LOGGING UTILIZATION IN ARIZONA AND NEW 

MEXICO, 2012-2017: 

CURRENT AND PAST TRENDS

Eric A. Simmons, Todd A. Morgan, Steven W. Hayes, Erik C. Berg, and 

John D. Shaw

Forest 

Service

Rocky Mountain 

Research Station

General Technical Report 

RMRS-RB-31

March 

2020
All Rocky Mountain Research Station publications are published by U.S. Forest Service employees and are in the 

public domain and available at no cost. Even though U.S. Forest Service publications are not copyrighted, they are 

formatted according to U.S. Department of Agriculture standards and research findings and formatting cannot be 

altered in reprints. Altering content or formatting, including the cover and title page, is strictly prohibited.

ii

Simmons, Eric A.; Morgan, Todd A.; Hayes, Steven W.; Berg, Erik C.; Shaw, John D. 2020. Logging utilization in 

Arizona and New Mexico, 2012-2017: Current and past trends. Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-31. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 24 p. 

Abstract

A study of commercial timber-harvesting sites in Arizona and New Mexico was conducted from 

2012 to 2017 to estimate growing-stock removals, characterize current tree utilization and 

logging operations, and assist with estimating the amount of woody biomass left on-site after 

harvesting. Fifty-four sample logging sites were selected within major geographic 

regions proportional to regional five-year timber harvests. A two-stage sampling method was 

used to compute State-level utilization factors from 1,358 felled trees. Results indicated that in 

Arizona, for every 1,000 cubic feet (CF) delivered to the mill, harvesting created 24 CF feet of 

growing-stock logging residue, and 38 CF of non-growing-stock material was delivered to the 

mill. This compared to 65 CF of growing-stock logging residue created and 20 CF of nongrowing-stock utilized per 1,000 CF of mill-delivered volume in New Mexico. Different 

harvesting prescriptions and mill infrastructure contributed to the utilization differences 

between the two States. The 2012-2017 New Mexico utilization factors revealed an increase in 

growing-stock logging residue compared to the1980s, a unique finding among western States. 

This outcome is likely attributable to declines in the State’s milling infrastructure, particularly 

facilities with the ability to use smaller diameter material. 

_____________________________

Keywords: forest inventory, growing-stock removals, logging residue, removals factors, timber harvest

Cover: Top photo: Stacked timber; Left photo: Felled trees in forst setting; Right photo: Stacked timber on both 

sides of a logging road. Photos by Eric A. Simmons.

The use of trade or firm names in this publication is for reader information and does not imply endorsement by 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture of any product or service.
iii

Author

Eric A. Simmons is a research associate, Bureau of Business and Economic Research, 

University of Montana, Missoula, Montana. 

Todd A. Morgan is Director of Forest Industry Research, Bureau of Business and Economic 

Research, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana.

Steven W. Hayes is a research forester, Bureau of Business and Economic Research, 

University of Montana, Missoula, Montana.

Erik C. Berg is a research forester, Bureau of Business and Economic Research, University of 

Montana, Missoula, Montana.

John D. Shaw is a biological scientist, Interior West Forest Inventory and Analysis Program, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah.

Produced in cooperation with the Bureau of Business and Economic Research, University of 

Montana, Missoula, Montana.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the USDA Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station, Forest Inventory and Analysis Program, Ogden, Utah. Other 

cooperators included the USDA Forest Service Apache-Sitgreaves, Carson, Cibola, Coconino, 

Gila, Kaibab, Lincoln, and Santa Fe National Forests, district timber staff, private landowners, 

foresters, mill operators, and loggers. Without their assistance this analysis could not have 

been accomplished.
Table of Contents

Abstract..................................................................................................... ii

Author ...................................................................................................... iii

Acknowledgments...................................................................................iii

INTRODUCTION ......................................................................... 1

Recent Arizona and New Mexico Timber Harvests............................ 3

METHODS................................................................................... 5

Sample Design .................................................................................... 5

Data Collection .................................................................................... 7

Data Analysis ....................................................................................... 8

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION....................................................... 8

Characteristics of Logging Sites and Operations.............................. 8

Characteristics of Felled Trees .......................................................... 11

Statewide Logging Utilization Factors ............................................ 15

Logging Utilization Factors Through Time ...................................... 18

CONCLUSIONS......................................................................................... 20

REFERENCES............................................................................................ 21

END NOTES.............................................................................................. 24

iv
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-31. 2020 1

INTRODUCTION

Forest and mill managers in the Southwest desire current information 

on the characteristics and effects of timber harvesting on forest inventory. 

They may wish to know how much woody material remains in the forest 

after commercial logging operations to understand fuel loads or to predict 

potential feedstock for woody biomass energy. Likewise, the 

characteristics of harvested trees (e.g., d.b.h. , total tree height, or species 

mix), harvesting methods (e.g., mechanical vs. hand-felling or 

merchandising at the stump vs. at the landing), and logging residue may 

be of interest for forest planning or business development purposes. The 

information developed from logging utilization studies can meet these 

needs. 

Logging utilization studies identify material removed from forest 

inventory during commercial timber harvest activities and provide the 

data used to develop logging utilization factors. These factors quantify 

the amount of growing-stock volume (fig. 1) removed from inventory and 

distinguish it as either timber products (e.g., sawlogs, fuelwood) delivered 

to processing facilities or as logging residue, which is left in the forest 

Figure 1—Growing stock sections of softwood trees.
 2 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-31. 2020

or at the landing and is not used. Other factors quantify the volume of 

non-growing stock material utilized for products. These logging 

utilization factors are used in the calculation of logging residue volumes in 

the Timber Products Output (TPO) database (See “TPO Reporting Tool” at 

https://www.fia.fs.fed.us/tools-data/) maintained by the Forest Inventory 

and Analysis (FIA) Program of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service. The factors can be applied to projected levels of timber harvest at 

various geographic scales to provide estimates of growing-stock removals 

from forest inventory. Logging utilization studies also characterize timber 

harvest activities and equipment and can provide estimates of the 

distributions of trees and volume harvested by species, size, and logging 

method. 

When conducted in a consistent manner, these studies can provide a 

substantial amount of information about changes in timber 

harvesting practices and logging residue through time and differences 

between States or regions of the country. Recent logging utilization studies 

provided updated residue and harvesting information for Idaho (Simmons 

et al. 2014b), Oregon and Washington (Simmons et al. 2016), and 

Montana (Berg et al. 2018). However, the most recent studies for Arizona 

and New Mexico are 30 years old (McLain 1988, 1989). This study and 

others like it (Bentley and Johnson 2004; Berg et al. 2018; Morgan et al. 

2005; Morgan and Spoelma 2008; Simmons et al. 2014b, 2016;) allow 

historic and between-State comparisons of timber harvested for products, 

the associated logging residue, and the impacts on growing-stock 

inventory. 

To update regional timber harvesting and logging residue information, 

a study of logging sites across Arizona and New Mexico was conducted 

from 2012 through 2017. This study was designed to quantify the creation 

of logging residue from commercial, green (live) tree timber harvesting at 

the State level, and characterize harvested trees and harvesting activities 

within each State. The specific objectives were to:

1. characterize each State’s timber harvest by tree species and d.b.h.; 

2. characterize each State’s timber harvest operations by felling, yarding, 

and merchandising methods; 

3. compute current logging utilization factors for each State to express:

a. volumes of growing-stock logging residue generated per 1,000 CF of 

mill-delivered volume,

b. proportions of mill-delivered volume coming from growing-stock 

vs. non-growing stock portions of harvested trees, and

c. total removals (i.e., timber product and logging residue) from 

growing stock.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-31. 2020 3

Recent Arizona and New Mexico Timber Harvests

There are nearly 7.3 million acres of non-reserved timberland 

potentially available for timber harvest activities in Arizona and New 

Mexico (table 1; Miles 2017). However, neither the timber resource nor 

harvesting activities are evenly distributed across the States. Wood 

product markets and forest policy issues have influenced the geographic 

and ownership sources of harvested timber as well as annual harvest 

volumes. 

Table 1—Arizona and New Mexico timberlanda by ownership class (Source: Miles 2017).

Ownership class Arizona New Mexico

Thousand 

acres Percentage Thousand acres Percentage

National Forest 2,160 71.7 2,662 62.2

Undifferentiated privateb 812 27.0 1,449 33.9

State 7 0.2 129 3.0

Bureau of Land Management 6 0.2 38 0.9

Other public 27 0.9 0 0.0

All owners 3,012 100 4,279 100

a

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 not withdrawn from harvest by statute or administrative 

regulation (Helms 1998).

b

Undifferentiated private includes industrial private, non-industrial private, Tribal, NGOs and unincorporated 

local partnership/association/clubs.

The combined annual timber harvest volumes in Arizona and New 

Mexico have ranged from nearly 550 million board feet (MMBF) Scribner 

in the mid-1980s to current levels of around 100 MMBF (Sorenson et al. 

2016; fig. 2). Since the majority of timberlands in both States are national 

forest lands, harvests have been predominantly from these public lands. 

Steep declines in total timber harvest volumes and milling capacity in the 

Southwest were associated with the reduction of Federal harvest programs 

beginning in the early 1990s (Keegan et al. 2006; Morgan et al. 2006) and 

were exacerbated by the Great Recession, housing bust, and poor wood 

product markets from 2007 through 2011 (Keegan et al. 2012; Sorenson et 

al. 2016). 

Forest management strategies are similar between Arizona and New 

Mexico, but milling and logging infrastructures vary. Northern Arizona’s 

National Forest System stewardship and restoration projects, most notably 

the White Mountain Stewardship Project (WMSP) and Four Forest 

Restoration Initiative (4FRI) Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration 

Projects (CFLRPs), use treatments that combine the removal of larger 

trees and thinning small-diameter trees with whole-tree utilization. This 
 4 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-31. 2020

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Million board feet Scribner

Harvest year

Arizona New Mexico

1984 1986 1997 1998 2002 2007 2012

Figure 2—Arizona and New Mexico timber harvest, selected years (Setzer and Wilson 1970; McLain 1989; Keegan et al. 2001b; Morgan et al. 2006; Sorenson et al. 2016).

effort is designed to restore ecosystem health, improve wildlife habitat, 

and reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildland fires (4FRI 2017). Although projects like the Zuni Mountains Stewardship and Southwest 

Jemez Mountains CFLRP have similar objectives and on-the-ground treatments, there is very little whole-tree utilization capability for commercial 

wood products in New Mexico. Arizona’s timber-processing capacity of 

approximately 139 MMBF Scribner (Sorenson et al. 2016) includes a few 

high volume sawmills with the capability of utilizing smaller diameter logs, 

whereas most of New Mexico’s 61 MMBF Scribner of timber-processing 

capacity is concentrated in mills that rely on larger diameter logs. New 

Mexico’s wood products industry is undertaking improvements to increase 

the utilization of smaller diameter trees, however many efforts were still 

in planning or development stages at the time of this study. In contrast, 

logging infrastructure in Arizona is capable of grinding or chipping whole 

trees at the logging site, and there are large-capacity facilities that use the 

raw material for biomass energy, heating, and soil amendment products. 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-31. 2020 5

METHODS

Sample Design 

The target population for this study was active logging sites in Arizona 

and New Mexico where green (live) trees were being commercially 

harvested for conversion into wood products, primarily lumber. Because of 

the need to measure harvesting impacts on growing stock, only green-tree 

sites were targeted. Salvage sales, with many or most trees dead prior to 

harvest, were not included. Historically, the majority (65 to 95 percent) of 

annual timber harvests in both States have been used for lumber and other 

sawn products such as timbers and pallet stock (Hayes et al. 2012; 

Keegan et al. 2001a, b; Morgan et al. 2006; Sorenson et al. 2016). Other 

timber products (e.g., logs for posts, poles, vigas and latillas) are 

commonly merchandised with sawlogs. Thus, we identified sites where 

green sawlogs were the primary products to be harvested. These sites 

would account for the vast majority of annual harvest volume and allow us 

to capture some volume harvested for other products. 

We sought a sample of felled trees within logging sites (the primary 

sampling unit) that would provide data to estimate logging utilization 

factors at the State level expressed as the ratios of means (Zarnoch et al. 

2004). The sampling protocol should yield ratios and attendant standard 

errors computed in the same manner as other logging utilization 

investigations to ensure comparability of results. Most State-level 

logging utilization investigations have reported factors and standard errors 

using design-based methods without selecting sample sites at 

random from a list of all active logging sites (McClain 1988, 1989; 

Simmons et al. 2014b, 2016). As Morgan and Spoelma (2008) described, it 

is not possible to know in advance the full population of logging sites in a 

State for a given year and simply draw a sample of those sites to measure. 

But without a sampling frame from which to draw samples at random, 

using design-based sampling could bias parameter estimates and 

compromise any ability to make population inferences (Lohr 2009). Berg 

et al. (2015) analyzed the potential bias in design-based sampling without 

the use of a sampling frame and found that the computed design-based 

residue ratios exhibited less than 0.5 percent bias. In the current study, as 

in other investigations, the authors could not obtain a list of all active sites; 

sample sites were not selected at random. 

 A two-stage sampling protocol was used to select logging sites and 

trees within the sites for measurement (Levy and Lemeshow 1999). The 

number of logging sites in an area (e.g., county or multi-county region) 

was assumed to be proportional to harvest volume. Sample sites were thus 

selected proportional to 5-year timber harvest volumes. Logging sites with 

active harvesting of green trees for commercial products served as the 
 6 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-31. 2020

stage 1 sampling units. Annual timber-harvest summaries (USDA Forest 

Service 2011-2015) provided the geographic location (i.e., county or 

National Forest) and ownerships of potential sample logging sites (fig. 3). 

Timberland owners and sawmills were contacted periodically throughout 

the study period to identify when and where logging activities would be 

occurring and to request access to logging sites to conduct measurements.

Figure 3. Sampled logging sites in Arizona and New Mexico, 2012-2017.

The stage 2 sampling units consisted of felled trees at each selected 

logging site. To qualify as a potential measurement tree, the tree had to be 

growing stock (i.e., live prior to harvest, with a d.b.h. ≥ 5.0 inches, and 

meeting minimum merchantability standards) and the entire stem, 

including the stump and top, had to be measureable (Morgan and Spoelma 

2008; Woudenberg et al. 2010).

Sample sizes for stage 1 and 2 sample units were guided by standard 

errors obtained in previous utilization studies. Zarnoch et al. (2004) found 

that standard errors for utilization ratios dropped substantially by 

increasing the number of measured logging sites from 10 to 20. Previous 

logging utilization studies in Montana, California, Idaho, Oregon and 

Washington garnered low standard errors by measuring 25 to 35 trees on 

each of 30 to 35 logging sites per State (Morgan et al. 2005; Morgan and 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-31. 2020 7

Spoelma 2008; Simmons et al. 2014b, 2016). Logging utilization studies 

conducted by the Forest Service’s Southern Research Station (Bentley and 

Johnson 2004; Zarnoch et al. 2004) suggested that a sample of 30 to 50 

logging sites with 20 to 35 felled trees measured at each logging site would 

be sufficient to determine State-level utilization factors. Based on these 

guidelines, we decided to sample 20 to 30 felled trees located within each 

of 20 to 30 active logging sites throughout Arizona and New Mexico.

Data Collection 

Logging contractors or foresters at each selected site were contacted 

three to five days prior to site visits to confirm access and outline protocols 

to ensure field crew safety. At each logging site, they provided information 

on tree species, products merchandised, and preferred and acceptable log 

lengths and diameters delivered to the receiving mill(s). Field crews 

recorded this information along with the date, county, land ownership 

class, felling method, yarding/skidding method, log merchandising 

location and method, logging contractor name, equipment in use, and 

names of the receiving mill(s). 

Field crews selected felled trees meeting the specified requirements at 

random. Individual trees or piles accumulated for skidding were scattered 

throughout the logging site, depending on the operation and equipment 

used. A unique identification number was assigned to each measurement 

tree, and species, d.b.h., and primary product (e.g., sawlog, veneer log, 

etc.) information were recorded. Diameter and section length 

measurements were taken at several points: 

(1) the cut stump, 

(2) at one foot above ground level (uphill side of the tree), 

(3) at d.b.h., 

(4) at the end of the first 16-foot log, 

(5) at the 7.0-inch diameter outside bark (d.o.b.), 

(6) at the 4.0-inch d.o.b. point (end of growing stock), and 

(7) at the end-of-utilization and at the tip of the tree. 

Each tree had diameter (in 0.1 inch increments) and section length 

(in 0.1 foot increments) measurements recorded with a maximum section 

length of 16 feet. Thus, for each bole section, lower and upper d.o.b. and 

length were recorded. The percent cubic cull for each section was also 

recorded and each bole section was identified as utilized (delivered to the 

mill) or unutilized (logging residue). The timber product type for each 

utilized section was also recorded. 
 8 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-31. 2020

A minimum of 20 felled, live trees were measured at each of 54 logging 

sites – 30 in Arizona, and 24 in New Mexico – from 2012 to 2017. These 

54 active logging sites were spread across both States. A total of 1,358 

felled trees—750 in Arizona, and 608 in New Mexico—were measured.

Data Analysis 

Following the methods of Morgan and Spoelma (2008), and Simmons 

et al. (2014b, 2016), cubic volumes for more than 11,600 individual tree 

sections were calculated using Smalian’s formula (Avery and Burkhart 

1994). Section volumes were summed for each tree by category (e.g., 

utilized vs. unutilized stump, bole, and upper stem sections of the trees), 

and utilization factors were calculated for each tree and site. Logging 

residue factors, standard errors, and 95 percent confidence intervals (CIs) 

were computed at the State level for Arizona and New Mexico based on the 

two-stage sampling design, using the ratios of means estimator (Zarnoch 

et al. 2004) obtained from SAS PROC SURVEYMEANS (SAS 2013). 

Residue factors were also calculated for individual species, species groups, 

and for each tree d.b.h. class. Characteristics of the felled trees, harvest 

operations, and utilization factors were then summarized and compared 

with historic Arizona and New Mexico logging utilization studies and with 

recent studies from other western States.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Characteristics of Logging Sites and Operations

Since the largest share of commercial logging in both States occurs on 

lands within the National Forest ownership class (Sorenson et al. 2016), 

the sample sites were selected proportional to geographic regions 

associated with national forests (table 2). Limited harvesting activity and 

availability of logging sites in the Santa Fe National Forest (in New 

Mexico) and National Forests south of the Mogollon Rim (in Arizona) 

resulted in somewhat fewer sites being measured relative to recent harvest 

volumes in those regions. 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-31. 2020 9

Table 2—Percent of five-year average harvest and logging utilization sample sites by National Forest.

Arizona New Mexico

Region Percent of 

harvesta

Percent of 

sample Region Percent of harvesta

Percent of 

sample

Apache/Sitgreaves 56 50 Lincoln 33 42

Coconino 19 23 Cibola 26 25

Kaibab 17 27 Sante Fe 17 4

Prescott 5 0 Gila 14 13

Tonto 3 0 Carson 10 17

Coronado 0 0

Total 100 100 Total 100 100

a USFS Cut and Sold, various years.

Harvesting methods included hand and mechanical felling and 

merchandising (table 3). Mechanical felling methods included the use of a 

“hot saw” or equipment with accumulating heads such as a feller-buncher. 

Hand felling and merchandising was done with chainsaws. Only groundbased (no cable or sky-line) skidding/yarding systems were observed in 

both States. Trees and or logs were mostly yarded with rubber-tired 

skidders and rarely with dozers equipped with either a grapple or a winch 

with chokers. The trees, both log- and tree-length, were skidded. 

Mechanical merchandising methods included the use of stroke (slideboom) de-limbers and dangle-head processors. 

In Arizona, trees were mechanically felled on all but two of the sites; 

in New Mexico, timber was hand-felled with chainsaws on 42 percent of 

the sites. Cable yarding was not employed in either State since moderate 

slopes and soils were conducive to the use of ground-based yarding 

systems. In both States, timber was skidded tree-length on most sites, but 

New Mexico had a higher proportion (33 percent) of sites skidded loglength. The processing or merchandising of trees at landings with 

mechanical systems was employed on the majority of sites in both States. 

New Mexico, however, had substantially more sites (33 percent) where 

trees were merchandised in the unit and over 40 percent of sites with 

merchandising done by hand. The more frequent use of chainsaws for 

felling and merchandising in New Mexico reflected the smaller and less 

mechanized forest industry in a State with relatively low timber harvest 

levels and limited timber-processing capacity. It also suggested less 

capability among New Mexico facilities for using smaller-diameter 

material, which is often more expensive to process and requires very 

efficient processing of large volumes.
 10 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-31. 2020

Table 3—Number of Arizona and New Mexico logging sites sampled by harvesting attribute, 2012-2017.

Felling method Yarding Skidding Merchandising location Merchandising method

Ownership Hand* Mechanical Combination Ground 

based Tree length Log length In unit At landing Mechanical Hand*

--------------------------------------------------------------- Number of Sites ---------------------------------------------------------------------

Arizona

USFS 2 28 — 30 29 1 1 29 28 2

New Mexico

USFS/NIPF 10 13 1 24 16 8 8 16 14 10

*Hand felling and merchandising done with chainsaws.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-31. 2020 11

Characteristics of Felled Trees

In Arizona, the sample of felled trees ranged from 5.0 to 26.7 inches 

d.b.h.; the New Mexico trees ranged from 6.4 to 27.1 inches d.b.h. The 

median diameter tree by mill-delivered volume was 14.2 inches d.b.h. for 

Arizona and 14.8 inches d.b.h. for New Mexico. Half of the trees 

measured in Arizona were ≤ 12.4 inches d.b.h., but they accounted for 

about 25 percent of the utilized volume and 31 percent of growing-stock 

logging residue. Half of the harvested trees in New Mexico were also ≤ 12.4 

inches d.b.h., and accounted for about 24 percent of the mill-delivered 

volume and 44 percent of growing-stock logging residue volume. In New 

Mexico, the higher proportion of growing-stock logging residue from trees 

≤ 12.4 inches d.b.h. resulted from only sawlogs being merchandised there. 

Arizona, on the other hand, had numerous sites with whole-tree 

utilization, including use for biomass energy. 

In Arizona, trees < 15 inches d.b.h. accounted for roughly 59 percent 

of mill-delivered volume and 60 percent of growing-stock logging residue 

(table 4). In New Mexico, trees < 15 inches d.b.h. accounted for about 52 

percent of mill-delivered volume, but 74 percent of growing-stock logging 

residue. This indicates more residue from, and less utilization of, smaller 

trees in New Mexico as compared to Arizona.

As in Idaho (Simmons 2014b), timber harvests in Arizona and New 

Mexico have shifted dramatically from larger diameter trees to smaller 

trees during the past three decades. In the late 1980s, trees ≥ 24 inches 

d.b.h. provided between 40 and 60 percent of the mill-delivered volume 

(McLain 1988, 1989). In this 2012-2017 study, trees in the same diameter 

class provided less than 5 percent of the mill-delivered volume (fig. 4). 

The sawmill industry’s increased use of smaller trees and declining use of 

large trees throughout the western United States has been documented 

(Keegan et al. 2010). In the Southwest, this trend is likely due to perceived 

reductions in the inventory of larger-diameter trees, restoration or fuel 

reduction prescriptions that focus on removing smaller trees, and harvest 

diameter limits (e.g., no trees > 16 inches d.b.h. allowed to be cut) on some 

public lands. In other regions (e.g., western Oregon and Washington), the 

industry has largely shifted to shorter rotation (e.g., 30 to 40 year), 

plantation-grown trees. 
 12 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-31. 2020

Table 4—Distribution of trees, mill-delivered volume, and growing-stock logging residue volume in cubic feet (CF) by dbha

class for Arizona and New Mexico logging sites, 2012-2017.

Arizona (750 trees)

dbh 

class 

(inches)

Number 

of trees

Percent of 

sample trees

Cumulative 

percent

Percent of 

mill delivered 

volume (CF)

Cumulative 

percent

Percent of growingstock logging residue 

(CF)

Cumulative 

percent

6 19 2.5 2.5 0.3 0.3 2.1 2.1

8 113 15.1 17.6 4.1 4.5 9.1 11.2

10 156 20.8 38.4 11.3 15.8 12.3 23.4

12 171 22.8 61.2 19.8 35.6 17.1 40.6

14 142 18.9 80.1 23.2 58.8 19.2 59.7

16 77 10.3 90.4 16.3 75.1 12.0 71.7

18 31 4.1 94.5 8.4 83.4 5.4 77.1

20 23 3.1 97.6 8.0 91.5 7.2 84.3

22 10 1.3 98.9 4.7 96.2 4.7 89.0

24+ 8 1.1 100 3.8 100 11.0 100

New Mexico (608 trees)

DBH 

class 

(inches)

Number 

of trees

Percent of 

sample trees

Cumulative 

percent

Percent of 

mill delivered 

volume (CF)

Cumulative 

percent

Percent of growingstock logging residue 

(CF)

Cumulative 

percent

6 6 1.0 1.0 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.7

8 65 10.7 11.7 2.4 2.5 11.1 11.8

10 158 26.0 37.7 12.4 14.9 22.4 34.2

12 133 21.9 59.5 16.6 31.5 19.2 53.4

14 110 18.1 77.6 20.8 52.3 20.3 73.7

16 58 9.5 87.2 15.4 67.6 7.4 81.0

18 46 7.6 94.7 16.8 84.4 9.7 90.7

20 23 3.8 98.5 10.0 94.4 6.3 97.1

22 7 1.2 99.7 4.0 98.5 2.6 99.7

24+ 2 0.3 100 1.5 100 0.3 100

a dbh = diameter at breast height

Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-31. 2020 13

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24+

Percent of mill-delivered volume

Tree dbh class

Arizona

1985 2012-17

A

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24+

Percent of mill-deliverd volume

Tree dbh class

New Mexico

1987 2012-17

B

Figure 4a-b—Distribution of trees by dbh and percent of total growing stock delivered to (a) Arizona and (b) 

New Mexico mills 1985, 2012-17 (McLain 1988; McLain 1989).
 14 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-31. 2020

Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa var. scopulorum Engelm.) was the 

most sampled and harvested tree species in both States, followed by 

Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco). In Arizona, 

ponderosa pine comprised over 80 percent of the logging utilization 

sample and 2012 harvest volume from the Sorenson et al. (2016) mill 

study (table 5). Douglas-fir and other species were somewhat 

underrepresented in the Arizona logging utilization sample, compared to 

the 2012 harvest volume. In New Mexico, the mix of species in both the 

logging utilization sample and the 2012 harvest volume were more 

similar, with both capturing over 50 percent of ponderosa pine and 19 

percent or more of Douglas-fir and other softwoods including spruce 

(Picea spp), white fir (Abies concolor (Gord. & Glend.) Lindl. ex Hildebr.), 

and Southwestern white pine (Pinus strobiformis Engelm). 

Table 5—Number of sampled trees, percent of sampled tree mill-delivered volume, percent of 2012 statewide timber harvest 

volume, percent of growing-stock logging residue volume, and growing-stock residue as a percent of mill-delivered cubic foot 

(CF) volume by species and State, 2012-2017.

 Species

Percent of 

sampled 

trees

Percent of 

sampled tree 

mill-delivered 

CF volume

Percent of 2012 

timber harvest 

volume 

(MBF, Scribner)a

Percent of growingstock logging 

residue CF volume

Residue as a 

percent of milldelivered CF 

volume

Arizona

Ponderosa pine 96.1 97.0 83.6 91.6 2.3

Douglas-fir 3.9 3.0 8.1 8.4 6.8

Other species 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.0

Total 100 100 100 100 2.4

New Mexico

Ponderosa pine 59.9 56.7 54.0 59.7 6.9

Douglas-fir 22.0 22.5 19.0 23.2 6.8

Other species 18.1 20.8 27.0 17.1 5.4

Total 100 100 100 100 6.5

a

 Sorenson et al. 2016.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-31. 2020 15

Statewide Logging Utilization Factors

Logging utilization factors are Statewide ratios of removals volumes 

versus mill-delivered volumes (Morgan and Spoelma 2008, Simmons et al. 

2014b, 2016). The logging utilization factors calculated in this 2012-2017 

study for Arizona indicated that for each 1,000 CF delivered to mills: 

• 38 CF of non-growing stock material (stumps cut below 1-foot in 

height and tops utilized beyond the 4-inch d.o.b.) was utilized, 

• 962 CF of growing-stock material was utilized, 

• 24 CF of growing-stock material was left in the forest or at the 

landing as logging residue, and 

• commercial timber harvesting removed a total of 986 CF of 

growing-stock volume (table 6). 

Table 6—Arizona and New Mexico logging utilization factors, 2012-2017.

Arizona factor

Lower 

bound 

(95% CI)

Estimate 

(ratio of 

means)

Upper 

bound 

(95% CI)

Standard 

error

Cubic feet (CF) 

per 1,000 CF 

mill-delivered

Non-growing stock product delivered to 

mills (utilized non-growing stock ÷ total 

utilized)

0.0302 0.0385 0.0467 0.0040 38

Growing-stock product delivered to mills 

(utilized growing stock ÷ total utilized) 0.9533 0.9615 0.9698 0.0040 962

Growing-stock logging residue (unutilized 

growing stock ÷ total utilized) 0.0135 0.0244 0.0353 0.0053 24

Removals from growing stock ((utilized + 

unutilized growing stock) ÷ total utilized) 0.9702 0.9860 1.0018 0.0077 986

New Mexico factor

Lower 

bound 

(95% CI)

Estimate 

(ratio of 

means)

Upper 

bound 

(95% CI)

Standard 

Error

Cubic feet (CF) 

per 1,000 CF 

mill-delivered

Non-growing stock product delivered to 

mills (utilized non-growing stock ÷ total 

utilized)

0.0142 0.0201 0.0259 0.0028 20

Growing-stock product delivered to mills 

(utilized growing stock ÷ total utilized) 0.9741 0.9799 0.9858 0.0028 980

Growing-stock logging residue (unutilized 

growing stock ÷ total utilized) 0.0495 0.0654 0.0814 0.0077 65

Removals from growing stock ((utilized + 

unutilized growing stock) ÷ total utilized) 1.0296 1.0454 1.0612 0.0077 1045
 16 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-31. 2020

New Mexico removals factors were considerably different from 

Arizona. For each 1,000 CF delivered to mills from New Mexico logging 

sites: 20 CF came from of non-growing stock material, 980 CF of growing 

stock was utilized, 65 CF of growing-stock was left on site as logging 

residue, and commercial harvest removed a total of 1,045 CF of 

growing-stock volume. 

The lower growing-stock logging residue factor (24 CF) in Arizona 

compared to (65 CF) New Mexico and the somewhat higher non-growing 

stock delivered to mill factor (38 CF in Arizona vs. 20 CF in New Mexico) 

reflected the types and capabilities of processing facilities operating in 

each State, as well as timber harvesting prescriptions. In Arizona, about 

half of the sites were restoration or stewardship treatments requiring 

whole-tree removal. These trees were merchandised as sawlogs for sawmills with most of the remaining material processed into fuelwood for 

a biomass power plant in Snowflake. Sawmills in Arizona also indicated 

using sawlogs with smaller top diameters than sawmills in New Mexico. In 

New Mexico, there were no sites with a whole-tree removal requirement, 

and timber was merchandised almost exclusively for sawlogs. Without a 

local biomass facility, much more growing-stock material was left as 

logging residue and less non-growing stock material was utilized. 

Consistent with other studies (Morgan and Spoelma 2008, Simmons et 

al. 2014b, 2016), smaller trees in both Arizona and New Mexico tended to 

produce more growing-stock logging residue per 1,000 CF of milldelivered volume than larger trees (fig. 5). Overall, the growing-stock 

residue factor was higher across all tree sizes (except the 24+ inch d.b.h. 

class) in New Mexico than in Arizona, and the residue factors for the 

smallest trees (in the 6 to 10 inch d.b.h. classes) were substantially higher 

in New Mexico than in Arizona. With only eight trees in the 24+ inch class 

in Arizona and two trees in New Mexico, the sample size was too small to 

determine a conclusive cause for higher residue factors of those largest 

trees. 

The differences in utilization factors between the two States were 

related to each State’s milling infrastructure. Less ability to process 

smaller material, whether at biomass facilities or sawmills capable of using 

logs with a smaller top diameter, translated into lower utilization of the 

upper portions of trees. Thus the State-to-State differences in residue 

factors for trees in the 6 to10-inch d.b.h. class largely reflected differences 

in felled-tree, small-end utilization diameters. The average diameter for 

end of utilization in Arizona was 2.6 inches d.o.b. compared to 6.1 

inches d.o.b. in New Mexico. These findings were consistent with Berg et 

al. (2016), which found that growing-stock residue ratios increased 

exponentially as the diameter at the end of utilization increased.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-31. 2020 17

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24+

Percent of total

Tree dbh class

Arizona

Percent of mill-delivered volume

Percent of harvested trees

 Growing-stock residue factor

A

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24+

Percent of total

Tree dbh class

New Mexico

Percent of mill-delivered volume

Percent of harvested trees

 Growing-stock residue factor

B

Figure 5a-b—Distribution of mill delivered volume, harvested trees, and residue per cubic foot (CF) of mill delivered volume by tree d.b.h. and State, 2012-2017.
 18 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-31. 2020

In Arizona, 3.8 percent of the harvested bole volume (i.e., portions of 

the tree from the cut stump to the tip of the tree, excluding branches) 

remained in the woods as logging residue (fig. 6). In New Mexico, 8.6 

percent of the harvested bole volume remained in the woods as logging 

residue. In Arizona, 4.6 percent of the volume delivered to the mill came 

from non-growing stock portions of trees, compared to just 1.8 percent in 

New Mexico. Most of the additional non-growing stock volume utilized 

in Arizona came from upper portions of trees – beyond the 6-inch d.o.b. 

average end of utilization for trees harvested in New Mexico.

4.6% 91.6% 2.3% 1.5%

Harvested tree bole* - Arizona 

(portions of tree from cut stump to tip of main stem)

Non-growing stock mill delivered Growing stock mill delivered

Growing stock logging residue Non-growing stock logging residue

*Excludes branches and forked tops 

A

1.8% 89.6% 5.5% 3.1%

Harvested tree bole* - New Mexico

(portions of tree from cut stump to tip of main stem)

Non-growing stock mill delivered Growing stock mill delivered

Growing stock logging residue Non-growing stock logging residue

*Excludes branches and forked tops 

B

Figure 6a-b—Arizona and New Mexico harvested tree bole utilization, 2012-2017.

Logging Utilization Factors Through Time

Logging utilization studies in other western States have consistently 

found that the growing-stock residue factor has decreased and the nongrowing stock delivered to mill factor has increased over time (Morgan et 

al. 2005; Simmons et al. 2014b; Berg et al. 2018), indicating higher overall utilization of harvested trees. These trends held for Arizona, where the 

2012-2017 growing-stock residue factor was one-third of what it was in 

1985 (McLain 1988) and less than one-fifth of what it was in 1968 (Setzer 

et al. 1970). In Arizona, the non-growing stock delivered to mill factor also 

increased from zero to 38 CF (table 7). New Mexico, however, did not have 

increased utilization as compared to the 1980s.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-31. 2020 19

Table 7—Arizona and New Mexico logging utilization factors for each 1,000 cubic feet of green 

material delivered to mills, selected years.

Factor 1968a 1985b 2012-17

Arizona ------------ cubic feet -----------

Non-growing stock product delivered to mills – 0 38

Growing-stock product delivered to mills 1,000 1,000 962

Growing-stock logging residue 122 71 24

Removals from growing stock 1,122 1,071 986

Factor 1968a 1987c 2012-17

New Mexico ------------ cubic feet -----------

Non-growing stock product delivered to mills – 4 20

Growing-stock product delivered to mills 1,000 996 980

Growing-stock logging residue 122 43 65

Removals from growing stock 1,122 1,039 1,045

a Setzer et al. 1970; b McLain 1988; c McLain 1989.

In New Mexico, there was an increase in non-growing stock delivered 

to mills (from 4 CF to 20 CF per 1,000 CF) since the 1980s, but the 2012-

2017 growing-stock residue factor was 50 percent higher than in 1987 

(McLain 1989). This is the first instance of an increased growing-stock 

residue factor through time among western States. New Mexico, like 

Arizona and most of the western United States, had a reduction in 

timber-processing capacity and the number of facilities operating since 

the 1980s (Keegan et al. 2006; McIver et al. 2013; Simmons et al. 2014a; 

Sorenson et al. 2016). Despite this, logging utilization increased in other 

States, and the use of smaller-diameter material by sawmills generally 

increased (Keegan et al. 2010). The increase in New Mexico’s growingstock residue factor suggests that the ability to process smaller-diameter 

material in New Mexico declined with the closure of many sawmills. 

Additionally, the remaining facilities are in the process of transitioning to 

using smaller logs, but large capacity, biomass-utilizing facilities have not 

yet been developed. 
 20 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-31. 2020

CONCLUSIONS

Arizona and New Mexico logging utilization factors have varied 

substantially through time. Progressive reductions in New Mexico timberprocessing capacity and attendant demand for timber, as well the different 

wood products infrastructures between the two States have created major 

differences in logging utilization factors. In particular, New Mexico’s 

growing-stock residue factor was found to be 170 percent greater than 

Arizona’s in this study. This largely resulted from the greater quantities of 

upper stem bole material that were left unutilized on New Mexico logging 

sites as compared to Arizona logging sites. 

This logging utilization study and resulting factors can help forest 

managers in the Southwest understand the impacts of commercial 

timber harvesting on growing-stock inventories and woody residue 

volumes potentially available for bioenergy uses. Likewise, they can 

provide measures and insights into how the milling infrastructure in each 

State affects the utilization of timber. Variables—logging method, species, 

tree size (i.e., d.b.h.), and the presence/absence of an industry (e.g., pulp 

or biomass energy) that can use smaller diameter material—can have 

profound impacts on the production of logging residue. 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-31. 2020 21

REFERENCES

Avery, T.E.; Burkhart, H.E. 1994. Forest measurements. 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. 

408 p. 

Bentley, J.W.; Johnson, T.G. 2004. Eastern Texas harvest and utilization study, 2003. Resour. 

Bull. RB-SRS-97. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern 

Research Station. 28 p.

Berg, E.C.; Morgan, T.A.; Simmons, E.A.; Zarnoch, S.J. 2015. Logging utilization research in 

the Pacific Northwest: Residue prediction and unique research challenges. In: Stanton, 

S.M.; Christensen, G.A., comps. 2015. Pushing boundaries: New directions in inventory 

techniques and applications. Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) symposium 2015. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-931. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 384 p.

Berg, E.C.; Morgan, T.A.; Simmons, E.A.; Zarnoch, S.J.; Scudder, M. 2016. Predicting logging 

residue volumes in the Pacific Northwest. Forest Science 62(5): 564–573.

Berg, E.C.; Simmons, E.A.; Hayes, S.W.; Morgan, T.A.; Shaw, J.D. 2018. Logging utilization in 

Montana, 2011-2016. Res. Pap. RMRS-RB-26. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 16 p.

Four Forest Restoration Initiative (4FRI). 2017. Four Forest Restoration Initiative. Web page. 

https://4fri.org/about-us/ . Last accessed June 2017.

Hayes, S.W.; Morgan, T.A.; Berg, E.C.; Daniels, J.M.; Thompson, M.T. 2012. Four Corners 

timber harvest and forest products industry, 2007. Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-13. Fort Collins, 

CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 

61 p.

Helms, J.A. 1998. The dictionary of forestry. Bethesda, MD: The Society of American Foresters. 

210 p. 

Keegan, C.E.; Chase, A.L.; Morgan, T.A.; Bodmer, S.E.; Van Hooser, D.D.; Mortimer, M. 2001a. 

Arizona’s forest products industry: A descriptive analysis 1998. Missoula, MT: University of 

Montana, Bureau of Business and Economic Research. 20 p.

Keegan, C.E.; Chase, A.L.; Morgan, T.A.; Bodmer, S.E.; Van Hooser, D.D.; Mortimer, M. 2001b. 

New Mexico’s forest products industry: A descriptive analysis 1997. Missoula, MT: 

University of Montana, Bureau of Business and Economic Research. 24 p.

Keegan, C.E., III; Morgan, T.A.; Gebert, K.M.; Brandt, J.P.; Blatner, K.A.; Spoelma, T.P. 2006. 

Timber-processing capacity and capabilities in the Western United States. Journal of 

Forestry. 104(5):262-268.
 22 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-31. 2020

Keegan, C.E., III; Morgan, T.A.; Blatner, K.A.; Daniels, J.M. 2010. Trends in lumber processing 

in the western United States, part 1: Board foot Scribner volume per cubic foot of timber. 

Forest Products Journal. 60 (2):133-139.

Keegan, C.E., III; 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): 625-634.

Levy, P.S.; Lemeshow, S. 1999. Sampling of populations: Methods and applications. 3rd ed. 

New York: Wiley Inc. 525 p.

Lohr, S.L. 2009. Sampling: Design and analysis. 2nd ed. Boston, MA: Brooks/Cole, Cengage 

Learning. 596 p.

McIver, C.P.; Sorenson, C.B.; Keegan, C.E., III; Morgan, T.A.; Menlove, J. 2013. Montana’s 

forest products industry and timber harvest, 2009. Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-16. Fort 

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. 42 p. 

McLain, W.H. 1988. Logging utilization—Arizona, 1985. Res. Bul. INT-58. Ogden, UT: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 8 p.

McLain, W.H. 1989. Logging utilization—New Mexico, 1987. Res. Bul. INT-62. Ogden, UT: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 9 p.

Miles, P.D. 2017. Forest Inventory EVALIDator web-application Version 1.6.0.03. St. Paul, 

MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 

http://apps.fs.fed.us/Evalidator/evalidator.jsp. Accessed May 31, 2017.

Morgan, T.A.; Spoelma, T.P. 2008. California logging utilization: 2004. Western Journal of 

Applied Forestry. 23(1): 12–18.

Morgan, T.A.; Dillon, T.; Keegan, C.E., III; Chase, A.L.; Thompson, M.T. 2006. The Four 

Corners timber harvest and forest products industry, 2002. Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-7. Fort 

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. 64 p.

Morgan, T.A.; Spoelma, T.P.; Keegan, C.E., III; Chase, A.L.; Thompson, M.T. 2005. Montana 

logging utilization, 2002. Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-52. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 12 p.

SAS. 2013. SAS version 9.4. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.

Setzer, T.S.; Wilson, A.K.; Choate, GA. 1970. Logging residues on saw log operations, Arizona 

and New Mexico. Res. Pap. INT-78. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Intermountain Research Station. 11 p.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-31. 2020 23

Simmons, E.A.; Hayes, S.W.; Morgan, T.A.; Keegan, C.E., III; Witt, C. 2014a. Idaho’s forest 

products industry and timber harvest 2011 with trends through 2013. Resour. Bull. RMRSRB-19. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 46 p. 

Simmons, E.A.; Morgan, T.A.; Berg, E.C.; Zarnoch, S.J.; Hayes, S.W.; Thompson, M.T. 2014b. 

Logging utilization in Idaho: Current and past trends. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-318. 

Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. 15 p. 

Simmons, E.A.; Morgan, T.A.; Berg, E.C.; Hayes, S.W.; Christensen, G.A. 2016. Logging 

utilization in Oregon and Washington, 2011–2015. Resour. Bull. PNW-RB-268. Portland, 

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

24 p.

Sorenson, C.B.; Hayes, S.W.; Morgan, T.A.; Simmons, E.A.; Scudder, M.G.; McIver, C.P.; 

Thompson, M.T. 2016. The Four Corners timber harvest and forest products industry, 2012. 

Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-21. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 62 p. 

USDA Forest Service. 2017. Forest products cut and sold from the national forests and 

grasslands. https://www.fs.fed.us/forestmanagement/products/cut-sold/index.shtml. Last 

accessed June 2017.

Woudenberg, S.W.; Conkling, B.L.; O’Connell, B.M.; LaPoint, E.B.; Turner, J.A.; Waddell, K.L. 

2010. The Forest Inventory and Analysis database: Database description and users’ manual 

version 4.0 for Phase 2. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR- 245. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 336 p.

Zarnoch, S.J.; Bentley, J.W.; Johnson, T.G. 2004. Determining sample size for tree utilization 

surveys. Res. Pap. SRS-34. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Southern Research Station. 11 p. 
 24 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-31. 2020

END NOTES

1

Diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) is the tree’s diameter outside bark, measured at 4.5 feet 

above ground on the uphill side.

2

Growing stock is defined as all live trees of commercial species that meet minimum 

merchantability standards or have the potential to meet these merchantability standards. In 

general, these trees have at least one solid 8-foot section, are reasonably free of form defect on 

the merchantable bole, and 26 percent or more of the volume is merchantable.

3

Timberland is defined as unreserved forest land capable of producing 20 cubic feet per acre 

per year of wood from trees classified as a timber species on forest land designated as a timber 

forest type.

4

Vigas are peeled logs used as exposed ceiling joists or beams in traditional Southwestern style 

building. Latillas are smaller-diameter peeled logs running perpendicular to or between vigas. 
To learn more about RMRS publications or search our online titles:

RMRS web site at: https://www.fs.fed.us/rmrs/rmrs-publishing-services

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.