WORKING PAPER NO. 4
UMPQUA RIVER AREA (OREGON)
PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF ECONOMIC GROWTH, 1960-2010
October, 1961
Prepared by: Economic Studies Group
Water Supply and Pollution Control Program
Pacific Northwest
-------
UMPQUA RIVER AREA (OREGON)
PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF ECONOMIC GROWTH, 1960-2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction.
A. Purpose of Analysis.
B. Definition of Area.
C. Study Period.
0. Limitations of Analysis.
II. Present Economic Development.
A. Population.
B. The Present Industrial Pattern.
C. Geographic Distribution.
III. Estimated Growth. 1960-2010.
A. The Economic Base.
B. Population.
Prepared by: Economic Studies Group
WS&PC Program, Pacific Northwest
October, 1961
-------
October, 1961
UMPQUA RIVER AREA (OREGON)
PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF ECONOMIC GROWTH, 1960-2010
I. Introduction.
A. Purpose of Analysis.
This analysis is intended to provide a preliminary estimate
of the economic potentials and a broad guide to the anticipated growth
of the subject area.
B. Definition of the Area.
The Umpqua River drainage basin conforms approximately to the
boundaries of Douglas County, and for purposes of this analysis, the
county has been used as the unit of study. In terms of area, the
departures of the basin boundary from the county boundary are roughly
offsetting. In terms of population, the areas where basin and county
boundaries do not coincide are almost entirely uninhabited. The con-
venience and accuracy of using available statistics, all on a county
basis, indicate the advisability of using the county as the unit of
study.
C. Study Period.
The 50-year period 1960-2010, with an interim point at 1980,
is being used by this office in its economic studies of the Columbia
basin as a whole, and the same period is used for this Umpqua River
area analysis.
D. Limitations of this Analysis.
This is intended only as an initial estimate of the outlook
for the Umpqua River area. Subsequently, in connection with the Col-
umbia basin study, an analysis will be made, on an industry-by-industry
basis, of the growth potential in such sub-basins as the Umpqua. At
that time, this preliminary estimate for the Umpqua area will be re-
viewed, and revised if necessary.
II. Present Economic Development.
A. Population.
Population of Douglas County as of April 1, 1960, was 68,458.
This gave the county an average density of 13.5 persons per square mile,
lower than any other county in western Oregon, except Curry.
-------
The low average density is accentuated by the fact that a
large part of the population is concentrated in the narrow valleys
near the junction of the North and South ttnpqua. About 31,000 persons
(45 percent of the county total) live within a radius of ten miles
from the center of Roseburg.—' Another 10,000 live in other towns
along the main highway and railroad bisecting the county from north
to south, and most of the remaining population is also along this
central artery, though outside incorporated places. The only signifi-
cant cluster of population outside the central strip is Reedsport,
with a population of 3,000. Most of the county is very sparsely
settled, with large areas of virtually uninhabited and rugged national
forest land.
The 1960 census classifies only 19,541 of the county total
population as "urban", a term defined to apply to densely built-up
communities of more than 2,500 persons. Included in the "urban"
portion of Douglas County are Roseburg, 11,467; Reedsport, 2,998; and
Barnes, an unincorporated community adjacent to and north of Roseburg,
5,076. Of the remaining "non-urban" population, 12,659 live in incor-
porated places smaller than 2,500, and the other 36,258 live outside
incorporated places. This last figure, however, obscures the fact that
many people outside incorporated places live in densely built-up areas
close to towns. The community of Barnes, a satellite of Roseburg
referred to above, is an example. Only a small fraction of those
residing outside incorporated places make their living in commercial
agriculture.
B. The Present Industrial Pattern.
The economy of Douglas County is one of the most highly
specialized and non-diversified in the State. Over half of all employ-
ment, and 90 percent of all manufacturing employment, is in lumber and
wood products.
The dominance of lumber and wood products employment is
emphasized by considering the relatively low employment in other indus-
trial categories. Employment in service industries in Douglas County
is considerably below the State average, on a per capita basis.
Douglas County is part of the Portland Region, and many service func-
tions (wholesale trade and finance, for example) are performed in
Portland for outlying areas such as Douglas County. An exception is
the U. S. Veteran's Hospital in Roseburg, which employs about 450
persons, and provides the only major diversification of the lumber-
wood products economic base.
I/This includes Roseburg, East Roseburg, Lookingglass, Riverdale,
Wilbur, and Winchester, and a portion of Helrose census county divisions.
-------
As for agriculture, while certain specialty crops (melons, for
example) have some significance, agriculture as a whole provides a rela-
tively small share of total employment. In 1959, there were only 371
farms in the entire county with annual gross sales of $5,000 or more.
Food processing employment is also relatively low, 158 in April 1960,
equal to only one-quarter of the State average on a per capita basis.
Agriculture in the county emphasizes grazing. Of the 505,000
acres in farms at the time of the 1959 Census of Agriculture, only 6 per-
cent were in harvested cropland, and 78 percent were in pasture. By com-
parison to adjoining counties, harvested cropland as a percentage of total
acreage in farms was 8 percent in Jackson County, 16 percent in Jose-
phine County, and 25 percent in Lane County. According to the 1959
Census of Agriculture, there are more sheep in Douglas County than in
any other county in the State. The wool is, however, shipped out of
the county; no employment was reported in 1960 in textile manufacturing
in Douglas County.
Table 1 (following page) shows how the distribution of non-
agricultural employment in Douglas County compared, as of April 1960,
with the distribution in the State as a whole. The data are for "covered
employment" only (that is, employees covered by the State unemployment
compensation law) and exclude self-employed persons.
C. Geographic Distribution.
The concentration of the county's population in the area around
the junction of the North and South Umpqua and along the main highway and
railroad running north and south has been discussed above in Section II-A,
"Population". Table 2 shows how the population is distributed among the
three main drainage basins in the county, the South Umpqua, the North
Urapqua, and the "Main Stem" below their junction. Included in the
area assigned to "Main Stem" are the drainage basins of Elk Creek, Smith
River and Calapooya Creek, all of which flow into the tftnpqua "Main Stem".
(Table 2 appears on page 5 of this report.)
III. Estimated Growth. 1960-2010.
A. The Economic Base.
The economy of Douglas County has grown rapidly during the
past two decades. During the period 1940-50, its population increased
more rapidly than any other county in the State, and in the period 1950-60,
its growth rate still exceeded the State average by 50 percent. However,
it appears unlikely that such high rates of growth will continue in the
period 1960-2010.
-------
4
Table I (See Section IIB)
COVERED EMPLOYMENT IN NON-AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES
Actual Employment by Industry in Douglas County, April 1960
and Percentage Distribution in Douglas Co. Compared to Oregon as a Whole
Industry
Mining
Construction
Manufacturing, total
Lumber, wood prod.
Machinery, ex.elec.
Food and kindred
Print., Publish.
Stone,clay,glass
All other mfr.
Trans., Comn., Util.
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Finan.,Ins.,Real Eat.
All other services (b)
Government
TOTAL
Number of
Employees,
Douglas
County
152
386
9,355
8,571
110
158
106
32
378
687
327
2,219
299
849
1.025(c)
%aae Distribution
Douglas State of
County Oregon
1.00
2.52
61.15
56.03
0.72
1.03
0.69
0.21
2.47
4.49
2.14
14.50
1,
5,
95
55
15,299
6.70
0.27
5.82
34.27
17.59
1.32
4.12
1.25
0.69
9.30
7.78
7.43
19.29
4.74
9.72
10.68
Employment in
Douglas as % of
"expectable"(a)
Employment
371
43
178
319
55
25
55
30
27
58
29
75
41
57
63
100.00 100.00
(a) "Expectable" employment means the employment that would have been
found in Douglas County if the distribution of total employment had
been the same as in the State as a whole.
(b) Includes business and repair services, entertainment and recrea-
tion, personal services, and professional services.
(c) Includes approximately 450 Federal employees at U. S. Veterans'
Hospital at Roseburg.
Source: Oregon Department of Employment, Covered Employment and Payrolls.
Second Quarter, 1960.
-------
Douglas County's recent rapid growth might be called "abnormal"
in two senses: (1) it resulted from the surge of growth associated
with the beginning of large-scale exploitation of a forest resource
which was one of the richest still standing in the country and which
had not theretofore been cut because adequate timber was still avail-
able in the northern part of the State; and (2) it was one-sided in
that it depended almost entirely upon new jobs in lumber and wood
products.
The outlook for growth of the Douglas economy depends upon
possibilities for (1) maintaining or increasing the annual timber
harvest, and (2) diversifying the economy, either by further fabrica-
tion or greater utilization of the timber harvest or by development
of new types of resources. For this preliminary estimate, it is
'-provisionally assumed here that the annual tree harvest is now at
its sustained-yield ceiling Jt/ Any increases in employment will have
to come, therefore, from diversification.
Raw materials appear to be available within the county which
could make possible the establishment of a pulp mill near Roseburg
during the period 1960-80£J Other diversified uses of the timber
resource are not in sight at this time. As for the development of
other resources, while some possibilities exist, they do not appear
to have a potential for providing substantial employment. Mining may
increase, but total employment in that industry is only about 150 at
—' According to the Oregon Development Commission (Umpqua River Valley
study, by Sandwell, March 1958, p. 5), there is a possibility that the
present annual cut may have to be reduced in the future. The present
average annual cut "is substantially greater than the present net
growth rate and the potential growth rate" shown in the report. Future
increases in efficiency may offset this, however, But even if the cut
could be increased, it might not result in any increase in employment,
due to rising productivity per worker.
& The report by Sandwell referred to in Note 1 suggests a site on
the North Umpqua near Winchester but adds that other equally good
sites are available.
-------
the present time. Agriculture is not likely to provide increased
employment!/and hence any substantial increase in food processing
employment is unlikely. While grazing does provide a raw material,
it seems probable that it will continue to go to established mills
outside the county. There is some possibility for growth in service
industries due to an Increase in the number of tourists and to a
spill-over of retired persons from California. However, in the
latter regard, the adjacent Jackson-Josephine area would seem to
have greater potential. The establishment of the Veterans' Hospital
provided a growth stimulus in the past which cannot be counted on to
be repeated.
B. Population.
In a highly specialized economy where the unique resource
is being fully exploited and where other resources are too marginal
to provide substantial increases in employment, possibilities for
population growth are limited. In terms of potential now visible, it
appears that Douglas County's growth rate will decline to one of the
lowest in the State during the decades ahead. Projected population
and, growth rates for Douglas County are shown in Table 3.
The transition from rapid growth to slow growth may raise
problems of adjustment in Douglas County. In other areas, such rapid
growth, based upon Intensive exploitation of a single resource, has
sometimes been followed not only by a leveling off of population
increase but by actual decline. In the case of Douglas County,
however, the maintenance of the timber harvest on a sustained yield
basis should prevent the deterioration of the resource base and popu-
lation decline.
The population increase projected in Table 3, 12,000 during
the period 1960-80, will require about 4,800 new jobs for its support.
—' The number of farms and agricultural workers in Douglas County
declined substantially from 1954 to 1959. This was due to the general
long-term trend of increasing productivity per worker in agriculture.
Therefore, even if farm acreage were to increase, any increase in
agricultural employment would be unlikely. The possibilities for
Increasing agricultural acreage and production do not seem great enough
to support any substantial increase in employment in related industries,
The terrain of the county would appear to limit agricultural expansion.
-------
Table 2 (See Section I1C)
DISTRIBUTION OF DOUGLAS COUNTY POPULATION BY DRAINAGE BASIN
April 1, 1960
Census County Division
or Enumeration District Main Stem North Umpqua South Umpqua
Calapooya:
Oakland 856
E.D. 43 1,461
E.D. 45 854
E.D. 46 842
Sutherlin 2,452
E.D. 44 569
East Roseburg 2,437
Elkton-Drain 2,878
Kellogg-Yoncalla 2,530
Lookingglass 6,036
Melrose 763 e 954 e
Myrtle Creek-Riddle 10,497
North Umpqua 2,811 e 150 e
Reedsport 5,246
Riverdale:
Barnes 924
E.D. 30 882
E.D. 31 100 e 368 e
Roseburg 11,467
South Umpqua 3,737
Tenmile . 2,332
Wilbur 200 e 849 e
Winchester: •>
E.D.'s 33-35 4,152
E.D. 36 352 e 353 e
E.D. 37 803 e 604 e
TOTALS 15,630 7,936 44,892
e - Distribution within enumeration district estimated from U. S. G. S,
quadrangles.
-------
8
Table 3 (See Section IIIB)
PROJECTED POPULATION AND GROWTH RATES
FOR DOUGLAS COUNTY COMPARED WITH OTHER AREAS
1920-2010
1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1980 2010
Douglas County, population
to nearest thousand .
21
22
26
54 68
80
102
Percentage increase,
compound annual rate,
during period ending in
year shown
Douglas County
Oregon
United States
0.4 1.7 7.6 2.3 0.8 0.8
1.3 3.4 1.5 2.0 1.7
0.7 1.4 1.7 1.6 1.4
------- |