including proposed water resource development projects. Both reports have as their primary purpose to assist the Department of Water Resources to estimate probable ultimate water requirements of the northeastern counties, predicated upon full develop- ment of their natural resources. CONTENTS Introductory Statement Letter of Transmittal Acknowl edgement PART ONE PROBABLE ULTIAAATE POPULATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN CALIFORNIA'S NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES, PREDICATED UPON FULL DEVELOPMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Page I SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF REPORT 1 II SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 2 III ANALYSIS OF TRENDS AND PATTERNS OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND POPULATION GROWTH 8 Present development 8 Probable future economic development 10 Growth patterns 12 Probable ultimate population and employment 14 Population density 16 Comparison v/Ith state and national development 18 1 . Proportion of employment provided by agriculture 18 2. Proportion of employment provided by manufacturing 22 3. Proportion of employment provided by agriculture and lumbering -25 4. Relation of 15-county population growth to that of the United States 29 Extent of In-migration 30 CONTENTS (Cont'd) Page IV METHOD OF ESTIMATING ULTIMATE EMPLOYMENT AND POPULATION IN NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES 31 A. Summary 31 Framework of estimates 32 County factors considered in preparing estimates 33 B. Assumptions about living conditions In 2050 36 C. Projections of the populations of the United States and California to the year 2050 39 Need for population projections 39 Assumptions and procedures in projecting populations of the United States and California to the year 2050 39 Comparability with other estimates 46 D. Estimation of ratio of total employment to total population at time of ultimate development 49 Assumptions concerning future characteristics of county populations 49 Estimation of percentage 1, at ultimate development 50 Estimation of percentage 2, at ultimate development 53 Estimation of percentage 3, at ultimate development 58 Summary: percentage 1 x percentage 2 x percentage 3 58 Employment ratio for 15 northeastern counties 59 E. Distribution of employment. United States and California 1870 - 1950 with projections 65 Purposes and uses of data in Tables 11 and 12 65 Sources of data in Tables 1 1 and 12 66 CONTENTS (Cont'd) Page F. Estimation of farm population and employment 68 Farms, farm population and employment 68 Increase in irrigated acreage 68 Reversal of trend toward larger farms 69 Assumptions underlying the projections 69 Statewide increase in irrigated acreage 70 Basis for population increase 71 Ratio of new irrigated acreage to new farms 71 Procedure for estimating farm population and employment 74 G. Estimation of April 1 employment In lumber and wood products Industries In 15 northeastern California counties under conditions of probable ultimate sustained yield 78 Sustained yield 78 Employment factors 79 'Full utilization 80 April 1 employment 85 Pulp, paper and board 88 Output of major timber products 91 V. BASIC DATA AND PROJECTIONS 94 Population 94 Employment 94 Farm population and employment 95 III CONTENTS (Cont'd) PART TWO POTENTIAL ULTIMATE RECREATION DEVELOPMENT IN CALIFORNIA'S NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES, PREDICATED UPON FULL DEVELOPMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Page 1 INTRODUCTION 114 Recreation: a new "industry" 11' Recent increase in recreation use 115 Prospect of accelerated development 1 16 Recreation use capacity of northeastern county area 118 Foothill residential areas 119 II CLASSIFICATION AND MEASUREMENT OF RECREATION AREAS 121 Classification of recreation areas 121 Area characteristics 122 Recreation facility classification 127 County totals of potential recreation area (Table 2) 128 III ESTIMATION OF RECREATION USE 130 Recreation benefit 131 Relative contribution of counties to recreation benefit 133 IV CONTENTS (Cont'd) Page IV RECREATION RESOURCES OF THE NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES 135 Butte County 136 Colusa County 137 Glenn County 138 Lake County 1 40 Lassen County 141 Modoc County 143 Plumas County 144 Shasta County 145 Sierra County 146 Siskiyou County 147 Sutter County 148 Tehama County 149 Trinity County 150 Yolo County 151 Yuba County 152 CONTENTS (Cont'd) TABLES (Part One) ; Page 1 Population of 15 N. E. California counties 1920 - 1956 and probable ultimate population 2020 - 2050 7 2 Population and employment in 15 N. E. counties as percent of California state totals 1930 - 1950 and ultimate 9 3 Relation between urban population and employment in agri- culture and timber industries 1870 - 1950 9 4 Population density in 15 N. E. counties, 1956 and ultimate 18 5 Population data and projections for California 1930 - 1950 and ultimate 21 6 Employment data and projections for California 1940 - 1950 and ultimate 23 7 Population of the United States 1900 - 1950 with estimates and projections to 2050 47 8 Population of California 1900 - 1950 with estimates and pro- jections to 2050 48 9 Computation of percentages of population in the labor force and employed In California at ultimate development 2020 - 2050 5J 10 Employment (April 1) as percent of population in 15 N. E. counties at ultimate development (2020 - 2050) 64 11 Trends in functional distribution of employment in United States 1870- 1950 67 12 Trends in functional distribution of employment In California 1870 - 1950, with estimates for 1956 and 2020 - 2050 67 13 Average nurber of new irrigated acres per new farm in 15 N. E. counties from 1954 to 2050 73 14 Rural farm population and employment: data and projections for California 1930 - 1954 and ultimate 77 VI CONTENTS (Cont'd) Page 15 Employment (April 1) in timber industry, 15 N. E. counties, 1940, 1950 and at sustained yield 81 16 Current timber production and sustained yield capacity of commercial forest land in 15 N. E. counties 82 17 Labor requirements per unit of production In lumber and wood products industries with present utilization 83 18 Employment ratios in lumber and wood products industries with full utilization 84 19 Employment in California lumber and wood products industries as of April 1 as percent of annual average employment 87 20 Estimated total yearly employment in pulp, paper and board production resulting from sustained yield cutting program and full forest utilization In 15 N. E. counties 92 21 Estimated annual production of major timber products In 15 N. E. counties at sustained yield 93 22-37 Population data and projections, 1920 - 1950 and ultimate, for 15 N. E. counties; total and by counties 96 38-53 Employment data and projections, 1940 - 1950 and ultimate, for 15 N. E. counties; total and by counties 97 54-69 Rural farm population and employment data and projections, 1930 - 1954 and ultimate, for 15 N. E. counties: total and by counties 98 vll CONTENTS (Cont'd) TABLES (Part Two); Page 1 Standards used to classify and measure potential recreation areas 154 2 Acres In potential recreation areas and urban areas 155 3 Estimated user-days per season at capacity use of potential recreation areas in 15 northeastern counties 171 4 Estimated annual user-days at reservoir facilities at capacity use 171 PLATES A - 1 Graph: Population growth and projections, 1910 - 2050 6 A - 2 Graph: Recreation use of national forests in California and projections — visitor days per capita, 1941 -2050 following 117 A - 3 Map: Classification of lands for urban, suburban and recreation use following 171 vill ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Mr. Van Beuren Stanbery, economic consultant, San Francisco, devised the assumptions, techniques and general methodology used in the study of popu- lation and economic development, and directed the application of these methods in the preparation of the report. Mr. Stanbery developed the trends and pro- jections of employment and population, and prepared most of the text thereon. The authors are indebted to Professor David Weeks of the University of Cali- fornia for suggestions on the scope and orientation of the study, and for making available valuable reports on population. Irrigation development, and land util- ization in the Sierra Nevada Foothills. * Mr. Eugene V. Roberts and Mr. Richard H. May of the California Forest and Range Experiment Station gave valued advice and information, and reviewed the text of the section on employment in the lumber and wood products in- dustries. Mr. A. D. Reed of the University of California Extension Service made avail- able studies which were of material assistance in estimating agricultural em- ployment. (Responsibility for the estimates presented in the report is of course entirely that of the authors). Information essential to the preparation of the report on population and eco- nomic development was also obtained from the following: IX AAr. John R. Berry and Mr. W. R. Howden, Office of the Regional Forester, U.S. Forest Service, San Francisco. Mr. Ray Hurley, Chief, Agriculture Division, Bureau of the Census, Washington, D. C. Mr. Wilbur Parker, Research and Statistics, State Department of Employment. Mr. L. B. Christiansen, Economics and Allocations Branch, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Region 2, Sacramento. Mr. J. R. Braden, Richmond-Chase Company, Son Jose. Mr. Alan Richardson, California Packing Corporation, San Francisco. Mr. W. J. O'Connell, Consulting Engineer, Burlingame. Mr. Charles L. Wheeler, Pope and Talbot Lumber Company, San Francisco. Mr. Charles E. Young, Economist, Weyerhaeuser Timber Company, Tacoma . Mr. Henry H. Symonds, Assistant Mining Engineer, State Division of Mines Mr. William B. Clark, Assistant Mining Geologist, State Division of Mines Mr. John C. O'Brien, District Mining Engineer, State Division of Mines Division of Water Resources, Bulletin No. 35, Permissible Economic Rate of Irrigation Development In California, State Printing Uttice, Sacramento, IVJO David Weeks, A. E. Wleslander, H. R. Josephson and C. L. Hill, Land Utilization In the Northern Sierra Nevada, Special Publication of the Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics/ University of California, Berkeley, 1943. Howard E. Conklin, David Weeks, and Ralph B. Werthelmer, The Possibilities of Rural Zoning in the Sierra Nevada Foothills , United States Bureau of Agricultural Economics in cooperation with California Agricultural Experiment Station, Berkeley, June 1942. Valued Interest and support was given to the survey by the area's representatives in the State Legislature: In the Senate; the Honorable Stanley Arnold, 1st District; the Honorable Randolph Collier, 2d District; the Honorable Paul L. Byrne, 6th District; the Honorable Nathan F. Coombs, 11th District; the Honorable Ed. C. Johnson, 10th District; the Honorable Harold T. Johnson, 7th District; the Honorable Edwin J. Regan, 5th District; and the Honorable Louis G. Sutton, 8th District. In the Assembly : the Honorable Frank P. Belotti, 1st District; the Honorable Pauline L. Davis, 2d District, the Honorable Lloyd W. Lowrey, 3d District; and the Honorable Harold Sedgwick, 4th District. The report owes much to the cooperation provided by county officials and agencies, supervisors and staff of the U.S. Forest Service, and private citizens representing agriculture, industry, commerce and recreation, with whom meetings were held in each county and from whom much valuable in- formation on county conditions and development prospects was obtained. Valued assistance in the recreation survey was given by the following officials of the U. S. Forest Service, California Region: M. M. Barnum, Assistant Regional Forester Earl E. Bachman, Forester, Division of Recreation Land K. W. Kennedy, Chief, Division of Watershed Management and Engineering XI V. A. Parker, Supervisor, Lassen National Forest A. H. Mullen, District Ranger, Lassen Natiorwl Forest Russell W. Bower, Supervisor, Klamath National Forest Alfred K. Crebbin, Forester, Timber Management, Klamath National Forest Alva L. Morford, Fire Control Dispatcher, Klamath National Forest Robert E. Dasmann, Supervisor, Mendocino National Forest Neal M. Rahm, Supervisor, Modoc National Forest (now^ Assistant Regional Forester, Rocky Mountain Region) William A. Peterson, Supervisor, Plumas National Forest George A. Fischer, Forester, Plumas National Forest Paul W. Stathem, Supervisor, Shasta-Trinity National Foresis Dana W. Cox, Forester, Range and Wildlife Management, Shasta-Trinity National Forest Mrs. Rose Snyder, Assistant to Mr. Cox W. W. Spinney, Supervisor, Six Rivers National Forest L. A. Rickel, Supervisor, Tahoe National Forest Acknowledgement is also made to the following officials of the State Division of Forestry: Tobe Arvola, Forest Management Office William Fairbank, Education Gunnar Forssbeck, Mapping Division Also to: Vernon Ekdahl, Refuge Manager, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Wallace C. Dry, California State Department of Fish and Game xli County officials who assisted In arranging meetings, interviews and field surveys include: Butte County : Colusa County : Glenn County : Lake County; Lassen County: Modoc County: Plumas County : Shasta County : Sierra County; Siskiyou County: Sutter County; Tehama County: Harriett James, County Clerk Wing Fee Chan, Director of Planning Herman Fendt, Chairman, Board of Supervisors Noble Richardson, Secretary, Chamber of Commerce L. D. Kirkpatrick, Chairman, Board of Supervisors Nadene Wemple, County Clerk Gerald Packwood, Chairman, Board of Supervisors Lester Coffin, Supervisor, District 2 Millicent Dubois, County Clerk Irma Laird, County Historian Max Forbes, Manager, Chamber of Commerce E. B. Bond, County Agricultural Commissioner J. C, Cloman, Supervisor, District 4 William Minton, County Administrator John Reginato, President, Shasta-Cascade Wonderland Assn. Andrew T. Jessen, Chairman, Board of Supervisors Roland P. DeGrio, Chairman, Board of Supervisors Joe G. Allen, Chairman, Board of Supervisors Jess O'Roke, County Administrator Harry Crebbin, Manager, Yreka Chamber of Commerce Eber F. Beilby, Chairman, Board of Supervisors Earl Davles, Chairman, Board of Supervisors xi!i Trinity County; J. J. Jackson, Historian, Trinity County Melvin E. Dale, Road Commissioner Lorene Melquist, County Planning Commission R.J. Blaney, Secretary, Weaverville Chamber of Commerce Yolo County; Lawrence D. Drew, Chairman, Board of Supervisors L. E. DuBois, Supervisor, District 4 S. T. Drever, Secretary, Yolo County Planning Commission Yuba County; Harold J. Sperbeck, Chairman, Board of Supervisors Bruce Rodgers, Secretary, Yuba County Chamber of Commerce xiv HAROLD F. WISE & ASSOCIATES Project Staff Samuel E. Wood Bruce Waybur Kenneth Anderson Martin Dreyfuss Barbara Kemp Margaret Wiederhold Esther Marie Matthews Winifred McGowan Marjorie Greene Lee Joyal Von Beuren Stanbery economic consultant XV PART ONE PROBABLE ULTIMATE POPULATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN CALIFORNIA'S NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES, PREDICATED UPON RJLL DEVELOPMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES I Prepared In cooperation wifh Van Beuren Stanbery, Economic Consultant k NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION Projections of Population and Economic Development I. SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF REPORT To assist in determining ultimate water needs of the counties of Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Lake, Lassen, Modoc, Plumas, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, Sutter, Tehama, Trinity, Yojo and Yuba, studies and projections have been made of present and probable ultimate population and economic development in those counties. These studies are intended to be of direct use tn estimating con- sumptive water use in urban, suburban, rural-farm, and rural-nonfarm areas, according to methods described in State Water Resources Board Bulletin No. 2 (June 1955). Additional demand for water for personal consumption will be created by development of potential recreation areas. The classification and measurement of such areas are discussed in a companion report which follows this monograph. -1- II. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 1. California's northeasfern counties are still in the primary stages of economic development, with high dependence on agriculture and the manufacture of lumber and wood products from local natural resources. Their populations are relatively small and predominantly rural, with no large urban concentrations. The patterns of population and economic development of the north- eastern county area in 1950 were strikingly similar to those of the state of California in the year 1870. 2. The northeastern counties have great resources of agricultural, forest and recreational lands, water and hydro-electric power, that can be more intensively developed and used. The area has a large potential for future growth through Increased Irrigation of its agricultural lands, expanded utilization of Its forest products, and development of Its recreation attractions. Full development of the agricultural, forest, recreational, water and power re- sources of the northeastern counties is a basic requirement for achievement of the ultimate economic and population growth projected in this study. -2- 3. In addition, technological advances and the huge expected increases of population in the United States and California will eventually lead to a concommitant development and growth in the northeastern counties. The natural advantages of the northeastern counties for outdoor recreation, for human habitation, and for new types of industry and services will inev- itably draw thousands of part-time and full-time residents from other parts of the nation and state. The greater part of the future population increase in the area as a whole is expected to be supported by activities other than the production and marketing of commodities derived from local natural re- sources. At the same time, agriculture and the utilization of forest products will continue to provide substantially larger proportions of total employment for the northeastern county area than for the state as a whole. 4. At the time of ultimate development of the natural resources of the area (years 2020-2050), it is estimated that: Population will have increased to 375,000,000 In the United States; 45,000,000 in California; and 1 ,750,000 in the northeastern county area. Irrigated lands in the northeastern county area will have in- creased to 3,803,900 acres, about three times the acreage in 1954 and three and one-half times that in 1949. -3- Number of farms and farm population in the area will be ap- proximately twice those in 1950. Agricultural employment (as of April 1) will also be about double that of 1950. Employment In lumber and wood products Industries (as of April 1) In the area will be about twice that of 1950. In addition, a sub- stantial number of persons will be employed in pulp and paper products in- dustries of which the area had none in 1950. Total manufacturing employment (April 1) in the area will approximate 639,000 compared with 116,000 in April 1950. Mining (excluding petroleum extraction) and forestry will continue to provide a somewhat higher proportion of total employment In the area than will be true In the rest of the state, but the volume of such employment will be relatively small. Other employment (construction, distribution and service activities) will account for a majority of the |obs in the area. The pro- portion of total employment accounted for by this category will rise from 61 percent In 1950 to an estimated 74 percent in 2020-2050. Anticipated development of recreation areas will provide substantial employment in trade and service activities and will induce settle- ment of many permanent non-farm residents therein. -4- Urban residents will comprise the bulk of the area's popu- lation. Urban population will rise to about 69 percent of the area's population, compared with 35 percent in 1950. Rural farm population and rural non-farm population will both increase in numbers, but will decline in percent of total population. Gross population densities will approximate 48 persons per square mile, a little more than the state average in 1940. The geographical locations and patterns of ultimate growth in the area will generally follow those of present development. The largest con- centrations of urban population and industrial and commercial activities are expected in those counties which now have the largest urban populations: Butte, Shasta, Yolo and Yuba, and also Sutter. Although some counties will grow more rapidly than others, the ranking of the counties in total population and total employment at time of ultimate development will be approximately the same as now. -5- 1000- 900- 800- 700- 600- 500- 400- 300- PLATEA-I POPULATION PROJECTIONS 200- United States 100- 90- 80- 70- 60- 50- 40- 30- ; 20- 20 10- 9- 8- 7- 6- 5- California ,^ / / .^ -1 I 7 I5( IOC 7^ y- ^^ 5( 1/^ * Mean Projections Northeastern Counties -. Xi>, v'To \- o _l :S LU U- o z o I— D I— Q -J < z o u z 1/1 Q z UJ O 50 o n o ^ o 00 o 00 00 o CO o •- CN CM K o <— 00 O 8 ^ CN O -— ^ CN CO CN S *" o o^ IV CN O IT) o >o -o 8 o CN CO O CN CO CN CN 1— CN « *" o O <— lO CO >o -^ CN to 8 S CN O CN CN CN CN ^R R *" o (S o >o >o ^ ^ lO \ 8 8 rx o CN cs iQ CN CN CN 5 ' o CO 1— vO >o -^ IT) O- n 8 ^ >— O CN CO CN CN CO 00 ^ o rv •O IV ^ ^ <— CO > 8 ? IVOCN CO o. CO ^O ^ ' o 00 CN K CN CO CO O > 8 9 ^ *" CO CO lO V ' o «o -^ lO K K IT) CN V 8 lO ^ - IV CO -^ o ' o CN CO ^ IT) CN >o O ■o o o CM >— in O CO CN ^ ' — a. E UJ "o *- o a c -C 2| "8 c (D E o — - u < u. 9o-^ o> 5-.E o ■*- o o o 2 t- 3o C 4) E CL E CN O < z o < 5 o -J LU LL. o z o I— 3 CQ Q -J < z o I— u z z O 0) So c • r 0) S tI3^S I "S~"0 — ♦- >; so A- □ Q-O. iJ3 B<- o JO o o CO CJ» o CN o o o o o CO o 00 00 R CO Q > -T3 C 0) 0) 0) E E 3 D "O 0) E 3 0) 0) E E 3 D JJ << < << o ■^ DO •—in IT) 00 rv •— 8 CO CN o o CN CN °^ i^ o Os DO CO CO CO CO 8 00 V ?:! 5§ ^ o '^ r> CO 00 nO 00 00 o o o 00 V o o CN ■— IV CN tv •" o On V CO o. CO nO CN CO 8 CN O o <- NO R ■" o ^ IV o <— o CO CN NO 8 o CO O CN IV •— lO NO nO ■" o IV tN 00 Iv o 00 CN CO R O; V o •- CN CN 00 lO o On Os CN 00 On CN IV CN d o CN V .— CN IV CO'^ O nQ o ,— o '"J- IV rN« •— nO CN o o CO ■Q .-'^ rv f— CO "^ lO r— o CO o IV vQ IV IT) CN O o o IT) CO On I-'* NO CO CO W o o O >- CO IT) 00 IV in CD o ^ DO CN O rv Tf N in o> C D) ^ O) o **- O) < •^ c u 3 -n ~o • r,. c O O) C D Q.^ c o C 0) E >^ _o Q. E -67- F. Esfimation of farm population and employment Farms, farm population and employment According to the projections made for this study, the number of farms in the northeastern counties at time of ultimate development will be approximately twice the present number. These farms will support roughly twice the farm population and farm employment reported in the 1950 Census of Population. Increase in Irrigated Acreage This expansion is predicated upon full development of irrigation through the California Water Plan. The State Department of Water Resources estimates total net irrigable acres in the northeastern counties at 3,803,900. This is 3.5 times the irrigated acreage reported by the 1950 Census of Agriculture and 3.0 times that reported by the 1954 Census of Agriculture. Total land in farms Is not expected to change much from the present acreage; land in irrigated farms will be greatly increased while land in non- irrigated farms will be greatly decreased. Average size of farm will be reduced to about half the present figure. Expansion of irrigated acreage will take place in parttbough additions to the irrigated acreage of existing irrigated farms, and in part through creation of entirely new farms on land made useful for cropland or pasture by irrigation. -68- Reversal of trend toward larger farms The projected increase in number of farms and in farm population and employment presumes a reversal of the present state-wide trend. In recent decades, increases in irrigated acreage have resulted largely in an increase in the average size of farms, rather than an increase in number of farms and farm population. For example, between 1930 and 1950 irrigated acreage in the state increased from 4.7 million to 6.4 million; farm population declined slightly from 620,000 to 617,000; and average size of farm increased from 224 acres to 307 acres. The increase In size of farm was almost entirely accounted for by an increase in the size of irri- gated farms. Development in the northeastern counties has followed a similar pattern . Assumptions underlying the projections In presuming that there will be a reversal of the present trend, this study bases Its projections on the following assumptions: 1 . Estimates of agricultural development in the northeastern counties should indicate the maximum development possible with full use of water resources. 2. Population pressure will require higher ratios of people to land, and every productive acre of farm land will be called upon to support a maximum share of population. 3. To achieve a maximum ratio of people to farm land, farm land will be shifted generally into the most intensive use of which it is capable -69- This process will be aided by technological improvements which cannot now be predicted. 4. Farms will attract a large number of people as desirable places to live and make a living in the highly urbanized nation of the future. State-wide increase in irrigated acreage The State Division of Water Resources has estimated that a gross area of 19,050,000 acres is suitable for irrigated agriculture and that "under ultimate conditions of development in the State a net area averaging about 16,250,000 acres will actually be irrigated" (State Water Resources Board Bulletin No. 2 , page 222) . This estimate is very close to that of Varden Fuller of the Giannini Foundation for Agricultural Economics, who has written: "In combination, the various accelerating forces may approximately offset the growing resistances to the development of water resources and the achievements from their use. If so, the decades immediately ahead may see irrigation expansion at near the average of the post half century, namely, at an average of a million acres per decade. If development were to be at that rate, the estimated ultimate development of 17 million acres will be achieved by about 2050. If the accelerated rate of 1940-1950 were to be maintained, the ultimate would be reached by 2020" (from Chapter XVIII of Growth and Changes in California's Population, by Warren S. Thompson, the Haynes Foundation, Los Angeles 1955, pp. 288-289). 70- Basis for population Increase It has been noted that increases in irrigated land in California provide a basis for increased population. In studies for the Central Valley Project, the Bureau of Reclamation stated: "The development of water and power affords new economic opportunities in agriculture and Industry which can support an increased population. This factor is of prime Importance in California where the population has expanded and probably will continue to expand much more rapidly than in the rest of the United States" (Report of U . S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Central Valley Basin, August 1949; printed as Senate Document 113, 81st Congress, 1st Session, page 63) . Ratio of new Irrigated acreage to new farms The Bureau of Reclamation report estimated that an Increase of 3,860,000 In Irrigated acreage in the Central Valley basin would provide a basis for creation of some 51 ,000 new farms - a ratio of 15.1 new irrigated acres per new farm (Report, page 198). The projections presented in this report indicate that for the state as a whole, the increase in Irrigated acreage from 7,048,049 in 1954 to 16,250,000 in 2050 will result in an increase in number of farms from 123,074 in 1954 to 220,000 In 2050 - a ratio of 94.9 new irrigated acres per new farm created . For the 15 northeastern counties, the indicated increases are 2,525,837 Irrigated acres and 15,639 farms - a ratio of 161 .5 new irrigated acres per new farm created. -71- It is clear that the ratio for the 15 counties results in a con- servative estimate of the increase in number of farms compared with increases indicated by the state and Central Valley ratios. The ratio of new irrigated acres to estimated new farms In each of the northeastern counties is shown in Table 13. -72- Table 13 AVERAGE NUMBER OF NEW IRRIGATED ACRES PER NEW FARM IN 15 KE.COUNTIES FROM 1954 TO 2050 Butte Colusa Glenn Lake Lassen Modoc Plumas Shasta Sierra Siskiyou Sutter Tehama Trinity Yolo Yuba State Total Additional Irrigated Acres New Farms Ratio of New Acres to New Farms 196,872 1,112 177.0 236,971 1,834 129.2 196,889 2,462 80.0 60,102 304 197.7 388,282 1,348 288.0 227,328 1,101 206.5 85,899 249 345.0 162,939 971 167.8 34,899 214 163.1 249,648 1,375 181.6 99,266 808 122.9 246,434 1,053 234.0 13,036 15 869.1 215,582 2,272 94.9 111,690 521 214.4 2,525,837 15,639 161.5 9,201,951 96,926 94.9 -73- Procedure for estimating farm population and employment' Most of the figures presented in Table 14 and Tables 54-69 are historical data from the Census of Agriculture for 1930, 1940, 1950 and 1954. These data have been used to indicate current trends in agricultural development, and to provide a benchmark for estimates of ultimate develop- ment (2020-2050). Key determinations for ultimate development are the follov/ing: Irrigated land in farms is the estimate of net irrigable acreage made by the State Department of Water Resources from its 1956 land classification survey. To obtain number of irrigated farms , this figure has been divided by an assumed average of Irrigated acres per irrigated farm. The latter is a judgment figure based on the historical Census data, on probable ultimate crop patterns, and on opinions of agricultural experts intervlev/ed in the various counties. Much assistance was obtained from Circular 173 of the California Agricultural Extension Service, Farming In California, May 1951. It should be noted that the assumed figures of irrigated acreage per farm are generally higher than those indicated in Circular 173. Effort was made to have the assumed average reflect local conditions, including length of growing season and the probable ultimate crop pattern of each county. -74- In general, average Irrigated acreage per farm Is assumed to be greater where farming Is expected to be predominantly extensive - livestock and pasture - and smaller where the dominant type of cultivation will be more Intensive - field crops, truck crops, and orchards. Average size of farm represents a judgment as to the minimum economic unit required to support a farm family. It Is based on the same factors as the estimate for Irrigated land in farms, namely, past trends, the judgment of local farm experts, and considerations set forth in Circular 173. The estimates for average size of farm used In the projections are considerably larger than the estimates of minimum economic unit made by expert sources. Total land In farms is an estimate based largely on recent Census data, and on consideration of the expansion believed likely to take place In other land uses such as urban and recreatjonal . A precise estimate of total land In forms In each county is not now available because the Census Bureau reports land In farms according to the county In which the farm headquarters Is located. This means that some farm land credited to a specific county Is located outside It; and some farm land in the county is not credited to It. Unless these acreages happen to balance, the reported Census figure overstates or understates actual land In farms In the county. -75- Average population per form equals total farm population divided by number of farms as reported by the Census Bureau. Estimates of average population per farm at time of ultimate development are based on projected changes In average size of farms and employment required per farm. The figures represent all persons living on farms, and not solely members of the primary farm household. Average employment per farm Is also estimated primarily from the Census data. Consideration was given also to ultimate crop patterns and to farm labor requirements, as estimated by the Agricultural Extension Service. Average employment per farm is estimated as of April 1, and therefore tends to represent the permanent farm labor force. It is assumed that seasonal farm requirements will be supplied both by migratory labor and by residents who are not in the labor force on a year-around basis. All other figures shown In the "ultimate" column of the tables on farm population and employment are derived from the foregoing key determina- tions. -76- Table 14 RURAL FARM POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT DATA AND PROJECTIONS STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1930 1940 1950 1954 Ultimate 1 Number of farms -total 135,676 132,658 137,168 123,074 220,000 2 - irrigated farms 85,784 84,310 90,755 84,502 203,500 3 - nor^-Irrigated farms 49,892 43,348 46,413 38,572 16,500 4 Land In farms -total 30,524,324 36,613,291 37,800,380 37,500,000 5 -IrHqaed farms 12 018 864 14 07/, 222 20,562,873 22,967,240 32,500,000 6 -^r-ilrlgated farms 18;423;717 16;453,102 16,050,418 14,833,140 5,000,000 7 Irrigated land In farr. ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^3^^ ^ 8 -% of land in farms 15.6 14.0 17.6 18.6 43.3 9 -% land In Irrigated ^^ ^ ^^^ ^^3 3^^ 3, ^ '' ■fZ'CaTri''^'^' 55.3 50.7 70.9 83.4 80. ^^ Ay^^I^ar'^^^^^^" 224 4 230.1 266.9 307. V 170 12 -tlgld farms Z.^ 166.9 226.6 271.8 160 13 - non-Irrigated farms 369.3 340.3 345.8 384.6 300 '' 'Z'n'^^^^l 620,506 670,426 617,36A/ 1,070,000 1^6 :r;^rr-to., ^'^ 6f5;°3g 5r8;^^3tl/ 17 - rural farm; average . p per farm 4.57 5,05 4.50 4.9 18 -% state population 10.9 9.71 5.83 ^-^ 19 - no. per 1,000 acres 20.38 21.96 16.86 28.5 20 Fa-pP'^y^-^'^P^" ^'334^241 265,871 286,642 480,000 21 -% rural form popu- 449 lotion 57.7 41. B 3U.^ 22 -%civiliam employment 13.36 10.74 7.35 ^-o 23 -no. per 1,000 acres 10.98 8.71 7.83 12.8 24 - average per farm 2.46 2.00 2.09 2.2 1/ New definition. ~ Old: Urban farm- 32,204 Rural farm - 585,163 Note: 1930 employment is per old definition: "persons 10 years old and over engaged in gainful occupations." * SWRB Bulletin No. 2, page 222 -77- G. Estimation of April 1 employment In lumber and wood products industries in 15 northeastern California counties under con- ditions of probable ultimate sustained yield The employment estirrrates for lumber and wood products industries shown in Table 15 are derived essentially from sustained yield capacity estimates sup- plied by the U.S. Forest Service, California Region, and employment factors published by Ralph W. Marquis, Forest Economist, U.S. Forest Service, in the Journal of Forestry , May 1948. Sustained Yield The estimates of sustained yield capacity are provided in a letter from B. H. Payne, Assistant Regional Forester, Division of Timber Management, U.S. Forest Service, California Region, to California State Division of Water Resources, dated March 13, 1956, reference "S-PLANS - Timber Management." The estimates, according to W. R. Howden of the Timber Management section, are sustained yield capacities of timber areas and working circles in the 15 northeast counties, allocated as precisely as possible to Individual counties. Both public and private forest lands are Included. The "ultimate sustained yield capacity" for the commercial forest land in each county Is based upon the assumption that all lands capable of growing commercial forest stands would be used for that purpose, and that an -78- average stocking capacity of 80 percent would be obtained. The acreages in commercial forest stands used In these estimates are those shown by the California Forest and Range Experiment Station of the U.S. Forest Service in Forest Survey Release No. 25 , December 1954, Table 12. Sustained yield capacity is compared with estimates of current production of saw timber in Table 16. Employment Factors The employment factors for logging, rough lumber (sawmills) and "all other" wood products manufacture in Standard Industrial Classification Groups 24 and 25 are taken from the article by Ralph W. Marquis entitled "Employment Opportunities in Full Forest Utilization", Journal of Forestry , May 1948. These factors are presented in Tables 17 and 18. Marquis estimates the employment which might result from full utilization of the timber resources of a typical area In the Douglas fir region of Oregon and Washington. The labor requirement factors used in his estimates, though not tested against specific experience in the California pine, fir and Douglas fir regions, appear to be in general agreement with employment ratios of timber operators In the northeast counties. For example. Marquis shows that under present utilization there are approximately 10.0 men per million board feet of sawtimber cut, employed In logging, primary manufacture including rough lumber and plywood, and remanu- -79- facture including planing mill products, box and shook. These are the principal lumber industry operations now found in the northeastern counties. The ratios reported by timber operators during a survey of the northeastern counties in July-August 1956 ranged from 6.0 to 12.0 men per million board feet of sawtimber cut, depending on the range of operations performed. For comparison, statewide employment in 1952 in lumber and wood products in- dustries (excluding pulp and paper products) averaged 12 persons per million board feet of sawtimber cut that year. This ratio included furniture production which is not presently a factor in the northeastern counties. Full Utilization The concept of full utilization used by Marquis is based on the historical trend, demonstrated In timber areas of the East and Pacific North- west, that "with the diminishing availability of an area's accessible timber resource, that area will shift to the production of more final and less primary products from its modified resource base - the net result of such a shift shows that greater employment may be obtained from a given resource input" (Walter J. Mead, "The Forest Products Economy of the Pacific Northwest", Land Economics , University of Wisconsin, May 1956). California's forest industry is now based primarily on the single product, lumber. In 1952, employment in the industry averaged 68,097 persons, or 11.9 persons per million board feet of sawtimber cut that year. -80- Table 15 EMPLOYMENT (APRIL 1) IN TIMBER INDUSTRY 15 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES 1940, 1950 AND ULTIMATE 1940 1950 At Ultimate Sustained Timber Yield Lumber and Wood Products (SICGps. 24,25) Pulp and Paper (SIC Gp.26) Total Butfe 964 1,761 2,073 1,978 4,051 Colusa n 27 74 - 74 Glenn 10 25 332 - 332 Lake 56 145 517 - 517 Lassen 2,540 1,894 1,636 - 1,636 Modoc 671 664 1,156 - 1,156 Plumas 1,129 1,527 3,215 - 3,215 Shasta 499 2,323 4,531 3,487 8,018 Sierra 295 170 1,380 - 1,380 Siskiyou 3,027 3,201 6,863 856 7,719 Sutter 9 100 - - - Tehama 42 451 2,542 1,721 4,263 Trinity 24 644 1,902 - 1,902 Yolo 47 68 - - - Yuba 54 543 859 837 1,696 Total 9,378 13,543 27,080 8,879 35,959 -81- Table 16 CURRENT TIMBER PRODUCTION AND SUSTAINED YIELD CAPACITY OF COMMERCIAL FOREST LAND IN 15 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES (Production in millions of board feet of saw timber per year) Current (1952-45 Average 1/) UIti Yie mate Sustained }|d Capacity 2/ 147 135 - 6 37 27 24 42 202 133 104 94 366 295 377 303 95 138 378 558 92 166 262 326 43 44 Butte Colusa Glenn Lake Lassen Modoc Plumas Shasta Sierra Siskiyou Sutter Tehama Trinity Yolo Yuba Total 2,127 2,267 1/ California State Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry, annual reports on commodity production of forest products. 2/ U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, California Region, letter from B. H. Payne to California State Division of Water fesources, March 13, 1956. -82- Table 17 LABOR REQUIREMENTS PER UNIT OF PRODUCTION IN LUMBER AND WOOD PRODUCTS INDUSTRIES (Present Utilization) Marquis 1/ a*..'.... -n ■ Forest S . 2/ lervice— Uni t ^Mo. EmpI oyed) Logging MM bd. ft. saw timber 3.40 3.35 Thinning M cords 5.00 - Rough lumber MMbd. ft. 3.25 3.25 Dressed lumber MM bd. ft. lumber used 1.75 1.75 Mill work MMbd. ft. lumber used 15.00 15.00 Box MMbd. ft. lumber used 7.50 7.50 Furniture MMbd. ft. lumber used 80.00 Caskets MMbd. ft. lumber used 10.00 Shingles M squares 0.63 0.63 Plywood MMsq. ft. 5.44 5.40 Pulp M tons 3.65 3.25 Paper and board M tons 7.25 6.50 Molasses Ton - 4.50 Alcohol Mgal. )loyment Opportunities in Full Forest 6.00 2/ Ralph W. Marquis, "Emp Utilization , " Journal o f Forestry, May 1948. 2/ U.S. Forest Service, R( sport on TImb er and Range Resources of the Upper Klamath Basin, ir 1 departmenta 1 report entitled L Ipper Klamath River Basin , U. S. Bureau of Reclame ition, June 1954. -83- Table 18 EMPLOYMENT RATIOS IN LUMBER AND WOOD PRODUCTS INDUSTRIES WITH FULL UTILIZATION Expressed as persons employed per MM bd. ft. of saw timber cut Marquis— Used For « / This Report-/ 7.07 7.0 3.34 3.3 4.89 4.8 2.30 1.8 2.97 2.4 0.66 0.5 1.50 - Logging Rough lumber Plywood, shingles and cooperage, planing, furniture, mill work, box shook, etc. Pulp Paper board Converted paper products Use of sawmill waste Total 22.73 19.8 1/ See footnote 1, Table 17 2/ Derived from Marquis, adjusted according to labor requirements ~ shown in Forest Service report (Table 17) -84- Marquis' typical Douglos-flr area shows under present utilization 11 .6 persons employed per million board feet of saw timber cut; under full utilization, the same area has a potential for employment of 22.7 persons per million board feet. The Increased employment Is accounted for by salvage of cull timber and logging residues In the forest, by greater remanufacture of rough lumber, and by fuller use of logging and milling residues suitable for production of pulp, paper, hardboard and softboard, and other converted paper products. The current rate of cutting In California forests Is roughly double the current rate of growth of sawtlmber. Some excess of growth over cut Is reasonable and necessary because of the dominance of recent old-growth timber which makes little contribution to net growth. " However, there Is substantial evidence to indicate that the cut from California forests has reached a plateau level and that further significant increases in the volume of cut are not likely. Further expansion of the forest Industries to contribute to the support of the expanding population and to add to the supply of needed forest products In the state must come primarily from Increased use of the timber cut rather than from increases In the volume cut" (from draft report of the Cooperative Study on Waste Treatment and Disposal Aspects of Development of Pulp and Paper Resources of California, by the State Water Pollution Control Board and cooperating agencies, June 21, 1956). April 1 Employment Estimates of annual employment In lumber and wood products Industries have been adjusted to an April 1 level for consistency with present methods of re- -85- porting population and employment used by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Data of the California State Department of Employment and Department of Industrial Relations were used to formulate seasonal adjustment factors based on current experience. A special tabulation of employment in logging camps, sawmills and planing mills in the 15 northeastern counties, prepared by the State Department of Employment for this study, shows the following April 1 employment levels (average of March and April): 1950 1951 April 1 employment, 15 counties, as percent of year average: Logging camps and contractors 57.3 78.5 Sawmills and planing mills 84.4 92.4 For the state as a whole in 1950, the April 1 level of logging em- ployment was 65 percent of the year average; the level of employment in sawmills and planing mills was 84 percent. For the state as a whole, State Department of Employment data show April 1 employment in the lumber and wood products industry (excluding furniture) has averaged 91 percent of the annual average in recent years (Table 19), -86- Table 19 EMPLOYMENT IN CALIFORNIA LUMBER AND WOOD PRODUCTS INDUSTRIES AS OF APRIL 1 AS PERCENT OF ANNUAL AVERAGE EMPLOYMENT Lumber and Wood Products, Furniture Paper and Excluding and Allied Year Furniture Fixtures Products 1950 84.1 95.8 92.2 1951 94.1 104.6 99.7 1952 89.9 96.0 96.0 1953 95.6 104.9 96.4 1954 91.3 98.5 97.4 1955 91.9 98.5 96.9 Average 91.2 99.7 96.4 Source: State Department of Employment - California Employment & Payrolls 1950 State Department of Industrial Relations - Handbook of California Labor Statistics, 1951-1952 and 1953-1954 Estimated Number of Wage & Salary Workers in Non-Agricultural Establishme nts, by Industry, California 1939-1955 (March 1956) , -87- Pulp, Paper and Board The esUmates of employment In wood pulp, paper and paper board manufacture in Table 15 are based on the following assumptions: 1. Annual production of pulp material in the 15 northeastern California counties, with a sustained yield of 2,267 million board feet of saw timber per year, will approximate 220,000,000 cubic feet of solid wood residues (forest residue plus coarse mill residue). This is in the framework of the assumption by the California Forest and Range Experiment Station that total material available for pulp production in the State, with a sustained yield of 4,000 million board feet per year, will approximate 385,000,000 cubic feet per year. 2. The 220,000,000 cubic feet of pulp material will yield about 550,000,000 cubic feet of wood chips (@ 80 cubic feet solid wood equals 200 cubic feet of chips). 3. The 550,000,000 cubic feet of chips will produce approxi- mately 1,375,000 tons of pulp (@ 400 cubic feet of chips per ton of pulp). To allow for some diversion of pulp material to other uses, this estimate is reduced to 1 ,285,000 tons of pulp per year for employment estimate purposes. The latter figure Is selected because it is consistent with the pulp production estimate resulting from the Cooperative Study on Waste -88- Treatment and Disposal Aspects of Development of Pulp and Paper Resources of California, by the State Water Pollution Control Board and cooperating agencies, July 31, 1956. The Cooperative Study estimated that under sus- tained yield conditions (4,000 million board feet per year) and with minimum diversion of saw logs frorn existing wood processing industries (only about 10 percent of sawlogs would go to pulp mills), there would be sufficient pulp material to support mills with a daily capacity of 6,445 tons, including the existing mills at Antioch and Uklah. On a proportional basis, the 15 counties would produce sufficient material to support mills with a daily capacity of approximately 3,675 tons (@ 350 working days per year). The 15 counties, with 57 percent of the state's sustained yield of saw timber, would presumably have at least 57 percent of Its pulp material. However, it is estimated that only about 85 percent of this pulp material would be processed In the 15-county area. 4. Employment in pulp mills would be on the order of 3.25 men per 1,000 tons produced, per year. This ratio is used by the U.S. Forest Service In Its report on timber and range resources of the Upper Klamath Basin (published as part of report by U . S . Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Klamath River Basin, June 1954). -89- It Is somewhat below the ratio of 3.65 men per 1 ,000 tons used by Marquis in his Journal of Forestry article. May 1948, 5. Employment in paper and board production would be on the. order of 6.50 men per 1,000 tons of paper and board production. The latter is assumed to be two-thirds of pulp tonnage, as indicated by Marquis. The ratio of 6.50 men per 1,000 tons is used by the Forest Service in the Upper Klamath Basin report. It is somewhat lower than the ratio of 7.25 men per 1 ,000 tons used by Marquis. Use of the foregoing assumption results in a range of estimates of total employment generated by the area's pulp material output of 9,700 to 10,300 employed per year (Table 20). The total of county estimates shown in Table 15 is somewhat below this range, due to adjustment to an April 1 basis and allowance for pulp material processing outside the 15-county area. 6. It Is assumed that the location of mills producing pulp, paper and board wIlJ be confined generally to central valley counties such as Shasta, Tehama, Butte, Yuba, and perhaps Siskiyou. These counties will process pulp materials received from their own forests and sawmills, plus those of Modoc, Lassen, Plumas, Sierra, Glenn and Colusa. It Is assumed further that Trinity County's pulp material will be processed In Shasta and Tehama counties and the -90- north coasfal area, one-third share each; and that Lake County's pulp material will be processed entirely in the north coastal area. These assumptions are based In the main on the findings of the Cooperative Study and in part on |udg- ment factors resulting from interviews and observations in the various counties. Output of major timber products As a final step, estimates of annual production of ma{or timber products in each of the 15 northeastern counties, under conditions of sustained yield and full forest utilization, have been made and are presented in Table 21. These estimates are derived from the data, estimates and assumptions presented in this section, including the sustained yield estimates provided by the Forest Service, the analysis of full utilization by Marquis, the pulp production estimates of the State Water Pollution Control Board Cooperative Study, and the assumptions as to location of pulp mills made by the authors of this report. -91- Table 20 TOTAL YEARLY EMPLOYMENT IN PULP, PAPER AND BOARD PRODUCTION RESULTING FROM SUSTAINED YIELD CUTTING PROGRAM AND FULL FOREST UTILIZATION IN 15 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES Estimate No. 1 1) State output of pulp material assuming sustained 335 QOO 000 cu.ft. yield of 4,000 million board feet saw timber 2) 15-county output of solid pulp material assuming sustained yield of 2,267 million board feet saw- = 218 295 000 cu ft timber (56.7% of state total) ' ' 3) 218,295,000 cu. ft. solid pulp material (@80 , cu. ft. solid wood - 200 cu. ft. chips) = 545,737,500 cu.ft. chips 4) 545,737,500 cu. ft. chips (@ 400 cu. ft. = 1,364,340 tons pulp (= chips - 1 ton pulp) 602 tons pulp/MM bd.ft. 5) Daily capacity @ 350 days/year ^°^^3 898 tons 6) 1 364,340 tons pulp r employment of 4,434 in pulp (@ 3.25 men/M tons pulp) 5,912 in paper and board (@ 6.50 men/M tons paper and board) (1 ton pulp - 2/3 ton paper and board) Total 10,346 Estimate No. 2 1) State sustained yield of 4,000 million bd. ft. saw timber will provide enough pulp material for 6,445 tons daily capacity of mills. (State Water Pollution Control Board, Cooperative Study) 2) 15 northeastern counties, with 2,267 million bd. ft. of sawtimber (56.7% of state total) will provide enough material for 3,650 tons daily capacity of mills. 3) 3,650 X 350 days = 1,277,500 tons/year 4) 1 ,277^500 X 3.25 = 4, 152 men in pulp (- 1 .83 men/MM bd. ft. saw logs) 852,000 X 6.50 = 5,538 men in paper and board (= 2.44 men/MM ft. saw logs) Total 9,690 Note: These estimates represent total yearly employment provided by all pulp material produced in the 15 counties. The estimate used for the 15 counties - 8,879 - represents April 1 employment, from approximately 85 percent of the pulp material produced in the area. -92- Table 21 ESTIMATED ANNUAL PRODUCTION OF MAJOR TIMBER PRODUCTS IN 15 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES AT SUSTAINED YIELD Paper and Lumber Plywood Pulp Paperboard County (MMbd.ft.) (Msq. ft.) (M tons) (M tons) Butte 286 21,840 244 156 Co I usa Glenn Lake Lassen Modoc Plumas Shasta 417 66,610 431 276 S ierra Siskiyou 566 90,285 106 68 Tehama 168 44,440 213 135 Trinity Yuba 45 18,290 103 66 Total 2,186 357,200 1,097 701 286 21,840 6 985 27 4,360 42 6,790 134 21,520 95 15,195 149 47,730 417 66,610 140 11,150 566 90,285 168 44,440 111 8,000 45 18,290 -93- V. BASIC DATA AND PROJECTIONS The hsbles which follow (Tables 22 - 69) comprise the basic statis- tical data and projections of the report. The first group of tables (Tables 22 - 37) deals with population; the second group (Tables 38 - 53) with employment; and the third group (Tables 54 - 69) with farm population and farm employment. Sources of data are as follows: Population Population data for 1920-1950 are from the Census of Population for those years. The 1920 Census was taken as of January 1; others were taken as of April 1 . The projections of ultimate population are based on estimates of future employment and on relationships of population growth in the northeastern counties to thai in the state and nation. Employment Employment data for 1940 and 1950 are from the Census of Population for those years. Projections of ultimate employment are based on estimates of employ- ment in local resource-based industries, agriculture and lumbering and wood products manufacture. The proportions of total employment provided by these industries and other economic activities have been projected on the basis of long-term trends observed from historical data for the United States and California. -94- A remarkable consistency has been found in the historical relation- ship between the proportion of employment in agriculture and lumber and wood products manufacture and the proportion of population residing in urban places. This relationship has been used as a check on the consistency and reasonableness of the projections. Farm population and employment Data for 1930, 1940 and 1950 and 1954 are from the Census of Agriculture. Projections shown in the 'ultimate" column are based on the key figure of irrigated land in farms, as estimated by the State Department of Water Resources from its 1956 land classification survey. All other figures in the column represent direct or derived judgments, based on consideration of the Census data for past years, and on information, judgments and opinions obtained from experts in the field of agriculture. These include farm advisors, agricultural commissioners and representative farmers interviewed in each county; soil classification experts of the Department of Water Resources; and agricultural economists of the California Agricultural Extension Service. -95- Tables 22-37 POPULATION DATA AND PROJECTIONS NORTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA COUNTIES COUNTY 15 COUNTIES TOTAL Total population Urban Rural form ) Rural non-farm) Percent distribution Urban Rural form ) Rural non-rarm) BUTTE Totol population Urban Rural farm ) Rural non-farm) Percent distribution Urban Rural farm ) Rural non-farrrj COLUSA 1920 1940 1950 Ultimate* Totol population Urban Rural farm ) Rural non-farm) Percent distribution Urban Rural farrr ) Rural non-.arm) GLENN Total population Urban Rural farm ) Rural non-form) Percent distribution Urban Rural farm ) Rural non-farm) LAKE Total population Urban Rural farm ) Rural non-farm) Percent distribution Urban Rural farm ) Rural non-farm)- LASSEN Total population Urban Rural farm ) Rural non-farm) Percent distribution Urban Rural farm ) Rural non-farm) MODOC 162,905 30,881 132,024 199,089 36,884 65,778 96,427 249,298 43,892 67,965 137,441 330,339 114,465 60,993 154,941 1,747,400 1,203,960 128,550 414,870 100. 19.0 81.0 100.0 18.5 33.0 48.5 100.0 17.6 27.3 55.1 100.0 34.6 18.5 46.9 100.0 68.9 7.4 23.7 30,030 12,679 17,351 34,093 11,659 9,144 13,290 42,840 13,708 10,465 18,667 64,930 27,225 9,408 28,297 284,000 210,160 15,820 58,020 100. 42.2 57.8 100.0 34.2 26.8 39.0 100.0 32.0 24.4 43.6 100.0 41.9 14.5 43.6 100.0 74.0 5.6 20.4 9,290 9,290 10,258 4,394 5,364 9,788 3,781 6,007 11,651 3,031 2,907 5,713 63,000 40,120 10,650 17,230 100.0 100.0 100.0 42.8 57.2 100.0 38.6 61.4 100.0 26.0 25.0 49.0 100.0 59.0 15.7 25.3 11,853 11,853 10,935 6,110 4,825 12,195 5,978 6,217 15,448 3,019 6,286 6,143 85,000 48,450 16,000 20,550 100.0 100.0 100.0 55.9 44.1 100.0 49.0 51.0 100.0 19.5 40.7 39.8 100.0 57.0 18.8 24.2 5,402 5,402 7,166 3,027 4,139 8,069 2,997 5,072 11,481 2,824 8,657 65,000 29,250 4,300 31,450 100.0 100.0 100.0 42.2 57.8 100.0 37.1 62.9 100.0 24.6 75.4 100.0 45.0 6.6 48.4 8,507 8,507 12,589 2,199 10,390 14,479 2,115 12,364 18,474 8,956 1,659 7,859 67,500 40,500 7,850 19,150 100.0 100.0 100. 17.5 82.5 100.0 14.6 85.4 100.0 48.5 9.0 42.5 100.0 60.0 11.6 28.4 5,425 5,425 8,038 2,762 5,276 8,713 3,048 5,665 9,678 2,819 3,066 3,793 51, 100 29,640 7,400 14,060 100. 100.0 100.0 34.4 65.6 100.0 35.0 65.0 100.0 29.1 31.7 39.2 100.0 58.0 14.5 27.5 5,681 5,681 7,913 908 7,005 11,548 700 10,848 13,519 536 12,983 44,700* 22,350 1,500 20,850 100.0 100.0 100.0 11.5 88.5 100.0 6.1 93.9 100.0 4.0 96.0 100.0 50.0 3.4 46.6 Total population Urban Rural farm ) Rural non-farm) Percent distribution Urban Rural farm ) Rural non-farm) PLU^AAS Total population Urban Rural farm ) Rurol non-farm) Percent distribution Urban Rural farm ) Rural non-farm) *SDWR estimate in Report on Upper Feather River Service Area is: Total: 41,200; urban: 24,500; rural: 16,700 COUNTY SHASTA Total population Urban Rural farm ) Rural non-farm) Percent distribution Urban Rural farm ) Rural non-farm) SIERRA Total population Urban Rural farm ) Rural non-farm) Percent distribution Urbon Rural farm ) Rural non-farm) SISKIYOU Total population Urban Rural farm ) Rural non-form) Percent distribution Urban Rural farm ) Rural non-farm) SUTTER Total population Urban Rural farm ) Rural non-form) Percent distribution Urban Rural farm ) Rural non-farm) TEHAMA 1920 Total population Urban Rural form ) Rurol non-form) Percent distribution Urban Rural farm ) Rural non-farm) TRINITY Total population Urban Rural farm ) Rural non-farm) Percent distribution Urban Rural farm ) Rural non-farm) YOLO Total population Urban Rural farm ) Rural non-farm) Percent distribution Urban Rural farm ) Rural non-farm) YUBA Total population Urban Rural farm ) Rural non-farm) Percent distribution Urban Rural farm ) Rural non-farm) NOTE: 13,361 13,927 28,800 36,413 1 2,962 4,188 8,109 10,256 1 10,399 4,394 5,140 4,100 5,345 15,551 22,057 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 22.2 30.1 28.2 28.2 77.8 31.5 38.4 17.8 54.0 11.2 60.6 1,733 2,551 2,422 2,809 3,025 3,970 2,410 1,733 265 2,157 306 2,719 205 2,205 100.0 100. n 100.0 100.0 100.0 10.9 89.1 10. 1 89.9 8.5 91.5 18,545 2,528 16,017 25,480 2,610 5,355 17,515 28,598 5,463 23,135 30,733 5,966 4,359 20,408 100.0 13.6 86.4 100.0 10.2 21.0 68.8 100.0 19.1 80.9 100.0 19.4 14.2 66.4 10,115 10,115 14,618 3,605 8,088 2,925 18,680 4,968 8,134 5,578 26,239 7,861 8,724 9,654 100.0 100.0 100.0 24.7 55.3 20.0 100.0 26.6 43.5 29.9 100.0 30.0 33.2 36.8 12,882 3,104 9,773 13,866 3,517 6,764 3,585 14,316 3,824 6,335 3,657 19,276 7,442 6,313 5,521 100.0 24.1 75.9 100.0 25.4 48.8 25.8 100.0 26.7 47.8 25.5 100.0 38.6 32.8 28.6 5,087 2,551 1,191 1,618 1,175 2,795 688 4,399 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 42.4 57.6 29.6 70.4 13.5 86.5 17,105 4,147 12,958 23,644 5,542 8,720 9,382 27,243 6,637 9,082 11,524 40,640 21,986 6,779 11,875 100.0 24.2 75.8 100.0 23.4 36.9 39.7 100.0 24.4 33.3 42.3 100.0 54.1 16.7 29.2 10,375 5,461 4,914 11,331 5,763 2,457 3,111 17,034 6,646 2,746 7,642 24,420 15,904 3,139 5,377 100.0 52.6 47.4 100.0 50.9 21.7 27.4 100.0 44.9 100.0 65.1 12.9 22.0 1950 urban population includes cities and unincorporated places havl habitants or more. In previous census vears, only Incorporated ploc inhabitants or more were considered "urban . -96- Tables 38-53 EMPLOYMENT DATA AND PROJECTIONS NORTH-EASTERN CALIFORNIA COUNTIES ( Employment as of April 1) COUNTIES i940 1950 Ultimote SHASTA Industry group 1940 1950 Ultimote group 1 No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % 86,074 100.0 116,254 106.0 i3»,335 100.0 Tolol 10,042 ibo.o li,745 100.0 n,M 100.0 l» 29,074 33.8 27,362 23.5 59,258 9.3 Extra ctlve 1,882 18.74 1,487 11.67 3,060 4.3 utture 23,705 27.6 25,416 21.9 55, 1 13 e.6 Agriculture 1,254 12.49 1,161 9.11 2,460 3.5 try & fisheries 525 0.6 869 0.7) 4,145 0.6 Forestry & fisheries 70 .70 174 1.37 300 .4 >9 4,804 5.6 1,077 0.9) Mining 558 5.55 152 1.19 300 .4 turing 12,042 14.0 18,397 15.8 108,993 17.0 Monufocturing 758 7.55 2,650 20.80 14,740 21.0 & wood prod. 9,478 11.0 13,543 11.6 27,080 4.2 Lbr. & wood prod. 499 4.97 2,323 18.23 4,530 6.5 r monufoctoring 2,564 3.0 4,854 4.2 81,913 12.8 Other manufocturins 1 259 2.58 327 2.57 10,210 U.S 44,958 52.2 70,495 60.7 471,084 73.7 All other SIERRA 7,402 73.71 8,606 67.53 52,400 74.6 12,896 100.0 21,366 100.0 102,200 100.0 total 1,289 100.0 795 100.0 5,750 100.0 le 3,816 29.59 3,841 17.98 6,330 6.2 Extractive 562 43.60 148 18.62 500 8.7 uUore 3,052 23.67 3,582 16.77 5,930 5.8 Agricuthjre 110 8.53 67 8.43 30O 5.2 try & fisheries 40 .31 83 .39 100) 0.4 Forestry & fisheries 9 .70 8 1.01 50 .9 19 724 5.61 176 .82 300) Mining 443 34.37 73 9.18 150 2.6 itufing 1,599 12.40 3,226 15.10 18,400 18.0 Manufacturing 310 24.05 204 25.66 1,500 26.1 & wood prod. 964 7.48 1,761 8.24 2,073 2.0 Lbr. & wood prod. 295 22.89 170 21.38 1,380 24.0 r monufocturing 635 4.92 1,465 6.86 16,327 16.0 Other manufacturing 1 15 1.16 34 4.28 120 2.1 i. 7,481 58.01 14,299 66.92 77,470 75.8 All other SISKIYOU 417 32.35 443 55.72 3,750 65.2 3,482 100.0 4,268 100.0 26,500 100.0 Total 11,204 10O.0 11,662 100.0 46,180 100.0 iC 1,682 48.30 1,892 44.33 5,900 22.3 Extractive 2,917 26.04 1,869 16.03 4,650 10.1 :ultufe 1,664 47.79 1,878 44.00 5,830 22.0 Agriculture 1,900 16.97 1,4S4 12.73 3,925 8.5 try & fisheries 4 .11 8 .19) 70 .3 Forestry & fisheries 118 1.05 187 1.60 350 .8 19 14 .40 6. .14) Mining 899 8.02 198 1.70 375 .8 :ttjring 87 2.50 156 3.66 2,120 8.0 Monufocturing 3,192 28.49 3,429 29.40 9,220 20.0 & wood prod . 11 .32 27 .63 74 .3 Lbr. & wood prod. 3,027 27.02 3,201 27.45 6,864 14.9 r monufacturing 76 2.18 129 3.03 2,046 7.7 Other manufacturing 165 1.47 228 1.95 2,356 5.1 1,713 49.20 2,220 52.01 18,480 69.7 All other sunER 5,095 45.47 6,364 54.57 32,310 69.9 4,209 100.0 5,858 100.0 32,080 100.0 Total 5,729 100.0 8,942 100.0 47,180 100.0 /e 2,170 51.56 2,543 43.41 8,080 25.2 Extroctive 2,909 50.78 3,497 39.11 5,290 11.2 :ulture 2,144 50.94 2,517 42.97 8,000 25.0 Agriculture 2,848 49.71 3,457 38.66 5,190 11.0 Iry & fisheries 17 .40 23 .39) 80 .2 Forestry & fisheries 3 .06 4 .04) 100 0.2 ng 9 .22 3 .05) Mining 58 1.01 36 ■ 41) Ituring 170 4.04 320 5.46 2,570 8.0 Manufacturing 213 3.72 503 5.62 7,550 16.0 & wood prod , 10 .24 25 .43 332 1.0 Lbr. & wood prod. 9 .16 100 1.12 ir monufocturing 160 3.80 295 5.03 2,238 7.0 Other manufdcturinc 1 204 3.56 403 4.50 7,550 16,0 1,869 44.40 2,995 51.13 21,430 66.8 All other TEHAMA 2,607 45.50 4,942 55.27 34,340 72.8 2,573 100.0 3,946 100.0 21,000 100.0 Total 4,800 100.0 6,941 100.0 36,800 100.0 1,064 41.35 1,185 30.03 1,700 8.1 Extractive 2,008 41.83 2,024 29.16 3,560 9.7 ulture fry & fisheries turing 915 35.56 1,125 28.51 1,680 8.0 Agriculture 1,963 40.90 1,967 28.34 3,310 9.0 21 .82 40 1.01) 120 .1 Forestry & fisheries 30 .62 49 .71 150) 0.7 128 4.97 20 ■ 51) Mining 15 .31 8 .11 100) 123 4.78 258 6.54 1,678 8.0 Monufocturing 200 4.17 759 10.94 6,630 18.0 & wood prod . ' nviniiln rti irinn 56 2.18 145 3.68 517 2.5 Lbr. & wood prod. 42 .88 451 6.50 2,540 6.9 67 2.60 113 2.86 1,161 5.5 Other manufacturing 158 3.29 308 4.44 4,090 11.1 iinjiiu lu ^1 ui 1 1 ij^ 1,386 53.87 2,503 63.43 17,622 83.9 All other TRINITY 2,592 54.00 4,158 59.90 26,610 72.3 5,476 100.0 6,569 100.0 24,930 100.0 lotal 1,388 100.0 1,764 100.0 7,925 100.0 830 15.16 706 10.75 3,700 14.8 Extractive 864 62.25 369 20.92 508 6.4 ulture 760 13.89 644 9.80 3,490 14.0 Agriculture 303 21.83 227 12.87 208 2.6 Iry & fisheries 49 .89 61 .93) 210 0.8 Forestry A fisheries 50 3.60 52 2.95 120 1.5 21 .38 1 .02) Mining 511 36.82 90 5.10 180 2.3 •9 turing and wood prod. ■ manufacturing 2,738 50.0 1,997 30.40 2,500 10.0 Monufocturing 33 2.38 651 36.90 2,100 26.5 2,640 48.21 1,894 28.83 1,636 6.6 Lbr. & wood prod- 24 1.73 644 36.50 1,902 24.0 98 1,908 1.79 34.84 103 3,866 1.57 58.85 864 18,730 3.4 75.2 Other manufacturing All other 9 491 .65 35.37 7 744 .40 42.18 198 5,317 2.5 67.1 YOLO 3,328 lOO.O 3,735 100.0 18,510 100.0 lotol 9,747 lOO.O 15,072 100.0 146,250 100.0 1,237 37.17 1,203 32.21 2,945 15.9 Extractive 4,260 43.70 4,772 31.66 9,450 6.4 ulture 1,161 34.89 1,128 30.20 2,775 15.0 Agriculture 4,224 43.33 4,728 31.37 9,250 6.3 Iry e. fisheries 19 turing Dnd wood prod. 35 1.05 66 1.77 120) .9 Forestry & fisheries 11 .11 24 .16) 200 0.1 41 1.23 9 .24 50) Mining 25 .26 20 .13) 720 21.63 739 19.79 1,700 9.2 Monufocturing 525 5.39 1,064 7.06 29,250 20.0 671 20.16 664 17.78 1,156 6.3 Lbr. & wood prod. 47 .48 68 .45 r tnonufdcturing 49 1.47 75 2.01 544 2.9 Other monufocturing 478 4.91 996 6.61 29,250 20.0 1,371 41.20 1,793 . 48.00 13,865 74.9 All other 4,962 50.91 9,236 61.28 107,550 73.5 YUBA 4,475 100.0 5,028 100.0 16,080 100.0 Total 5,436 100.0 7,565 100.0 37,750 100.0 re 1,176 26.28 320 6.36 700 4.3 Extractive 1,697 31.22 1,506 19.91 2,885 7.3 ulture 281 6.28 187 3.72 500 3.1 Agriculture 1,126 20.71 1,264 16.71 2,265 6.0 try & fisheries 60 1.34 61 1.21 100 .6 Forestry** fisheries 8 .15 29 .38 100) 1.3 ig 835 18.66 72 1.43 100 .6 Mining 563 10.36 213 2.82 400) :turing 1,171 26.17 1,601 31.84 3,375 21.0 Manufacturing 203 3.73 840 11.10 5,660 15.0 and wood prod. 1,129 25.23 1,527 30.37 3,215 20.0 Lbr . & wood prod . 54 .99 543 7.18 859 2.3 r manuldcturing 42 .94 74 1.47 160 1.0 Other manufacturing 149 2.74 297 3.92 4.801 12.7 2,128 47.55 3,107 61.80 12,005 74.7 All other 3,536 65.05 5,219 68.99 29,205 77.7 NOTE: Lumber and wood prodvcts include industries in Stondord Irxlustfial Clouificolion Groups 24 and 25. Pulp, paper and allied. ffroducts (S.I.C. Group 26) ore included in "Other manufacturing," which ii i accordance with presant Census Bureou practice. -97 RURAL FARM POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT NORTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA COUNTIES 1930-54 and Ultimate Table 54 15 N. E. 1930 1940 1950 1954 1 Number of farms - total 15,825 2 - irrigated farms 8,854 3 - non-irrigated farms 6,971 4 Land In farms - total (acres) 6,846,424 5 - Irrigated farms 3,178,360 6 - non-irrigated farms 3,668,064 7 Irrigated land In farms (acres) 674,501 8 - % of land in farms 9.9 9 - % land In irrigated farms 21.2 10 - avg. per Irrigated farm (acres) 76.2 11 Average size of farm (acres) 432.6 12 - irrigated farms 359.0 13 - non-irrigated farms 526.2 14 Farm population - total 66,158 15 - urban farm 380 16 - rural farm - total 65,778 17 - rural farm, average per farm 4. 16 18 - % county population 33.0 19 •- no. per 1,000 acres 9.61 20 Farm employment, April 1, total 33,374 21 - % rural farm population 50.7 22 - % civillam employment 37.2 23 - no. per 1 ,000 acres 4.87 24 - average per farm 2.11 14,827 9,432 5,395 15,375 10,518 4,857 6,856,600 7,715,014 4,087,248 4,972,678 2,769,352 2,742,336 869,283 1,085,368 12.7 14.1 21.3 21.8 92.2 462.4 433.3 513.3 68,088 123 67,965 4.58 27.3 9.91 23,705 34.9 27.5 3.46 1.60 103.2 501.8 472.8 564.6 61,592 599 60,993 3.97 18.5 7.91 25,416 41.7 21.9 3.29 1.65 15,248 10,985 4,263 8,107,983 5,701,561 2,406,422 1,278,063 15.8 22.4 116.3 531.7 519.0 564.5 Note: 1930 employment Is per old definition: "persons 10 years old and over engaged in galnl occupations." -98- Table 55 RURAL FARM POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT NORTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA COUNTIES 1930-54 and Ultimate Butte C( Dunty 1930 1940 1950 1954 Ultimate 1 Number of farms - total 2,603 2,584 2,680 2,843 3,955 2 - irrigated farms 1,445 1,500 1,835 2,026 3,770 3 - non-irrigated farms 1,158 1,084 845 817 185 4 Land in farms - total (acres) 619,584 582,779 676,109 672,802 600,000 5 - irrigated farms 264,379 310,846 436,385 521,309 555,000 6 - non-irrigated farms 355,205 271,933 239,724 151,493 45,000 7 Irrigated land in farms (acres) 67,038 79,885 125,209 161,628 358,500 8 - % of land in farms 10.8 13.7 18.5 24.0 59.8 9 - % land in irrigated farms 25.4 25.7 28.7 31.0 64.6 10 - average per irrigated farm (acres) 46.4 53.3 68.2 79.8 95.1 11 Average size of farm (acres) 238.0 225.5 252.3 236.7 152 12 - irrigated farms 183.0 207.2 237.8 257.3 147 13 - non-irrigated farms 306.7 250.9 283.7 185.4 243 14 Farm population - total 9,173 10,491 9,565 15,820 15 - urban farm 29 26 157 - 16 - rural farm - total 9,144 10,465 9,408 15,820 17 - rural farm: average per farm 3.51 4.05 3.51 4.0 18 - % county population 26.8 24.4 14.5 5.6 19 - no. per 1,000 acres 14.76 17.96 13.91 26.4 20 Farm employment, April 1 - total 4,451 3,052 3,582 5,930 21 - % rural farm population 48.7 29.2 38.1 37.5 22 - % civilian employment 31.57 23.7 16.8 5.8 23 - no. per 1 ,000 acres 7.18 5.23 5.30 9.9 24 - average per farm 1.71 1.18 1.34 1.5 Note: 1930 employment Is per old definition: "persons 10 years old and over engaged in gainful occupations." -99- Table 56 RURAL FARM POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT NORTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA COUNTIES 1930-54 and Ultimate Co lusa County 1930 1940 1950 1954 Ultimate 1 Number of farms - total 894 730 813 746 2,580 2 - irrigated farms 359 400 530 533 2,350 3 - non-irrigated farms 535 330 283 213 230 4 Land in farms - total (acres) 481,604 437,030 532,915 597,968 600,000 5 - irrigated farms 120,004 196,771 346,489 443,732 530,000 6 - non-irrigated farms 361,600 240,259 186,426 154,236 70,000 7 Irrigated land in farms (acres) 58,369 82,890 97,347 138,929 375,900 8 - % of land in farms 12.1 19.0 18.3 23.2 62.7 9 - % land in irrigated farms 48.6 42.1 28.1 31.3 70.9 10 - Average per irrigated farm (acres) 162.6 207.2 183.7 1 1 Average size of farm (acres) 538.7 598.7 655.5 12 - Irrigated farms 334.3 492.0 653.8 13 - non-irrigated farms 675.9 728.1 658.7 14 Farm population - total 4,394 3,781 2,919 15 - urban farm - - 12 16 - rural farm - total 4,394 3,781 2,907 17 - rural farm; average perform 4.91 5.18 3.58 18 -% county population 42.8 38.6 25.0 19 - No. per 1,000 acres 9.12 8.65 5.45 20 Farm employment, April 1 - total 2,712 1,664 1,878 21 -% rural farm population 61.7 44.0 64.6 22 -% civilian employment 57.3 47.8 44.0 23 - No. per 1,000 acres 5.63 3.81 3.52 24 - average per farm 3.03 2.28 2.31 260.7 801.6 832.5 724.1 160.0 235 225 300 10,650 10,650 4.1 15.7 17.7 5,830 54.7 22.0 9.7 2.3 Note: 1930 employment Is per old definition: "persons 10 years old and over engaged in gainful occupations." ■100- Table 57 RURAL FARM POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT NORTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA COUNTIES 1930-54 and Ultimate Glenr 1 County 1930 1940 1950 1954 Ultimate 1 Number of farms - total 1,463 1,376 1,527 1,538 4,000 2 - Irrigated farms 997 1,061 1,292 1,318 3,700 3 - non-Irrigated farms 466 315 235 220 300 4 Land In farms - total (acres) 586,411 541,555 611,865 703,043 620,000 5 - Irrigated farms 185,392 258,807 387,450 411,049 515,000 6 - non-Irrigated farms 401,019 282,748 224,415 291,994 105,000 7 Irrigated land In farms (acres) 60,306 101,557 102,557 136,511 333,400 8 - % of land In farms 10.3 18.8 16.8 19.4 53.8 9 - % land In Irrigated farms 32.5 39.2 26.5 33.2 64.7 10 - average per irrigated farm (acres) 60.5 95.7 79.4 103.6 90.1 11 Average size of farm (acres) 400.8 393.6 400.7 457.1 155 12 - Irrigated farms 185.9 243.9 299.9 311.9 140 13 - non-irrigated farms 860.6 897.6 955 1,327.2 350 14 Farm population - total 6,110 5,978 6,286 16,000 15 - urban farm - - - - 16 - rural farm - total 6,110 5,978 6,286 16,000 17 - rural farm: average per farm 4.18 4.34 4.12 4.00 18 - % county population 55.9 49.0 40.7 18.8 19 - no. per 1 ,000 acres 10.42 11.04 10.27 25.8 20 Farm employment, April 1 - total 2,573 2,144 2,517 8,000 21 - % rural farm population 42.1 35.9 40.0 50.0 22 - % civilian employment 55.3 50.9 43.0 24.9 23 - no. per 1 ,000 acres 4.39 3.96 4.11 12.9 24 - average per farm 1.76 1.56 1.65 2.0 Note: 1930 employment is per old definition: "persons 10 years old and over engaged in gainful occupations." -101- Table 58 RURAL FARM POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT NORTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA COUNTIES 1930-54 and Ultimate Lake County 1930 1940 1950 1954 Ultimate 1 Number of farms - total 2 - irrigated farms 3 - non-irrigated farms 4 Land in farms - total (acres) 5 - irrigated farms 6 - non-irrigated farms 7 Irrigated land in farms (acres) 8 - % of land in farms 9 - % land in irrigated farms 10 - average per irrigated farm (acres) 1 1 Average size of farm (acres) 12 - irrigated farms 13 - non-irrigated farms 14 Farm population - total 15 - urban farm 16 - rural farm - total 17 - rural farm: overage per farm 18 - % county population 19 - no. per 1 ,000 acres 20 Farm employment, April 1 - Total 21 - % rural farm population 22 - % civilian employment 23 - no. per 1 ,000 acres 24 - average pec farm 1,057 no 947 876 141 735 1,058 314 744 1,038 359 679 1,342 854 488 240,445 52,476 187,969 229,854 56,802 173,052 252,923 110,261 142,662 247,810 112,489 135,321 200,000 102,450 97,550 1,916 0.7 5 3.7 3,281 1.4 5.8 9,174 3.6 8.3 12,498 5.0 11.1 72,600 36.3 70.9 17.4 227.5 477.1 198.5 3,027 3,027 2.86 42.2 12.59 1,352 44.7 46.2 5.62 1.28 23.3 262.4 402.9 235.4 2,997 2,997 3.42 37.1 13.04 915 30.5 35.6 3.98 1.04 29.2 239.1 351.1 191.8 2,824 2,824 2.67 24.6 11.16 1,125 39.8 28.5 4.45 1.06 34.8 238.7 313.3 199.3 85.0 149. 120 200 4,300 4,300 3.2 6.6 21.5 1,680 39.1 8.0 8.4 1.25 Note: 1930 employment is per old definition: "persons 10 years old and over engaged In gainful occupations." -102- Table 59 RURAL FARM POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT NORTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA COUNTIES 1930-54 and Ultimate Lassen County 1930 1940 1950 1954 Ultimate 1 Number of farms - total 472 486 420 397 1,745 2 - irrigated farms 241 301 211 232 1,545 3 - non-irrigated farms 231 185 209 165 200 4 Land in farms - total (acres) 473,268 606,335 682,086 672,795 1,000,000 5 - irrigated farms 303,248 511,973 528,863 494,988 800,000 6 - non-irrigated farms 170,020 94,362 153,223 177,807 200,000 7 Irrigated land in farms (acres) 39,893 62,243 48,662 53,018 441,300 8 - % of land in farms 8.4 10.3 7.1 7.9 44.1 9 - % land in irrigated farms 13.2 12.2 9.2 10.7 55.2 10 - avg. per irrigated farm (acres) 165.5 206.8 230.6 228.5 285.6 11 Average size of farm (acres) 1,002.7 1,247.6 1,624.0 1,694.7 573 12 - irrigated farms 1,258.3 1,700.9 2,506.5 2,133.6 518 13 - non-irrigated farms 736.0 510.1 733.1 1,077.6 1,000 14 Farm population - total 2,199 2,115 1,665 7,850 15 - urban farm - - 6 - 16 - rural farm - total 2,199 2,115 1,659 7,850 17 - rural farm: avg. per farm 4.66 4.35 3.95 4.5 18 - % county population 17.5 14.6 9.0 11.6 19 - no. per 1 ,000 acres 4.65 3.49 2.43 7.8 20 Farm employment, April 1 - total 987 760 644 3,490 21 - % rural farm population 44.9 35.9 38.8 44.5 22 - % civilian employment 16.2 13.9 9.8 14.0 23 - no. per 1,000 acres 2.08 1.25 .94 3.5 24 - average per farm 2.09 1.56 1.53 2.0 Note: 1930 employment is per old definition: engaged in gainful occupations." 'persons 10 years old and over -103- RURAL FARM POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT NORTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA COUNTIES 1930-54 and Ultimate Table 60 C( Junty Modoc 1930 1940 1950 1954 Ultimate 1 Number of farms - total 621 686 823 749 1,850 2 - irrigated farms 418 532 655 569 1,756 3 - non- irrigated farms 203 154 168 180 94 4 Land in farms - total (acres) 450,139 583,189 680,694 673,897 750,000 5 - irrigated farms 310,471 471,868 597,095 595,917 702,400 6 - non-Irrigated farms 139,668 111,321 83,599 77 ,.980 47,600 7 Irrigated land in farms (acres) 70,025 92,419 133,869 124,772 352,100 8 - % of land in farms 15.6 15.8 19.7 18.5 46.9 9 - % land in irrigated farms 22.6 19.6 22.4 20.9 50.1 10 - average per irrigated farm (acres) 167.5 173.7 204.4 219.3 200.5 n Average size of farm (acres) 724.9 850.1 827.1 899.7 405.2 12 - irrigated farms 742.8 887.0 911.6 1,047.3 400 13 - non- irrigated farms 688.0 722.9 497.6 433.2 500 14 Farm population - total 2,762 3,048 3,068 7,400 15 - urban farm - - 2 - 16 - rural farm - total 2,762 3,048 3,066 7,400 17 - rural farm: average per farm 4.45 4.44 3.72 4.0 18 - % county population 34.4 35.0 31.7 14.5 19 - no. per 1 ,000 acres 6.14 5.23 4.50 9.9 20 Farm employment, April 1 - total 1,320 1,161 1,128 2,//5 21 - % rural farm population 47.8 38.1 36.8 37.5 22 - % civilian employment 35.6 34.9 30.2 15.0 23 - no. per 1,000 acres 2.93 1.99 1.66 3.7 24 - average per farm 2.13 1.69 1.37 1.5 Note: 1930 employment is per old definition: gainful occupations." 'persons 10 years old and over engaged in -104- Table 61 RURAL FARM POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT NORTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA COUNTIES 1930-54 and Ultimate PI jmas County 1930 1940 1950 1954 Ultimate 1 Number of farms - total 178 167 159 151 400 2 - irrigated farms 119 130 100 95 375 3 - non-irrigated farms 59 37 59 56 25 i Land In farms - total (acres) 167,446 160,513 150,621 164,004 200,000 5 - irrigated farms 98,666 145,510 114,822 127,000 180,000 S - non-irrigated farms 68,780 15,003 35,799 37,004 20,000 7 Irrigated land in farms (acres) 16,774 29,481 24,516 22,001 107,900 3 - % of land in farms 10.0 18.4 16.3 13.4 54.0 ? - % land in irrigated farms 17.0 20.3 21.3 17.3 59.9 3 - average per irrigated farm (acres) 141.0 226.8 245.2 231.6 287.7 1 Average size of farm (acres) 940.7 961.2 947.3 1,086.1 500 2 - irrigated farms 829.1 1,119.3 1,148.2 1,336.8 480 3 - non-irrigated farms 1,165.7 405.5 606.8 660.8 800 i Farm population - total 908 700 536 1,500 5 - urban farm - - - - 5 - rural farm - total 908 700 536 1,500 7 - rural farm; average per farm 5.10 4.19 3.37 3.75 3 - % county population 11.5 6.7 4.0 3.4 ? - no. per 1 ,000 acres 5.42 4.36 3.56 7.5 D Farm employment. April 1 - total 385 281 187 500 1 - % rural farm population 42.4 40.1 34.9 33.3 2 - % civilian employment 8.8 6.3 3.7 3.1 3 - no. per 1,000 acres 2.30 1.75 1.24 2.5 4 - average per farm 2.16 1.68 1.18 1.25 ote: 1930 employment is per old definition: "persons 10 years old and over engaged in gainful occupations." -105- RURAL FARM POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT NORTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA COUNTIES 1930-54 and Ultimate Table 62 Shasta Count 1930 1940 1950 1954 Ultimate 1 2 3 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Number of farms - total - irrigated farms - non-irrigated farms Land in farms - total (aqres) - irrigated farms - non-Irrigated farms Irrigated land in farms (acres) - % of land in farms - % land in irrigated farms - average per Irrigated farm (acres) Average size of farm (acres) - Irrigated farms - non-Irrigated farms Farm population - total - urban farm - rural farm - total - rural farm: average per farm - % county population - no. per 1,000 acres Farm employment, April 1 - total - % rural farm population - % civilian employment - no. per 1,000 acres - average per farm 1,213 809 404 1,229 885 344 1,108 753 355 1,079 773 306 2,050 1,800 250 607,833 386,847 220,986 534,671 395,201 139,490 723,752 504,234 219,518 768,818 469,446 299,372 750,000 625,000 125,000 41,173 6.8 37,273 7.0 39,992 5.5 44,961 5.8 207,900 27.7 10.6 9.4 7.9 9.6 33.3 50.9 42.1 53.1 58.2 115.5 501.1 478.2 547.0 435.1 446.6 405.4 653.2 669.6 618.4 712.5 607.3 978.3 366 347 500 4,447 53 4,394 5,163 23 5,140 4,116 16 4,100 8,200 8,200 3.62 31.6 7.23 4.18 17.8 9.61 3.70 11.3 5.66 4.0 4.2 10.9 1,826 41.6 29.3 3.00 1.50 1,254 24.4 12.5 2.34 1.02 1,161 28.3 • 9.1 1.60 1.05 2,460 30.0 3.5 3.3 1.2 Note: 1930 employment Is per old definition: "persons 10 years old and over engaged in gainful occupations. -106- Table 63 RURAL FARM POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT NORTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA COUNTIES 1930-54 and Ultimate Sierra County 1930 1940 1950 1954 Ultimate 1 2 3 Number of farms - total - irrigated farms - non-irrigated farms 92 54 38 86 65 21 69 49 20 66 44 22 280 250 30 4 5 6 Land in farms - total (acres) - irrigated farms - non-irrigated farms 119,579 53,340 66,239 60,105 46,872 13,233 83,535 54,924 28,611 92,477 77,199 15,278 100,000 83,000 17,000 7 8 9 Irrigated land in farms (acres) 9,104 - % of land in farms 7.6 - % land in irrigated farms 17.1 7,307 12.2 15.6 16,682 20.0 30.4 14,201 15.3 18.4 49,100 49.1 59.2 10 - average per irrigated farm (acres) 168.6 112.4 340.4 1,322.7 196.4 11 12 13 Average size of farm (acres) - irrigated farms - non-irrigated farms 1,299.8 987.8 1,743.1 698.9 721.1 630.1 1,210.7 1,120.9 1,430.6 1,401.2 1,754.5 694.4 357 333 550 Farm population total - urban farm - rural farm - total - rural farm; average per farm - % county population - no. per 1 ,000 acres Farm employment, April 1 - total - % rural farm population - % civilian employment - no. per 1 ,000 acres - average per farm 265 265 2.88 10.9 2.22 136 51.3 10.7 1.14 1.48 306 306 205 205 3.56 2.97 10.1 8.4 5.09 2.45 no 67 35.9 32.7 8.5 8.4 1.83 .80 1.28 .97 850 850 3.0 5.3 8.5 300 35.3 5.2 3.0 1.1 Note: 1930 employment is per old definition: "persons 10 years old and over engaged in gainful occupations." -107- RURAL FARM POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT NORTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA COUNTIES 1930-54 and Ultimate Siskiyou County 1930 1940 1950 1954 1 Number of farms - total 1,155 1,208 1,000 970 2,3. 2 - irrigated farms 744 915 681 698 2,T 3 - non-irrigated farms 411 293 319 272 21 4 Land in farms - total (acres) 627,704 699,496 879,904 961,344 950,01 5 - irrigated farms 415,855 589,742 653,121 725,577 850,01 6 - non-irrigated farms 211,849 109,754 226,783 225,767 100,01 7 Irrigated land in farms (acres) 58,655 91,783 100,525 93,552 343,21 8 - % of land in farms 9.3 13.1 11.4 9.7 36 9 - % land in irrigated farms 14.1 15.6 15.4 12.7 40 10 - average per irrigated farm (acres) 78.8 100.3 147.6 134.0 160 11 Average size of farm (acres) 543.5 579.1 879.9 991.1 405 12 - irrigated farms 558.9 644.5 959.1 1,053.8 400 13 - non-irrigated farms 515.4 374.6 710.9 830.0 500 14 Farm population - total 5,355 5,463 4,371 9,8: 15 - urban farm - - 12 16 - rural farm - total 5,355 5,463 4,359 9,8; 17 - rural farm: average per farm 4.64 4.52 4.36 4 18 - % county population 21.0 19.1 14.2 7 19 - no. per 1,000 acres 8.53 7.81 4.95 10 20 Farm employment. April 1 - total 2,190 1,900 1,484 3,9: 21 - % rural farm population 40.9 34.8 34.0 39 22 - % civilian employment 19.3 17.0 12.7 8 23 - no. per 1 ,000 acres 3.49 2.72 1.69 4 24 - average per farm 1.90 1.57 1.48 1 Note: 1930 employment Is per old definition: "persons 10 years old and over engaged In gainful occupations." -108- Table 65 RURAL FARM POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT NORTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA COUNTIES 1930-54 and Ultimate Sutter County 1930 1940 1950 1954 Ultimate 1 Number of farms - total 1,758 1,425 1,807 1,787 2,595 2 - irrigated farms 1,257 1,084 1,527 1,532 2,570 3 - non-irrigated farms 501 341 280 255 25 4 Land in farms - total (acres) 343,654 317,113 372,192 369,349 365,000 5 - irrigated farms 185,410 230,610 312,236 321,420 360,000 6 - non-irrigated farms 158,244 86,503 59,956 47,929 5,000 7 Irrigated land in farms (acres) 98, //I 102,119 168,868 192,534 291,800 8 - % of land in farms 28.7 32.2 45.4 52.1 79.9 9 - % land in irrigated farms 53.3 44.3 54.1 59.9 81.1 10 - average per irrigated farm (acres) 78.6 94.2 110.6 125.7 113.5 11 Average size of farm (acres) 195.5 222.5 206.0 206.7 141 12 - irrigated farms 147.5 212.7 204.5 209.8 140 13 - non-irrigated farms 315.9 253.7 214.1 188.0 200 14 Farm population - total 8,158 8,179 8,735 12,450 15 - urban farm 70 45 11 - 16 - rural farm - total 8,088 8,134 8,724 12,450 17 - rural farm: average per farm 4.60 5.71 4.83 4.8 18 - % county population 55.3 43.5 33.2 10.2 19 - no. per 1 ,000 acres 23.53 25.65 23.44 34.1 20 Farm employment. April 1, total 4,285 2,848 3,457 5,190 21 - % rural farm population 53.0 35.0 39.6 41.7 22 - % civilian employment 65.3 49.7 38.7 11.0 23 - no. per 1 ,000 acres 12.47 8.98 9.29 14.2 24 - average per farm 2.44 2.00 1.91 2.0 Note: 1930 employment is per old definition: "persons 10 years old and over engaged in gainful occupations." •109- RURAL FARM POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT NORTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA COUNTIES 1930-54 and Ultimate Table 66 Tehama County 1930 1940 1950 1954 Ultimate 1 Number of farms - total 1,805 1,744 1,718 1,707 2,760 2 - irrigated farms 953 981 1,141 1,280 2,560 3 - non-Irrigated farms 852 763 577 427 200 4 Land In farms - total (acres) 1 , ,195,796 1,227,205 1 ,131,660 1,161,699 1,100,000 5 - irrigated farms 394,095 447,830 323,606 598,908 920,000 6 -non-irrigated farms 801,701 779,375 808,054 562,791 180,000 7 Irrigated land in farms (acres) 32,110 34,453 38,440 50,766 297,200 8 - % of land in farms 2.7 2.8 3.4 4.4 27.0 9 - % land in irrigated farms 8.1 7.7 11.9 8.5 32.3 10 - average per irrigated farm (acres) 33.7 35.1 33.7 39.7 116.1 n Average size of farm (acres) 662.5 703.7 658.7 680.6 399 12 - irrigated farms 413.5 456.5 283.6 467.9 359 13 - non-irrigated farms 941.0 1,021.5 1,400.4 1,318.0 900 14 Farm population - total 6,764 6,843 6,433 11,000 15 - urban farm - 8 120 - 16 - rural farm - total 6,764 6,835 6,313 11,000 17 - rural farm: average per farm 3.75 3.92 3.67 4.0 18 - % county population 48.8 47.7 32.7 10.5 19 - no. per 1,000 acres 5.66 5.57 5.58 10.0 20 Farm employment, April 1 / total 2,746 1,963 1,967 3,310 21 - % rural farm population 40.6 28.7 31.1 30.1 22 - % civilian employment 48.0 40.9 28.3 9.0 23 - no. per 1 ,000 acres 2.30 1.60 1.74 3.0 24 - average per farm 1.52 1.12 1.14 1.2 Note: 1930 employment is per old definition: gainful occupations." 'persons 10 years old and over engaged m -110- RURAL FARM POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT NORTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA COUNTIES 1930-54 ancJ Ultimate Table 67 Trinity County 1930 1940 1950 1954 Ultimate Number of farms - total 325 - irrigated farms 193 - non-irrigated farms 132 Land in farms - total (acres) 184,523 - irrigated farms 46,553 - non-irrigated farms 137,970 Irrigated land in farms (acres) 5,263 - % of land in farms 2.9 - % land in irrigated farms 11.3 - average per irrigated farm (acres) 27.3 Average size of farm (acres) 567.8 - irrigated farms 241.2 - non-irrigated farms 1,045.2 Farm population - total 1,191 - urban farm - rural farm - total 1,191 - rural farm: average per farm 3.66 - % county population 42.4 - no. per 1,000 acres 6.45 Farm employment, April 1 - total 452 - % rural farm population 38.0 - % civilian employment 40.3 - no. per 1,000 acres 2.45 - average per farm 1 .39 329 199 130 1,175 1,175 238 104 134 186,445 195,862 57,688 92,691 128,757 103,171 4,753 2.5 3,734 1.9 8.2 4.0 23.9 35.9 566.7 289.9 990.4 822.9 891.3 769.9 688 688 3.57 2.89 29.6 13.5 6.30 3.51 303 227 25.8 33.0 21.8 12.9 1.62 1.16 .92 .95 215 119 96 230 180 50 186,898 125,000 106,677 90,000 80,221 35,000 3,664 2.0 16,700 13.4 3.4 18.6 30.8 92.8 869.3 896.4 835.6 544 500 700 700 700 3.0 3.2 5.6 208 29.7 2.6 1.7 .9 viote: 1930 employment is per old definition: "persons' 10 years old and over engaged in gainful occupations." -Ill- RURAL FARM POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT NORTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA COUNTIES 1930-54 and Ultimate Table i County - Yc 1930 1940 1950 1954 Uitimatt 1 Number of farms - total 1,641 1,339 1,263 1,158 3,430 2 - Irrigated farms 820 868 860 825 3,200 3 - non-Irrigated farms 821 471 403 333 230 4 Land In farms - total (acres) 488,252 477, 258 509,630 580,153 580,000 5 - irrigated farms 214,548 268,521 356,038 467,764 512,000 6 non- Irrigated farms 273,704 208,737 153,592 112,389 68,000 7 Irrigated land in farms (acres) 84,856 115,301 139,483 172,218 387,800 8 - % of land In farms 17.4 24.2 27.4 29.7 66.9 9 - % land In irrigated farms 39.6 42.9 39.2 36.8 75.7 10 - average per irrigated farm (acres) 103.5 132.8 162.1 208.7 121.2 11 Average size of farm (acres) 297.5 356.4 403.5 501.0 169 12 - Irrigated farms 261.6 309.4 414 567.0 160 13 - non-irrigated farms 333.4 443.2 381.1 337.5 296 14 Farm population - total 8,814 9,100 6,861 16,000 15 - urban farm 94 18 82 - 16 - rural farm - total 8,720 9,082 6,779 16,000 17 - rural farm: average per farm 5.31 6.78 5.37 4.7 18 - % county population 36.9 33.3 16.7 4.1 19 - no. per 1 ,000 acres 17.86 19.03 13.30 27.6 20 Farm employment, April 1 - total 6,061 4,224 4,728 9,250 21 - % rural farm population 69.5 46.5 69.7 57.8 22 ~ % civilian employment 54.5 43.3 31.4 6.3 23 - no. per 1 ,000 acres 12.41 8.85 9.28 15.9 24 - average per farm 3.69 3.15 3.74 2.7 Note: 1930 employment Is per old definition: "persons 10 years old and over engaged In gainful occupations." -112- RURAL FARM POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT NORTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA COUNTIES 1930-54 and Ultimate Table 69 Yuba County 1930 1940 1950 1954 Ultimate Number of farms - total - irrigated farms - non-Irrigated farms Land in farms - total (a (acres) - irrigated farms - non-irrigated farms Irrigated land in farms (acres) - % of land in farms - % land in irrigated farms - average per irrigated farm (acres) Average size of farm (acres) - irrigated farms -non-irrigated farms Farm population - total - urban farm - rural farm - total - rural farm: average per farm - % county population - no. per 1,000 acres Farm employment, April 1 - total - % rural farm population - % civilian employment - no. per 1,000 acres - average per farm 548 335 213 562 370 192 692 466 226 804 582 222 1,325 1,250 15 260,186 147,076 113,110 213,032 98,207 114,825 231,266 154,463 76,803 254,926 218,086 36,840 215,000 200,000 15,000 30,248 11.6 24,538 11.5 36,310 15.7 56,810 22.3 168,500 78.4 20.6 25.0 23.5 26.0 84.3 90.3 66.3 77.9 97.6 134.8 474.8 439.0 531.0 379.1 265.4 598.0 334.2 331.5 339.8 317.1 374.7 165.9 162 160 200 2,591 134 2,457 2,749 3 2,746 3,320 181 3,139 5,960 5,960 4.48 21.7 9.44 4.89 16.1 12.89 4.54 12.8 13.57 4.5 5J 27.7 1,898 77.2 35.2 7.29 3.46 1,126 41.0 20.8 5.28 2.00 1,264 40.2 16.7 5.47 1.83 2,265 38.0 6.0 10.5 1.7 Note: 1930 employment is per old definition: "persons 10 years old and over engaged in gainful occupations. -113- PART TWO POTENTIAL ULTIMATE RECREATION DEVELOPMENT IN CALIFORNIA'S NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES, PREDICATED UPON FULL DEVELOPMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 1. INTRODUCTION The northeastern part of the State of California has an exceedingly colorful history woven from its streams and rivers, gold and silver mines and vast stands of pine and fir. Indians, Chinese, and Yankees, miners, woodsmen, trappers and cattlemen all have played a part in the fascinating drama of "Sup- erior" California. The Chinese temple in Weaverville, the lava trenches of the Modoc War, Susanville's Fort Defiance, are historic reminders of this not so dis- tant past. Historical romance intrigues the historian and the tourist, but the modern-day resident of the area - the farmer, the lumber mill worker, the government employee, the small entrepeneur cannot live on the memories of the past. The economic life of individuals and business operations depends upon a stable, prosperous future. Declining economies in a number of the counties within this area indicate a need to evaluate the potential return from full devel- opment of the natural resources of the area. Recreation: a new "Industry" Historically, the economic life of the northern mountain counties has consisted of timber, mining and agricultural operations and related service Industries. In recent years, however, recreation activity has increased rapidly ■114- to a position of major importance in the region's economy. There is now every reason to believe that Its future volume v/Ill surpass the visions of the far-sighted men who some time ago formed the Shasta-Cascade Wonderland Association to inform the world of the resources of the northeastern mountain counties. It appears evident the northeastern counties are on the threshold of enormous growth In the development and use of their recreation resources. These counties have some of the finest mountain country in the state. All or parts of eight national forests are included in their boundaries, plus one national park and one national monumen*-. The pressure of population upon the older, more developed recreation areas of the state is sending more people Into the northeastern counties already each year in search of recreation opportunities. Recent increases in recreation use Forest Service records show that in 1955 there were 8,351,600 visitor-days use of national forest recreation areas in the northeastern counties, compared with 2,958,500 only five years earlier. This increase of 182 per- cent in recreation use occurred during a period when state population was increasing 23 percent, and population of the northeastern county area increased only 10 percent. Thus It Is clear that per capita use was Increasing substantially. -115- This increase in recreation use reflects an increasing national propensity to spend more time in leisure and recreation activities. It has been estimated by the National Association of Travel Organizations that tourists in the United States in 1955 spent $24,000,000,000 for recreation purposes, or about 7-1/2 percent of the national income. Recreation visits to the national parks and national forests in 1955 totalled 96,000,000, an increase of 140 percent over 1946. On a per capita basis, recreation visits more than doubled between 1946 and 1955 (U.S.Forest Service, Operation Outdoors , 1957). In California, visitor-days use of the national parks and national forests increased from 23,085,000 in 1946 to 35,614,000 in 1955, an increase of 54 percent. State population increased 36 percent during this period. Prospect of accelerated development Present development of hotels, resorts, campgrounds and other facilities in the northeastern counties is relatively lov/. Despite the historic antiquity of the area, exploitation of its recreation resources is in its early stages. Thus the rate of development from this time forward to probable ulti- mate development can be expected to be very rapid, and to exceed the rate of state population growth by a considerable degree. Thus, although state population is expected to increase three or more times between now and ulti- mate development, recreation use of the northeastern county area may increase by 10 times or more. ■116- Existing developed recreation facilities in the state and in the nation generally are inadequate to meet present demand, and a large "catching up" process in construction of facilities is urgently needed. For example, camp and picnic grounds in the national forests in 1955 had a safe, convenient and healthful capacity of about 17,600,000 visitor-days. Actual use was 25,500,000 visitor-days - an overload of 45 percent! At the rate of construction permitted by funds now available, the overload is expected to increase to 61 percent by 1958. Comparable conditions are known to exist in the national forests and national parks in California. The State Park Commission has stated conservatively that "during the past several years, the demand for camp and picnicking sites has far exceeded the supply, and this will undoubtedly continue for some time in the future." (California State Park System, Five Year Master Plan , March 1, 195^. Per capita use of outdoor recreation facilities will increase rapidly under the stimulation of higher incomes, a shorter wprk-week, longer vacations, improved transportation, and other benefits of an ex- panding technology. From 1950 to 1955 visitor-days in the National -117- PLATE A-2 \ \ CM 10 \ \ > by state population 8 ^ \ ft -0 1/1 D -D M \ \ 2 > N < \ U (M s o -J < ^ \ t -o (M u z \ \ 4* ID CM 0> ■ CO H 1— LU - o u. < - z o < ■ z u. o « 'a. o ■ i O to o^ y \ \ UJ 1>0 ID \ \ 2 ■ z - o 1— < \ 10 <0 a: U UJ \ — (0 \ \ at m in s V — \ 10 y at -50. V / (A Actu 1941-1 ^ ^ 8 §. >i 0> o a» e» V 1 I d V 3 d 3 ages indicates that the northeastern counties alone have the potential area and resources to accommodate this gross volume of recreation use, given the development of necessary public and private facilities, it is probable that actual use of recreation areas In the northeastern counties will be somewhat less than the capacity use estimated in this report, but will nevertheless be very substantial . -118- The water resources development projects proposed in the California Water Plan would contribute substantially to the achievement of such levels of recreation activity, as discussed below. (if a state-wide inventory of potential recreation areas were available, which employed classifications and standards similar to those used in this survey of the northeastern counties, it would be possible to estimate with some precision how much of the state total of outdoor recreation activity might be accounted for by the northeastern counties. Lacking such inventory, it may be estimated very roughly that the northeastern county share of future outdoor recreation activity in the state may approximate one-third of the state total . It may be noted that the northeastern counties have 37 percent of the forested lands of the state. On the other hand, being inland counties they cannot provide the attractions of the "seashore.") Foothill residential areas The recreation use foreseen in this report includes the activities of the vacationer and tourist, the hunter and the fisherman. It also includes the establishment of permanent and summer homes by persons in retirement or semi- retirement, or havin g their place of work or business elsewhere, who are attracted to the area by its resources for relaxed, healthful living and immediate access to mountain recreation areas. The town of Paradise in Butte County is an example of this kind of development, which is expected to be duplicated in many parts of the area at elevations of 1,000 to 3,000 feet. -119- Professor David Weeks, who has done a number of studies of the Sierra foothills, believes there are very good prospects for clusters of popu- lation in the high foothills, around the 3,000-foot level. These are areas which also have a high potential, according to Weeks and others, for agri- cultural use with sprinkler irrigation, thus providing additional support for communities whose economic base will largely rest on services to residents. •120- II. CLASSIFICATION AND MEASUREMENT OF RECREATION AREAS In order to estimate the potential recreational use of the mountains, lakes, reservoirs and streams of the northeastern county area. It was necessary to develop assumptions and standards for classifying and measuring areas deemed suitable for development. These standards are shov/n In Table 1 . (follov/Ing page 153). The preparation of these standards followed review of existing recreation studies prepared by the National Park Service, the United States Forest Service and the State Division of Beaches and Parks and discussion with officials of these agencies. In the application of these standards to each county, great reliance was placed on the experience and judgment of local officials and private citizens who knew the area intimately and who could delineate on maps the forests, lakes, streams and other features having existing or potential recreational value. A survey of each county was made by air, accompanied by an experienced official, usually a Forest Ranger. Large areas of each county were also visited by automobile. Classification of recreation areas To describe the characteristics of potential recreation areas in some detail, some 22 area classifications were used. For each of these classifications. -121- assumptions were made as to how much of the area could be deveIoped(rangIng from five to 60 percent), and what proportion of the developed areas was suitable for each of four types of major recreation facility: recreation residences, resorts, camping and picnic grounds, and organizational camps. Density standards were also established for each type of recreation facility. To illustrate: The R-1 classification in Table 1 includes areas which are usable for an average distance of one-half mile on each side of a stream or 640 acres per lineal mile of stream; it is assumed that 50 percent of such area Is suitable for intensive development; it is further assumed that on the average the total developable area in an R-1 classification can be allocated as follows: — 50 percent In recreation residences, at a density of one per acre; — 30 percent In resort development, at a density of one unit per 15 acres; — 20 percent in camp and picnic grounds, at a density of 2 family units per acre. Area characteristics Characteristics of each of the 22 area classifications are as follows: -122- RECREATION AREA CLASSIFICATIONS General CharacterlsUcs R-1 Major rivers readily accessible to motor vehicles, having scenic, climatic, topographic, location and other resource values v/hich will attract public and private recreation de- velopments. R-2 Rivers and major tributaries accessible to motor vehicles as for R-1 . Often have considerable fluctuation in usable valley v/idth and steepness of canyon v/alls. R-3 Small rivers and tributaries accessible to motor vehicles as for R-1 . Generally have steeper fall and intermittent flats and meadows . R-4 Tributaries and streams accessible to motor vehicles as for R-1 . Generally have steeper fall and intermittent flats and meadows. R-l-R Reservoirs readily accessible to motor vehicles, having scenic, climatic, topographic, location and other resource values which will attract public and private recreation developments. R-2-R Reservoirs accessible to motor vehicles as for R-l-R. Often have considerable fluctuation in usable valley width and steepness of canyon walls. R-3-R Reservoirs accessible to motor vehicles as for R-1. Generally have steeper fall and intermittent flats and meadows. R-4-R Reservoirs accessible to motor vehicles as for R-1 . Generally have steeper fall and intermittent flats and meadows. -123- S-1 Major streams and tributaries in part inaccessible to motor vehicles also having scenic, climatic, topographic and location and other resource values which will attract public and private recreation development. S-2 Streams and tributaries in part inaccessible to motor vehicles, also having scenic, climatic, topographic and location and other resource values which will attract public and private recreation development. S-3 Medium to small streams in part inaccessible to motor vehicles, also having scenic, climatic, topographic and location and other resource values which will attract public and private recreation development. S-4 Small streams largely inaccessible to motor vehicles also having scenic, climatic, topographic and location and other resource values which will attract public and private recreation development. P-1 Primitive and wild areas of 200,000 acres or more preserved in natural state for camping, hiking, scientific study, fishing, etc. P-2 Primitive and wild areas of less than 200,000 acres and suitable for more intensive use. L-1 Lake areas inaccessible to motor vehicles. L-2 Lake areas accessible to motor vehicles. -124- RA-1 Desirable middle to high altitude areas of conifers, meadows, and rock out-croppings suitable for fishing, hunting, camping and hiking, etc. and generally inaccessible to motor vehicles. RA-2 Desirable middle altitude areas of mixed conifers, aspen, streams, meadows, gentle topography. RA-3 Juniper-sage plateau, some pine, bitterroot, grassland, suitable for some fishing and hunting. H-1 Desirable major highway frontage where not included in other series, having scenic, topographic, location and other resource values; with primary emphasis on commercial development. H-2 Less desirable major highway frontage where not included in other series, having some scenic, topographic, location and other resource values with primary emphasis on commercial development. W Wildlife - waterfowl. -125- For presentation on maps, the 22 classifications were summarized in three groups, designated by the colors, "blue, green and brown" (see Table 1). These groupings may be described as follows: Blue : Areas of prime recreation potential readily accessible by motor vehicle during the entire vacation season. Green: Areas of prime recreation potential not readily accessible by motor vehicle. This may include some areas accessible by jeep. Yellow: Accessible areas having limited recreation potential such as the wide juniper sage plateau of the Lahontan Basin, the dry ranges of the Eastern Cascade slope, and the middle altitude mesquite and manzanita forest. This includes wildlife areas. Primary recreation uses are hunting and fishing. Lands adjacent to present urban centers, or areas likely to become urban and suburban in character have also been designated. Their estimated acreages by county are shown in Table 2. For mapping purposes they are shown in red. Urban and suburban areas are expected to contain a large number of residences of persons moving into the northeastern county area because of Its attractions for living. ■126- Recreation facility classification Within the classifications of recreation land shown In Table 1, it is assumed that there would be four major types of facilities to make the areas usable for public recreation. These are: Permanent and summer homes (recreation residences) Commercial Recreation Uses (resorts, hotels, motels, restaurants, dude ranches, pack stations, etc.) Campgrounds and picnic areas Organizational camps 1 . Permanent and summer homes. According to demands for summer home sites within the United States National Forests, there will be an increasing trend for families to build summer and second homes In their favorite vacation areas. In addition, earlier re- tirement and longer lives are encouraging the construction of homes in desirable living areas previously considered financially impractical. There is also a tendency for families to move to the countryside to live on small farms with incomes supplemented by jobs in nearby urban centers. 2. Commercial recreation uses . Commercial recreation uses, such as resorts, hotels, motels, res- taurants, dude ranches, pack stations and related business activities. Almost -127- every public recreation area attracts service establishments patronized by vacationers. Other recreation areas are developed and served entirely by private business establishments; recreation is their means of livelihood. 3. Campgrounds and picnic areas. These areas vary from roadside rests and camps providing urban conveniences for the motoring tourist to the inaccessible wildnerness and timberline bivouacs reserved for those who are able to find them on foot or horseback . 4. Organizational camps. Outing and camping programs for youths, adults, and families have increased so rapidly that today many California cities operate extensive facili- ties to serve their residents. Private summer camps for boys and girls and the wide camping programs sponsored by service organizations have exceeded the capacity of existing facilities in all parts of the state. County totals of potential recreation area (Table 2) With the assistance of forest rangers and other county residents having expert knowledge, every stream, lake, reservoir, meadow, plateau -128- and primitive area in each county was classified and its capacity for potential recreation development was measured according to the standards and assumptions set forth in Table 1 . The results of this classification and measurement are presented, county by county, in Table 2. -129- III. ESTIMATION OF RECREATION USE The estimates of developable area presented in Table 2 provide a basis for estimation of potential user-days if facilities are developed and used to capacity. These estimates are shown in Table 3. The estimates employ conservative assumptions as to average number of persons using a facility and length of season . Nevertheless, the estimates add up to a grand total of 463,000,000 user-days per year. This total includes approximately 89,000,000 user-days representing direct use of existing and proposed reservoir areas (Table 4). Indirectly, water resource projects are bound to have a much larger effect, as without such projects development along many other streams would not occur. A reservoir project which contributes to stabilization of stream flow, for example, will stimulate downstream use by fishermen and campers, and will increase the demand for resorts, camp and picnic grounds beyond the immediate vicinity of the reservoir. No adequate comparison can be made between the estimate of 463,000,000 user-days, which Is for capacity use and includes both public and private facilities, and present recreation use. For one thing, no adequate data are available on present use of commercial and other private facilities. For national forest areas, for which records are kept, total use in 1955 is estimated at 8,350,000 visitor-days, including persons driving through the forests to enjoy scenic attractions. More sig- nificant than the present level of recreation use is its rapid increase in recent years, as discussed earlier in this report. -130- Estimated visitor-days for Shasta County include the Shasta Lake area, which in 1955 had an estimated 340,000 visitor-days of use. This is a small proportion of the 20,874,000 visitor-days estimated as potential capacity recreation use of reservoir areas in Shasta County. For planning purposes, it is probably reasonable to assume, con- servatively, that annual average use of recreation facilities at ultimate de- velopment will be about one-third of the capacity estimates. This indicates a total of about 150,000,000 visitor-days for the northeastern counties, in- cluding 30,000,000 visitor-days in reservoir areas. Recreation benefit A figure of $2.00 per visitor-day is suggested for use in measuring recreation benefit. Use of this figure would give a total recreation benefit of approximately $300,000,000 at full development, including $60,000,000 in reservoir areas. * By comparison, $300,000,000 is a little more than the value of 1955 agricultural production in the 15 northeastern counties (estimated by agricultural commissioners at $287,392,000 f.o.b. farms), and about 50 percent more than the value of current annual timber productiomestimated at about $200,000,000 f.o.b. mills). * All estimates are in dollars of present purchasing power. -131- The $2.00 figure has been selected after extensive review of the problem of measuring recreation benefit with government agencies and other organizations working in the recreation field. It is recognized that no single monetary measure will be accepted by all persons, but the concept of benefit from a visitor-day of use probably finds the widest acceptance. The $2.00 figure is consistent with benefit figures currently used by Federal agencies for benefit-cost analysis, and is believed to understate recreation value from the point of view of public welfare and public policy. The $2.00 figure represents a judgment of the direct benefit to an average tourist, vacationer, sportsman, or other "recreationist" of a day in the outdoors, using the types of facilities indicated in this survey. It represents the intangible value of recreation, over and above expenditures for food, lodging, transportation, sporting equipment and other factors necessary or incidental to enjoyment of the recreation. The latter factors may appear as indirect benefits to the local business community in the form of gross receipts for food, shelter, automobile fuel and service, sportswear and sporting equipment, etc. Recent surveys indicate that at current income and price levels, such expenditures average $8.00 per visitor-day in the western states. (These studies are described in this con- sultant's report to the State Department of Water Resources on recreation potential of the Upper Feather River Basin). -132- Relative contribution of counties to recreation benefit The relative contribution of each county to estimated total recreation benefit is indicated by the following percentages, which represent each county's share of total estimated annual visitor-days use of recreation areas in the north- eastern counties at full development: PERCENTAGE OF POTENTIAL RECREATION USE (IN USER-DAYS) ACCOUNTED FOR BY EACH OF 15 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES (based on Table 3) Butte 5.4% Colusa 2.4 Glenn 2.6 Lake 5.0 Lassen 7.9 Modoc 7.1 Plumas 10.0 Shasta 14.7 Sierra 3.3 Siskiyou 13.4 Sutter 1.3 Tehama 11.5 Trinity 9.5 Yolo 2.8 Yuba 3.1 100.0 The same proportions might also indicate very approximately the share of each county in potential expenditures for recreation purposes. However, it is very difficult to estimate the volume of recreation expenditures which would appear as receipts to business In each county. For one thing, the average of $8.00 per visitor-day shown by available studies reflects primarily the expend- iture of motorists visiting an area for a relatively brief period (several days up to two weeks). In the potential recreation development of the northeastern -133- counties, on the other hand, about one-third of total user-days are expected to be accounted for by recreation residences; families in such residences may have substantially different expenditure patterns from families who are traveling and spend much less time in an area. Even where the $8.00 per visitor-day figure (or a similar figure) applies, some of the expenditure is for food, gasoline, etc. enroute, and may not be spent in the county whose recreation area is the objective of the trip. For crude estimating purposes, however, it may be said that at present price levels the total estimated annual recreation use of 150,000,000 visitor-days in the northeastern counties might involve something on the order of $1,200,000,000 of expenditure ( @ $8.00 per visitor-day) and that various counties might share in such expenditures roughly in proportion to their share of developed recreation facilities and potential user-days in the 15-county total. To sum up, it does not seem unreasonable to estimate that the north- eastern counties have the potential in natural resources to support recreation activity worth one billion dollars per year or more, at ultimate development and in present dollars, in gross receipts to the construction, retail and service industries of the area. -134- IV. RECREATION RESOURCES OF THE NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES This section contains brief descriptions of the recreation resources of the northeastern counties, to indicate principal features suitable for recre- ation development. The descriptions reflect the findings of the inventory of recreation resources discussed in Section II. -135- Butte Counfy The climate, terrain, and accessibility of the foothill portions of Butte County have already encouraged a great diversity of recreation development which Include a wide range of public and private activities. The community of Paradise located at about 2,000 feet elevation in the north central portion of Butte County is a notable example of a rapidly expanding resort, summer home, and re- tirement center. Similar low density rural communities will be duplicated many times in the future along the entire length of the Sierras, in some cases up to an elevation of 3,500 feet. Butte County has many valuable natural resources that are especially suitable to encourage extensive resort and summer home development in the Sierra Foothills up to an elevation of 3,500 feet and public camping, hunting, hiking, skiing and related recreation activities at higher altitudes. Portions of The Lassen National Forest and Plumas National Forest lie within the county and comprise 12 percent of its land area. The inventory of recreation resources indicates that approximately 25 percent of the gross area of the county is usable for permanent and summer homes, while an additional 1 1 percent of the county is suitable for group and family camps and resorts. -136- Extensive urban growth Is anticipated around Chico and Oroviile, particularly with the increased economic activity resulting from the con- struction of Oroville dam. Home building may extend from Oroville to Palermo and will doubtless expand in such valley towns as Gridiey, Biggs, and small centers along the Sacramento River. In the Sierra foothills retirement homes and small farms are expected to follow the most desirable watercourses such as the Chico, Little Butte and Clear Creeks north to the county line. New water sources will change much of the high plateau range- land into a pattern of small farms, resorts, and retirement centers, in time almost all of Butte County's eastern slope will be made accessible. Resorts and public recreation areas will be interspersed among the living areas. At higher elevations these public facilities will be more extensive. Proper planning of the county's recreation resources should set aside large wild life and wilderness areas along the Sacramento and Feather Rivers and some of the picturesque rim rock country of the lower Sierras. Colusa County The rich agricultural lands of the Sacramento Valley and the dry oak-studded range land of the western footh ilk comprise most of the county. The introduction of water storage reservoirs, particularly those that will be maintained at a constant water level will change the character of the area and increase its desirability for building vacation homes and resorts. -137- The upper reaches of Big Stony Creek, Mill Creek and Little Stony Creek are desirable for camping, fishing and some resorts. The higher ridges between Colusa and Lake County have desirable forest recreation character- istics. The area east and south of East Park Reservoir is dry range and for recreation purposes suitable only for hunting and a fev/ mineral spring health resorts . The Sacramento River which flows along the eastern counly boundaries is the greatest recreation resource In Colusa County. Potentially this wonder- ful river could provide a wide range of water recreation activities: camping, picnicking, resort development and choice permanent and summer home location and the reservation of large river primitive areas In order to preserve the beauties and powerful significance of this jugular vein of Northern California. Glenn County Nearly one-fourth of Glenn County is in the Mendocino National Forest which reaches an altitude of over 7,000 feet. Good timber stands, many streams and springs and relatively easy access should result in continuing increase in use of this area. Portions of this higher forested area would be most suitable pre- served as an Inaccessible wilderness and camping area. Medium altitude meadows and streams will attract campers, trailer camps, resorts and a sprinkling -138- of vacation homes, particularly along the upper reaches of Grindstone Creek, Salt Creek, and the middle fork of Stony Creek and on the western slope along Black Butte Creek and its tributaries. Below 2,500 feet elevation digger pines and native oaks indicate a dry grazing zone suitable for hunting but discouraging to other recreation pursuits except immediately along the major streams. Stony Gorge Reservoir located in tfie foothills above the Sacramento Valley floor, attracts over 1,000 water sports enthusiasts during a Sunday for a four-month season even without facilities available to encourage this use. This is evidence that reservoirs built in this hot, dry foothill area will sub- stantially increase the recreation potential of the county. Bird refuges are important recreation resources of Glenn and other Valley Counties and should receive considerable planned expansion to maintain the Pacific Flyway and meet the increasing hunting pressures. The Sacramento River is a major recreation resource that is receiving considerable increased use without proper controls to ensure orderly resort, summer home, and camping de- velopment and to preserve portions of the primitive river and wildlife scene. -139- Lake County Of the 15 northeastern counties under investigation Lake County is unique. The ability of this county to attract a large population may be surmised from the historic record of a dense Indian population which enjoyed the natural abundance of foods and the mild climate. Although Lake County is one of the smallest of the northeastern counties it is one of the richest in natural recreation resources. Lying en- tirely within the coast range the southern portion of the county is typical foothill country of rolling hills, numerous streams and upland valleys. North of Clear Lake the terrain becomes more rugged with extensive lumber stands within the Mendocino National Forest. The recreation resources of the county have already been extensively developed. Resorts, homes and public parks around Clear Lake, the Blue Lakes and to a lesser extent Pillsbury Lake indicate the attractiveness of such natural or man-made water resources. The inventory of recreation land indicates that approximately 30% of the county is suitable for permanent and summer homes and the expansion of urban centers. Approximately seven percent could be used for a wide range of resorts and approximately 1^.2 percent for family and group camping activities. Field investigations and conferences with county officials confirm the trend of increased construction of retirement homes and small farms. Sprinkler irrigation has made possible the planting of fruit and nut orchards in the hill areas. The favorable climate and easy commuting to the metropolitan area is encouraging large numbers of retired, semi-retired and week-end com- muters to buy 5 or 10 acre orchards. There are strong indications that much of the county will become a bedroom satellite of the Bay Area. -140- A sampling of resort activity reveals an Increase of 50 percent to 100 percent during the past year. Boating on Clear Lake has Increased many times over In recent years according to experts close to this activity, though only 20 percent of the accessible shoreline Is being used for recreation purposes. The mild climate favors the gradual Increase of the tourist season to a 12 month operation. In addition to the usual resort development there is already a notice- able trend to construct golf courses and private and resort airports for pleasure aircraft. Lassen County Geographically the Lahontan Plain which covers most of Lassen County seems unrelated to other parts of Northern California. Perhaps this remoteness is partly responsible for the relatively undeveloped state of the recreation resources of the region. National forests - Lassen, Modoc, and Plumas - cover 21 percent of the county's area. The Inventory of recreation potential showed that the county has a relatively high potential user day capacity with major emphasis on camping and outing experiences and somewhat lesser potential for the building of resorts, and vacation homes. -141- The mild summer climat-e will encourage extensive use of the forest, many lakes and streams in the western half of the county. The Blue Lakes region in the southern end of the Warner Range, only recently discovered by the public, is an example of the excellent and as yet unused and unspoiled recreation resources in the county. The extensive Pit River Watershed including Horse, Davis, Juniper, Willow and Ash Creeks provide opportunities for extensive camping and resort possibilities as well as centers for the best hunting field of Central and Eastern Lassen County. Such creeks as Red Rock, Snake and Buckstrom Canyon and a number of lakes and reservoirs along the eastern portion of the county provide recreation areas similar to the popular dry plateau vacation lands of Arizona and New Mexico. Lassen Volcanic National Park and the Caribou Peak wild area are a small part of the choice vacation land that falls within Lassen County. With- out question a large part of Lassen County's future depends on the wise use of these natural resources. Eagle Lake, located approximately 17 miles northwest of Susanville promises to have a bright recreation future as a large resort or vacation center. -142- Plans are now underway to maintain a constant level on this large inland lake , to provide paved road access and encourage the construction of resorts and summer home tracts. Susanville, the county seat, is already recognized as the hub of a wide range of recreation facilities, including winter sports, hunting, fishing, boating and family and group camping. Modoc County From a scenic and recreation viewpoint Modoc County is a land of contrasts with features ranging from lava beds with ice caves, and a lab- rynth of underground passages to the great inland seas of Goose Lake and the Upper, Middle and Lower Alkali Lakes of Surprise Valley. Over half of the county is included in the Modoc National Forest. The wild and primitive Warner Mountains with extensive forests, perennial streams and small lakes, all are potential vacation lands which contrast with the broad juniper and bitter-weed plains in the south central parts. The great 30,000 head herd of muletail deer that migrate south from Oregon have made hunting the major recreation activity. A short season of goose and duck shooting is also a major attraction for sportsmen. As with Lassen County, Modoc County has a very prorrising recreation future providing that the use of these natural wonders is carefully planned to protect the delicate natural balance between flora and fauna in this water deficient area. The development of family camping areas, attractive -143- trailer parks and access to the many points of scenic Interest will lengthen the recreation season and Increase the Importance to the county of this seg- ment of the economy. The balanced development of these scenic and wildlife resources also require the preservation of large wild life and game refuges and primit- ive areas. Guided by wise planning even the famous Modoc antelope may be returned to their former strength . Plumas County The boundaries of Plumas County coincide roughly with those of the Plumas National Forest, which occupies about 70 percent of the county. The rough terrain of the Sierra Nevada is here relieved by arable valleys - Sierra, Indian, American, Mohawk, and Genessee - and by the splendid watercourse of the Feather River and its tributaries. Plumas County offers the tourst, vacationer, sportsman and other "recreatlonist" the finest in mountain scenery, environment, and sports op- portunities, including winter sports. (No detailed description of recreation areas in Plumas County is given here because, pursuant to contract, such is Included In a separate report to the State Department of Water Resources on the recreation potential of the Upper Feather River Basin.) -144- Shasta County Shasta County may be considered the central show window of the recreation resources of Northern California because of its strategic location at the head of the great Sacramento Valley and because of Its great variety of recreation resources, including deep canyons and high mountain peaks, dense forest and sun-scorched valleys, the headwaters of the mighty Sacramento Rivet- and secluded upland streams and meadows. These are a few of the easily accessible recreation resources to be sampled and enjoyed, and that inevitably lead to further exploration into the more inaccessible back country in Trinity, Siskiyou, Modoc and Lassen Counties. As shown on the recreation resource map, there are many desirable recreation residence and resort locations in the county, especially along Hat and Montgomery Creeks and around the Castle Crags and the Castella areas. Urban expansion around Redding will probably extend- eastward and south to the Tehama County border. In the Happy Valley and Balls Ferry area there are many examples of the conversion of larger farm holdings into small resi- dence farms of from two to 10 acres. This pattern will be extended over large parts of this rich river bottom land to form a very low density and decantrallzed urban community. A relatively large proportion of the population that will settle In the Redding area will probably be retired, having been attracted to this scenic and enjoyable land to relax and 'live ' away from the congestion of metropolitan areas. -145- About one-fourth of the county area has recreation potential which is divided fairly evenly between possible public and private development. Estimates of capacity user days at ultimate development are higher than for any other of the 15 northeastern counties (Table 3). Sierra County Although small in total gross area Sierra County could devote about one-third of Its rugged streams to recreation activities. The Yuba River watershed accounts for the very high potential even though at present access Is limited to state highways *A9 and '''89. The yearly capacity use of the camping and resort facilities of the Lakes Basin Recreation Area indicates the desirability of these resources for family camping and sportsman fishing and hunting. The eastern end of the county, being less precipitous forest land and including the southerly portion of Sierra Valley has many recreation streams of high recreation value, including the little Truckee River. The Sacramento and San Francisco Bay Metropolitan populations are already placing heavy pressure on these forests because of their proximity to these expanding urban centers. Certainly with proper long range planning, the recreation resources of the Sierra County will become the major economic activity. -146- Siskiyou County The largest and most rugged county in the area provides some of its finest scenery. A few of its scenic areas have already been protected v/ithin the Klamath National Forest as primitive and wild areas. These include the Marble Mountains which are famous for their Alpine beauty and are at- tracting more and more people to pack and hike into these remote regions. The recreation resource inventory shows that all of the streams have a high potential for a balanced recreation development with emphasis on small less accessible streams for organization camping. The towns of Etna and Fort Jones In Scott Valley are reminiscent of a Swiss setting nestled among high forested mountains and watered by white water streams. Such restful spots are ideally suited to accommodate dude ranches and resorts developed to harmonize with the relaxed country environment. The proposed ski and winter sports development at Mt. Shasta Recreation Area and the use of Medicine Lake by increasing vacationists are two examples of current interest in large scale recreation potentials in Siskiyou County. The Klamath National Forest lies entirely within the western portion of the county. Forest Service personnel recognize the increasing pressure for fine recreation areas and are making good progress in coordinating the planning for multi-use of the forest. Most of Siskiyou has recreational potential and It is only a question of time when the primary problems will relate to planning and building camps, resorts, and vacation houses fast enough to meet the accelerating state-wide demands. -147- Along the Klamath River and at the mouth of each tributary summer resorts, public camps and vacation homes will be built. The Salmon River, Trout Creek and Butte Creek are examples of locations where camps and cabins can Le expected eventually. The development of Shasta Springs as a group camp and summer religious center is an example of a recreation activity that will probably increase in Siskiyou County. Sutter County The primary recreation resources of Sutter County are the waters of the Feather and Sacramento R ivers, which have so far received only inci- dental protection or development. Potentially these waterways can provide enjoyment for many people including water sports enthusiasts, campers, river tourers, birdwatchers, fisherman , farmers and other residents along the rivers. However, many spots along the river banks are now being used for dumping grounds and other Inappropriate uses. Pollution of the river waters is common today and If continued will destroy the recreation values that nature so freely provided. Because Sutter County is small and lacks the variety of recreation resources that other northeastern counties have, it has a special incentive to protect and develop its river recreation areas. -148- Tehama County Reaching from the crest of the Coast Range across the upper end of the Sacramento Valley and high up in the Sierra slope, Tehama County has a great variety of natural recreation resources. Portions of four national forests (Lassen, Shasta, Trinity, and Mendocino) include approximately 20 percent of the County's areo. These forests possess many desirable fishing streams, particularly In the Lassen forest where there are many suitable spots for vacation homes, resorts and extensive camping for families and organizations. Winter sports areas are already being developed near Lassen Volcanic National Park and several favorable sites are being considered at high elevations on the Coast Range. Belov^ the timber line particularly on the west side of the valley the recreation potential is limited to hunting of deer and upland birds. However, the construction of reservoirs in these western foothills will attract heavy recreation use if desirable operation characteristics are maintained. About one-fourth of the County has potential for homes, resorts, and camping, under optimum conditions. As with other Valley counties, the Sacramento River provides Tehama County with a large recreation potential for active use and passive enjoyment. This resource, unlike the Inaccessible mountains, has been sadly neglected, misused and polluted. With rising recreation demand it will become Increasingly urgent to stop these practices and inaugurate constructive measures to protect one of the major recreation resources of Northern California. -149- Trinity County In the remote and Inaccessible parts of southern Trinity County are said to live mountain folk who have never seen the outside world. True or not, there is little question that all of this rugged mountain country is a paradise for the devoted camper, packer and mountaineer. Without doubt recreation use will ultimately be Trinity County's largest economic activity. The many secluded and wonderful valleys that now support a limited agri- cultural economy lend themselves to resort and vacation home use as already exist along Coffee Creek, around Trinity Center, and In the Hayfork and Wlldwood areas. The preservation of the Salmon Trinity and Yolla Bolly Wildnerness areas are tribute to the foresight of the Forest Service in pro- tecting some of the finest scenic country in America. Such planning should extend to many other areas throughout the "Shasta-Cascade Wonderland", Four U. S. Forests (Mendocino, Shasta, Trinity and Six Rivers) cover two-thirds of this county. Indicating the extent of the national forest. The estimates of ultimate recreation use indicate that about 15 percent of the gross area of the county has recreation value and when fully developed could contain facilities sufficient to accommodate approximately 44,000,000 visitor- days per season at capacity use, or nearly 10 percent of the total use estimated for all of the 15 northeastern counties. -150- Yolo County Yolo County Is expected to receive a larger percentage of the urban population than any other of the northeastern counties. This population con- centration will require that special attention be given to the proper and full utilization of the relatively limited recreation resources of the county. The Sacramento River along the easterly county line is the greatest natural resource, and has great potential for boating and water sports, home sites and resorts. Public access to the river is an immediate problem which, unless adequately provided before the cost is prohibitive, will seriously limit the full use of the Sacramento River and its tree-lined shores. The western boundary of the county follows the crest of the Vaca Mountains which presently have a limited recreation potential. Hunting is a major attraction in this area. Monticello Reservoir now under construction on Putah Creek and particularly the Monticello Dam Afterbay will attract great numbers of day and weekend people as well as extensive summer home and resort construction. Water, as a new reservoir or a freshened stream, will give new recreation life to the western hill country of Yolo County. -151- Yuba County The descripHon of recreation values of Butte County apply In large measure to Yuba County which lies just to the south. The number of small, pleasant towns such as Brownsville, Challenge, Comptonville, give an indication of the desirable character of the Sierra foothills for rural living. As most of the county is readily accessible it has been estimated from the recreation resource inventory that more than 20 percent of the total area has potential for family and group camping, vacation cabins and permanent homes and a wide range of resort and overnight accommodations. About 12 percent of the county is covered by the Plumas and Tahoe National Foresfc. -152- TABLES (PART TWO) -153- Table 1 i Picnicking Areas, etc Organizational Camps, etc Units/ Units/ >er Acre Lineal Miles % Acres Units per Acre Lineal Miles 2 128 2 54 2 50 5 4 1 in 40 acres 1 c.amp per 10 mi, 2 34 5 2 1 in 40 acres ""l^®^ per 20 mi. 2 128 '''^®^ 2 54 2 50 5 4 1 in 40 acres Ifv^e'PP ^^'^ ^^ ^} 2 34 5 2 1 in 40 acres river " :res 10 ires 10 itage per unit per unit , 2 96 15 14 1 in 40 acres ^ ^TP P^' = o miles river 2 48 15 7 1 in 40 acres 6 miles river 2 32 15 5 1 in 40 acres. 8 miles river 2 16 15 2 1 In 40 acres 20 miles river cres 4© 1 in 40 acres cres 30 1 in 40 acres per 200 acres :res* (including trailer parks 10 1 in 40 acres eel mileage leal mileage x .75 leal mileage x .325 arks -154- STANDARDS USED TO CLASSIFY AND MEASURE POTENTIAL RECREATION AREAS Recreation Standards Chart Area Suitable for Average Development Total Areo Clossi fied For Recreation Deve lopment Total jntens Recreation Devel ive 3pment Acres per . . Permanent and Summer H 3mes Resorts , Pac k Stations, Restaurants, Hotels, Etc. Camping and Picniclcing Areas, etc . . . . Organizal ional Camps, etc Distance from Recreation Area Each Side of Acres per Units/ Un ih/ U lits/ Units/ Classification Stream Lineal Mile % Lineal Miles % Acres Uni ts per Acre Lineal Miles % A cres Units per Acre 1 inea 1 Miles % Acres Units per Acre Lineal Miles % Acres Un its per Acre Lineal Miles Rl R2 Blue" 1/2 mile 640 50 320 50 160 1 160 30 96 1 in 15 acres 19 20 64 2 128 1/4 mile 320 40 128 50 64 1 64 30 38 1 in 15 acres 8 20 26 2 54 R3 3/16 mile 240 30 72 40 29 1 29 20 14 1 in 15 acres 3 35 25 2 50 5 4 in 40 acres cpmp per 10 mt. ^™ per 20 mi. river R4 RIR R2R R3R ' 1/8 mile 1/2 mile 1/4 mile 3/16 mile 1/8 mile 160 30 48 40 19 1 19 20 10 1 in 15 acres 2 35 17 2 34 5 2 in 40 acres 640 50 320 50 160 1 160 30 96 1 in 15 acres 19 20 64 2 128 ' 320 40 128 50 64 1 64 30 38 1 in 15 acres 8 20 26 2 54 1 camp per 10 mi. river ^ ' 240 30 72 40 29 1 29 20 14 1 in 15 acres 3 35 25 2 SO 5 4 1 in 40 acres R4R RA2 L2 HI H2 SI 160 30 48 40 19 1 19 20 10 1 in 15 acres 2 35 17 2 34 5 2 1 In 40 acres 40 20 1 uni t per 3 acres 20 1 in 15 acres 50* 1 in 3 acres 10 60 15 40 1 uni t per 2 acres 15 80)... 35* 20* 1 in 470' 2 acres frontage per unit 10 1/4 mile 320 5 30 96 20 19 1 19 80) 15 14 per unit 1 in 15 acres 3 20* 50 48 2 per unit 96 15 14 1 in 40 acres 1 camp per : 3 miles river S2 S3 S4 RAl LI Green 3/16 mile 1/8 mile 1/16 mile 240 20 48 20 10 1 10 15 7 1 in 15 acres 15 50 24 2 48 15 7 1 in 40 acres 6 miles river " 160 20 32 20 6 1 6 15 5 1 In 15 acres 1 50 16 2 32 15 5 1 in 40 acres. 8 miles river " 80 20 16 20 3 1 3 15 2 1 in 15 acres 1/2 50 8 2 16 15 2 1 in 40 acres 20 miles river 20 60 1 in 3 acres 40 1 in 40 acres 50 70 1 in 3 acres 30 1 in 40 acres Prrmitrve River Prim RA3 Br Wildlife 3wn 100 10 10 100 20 1 uni t per 3 acres 40 { 1 pock station per ( 10,000 acres 1 in 15 acres 30* 1 CO 1 in mp per 200 acres 3 acres* (including roller parks 10 1 in 40 acres Blue: Represents areas accessible for maximum recreational use Green: Represents inaccessible areas of maximum recreational use Brown: Represents accessible areas of limited recreational use RIR, etc.: Divide lineal miles by "2" and proceed Rivers dividing counties - take 1/2 lineal measurement To Measure "Quads" 62,500 quod; 48,000 quod 24,000 quad - wheel mileage - lineal mileage x .75 - lineal mileage x .325 includes trailer parks -154- TABLE 2 Acres in Potenfial Recreation Areas and Urban Areas -155- Table 2-a BUTTE COUNTY Acres in Recreation Facilities Area Classification Total Area Developed Area Recreation Residences Commercia Facilities Camping 1 and Picnic Grounds Organiz- ational Camps Blue: Rl R2 R3 R4 104,960 51,520 19,320 2,960 52,480 20,608 5,796 888 26,240 10,304 2,319 355 15,744 6,183 1,159 178 10,496 4,121 2,028 311 290 44 SI RA2 HI H2 RIR R2R L2 182,390 285 66,020 10,170 72,956 43 33,010 6,102 14,592 16,505 2,441 14,592 34 9,904 915 36,478 9 6,603 2,136 7,297 610 437,625 191,883 72,756 48,709 62,182 8,241 Green: S2 S3 54 RAl Primitive Brown: RA3 Wildlife 9,620 Red: Urban 191,460 Totals by columns 638,705 191,883 72,756 48,709 62,182 8,241 -156- Table 2-b COLUSA COUNTY Acres In Recreation Facilities Camping Organiz- Area Total Developed Recreation Commercial and Picnic ational Classification Area Area Residences Facilities Grounds Camps Blue: Rl 43,360 21,680 10,840 6,504 4,336 R2 12,000 4,800 2,400 1,440 960 R3 1,440 432 173 87 151 21 R4 5,920 1,776 710 355 622 89 SI 7,040 2,112 422 317 1,056 317 RA2 80,642 32,257 6,451 6,451 16,129 3,226 HI 294 44 35 9 H2 RIR 15,360 7,680 3,840 2,304 1,536 R2R L2 Total 166,056 70,781 24,836 17,493 24,799 3,653 Green: 52 8,280 1,656 331 249 828 249 S3 7,440 1,488 298 223 744 223 S4 1,520 304 61 46 152 46 RAl Primitive LI 320 160 112 48 Total 17,560 3,608 690 518 1,836 566 Brown: RA3 86,560 8,656 1,731 3,462 2,597 866 Wildlife 48,662 Total 135,222 8,656 1,731 3,462 2,597 866 Red: Urban 9,540 Totals by columns 328,378 83,045 27,257 21,473 29,232 5,085 -157- Table 2-c GLENN COUNTY Acres in Recreation Facilities Camping Organiz- Area Total Developed Recreation Commercial and Picnic ational Classif i cat ion Area Area Residences Facilities Grounds Camps Blue: Rl 32,480 16,240 8,120 4,872 3,248 R2 R3 R4 SI 13,920 4,176 835 627 2,088 627 RA2 122,874 49,150 9,830 9,830 24,574 4,913 HI 172 26 21 5 H2 RIR 24,160 12,080 6,040 3,624 2,416 R2R L2 Total 426 256 102 38 90 26 194,032 81,928 24,927 19,012 32,421 5,566 Green S2 23,880 4,776 955 716 2,388 716 S3 14,640 2,928 585 440 1,464 440 S4 2,880 576 115 86 288 86 RAl Primitive Total 41,400 8,280 1,655 1,242 4,140 1,242 Brown; RA3 Wildlife 32,740 Red: Urban 3,520 Totalsby columns 271,692 90,208 26,582 20,254 36,561 6,808 -158- Table 2-d LAKE COUNTY Acres in Recreation Facilities Camping Organiz- Area Total Developed Recreation Commercial and Picnic ational Classification Area Area Residences Facilities Grounds Camps Blue: Rl 44,004 22,002 11,001 6,601 4,400 R2 76,960 30,784 15,392 9,236 6,157 R3 840 252 101 50 88 13 R4 7,360 2,208 884 440 772 112 SI RA2 436,030 174,412 34,882 34,882 87,206 17,441 HI H2 RIR 11,020 5,510 2,755 1,653 1,102 R2R 320 128 64 38 26 L2 Total 576,534 235,296 65,079 52,900 99,751 17,566 Green S2 600 120 24 18 50 18 S3 S4 RAl Primitive Total 600 120 24 18 50 18 Brown: RA3 Wildlife 29,940 Red: Urban 102,160 Totals by columns 709,234 235,416 65,103 52,918 99,801 17,584 -159- Table 2-e LASSEN COUNTY Acres in Recreation Facilities Camping Organiz- Area Total Developed Recreation Commercial and Picnic ational Classification Area Area Residences Facilities Grounds Camps Blue: R1 36,800 18,400 9,200 5,520 3,680 R2 43,200 17,280 8,640 5,184 3,456 R3 32,980 9,895 3,958 1,979 3,463 495 R4 14,560 4,368 1,747 874 1,529 218 51 RA2 501,451 200,580 40,116 40,116 100,290 20,058 HI 719 108 86 22 H2 81 12 10 2 RIR 33,920 16,960 8,480 5,088 3,392 R2R 10,160 4,064 2,032 1,219 813 R3R 6,770 2,031 812 406 711 102 R4R 740 222 89 44 78 n LI L2 11,150 6,690 2,676 1,044 2,342 669 Total 681,381 280,610 77,73Q 61,530 119,778 21,553 Green: S3 S4 RAl Primitive 27,882 S2 LI 5,620 2,810 1,967 843 Total 33,502 2,810 1,967 843 Brown: RA3 1,524,996 152,500 30,500 61,000 47,750 15,250 Wildlif* r 45,070 Total 1,570,066 152,500 30,500 61,000 47,750 15,250 Brown: Urban 14,860 Totals by columns 2,299,809 435,920 108,250 122,530 167,495 37,646 -160- Table 2-f MODCX: CCXJNTY Acres in Recreation Facilities Camping Organiz- Area Total Developed Recreation Commercial and Picnic ational Classification Area Area Residences Facilities Grounds Camps Blue: R1 30,721 15,361 7,681 4,608 3,072 R2 61,920 24,768 12,384 7,430 4,954 R3 23,520 7,056 2,822 1,411 2,470 353 R4 16,560 4,968 1,987 994 1,739 248 SI RA2 383,068 153,227 30,645 30,645 76,614 15,323 HI 759 114 91 23 H2 RIR 23,360 11,680 5,840 3,504 2,336 R2R 8,800 3,520 1,760 1,056 704 R3R 9,720 2,916 1,166 583 1,021 146 R^R 3,360 1,008 403 202 353 50 L2 15,360 9,216 3,686 1,382 3,226 922 Total 577,148 233,834 68,374 51,906 96,512 17,042 Green: 52 S3 S4 RAl Primitive 69,240 S2 LI 320 69,560 160 112 48 Total 160 112 48 Brown: RA3 1 ,425,670 142,567 28,513 57,027 42,770 14,257 Wildllfe_ 63,420 Total ] ,489,090 142,567 28,513 57,027 42,770 14,257 Red: Urban 20,900 Total Acres by columns 2,15 6,698 346,561 96,887 108,933 139,394 31,347 -161- PLUMAS CCMJNTY Acres in Recreation Facilities Table 2-g Area Total Classification Area Camping Developed Recreation Commercial and Picnic Area Residences Facilities Grounds Organiz- ational Camps Blue: R1 115,680 57,840 28,920 17,352 11,568 R2 19,760 7,904 3,952 2,371 1,581 R3 12,960 3,888 1,555 778 1,361 194 R4 160 48 19 10 17 2 SI 960 288 58 43 144 43 RA2 890,427 356,171 71,234 71,234 178,086 35,617 HI H2 RIR 68,000 34,000 17,000 10,200 6,800 R2R L2 14,890 8,934 3,574 1,340 3,127 893 Total 1,122,837 469,073 126,312 103,328 202,684 36,749 Green: S2 S3 480 54 RAl 133,670 Primitive 48,180 LI 3,960 Total Brown: Red: RA3 Wildlife Urban Total acres by Columns 96 26,734 1,980 19 14 48 16,040 1,386 14 10,694 594 186,290 28,810 19 14 17,474 11,302 43,000 4,300 860 1,720 1,290 430 10,560 1,362,687 502,183 127,191 105,062 221,448 48,481 -162- Table 2-h SHASTA COUNTY Acres in Recreation Facilities Organiz- Area Total Developed Recreation Commercial and Picnic ational Classification Area Area Residences Facilities Grounds Camps Blue: Rl 113,120 56,560 28,280 16,968 11,312 R2 105,060 42,024 21,012 12,607 8,405 R3 55,080 16,524 6,610 3,305 5,783 826 R4 41,440 12,432 4,973 2,486 4,351 622 51 2,560 768 154 115 384 115 RA2 696,350 278,540 55,708 55,708 139,270 27,854 HI 562 84 67 17 H2 R1R 173,420 86,710 43,355 26,013 17,342 R2R 53,310 21,324 10,662 6,397 4,265 L2 3,220 1,932 773 290 676 193 Total 1 ,244,122 516,898 171,527 123,956 191,305 29,610 Green: S2 21,240 4,248 850 637 2,124 637 S3 6,240 1,248 250 187 624 187 S4 8,200 1,640 328 246 820 246 RAT Primitive 61,740 LI 1,880 940 658 282 Total _ 99,300 8,076 1,428 1,070 4,226 1,352 Brown: RA3 483,380 48,338 9,668 19,335 14,501 4,834 Wildlife_ Red : Urban 151,930 Total acres by columns 1,978,732 573,312 182,623 144,361 210,532 35,796 -163- Table 2-? SIERRA COUNTY Acres In Recreation Facilities Area Total Classification Area Camping Organiz- Developed Recreation Commercial and Picnic ational Area Residences Facilities Grounds Camps Blue: Rl 12,160 6,080 3,040 1,824 1,216 R2 22,720 9,088 4,544 2,727 1,817 R3 3,120 936 374 187 328 47 R4 SI RA2 403,560 161,424 32,285 32,285 80,713 16,142 HI H2 R1R 12,800 6,400 3,200 1,920 1,280 R2R L2 1 1 ,680 7,008 2,803 1,051 2,453 701 Total 466,040 190,936 46,246 39,994 87,807 16,890 Green: Brown: Red: 32 S3 S4 RAl Primitive LI RA3 Wildlife Urban 6,050 Totals by columns 472,090 190,936 46,246 39,994 87,807 16,890 -164- Table 2-i SISKIYOU COUNTY Acres in Recreation Facilities Camping Organiz- Area Total Developed Recreation Commercial and Picnic ational Classification Area Area Residences Facilities Grounds camps Blue: R1 128,640 64,320 32,160 19,296 12,864 R2 3,398 1,359 680 408 272 R3 49,920 14,976 5,990 2,995 5,242 749 R4 23,923 7,177 2,871 1,435 2,512 359 SI 68,500 20,550 4,110 3,083 10,275 3,083 RA2 276,175 110,470 22,094 22,094 55,235 11,047 HI 514 77 62 15 H2 34 2 2 RIR 125,760 62,880 31,440 18,864 12,576 R2R L2 24,446 14,668 5,867 2,200 5,134 1,467 Total 701,310 296,479 105,212 70,439 104,125 16,705 Green: S2 81,031 16,206 3,241 2,431 8,103 2,431 S3 62,640 12,528 2,506 1,879 6,264 1,879 S4 79,720 15,944 3,189 2,392 7,972 2,392 RAT 30,609 6,122 3,673 2,449 Primitive 227,762 LI 3,216 1,608 1,126 482 Total 484,978 52,404 8,936 6,702 27,138 9,633 Brown: RA3 778,808 77,880 15,576 31,152 23,264 7,788 Wildlife 65,805 Total 844,613 77,880 15,576 31,152 23,264 7,788 Red: Urban 113,900 Totals by columns ?, 144,801 426,763 129,724 108,293 154,527 34,126 -165- Table 2-k SUTTER COUNTY Acres in Recreation Facilities Camping Organiz- Area Total Developed Recreation Commercial and Picnic ational Classification Area Area Residences Facilities Grounds Camps Blue: Rl 60,910 30,455 15,228 9,137 6,091 R2 2,720 1,088 544 326 218 R3 R4 S1 RA2 HI 243 36 29 7 H2 RIR R2R R3R R4R L2 Totol 63,873 31 ,579 15,772 9,492 6,316 Green: S2 S3 S4 RA1 Primitive LI Brown: RA3 Wildlife 47,250 Red: Urban 22,710 Totals by columns 133,833 31,579 15,772 9,492 6,316 -166- Table 2-1 TEHAMA COUNTY Acres In Recreation Facilities Camping Organiz- Area Total Developed Recreation Commercial and Picnic ational Classification Area Area Residences Facilities Grounds Camps Blue: Rl 125,440 62,720 31,360 18,816 12,544 R2 69,120 27,648 13,824 8,294 5,530 R3 61,120 18,336 7,334 3,667 6,418 917 R4 36,960 11,088 4,435 2,218 3,881 554 SI RA2 625,280 250,112 50,022 50,022 125,056 25,011 HI 409 61 49 12 H2 R1R 99,680 49,840 24,920 14,952 9,968 R2R R3R R4R L2 7,200 4,320 1,728 648 1,512 432 Total 1,025,209 424,125 133,623 98,666 164,921 26,914 Green: S2 S3 S4 RAT Primitive 131,370 LI Total 131,370 Brown: RA3 466,160 46,616 9,323 18,646 13,985 4,662 Wildlife Total 466,160 46,616 9,323 18,646 13,985 4,662 Red: , Urban 42,270 Totals by columns 1,665,009 470,741, 142,946 117,312 178,906 31,576 -167- Table 2-m TRINITY COUNTY Acres In Recreation Facilities Area Classification Total Area Developed Area Recreation Residences Commercial Facilities Camping and Picnic Grounds Organiz- ational Camps Blue: Rl R2 R3 R4 SI RA2 HI H2 RIR R2R L2 104,960 49,920 15,600 16,880 1,920 344,040 52,480 19,968 4,680 5,064 512 137,616 26,240 9,984 1,872 2,026 103 27,523 15,744 5,991 938 1,011 77 27,523 10,496 3,994 1,639 1,773 256 68,808 234 252 // 13,761 120,000 24,320 10,980 60,000 9,728 6,588 30,000 4,864 2,635 18,000 2,918 988 12,000 1,946 2,306 659 Total 688,620 296,636 105,247 73,190 103,218 14,983 Green: S2 S3 S4 RAl Primitive 36,360 7,520 36,700 322,340 7,272 1,506 7,340 1,454 300 1,468 1,091 227 1,101 3,636 752 3,670 1,091 227 1,101 _402,920 16,118 3,222 2,419 8,058 2,419 Brown: RA3 Wildlife Red: Urban 19,940 Totalsbycolumns 1,111,480 312,754 108,469 75,609 111,276 17,402 -168- Table 2-n YOLO COUNTY Acres In Recreation Facilities Camping Organiz- Area Total D( eveloped Recreation Commercial and Picnic ational Classification Area Area Residences Facilities Grounds Camps Blue: Rl 78,400 39,200 19,600 11,760 7,840 R2 22,880 9,152 4,576 2,745 1,831 R3 4,920 1,476 591 295 516 74 R4 1,680 504 201 101 177 25 SI RA2 36,960 14,784 2,957 2,957 7,392 1,479 HI 238 36 29 7 R1R 13,440 6,720 3,360 2,016 1,344 R2R L2 Total 158,438 72,142 31,285 19,903 19,107 1,578 Green: S2 S3 S4 RAl Primitive Brown: RA3 52,970 5,297 1,059 2,119 1,589 530 Wildlife 40,750 Total 93,720 5,297 1,059 2,119 1,589 530 Red: Urban 56,460 Totals by columns 308,618 77,439 32,344 22,022 20,696 2,108 -169- Table 2-0 YUBA COUNTY Acres in Recreation Facilities Camping Area Total Developed Commercic il and Picnic Classification Area Area Residences Facilities Grounds Camps Blue: Rl 56,320 28,160 14,080 8,448 5,632 R2 20,800 8,320 4,160 2,495 1,665 R3 960 288 115 58 101 14 R4 640 192 77 38 67 10 SI RA2 117,550 47,020 9,405 9,405 23,508 4,702 HI 78 12 10 2 H2 RIR 44,320 22,160 11,080 6,645 4,435 R2R L2 640 384 154 58 134 38 Total 241,308 106,536 39,071 27,157 35,544 4,764 Green: S2 S3 S4 RAl Primitive Brown: RA3 8,000 800 160 320 240 80 Wildlife 32,420 Total 40,420 800 160 320 240 80 Red: Urban 68,280 Totals by columns 350,008 107,336 39,231 27,477 35,784 4,844 -170- ♦92 »2 .07 S30 2 520 )16 >18 ISIS 00 TehofT Trinity Yolo Yuba Total for 15 Counties 772 772 .0 772 960 142,946 102,518 0.72 81,873 864 19,781 18,453,240 108,469 88,802 0.82 78,311 1,317 9,174 15,984,360 32,344 32,342 1.0 28,328 4,014 5,821,560 39,231 32,777 0.84 29,512 77 3,188 5,899,860 1,221,381 863,673 0.71 689,408 13,217 177,749 155,461,140 117,312 7,819 0.07 3,196 43 4,577 3 ,814,840 75,609 5,038 0.07 3,139 65 1,834 1,813,680 22,022 1,467 0.07 1,127 338 2 528, 120 27,477 1,830 0.07 1,178 3 648 1 658,800 1,024,439 68,279 0.07 27,424 656 40,166 33 24,580,440 178,906 123,786 0.69 76,682 756 46,347 1 1 1 , 276 104,413 0.94 80,324 1,153 22,936 120 29,708,640 25,059.120 20,696 26,409 1.3 23,416 2,993 6,338,160 35,783 31,776 0.89 23,792 67 7,917 7,626,240 31,576 777 0.02 36 741 2,097,900 17,402 434 0.02 74 16 344 1,171,800 2,108 52 0.02 2 50 140,400 4,844 119 0.02 119 321,300 1,561,956 1,095,206 0.70 696,584 11,543 6,570 378,719 1,780 5 262,849,440 297,934 7,442 0.02 611 149 328 6,298 56 20,093,400 53,074,620 44,028,960 12,828,240 14,506,200 462,984,420 !r Tehama Trinity Yolo Yuba Total 24,920 24,920 4,485,600 34,864 34,864 6,275,520 3,360 3,360 604,800 1 1 ,080 1 1 ,080 1,994,400 41,340,060 14,952 997 358,920 20,918 1,395 502,200 2,016 134 48,240 6,645 443 159,480 3,303,360 9,968 19,936 4,784,640 13,946 27,892 6,694,080 1,344 2,688 645,120 4,435 8,870 2,128,800 44,662,560 21,600 9,629,160 13,471,800 1,298,160 4,282,680 89,327,580 -171- Table 2-o YUBA COUNTY Acres in Recreation Facilities Camping Area Total Developed Commercic il and Picnic Classification Area Area Residences Facilities Grounds Camps Blue: Rl 56,320 28,160 14,080 8,448 5,632 R2 20,800 8,320 4,160 2,495 1,665 R3 960 288 115 58 101 14 R4 640 192 77 38 67 10 SI RA2 117,550 47,020 9,405 9,405 23,508 4,702 HI 78 12 10 2 H2 RIR 44,320 22,160 11,080 6,645 4,435 R2R L2 Total 640 384 154 58 134 38 241,308 106,536 39,071 27,157 35,544 4,764 Green S2 S3 S4 RAl Primitive Brown: RA3 8,000 800 160 320 240 80 Wildlife Total 32,420 40,420 800 160 320 240 80 Red: Urban 68,280 Totals by columns 350,008 107,336 39,231 27,477 35,784 4,844 -170- ESTIMATED USER-DAYS PER SEASON AT CAPACITY USE OF POTENTIAL RECREATION AREAS IN 15 NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES Recreation Areo Total for 15 Countie 90 days - 360) Pe rmonent ond Summer Residences lolol net developable acres Totol units Averoge units per ocre R&S 1 unit per acre L2 1 unit per 2actes RA 2-3 1 unit per 3 ocres Capacity users per season (4 persons ? 45 days = 180) Commerciol- Resorts, Hotels, etc. lotal net developable acres Total units Averoge units per acre R&S I unit per 15 acres L2 1 unit per 15 acres RA 2-3 1 unit per 15 ocres Highwoys 1 unit per 15 ocres Copocity users per seoson (4 persons " Camping: Picnic Areas, etc- lotol net developoble acres Total units Average units per acre R&S 2 units per ocre L2 1 unit per 2 acres RAl 1 unit per 3 acres RA 2-3 1 unit per 3 acres LI 1 unit per 3 acres Highways 1 unit per 15 acres Capacity users per season (4 persons OrgonizQtionol Comps, etc. lotol net developoble acres Totol units Average units per ocre R&S 1 unit per 40 ocres L2 1 unit per 40 acres RAI 1 unit per 40 ocres RA 2-3 1 unit per 40 acres LI 1 unit per 40 acres Capacity users per season (30 persons 'S 90 doys ■ 2,700) Totol user-doys S 60 doys • 240) 72,756 61,807 0.85 55,723 1,220 4,664 11.125.260 48,709 3,246 0.07 2,211 61 972 2 1.168.560 62,132 50,618 0.81 47,118 1,068 2,432 12,148,320 8,241 205 0.02 8 15 182 553,500 27,257 21,802 0.80 19,075 2,727 3.924,360 26,582 19,977 0.75 16,650 51 19,977 3,595,860 65,103 41,848 0.64 30,221 11,627 7,532,640 108,250 59,834 0.55 34,958 1,338 23,538 10,770,120 96,887 55,605 0.57 34,043 1,843 19,719 10,008,900 127,191 76,941 0.60 51,123 1,787 24,031 13,849,380 182,623 128,652 0.70 116,474 386 11,792 23,157,360 46,246 23,320 0.50 11,158 1,401 10,761 4,197,600 129,724 101,676 0.78 86,187 2,933 12,556 18,301,680 15,772 15,772 1.0 15,772 2,838,960 142,946 102,518 0.72 81,873 864 19,781 18,453,240 21,473 1,430 0.07 768 660 2 514,800 20,254 1,348 0.07 691 1 655 I 485,280 52,918 3,533 0.07 1,202 2,325 122,530 8,162 0.07 1,354 67 6,741 1,271,8 108,933 7,261 0.07 1,319 92 5,844 6 2,613,960 105,062 7,003 0.07 2,051 39 4,863 144,361 9,622 0.07 4,597 19 5,002 4 3,463,920 39,994 2,671 0.07 443 70 2,158 961,560 108,293 7,217 0.07 3,518 146 3,549 9,492 632 0.07 630 227,520 117,312 7,819 0.07 3,196 43 4,577 3 2,814,840 29,232 27,049 0.93 20,770 6,242 37 36,561 32,020 0.88 23,734 45 99,801 54,258 0.54 25,190 3,191 7.684.8 167,495 84,775 0.51 34,292 1,147 48,680 655 1 20.346.000 139,394 74, 743 0.54 33,298 1,613 39, 794 37 1 17.938.320 221,448 110,201 0.50 43,038 1,563 5,346 59, 792 462 26.448.240 210,532 162,635 0.77 110,820 338 51,257 219 1 39.032.400 87,807 37,412 0.43 9,282 1,226 26,904 154,527 162,493 1.1 132,160 2,567 1,224 26,166 375 1 6,316 12,618 2.0 12,618 178,906 123,786 0.69 76,682 756 46,347 108,469 88,802 0.82 78,311 1,317 9,174 15,984,360 75,609 5,038 0.07 3,139 65 1,834 1,813,680 111,276 104,413 0.94 80,324 1,153 22,936 32,344 32,342 1.0 28,328 4,014 5,821,560 39,231 32,777 0.84 29,512 77 3,188 5,899,860 22,022 1,467 0.07 1,127 338 2 528,120 27,477 1,830 0.07 1,178 3 648 I 20,696 26,409 1.3 23,416 35,783 31,776 0.89 23,792 67 7,917 1,221,381 863,673 0.71 689,408 13,217 177,749 155,461,140 1,024,439 68,279 0.07 27,424 656 40,166 33 658,800 24,580,440 561,956 095,206 0.70 696,584 11,543 6,570 378,719 1,780 5 8,978,830 38,998,320 3.028,320 29,708,640 25,059,120 6,338,160 7,626,240 262,849,440 5,085 126 0.02 23 102 1 340,200 168 0.02 46 122 453,600 17,584 439 0.02 3 436 ,185,300 37,646 939 0.02 20 16 21 2,535,300 31,347 790 0.03 37 23 729 1 2,133,000 48,481 1,215 0.03 11 22 267 901 14 3,280,500 35,796 906 0.03 78 4 817 7 2,446,200 16,890 421 0.02 1 17 403 ,136,700 34,126 851 0.02 272 36 61 470 12 2.297,700 31,576 777 0.02 36 741 2,097,900 17,402 434 0.02 74 16 344 1,171,600 2,108 52 0.02 2 50 140,400 4,344 119 0.02 119 321,300 297,934 7,442 0.02 611 149 328 6,298 56 20,093,400 11,271,120 12,219,540 23,011,740 36,539,740 32,694,180 46,099,200 68,099,630 15,274,740 62,195,320 53,074,620 44,028,960 12,828,240 14,506,200 462,984,420 Table 4 ESTIMATED ANNUAL USER-DAYS AT RESERVOIR FACILITIES AT CAPACITY USE Type of Facility Siskiyou Trinity Recreation residences Developoble ocres Units 'i 1 per ocre User-doys (5 IBO/unit Commerctolt resorts, hotels, etc. Developable acres Units "^ 1 per 15 acres User-doys ? 360/unit CompgrourKjs, picnic oreos Developable ocres Units 'a 2 per acre User-days ^ 240/unit 16,505 3,840 6,040 16,505 3,840 6,040 2,970,900 691,200 1,087,200 9,904 2,304 660 154 237,600 55,440 3,624 242 87,120 6,603 1,536 2,416 13,206 3,072 4,832 3,169,440 737,280 1,159,630 2,819 2,319 507,420 11,413 11,413 2,054,340 9,169 9,169 1,650,420 17,000 17,000 3,060,000 9 54,017 54,017 ,723,060 3,200 3,200 576,000 31,440 31,440 5,659,200 1,691 113 40,680 6,757 450 162,000 5,345 356 123,160 10,200 680 244,600 32,410 2,166 779,760 1,920 128 46,080 18,864 1,253 452,330 1,128 2,256 541,440 4,994 9,988 2,397,120 4,414 3,828 2,113,720 6,800 13,600 3,264,000 10 21,607 43,214 ,371,360 1,260 2,560 614,400 12,576 25,152 6,036,480 24,920 24,920 4,485,600 34,864 34,864 6,275,520 3,360 3,360 604,800 1 1 ,080 1 1 ,080 1,994,400 41,340,060 14,952 997 358,920 20,918 1,395 502,200 2,016 134 48,240 6,645 443 159,480 3,303,360 9,966 19,936 4,784,640 13,946 27,892 6,694,080 1,344 2,683 645,120 4,435 8,870 2,128,800 44,662,560 Organizotionol camps Developable acres Units ^ 1 per 40 acres User-days ^ 2700/unit Tatol 6,377,940 1,483,920 113 3 8,100 196 5 13,500 ,089,540 4,621,560 3,910,1 20,874,13 1,236,480 9,629,160 13,471,300 1,298,160 4,262,660 89,327,580 -171- PLATE A-3 SHEET I URBAN AND SUBURBAN: URBAN CENTERS. LANDS ADJACENT TO PRESENT URBAN CENTERS, AND AREAS LIKELY TO BECOME URBAN AND SUBURBAN IN CHARACTER. NO POPULATION DEN- SITY IS SPECIFIED AND IN SOME CASES WOULD INCLUDE WIDELY SCATTERED RESIDENCES. HIGH INTENSITY RECREATION: AREAS OF PRIME RECREA- TION POTENTIAL THAT ARE ACCESSIBLE BY MOTOR VEHICLE DURING THE ENTIRE VACATION SEASON. MOST AREAS SUBJECT TO DEVELOPMENT FOR COMMERCIAL RESORTS. PRIVATE SUMMER HOMES, PRIVATE AND PUBLIC CAMPING AND PICNIC GROUNDS WOULD BE IN THIS CLASSIFICATION. MEDIUM INTENSITY RECREATION: AREAS OF PRIME RECREA- TIONAL POTENTIAL NOT READILY ACCESSIBLE BY MOTOR VEHICLE. THIS INCLUDES PRIMITIVE AREAS BUT WOULD ALSO INCLUDE SOME AREAS ACCESSIBLE BY JEEP. TO A LIMITED EX- TENT THIS AREA WOULD BE DEVELOPED FOR RESORTS, SUMMER HOMES AND CAMP GROUNDS. LOW INTENSITY RECREATION AREAS: ACCESSIBLE AREAS HAVING LIMITED RECREATION POTENTIAL SUCH AS THE WIDE JUNIPER-SAGE PLATEAU OF THE LAHONTAN BASIN, THE DRY RANGES OF THE EASTERN CASCADE SLOPE, AND THE MIDDLE ALTITUDE MESQUITE AND MAN2ANITA FOREST. WILDLIFE AREAS ARE INCLUDED HEREIN. PRIMARY RECREATION USE WOULD BE FOR HUNTING AND FISHING. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DIVISION OF RESOURCES PLANNING NORTHEASTERN COUNTIES INVESTIGATION CLASSIFICATION OF LANDS FOR URBAN, SUBURBAN, AND RECREATION USE 1957 SCALE OF MILES DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 1957 u PL»TE n-5 SHEET 2 INDEX TO SHEETS DEP«RrUEN< Of WATCH RESOUKCE^ u E fi-J SHEET NDEX TO SHEETS ^ ^i^M^i^^^^^M&v^^ •J L UNIVERSITY OF r.AI IFORNIA TiAVIS 3 1175 02040 2882