157 



Figure Three 



Humboldt County 





•o 

 § 



3 



40,000 J 

 35,000 .. 

 30,000 ■■ 

 25,000 ! ' 

 20,000 ■• 

 15,000 .. 

 10,000 -" 

 5,000 .. 



Noo-Tlmber 



Employment 



Forecasts corrected to 



1977 population 



%5^;{;«T8ff««54.j 



J Actual 



Non-Timber Jobs 

 , Input-Output 



(73) Forecast 

 -0 Econometric 



(84) Forecast 



-* IMPLAN 



(90) Forecast 



Actual Employment 



■■ Umber Industry 



— - — — — Kcuv«*f Lev4 



o4 



I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 



72 74 76 78808284868890 



Sources: Employment Anrmal Planning Riy ort: Humboldt County 1992. Harvest: (the dashed 

 line) California Board of Equaliiation. Employment Multipliers: Dean et aL 1973. Structure 

 and Projection* nf rtw. Hiimhnlrit Cnnnty Economy: Economic Growdi versus Environmental 

 Cf^mMty University of California Giannini Foundation Repott 3 1 8j McKillc^. 1984. Iqsqo1£ 

 and Fjnplnvment MultipBcn for the Forest Products Industiv of Nortfaem California. 

 University of California, Berkeley Depmtment of Forestry and Resource Management and 

 Forest Products Laboratory: Olsco 1990. Economic Impacts of the ISC Nortfaem Spotted Owl 

 f^m^'fr^'^if^ Stf^gpy fof Wa«hinytnn Oregon and Northern California. Mason, Bruce and 

 Girard- Pordand Oregon 



Employment muMiiiers of 2J or greater continue to be used even dxxi^ diey prove to 



be extremdy inaccurate when applied tt> events that have occurred. A crucial flaw in many of 



the regional ecooomic modds is that they do not account for growing nrai-wage incomes that 



are espedaOy characteristic of the forested r^ions of California. Tbe following table 



summarizes the results of an economic base analysis of the major timber pnxhicing counties of 



California. 



Headwaters Forest Act Testimony, William Stewart, October 1 3, 1993 



10 



