California’s Forest Products Industry 

and Timber Harvest, 2012

Chelsea P. McIver, Joshua P. Meek, Micah G. Scudder, Colin B. Sorenson, 

Todd A. Morgan, and Glenn A. Christensen

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest 

Service

Pacific Northwest 

Research Station

General Technical Report

PNW-GTR-908

October

2015
Authors

Chelsea P. McIver is a research associate, Joshua P. Meek was a research 

assistant; Micah G. Scudder is a research associate, Colin B. Sorenson is a 

research economist, and Todd A. Morgan is the director of Forest Industry 

Research, Bureau of Business and Economic Research, Gallagher Business 

Building, University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812. Glenn A. Christensen 

is a forester, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 620 SW Main St., Suite 400, 

Portland, OR 97205.

Cover: Photographs by the Bureau of Business and Economic Research.

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, 

and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from 

discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including 

gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, 

income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation 

for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all 

bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or 

incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program 

information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should 

contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and 

TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, 

program information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination 

Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.

html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all 

of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 

632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, 

SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: program.intake@

usda.gov(link sends e-mail).

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.
Abstract

McIver, Chelsea P.; Meek, Joshua P.; Scudder, Micah G.; Sorenson, Colin B.; 

Morgan, Todd A.; Christensen, Glenn A. 2015. California’s forest products 

industry and timber harvest, 2012. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-908. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 49 p.

This report traces the flow of California’s 2012 timber harvest through the primary 

wood products industry and provides a description of the structure, condition, and 

economic impacts of California’s forest products sector. Historical forest products 

industry changes are discussed, as well as trends in harvest, production, mill residue, and sales. Also examined are employment and worker earnings in the state’s 

primary and secondary forest products industry.

Keywords: Bioenergy, employment, forest economics, lumber production, 

mill residue, mill capacity, wood products, timber harvest, timber processors, 

wood utilization.
Highlights

• A total of 77 primary forest products facilities operated in California during 

2012. These included 30 sawmills, 26 bioenergy plants, 11 bark and mulch 

facilities, 2 veneer plants, and 8 manufacturers of other primary wood 

products.

• California’s timber harvest was 1,425 million board feet (MMBF) Scribner 

in 2012, representing an 18 percent decline since 2006. Over 55 percent 

(785 MMBF) of the timber harvest came from five counties. For the first 

time since 1968, Shasta County provided the largest proportion at 16 percent (229 MMBF), followed by Humboldt County with a timber harvest of 

215 MMBF.

• Eighty-three percent of California’s 2012 timber harvest came from private 

lands, 14 percent came from national forests, and the remaining 3 percent 

came from other public sources. Nearly all (97 percent) of the timber harvested in California was processed within the state.

• Over half of the 360 million cubic feet (MMCF) of wood fiber (excluding 

bark) harvested in California in 2012 was used to generate energy, usually 

in the form of heat for steam or electricity. Another 32 percent of the volume became lumber, and the remaining 16 percent was used as raw material for a variety of other products.

• Total sales value for California’s primary forest products was about $1.4 

billion in 2012, with lumber accounting for 64 percent of the total. The 

majority (77 percent) of all products were sold in California. Two sectors 

accounted for nearly 90 percent of industry sales value: sawmills and 

bioenergy plants. 

• California sawmills produced 1.9 billion board feet of lumber in 2012, just 

under 7 percent of U.S. production of softwood lumber and just over 5 percent of U.S. consumption.

• California’s forest products industry’s annual capacity to process sawtimber 

has decreased by more than 70 percent, from 6 billion board feet Scribner 

in the late 1980s to 1.8 billion board feet in 2012. Of this total capacity, 72 

percent was utilized in 2012.
• Approximately 52,200 workers, earning $3.3 billion annually, are employed 

in the forest industry in California, including primary and secondary wood 

and paper products, private sector forestry and logging, and forestry support activities.

• California’s primary facilities produced over 1.9 million bone-dry tons (1.6 

million bone-dry units) of residue; 62 percent was utilized by the biomass 

energy sector, 26 percent by the landscape and other products sector, and 

11 percent by the pulp and board sector; less than 1 percent went unutilized.
Contents

1 Introduction

1 Forest Industries Data Collection System

2 The Operating Environment of California’s Forest Products Industry

4 California’s Timber Harvest, Products, and Flow

4 California’s Timberlands

5 Harvest by Ownership

8 Harvest by Geographic Source

13 Harvest by Species

13 Harvest by Product Type

15 Product Type by Ownership Class

15 Product Type by Species

16 Timber Flow

22 End Uses of California’s 2012 Timber Harvest

26 California’s Forest Products Industry

28 Industry Concentrations

28 Sales Value, Product Markets, and Market Areas

32 Trends and Capacity by Sector

32 Sawmill Sector

32 Veneer and Plywood Sector

34 Residue-Utilizing Sector

35 Bioenergy Sector

36 Other Sectors

36 Input and Output Capacity

36 Sawtimber-Processing Capacity

38 Lumber Production Capacity

39 Lumber Recovery Factors and Overrun

41 Mill Residue: Quantity, Type, and Use

42 Forest Products Industry Employment and Earnings

46 Acknowledgments

46 Metric Equivalents

47 References
1

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2012

Introduction

This report describes the utilization of California’s 2012 timber harvest and the 

conditions, structure, and operations of the state’s primary forest products industry. 

Primary forest products manufacturers are firms that process timber into manufactured goods such as lumber or veneer, and facilities such as biomass power or 

particleboard plants that use the wood fiber residue directly from harvest sites or 

timber processors. Also described are recent and historical trends in the state’s 

timber use, including raw material sources, inventory, growth, and harvest. Other 

areas covered in this report include the extent and efficiency of California’s processing infrastructure and the volume and value of primary products and residues. 

Information presented in this report is generated through a statewide census of 

California’s manufacturers of primary forest products active in 2012. The census 

also includes data from firms in adjacent states utilizing raw material from California during the 2012 calendar year. The 2012 report focuses primarily on changes 

since the 2006 census (Morgan et al. 2012) with updated information through 

2013 where available. Important relationships of current data to findings prior to 

2006 have been noted. For a more detailed discussion of historical trends in timber 

harvesting and processing in California, see Morgan et al. (2012) and Morgan et al. 

(2004), which summarize previous applications of the statewide industry census.

The University of Montana’s Bureau of Business and Economic Research 

(BBER) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

(PNW) Research Station cooperated in the analysis and preparation of this report. 

The BBER, in cooperation with the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program at 

the PNW Research Station, has been studying the region’s forest products industry 

since 1998. This report represents BBER’s third such study of California’s timber 

harvest and forest products industry since 2000. 

Forest Industries Data Collection System

The Forest Industries Data Collection System (FIDACS) was developed by the 

BBER in cooperation with the FIA programs in the Rocky Mountain and PNW 

Research Stations to collect, compile, and report data from primary forest products 

manufacturers.

Primary forest products firms were identified through the use of various phone 

directories, industry associations, Internet searches, and through previous censuses. 

The written census questionnaires are distributed by mail, fax, or email and are 

administered over the telephone when necessary. A single questionnaire is completed for each wood-processing facility and includes the following information:
2

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-908

• Plant production, capacity, and employment.

• Volume of raw material received, by county and ownership.

• Species mix and proportion of standing dead timber received (if applicable).

• Finished product volumes, types (including energy), sales value, and 

market locations. 

• Utilization and marketing of manufacturing residue.

Manufacturers who participated in the 2012 California forest industry census 

processed virtually all of the state’s commercial timber harvest. Other data sources 

(Ehinger 2012, Random Lengths 1976–2013, WWPA 1964–2013) were used to estimate attributes for firms that did not participate in the survey. Additional information from federal, state, and private sources was used to verify estimates of the total 

timber harvest, lumber production, employment, and sales value of products. 

Information collected through FIDACS is stored by the University of Montana’s 

BBER. Because of the substantial detail on the industry and its timber use, there is 

a time lag between the date of the census and the publication of this report. To make 

this report more timely, results and a summary are made available online as they 

are compiled and reviewed (http://www.bber.umt.edu/fir). In addition, key data from 

other sources are included to provide the most recent measures of general industry 

activity, and references to other publications dealing with industry conditions are 

included. Additional information is available by request. However, individual firmlevel data are confidential and will not be released.

The Operating Environment of California’s Forest 

Products Industry

The last application of the FIDACS in California detailed industry operations 

during 2006, which marked the end of several years of very high housing starts and 

record consumption of wood products in the United States (Woodall et al. 2012). 

High housing and wood products demand were fueled not just by a strong economy, 

but by easily obtained credit and low interest rates, which contributed to speculative 

new home construction. 

Annual U.S. housing starts fell from almost 2.1 million units in 2005 to 554,000 

units during 2009, their lowest level in more than six decades (fig. 1). Associated 

with the housing collapse was an economic recession—often termed the “Great 

Recession”—that officially lasted from December 2007 to June 2009 (NBER 2010), 

but the impacts on home construction and demand for lumber and other wood 

products continued. The challenging economic conditions experienced by the forest 

products industry in 2009 improved only slightly during 2010 and 2011. Housing 
3

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2012

starts in the United States grew by less than 6 percent during 2010 and 2011, failing 

to reach 610,000 and remaining among the lowest levels since annual housing 

starts began being reported in the 1950s. Lumber consumption in the United States 

remained at historically low levels during this period as well (Keegan et al. 2012). 

Through much of 2012, the economy grew slowly, with lackluster recovery in 

housing and demand for wood products. Wood product markets in late 2012 and 

2013 reflected the potential upside but also the uncertainty and volatility of recovering markets. As housing starts increased more than expected in the fourth quarter 

of 2012 and first quarter of 2013, lumber prices responded, reaching a high of over 

$435 per thousand board feet (MBF) lumber tally in March and April 2013—an 

increase of about $100 per MBF from second quarter 2012 (Random Lengths 

1976–2013). Mills throughout North America geared up and increased production 

by bringing recession-idled capacity back into operation. The additional supply 

of lumber and a mid-year cooling of the U.S. housing market drove lumber prices 

down, hitting a 2013 low of $330 per MBF in June. 

This type of volatility continued through 2013, exacerbated by strong export 

markets, although average 2013 lumber prices were the highest since 2006 (Random 

Lengths 2013). Markets are expected to continue to improve in 2014 and 2015, but 

with uncertainty in domestic homebuilding and international markets and considerable unutilized capacity to produce lumber in North America, wood products prices 

are expected to increase but remain volatile.

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

19901992

19941996

1998

2000

2002

200420062008

2010

2012

Millions of new housing starts

Year

Figure 1—United States housing starts 1980–2013. Source: USDC CB 2013.

Through much of 2012, 

the economy grew 

slowly, with lackluster 

recovery in housing 

and demand for wood 

products.
4

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-908

California’s Timber Harvest, Products, and Flow

This section discusses the ownership of California’s timberlands, historical trends 

in California’s timber harvest, and the wood products industry’s use of timber, 

focusing on the year 2012. It presents ownership and geographic sources of timber, 

species composition, types of timber harvested and processed, utilization of wood 

fiber from the harvest, and movement of timber both within California and between 

California and other states and countries.

Timber harvest data are available from several sources, including the California 

State Board of Equalization (annual) and the PNW Research Station (annual and 

periodic), and these sources were used for historical comparisons. However, the 

detailed 2012 harvest volumes presented in this report are the result of a full census 

of California and out-of-state mills receiving timber harvested in California during 

2012. Differences may exist between the numbers published here and those published by other sources. These differences are often the result of differing reporting 

units and conversion factors, rounding error, scaling discrepancies among timber 

sellers (agencies and private owners) and between sellers and buyers, and other 

reporting variations. 

California’s Timberlands

California contains approximately 99.6 million acres of land area, of which 32.8 

million acres are forested1 (Christensen et al., in press; Miles 2008). Of the total 

forest land in California, private landowners hold 12.7 million acres (39 percent), 

national forest lands account for 15.6 million acres (48 percent), and other public 

lands account for the remaining 13 percent or 4.4 million acres. About 17 million 

of the 32.8 million forested acres in California are classified as timberland. 

Timberland is forest land that is producing or capable of producing more than 20 

cubic feet of wood per acre per year at culmination of mean annual increment 

and excludes reserved lands, such as national parks and wilderness areas (Helms 

1998). Within California, national forests contain 9.1 million acres (54 percent) of 

timberland, private landowners hold approximately 7.4 million acres (43 percent), 

and the remaining 3 percent (less than 1 million acres) is held by other public 

landowners, including the USDI Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and state 

and local governments. 

1

 Forest land is defined as “land that is at least 10 percent stocked by forest trees of any 

size, or land formerly having such tree cover, and not currently developed for a nonforest 

use.”
5

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2012

California’s timberlands contained approximately 325 billion board feet Scribner of sawtimber (Christensen et al., in press). Sawtimber is timber of “sufficient 

size and quality to be suitable for conversion into lumber” (Random Lengths 1993). 

Sawtimber volume is calculated from growing-stock trees that are at least 11 inches 

diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) for hardwoods, and 9 inches d.b.h. for softwoods. 

Measured in board feet Scribner, live sawtimber on timberland consists of 92 

percent conifers and 8 percent hardwoods. By species, Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga 

menziesii (Mirb.) Franco) accounts for 32 percent of the Scribner board foot sawtimber volume on timberland. Other species contributing the majority of volume on 

timberland are true firs (Abies spp.) (22 percent), ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa

Dougl. ex Laws.) and Jeffrey pine (Pinus jeffreyi Balf.) (16 percent), redwood 

(Sequoia sempervirens (D. Don) Endl.) (8 percent), and sugar pine (Pinus lambertiana Dougl.) (5 percent). 

Harvest by Ownership

Timber harvested from California timberlands came from three broad land ownership categories: industrial timberland, nonindustrial private forest land, and public 

lands. California’s timber harvest consisted largely of Douglas-fir, true firs, ponderosa pine, redwood, and sugar pine. 

The timber volume harvested in California during 2012 was 1.4 billion board 

feet Scribner (table 1), a decline of about 17 percent from the 2006 harvest of 1.7 

billion board feet and 36 percent less than the 2000 harvest of 2.2 billion board 

feet (Morgan et al. 2004, 2012). The timber harvest during 2012 was less than 70 

percent of the average volume of the previous 20 years, and less than 45 percent of 

the 50-year average. 

As discussed in the previous section, the housing collapse and recession of 

2007–2009 reduced demand for lumber, and timber harvests dropped to record low 

levels, with less than 1 billion board feet harvested in 2009 (California State Board 

of Equalization 1978–2013). Harvest levels rebounded somewhat in the following 

years, but continue to be the lowest on record since 1947.

Private lands have provided the majority of California’s timber since the 1940s 

(fig. 2). However, during the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, as private harvest volumes 

declined, national forests became an increasingly important source of timber for 

California’s industry and reached near parity during this time period. Since the late 

1980s, both private and national forest harvests have declined with reductions in 

the harvest from national forests accounting for the majority of the difference. The 

The timber volume 

harvested in California 

during 2012 was 1.4 

billion board feet 

Scribner, a decline of 

about 17 percent from 

the 2006 harvest of 1.7 

billion board feet and 

36 percent less than 

the 2000 harvest of 2.2 

billion board feet
6

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-908

major causes of the declines in national forest timber offerings since the 1980s 

have been social, political, and legal constraints on harvesting. For more information on California’s historical timber harvest, refer to the 2006 report by Morgan 

et al. (2012).

Since 2000, the share of the harvest from industrial lands has grown from less 

than 50 percent in 2000 to 70 percent in 2012. At the same time, the share and total 

harvest from nonindustrial private lands has decreased dramatically from 35.6 

percent (800 MMBF) in 2000 to 13 percent (185 MMBF) in 2012. This latter trend 

can be attributed to a variety of factors, including changes in California’s regulatory environment dating back to the 1990s (Thompson and Dicus 2005); changes in 

Table 1—California's timber harvest by ownership class, selected years 

Ownership 2000 2006 2012

Million board feet a

Private 1,885.8 1,504.1 1,193.7

 Industrial 1,075.2 942.7 1,000.5

 Nonindustrial private 800.7 555.8 185.1

 Tribal 9.9 5.6 8.1

Public 363.9 228.9 231.7

 National forest 337.1 224.7 203.3

 State 18.6 3.5 27.9

 Bureau of Land Management 7.7 0.3 0.4

 Other public 0.5 0.4 0.1

 Total 2,249.7 1,733.1 1,425.4

 Percentage of harvest

Private 83.8 86.8 83.7

 Industrial 47.8 54.4 70.2

 Nonindustrial private 35.6 32.1 13.0

 Tribal 0.4 0.3 0.6

Public 16.2 13.2 16.3

 National forest 15.0 13.0 14.3

 State 0.8 0.2 2.0

 Bureau of Land Management 0.3 b b

 Other public b b b

 Total 100 100 100

a

 Volume in Scribner Decimal C Log Rule, eastside variant.

b

 Percentage of harvest less than 0.05.

Source: Morgan et al. 2004, 2012.
7

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2012

land ownership patterns and landowner preferences; and the recent recession and 

poor markets for wood products, which put downward pressure on the price paid 

to landowners selling logs, making harvesting financially unfeasible. Combined, 

the harvest from industrial and nonindustrial private lands in 2012 accounted for 

84 percent of the total harvest in California, even though private timberlands only 

make up 43 percent of the total timberland in the state (fig. 3). The majority of 

timberland acres and volume in the state are managed by the U.S. Forest Service 

and other public owners (e.g., the BLM and the state of California), but public lands 

accounted for only 16 percent of the total 2012 harvest. 

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

19471949

195119531955

19571959

19611963 1965

19671969

19711973

19751977

197919811983

1985

19871989199119931995

19971999

2001 2003 2005

2007 2009

2011

Timber harvest (million board feet Scribner)

Year

National forests

Bureau of Land Management

Tribal

State

Private

Figure 2—California’s timber harvest by ownership class, 1947–2012. 

Most timberland acres 

and volume in the state 

are managed by the 

U.S. Forest Service and 

other public owners, 

but public lands 

accounted for only 16 

percent of the total 

2012 harvest.
8

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-908

Harvest by Geographic Source

Six multicounty resource areas are used to describe major wood-producing regions 

in California (fig. 4): North Coast, Northern Interior, Sacramento, San Joaquin, 

Central Coast, and Southern California. In 2012, 88 percent (1.3 billion board feet 

Scribner) of California’s total timber harvest came from the North Coast, Northern 

Interior, and Sacramento regions (table 2). Historically, these regions have provided 

more than 85 percent of California’s timber harvest (Barrette et al. 1970; California 

State Board of Equalization 1978–2013; Hiserote and Howard 1978; Howard 1972, 

1984; Howard and Ward 1988, 1991; Morgan et al. 2004, 2012). The majority of the 

remaining timber harvest in 2012 came from the San Joaquin region. 

Five counties in northern California accounted for over 55 percent of California’s total timber harvest in 2012 (table 3). For the first time since 1968, Shasta 

County provided the largest proportion at 16 percent (229 MMBF), followed by 

Humboldt County with a timber harvest of 215 MMBF. Humboldt County has typically provided the largest share of the harvest, around 20 percent of the annual total. 

53.4

61.2

14.3

2.9

2.8

2.0

43.7

36.0

83.7

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Timberland area Sawtimber tree

volume

Harvested volume

Percent

National forest Other public Private and tribal

Figure 3—Characteristics of California’s timberland by ownership class, 2012. Sawtimber is timber 

of “sufficient size and quality to be suitable for conversion into lumber.”
9

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2012

Other counties that have also generally been top producers include Mendocino, 

Plumas, Shasta, Siskiyou, and Trinity (Barrette et al. 1970; Hiserote and Howard 

1978; Howard 1972, 1984; Howard and Ward 1988, 1991; Morgan et al. 2004, 2012; 

Ward 1995, 1997).

DEL

NORTE

SISKIYOU MODOC

HUMBOLDT TRINITY

SHASTA LASSEN

TEHAMA PLUMAS

BUTTE MENDOCINO GLENN SIERRA

YUBA

LAKE

NEVADA

COLUSA

SUTTER

PLACER

EL DORADO

YOLO

ALPINE SONOMA NAPA

SACRAMENTO

MONO

AMADOR

SOLANO

CALAVERAS

MARIN TUOLUMNE SAN

JOAQUIN CONTRA

COSTA

STANISLAUS

SAN

FRANCISCO

ALAMEDA MARIPOSA

MADERA

SAN

MATEO

MERCED

FRESNO

SANTA

CLARA

INYO

SANTA

CRUZ

SAN

BENITO

MONTEREY TULARE

KINGS

SAN

BERNARDINO

KERN SAN LUIS

OBISPO

SANTA

BARBARA

VENTURA LOS

ANGELES

RIVERSIDE ORANGE

IMPERIAL

SAN

DIEGO

North

Coast

Boundaries

Indian reservations

Bureau of Land Management

Bureau of Reclamation

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

U.S. Forest Service

National Park Service

State

Counties

0 20 40 80 160 

Miles

o

Northern

Interior

Sacramento

San

Joaq uin

Central

Coast

Southern

California

Figure 4—California’s forest resource areas.
10

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-908

Table 2—California’s timber harvest by county, selected 

2000 2006 2012

2000 percentage 2006 percentage 2012 percentage

Resource area volumea of total volumea of total volumea of total

Million Million Million

board feet Percent board feet Percent board feet Percent

Central Coast:

 Napa — — 0.3 b — —

 San Benito — — 0.1 b — —

 San Mateo 5.6 0.3 4.4 0.3 4.5 0.3

 Santa Clara 4.2 0.2 4.4 0.3 3.5 0.2

 Santa Cruz 19.6 0.9 9.7 0.6 15.7 1.1

 Total Central Coast 29.4 1.3 18.8 1.1 23.7 1.7 

North Coast:

 Del Norte 50.4 2.2 17.6 1.0 19.3 1.4

 Humboldt 435.3 19.3 345.7 19.9 215.1 15.1

 Mendocino 193.5 8.6 123.1 7.1 108.8 7.6

 Sonoma 28.1 1.2 9.9 0.6 8.2 0.6

 Total North Coast 707.2 31.4 496.3 28.6 351.4 24.6 

Northern Interior:

 Lassen 69.3 3.1 77.9 4.5 83.8 5.9

 Modoc 49.9 2.2 26.3 1.5 46.2 3.2

 Shasta 194.3 8.6 209.0 12.1 229.1 16.1

 Siskiyou 209.7 9.3 196.0 11.3 147.9 10.4

 Trinity 99.6 4.4 98.0 5.7 60.4 4.2

 Total Northern 622.6 27.7 607.2 35.0 567.5 39.8

Interior:

 Sacramento:

 Butte 86.4 3.8 89.2 5.1 52.5 3.7

 El Dorado 106.7 4.7 99.1 5.7 50.1 3.5

 Glenn 24.7 1.1 4.9 0.3 3.6 0.2

 Lake 9.6 0.4 1.6 0.1 b b
11

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2012

Table 2—California’s timber harvest by county, selected (continued)

2000 2006 2012

2000 percentage 2006 percentage 2012 percentage

Resource area volumea of total volumea of total volumea of total

Million Million Million

board feet Percent board feet Percent board feet Percent

 Nevada 59.6 2.6 39.4 2.3 19.0 1.3

 Placer 40.4 1.8 47.4 2.7 21.4 1.5

 Plumas 193.8 8.6 122.4 7.1 82.3 5.8

 Sierra 33.1 1.5 16.3 0.9 30.5 2.1

 Tehama 105.3 4.7 45.7 2.6 62.6 4.4

 Yolo 2.6 0.1 — — — —

 Yuba 36.9 1.6 7.2 0.4 20.9 1.5

 Total Sacramento 699.0 31.1 473.3 27.3 342.8 24.0

 San Joaquin:

 Alpine — — b b — — 

 Amador 22.8 1.0 28.7 1.7 13.5 0.9

 Calaveras 67.0 3.0 34.9 2.0 41.4 2.9

 Fresno 19.8 0.9 5.9 0.3 6.8 0.5

 Kern 3.6 0.2 — — 2.8 0.2

 Madera 4.8 0.2 0.1 b 16.2 1.1

 Mariposa 3.6 0.2 3.7 0.2 4.5 0.3

 Merced 0.3 b — — — — 

 Tulare 8.9 0.4 7.7 0.4 5.0 0.3

 Tuolumne 60.7 2.7 47.2 2.7 45.2 3.2

 Total San Joaquin 191.4 8.5 128.1 7.4 135.3 9.5

Southern California:

 Inyo — — — — 3.4 0.2

 San Bernardino — — 9.55 0.55 1.2 0.1

 Total Southern California 0 0 9.6 0.6 4.6 0.3 

State total 2,249.7 100 1,733.1 100 1,425.4 100 

— = year in which no harvest volume was reported for this county. a

 Volume in Scribner Decimal C Log Rule, east-side variant.

b

 Volume is less than 0.05 million board feet or percentage of total harvest is less than 0.05 percent. 

Source: Morgan et al. 2004, 2012.
12

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-908

Table 3—Percentage of total harvest for California's leading timber harvest counties, 1968–2012 

Percentage Percentage

County Volumea of total County Volumea of total

Million board feet Percent Million board feet Percent 

1972: 1992:

 Humboldt 1,079.0 19.9 Humboldt 502.2 15.6

 Mendocino 523.1 9.6 Mendocino 271.6 8.5

 Siskiyou 518.7 9.5 El Dorado 195.1 6.1

 Del Norte 354.5 6.5 Lassen 158.8 4.9

 Trinity 349.9 6.4 Shasta 142.9 4.4

 Total county 2,825.2 52.0 Total county 1,270.6 39.5

California total 5,435.2 California total 3,214.0

1976: 1994:

 Humboldt 1,073.3 22.7 Humboldt 559.6 19.7

 Mendocino 489.2 10.3 Plumas 163.5 5.8

 Shasta 359.3 7.6 Shasta 147.5 5.2

 Siskiyou 337.1 7.1 Lassen 123.3 4.3

 Del Norte 236.4 5.0 Trinity 117.2 4.1

 Total county 2,495.3 52.7 Total county 1,111.1 39.1

California total 4,731.0 California total 2,839.0

1982: 2000:

 Humboldt 456.2 18.3 Humboldt 435.3 19.3

 Mendocino 448.1 17.9 Siskiyou 209.7 9.3

 Plumas 164.7 6.6 Shasta 194.3 8.6

 Trinity 161.2 6.5 Plumas 193.8 8.6

 Tehama 148.3 5.9 Mendocino 193.5 8.6

 Total county 1,378.5 55.2 Total county 1,226.6 54.5

California total 2,497.0 California total 2,249.7

1985: 2006:

 Humboldt 608.1 15.0 Humboldt 345.7 20.0

 Mendocino 435.1 10.7 Shasta 209.0 12.1

 Shasta 204.1 5.0 Siskiyou 196.0 11.3

 Plumas 202.2 5.0 Mendocino 123.1 7.1

 Siskiyou 201.8 5.0 Plumas 122.4 7.1

 Total county 1,651.3 40.7 Total county 996.2 57.5

California total 4,056.0 California total 1,733.1

1988: 2012:

 Humboldt 769.0 15.9 Shasta 229.1 16.1

 Mendocino 499.1 10.3 Humboldt 215.1 15.1

 Siskiyou 295.6 6.1 Siskiyou 147.9 10.4

 Trinity 272.1 5.6 Mendocino 108.8 7.6

 Plumas 271.5 5.6 Lassen 83.8 5.9

 Total county 2,107.3 43.5 Total county 784.7 55.1

California total 4,840.0 California total 1,425.4

Source: Barrette et al. (1970), Hiserote and Howard (1978), Howard (1974, 1984), Howard and Ward (1988, 1991), Morgan et al. (2004, 

2012), Ward (1995, 1997).

a

 Volume in Scribner Decimal C Log Rule, east-side variant.
13

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2012

Harvest by Species

During 2012, Douglas-fir, true firs, ponderosa pine, redwood, and sugar pine were 

the most commonly harvested tree species, accounting for 93 percent of California’s 

total harvest volume (table 4). These species have dominated California’s harvest, 

consistently accounting for 85 percent or more of the total (table 5). Douglas-fir 

returned to become the leading tree species harvested in 2012, after falling to 

second place in 2006. However, the trend toward increasing the proportion of 

true firs being harvested continued in 2012, with only a slight decrease from 28 

to 27 percent. These recent changes are in line with long-term trends, which show 

proportionate decreases in the volume of redwood and increases in the volume of 

true firs harvested with the pines maintaining a relatively consistent share.

Harvest by Product Type

Products directly manufactured from timber are referred to as primary products. 

These include lumber, plywood, veneer, posts and poles, pilings and timbers, house 

logs, and log furniture. Products made from chipping or grinding timber, as well as 

from the residues (e.g., bark, sawdust, and planer shavings) generated in the production of primary products, also are included. These reconstituted primary products 

include pulp and paper, particleboard, medium-density fiberboard, hardboard, fuel 

pellets, and bioenergy. Other primary products made from mill residues include 

decorative bark, mulch, soil amendments, and animal bedding. 

Table 4—California's timber harvest by species, 2012

Percentage

Species Volumea of total

Million 

board feet Percent

Douglas-fir 405.2 28.4

True firs 380.2 26.7

Ponderosa pine 251.1 17.6

Redwood 209.0 14.7

Sugar pine 86.4 6.1

Incense-cedar 70.1 4.9

Lodgepole pine 14.7 1.0

Western hemlock 4.0 0.3

Other softwoodsb 3.4 0.2

Hardwoods 1.4 0.1

 All species 1,425.4 100

a

 Volume in Scribner Decimal C Log Rule, east-side variant.

b

 Other softwoods include Jeffrey pine, spruces, giant sequoia, and other 

coniferous species.

Douglas-fir, true 

firs, ponderosa 

pine, redwood, and 

sugar pine were the 

most commonly 

harvested tree species, 

accounting for 93 

percent of California’s 

total harvest volume.
14

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-908

Timber harvested in California in 2012 falls into four general timber product 

categories: sawlogs (timber used to produce lumber and other sawn products), 

veneer logs (timber sliced or peeled to make veneer for plywood or laminated 

veneer lumber), bioenergy (timber burned industrially to generate electricity or 

steam), and other products. Timber harvested for export is addressed separately 

under the “Timber Flow” section of this report.

Sawlogs accounted for 83 percent (1,180 MMBF) of the harvest in 2012, marking the smallest proportion on record. Historically, sawlogs have accounted for 

more than 85 percent of the total annual harvest (table 6). Veneer logs accounted for 

10 percent of the total harvest through the 1970s. Since the 1980s, however, veneer 

logs have accounted for only 4 to 8 percent of California’s annual timber harvest 

with the 2012 veneer log harvest at 8 percent.

Generally, timber harvested for products other than lumber and veneer has 

represented a small portion of California’s annual total harvest. Bioenergy has 

been an expanding use of California’s timber in recent years, with 8 percent (116 

MMBF) of the harvest volume delivered to bioenergy producers in 2012—up from 

only 3.6 percent (62 MMBF) in 2006 and 2.4 percent (55 MMBF) in 2000. Prior to 

2000, mill surveys did not identify timber harvested specifically to produce energy. 

Pulpwood has historically accounted for less than 2 percent of the annual harvest 

volume because of the pulp and board sector’s heavy reliance on mill residues. In 

2009, California’s last remaining pulp mill in Samoa was closed, resulting in the 

first census without any pulpwood harvested. Logs harvested for other products 

Table 5—Percentage of California's timber harvest by species, 1968–2012a

Species 1968 1972 1976 1982 1985 1988 1992 1994 2000 2006 2012

 Percent

True firs 22.4 21.8 19.9 21.1 22.0 23.0 22.9 25.6 19.0 28.3 26.7

Douglas-fir 32.2 26.9 27.4 22.9 24.1 26.5 23.2 26.7 27.6 24.2 28.4

Ponderosa and 23.7 25.3 25.4 27.0 26.3 26.9 23.4 22.0 23.8 23.1 23.7

 sugar pine

Redwood 18.2 18.7 19.5 24.3 22.6 18.2 24.9 21.9 16.7 14.3 14.7

Other softwoodsb 3.3 3.0 3.6 0.5 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3 7.7 5.4 1.5

Incense-cedar c 4.1 4.1 3.9 3.0 3.7 4.3 2.4 4.7 4.8 4.9

Hardwoods 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.5 d d 0.5 d d

 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

a

 Harvest for years prior to 2000 does not include timber delivered to out-of-state mills.

b

 Other softwoods include western hemlock, lodgepole pine, spruces, and other coniferous species.

c

 Included in “Other softwoods.”

d

 Less than 0.05 percent.

Source: Barrette et al. 1970; Hiserote and Howard 1978; Howard 1974, 1984; Howard and Ward 1988, 1991; Morgan et al. 2004, 2012; 

Ward 1995, 1997.
15

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2012

such as utility poles, firewood, small posts and poles, and house log components, 

have accounted for less than 3 percent of the annual harvest. 

Product Type by Ownership Class

As discussed earlier, most of the volume harvested in 2012 came from private 

timberlands (table 7). Sawlogs were the most harvested product from all ownership 

groups. However, this product type experienced the steepest declines of any category (-23 percent), compared to veneer and other logs (-9 percent) and an increase

of 186 percent in the harvest for bioenergy. In 2012, industrial lands provided the 

majority (72 percent) of California’s saw, veneer, and other log harvest, compared to 

only 54 percent in 2006. Conversely, industrial lands contributed 55 percent (64.2 

MMBF) of bioenergy logs, compared to 73 percent (45 MMBF) in 2006. Public 

lands, primarily national forests, made up the remaining volume of bioenergy logs, 

with 51.9 MMBF or 45 percent, up from only 21 percent in 2006. 

Product Type by Species

In 2012, Douglas-fir and true firs were the species most harvested across all products (table 8). The harvest of true firs for veneer and other products increased since 

2006 from 32 MMBF to 56 MMBF, while all other species declined. Whereas other 

softwoods were the leading species harvested for bioenergy in 2006, Douglas-fir, 

true firs, and ponderosa pine accounted for the majority (83 percent) of the harvest 

for bioenergy in 2012. Similarly to 2006, hardwoods comprised very little (less than 

2 percent) of the 2012 harvest and were primarily used for bioenergy. 

Table 6—Percentage of California's timber harvest by product type, 1968–2012a

Product type 1968 1972 1976 1982 1985 1988 1992 1994 2000 2006 2012

Percent

Sawlogs 86 86 86 91.2 92 92.5 99.3 92.9 89.8 88.1 82.8

Veneer logs 10 12 11.5 6.1 5 4.7 b 5.2 7.4 8.0 8.4

Pulpwood 1 1.5 0.1 1.1 0.8 1.1 c c c c —

Otherd 3 0.5 2.4 1.6 2.2 1.7 0.7 1.9 0.4 <0.3 0.6

Bioenergy e e e e e e e e 2.4 3.6 8.2

 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

— = no reported data. a

 Harvest for years prior to 2000 does not include timber delivered to out-of-state mills.

b

 Included in “sawlogs.”

c

 Included in “other.”

d

 Includes utility poles, houselogs, log furniture, firewood, shakes and shingles, post and poles, and log exports; does not include bioenergy.

e

 Not reported prior to 2000.

Source: Barrette et al. 1970; Hiserote and Howard 1978; Howard 1974, 1984; Howard and Ward 1988, 1991; Morgan et al. 2004, 2012; 

Ward 1995, 1997.
16

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-908

Timber Flow

This section briefly details the movement of timber among California’s wood-producing regions, resource areas, and individual counties, as well as between California, other states, and other countries. Because this study tracks timber flowing into 

and out of the state, there are slight differences in the amount of timber harvested 

versus that received by facilities in the state.

In 2012, California’s sawmill, veneer, and other plants received 1,393 MMBF 

of logs (table 9). Of that volume, 83 percent came from private timberlands, about 

15 percent from national forests, and 2 percent from other ownerships. Bioenergy 

facilities in California received about 116 MMBF (1.45 million bone-dry tons) of 

timber, in addition to mill residue. Approximately 55 percent of the timber received 

by bioenergy facilities came from industrial lands, about 37 percent from national 

forests, and the rest from nonindustrial private and other public sources. The 

residue-utilizing sector (i.e., reconstituted board and decorative bark facilities) did 

not receive any timber and used mill residues exclusively for their raw material. 

The period from 2006 to 2012 marked a reversal in many timber flow trends. 

Most of the timber used by California’s primary wood products industry was 

harvested from within the state. California timber-processing facilities received 

nearly 1.4 billion board feet Scribner of timber in 2012. Slightly less than 4 MMBF, 

Table 7—California’s timber harvest by ownership class and product type, 2012.

Ownership source Sawlogs Veneer and othera Bioenergy All products

Million board feetb

Private timberlands: 1,008.6 112.6 64.5 1,185.6

 Industrial 848.4 88.0 64.2 1,000.5

 Nonindustrial and tribal 160.2 24.6 0.3 185.1

Public timberlands: 171.1 16.8 51.9 239.8

 National forests 144.1 16.8 42.4 203.3

 Other public 27.0 — 9.4 36.5

 Total 1,179.7 129.3 116.3 1,425.4

Percent

Private timberlands: 85.5 87.0 55.4 83.2

 Industrial 71.9 68.0 55.1 70.2

 Nonindustrial and tribal 13.6 19.0 0.3 13.0

Public timberlands: 14.5 13.0 44.6 16.8

 National forests 12.2 13.0 36.5 14.3

 Other public 2.3 — 8.1 2.6

 Total 100 100 100 100

— = no reported data. a

 Other product types include house logs, firewood, furniture logs, and utility poles.

b

 Volume in Scribner Decimal C Log Rule, east-side variant.
17

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2012

or less than 0.05 percent, of timber processed in California came from out of state, 

a significant decrease from the 126.5 MMBF of timber imported from other states 

in 2006. Conversely, 36.2 MMBF (3 percent) of California’s timber harvest was 

shipped out of state to be processed (table 10), down from 66.6 MMBF in 2006. 

More than 99 percent of the timber that flowed into California and all the timber 

that flowed out were saw and veneer logs. These volumes do not include logs 

exported internationally from California’s customs districts (see “International and 

interstate timber flow” section). 

Intrastate timber flow—

This section briefly examines the flow of California timber to mills within the state. 

Several counties have too few timber-processing facilities to avoid disclosure of 

firm-level data, so individual county statistics are not reported for all counties 

(table 11). 

Table 8—California’s timber harvest by species and product type, 2012

 Veneer All

Species Sawlogs and othera Bioenergy products

Million board feet b

Douglas-fir 319.4 51.7 34.1 405.2

True firs 290.1 55.5 34.6 380.2

Ponderosa pine 209.9 13.6 27.6 251.1

Redwood 208.8 0.2 — 209.0

Sugar pine 76.7 3.9 5.9 86.4

Incense-cedar 65.6 0.1 4.3 70.1

Other softwoodsc 5.3 4.4 8.5 18.2

Western hemlock 4.0 — — 4.0

Hardwoods d — 1.3 1.3

 All species 1,179.7 129.4 116.3 1,425.4

Percentage of total

Douglas-fir 27.1 40.0 29.3 28.4

True firs 24.6 42.9 29.7 26.7

Ponderosa pine 17.8 10.5 23.7 17.6

Redwood 17.7 0.1 — 14.7

Sugar pine 6.5 3.0 5.1 6.1

Incense-cedar 5.6 0.1 3.7 4.9

Other softwoodsd 0.4 3.4 7.3 1.3

Western hemlock 0.3 — — 0.3

Hardwoods d — 1.1 0.1

 All species 100 100 100 100

— = no reported data. a

 Other product types include house logs, firewood, log furniture, and utility poles.

b

 Volumes in Scribner Decimal C Log Rule, east-side variant.

c

 Includes lodgepole pine, Jeffrey pine, giant sequoia, and western redcedar.

d

 Values less than 0.1 thousand board feet.
18

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-908

As a result of the Great Recession and weak lumber markets, timber did not 

travel as far as in previous census years, and importation of timber from other states 

was minimal. During 2012, 49 percent of harvested timber was processed in its 

county of harvest, and approximately 87 percent was processed in the resource area 

of harvest (see fig. 4). This was a reversal from previous trends in which the proportion of timber processed within its county of harvest declined from 74 percent in 

1968 to 46 percent in 2006. Likewise, the proportion of timber processed within 

its resource area of harvest had dropped from 92 to 82 percent (Barrette et al.1970, 

Morgan et al. 2012). 

Table 9—California timber receipts by ownership class and product, 2012

Ownership source Sawlogs Veneer and othera Bioenergy All products

Million board feet b

Private timberlands: 1,003.4 93.5 64.5 1,161.3

 Industrial 837.4 88.0 64.2 989.5

 Nonindustrial and tribal 166.0 5.5 0.3 171.8

 Public timberlands: 163.3 16.4 51.9 231.6

 National forests 144.4 14.8 42.4 201.6

 Other public 19.0 1.6 9.4 30.0

 Total 1,166.7 109.9 116.3 1,392.9

Percentage of total

Private timberlands: 86.0 85.1 55.4 83.4

 Industrial 71.8 80.1 55.1 71.0

 Nonindustrial and tribal 14.2 5.0 0.3 12.3

 Public timberlands: 14.0 14.9 44.6 16.6

 National forests 12.4 13.5 36.5 14.5

 Other public 1.6 1.4 8.1 2.2

 Total 100 100 100 100

a

 Other product types include house logs, firewood, log furniture, and utility poles.

b

 Volumes in Scribner Decimal C Log Rule, east-side variant.

Table 10—Interstate timber flow into and out of California, 2012

Log flow Log flow

Timber products into California out of California

Million board feet a

Saw and veneer logs 3.6 36.2 

Other logs <0.1 —

 Total 3.7 36.2 

— = no volume reported. a

 Volume in Scribner Decimal C Log Rule, east-side variant.

During 2012, 49 percent 

of harvested timber 

was processed in its 

county of harvest, 

and approximately 87 

percent was processed 

in the resource area of 

harvest.
19

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2012

Timber harvest volume not processed within its county or resource area of 

origin has tended to be delivered to mills in the north or western parts of the state 

or to Oregon. This trend continued in 2012 with the Northern Interior resource area 

shipping the largest volume of timber to be processed out-of-area, mostly to Oregon 

and the Sacramento resource area. 

International and interstate timber flows—

Interstate and international timber flow trends also experienced significant change. 

In contrast with previous years, mills participating in the 2012 survey did not report 

using any foreign timber, whereas during 2000 and 2006, California timber processors used 20.6 MMBF and 59.7 MMBF of timber from Canada, respectively. This 

trend is consistent with the overall reduction in the distance timber travelled during 

2012 compared to 2000 and 2006. Reports prior to 2000 do not indicate any timber 

entering California from international sources, although timber entering California 

from other states increased substantially from the late 1960s through the 1990s 

(Barrette et al. 1970; Hiserote and Howard 1978; Howard 1972, 1984; Howard and 

Ward 1991; Ward 1995, 1997). 

Table 11—California timber flow by resource area, 2012

Receiving area

North Coast San Joaquind

and Central Northern and Southern

Harvest area Coasta Interiorb Sacramentoc Californiae Out of state Total harvest

Million board feet Scribner

North Coast and 348.8 22.6 1.1 0.3 2.3 375.1

Central Coasta

Northern Interiorb 12.7 466.1 78.7 — 9.9 567.5

Sacramentoc — 47.6 292.7 1.9 — 342.3

San Joaquind — — 7.6 127.7 — 135.3

Southern Californiae — — — 4.6 — 4.6

Out of statef — 1.8 1.9 — N/A 3.7

 Total received 361.5 538.1 382.0 134.6 12.2

— = no reported data.

N/A = not applicable.

a

 North Coast and Central Coast regions are combined to avoid disclosure; North Coast includes Del Norte, Humboldt, Mendocino, and Sonoma 

Counties, and Central Coast includes Napa, Solano, Marin, Contra Costa, Alameda, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, San Benito, 

and Monterey Counties.

b

 Northern Interior region includes Lassen, Modoc, Siskiyou, Shasta, and Trinity Counties.

c

 Sacramento region includes Butte, Colusa, El Dorado, Glenn, Lake, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Sacramento, Sierra, Sutter, Tehama, Yolo, and Yuba 

Counties.

d

 San Joaquin region includes Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, Merced, Mono, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Tulare, 

and Tuolumne Counties.

e

 Southern California region includes Imperial, Inyo, Los Angeles, Orange, San Luis Obispo, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Santa Barbara, 

and Ventura Counties.

f

 Out-of-state region includes Oregon and Nevada.
20

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-908

According to Zhou (2013), the U.S. International Trade Commission, and other 

sources, during the last 4 years California customs districts experienced significant 

growth in international forest product exports across multiple sectors (fig. 5). To 

identify these changing export trends by product type and destination, export data 

were analyzed from a resource bulletin published by Zhou (2013). The export data 

assessed from this resource bulletin originated from data supplied by the U.S. 

International Trade Commission and the U.S. Department of Commerce. Note that 

these data reflect forest product volumes and values that were exported through

California customs districts. These customs districts encompass selected ports in 

their surrounding regions. What is not known is how much of the forest product 

volumes and values originated from timber harvested or products manufactured in 

California. For this reason, volumes and trends in this section are discussed separately from the FIDACS mill census data.

0

50

100

150

200

250

1961

1963

1965

1967

1969

1971

1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

19831985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

19992001

2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

Log exports (million board feet, Scribner) 

from California ports

Year

Figure 5—California log exports, 1961–2012. Source: Zhou 2013. 

During 2012, softwood log exports through California ports totaled about 49 

MMBF, representing a 145-percent increase from 2009 (table 12) (Zhou 2013). 

Nearly 43 MMBF of the softwood log volume are estimated to have been exported 

by the San Francisco customs district, with the remaining 6 MMBF leaving from 
21

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2012

districts in San Diego and Los Angeles. The primary destination for California’s 

softwood log exports was China, which received more than 99 percent of the 

volume. Hardwood logs exported through California in 2012 totaled about 28 

MMBF. About 87 percent of the hardwood log volumes left through the customs 

districts in San Diego and Los Angeles, with the remaining amount attributed to 

the San Francisco customs district. The primary destinations for the hardwood 

log exports were China and Japan, receiving 33 percent and 28 percent of the total 

volume, respectively. The average value of hardwood logs exports from California 

in 2012 was $2,373 per MBF (Zhou 2013). Total international log exports through 

California customs districts during 2012 (77 MMBF) represent a volume equivalent 

to 5 percent of California’s total timber harvest.

Softwood lumber exports through California ports during 2012 totaled about 

194 MMBF, representing growth of 78 percent from 2009. About 58 percent of this 

volume left through ports in the San Diego and Los Angeles customs districts, with 

the remaining being exported by the San Francisco customs district. The primary 

destination was China, representing about 21 percent of the total softwood lumber 

export volume (Zhou 2013). Softwood lumber exports through California ports in 

2012 were equivalent to roughly 10 percent of California lumber production; however, the export data do not indicate where the lumber was actually manufactured. 

Once again, the log and lumber exports discussed here may originate from any 

location in the United States and merely indicate the changing volumes of material 

being exported through California and other west coast ports. 

Table 12—California forest products maritime exports by product type, 2009–2012

Forest product type 2009 2010 2011 2012

Softwood logs (MMBF Scribner)a 20 38 69 49

Softwood lumber (MMBF lumber tally)a 109 122 223 194

Plywood (MMSF)b 58 54 58 79

Wood chips (Short tons)c 8,971 19,991 24,116 40,140

2012 dollars

Softwood logs average value per MBFa 653 504 593 505

Softwood lumber average value per MBFa 685 753 560 610

Plywood average value per MSFb 422 391 382 411

Wood chips average value per short tonc 43 47 48 40

a

 MBF = thousand board feet; MMBF = million board feet.

b

 MSF = thousand square feet; MMSF = million square feet. 

c

 Short ton = 2,000 lbs.
22

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-908

End Uses of California’s 2012 Timber Harvest

This section traces California’s timber harvest through the various primary processing sectors. Timber, primary wood products, and mill residues from manufacturing 

are commonly quantified in different units of measure. Timber inputs are generally 

reported in board feet Scribner west-side or east-side log rule. Volumes of mill 

outputs are provided in the measurement unit common to each product, such as 

board feet lumber tally or square feet of plywood 3/8-inch basis. Mill residue is 

commonly reported in bone-dry units (BDU) or bone-dry tons (BDT). In this section, all volumes are expressed in cubic feet because expressing input, output, and 

residue volumes in a common unit of measure allows for more complete accounting 

of wood fiber from harvest through primary processing. 

In this report, 1 BDU of residue is assumed to contain 96 cubic feet of wood; 

1,000 board feet (MBF) lumber tally is assumed to contain approximately 60 cubic 

feet of wood; and board-foot-Scribner-to-cubic conversions for timber vary by 

timber product type, which reflect log size and quality. See Keegan et al. (2010a, 

2010b) for more detail on the conversions and relationships of timber, lumber, and 

mill residue volumes.

The following conversion factors were developed using log size specifications 

as well as product and residue recovery information developed from the 2012 mill 

survey in California:

• 5.44 board feet per cubic foot for sawlogs

• 5.0 board feet per cubic foot for veneer and other logs

• 1.0 board feet per cubic foot for bioenergy logs

To help clarify how board feet are related to cubic feet in the context of milling 

operations, consider this example:

Examining California’s sawmill sector, the estimated recovery of board feet 

lumber tally per board feet Scribner achieved by California sawmills in 2012 was 

1.63. Based on this recovery, 1,000 board feet (1 MBF) Scribner of logs would 

yield 1,630 board feet lumber tally of dry planed lumber. Assuming that 1 MBF 

of lumber contains 60 cubic feet (57.5 cubic feet of lumber and 2.5 cubic feet lost 

to shrinkage after milling), 1.63 MBF lumber tally would contain 1.63 × 60 = 97.8 

cubic feet of solid wood. The remainder of the log inside bark would be in various 

forms of mill residue (excluding bark). The average for all sawmills in California 

in 2012 was 0.55 BDUs of mill residue in the form of sawdust, planer shavings, and 

chippable residue. A BDU of residue is 2,400 lbs of oven-dry wood and contains 96 

cubic feet of solid wood fiber. A recovery of 1.63 MBF of lumber generates 1.63 × 

0.55 × 96 = 86 cubic feet of total residue. The residue and the green lumber together 
23

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2012

account for all of the wood fiber in the 1,000 board feet Scribner of logs used to 

produce lumber. There are therefore 183.9 cubic feet of solid wood in the average 

sawlog processed in California, yielding 1,000/183.9 = 5.44 board feet Scribner per 

cubic foot of logs processed into lumber. This board foot/cubic foot ratio was used 

to calculate the volume of cubic feet in California’s sawlog harvest. See Keegan 

et al. (2010a) for more detail on the calculation of cubic feet in a given board foot 

volume of logs.

Figure 6 outlines timber flows by sector beginning with total statewide harvest 

and ending with finished primary products. California’s 2012 timber harvest was 

approximately 360 million cubic feet (MMCF) of bole (wood) volume and 61 

MMCF of bark that went to timber-processors and residue-utilizing facilities both 

within and outside the state. Of this volume, approximately 217 MMCF (60 percent 

of bole volume) went to sawmills and was processed into lumber and other sawn 

products, and about 27 MMCF (7 percent of bole volume) went to veneer and other 

products such as utility poles, log furniture, and firewood (fig. 6). An additional 17.4 

MMCF of residue from the sawmill, veneer, and other sectors flowed to pulp and 

board plants in California, Oregon, and Washington. Bioenergy plants producing 

electricity received 116 MMCF of timber and 32.5 MMCF of mill residue from 

other plants processing California timber, accounting for 41 percent of total cubic 

bole volume harvested. An additional 37 MMCF of residue from sawmills and other 

primary processors was utilized onsite for heat and steam generation. 

Of the 217 MMCF of timber received by sawmills, 110 MMCF (51 percent 

of bole volume) became finished lumber, and about 5 MMCF was lost to lumber 

shrinkage, with 101 MMCF remaining as mill residue. Most of the mill residue 

generated by sawmills processing California timber was used to produce energy, 

both internally (34.3 MMCF) and at bioenergy facilities (29.6 MMCF). An additional 21.5 MMCF was sold to landscape material manufacturers. The majority of 

the remaining mill residue went to pulp and board facilities in California and other 

states (16 MMCF). A very small amount, less than 0.2 MMCF, of residue from 

processing California timber into lumber, was unused in 2012. 

During 2012, 27 MMCF of wood fiber was delivered to veneer and other facilities in California. These facilities produced 16.8 MMCF of finished product, with 

2.9 MMCF of residue going to bioenergy plants, 3 MMCF used for landscaping, 1.4 

MMCF going to board plants, and 2.7 MMCF used for internal energy. Since 2006, 

the proportion of wood fiber from California used by the bioenergy sector, both in 

the form of roundwood and mill residue, nearly doubled. 

Forty-one percent of 

the total cubic bole 

volume harvested in 

California was used 

by bioenergy plants to 

produce electricity.
24

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-908

Total harvest

Bole 360 MMCF

Bark 60.5 MMCF

Sawmils

Bole 216.9 MMCF

Bark 40.7 MMCF

Veneer and other productsa

Bole 26.8 MMCF

Bark 5.8 MMCF

Pulp and board

0 MMCF

Bioenergy

Bole 116.3 MMCF

Bark 14 MMCFb

Residue to bioenergy

39.4 MMCF

Internal energy

7.1 MMCF

Shrinkage

5.2 MMCF

Finished dry lumber

110.2 MMCF

Veneer and other products

16.8 MMCF

Raw material 

for pulp and 

board products

17.4 MMCF

Bioenergy

172.7 MMCF

a Other products include utility poles, log furniture, and firewood.

b

 Estimated.

Residue to bioenergy

3.0 MMCF

Residue to board

16.0 MMCF

Residue to board

1.4 MMCF

Unutilized

residue

<0.02 MMCF

Landscaping,

mulch, animal

bedding, and 

other products

37.4 MMCF

Internal energy

49.3 MMCF

Landscaping

and other

4.3 MMCF

Figure 6—Utilization of California’s timber harvest, 2012. MMCF = million cubic feet.
25

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2012

In total, 421 MMCF of wood fiber, including bark, was harvested from California timberlands in 2012. The timber was utilized as follows:

• 110 MMCF became finished lumber.

• 229 MMCF were used to generate biomass energy, usually in the form of 

steam or electricity.

• 17 MMCF were used as raw material to produce pulp and paper or reconstituted board products such as particleboard or medium-density fiberboard 

(MDF).

• 17 MMCF became veneer and other products such as utility poles, log 

furniture, and firewood.

• 42 MMCF went to other uses such as animal bedding, decorative bark or 

mulch.

• 5 MMCF were lost in shrinkage from green to dry lumber. 

Figure 7a demonstrates the final disposition of wood fiber harvested in California during 2012 and figure 7b demonstrates the final disposition of residues generated by California’s primary wood products sector (including bark).

Figure 7—(A) Final disposition of wood harvested in California by industry sector, 2012; (B) final disposition of mill 

residue in California, 2012. In chart A, values total more than 100 because of rounding.

32%

52%

5%

7%

5%

Lumber and shrinkage

Biomass energy, including heat

Veneer and other products

Landscaping, mulch, animal bedding

Pulp and board

63%

26%

11%

Biomass energy, including heat

Landscaping, mulch, animal bedding

Pulp and board

A B
26

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-908

California’s Forest Products Industry

The 2012 FIDACS census identified 77 active primary wood and paper products 

facilities in California, consistent with the 77 in 2006, but significantly down from 

262 operational facilities in 1968 (table 13; fig. 8). The bulk of the losses over the 

past 44 years have occurred in the lumber-producing (i.e., sawmill), veneer and 

plywood, and pulp and board sectors. Conversely, there has been an increase in 

the bioenergy and “Other” sectors owing in part to diversified markets, changes in 

resource utilization and availability, and advancements in manufacturing technology. Since the 2006 mill census, the state lost three sawmills and three pulp and 

board facilities, but gained one bioenergy facility, one decorative bark facility, and 

four facilities falling in the “Other” category. More detail on individual sectors is 

provided in the subsequent discussion.

The higher number of timber-processing facilities in 2000 versus the 1994 

survey was due primarily to the inclusion of the bioenergy and decorative bark sectors in the 2000 and 2006 censuses, offsetting declines in the number of sawmills 

and pulp and board facilities (Morgan et al. 2004, Ward 1997). Further, efforts to 

conduct a more comprehensive census of the industry occurred between 2000 and 

2012, thus capturing a higher percentage and number of smaller mills and “Other” 

facilities. Although this change in research protocol may have resulted in finding 

more mills, the downward trends in the number of facilities, volume of timber 

processed, and capacity have continued through present time, mirroring trends in 

other Western States. Explanations for these trends include:

• A steep reduction in available timber supply resulting from reduced harvest 

levels on federal and nonindustrial private lands.

Both the 2006 and 2012 

censuses identified 

77 active primary 

wood products 

manufacturers, but 

the composition of the 

industry has changed 

considerably.

Table 13—Active California primary wood products facilities by sector, 1968–2012 

Industry sector 1968 1972 1976 1982 1985 1988 1992 1994 2000 2006 2012

Sawmills 216 176 142 101 89 93 56 53 47 33 30

Veneer and plywood 26 25 21 10 6 6 3 4 2 2 2

Pulp and board 17 18 7 10 11 11 9 12 7 4 1

Bioenergy b b b b b b b b 25 25 26

Decorative bark b b b b b b b b 10 10 11

Other a 3 13 13 9 9 9 5 6 2 3 7

 Total 262 232 183 130 115 119 73 75 93 77 77

a

 Other includes log home accent producers, shake and shingle manufacturers, fuel pellet producers, as well as post, pole, and piling manufacturers. 

b

 Data unavailable for bioenergy and decorative bark sectors for 1968–1994.

Source: Barrette et al. 1970; Hiserote and Howard 1978; Howard 1974, 1984; Howard and Ward 1988, 1991; Morgan et al. 2004, 2012; Ward 1995, 1997. 
27

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2012

Figure 8—California’s active timber-processing facilities, 2012.

DEL

NORTE

SISKIYOU MODOC

HUMBOLDT TRINITY

SHASTA LASSEN

TEHAMA PLUMAS

BUTTE MENDOCINO GLENN SIERRA

YUBA

LAKE

NEVADA

COLUSA

SUTTER

PLACER

EL DORADO

YOLO

ALPINE SONOMA NAPA

SACRAMENTO

MONO

AMADOR

SOLANO

CALAVERAS

MARIN TUOLUMNE SAN

JOAQUIN CONTRA

COSTA

STANISLAUS

SAN

FRANCISCO

ALAMEDA MARIPOSA

MADERA

SAN

MATEO

MERCED

FRESNO

SANTA

CLARA

INYO

SANTA

CRUZ

SAN

BENITO

MONTEREY TULARE

KINGS

SAN

BERNARDINO

KERN SAN LUIS

OBISPO

SANTA

BARBARA

VENTURA LOS

ANGELES

RIVERSIDE ORANGE

IMPERIAL

SAN

DIEGO

Mill types

Veneer and biomass plant

Sawmill and biomass plant

Sawmill

Veneer

Post/pole

Log furniture

House log

Firewood

Particleboard

Biomass

Bark products

Other

0 20 40 80 160 

Miles

o

Ownership

Indian reservations

Bureau of Land Management

Bureau of Reclamation

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

U.S. Forest Service

National Park Service

State

Counties
28

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-908

• An intensive regulatory environment, shifting consumer preferences, and 

unfavorable market conditions that culminated with severe recessions in 

1980 and 2007.

• Concentration of production into large, capital-intensive, more-efficient mills.

Factors affecting the structure and size of California’s industry are discussed in 

more detail in the “Trends and Capacity by Sector” section.

Industry Concentrations 

Wood product manufacturing facilities operated in 30 of California’s 58 counties 

in calendar year 2012 (table 14; fig. 8). There were 12 active primary timber-processing facilities in Humboldt County in 2012, up from 10 facilities in 2006. Shasta 

County retained the same number of active facilities from 2006 at 10 operational 

facilities. Tuolumne had seven processors, one more than in 2006; and Tulare had 

four facilities in 2012 versus five in 2006. Mendocino and Sonoma Counties both 

had four facilities in 2006, and by 2012, had two and four, respectively. 

Sales Value, Product Markets, and Market Areas

The total sales value reported by California’s primary forest products producers in 

2012 was about $1.4 billion, down (in constant dollars) from $1.7 billion in 2006 and 

nearly $3 billion in 2000. Table 15 shows that product sales were led by the sawmill 

sector, followed by bioenergy, residue-utilizing, and veneer and other primary wood 

products sectors. Sales values decreased across all industries from 2006, with the 

exception of the bioenergy sector, which increased by 44 percent. The economic 

impacts of each sector are discussed more thoroughly in subsequent sections.

Table 16 reports the sales value and geographic destination (fig. 9) by product 

type for California’s primary finished wood products. Mills usually distribute their 

products either through their own distribution channels or through independent 

wholesalers and selling agents. Because of subsequent transactions, the geographic 

destination reported here may not reflect final delivery points of shipments. 

Sales of lumber and sawn products accounted for 64 percent of total sales, 

at over $876 million. Bioenergy sales made up 24 percent ($327.5 million), the 

residue-utilizing sector accounted for 9 percent ($122.8 million) of sales, and 

other products made up the other 3 percent ($44.3 million). At just over $1 billion 

and over 76 percent of total sales, California is its own largest market for finished 

primary wood products. The majority of the lumber, as well as all of the energy and 

electricity produced by the bioenergy sector, are used in-state. The sales value from 

the residue-utilizing sector dropped by 60 percent between 2006 and 2012. In 2006, 

just over half the output from the residue-utilizing sector was retained in-state; 

Wood product 

manufacturing 

facilities operated in 

30 of California’s 58 

counties in calendar 

year 2012.

Total sales value 

reported by California’s 

primary forest 

products producers 

in 2012 was about 

$1.4 billion, down (in 

constant dollars) from 

$1.7 billion in 2006 

and nearly $3 billion 

in 2000.
29

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2012

Table 14—Active California primary wood products facilities by county and sector, 2012

 Medium-density 

fiberboard and Decorative

County Sawmills Veneer particleboard Bioenergy bark Othera Total

Amador — — 1 1 — — 2

Butte 1 — — — — 1 2

Del Norte — — — — — — 0

El Dorado 1 — — — — — 1

Fresno — — — 2 — — 2

Glenn — — — — 1 — 1

Humboldt 8 — — 3 — 1 12

Kern — — — 1 1 — 2

Lassen — — — 1 — — 1

Madera — — — 1 — — 1

Mendocino 2 — — — — — 2

Nevada — — — — — — 0

Placer 1 — — 2 1 2 6

Plumas 2 — — 2 — — 4

Riverside 1 — — 1 — — 2

Sacramento — — — — 1 — 1

San Bernardino — — — — 1 — 1

San Joaquin — — — 1 2 — 3

Santa Cruz 1 — — — — — 1

Shasta 4 — — 5 — 1 10

Sierra — — — — — — 0

Siskiyou — 2 — 1 1 — 4

Sonoma 3 — — — 1 — 4

Sutter — — — — — — 0

Tehama — — — — 1 — 1

Trinity 1 — — — — — 1

Tulare 1 — — 2 — 1 4

Tuolomne 3 — — 2 1 1 7

Yolo — — — 1 — — 1

Yuba 1 — — — — — 1

 2012 total 30 2 1 26 11 7 77

 2006 total 33 2 4 25 10 3 77

 2000 total 47 2 5 25 10 4 93

— = no reported data. a

 Other includes log home accent producers, shake and shingle manufacturers, firewood, animal bedding, fuel pellet, and post, pole, and piling 

manufacturers. 

Source: Morgan et al. (2004, 2012).
30

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-908

Table 16—Destination and value of California’s primary wood products sales, 2012 

Far North NorthProduct California West Rockies Central east South Othera Total

Thousand 2012 dollars

Lumber, timber, and 614,082 34,232 78,896 66,722 10,542 55,597 16,318 876,389

 associated products

Energy and electric 327,458 — — — — — — 327,458

Residue-utilizing 110,534 3,617 4,512 1,534 1,053 1,520 — 122,770

 sectorb

Veneer and other 4,490 39,838 — — — — — 44,328

 primary wood

 productsc

2012 all primary 1,056,564 77,687 83,408 68,256 11,595 57,117 16,318 1,370,945 

 wood products

2006 all primary 1,209,892 171,448 94,101 76,518 33,850 25,131 124,906 1,735,845

 wood products

2000 all primary 1,830,765 340,357 228,593 275,313 108,397 77,053 99,968 2,960,446

 wood products

Percentage of 2012 sales

Lumber, timber, and 44.8 2.5 5.8 4.9 0.8 4.1 1.2 63.9

 associated products

Energy and electric 23.9 — — — — — — 23.9

Residue-utilizing 8.1 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 — 9.0

 sector b

Veneer and other 0.3 2.9 — — — — — 3.2

 primary wood

 productsc

All primary wood 77.1 5.7 6.1 5.0 0.8 4.2 1.2 100

 products

— = no reported data. a Other destinations include Pacific Rim and Canada.

b Residue-utilizing sector includes facilities that use residues from the manufacture of lumber and other products, including pulp mills, board 

facilities, fuel pellet producers and bark plants.

c

 Veneer and other primary wood products include log home accents, peeler cores, animal bedding, utility poles, firewood, furniture, and veneer.

Source: Morgan et al. (2004, 2012).

Table 15—Sales value of California's primary wood products, selected years

Product 2000 2006 2012

Thousand 2012 dollars

Lumber, timbers, and associated products 1,926,151 1,110,138 876,389

Bioenergy 335,917 227,055 327,458

Residue-utilizing sector a 598,928 290,094 122,770

Veneer and other primary wood productsb 99,450 108,558 44,328

 Total 2,960,446 1,735,845 1,370,945

a

 Residue-utilizing sector includes pulp, paper, and board manufacturers, fuel pellet producers and decorative bark.

b

 Veneer and other products include log home accents, peeler cores, posts, poles, pilings, animal bedding, and veneer.

Source: Morgan et al. 2004, 2012.
31

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2012

in 2012, 90 percent was used in-state. This change is due, in part, to the loss of 

California’s last remaining pulp facility, which exported nearly all of its output.

Veneer and other primary wood products are sold in higher proportions out of 

state, with just 10 percent of veneer and other products sold in California and the 

remaining 90 percent going to the Far West states. The sale of veneer to plywood 

and laminated veneer lumber (LVL) mills in Oregon accounts for much of this trend.

The destination make-up of California’s primary wood products has changed 

since 2006. In a departure from 2006, the Rocky Mountain States make up the 

second largest market for primary wood products made in California. The region 

accounted for over 6 percent of total sales values, the majority of it (96 percent) 

in the form of lumber. Sales to the Northeast, Far West states, and other countries 

declined significantly, while sales to the South more than doubled. The Far West 

states made up the third largest market for primary wood products made in California, at $78 million or just under 6 percent of 2012 sales, primarily through lumber 

and veneer sales. The North Central states comprise 5 percent of total sales value 

at over $68 million, again most of it as lumber (99 percent). Sales to the South 

Figure 9—Shipment destinations of California’s primary wood products. 

4

2

1

3

Montana

Wyoming

Colorado

Arizona New Mexico

Utah

Nevada

Idaho

Washington

Oregon

California

Illinois

Iowa

Kansas Missouri

North Dakota

Ohio

South Dakota

Wisconsin

Indiana

Nebraska

Michigan

Minnesota 6 New

York

Pennsylvania

Vermont

New Hampshire Maine

Massachusetts

Rhode 

Island

Connecticut

New Jersey

5

Kentucky

Louisiana

Missis- sippi

Texas

Alabama

Arkansas

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Maryland

N. Carolina

Oklahoma S. Carolina

Virginia

W

W.

Va.

Tennessee

Hawaii Alaska
32

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-908

exceeded $57 million, or a little over 4 percent, while sales to the Northeast totaled 

over $11 million, 1 percent of total California primary wood product sales. 

International exports reported by participating mills constituted a smaller percentage of California’s total primary wood products sales in 2012 relative to earlier 

years. An estimated $16 million in products went to Canada and the Pacific Rim 

countries, about 1.2 percent of total sales; this compares to $125 million or 7 percent 

in 2006, and $77 million or 4 percent in 2000. In 2012, all of the sales to foreign 

countries were from the sawmill sector, whereas the bulk ($103 million) of sales to 

foreign countries during 2006 was generated from the residue-utilizing sector.

Trends and Capacity by Sector

Sawmill Sector

The sawmill sector continues to be the largest component of California’s primary 

forest products industry in terms of sales value (tables 15 and 16) and volume of 

timber processed (table 9). The 30 sawmills operating in California during 2012 

accounted for slightly less than 7 percent of domestic softwood lumber production, 

which equates to about 5 percent of U.S. lumber consumption (WWPA 1964–2013).

Lumber production in California peaked in the late 1950s and has generally 

been declining since (fig. 10), following trends similar to those experienced in other 

Western States over the course of the 20th century (Morgan et al. 2012). Lumber 

production and prices have been defined by volatility since 2000. Lumber production for 2000 dropped to 3.1 billion board feet with a sales value of $1.8 billion. 

The declines continued into the first decade of the 21st century; despite very strong 

housing and lumber markets in 2004 and 2005, output and sales value were below 

2000 levels. With weakening markets in 2006, output fell to 2.5 billion board feet, 

and lumber sales value was at $1.3 billion (fig. 11). The housing and lumber market 

bottomed out in 2009, seriously affecting the remaining forest products industry 

in California. As evidenced by figures 10 and 11, while production and sales have 

remained relatively low compared to mid-20th century levels, the industry began a 

slow recovery starting in 2010. In 2012, California produced 1.9 billion board feet 

of lumber with sales of $876 million, a 78-percent increase over the lowest point of 

the Great Recession in 2009, but only 57 percent of pre-recession (2004) sales.

Veneer and Plywood Sector

Currently there are no plywood plants in California and only two plants producing 

veneer for further manufacture into plywood and LVL by mills located in Oregon. 

The plywood sector was relatively short lived in California. It emerged and almost 

completely disappeared in the course of 60 years (Morgan et al. 2004). With strong 

The sawmill sector 

continues to be the 

largest component 

of California’s forest 

products industry, 

producing 1.9 billion 

board feet of lumber 

with sales of $876 

million.
33

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2012

Figure 10—California’s lumber production, 1956–2012.

Figure 11—California’s inflation-adjusted lumber sales, 1969–2012.

1,000

0

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

1956

1958

196019621964

19661968

1970

19721974

19761978

19801982

1984

19861988

19901992

19941996

1998

20002002

200420062008

2010

2012

Lumber production (million board feet, lumber tally)

Year

 1,000

 0

 2,000

 3,000

 4,000

 5,000

 6,000

1969

1971

1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

19831985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

2013

Million dollars

Year
34

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-908

wood markets and the development of technology to make quality plywood out of 

abundant large-diameter Douglas-fir timber, California plywood production grew 

rapidly in the 1950s and early 1960s, peaking in 1964 at 1.3 billion square feet 

(3/8-inch basis). A number of factors have accounted for the decline and near disappearance of California’s plywood and veneer industry. Howard (1972) pointed out 

that large-diameter Douglas-fir logs became less available. At the same time, spikes 

in log exports in the late 1960s and early 1970s brought increased competition for 

logs (Morgan et al. 2004). More recently, substitute products such as oriented strand 

board captured large portions of construction markets once dominated by plywood. 

Additional details regarding California’s current plywood and veneer sector cannot 

be discussed to avoid disclosure of firm-level information.

Residue-Utilizing Sector

In 2012, there were 14 facilities in California manufacturing products from the mill 

residue generated at sawmills and other plants that process timber. These included 

two animal bedding facilities, a particleboard facility, a fuel pellet producer, and 

11 bark plants producing landscaping products such as decorative bark and mulch. 

Since 2000, the number of manufacturers using mill residues has declined from 

17 to 14. Between 2006 and 2012, the number of facilities dropped from 15 to 14, 

but the composition of the sector has changed drastically. Since the last report, 

California has seen the closure of two particleboard plants, one MDF plant, and one 

pulp mill. However, this period also saw the addition of one bark plant, one fuel 

pellet producer, and one producer of animal bedding from mill residue.

California’s 2012 timber harvest included approximately 61 MMCF of bark, of 

which roughly 47 MMCF was used to produce energy and about 14 MMCF was 

used for other products such as mulch and landscaping bark. As with other mill 

residue in California during 2012, only a very small amount (less than 0.1 MMCF) 

of bark was not used. 

Bark facilities are a relatively new addition to California’s forest products 

industry. Prior to the early 1970s, the bark removed from timber during the production of lumber and other primary products was usually burned onsite for fuel, 

buried in landfills, or burned as waste. A market developed by the nursery and 

gardening industry led to the establishment of three decorative bark producers by 

1975; this number grew to 10 by 2000 and is now up to 11 in 2012.

Sales for residue-utilizing manufacturers totaled nearly $123 million in 2012, 

down from nearly $290 million in 2006. Most of the decline in sales resulted from 

the closures of four pulp and board facilities in the state. Sales from bark producers 

totaled about $17 million in 2012, down from $40 million in 2006. The decline in 
35

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2012

bark sales is likely because of the decline in timber harvest and processing statewide, making bark unavailable in some parts of the state, combined with reduced 

demand for decorative bark products resulting from the housing collapse.

Bioenergy Sector

In 2012, the bioenergy sector consisted of a variety of facilities, including cogeneration plants at timber-processing facilities such as sawmills that produced steam 

and electricity, as well as stand-alone facilities producing electricity using various 

mixes of urban and agricultural waste, sawmill residue, and timber. A total of 26 

bioenergy facilities used some type of wood fiber, including timber, forest chips 

(i.e., trees or slash chipped in the forest), sawmill residue, and agricultural or urban 

waste (e.g., orchard clippings, fruit or nut shells/pits, construction and demolition 

waste). Seven facilities operated exclusively on sawmill residue (up from just two 

in 2006); 5 used a mixture of forest chips and sawmill residue; 10 used a mixture 

of agricultural waste, urban waste, and sawmill residue; and 4 facilities used forest 

chips, sawmill residue, and urban and agricultural waste. The diversity of facilities 

and inputs in the bioenergy sector reflect the increasing importance put on alternative energy sources in California through state and federal energy and pollution 

policies (e.g., California’s AB 32 and Renewable Electricity Standard), as well as 

the advancements in technology allowing this to occur.

The energy-producing capacity of the 26 bioenergy facilities that used wood 

fiber in 2012 totaled 551 megawatts (MW), up from 485 MW in 2006. An additional five facilities with a history of using forest or mill residues were idle in 2012 

and had a combined capacity of 61.5 MW. In total, there are 5 facilities rated at 10 

MW or less, 11 between 10 and 20 MW, and 15 greater than 20 MW—all using 

forest and/or mill residues. These producers sold over 3.4 million megawatt hours 

(MWh) of power in 2012. In 2006, 25 facilities produced close to 3.1 million MWh. 

One MWh equals between 1 and 2 month’s power consumption for an average 

home in California (USDE EIA 2014). All of the energy produced was sold within 

the state of California, with a total sales value of $327.5 million (table 16). The sales 

value of electricity produced by bioenergy facilities increased 44 percent over 2006 

sales, which was a combination of increased production as well as a 50-percent 

increase in the price paid per kilowatt hour (KWh) from $0.0645 in 2006 to $0.0966 

in 2012. Measured in cubic feet, the bioenergy sector used about 41 percent of the 

wood fiber (excluding bark) from California’s timber harvest and 63 percent of the 

bark residue produced. This includes over 116 MMCF (1.45 million BDT) of timber 

harvested for energy and 32.5 MMCF (162.5 thousand BDT) of residue from other 

primary processors.

A total of 26 bioenergy 

facilities used some 

type of wood fiber, 

including timber, forest 

chips, sawmill residue, 

and agricultural or 

urban waste
36

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-908

Other Sectors

The remaining primary wood products manufacturers identified in 2012 included 

one house log accent facility, one utility pole producer, one log furniture producer, 

one firewood facility, and one wood shaving facility that used timber for inputs. 

The number and type of facilities comprising California’s “other” (wood product) 

manufacturers have varied through the years. Historical information on their 

operations is limited. These producers are typically small operations that come and 

go with demand for their products, making it challenging to determine the total 

number of facilities operating and obtain information from them. Because of the 

limited number of facilities, no production data for these firms can be reported, and 

sales data are included with the veneer sector.

Input and Output Capacity

This section focuses on two measures of capacity—input (timber processing) capacity and output (production) capacity—from 1988 through 2012 and the utilized 

proportion of that capacity. Output capacity is the most commonly used measure 

of capacity, measuring the volume of finished product a mill could produce in a 

given timeframe—generally per shift or per year. However, finished products are 

measured in a variety of units: board feet lumber tally (lumber), thousand square 

feet (plywood, veneer), lineal feet (house logs), etc., making it difficult to express 

the total capacity of the industry as a whole. Another way of expressing capacity 

is in input capacity, often measured as sawtimber-processing capacity, which is a 

measure of the volume of raw logs that a mill can process in a given timeframe—

generally per year and measured in board feet Scribner. Capacity for 2012 was 

developed from the FIDACS census of California’s forest products industry. Capacity for previous years was estimated from previous industry censuses (Howard and 

Ward 1991, Morgan et al. 2004, Ward 1995) and for intervening years based on 

reported mill closures, openings, and expansions (Ehinger 2012, Random Lengths 

1976–2013, Spelter et al. 2009).

Sawtimber-Processing Capacity

California’s sawtimber-processing plants include sawmills, veneer mills, house log 

facilities, and utility pole plants. Through the FIDACS census, California mills were 

asked for their 8-hour shift and annual production capacities given sufficient supplies of raw materials and firm market demand for their products. Large sawmills 

and veneer plants expressed annual production capacity equal to two to three 8-hour 

shifts daily for 240 to 300 operating days per year. Smaller mills generally reported 

annual capacity as only one shift per day, for not more than 250 days per year.
37

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2012

To combine capacity figures for the state’s sawtimber users and to estimate the 

industry’s total capacity to process sawtimber, capacity was expressed in units of 

raw material input (MMBF of timber Scribner Decimal C) and was called processing capacity. Sawmill capacity figures were adjusted to million board feet of timber 

Scribner Decimal C log scale by dividing production capacity in lumber tally by 

the mill’s calculated lumber recovery per board foot Scribner. For veneer plants, 

production capacity in square feet of 3/8-inch veneer was divided by each mill’s 

calculated veneer recovery figure. Capacities for utility pole plants were adjusted 

to thousand board feet Scribner by multiplying capacity in lineal feet by an average 

Scribner board-foot volume per lineal foot. For log home accents, an estimate was 

made using the average volume of a log that would be used for that product. These 

pieces were comparable in size to veneer and sawlogs.

California’s capacity to process timber in 2012 was an estimated 1.8 billion 

board feet Scribner, of which 72 percent was used by mills processing just over 1.3 

billion board feet (fig. 12). There has been a 70-percent drop in capacity to process 

sawtimber in California since 1988, when capacity was 6 billion board feet of log 

input, and mills processed approximately 4 billion board feet of timber. The major 

decline in capacity took place from 1988 to 1999 with a fall from 6 billion board 

Figure 12—California’s capacity for processing sawtimber, 1988–2012.

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

Timber processing capacity (million board feet, Scribner)

Year

1988

19891990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

19992000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Total capacity

Capacity used

California’s capacity 

to process timber in 

2012 was an estimated 

1.8 billion board feet 

Scribner, of which 72 

percent was used by 

mills processing just 

over 1.3 billion board 

feet.
38

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-908

feet to 2.8 billion board feet (Morgan et al. 2004). The capacity decline in the 1990s 

resulted primarily from the decline of 2 billion board feet in federal timber offerings. Also negatively affecting capacity during the 1990s and beyond were a series 

of increased state regulations of timber harvest activities, which effectively reduced 

the available private timber volume and increased costs (Thompson and Dicus 

2005). Changes in the use of private lands—such as development, urbanization, or 

purchases/set asides for parks or old-growth preservation—have also contributed 

to reduced timber harvest from private forest lands. During the recent poor markets, the portion of capacity used fell more dramatically than total capacity, from 

around 80 percent in the 2000 to 2006 period to an estimated 50 percent in 2009. 

As markets began to rebound, production and capacity utilization increased to 72 

percent in 2012.

Lumber-Production Capacity

Capacity to produce lumber varies widely among California’s 30 sawmills, and 

the proportion of capacity utilized is somewhat correlated with mill size (table 17). 

Total lumber production during 2012 was 1,917 MMBF, and production capacity 

was 2,468 MMBF lumber tally. Thus, approximately 78 percent of California’s 

annual lumber-producing capacity was utilized, compared to 80 percent in 2006 

and 81 percent in 2000. The majority, 1,896 MMBF (77 percent) of lumber-producing capacity, was concentrated in the 12 largest mills, with over 100 MMBF annual 

capacity. The degree of concentration of capacity among these mills increased from 

2000, when 58 percent of capacity was in this size class. During 2012, these largest 

Table 17—Number of active California sawmills, capacity, production, and proportion of capacity utilized by 

capacity size class, 2012 

Production Percentage Average Percentage Average

capacity Number Production of total capacity of total production Capacity

size class of mills capacity capacity per mill Production production per mill utilized

 MMBFa Percent MMBFa MMBFa Percent MMBFa Percent

10 MMBF or less 8 25.5 1.0 3.2 14.8 0.8 1.8 58.1

Over 10 to 50 4 87.6 3.6 21.9 74.1 3.9 18.5 84.6

 MMBF

Over 50 to 100 6 458.0 18.6 76.3 350.0 18.3 58.3 76.4

 MMBF

Over 100 12 1,896.4 76.9 158.0 1,478.1 77.1 123.2 77.9

 MMBF

 2012 total 30 2,467.5 100 82.2 1,917.0 100 63.9 77.7

 2006 total 33 3,067.2 100 92.9 2,453.3 100 74.3 80.0

 2000 total 47 3,878.5 100 82.5 3,137.7 100 66.8 80.9

a

 Volume in million board feet (MMBF) lumber tally.

Source: Morgan et al. 2004, 2012.

The concentration of 

capacity in the largest 

mills has increased 

from 58 percent in 2000 

to 77 percent of sector 

capacity in 2012.
39

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2012

mills accounted for 77 percent (1,478 MMBF) of lumber production in California, 

and utilized 78 percent of their lumber-producing capacity on average, down from 

85 percent in 2006. Mills with capacities of 50 to 100 MMBF accounted for 458 

MMBF (19 percent) of total capacity, produced 350 MMBF (18 percent) of the 

state’s lumber, and on average utilized about 76 percent of their capacity. This size 

class lost the most mills between 2000 and 2006, going from 10 mills to 6. The 

remaining 12 sawmills accounted for approximately 5 percent (113 MMBF) of California’s lumber-producing capacity and about 5 percent (89 MMBF) of the state’s 

lumber production. These smallest mills utilized the smallest proportion (about 71 

percent) of their available capacity. 

Lumber Recovery Factors and Overrun

Product recovery ratios, or the volume of output per unit of input, are reported for 

California’s sawmills as lumber recovery factors (LRFs) and overrun. The LRF is 

the lumber output (in board feet lumber tally) divided by the timber input (in cubic 

feet). Overrun is the volume of lumber (in board feet lumber tally) actually obtained 

from a log in excess of the estimated volume based on log scale (board feet Scribner). Both overrun and LRF are measures of mill efficiency. Although overrun is 

the more common measure, it is not as useful as LRF because of the weakness of 

the Scribner scale as a measure of log input. The average size of logs processed in 

California has almost certainly decreased over the past 50 years. As log diameters 

decrease, the Scribner log rule underestimates by an increasing amount the volume 

of lumber that can be recovered from a log, thus leading to increased overrun.

The volume of sawtimber used by California’s sawmills in 2012 was approximately 217 MMCF (fig. 6), and lumber production was 1,917 MMBF lumber tally. 

Thus the statewide LRF for California sawmills in 2012 was 8.87 board feet of 

lumber output per cubic foot of log input, an 11 percent increase since 2000 (Morgan et al. 2004, 2012).

Increases in LRF are attributable primarily to improvements in technology. 

Technological improvements have made California mills more efficient in numerous ways. For example, log size (diameter and length) sensing capabilities linked to 

computers determine the best sawing pattern for logs to recover either the greatest 

volume or greatest value from each log. Improved sawing accuracies have reduced 

the amount of size variation in sawn lumber, reducing the need for planing and 

increasing solid wood recovery. Thinner kerf saws reduce the proportion of the log 

that becomes sawdust, and curved sawing technology has increased recovery from 

logs with sweep and crook (Keegan et al. 2010a). 

During 2012, California sawmills produced 1,917 MMBF lumber tally by processing 1,177 MMBF, Scribner Decimal C, of logs yielding an overrun of 63 percent 

California mills 

produced an average 

of 8.87 board feet of 

lumber output per 

cubic foot of lumber 

input, an 11 percent 

increase since 2000.
40

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-908

or 1.63 board feet of lumber per board foot Scribner of log input. A comparison of 

California sawmill overrun and LRF for various years is shown in figure 13.

Despite the long-term trend toward smaller logs discussed above, the average log 

size processed by California sawmills actually increased slightly from 2006 to 2012 

(table 18). Seventy-five percent of logs processed by sawmills had a small-end diameter greater than 10 inches in 2012 versus 72 percent in 2006 (Morgan et al. 2012).

Figure 13—Lumber recovery factor and overrun in California, various years.

Table 18—Proportion of logs processed by 

sawmills by small-end diameter, 2006 and 2012

Small-end diameter (inches) 2006 2012

<7 0.09 0.07

7 to 10 0.19 0.18

 Total <10 0.28 0.25

10 to 24 0.51 0.52

>24 0.21 0.23

 Total >10 0.72 0.75

1.14

1.23

1.32 1.27

1.39

1.53 1.53

1.64 1.63

1.14

1.64 1.63

6.84

7.38

7.95

7.62 7.43

7.74 7.96

8.30

8.87

0

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

1968 1972 1976 1982 1985 1994 2000 2006 2012

Lumber recovery factor

Overrun

Year

Lumber recovery factor

Overrun
41

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2012

Mill Residue: Quantity, Type, and Use

In 2012, roughly 56 percent of the wood fiber (including bark) processed by primary 

forest products plants ends up as mill residue, down from 60 percent in 2006. This 

residue can either present difficult and expensive disposal problems or be used to 

create additional products or energy to generate revenue. California’s substantial 

bioenergy industry is the largest consumer of wood residues generated in the state, 

whereas sawmills are the largest residue producers. 

Three types of wood residues are typically created by California’s primary 

wood products industry: coarse or chippable residue consisting of slabs, edging, 

trim, log ends, and pieces of veneer; fine residue consisting primarily of planer 

shavings and sawdust; and bark. The 2012 census gathered information on volumes 

and uses of mill residue. Actual residue volumes, reported in BDUs, were obtained 

from facilities that sold all or most of their residues. One BDU is the equivalent of 

2,400 lbs of oven-dry wood. All mills reported, on a percentage basis, how their 

residue was used.

Residue volume factors, which express mill residue generated per unit of output 

produced, were derived from production and residue output volumes reported by 

mills. California’s sawmills produce the majority of residues during their normal 

production process. Residue factors for 2000, 2006, and 2012, shown in table 19, 

represent statewide averages. During 2012, sawmills in California produced less 

residue per MBF of lumber produced with lower amounts of coarse residue and 

planer shavings generated. Several factors can contribute to changes in mill residue 

production. In general, changes in the size and species mix of logs received and 

products produced by sawmills can cause residue factors to change (Keegan et al. 

2010a, 2010b). Improved milling technology tends to reduce the amount of planer 

shavings, sawdust, and coarse residue generated per unit of lumber, as do increases 

in average log size.

Table 19—California’s sawmill residue factors, 

selected years 

Type of residue 2000 2006 2012

Bone-dry units per MBFa

Coarse 0.41 0.37 0.33

Sawdust 0.15 0.15 0.14

Planer shavings 0.13 0.11 0.08

Bark 0.23 0.21 0.22

 Total 0.92 0.85 0.77

MBF = thousand board feet.

a

 Bone-dry units (2,400 lbs of oven-dry wood) of the various residue 

types generated for every MBF of lumber manufactured.

Source: Morgan et al. 2004, 2012.

Roughly 56 percent 

of the wood fiber 

processed by primary 

forest products plants 

ended up as mill 

residue, down from 60 

percent in 2006.

In 2012, over 99 percent 

of all residues were 

utilized to produce 

energy, landscaping 

products or as inputs 

for the pulp and board 

sector.
42

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-908

In 2012, California sawmills generated nearly 1.5 million BDUs of mill residue 

accounting for nearly 91 percent of all mill residues generated that year (table 20). 

The remaining 9 percent of mill residue production came from veneer plants, a 

utility pole facility, and a log home accent plant. 

Coarse residue was the state’s largest component of wood products residue 

(table 21). Facilities in California produced 729,798 BDU of coarse residue; only 328 

BDU were not used for some purpose. About 63 percent of course residue was used 

to produce energy, 21 percent was used by pulp and reconstituted board plants, and 

about 16 percent was sold and used for other products.

Fine residues—sawdust and planer shavings—made up 26 percent of residue 

(415,473 BDU) in 2012. Sawdust composed 64 percent and planer shavings 36 

percent of fine residue. All fine residue was used in some fashion, primarily as 

fuel (256,183 BDU) or landscaping and other products (134,520 BDU). California 

facilities generated 485,506 BDU of bark while processing timber in 2012—all but 

0.3 percent of which was used by other sectors. Sixty-three percent of bark (304,776 

BDU) was used for bioenergy, and 37 percent (179,438 BDU) was used as landscaping or soil additives.

Forest Products Industry Employment and Earnings

Data reported in the FIDACS mill census were used in conjunction with employment and earnings data from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Regional 

Economic Information System to identify employment and labor income for 

California’s primary and secondary forest products industry. Although the U.S. 

government changed the way in which it reported economic data and classified 

employment by sector in 2001, the U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of 

Economic Analysis has made state-level personal income information available 

Table 20—Volume of wood residue generated by California’s sawmills, 2012

Wood residue Percentage of type Percentage

Residue type Used Unused Total Used Unused of total

Bone-dry unitsa Percent

Coarse 640,757 312 641,069 99.95 0.05 43.44

Fine 

 Sawdust 261,326 620 261,946 99.76 0.24 17.75

 Planer shavings 148,225 250 148,475 99.83 0.17 10.06

Bark 423,097 1,287 424,384 99.70 0.30 28.75

 All residues 1,473,405 2,469 1,475,874 99.83 0.17 100

a

 Bone-dry unit = 2,400 lbs of oven-dry wood.
43

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2012

from 1990 through the present. This period formed the basis of the analysis in this 

section. For further reading on changes in governmental reporting systems for 

economic data, see Morgan et al. (2012). 

The classification of forest industries used here follows the North American 

Industry Classification System (NAICS) available online via the U.S. Department 

of Commerce (USDC CB 2014). The forest products industry can be found in four 

categories: NAICS 113—forestry and logging; NAICS 1153—forestry support 

activities; NAICS 321—wood product manufacturing; and NAICS 322—paper 

manufacturing. These categories include employees who work in both the primary 

and secondary forest products sector, as defined elsewhere in this report. However, 

these four categories probably understate total employment in the forest products 

industry because they do not include a number of supporting activities. For example, log hauling (trucking) companies and forest management services performed 

by government employees are not included in these categories.

Based on the four NAICS sectors (113, 1153, 321, and 322), approximately 

52,200 workers (USDC BEA 2013a) (fig. 14), earning more than $3.3 billion annually (USDC BEA 2013b) (fig. 15), were directly employed in the primary and 

secondary forest products industry in California during 2012. Consequently, 

Table 21—California’s production and disposition of wood products residue, 2012

 Landscape

products, animal 

Type of Total Pulp and bedding, and Total

residueb utilized board Energy other uses Unutilized produced

Bone-dry unitsa

Coarse 729,470 154,773 458,643 116,054 328 729,798

Fine

 Sawdust 265,176 3,477 207,787 53,912 620 265,796

 Planer shavings 149,425 20,421 48,397 80,608 250 149,675

Bark 484,214 — 304,776 179,438 1,291 485,506

 All residue 1,628,285 178,671 1,019,602 430,012 2,490 1,630,775

Percentage of residue use by type

Coarse 100.0 21.2 62.8 15.9 0.0 44.8

Fine

 Sawdust 99.8 1.3 78.2 20.3 0.2 16.3

 Planer shavings 99.8 13.6 32.3 53.9 0.2 9.2

Bark 99.7 — 62.8 37.0 0.3 29.8

 All residue 99.8 11.0 62.5 26.4 0.2 100

— = no reported data. a

 Bone-dry unit = 2,400 lbs oven-dry wood.

b

 Includes residue from the manufacture of lumber, veneer, utility poles, log furniture, and house logs. 

Over 52,000 workers 

were employed in the 

primary and secondary 

forest product sectors 

in 2012, with total 

earnings of more than 

$3.3 billion annually.
44

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-908

average earnings per worker across California’s primary and secondary forest 

products industry were about $63,000 in 2012. This is a decrease of about 33 

percent in employment and 25 percent in inflation-adjusted earnings in the 

industry since 2006.

About 13,100 workers were employed in the harvesting and processing of 

timber or in private sector land management in 2012 (i.e., the primary sector), 

and they earned about $670 million.2 The remaining component of the industry 

can be classified as secondary and employed about 39,500 workers, with earnings 

of approximately $2.6 billion. The secondary wood and paper industry relies on 

the output of the primary industry from California and other parts of the world for 

raw materials.

Total employment in California’s forest products industry has decreased 

dramatically since 1990, when employment was more than 103,000. Trends in 

Figure 14—Employment in California’s forest products industry, 1990–2012.

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Number of workers (thousands)

Year

19901992

1994

1996

1998

20002002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

Total

Wood product manufacturing

Paper manufacturing

Forestry and logging

Forestry support activities

2 All dollar amounts in this section are in constant 2012 dollars, unless otherwise noted.
45

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2012

earnings show similar declines from about $5.5 billion in 1990 to $3.3 billion in 

2012. These long-term decreases have resulted almost entirely from losses in the 

primary industry. From 1990 to 2012, overall employment in California’s wood and 

paper products industry declined by nearly 51,000 workers. 

California’s secondary wood and paper products industry is concentrated near 

population centers in the state’s southern and central counties. The primary forest 

products industry is concentrated in the northern counties, closer to where timber 

harvesting occurs. The primary portion of the industry is integrally linked to forest 

management practices in the state, although this link is not as pronounced with 

the secondary industry. Consequently, policymakers and others with concerns 

for the wood products industry should be aware that statewide policies and legislation, whether related to the environment, labor, or industry, will generally have 

larger impacts on the residents of the northern counties than the state’s population 

as a whole.

Figure 15—Inflation-adjusted earnings in California’s forest products industry, 1990–2012.

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

5,500

Earnings (millions of 2012 U.S. d

ollars)

Total

Wood product manufacturing

Paper manufacturing

Forestry and logging

Forestry support activities

Year

19901992

1994

1996

1998

20002002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012
46

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-908

Acknowledgments

We thank all the participating wood products facility owners, managers, and staff 

who took the time to provide detailed information about their operations. In addition, we are grateful for comments and input provided by Steve Brink, California 

Forestry Association; Larry Swan, USDA Forest Service State and Private Forestry; 

Bill Stewart, University of California–Berkeley; the USDA Forest Service Forest 

Inventory and Analysis program; and all the reviewers of the manuscript and summary data tables.

Metric Equivalents

When you know: Multiply by: To find:

Inches (in) 2.54 Centimeters (cm)

Feet (ft) 0.3048 Meters (m)

Square feet (ft2) 0.0929 Square meters (m2)

Cubic feet (ft3) 0.0283 Cubic meters (m3)

Cubic feet per acre 0.06997 Cubic meters per hectare

Pounds per cubic foot 16.018 Kilograms per cubic meter

British thermal units (Btu) 0.000293 Kilowatt hours (kWh)
47

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2012

References

Barrette, B.R.; Gedney, D.R.; Oswald, D.D. 1970. California timber industries, 

1968: mill characteristics and wood supply. Sacramento, CA: Division of 

Forestry, State of California. 117 p.

Blatner, KA.; Keegan, C.E., III; Daniels, J.M.; Morgan, T.A. 2012. Trends 

in lumber processing in the Western United States. Part III: residue recovered 

versus lumber produced. Forest Products Journal. 62(6): 429.

California State Board of Equalization. 1978–2013. Timber yield tax and harvest 

values schedule. http://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/timbertax.htm. (April 18, 

2012).

Christensen, G.A.; Waddell, K.; Stanton, S.; Kuegler, O. [In press]. California’s 

forest resources: Forest Inventory and Analysis, 2001–2010. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station.

Ehinger, P.F. 2012. Forest industry data: Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana 

and California. Operating mills and other data. Eugene, OR: Paul F. Ehinger and 

Associates. Available for purchase from Paul F. Ehinger and Associates, 2300 

Oakmont Way #212, Eugene, OR 97401.

Helms, J.A., ed. 1998. The Dictionary of Forestry. Bethesda, MD: Society of 

American Foresters. 210 p.

Hiserote, B.A.; Howard, J.O. 1978. California’s forest industry, 1976. Resour. 

Bull. PNW-80. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 95 p.

Howard, J.O. 1974. California forest industry wood consumption and 

characteristics, 1972. Resour. Bull. PNW-52. Portland, OR: U.S. Deptartment 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment 

Station. 97 p.

Howard, J.O. 1984. California’s forest products industry, 1982. Resour. Bull. 119. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Forest and Range Experiment Station. 79 p.

Howard, J.O.; Ward, F.R. 1988. California’s forest products industry, 1985. 

Resour. Bull. PNW-RB-150. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 72 p.
48

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-908

Howard, J.O.; Ward, F.R. 1991. California’s forest products industry, 1988. 

Resour. Bull. PNW-RB-181. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 69 p.

Keegan, C.E.; Morgan, T.A.; Blatner, K.A. 2010a. Trends in lumber processing 

in the Western United States: Part I: board foot Scribner volume per cubic foot of 

timber. Forest Products Journal. 60 (2): 133–139.

Keegan, C.E.; Morgan, T.A.; Blatner, K.A. 2010b. Trends in lumber processing 

in the Western United States. Part II: overrun and lumber recovery factors. 

Forest Products Journal. 60 (2): 140–143.

Keegan, C.E.; Sorenson, C.B.; Morgan, T.A.; Hayes, S.W.; Daniels, J.M. 2012. 

Impact of the Great Recession and housing collapse on the forest products 

industry in the Western United States. Forest Products Journal. 61(8): 2–11.

Miles, P.D. 2008. Forest Inventory EVALIDator Web—Application version 

1.5.1.06. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern 

Research Station.

Morgan, T.A.; Brandt, J.P.; Songster, K.E.; Keegan, C.E., III; Christensen, 

G.A. 2012. California’s forest products industry and timber harvest, 2006. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-866. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 48 p.

Morgan, T.A.; Keegan, C.E., III; Dillon, T.; Chase, A.L.; Fried, J.S.; Weber, 

M.N. 2004. California’s forest products industry: a descriptive analysis. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-615. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 55 p.

National Bureau of Economic Research [NBER]. 2010. US business cycle 

expansions and contractions. http://www.nber.org/cycles.html. (August 5, 2014.)

Random Lengths. 1976–2013. Forest product market prices and statistics 

yearbook. Eugene, OR: Random Lengths Publications, Inc. 

Random Lengths. 1993. Terms of the trade. 3rd ed. Eugene, OR: Random Lengths 

Publications, Inc. 243 p.

Spelter, H.; McKeever, D.B.; Toth, T. 2009. Profile 2009: softwood sawmills 

in the United States and Canada. Res. Pap. FPL-RP-659. Madison, WI: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. 55 p.
49

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2012

Thompson, R.P.; Dicus, C.A. 2005. The impact of California’s changing 

environmental regulations on timber harvest planning costs. San Luis Obispo, 

CA: California Polytechnic State University. 40 p.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis [USDC BEA]. 

2013a. Table SA05N. Personal income by major source and earnings by NAICS 

industry. http://bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=70&step=1&isuri=1&acrdn=4#r

eqid=70&step=1&isuri=1. (December 6, 2014).

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis [USDC BEA]. 

2013b. Table SA25N. Total full-time and part-time employment by NAICS 

industry. http://bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=70&step=1&isuri=1&acrdn=4#r

eqid=70&step=1&isuri=1. (December 6, 2014).

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau [USDC CB]. 2013. New 

residential construction (building permits, housing starts, housing completions). 

http://www.census.gov/construction/nrc/. (December 6, 2014).

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau [USDC CB]. 2014. North 

American Industry Classification System: Introduction to NAICS. http://www.

census.gov/eos/www/naics/. (December 6, 2014).

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration [USDE 

EIA]. 2014. Frequently asked questions. http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.

cfm?id=97&t=3. (August 25, 2014).

Ward, F.R. 1995. California’s forest products industry, 1992. Portland, OR: Resour. 

Bull. PNW-RB-206. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 76 p.

Ward, F.R. 1997. California’s forest products industry, 1994. Resour. Bull. PNWRB-217. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 60 p.

Western Wood Products Association [WWPA]. 1964–2013. Statistical yearbook 

of the Western lumber industry. Portland, OR.

Woodall, C.W.; Ince, P.J.; Skog, K.E.; Aguilar, F.X.; Keegan, C.E.; Sorenson, 

C.B.; Hodges, D.G.; Smith, W.B. 2012. An overview of the forest products 

sector downturn in the United States. Forest Products Journal. 61(8): 595–603.

Zhou, X. 2013. Production, prices, employment, and trade in northwest forest 

industries, all quarters 2012. Resour. Bull. PNW-RB-265. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

163 p.


U.S. Department of Agriculture

Pacific Northwest Research Station

1220 SW 3rd Ave.

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208–3890

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300