United States Department of Agriculture

DEPAR TMENT OF AGRICULT URE

Forest 

Service

Pacific Northwest 

Research Station

General Technical Report

PNW-GTR-994

December

2020

California’s Forest Products 

Industry and Timber Harvest, 2016

Kate C. Marcille, Todd A. Morgan, Chelsea P. McIver, and Glenn A. Christensen
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. 

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

Authors

Kate C. Marcille is a forest economist, Chelsea P. McIver is a research social 

scientist, and Todd A. Morgan is director of the Forest Industry Research Program, 

Bureau of Business and Economic Research, University of Montana, Gallagher 

Business Building, 32 Campus Drive, 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 Street, Suite 502, 

Portland, OR 97205.

Cover: (top row) Multi-age California timber and forestlands, and active California 

logging site; (middle row) redwood stand in Northern California, decked logs and log 

sorter in California mill yard, and redwood logs and finished fence boards; (bottom 

row) mill residual piles at California biomass energy facility, tree tops and logging 

slash pile, and cants being processed in a California mill. All photos by the University of Montana Bureau of Business and Economic Research.
Abstract

Marcille, Kate C.; Morgan, Todd A.; McIver, Chelsea P.; Christensen, Glenn 

A. 2020. California’s forest products industry and timber harvest, 2016. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-994. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 58 p.

This report traces the flow of California’s 2016 timber harvest through the primary 

wood products industry and characterizes the structure, condition, and economic 

impacts of California’s forest products sector. Historical changes in the forest 

products industry are presented, as well as trends in timber harvest, production, 

sawmill capacity, mill residuals, and sales value. Also discussed are employment 

and worker earnings in the state’s primary and secondary forest products industries. 

Periodic survey data collected from the forest products industry provides detailed 

information on California’s timber resources, wood utilization, and the economic 

contributions of the industry to the state economy.

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

residual, mill capacity, wood products, timber harvest, timber-processing facility, 

wood utilization.

Highlights

• A total of 80 primary forest products facilities operated in California during 2016. These included 32 sawmills, 23 bioenergy plants, 12 bark and 

mulch facilities, 2 veneer plants, 1 particleboard plant, and 10 manufacturers of other primary wood products.

• California’s timber harvest was 1,572 million board feet (MMBF) Scribner 

in 2016, representing a 10 percent increase since 2012. More than 48 percent (759 MMBF) of the timber harvested came from five counties. Similar 

to 2012, Shasta County provided the largest proportion at 13 percent (208 

MMBF) followed by Humboldt County at 11 percent (178 MMBF).

• About 80 percent of California’s 2016 timber harvest came from private 

lands, 17 percent from national forests, and the remaining 3 percent from 

other public sources. Nearly all (97 percent) of the timber harvested in 

California was processed within the state.

• About 27 percent of California’s 2016 timber harvest was comprised of true 

fir species, followed by Douglas-fir (24 percent), ponderosa pine (23 percent), and redwood (14 percent).
• More than 13 percent of the timber harvested in 2016 was dead. California’s 

large-scale tree mortality event during 2015 and 2016 led to increased reporting of dead trees received by timber processors, up from 2 percent in 2012. 

Ponderosa pine—one of the species most affected by the bark beetle epidemic—saw a 16 percent increase in reported dead volume from 2012 to 2016.

• Converting all inputs, outputs, and mill residuals to cubic feet allows for 

more complete accounting of wood fiber from harvest through primary 

processing. Of the 367 million cubic feet (MMCF) of wood fiber (excluding bark) harvested in California in 2016, approximately 43 percent 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 25 

percent was used as raw material for a variety of other products.

• Total sales value for California’s primary forest products was about $1.5 billion in 2016, with lumber accounting for 65 percent of the total reported products. The majority (74 percent) of all primary forest products manufactured in 

California were sold in state. Two sectors—sawmills and bioenergy plants—

accounted for more than 83 percent of the industry sales value in 2016.

• California sawmills produced more than 2,000 MMBF of lumber in 2016, 

accounting for more than 6 percent of U.S. production of softwood lumber 

and just over 4 percent of U.S. consumption.

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

has continued to decrease, from 6,000 MMBF Scribner in the late 1980s to 

1,870 MMBF in 2016 (up slightly from 1,780 MMBF in 2012). Of this total 

timber-processing capacity, 73 percent was utilized in 2016.

• In 2016, approximately 57,890 workers, earning $3.64 billion, were employed 

in California’s forest industry, including primary and secondary wood and 

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

activities. Wood products manufacturing accounted for 50 percent of employment and 38 percent of earnings within California’s overall forest industry.

• In addition to direct employment and income generated by California’s forest industry, the University of Montana Bureau of Business and Economic 

Research estimated indirect and induced economic contributions for each 

sector of the industry. For example, the wood products manufacturing sector alone supported more than 66,200 full- and part-time jobs (direct, indirect, and induced) and an associated $3.43 billion in labor income during 

2016. For every wood products manufacturing job in California, another 1.3 

jobs are supported in a related sector of the state economy.
• California’s primary wood-processing facilities produced nearly 2.1 million bone-dry tons (1.75 million bone-dry units) of residuals in 2016. Wood 

residuals accounted for 72 percent of total residual volume generated by 

primary processing facilities and bark constituted the remaining 28 percent 

of residuals.

• Nearly 58 percent of total residuals were utilized by the biomass energy 

sector, over 31 percent by the landscape bark and other products sector, 

and 11 percent by the reconstituted board sector; less than 1 percent of mill 

residuals went unutilized.
Contents

1 Introduction

1 Forest Industries Data Collection System

2 California’s Timber Harvest, Products, and Flow

3 California’s Timberlands

4 Harvest by Ownership 

5 Harvest by Geographic Source

12 Harvest by Species

14 Harvest by Product Type

16 Product Type by Ownership Class

17 Product Type by Species

18 Timber Flow

23 End Uses of California’s 2016 Timber Harvest

28 California’s Forest Products Industry

30 Industry Concentrations

32 Sales Value, Product Markets, and Market Areas

35 Trends and Capacity by Sector

35 Sawmill Sector

36 Veneer and Plywood Sector

38 Residual-Utilizing Sector

38 Bioenergy Sector

40 Other Sectors

40 Input and Output Capacity

44 Lumber Recovery Factors and Overrun

45 Mill Residuals: Quantity, Type, and Use

48 Forest Industry Employment and Earnings

52 Economic Contribution of California’s Forest Industry

53 Acknowledgments 

54 References
1

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2016

Introduction

This report describes the utilization of California’s 2016 timber harvest and characterizes the condition, structure, and operation of the state’s primary forest products 

industry. Primary forest products manufacturers are firms that process timber into 

goods such as lumber or veneer, and facilities such as biomass power and particleboard plants that use low-value woody biomass removed from harvest sites or wood 

fiber residuals generated by timber-processing facilities. This report also describes 

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 wood-processing infrastructure and the volume and 

value of finished products and residuals, as well as employment and sales trends 

across the forest industry.

A statewide census of California’s primary forest products manufacturers 

provided most of the information presented in this report. The industry census also 

included firms in adjacent states using raw material from California during the 

2016 calendar year. The 2016 California forest products industry report focuses on 

changes within the state’s forest products industry since the 2012 census (McIver et 

al. 2015). For a more detailed discussion of historical trends in timber harvesting and 

processing for California, see McIver et al. (2015) and Morgan et al. (2004, 2012).

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

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

Northwest (PNW) Research Station cooperated in the analysis and preparation of 

this report. 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 fourth such study of 

California’s timber harvest and forest products industry since 2000.

Forest Industries Data Collection System

In cooperation with the FIA programs at the Rocky Mountain and PNW Research 

Stations, BBER developed the Forest Industries Data Collection System (FIDACS) 

to collect, compile, and disseminate state and county information on the operations 

of the forest products industry across the West.

Primary forest products firms operating in California in 2016 were identified through various phone directories, industry associations, Internet searches, 

previous BBER censuses, and help from in-state cooperators. Through a written 

or electronic questionnaire, or via a telephone or in-person interview, information 

was collected from timber-processing and wood residual-utilizing facilities about 

their 2016 operations. Of the 80 primary wood-processing facilities operating in 
2

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-994

California during 2016, about 64 percent responded to the inquiry and accounted 

for 77 percent of the state’s timber harvest volume. Each wood-processing facility 

completed a single questionnaire, which included the following information:

• Plant location, production capacity, and employment

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

• Species mix of timber received and live/dead proportions

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

• Residual volume produced, and utilization and marketing of wood and 

bark residuals

For those wood-processing facilities that did not return the questionnaire, a 

variety of sources were used to estimate values:

• Current data collected for facilities of a similar size, product type, and location

• Information on market trends and prices

• Data from other sources, including the Western Wood Products Association 

(WWPA 1964–2016) and Random Lengths (1976–2016)

Further, 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. Manufacturers who participated in the 2016 California forest 

industry census processed virtually all of the state’s commercial timber harvest.

Information collected through FIDACS is stored by BBER. Results and summary tables are available online upon compilation and review (http://www.bber.umt.

edu/fir). Key data from other sources are made available online to provide the most 

recent measures of general industry activity, and references to other publications 

characterizing forest industry conditions are included. Additional information is 

available by request. However, individual firm-level data are confidential and will 

not be released.

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 during 2016. It presents ownership and geographic sources of timber, species composition, types of timber harvested and processed, utilization of harvested wood fiber, 

and flow of the timber both within the state of California and from California to 

other states and countries.

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

Department of Tax and Fee Administration (annual) (CDTFA 2018) and the PNW 

Research Station (annual and periodic); these sources were used for historical 
3

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2016

comparisons. However, the detailed harvest volumes presented in this report for 

2016 are the result of a full census of California and out-of-state mills receiving 

timber harvested in California during 2016, as described in the “Forest Industries 

Data Collection System” section of this report. Differences may exist between the 

numbers published here and those published by other sources. These differences 

are the results of differing reporting units and conversion factors, rounding error, 

and scaling discrepancies among timber sellers (agencies and private owners) and 

between sellers and buyers, as well as other reporting variations.

California’s Timberlands

California has about 100 million ac of land area, of which 32 million ac (30 percent) 

are forested. 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” (Christensen et al. 2015, USDA FS 2019). Of the total forest 

land in California, private landowners hold 12.3 million ac (39 percent), national 

forest lands account for 15.3 million ac (48 percent), and other public lands account 

for 4.2 million ac (13 percent). About 16 million (52 percent) of the 32 million ac of 

forest land in California are classified as timberland. Timberland is forest land that is 

producing, or capable of producing, more than 20 cubic feet (ft3) 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 8.8 million ac (54 percent) of timberland, private landowners hold approximately 7.2 million ac (44 percent), and other public landowners, including the U.S. 

Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management and state and local governments, hold the remaining 2 percent (less than 1 million ac) (USDA FS 2019).

California’s timberland contains approximately 335,000 million board feet 

(MMBF) Scribner of sawtimber (USDA FS 2015). 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 31 percent of the Scribner board 

foot sawtimber volume on timberland. Other species contributing the majority of 

volume on timberland are true firs (Abies spp.) (16 percent), ponderosa pine (Pinus 

ponderosa Dougl. ex Laws) and Jeffrey pine (Pinus jeffreyi Balf.) (18 percent), 

redwood (Sequoia sempervirens (D. Don) Endl.) (10 percent), and sugar pine (Pinus 

lambertiana Dougl.) (5 percent) (USDA FS 2015).
4

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-994

Harvest by Ownership 

The timber volume harvested in California during 2016 was nearly 1,600 MMBF 

Scribner (table 1), an increase of about 10 percent from the 2012 harvest of 1,400 

MMBF and 9 percent less than the 2006 harvest of 1,700 MMBF (McIver et al. 

2015, Morgan et al. 2012). The timber harvest during 2016 was almost 87 percent 

of the average volume of the previous 20 years, and less than 50 percent of the 

50-year average.

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

Ownership 2000 2006 2012 2016

- - - - - - - - - - Million board feet a - - - - - - - - - -

Private:

Industrial 1,075.2 942.7 1,000.5 1,044.5

Nonindustrial private 800.7 555.8 185.1 199.9

Tribal 9.9 5.6 8.1 6.6

1,885.8 1,504.1 1,193.7 1,251.0

Public:

National forest 337.1 224.7 203.3 265.5

State 18.6 3.5 27.9 51.4

Bureau of Land Management 7.7 0.3 0.4 —

Other public 0.5 0.4 0.1 3.7

363.9 228.9 231.7 320.6

Total 2,249.7 1,733.1 1,425.4 1,571.5

- - - - - - - - Percentage of harvest - - - - - - - -

Private:

Industrial 47.8 54.4 70.2 66.5

Nonindustrial private 35.6 32.1 13.0 12.7

Tribal 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.4

83.8 86.8 83.7 79.6

Public:

National forest 15.0 13.0 14.3 16.9

State 0.8 0.2 2.0 3.3

Bureau of Land Management 0.3 0 0 0

Other public 0 0 0 0.2

16.2 13.2 16.3 20.4

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

a Volume in Scribner log rule.

Source: McIver et al. 2015; Morgan et al. 2004, 2012.

The timber volume 

harvested in California 

during 2016 was 

nearly 1,600 MMBF 

Scribner (table 1), an 

increase of about 10 

percent from the 2012 

harvest of 1,400 MMBF 

and 9 percent less 

than the 2006 harvest 

of 1,700 MMBF.
5

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2016

Timber harvested from California’s timberlands originated from three broad 

land ownership categories: industrial timberland, nonindustrial private forest land, 

and public lands. California’s timber harvest consisted largely of true firs, Douglasfir, ponderosa pine, redwood, and sugar pine.

Private lands have been the source of most of California’s timber harvest since 

the 1940s (fig. 1). During the private harvest declines of the 1960s, 1970s, and 

1980s, timber harvested from national forests became increasingly important as 

a source of raw material for California’s forest products industry. Over the past 

three decades, both private and national forest timber harvests have declined, with 

reductions in harvest from national forests exceeding the reductions in harvest 

from private land. National forest timber offerings have declined since the 1980s 

for many reasons, including social, political, and legal constraints on harvesting. 

For more information on California’s historical timber harvest, refer to McIver et al. 

(2015) and Morgan et al. (2012).

The share of timber harvest from industrial private lands grew from about 54 

percent in 2006 to 70 percent in 2012 and decreased to 67 percent in 2016. The 

share and total harvest from nonindustrial private lands decreased dramatically 

from 32 percent (556 MMBF) in 2006 to 13 percent (185 MMBF) in 2012 and 

maintained a similar proportion in 2016 despite total nonindustrial private harvest 

increasing to nearly 200 MMBF. Combined, the timber harvest from industrial 

and nonindustrial private lands in 2016 accounted for nearly 80 percent of the total 

harvest in California in 2016—down slightly from 83 percent in 2012. However, 

private timberlands account for nearly 44 percent of the total timberland in the state 

(fig. 2). The majority of timberland acres and sawtimber volume in the state are 

managed by the U.S. Forest Service and other public owners (e.g., the Bureau of 

Land Management and the state of California), but national forests and other public 

lands accounted for only 20 percent (321 MMBF) of the total 2016 harvest—up 

from 16 percent (232 MMBF) in 2012.

Harvest by Geographic Source

Six multicounty geographic resource areas are used to describe major woodproducing regions in California (fig. 3): North Coast, Northern Interior, Sacramento, 

San Joaquin, Central Coast, and Southern California. In 2016, nearly 86 percent 

(1,300 MMBF 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 1978–2017; Hiserote and Howard 

1978; Howard 1974, 1984; Howard and Ward 1988, 1991; McIver et al. 2015; Morgan et al. 2004, 2012). Most of the remaining timber harvest volume came from the 
6

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-994

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

1952

1954

1956

1958

1960

1962

1964

1966

1968

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

Tim

ber harvest (million b

oard feet, Scribner)

Year

National forests

Bureau of Land Management

Tribal

State

Private

Figure 1—California’s timber harvest by ownership class, 1952–2016.
7

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2016

San Joaquin region, accounting for 12.5 percent (198 MMBF) of the 2016 harvest, 

up from 9.5 percent (135 MMBF) during 2012.

Five counties in northern California accounted for 48 percent (759 MMBF) of 

California’s total timber harvest in 2016 (table 3). This represents a decrease in the 

proportional and total harvest contribution from 2012, when the top five counties 

in the state provided 55 percent (785 MMBF) of the total statewide harvest. As in 

2012, Shasta County provided the largest proportion of California’s timber harvest 

in 2016 at 13 percent (208 MMBF) followed by Humboldt County at 11 percent (178 

MMBF). Historically, Humboldt County provided the largest share of California’s 

timber harvest—around 20 percent of the annual total dating back to 1976—but 

was surpassed by Shasta County in 2012. Other California counties that have generally been top timber producers include Mendocino, Plumas, Shasta, Siskiyou, and 

Trinity (Barrette et al. 1970; Hiserote and Howard 1978; Howard 1974, 1984; Howard and Ward 1988, 1991; McIver et al. 2015; Morgan et al. 2004, 2012; Ward 1995, 

1997). During 2016, timber harvest volumes were more evenly distributed across 

counties, with the top five counties providing decreasing proportional contributions 

to the overall state timber harvest.

53.6 57.8

16.9

2.8

3.1

3.5

43.6 39.1

79.6

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Timberland 

area

Sawtimber 

tree volume

Harvested 

volume

Ownership class (percent)

National forest

Other public

Private and tribal

Timberland characteristic

Figure 2—Characteristics of California’s timberland by ownership class, 2016.

Shasta County 

provided the largest 

proportion of 

California’s timber 

harvest in 2016 at 13 

percent (208 MMBF) 

followed by Humboldt 

County at 11 percent 

(178 MMBF).
8

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-994

Figure 3—California’s geographic resource areas.
9

Table 2—California’s timber harvest by resource area and county, 2000–2016 (continued)Resource area

2000

volumea

2000 percentage 

of total

2006

volumea

2006 percentage 

of total

2012

volumea

2012 percentage 

of total

2016

volumea

2016 percentage 

of total

Million board feet Percent Million board feet Percent Million board feet Percent Million 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 12.4 0.8Santa 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 11.2 0.7

Total Central Coast 29.4 1.3 18.8 1.1 23.7 1.7 23.5 1.5

North coast:

Del Norte 50.4 2.2 17.6 1.0 19.3 1.4 31.1 2.0Humboldt 435.3 19.3 345.7 19.9 215.1 15.1 177.9 11.3Mendocino 193.5 8.6 123.1 7.1 108.8 7.6 106.6 6.8Sonoma 28.1 1.2 9.9 0.6 8.2 0.6 10.4 0.7

Total North Coast 707.2 31.4 496.3 28.6 351.4 24.6 326.0 20.7

Northern interior:

Lassen 69.3 3.1 77.9 4.5 83.8 5.9 74.0 4.7Modoc 49.9 2.2 26.3 1.5 46.2 3.2 26.9 1.7Shasta 194.3 8.6 209.0 12.1 229.1 16.1 208.0 13.3Siskiyou 209.7 9.3 196.0 11.3 147.9 10.4 170.8 10.9Trinity 99.6 4.4 98.0 5.7 60.4 4.2 75.9 4.8

Total Northern Interior: 622.6 27.7 607.2 35.0 567.5 39.8 555.7 35.4

Sacramento:

Butte 86.4 3.8 89.2 5.1 52.5 3.7 49.3 3.1El Dorado 106.7 4.7 99.1 5.7 50.1 3.5 71.1 4.5Glenn 24.7 1.1 4.9 0.3 3.6 0.2 0.0 0.0Lake 9.6 0.4 1.6 0.1 b b 50.6 3.2Nevada 59.6 2.6 39.4 2.3 19.0 1.3 9.5 0.6Placer 40.4 1.8 47.4 2.7 21.4 1.5 45.3 2.9Plumas 193.8 8.6 122.4 7.1 82.3 5.8 96.0 6.1
10Table 2—California’s timber harvest by resource area and county, 2000–2016 (continued)

Resource area

2000

volumea

2000 percentage 

of total

2006

volumea

2006 percentage 

of total

2012

volumea

2012 percentage 

of total

2016

volumea

2016 percentage 

of total

Million board feet Percent Million board feet Percent Million board feet Percent Million board feet Percent

Sierra 33.1 1.5 16.3 0.9 30.5 2.1 56.1 3.6Tehama 105.3 4.7 45.7 2.6 62.6 4.4 58.9 3.8Yolo 2.6 0.1 — — — — — —Yuba 36.9 1.6 7.2 0.4 20.9 1.5 22.8 1.4

Total Sacramento 699.0 31.1 473.3 27.3 342.8 24.0 459.6 29.3

San Joaquin:

Alpine — — b b — — — —Amador 22.8 1.0 28.7 1.7 13.5 0.9 3.4 0.2Calaveras 67.0 3.0 34.9 2.0 41.4 2.9 58.8 3.7Fresno 19.8 0.9 5.9 0.3 6.8 0.5 29.3 1.7Kern 3.6 0.2 — — 2.8 0.2 1.7 0.1Madera 4.8 0.2 0.1 b 16.2 1.1 5.3 0.3Mariposa 3.6 0.2 3.7 0.2 4.5 0.3 14.8 0.9Merced 0.3 b — — — — — —Stanislaus — — — — — — 0.9 0.1Tulare 8.9 0.4 7.7 0.4 5.0 0.3 5.0 0.3Tuolumne 60.7 2.7 47.2 2.7 45.2 3.2 79.1 5.0

Total San Joaquin 191.4 8.5 128.1 7.4 135.3 9.5 198.4 12.5

Southern California:

Inyo — — — — 3.4 0.2 — —Riverside — — — — — — 8.3 0.5San Bernardino — — 9.55 0.55 1.2 0.1 — —

Total southern 

California

0 0 9.6 0.6 4.6 0.3 8.3 0.5

State total 2,249.7 100 1,733.1 100 1,425.4 100 1,571.5 100

— = zero.a Volume in Scribner log rule.b Volume is less than 0.05 million board feet or percentage of total harvest is less than 0.05 percent.Sources: McIver et al. 2015; Morgan et al. 2004, 2012.
11

Table 3—Total harvest for California’s leading timber harvest counties, 1976–2016

County Volumea Total County Volumea Total

Million board feet Percent Million board feet Percent

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

1992: 2016:

Humboldt 502.2 15.6 Shasta 208.0 13.2

Mendocino 271.6 8.5 Humboldt 177.9 11.3

El Dorado 195.1 6.1 Siskiyou 170.8 10.9

Lassen 158.8 4.9 Mendocino 106.6 6.8

Shasta 142.9 4.4 Plumas 96.0 6.1

Total county 1,270.6 39.5 Total county 759.3 48.3

California total 3,214.0 California total 1,571.5

a

 Volume in Scribner log rule.

Sources: Barrette et al. 1970; Hiserote and Howard 1978; Howard 1974, 1984; Howard and Ward 1988, 1991; McIver et al. 2015; Morgan et al. 2004, 2012; 

Ward 1995, 1997.
12

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-994

Harvest by Species

During 2016, true firs, Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, redwood, and sugar pine were 

the most commonly harvested tree species, accounting for nearly 95 percent of 

California’s total harvest volume (table 4). These species have historically dominated California’s harvest, consistently accounting for 87 percent or more of the 

total volume (table 5). Over the years, Douglas-fir and true firs have been the highest volume species. Douglas-fir provided the top timber harvest volume in 2012, 

while true firs were the leading species harvested in 2016, accounting for more than 

27 percent (429 MMBF) of the volume harvested. From 2012 to 2016, the combined 

percentage provided by ponderosa pine and sugar pine has increased (30 percent 

of total harvest), while the redwood percentage of the total harvest decreased. 

These changes are in line with other long-term trends demonstrating a proportionate decrease in the volume of redwood and increases in the volume of true firs 

harvested, with pines maintaining a relatively consistent share of California’s state 

timber harvest (McIver et al. 2015; Morgan et al. 2004, 2012).

Tree mortality, while occurring naturally in all forests, can increase as a result 

of natural disturbances such as wildfire, pest outbreaks, windthrow, and drought 

(Christensen et al. 2017). Substantial tree mortality associated with several 

years of severe drought has been observed in California. On average, between 

2001 and 2016, there were 10 billion live trees in California, of which 187 million died each year with the highest mortality rates occurring on national forest 

Table 4—California’s timber harvest by species, 2016

Species Volumea Total

Million board feet Percent

True firs 428.9 27.3

Douglas-fir 370.7 23.6

Ponderosa pine 359.0 22.8

Redwood 218.4 13.9

Sugar pine 112.9 7.2

Incense cedar 54.4 3.5

Lodgepole 14.2 0.9

Other softwoodsb 7.8 0.5

Western hemlock 2.9 0.2

Hardwoods 2.3 0.1

All species 1,571.5 100

a Volume in Scribner log rule.

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

coniferous species.

During 2016, true firs, 

Douglas-fir, ponderosa 

pine, redwood, and 

sugar pine were the 

most commonly 

harvested tree 

species, accounting 

for nearly 95 percent 

of California’s total 

harvest volume.
13

land (Christensen et al. 2017). Measurement of FIA plots from 2001–2005 and 

2011–2015 provided estimates of average annual growth, removals, and mortality 

in California’s forests. Mean annual gross growth was 1.99 million ft3 per year 

and mean annual mortality was 903 thousand ft3 per year (Brodie and Palmer 

2020). Although mortality across all ownerships was relatively high (45 percent of 

growth), mortality rates on national forests (70 percent of growth) were dramatically greater than on all private ownership (20 percent of growth) (Brodie and 

Palmer 2020). Despite these mortality rates, net change in California’s forest land 

was positive during this period.

Tree mortality during 2015 and 2016 is reflected in the more than 207 MMBF 

Scribner of reported dead timber harvest volume (table 6). Although the dead 

timber volume reported during the 2012 survey accounted for only 2 percent of 

the timber harvest in California, the dead volume reported in 2016 accounts for 

13 percent of the state’s total harvest. Ponderosa pine—one of the species heavily 

affected by the bark beetle epidemic—saw a 16 percent increase in dead volume 

since 2012. Some of the species with high proportions of dead volume (e.g., Jeffrey 

pine and sugar pine) do not account for a large proportion of the timber harvested 

across the state. However, from 2000 to 2016, key timber harvest species such as 

ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and true fir species have seen significant increases in 

the proportion of reported dead volume. An increased proportion of timber harvest 

volume reported dead also was observed between 2000 and 2006 in California, 

with 11 percent of the timber harvest being reported as dead (Morgan et al. 2012).

Table 5—Percentage of California’s timber harvest by species, 1968–2016a

Species 1968 1972 1976 1982 1985 1988 1992 1994 2000 2006 2012 2016

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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 27.3

Douglas-fir 32.2 26.9 27.4 22.9 24.1 26.5 23.2 26.7 27.6 24.2 28.4 23.6

Ponderosa and sugar pine 23.7 25.3 25.4 27.0 26.3 26.9 23.4 22.0 23.8 23.1 23.7 30.0

Redwood 18.2 18.7 19.5 24.3 22.6 18.2 24.9 21.9 16.7 14.3 14.7 13.9

Other softwoodsc 3.3 3.0 3.6 0.5 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3 7.7 5.4 1.5 1.6

Incense cedar b 4.1 4.1 3.9 3.0 3.7 4.3 2.4 4.7 4.8 4.9 3.5

Hardwoods 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.5 d d 0.5 d d 0.1

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

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

b Included in “Other softwoods.”

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

d Less than 0.05 percent.

Source: Barrette et al. 1970; Hiserote and Howard 1978; Howard 1974, 1984; Howard and Ward 1988, 1991; McIver et al. 2015; Morgan et al. 2004, 2012; 

Ward 1995, 1997.

The dead timber 

volume reported in 

2016 accounts for 

13 percent of the 

state’s total harvest. 

Ponderosa pine—one 

of the species heavily 

affected by the bark 

beetle epidemic—saw 

a 16 percent increase in 

dead volume since 2012.
14

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-994

Harvest by Product Type

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

the first stage of wood processing. These products 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 mill residuals (e.g., bark, 

sawdust, and planer shavings) generated in the production of primary products, 

are also included in this analysis. These reconstituted primary products include 

particleboard, medium-density fiberboard, hardboard, fuel pellets, and bioenergy. 

Other primary products made from mill residuals include decorative bark, mulch, 

soil amendments, and animal bedding.

Timber harvested in California during 2016 falls into four general timber 

product categories:

• Sawlogs (timber used to produce lumber and other sawn products, as well 

as logs harvested for export)

• Veneer logs (timber sliced or peeled to make veneer for plywood or laminated veneer lumber)

• Bioenergy (woody biomass burned industrially to generate electricity or 

steam)

Table 6—Proportion of California’s timber harvest by species reported as dead 

in 2000, 2006, 2012 and 2016

Species 2000 2006 2012 2016

- - - - - - - Percentage of dead timber - - - - - - -

Jeffrey pine N/A N/A 40 40

Sugar pine 10 5 6 27

Lodgepole pine 11 4 21 18

Ponderosa pine 8 6 2 18

Cedara 3 9 0 15

Douglas-fir 5 12 3 14

True firs 6 4 2 11

Hardwoods 0 2 0 1

Other softwoodsb 12 1 0 0

Redwood 1 31 0 0

Total percentage dead 6 11 2 13

Dead volume (MMBF) 129.1 182.8 35.0 207.4

Total harvest volume (MMBF) 2,249.7 1,733.1 1,425.4 1,571.5

MMBF = million board feet. N/A = not applicable.

a Includes Port Orford, incense, and western red cedar.

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

Source: McIver et al. 2015; Morgan et al. 2004, 2012. 
15

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2016

• Other products (including utility poles, house logs, log furniture, firewood, 

and fiber logs)

These four categories comprise the overall product types represented in California’s timber harvest.

Sawlogs accounted for 82 percent (1,292 MMBF) of the harvest in 2016, marking a slightly smaller proportion than in 2012 (83 percent) and thus representing 

the smallest proportion on record. Historically, sawlogs have accounted for more 

than 85 percent of the total annual harvest (table 7). Veneer logs accounted for 

approximately 10 percent of the total harvest through the 1970s; however, since the 

1980s, veneer logs have accounted for only 4 to 8 percent of California’s annual 

timber harvest. During 2016, veneer log harvest reached its highest percentage of 

California’s harvest since the mid-1970s with a notable increase to 11 percent of the 

statewide harvest, up from 8 percent in 2012.

Sawlogs and veneer logs have constituted the vast majority of harvested volume 

in California, with a relatively small portion of annual harvests used for other 

timber products. Bioenergy has been an expanding use of California’s timber in 

the past two decades, with a high of 8 percent (116 MMBF) of the harvest volume 

delivered to bioenergy producers in 2012—a significant increase over 2006 and 

2000. However, in 2016, timber harvest volume for bioenergy dropped to about 5 

percent (83 MMBF) of the total statewide harvest. During 2016, power purchase 

agreements between biomass facilities and power companies were nearing expiration, resulting in many bioenergy plants in California becoming idle for a portion 

Table 7—Percentage of California’s timber harvest by product type, 1968–2016a

Product type 1968 1972 1976 1982 1985 1988 1992 1994 2000 2006 2012 2016

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Sawlogsb 86 86 86 91.2 92 92.5 99.3 92.9 89.8 88.1 82.8 82.2

Veneer logs 10 12 11.5 6.1 5 4.7 c 5.2 7.4 8.0 8.4 11.0

Pulpwood 1 1.5 0.1 1.1 0.8 1.1 d d d d — —

Othere 3 0.5 2.4 1.6 2.2 1.7 0.7 1.9 0.4 <0.3 0.6 1.4

Bioenergy f f f f f f f f 2.4 3.6 8.2 5.3

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

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

b Includes reported log exports leaving California.

c Included in “sawlogs.”

d Included in “other.”

e Includes utility poles, house logs, log furniture, firewood and fiber logs; does not include bioenergy.

f

Not reported prior to 2000.

Source: Barrette et al. 1970; Hiserote and Howard 1978; Howard 1974, 1984; Howard and Ward 1988, 1991; McIver et al. 2015; Morgan et al. 2004, 2012; 

Ward 1995, 1997.
16

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-994

of 2016 while a resolution was sought (Souza 2016). The timing of these closures 

coincided with increased supply of dead wood being harvested from the Sierra 

Nevada Mountains, where drought and bark beetle outbreaks caused large-scale 

tree mortality in 2015 and 2016. This led Governor Jerry Brown to sign Senate 

Bill 859 in September 2016, which offered a temporary reprieve for biomass power 

facilities that use fuel from state-designated high-hazard-zone forests (CBEA 

2016). Despite a decrease in the proportion of California’s timber harvest used 

by bioenergy facilities in 2016, the bioenergy sector remains an important part of 

California’s forest products industry.

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 residuals. 

With the closure of California’s last remaining pulp mill in 2009, logs are no longer 

harvested in California to be used as pulp. Although there are no primary pulp or 

paper-manufacturing facilities in the state, secondary paper products are produced; 

these products are generally not as closely linked to forest management in California when compared to the primary forest products industry. Logs harvested for 

other products such as utility poles, house logs, log furniture, firewood, and fiber 

logs have historically accounted for less than 1 percent of the annual harvest since 

the mid-1990s. However, in 2016, these “other” timber products accounted for an 

increased percentage of the statewide harvest, up from 0.6 percent in 2012 to 1.4 

percent during 2016.

Product Type by Ownership Class

Most of the volume harvested in California during 2016 came from private timberlands (table 8). Timber used for sawlogs constituted the most harvested category 

across all ownership groups, both in 2012 and 2016. The sawlog product category 

increased by 10 percent from 2012 to 2016, up more than 112 MMBF and reversing 

the change observed between 2006 and 2012. Veneer and other timber products saw 

the largest increase, with 52 percent (67 MMBF) more volume harvested in 2016. 

During 2012, a shift away from volume harvested for sawlog products was observed 

as the bioenergy harvest experienced a dramatic increase of 186 percent (McIver 

et al. 2015). However, harvest for bioenergy saw a decline from 2012 to 2016, with 

29 percent less volume (33 MMBF) in this product category. As general economic 

recovery has continued after the Great Recession, production of sawlogs and 

other higher quality wood products have experienced growth in California’s forest 

products industry.

In 2016, industrial lands provided the majority (66 percent) of California’s 

sawlog, veneer, and other log harvest, compared to 72 percent in 2012 and only 54 
17

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2016

percent in 2006. Although nonindustrial lands again provided about 13 percent of 

the sawlog, veneer, and other log harvest in 2016, public lands saw an increased 

contribution to these product types, from 6 percent in 2012 to 20 percent in 2016. 

Private lands continue to provide the majority of timber harvest for high-value 

wood products, while public lands represent an increasing proportion of the saw, 

veneer, and other log harvest. Industrial lands also contributed 76 percent (63 

MMBF) of wood used for bioenergy, which is up proportionally from 55 percent 

(64 MMBF) in 2012 and 73 percent (45 MMBF) in 2006. Public lands, primarily 

national forests, made up the remaining volume of wood used for bioenergy, at 

approximately 19.5 MMBF, or 24 percent—a notable decrease from the 51.9 MMBF 

(45 percent) contribution during 2012.

Product Type by Species

From 2012 to 2016, total volume harvested by species increased for true firs (up 

13 percent), ponderosa pine (up 42 percent), redwood (up 5 percent), and sugar 

pine (up 31 percent). Although Douglas-fir remained the second most harvested of 

California’s species, it experienced a decline of 8 percent from 2012 to 2016. True 

firs and Douglas-fir were the species most harvested across all products, followed 

closely by ponderosa pine (table 9). However, ponderosa pine accounted for more 

of the sawlog volume than Douglas fir, and true firs and ponderosa pine together 

accounted for nearly half (48 percent) of all sawlog volume harvested in 2016. The 

harvest for veneer and other products increased substantially for each of the three 

leading species categories, with Douglas-fir up 23 percent, true firs up 54 percent, 

and ponderosa pine harvest for veneer and other products up 135 percent from 2012 

Table 8—California’s timber harvest by ownership class and product type, 2016

Ownership source Sawlogsa

Veneer and 

otherb Bioenergy All products

Million board feetc

Private timberlands: 1,030.7 156.7 63.6 1,251.0

Industrial 837.6 143.7 63.3 1,044.5

Nonindustrial and tribal 193.1 13.0 0.3 206.4

Public timberlands: 261.6 39.5 19.5 320.6

National forests 223.3 32.2 10.0 265.5

Other public 38.3 7.3 9.4 55.1

Total 1,292.3 196.2 83.1 1,571.5

a Includes log exports.

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

c Volume in Scribner log rule.

In 2016, industrial 

lands provided the 

majority (66 percent) 

of California’s sawlog, 

veneer, and other log 

harvest, compared 

to 72 percent in 2012 

and only 54 percent in 

2006.
18

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-994

to 2016. True firs, Douglas-fir, and ponderosa pine accounted for the majority (76 

percent) of the harvest for bioenergy in 2016. This represents a decrease both in 

volume and in proportional contribution from 2012. Similar to 2006 and 2012, hardwoods comprised very little (less than 0.5 percent) of the 2016 harvest. However, in 

2016, hardwoods were used mostly for veneer and other wood products, compared 

to 2012 when hardwoods were primarily used for bioenergy.

Timber Flow

This section briefly details the movement of timber among California’s woodproducing regions, geographic resource areas, and individual counties, as well 

as between California and other states and countries. As a result of tracking the 

flow of timber into and out of the state, there are slight differences in the volume 

estimates of timber harvested in California versus timber received by facilities in 

the state.

In 2016, California’s sawmill, veneer, and other wood-processing facilities 

received 1,538 MMBF Scribner of logs (table 10). Of that volume, 79 percent came 

from private timberlands, about 17 percent from national forests, and about 4 

percent from other public ownerships. Bioenergy facilities in California received 

about 83 MMBF of timber, in addition to mill residuals. Although veneer and other 

products saw an increase in total volume received, the contributions by ownership 

class remained fairly stable. National forests contributed 17 percent of the sawlog 

Table 9—California’s timber harvest by species and product type, 2016

Species Sawlogsa

Veneer and 

otherb Bioenergy All products

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Million board feetc - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

True firs 314.9 85.5 29.4 429.8

Douglas-fir 288.2 63.6 19.4 371.2

Ponderosa pine 311.1 32.0 14.1 357.2

Redwood 218.2 0.2 — 218.4

Sugar pine 97.4 9.6 5.9 113.0

Incense-cedar 48.5 1.1 4.9 54.4

Other softwoodsd 10.9 2.2 9.3 22.3

Western hemlock 2.9 — — 2.9

Hardwoods 0.1 2.2 — 2.3

All species 1,292.3 196.2 83.1 1,571.5

— = zero.

a Includes log exports.

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

c Volume in Scribner log rule.

d Includes lodgepole pine, Jeffrey pine, giant sequoia, and western white pine.
19

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2016

timber volume received in 2016, up from the 2012 contribution of 12 percent. There 

was a similar increase in the volume received from national forest land for veneer 

and other products. Seventy-six percent of timber volume received by bioenergy 

facilities came from industrial private timberlands, 12 percent from national forests, 

and another 12 percent from nonindustrial and other public sources. This represented a notable shift from 2012, when 37 percent of timber received by bioenergy 

facilities originated from national forests and only 8 percent came from other 

public and nonindustrial sources. Unlike during the 2012 California mill census, 

the residual-utilizing sector (i.e., reconstituted board and decorative bark facilities) 

did receive timber inputs for raw material owing in part to resource availability, 

processing capability, and market conditions. However, this sector continues to rely 

primarily on mill residuals for most feedstock.

Timber flow trends during 2016 were similar to those in both 2012 and 2006. 

Most (99 percent) of the timber used by California’s primary wood products 

industry was harvested from within the state. California timber-processing facilities received 1,538 MMBF Scribner of timber in 2016 (table 10). Wood-processing 

facilities received approximately 145 MMBF more in 2016 than in 2012, an increase 

of about 10 percent. In 2016, slightly more than 11 MMBF, or less than 1 percent, 

of timber processed in California came from outside the state. This represents an 

increase over 2012, when less than 4 MMBF (0.5 percent) of timber processed in 

California originated from other states. The log in-flow to California during 2016 

Table 10—Timber volume received by California facilities by ownership and 

product, 2016

Ownership source Sawlogsa

Veneer and 

otherb Bioenergy All products

- - - - - - - - - - - - Million board feet c - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Private timberlands:

Industrial 831.4 133.1 63.3 1,027.8

Nonindustrial and tribal 184.7 8.2 0.3 193.3

1,016.2 141.4 63.6 1,221.1

Public timberlands:

National forests 223.6 28.2 10.0 261.9

Other public 38.4 7.4 9.4 55.3

262.0 35.7 19.5 317.2

Total 1,278.2 177.0 83.1 1,538.3

a Includes log exports.

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

c Volume in Scribner log rule.
20

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-994

was still well below the 126.5 MMBF of timber imported from other states a decade 

ago. On the other hand, 44.8 MMBF (3 percent) of California’s timber harvest was 

shipped out of state to be processed (table 11). This constituted an increase over 

2012, though the percentage of the total remained the same. It is also about half the 

log flow that left the state in 2006. All the timber that flowed into California, as well 

as all the volume that flowed out, was in the form of sawlogs and veneer logs. These 

volumes do not include logs exported internationally from California’s customs 

districts (see the “International and interstate timber flows” section for discussion).

Intrastate timber flow—

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

The number of timber-processing facilities in several California counties is so low 

that reporting county-level data would require disclosure of firm-level information. 

To avoid disclosing information, geographic resource areas are used to illustrate 

intrastate timber flow (table 12). Harvest and receiving areas reflect six multicounty 

geographic resource areas (fig. 3) where counties have been combined where necessary to conceal individual mill information.

In 2012, weak lumber markets in the wake of the Great Recession limited the 

flow of timber from California to other states as well as the importation of timber into 

California. However, between 2012 and 2016, log flow into California increased more 

than threefold to 11.5 MMBF, while log flow out of California increased by almost 

24 percent. During 2016, 40 percent of harvested timber was processed in its county 

of harvest, and about 80 percent was processed in the geographic resource area of 

harvest. Timber traveled farther for primary processing in 2016 than in 2012, when 

nearly 50 percent of harvested timber was processed in its county of harvest and 

approximately 87 percent was processed in the resource area of harvest. Although 

2012 saw an increase in the percentage of timber remaining in the same geographical 

location for processing post-harvest, 2016 was more in line with the trends observed 

Table 11—Interstate timber flow into and out of California to processing 

facilities,a 2016

Timber products

Log flow into 

California

Log flow out of 

California

Net imports (net 

exports)

- - - - - - - - - Million board feetb - - - - - - - - -

Saw and veneer logs 11.5 44.8 (33.2)

Total 11.5 44.8 (33.2)

a Does not include international log exports or imports.

b Volume in Scribner log rule.

During 2016, 40 percent 

of harvested timber 

was processed in its 

county of harvest, 

and about 80 percent 

was processed in the 

geographic resource 

area of harvest.
21

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2016

through 2006 when the percentage of timber processed within its county of harvest 

declined (Barrette et al. 1970, McIver et al. 2015, Morgan et al. 2012).

The remaining timber harvest volume was processed outside of its county or 

geographic resource area, flowing to another county, area, or state. 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 part of California or to Oregon. This trend 

continued in 2016 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. Although the volume sent from the Northern Interior to the Sacramento resource area stayed fairly constant from 2012, more than three times the 

amount of volume was sent to Oregon from this resource area in 2016.

International and interstate timber flows—

Interstate and international timber flow trends have changed since the 2012 mill 

census. As in 2012, mills that participated in the 2016 survey did not report using 

foreign timber, whereas during 2006, California timber-processing facilities used 

60 MMBF of timber from Canada. Despite some increases in the distance traveled 

by California timber during 2016, the flow of Canadian logs to California has not 

Table 12—California intrastate timber flow by geographic resource area, 2016

Receiving area

Harvest area

North Coast 

and Central 

Coasta

Northern 

Interiorb Sacramentoc

San Joaquind

and Southern 

Californiae Out of statef Total harvest

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Million board feet Scribner - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

North Coast and 

Central Coasta

302.9 38.0 0.1 — 8.5 349.5

Northern Interiorb — 444.1 77.2 0 35.8 557.1

Sacramentoc 17.4 81.5 355.4 5.5 0.5 460.3

San Joaquind — — 35.8 160.6 — 196.4

Southern Californiae — — — 8.3 — 8.3

Out of statef — 8.3 3.2 0.1 N/A 11.5

Total received 320.3 571.9 471.6 174.5 44.8

— = zero.; 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. They do not capture logs exported internationally.
22

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-994

resumed. Currently, there is no indication of increasing amounts of timber entering 

California from international sources, and the small amount of timber coming from 

other states is nowhere near the levels observed from the late 1960s through the 

1990s (Barrette et al. 1970; Hiserote and Howard 1978; Howard 1974, 1984; Howard 

and Ward 1991; Ward 1995, 1997).

International softwood log exports from California have seen an increase over 

the past two decades. According to Zhou and Daniels (2018), the U.S. International 

Trade Commission (USITC), and other sources, California’s log exports were at 

a low starting in 1999 and lasting through the Great Recession. Recovery and 

increases across multiple sectors of the international forest product markets were 

observed from 2008 through 2012, with approximately 49 MMBF of softwood logs 

leaving California ports in 2012 (McIver et al. 2015). To identify changing trends 

in softwood log exports, data from the USITC were analyzed along with the most 

recent resource bulletin published on Pacific Northwest log exports from Zhou and 

Daniels (2018). The export data supplied by USITC reflected the forest product 

volumes and values that were exported through California customs districts. These 

custom districts encompass selected ports in their surrounding regions. What is 

not known is how much of these forest product volumes and values originated 

from timber harvested or products manufactured in California. Log export volume 

information was collected during the FIDACS census of California’s forest products 

industry when possible. However, the volumes and trends in this section rely on 

USITC export data and are discussed separately from FIDACS mill census data.

During 2016, softwood log exports through California ports totaled approximately 55 MMBF, representing a 13 percent increase from 2012 (fig. 4) (USDC ITC 

2018). Softwood log exports during 2016 represented a 164 percent increase over 

the low export levels reported from 2006 through 2009. Nearly 48 MMBF of the 

softwood log volume were exported by the San Francisco customs district, with 

the remaining 7 MMBF leaving from the San Diego and Los Angeles districts. In 

2010, China began to significantly outpace other countries as the primary importer 

for California’s softwood logs. In 2016, 97 percent of softwood log exports from 

California were sent to China, with both Japan and Mexico each receiving another 

1 percent. While Japan received about 75 percent of the log exports from California 

during 1996, its percentage continued to decrease over time as China emerged as 

the dominant international recipient of log exports. Ponderosa pine accounted for 

about 55 percent of California’s softwood log exports in 2016, while Douglas-fir 

constituted close to 11 percent. Total international softwood log exports through 

California’s customs districts during 2016 represented a volume equivalent to 3.5 

percent of California’s total timber harvest.
23

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2016

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Log export volume (million board feet Scribner)

Year

Others

Mexico

Korea

Japan

China

End Uses of California’s 2016 Timber Harvest

This section traces California’s timber harvest through the various primary 

processing sectors. Timber, primary wood products, and mill residuals 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 residuals are commonly reported in bone-dry units (BDU) or 

bone-dry tons. In this section, all volumes are expressed in cubic feet because 

expressing input, output, and residual volumes in a common unit of measure 

allows for more complete accounting of wood fiber from harvest through primary processing.

Figure 4—Volume of California’s softwood log exports in million board feet Scribner by destination country, 1996–2016.
24

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-994

In this report, 1 BDU of residual is assumed to contain 96 ft3 of wood, and 

each thousand board feet (MBF) lumber tally is assumed to contain approximately 

60 ft3of wood; board foot Scribner to cubic conversions for timber differ 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 

residual volumes.

The following conversion factors were developed using log size specifications 

as well as product and residual recovery information developed from the 2016 mill 

survey in California:

• 5.32 board feet Scribner per cubic foot for sawlogs and export logs

• 4.92 board feet Scribner per cubic foot for veneer logs

• 4.29 board feet Scribner per cubic foot for reconstituted board and other logs

• 1.0 board foot Scribner per cubic foot for wood used for bioenergy

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 foot Scribner achieved by California sawmills in 2016 was 

1.64. Based on this recovery, a thousand board feet (1 MBF) Scribner of logs would 

yield 1,640 board feet lumber tally of dry planed lumber. Assuming 1 MBF of 

lumber contains 60 ft3 (57.5 ft3 of lumber and 2.5 ft3 lost to shrinkage during drying), 1.64 MBF lumber tally would contain 1.64 × 60 = 98.4 ft3

 of solid wood. The 

remainder of the log inside bark would be in various forms of mill residual (excluding bark). The average for all sawmills in California during 2016 was 0.57 BDU 

of mill residual in the form of sawdust, planer shavings, and chippable residual. A 

BDU of residual is 2,400 lbs of oven-dry wood and contains 96 ft3of solid wood 

fiber. A recovery of 1.64 MBF of lumber generates 1.64 × 0.57 × 96 = 90 ft3 of total 

residual. The residual and the green lumber together account for all the wood fiber 

in the thousand board feet Scribner of logs used to produce lumber. There are 188.1 

ft3 of solid wood in the average sawlog processed in California, yielding 1,000/188.1 

= 5.32 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 5 outlines timber flows of wood fiber by sector beginning with total 

statewide harvest and ending with finished primary products. Owing to the important role of bark in California’s forest products industry, figure 6 outlines by sector 

the flow and utilization of bark generated through timber harvest. California’s 2016 
25

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2016

timber harvest was approximately 367 million cubic feet (MMCF) of bole (wood) 

and 57 MMCF of bark that went to timber-processing and residual-utilizing facilities both within and outside the state. Of the total harvest volume, approximately 

233 MMCF (63 percent of bole volume) went to sawmills and was processed into 

lumber and other sawn products, and about 35 MMCF (nearly 10 percent of bole 

volume) went to veneer production (fig. 5). Only 5.6 MMCF (2 percent of bole 

volume) went directly to facilities that produce reconstituted board, posts, utility 

poles, log home kits, furniture, firewood, or bark products. In addition, reconstituted board facilities in California, Oregon, and Washington received 21 MMCF 

of residuals from California’s sawmill, veneer, and other sectors. Bioenergy plants 

producing electricity received 83 MMCF of timber directly and 40 MMCF of wood 

mill residuals from other plants processing California timber, accounting for 33 

percent of total cubic bole volume harvested. An additional 34 MMCF of residuals 

from sawmills and other primary processing facilities was utilized onsite for heat 

and steam generation, while nearly 31 MMCF of wood residuals went to other uses, 

including landscaping, mulch, pellets, and animal bedding.

Of the 233 MMCF of timber received by sawmills, 116 MMCF (50 percent of 

bole volume) became finished lumber, and about 5.5 MMCF were lost to lumber 

shrinkage during drying. Approximately 111 MCF of wood residuals were produced 

by the sawmill sector in California during 2016. Most of the wood mill residuals 

generated by sawmills were used to produce energy, both internally (32 MMCF) 

and at bioenergy facilities (35 MMCF). Nearly 30 MMCF of wood residuals were 

sold to other manufactures of landscaping, mulch, pellets, and animal bedding. A 

very small amount, less than 0.2 MMCF, of wood residuals from processing California timber into lumber was unused in 2016.

In addition to the 367 MMCF of harvested wood, bark was used by various 

industry sectors. Of the total bark that went to timber-processing facilities in 

California, the majority flowed to roundwood-processing facilities along with the 

wood bole (fig. 6). Decorative bark and landscaping facilities in California received 

an estimated 22 MMCF of bark residuals from wood-processing facilities in 2016. 

Bark residual was also used to generate heat, both internally (16 MMCF) and at 

bioenergy facilities (19 MMCF). Similarly to wood residuals, a very small amount 

of bark went unutilized in California during 2016.

Figure 7a demonstrates the final disposition of wood fiber harvested in California during 2016 (excluding bark), and figure 7b demonstrates the final disposition of mill residuals generated by California’s primary wood products sector 

(including bark).

Most of the wood mill 

residuals generated by 

sawmills were used to 

produce energy, both 

internally (32 MMCF) 

and at bioenergy 

facilities (35 MMCF).
26

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-994

5.6 MMCF

83.1 MMCF

Residuals to bioenergy

Other residual

uses

0.9 MMCF

31.8 MMCF

5.5 MMCF

Unutilized residuals

25.9 MMCF

122.7 MMCF

Finished

veneer 

<0.01 MMCF

Internal energy

0.1 MMCF

Shrinkage

Internal energy

2.0 MMCF

Internal

energy

<0.2 MMCF

35.0 MMCF

4.1 MMCF

29.8 MMCF

Other residual uses

Total harvest

a

Sawmills Export facilities

232.5 MMCF 35.3 MMCF 10.3 MMCF

366.8 MMCF

Reconstituted board Bioenergy

and other facilities 

116.1 MMCF

Residuals to bioenergy

Residuals to board

14.2 MMCF

Residuals to board

6.7 MMCF

0.6 MMCF

Lumber and other

sawn products

Veneer

21.6 MMCF

Bioenergy

10.3 MMCF

Unutilized residuals

<0.01 MMCF

Export logs Raw material for board and

other timber products 

a Harvest volume does not include bark.

b Other facilities include producers of posts, poles, utility poles, log homes, log furniture, firewood, bark, and other products.

c Other uses include landscape, mulch, pellets, and animal bedding.

b

Residuals to bioenergy

c

c

c

Other residual usesc

Figure 5—Utilization of California’s timber harvest, 2016 (MMCF = million cubic feet).
27

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2016

47.2 MMCF

0.1 MMCF 10.0 MMCF b

Wood processing Bark facilities

facilities a Bioenergy

Wood processing

facilities bark

0 MMCF 

a

b

Wood processing facilities include sawmills, veneer manufacturers, post,

poles, utility poles, log homes, log furniture, firewood, board producers and

log export entities. 

Estimated.

Total bark

57.2 MMCF

Bark to bioenergy

8.7 MMCF

Bark for landscape/mulch

22.2 MMCF

Internal energy

16.2 MMCF

Unutilized residuals

0.1 MMCF

Bark facilities 

22.3 MMCF 

Bioenergy

18.7 MMCF 

Figure 6—Utilization of bark and bark residuals generated from California’s 2016 

timber harvest.
28

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-994

California’s Forest Products Industry

The 2016 FIDACS census identified 80 active primary wood products facilities in 

California, up from 77 manufacturers identified in both 2012 and 2006, but significantly lower than the 262 operational facilities in 1968 (fig. 8, table 13). Over the 

past 50 years, most of these infrastructure losses 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, decorative bark, and other sectors 

owing in part to diversified markets, changes in resource utilization and availability, 

and advancements in manufacturing technology. Since the 2012 mill census, California gained two sawmills, one decorative bark facility, and three facilities in the 

“other” category, while losing three bioenergy facilities. In the case of bioenergy 

operations, the facilities remain intact, but were not active during the 2016 census. 

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 census, offsetting declines in the number of sawmill and pulp and board 

33%

43%

6%

8%

3%

7%

Lumber and shrinkage

Biomass energy, including heat

Veneer

Landscaping, mulch, animal bedding

Exports

Reconstituted board

58% 31%

11%

A B

Figure 7—(A) Final disposition of wood harvested in California by industry sector, 2016 (excludes 

bark); (B) Final disposition of mill residuals in California, 2016 (includes bark).

The 2016 FIDACS 

census identified 80 

active primary wood 

products facilities in 

California, up from 

77 manufacturers 

identified in both 2012 

and 2006.
29

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2016

Figure 8—California’s active timber-processing and residual-utilizing facilities, 2016.
30

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-994

facilities (Morgan et al. 2004, Ward 1997). Additional changes resulted from efforts 

to conduct a more comprehensive census of the industry starting in 2000, thus capturing more small sawmills and other facilities. Although this change in research 

protocol may have resulted in finding more mills, the downward trends continue 

in the number of facilities, volume of timber processed, and capacity—mirroring 

industry trends in other Western states (Hayes and Morgan 2017, Simmons and 

Morgan 2017, Simmons et al. 2016).

The downward trends associated with the forest products industry across the 

West can be attributed to several factors:

1. A steep reduction in available timber, primarily due to reduced harvest levels on federal and nonindustrial private lands.

2. A prescriptive regulatory environment combined with reduced social 

acceptability of timber harvest that has challenged forest management and 

industry operations.

3. Unfavorable market conditions associated with severe recessions in 1980 

and 2007.

4. Concentration of production into large, capital-intensive, high-efficiency mills.

Additional factors affecting the structure and size of California’s forest products 

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

Industry Concentrations

Wood product manufacturing facilities operated in 28 of California’s 58 counties 

during calendar year 2016 (fig. 8; table 14). There were nine active primary timberprocessing facilities in Humboldt County in 2016, down from 12 active facilities 

during 2012. Shasta County also had nine active facilities during 2016, down from 

Table 13—Active California primary wood products facilities by sector, 1968–2016

Industry sector 1968 1972 1976 1982 1985 1988 1992 1994 2000 2006 2012 2016

Sawmills 216 176 142 101 89 93 56 53 47 33 30 32

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

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

Bioenergy b b b b b b b b 25 25 26 23

Decorative bark b b b b b b b b 10 10 11 12

Othera 3 13 13 9 9 9 5 6 2 3 7 10

Total 262 232 183 130 115 119 73 75 93 77 77 80

a

 “Other” includes log home producers, firewood producers, log furniture makers, fuel pellet facilities, and export entities, as well as utility pole 

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; McIver et al. 2015; Morgan et al. 2004, 2012; 

Ward 1995, 1997.

Wood product 

manufacturing facilities 

operated in 28 of 

California’s 58 counties 

during 2016.
31

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2016

Table 14—Active California primary wood products facilities by county and sector, 2016

County Sawmills Veneer

Medium-density 

fiberboard and 

particleboard Bioenergy

Decorative 

bark Othera Total

Amador — — 1 — — — 1

Butte 2 — — — — 2 4

Colusa — — — 1 — — 1

Del Norte — — — — — — 0

El Dorado — — — — — — 0

Fresno — — — 2 — — 2

Glenn — — — — 1 — 1

Humboldt 5 — — 2 — 2 9

Kern — — — 1 1 — 2

Lassen — — — 1 — — 1

Madera — — — — — — 0

Mendocino 2 — — — — — 2

Merced — — — 1 — — 1

Modoc 1 — — — — — 1

Nevada 1 — — — — — 1

Placer 1 — — 2 1 2 6

Plumas 2 — — 2 — — 4

Riverside 1 — — 1 1 — 3

Sacramento — — — — 1 2 3

San Bernardino — — — — 1 — 1

San Joaquin — — — 1 2 — 3

Santa Cruz 1 — — — — — 1

Shasta 4 — — 4 — 1 9

Sierra — — — — — — 0

Siskiyou 1 2 — 1 1 — 5

Sonoma 4 — — — 1 — 5

Sutter 1 — — — — — 1

Tehama — — — — 1 — 1

Trinity 1 — — — — — 1

Tulare 1 — — — — — 1

Tuolumne 4 — — 2 1 1 8

Yolo — — — 2 — — 2

Yuba — — — — — — 0

2016 total 32 2 1 23 12 10 80

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

— = zero.

a

 “Other” includes log home producers, firewood, log furniture facilities, export entities, animal bedding, fuel pellets, and utility pole manufacturers.
32

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-994

10 operational facilities identified in both 2012 and 2006. Tuolumne County had 

eight processing facilities, one more than in 2012; Butte County had four facilities 

in 2016 versus two in 2012. Siskiyou and Sonoma Counties each had five operational facilities in 2016 compared with four during 2012. Tulare County had only 

one active processing facility identified in 2016, down from the four operational 

facilities in 2012. Although no active facilities were identified during 2012, Colusa, 

Merced, Modoc, Nevada, and Sutter Counties all contained an operational primary 

wood-processing facility during 2016. Conversely, El Dorado, Madera, and Yuba 

Counties had lost their operational facilities since 2012 and contained none during 

the 2016 census.

Sales Value, Product Markets, and Market Areas

The total sales value reported by California’s primary forest products manufacturers in 2016 was about $1.5 billion. Although this represents an increase of more 

than $82 million over the 2012 total sales value, it is down $289 million from 2006 

and $1.5 billion from 2000, in constant 2016 dollars. Table 15 shows that product 

sales were led by the sawmill sector at $984 million, followed by bioenergy, residual-utilizing, and veneer and other primary wood products sectors. Sales values 

increased across all industries from 2012 with the exception of the bioenergy sector, 

which decreased by 21 percent. The economic impacts of each sector are discussed 

more thoroughly in subsequent sections.

Sales value and geographic destination by product type for California’s primary 

finished wood products in 2016 are shown in table 16 and figure 9. 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.

Table 15—Sales value of California’s primary wood products, 2000–2016 

Product 2000 2006 2012 2016a

- - - - - - - - - - - Thousand 2016 dollars - - - - - - - - - - -

Lumber, timbers, and associated products 2,002,204 1,159,524 921,692 984,380

Bioenergy 349,180 237,156 344,385 273,542

Residual-utilizing sector b 622,577 302,999 129,116 133,416

Veneer and other primary wood productsc 103,377 113,387 46,619 132,935

Total 3,077,338 1,813,066 1,441,813 1,524,273

a Sales value from export logs included in 2016 total. 

b Residual-utilizing sector includes pulp, paper, and board manufacturers, animal bedding producers, fuel pellet manufacturers, 

and decorative bark.

c Veneer and other products include log home accents, peeler cores, posts, poles, pilings, log furniture, firewood, exports (2016), 

and veneer.

Source: McIver et al. 2015; Morgan et al. 2004, 2012.

California’s primary 

forest products 

manufacturers 

reported about $1.5 

billion in total sales 

value in 2016. This 

is an $82 million 

increase compared 

to 2012, but a $289 

million decrease from 

2006 and $1.5 billion 

decrease from 2000, in 

constant 2016 dollars.
33

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2016

Sales of lumber and sawn products accounted for 65 percent of total sales in 

2016. Bioenergy sales made up 19 percent ($273.5 million), the residual-utilizing 

sector accounted for 9 percent ($133.4 million), and veneer and other primary 

products made up the remaining 9 percent ($133 million). Although lumber and 

other sawn products as well as the residual-utilizing sector both saw increased 

sales values from 2012 to 2016, the veneer and other products sector experienced 

a dramatic increase in overall sales value. Note that export logs are included in the 

2016 total sales value. However, even if export logs are removed, the veneer and 

other products sector experienced a 70 percent increase (in constant 2016 dollars) in 

overall sales value between 2012 and 2016. Bioenergy was the only sector to have 

2016 sales that exceeded pre-recession 2006 sales.

At more than $1.1 billion and more than 74 percent of total sales, California is 

its own largest market for primary wood products. Most of the lumber (75 percent), 

Table 16—Geographic destination and value of California’s primary wood products sales, 2016 

Product California Far West Rockies

North 

Central Northeast South Othera Total

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Thousand 2016 dollars - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Lumber, timbers, and associated 

products

742,619 34,025 71,116 65,248 12,691 51,594 7,087 984,380

Bioenergy 273,542 — — — — — — 273,542

Residual-utilizing sectorb 115,521 5,201 7,428 1,930 1,494 1,708 133 133,416

Veneer and other primary wood 

productsc

3,231 73,421 2,119 48 24 24 54,068 132,935

2016 All primary wood productsd 1,134,912 112,648 80,663 67,226 14,209 53,326 61,289 1,524,273

2012 All primary wood products 1,111,181 81,703 87,719 71,784 12,194 60,070 17,162 1,441,813

2006 All primary wood products 1,263,715 179,075 98,287 79,923 35,356 26,249 130,46 1,813,066

2000 All primary wood products 1,903,053 353,796 237,619 286,183 112,677 80,095 103,915 3,077,338

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percentage of 2016 sales - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Lumber, timbers, and associated 

products

48.7 2.2 4.7 4.3 0.8 3.4 0.5 64.6

Bioenergy 17.9 — — — — — — 17.9

Residual-utilizing sectorb 7.6 0.3 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 — 8.8

Veneer and other primary wood 

productsc

0.2 4.8 0.1 0 0 0 3.5 8.7

All primary wood products 74.5 7.4 5.3 4.4 0.9 3.5 4.0 100.0

a

 Other destinations include Pacific Rim and Canada.

b

 Residual-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, exports (2016), and veneer.

d

 Sales value from export logs included in 2016 total.

Source: McIver et al. 2015; Morgan et al. 2004, 2012. 
34

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-994

as well as all the energy and electricity produced by the bioenergy sector, are used 

in state. The veneer and other primary wood products category is the only one to 

generate greater sales value in out-of-state markets. After dropping by nearly 60 

percent between 2006 and 2012, sales value from the residuals-utilizing sector 

increased by 3 percent in 2016. Following similar trends noted during 2012 as a 

result of the closure of California’s last pulp facility and reduction in out-of-state 

flow of residuals output, approximately 87 percent of the sales value of California’s 

residual-utilizing sector was used in state.

Veneer and other primary wood products manufactured in California were primarily sold out of state in 2016, with just 2 percent of veneer and other products sold in 

state, and 55 percent sold to Far West states, followed by other market areas (41 percent) 

and the Rocky Mountain states (2 percent). International log exports from California to 

Pacific Rim countries in 2016 drove the sale of primary wood products to other market 

areas. The proportion of veneer and other primary wood products sold in California 

during 2016 constituted a drop in in-state sales since 2012, when about 10 percent of 

veneer and other products were sold in California. Veneer being sold to plywood and 

laminated veneer lumber mills in Oregon accounted for much of this trend.

The distribution of California’s primary wood products has changed since previous years. The value of sales to the Far West and Northeast states and international 

markets increased between 2012 and 2016, whereas the value of sales to states in the 

other regions decreased. The Far West states (fig. 9) constituted the largest out-of-state 

market for California primary wood products in 2016, at 7 percent of total sales value. 

The Rocky Mountain states accounted for the second-largest percentage of out-ofstate sales value, at $80 million or 5 percent of 2016 sales, primarily through lumber 

and residual-utilizing product sales. The North Central states yielded about 4 percent 

of total sales value at more than $67 million, with nearly all of it (97 percent) as lumber. Sales to the South were approximately $53 million, roughly 3 percent, while the 

Northeast totaled $14 million, or 1 percent of California’s total primary wood product 

sales. Sales to Northeast states increased 17 percent from 2012 to 2016.

International product exports reported by participating mills constituted a 

similar percentage of California’s total primary wood products sales in 2016 relative 

to previous years. An estimated $61 million in products went to Canada and Pacific 

Rim countries, about 4 percent of total sales. This compares to $17 million or 1 

percent in 2012, and $130 million or 7 percent in 2006 (in constant 2016 dollars). In 

2016, the majority of sales (88 percent) to foreign countries was from the veneer and 

other products sector, driven primarily by log exports, with most of the rest coming 

from the sawmill sector. By comparison, the bulk of sales to other countries during 

2006 was generated from the residual-utilizing sector.
35

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2016

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 10). The 32 sawmills operating in California during 2016 

produced more than 2,000 MMBF of lumber, accounting for more than 6 percent of 

U.S. domestic softwood lumber production and just over 4 percent of U.S. lumber 

consumption (WWPA 1964–2016).

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 volatile since 2000, when production dropped to 

Far West

Rocky Mountain

North Central

South

Northeast

California

Hawaii

Massachusetts

New

Hampshire

Vermont

Rhode

Island

New 

Jersey

Connecticut

Delaware

Maryland

West

Virginia

Mississippi

Florida

Oregon

Washington

Alaska

Montana

Wyoming

Utah Colorado

New Mexico Arizona

Nevada

Idaho

Oklahoma

Texas

Kansas Missouri

Nebraska

South Dakota

North Dakota

Iowa

Minnesota

Wisconsin

Illinois Indiana

Ohio

Michigan

Maine

New York

Pennsylvania

North

Carolina

South

Carolina

Virginia

Kentucky

Tennessee

Arkansas

Louisiana

Alabama Georgia

Florida

Figure 9—Domestic shipment destinations of California’s primary wood products, 2016.

The 32 sawmills 

operating in California 

during 2016 produced 

more than 2,000 MMBF 

of lumber, accounting 

for more than 6 percent 

of U.S. domestic 

softwood lumber 

production and just 

over 4 percent of U.S. 

lumber consumption.
36

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-994

3,100 MMBF, 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 2009 and 2010, output fell to about 1,500 MMBF, and lumber sales were less 

than $1.0 billion (WWPA 1964–2016) (fig. 11). The industry began a slow recovery 

starting in 2010. By 2012, California produced 1,800 MMBF of lumber with sales 

of $756 million, and in 2016, the state produced more than 2,000 MMBF of lumber 

with sales of $833 million. Lumber production and associated sales in 2016 represent a 60-percent increase over the lowest point of the Great Recession in 2009, but 

48 percent less than 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 laminated-veneer lumber by mills 

located in Oregon. The plywood sector was relatively short lived in California. It 

emerged and almost completely disappeared over the course of 60 years (Morgan 

et al. 2004). With strong wood markets and the development of technology to make 

quality plywood out of abundant large-diameter Douglas-fir timber, California 

1,000

0

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

1956

1958

1960

1962

1964

1966

1968

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

Lum

ber pro

duction (million b

oard feet, lum

bertally)

Year

Figure 10—California’s lumber production, 1956–2016 (source: WWPA 1964–2016).
37

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2016

plywood production grew rapidly in the 1950s and early 1960s, peaking in 1964 

at 1,300 million ft2 (3/8-inch basis). A number of factors have accounted for the 

decline and near disappearance of California’s plywood and veneer industry. Howard (1974) 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. The veneer and plywood sector comprises 

a small proportion of California’s total forest products industry, but sales value in 

the sector increased by 70 percent from 2012 to 2016, and the percentage of timber 

harvested for veneer logs increased from slightly more than 8 percent to 11 percent. 

To maintain confidentiality and protect firm-level information, additional details 

regarding California’s current plywood and veneer sector cannot be disclosed.

 6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0

1969

1971

1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

19992001

2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

2013

2015

Lum

ber sales (million 2016 d

ollars)

Year

Figure 11—California’s inflation-adjusted lumber sales, 1969–2016 (source: WWPA 1964–2016).
38

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-994

Residual-Utilizing Sector

In 2016, there were 16 facilities in California manufacturing products from the mill 

residuals generated at sawmills and other plants that process timber into products. 

These included two animal bedding facilities, one particleboard facility, one fuel 

pellet producer, and 12 bark plants producing landscaping products such as decorative bark and mulch. From 2000 to 2012, the number of manufacturers using mill 

residuals declined from 17 to 15. In 2016, the residual-utilizing sector gained one 

new bark facility. The composition of the sector has remained relatively unchanged 

since the last survey, with many of the same facilities still utilizing mill residuals 

to generate products such as particleboard, decorative bark, mulch, shavings for 

animal bedding, and fuel pellets.

California’s 2016 timber harvest included slightly more than 57 MMCF of bark, 

of which roughly 35 MMCF was used to produce energy and about 22 MMCF was 

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

residuals in California during 2016, only a very small amount (less than 0.1 MMCF) 

of bark was not used.

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 (Barrette et al. 1970). A market developed by the 

nursery and gardening industry led to the establishment of three decorative bark 

producers in California by 1975 (Hiserote and Howard 1978); this number grew 

to 10 by 2000 (Morgan et al. 2004) and by 2016 was up to 12. Sales for residualutilizing manufacturers totaled more than $133 million in 2016, up $4.3 million (3 

percent) from 2012. The increase in sales resulted from the addition of one bark 

facility as well as increased output across the residual-utilizing sector during 2016.

Bioenergy Sector

While other sectors of the forest industry in California have declined over the 

past 100 years, the bioenergy sector saw steady growth through 2012. Although 

2016 represented a decrease in bioenergy activity, the sector remains important 

to California’s forest products industry. The state’s bioenergy sector consists of 

a variety of facilities. Cogeneration plants at timber-processing facilities such as 

sawmills produce steam and electricity, whereas stand-alone facilities use various 

mixes of urban and agricultural waste, sawmill residuals, and timber to produce 

electricity. A total of 23 bioenergy facilities used some type of wood fiber, including timber, forest chips (i.e., trees or slash chipped in the forest), sawmill residuals, 

and agricultural or urban waste (i.e., orchard clippings, fruit pits or nutshells, and 

construction and demolition waste). Seven facilities operated exclusively on sawmill 
39

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2016

residuals, the same as during 2012 and more than the two operating during 2006; 

four facilities used a mixture of forest chips and sawmill residuals; 10 facilities used 

a mixture of agricultural waste, urban waste, and sawmill residuals; and two facilities used forest chips, sawmill residuals, and urban and agricultural waste (down 

from four during 2012). The diversity of facilities and inputs in the bioenergy sector 

reflect the increasing emphasis put on alternative energy sources in California 

through state and federal energy and pollution policies (e.g., California’s AB 32 and 

Renewable Energy Standard), as well as advancements in technology.

The energy-producing capacity of the 23 active bioenergy facilities that used 

wood fiber in 2016 totaled 510 megawatts (MW) (Woody Biomass Utilization 

Group 2019), down from 551 MW in 2012 but higher than the 485 MW of capacity 

recorded in 2006. Several facilities with a history of using forest or mill residuals 

were idle during 2016 as power purchase agreements between biomass facilities and 

power companies neared the end of their contracts. California’s active bioenergy 

producers sold slightly more than 3 million megawatt-hours (MWh) of power in 

2016. By comparison, the 26 bioenergy facilities active in 2012 produced 3.4 million MWh and the 25 bioenergy facilities active during 2006 produced 3.1 million 

MWh. One MWh can power an average California home for up to 2 months (USDE 

EIA 2018). All the energy produced was sold within the state of California, with a 

total sales value of $273.5 million (table 16). The sales value of electricity produced 

by bioenergy facilities decreased by 21 percent over 2012 sales, which was a combination of decreased production as well as a 15 percent decrease in the price paid per 

kilowatt-hour, from $0.1015 in 2012 to $0.0867 in 2016 (constant 2016 dollars).

Measured in cubic feet, the bioenergy sector used about 33 percent of the wood 

fiber (excluding bark) from California’s timber harvest, as well as approximately 

33 percent of the bark residuals produced. This includes more than 83 MMCF of 

timber harvested for bioenergy and approximately 48 MMCF (including bark) from 

other primary processing facilities. A dramatic reduction in the flow of bark residuals from wood-processing facilities to bioenergy facilities was observed between 

2012 and 2016, as bark residual streams shifted more toward decorative landscaping 

bark entities and internal energy production.

California’s bioenergy sector faced several challenges during 2016, contributing to an overall reduction in activity across the sector. Biomass energy production 

continues to be faced with relatively high production cost, and other renewable 

energy sources, including solar and wind generated power have lower costs as 

a result of available subsidies, tax exemptions, smaller workforce requirements, 

and generally fewer operating expenses (Lofthouse et al. 2015). Biomass energy 

is made more economical through power purchase agreements between biomass 

The energy-producing 

capacity of the 23 

active bioenergy 

facilities that used 

wood fiber in 2016 

totaled 510 megawatts 

(MW), down from 551 

MW in 2012 but higher 

than the 485 MW of 

capacity recorded in 

2006.
40

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-994

facilities and power companies, incentivizing the use of renewable energy generated from woody biomass under California’s Green Building Action Plan (Executive Order B-18-12). However, many power purchase agreements faced expiration 

deadlines during 2016, causing many facilities to be idle for parts of the year in 

anticipation of widespread closures (Benda 2016, Langley 2017). Concern over 

large-scale tree mortality and industry capacity to utilize harvested dead material 

led Governor Jerry Brown to sign Senate Bill 859 in September of 2016, which 

offered a temporary reprieve for biomass power facilities that use fuel from statedesignated high-hazard zone forests. The bill and resulting Biofuel Renewable 

Auction Mechanism (BioRAM) program required electricity retailers to enter 

into 5-year contracts with biomass facilities that would source 80 percent of their 

feedstock from state-designated high-hazard-zone forests. In addition, the Bioenergy Market Adjusting Tariff (BioMAT) program, a feed-in tariff program for small 

bioenergy plants, requires state utility companies to purchase 50 MW from sustainable forest management (Simet 2017).

Other Sectors

The remaining primary wood products manufacturers identified in 2016 included 

three log export operations, one utility pole producer, one house log facility, one 

commercial firewood operation, and one log furniture producer. The number and 

types of facilities comprising California’s other wood product manufacturers have 

varied throughout the years. Historical information on their operations is somewhat 

limited, and given the changing nature of the “other” sector it is difficult to make 

meaningful comparisons over time. Some of these producers are 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 2016 and the proportion 

of that capacity used by the forest industry. Output capacity is the most commonly 

used measure of capacity, measuring the volume of finished product a mill could 

produce in a given time frame, 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., which makes 

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 timber-processing 
41

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2016

capacity, which is a measure of the volume of raw logs that a mill can process in a 

given time frame, generally per year and measured in board feet Scribner. Capacity 

for 2016 was developed from the FIDACS census of California’s forest products 

industry. Capacity for years preceding 2016 was either estimated from previous 

industry censuses (Howard and Ward 1991; McIver et al. 2015; Morgan et al. 2004, 

2012; Ward 1995) or, for intervening years between periodic surveys, based on 

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

1976–2016, 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.

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 calculated 

using the average volume of a log that would be used for that product. The resulting 

pole volumes, quantified as pieces, were comparable in size to veneer and sawlogs.

California’s capacity to process timber in 2016 was an estimated 1,900 MMBF 

Scribner, of which 73 percent was used by mills processing nearly 1,400 MMBF 

Scribner (fig. 12). A slight increase in total capacity for processing sawtimber 

and capacity utilized was observed from 2012 to 2016; in 2012, total capacity was 

estimated at 1,800 MMBF and mills processed approximately 1,300 MMBF. There 

has been a 69 percent drop in capacity to process sawtimber in California since 

1988, when capacity was 6,000 MMBF Scribner of log input and mills processed 

about 4,000 MMBF of timber. The major decline in capacity took place from 1988 

to 1999 with a fall from 6,000 to 2,800 MMBF (Morgan et al. 2004). The capacity 

decline in the 1990s resulted primarily from the decline of roughly 2,000 MMBF 

California’s capacity 

to process timber in 

2016 was an estimated 

1,900 MMBF Scribner, 

of which 73 percent 

was used by mills 

processing nearly 

1,400 MMBF Scribner.
42

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-994

Scribner in federal timber sale offerings from national forests. Increased state 

regulations of timber harvest activities reduced the available private timber volume, 

as did increased costs of removal (Thompson and Dicus 2005). Additional changes 

in the use of private lands, including development, urbanization, or purchases and 

set-asides for parks or old-growth preservation, also contributed to reduced timber 

harvest across private forest lands. The Great Recession led to poor market conditions, and the portion of capacity used fell more dramatically than total capacity, 

with capacity used declining from around 80 percent during the 2000 to 2006 

period to an estimated 50 percent in 2009 (Keegan et al. 2011; McIver et al. 2015). 

As markets have continued to rebound and slowly recover, production and capacity 

utilization increased to 73 percent in 2016.

Lumber production capacity—

Capacity to produce lumber varies widely among California’s 32 sawmills, and the 

proportion of capacity utilized appears to increase as mill size increases (table 17). 

Total lumber produced by sawmills during 2016 was 2,022 MMBF, while production 

capacity was more than 2,296 MMBF lumber tally. Thus, approximately 88 percent 

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

1988

1989

1990

1991

19921993

1994

1995

1996

1997

19981999

2000

2001

20022003

2004

2005

2006

2007

20082009

2010

2011

2012

2013

20142015

2016

Timber processing capacity (million board feet Scribner)

Year

Total capacity

Capacity used

Figure 12—California’s capacity for processing sawtimber, 1988–2016.
43

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2016

of California’s annual lumber-producing capacity was 

utilized, up from 78 percent in 2012 and 80 percent in 

2006. The majority, 1,697 MMBF (nearly 74 percent) of 

lumber-producing capacity, was concentrated in the 11 

largest mills, each with over 100 MMBF annual capacity. 

There was a slight increase in the number of mills with 

10 to 50 MMBF annual capacity as well as increases in 

their production capacity and their proportional contribution to state total capacity. Owing to some mill closures, 

a 7 percent decrease in overall sawmill production capacity was observed from 2012 to 2016, although there was a 

6 percent increase in actual production.

The degree of concentration of capacity among the 

largest mills increased from 2000, when 58 percent of 

capacity was in the size class of more than 100 MMBF 

capacity. During 2016, these largest mills accounted for 

more than 75 percent (1,528 MMBF) of lumber production in California and utilized on average 90 percent 

of their lumber-producing capacity, up significantly 

from 78 percent in 2012 and 85 percent in 2006. Mills 

with capacities of 50 to 100 MMBF accounted for 

415 MMBF (18 percent) of total capacity—producing 

almost 348 MMBF (17 percent) of the state’s lumber—and utilized on average almost 84 percent of their 

capacity. While two more sawmills were active during 

2016 than in 2012, some shifting between size classes 

occurred as new mills were added and some closed. 

The smallest 16 sawmills—with 50 MMBF production 

capacity or less—accounted for 8 percent (184 MMBF) 

of California’s lumber-producing capacity and about 7 

percent (147 MMBF) of the state’s lumber production. 

Mills in the smallest size class utilized a lower percentage of their available capacity than mills in the larger 

size classes. However, the small mills still used nearly 

80 percent of their production capacity during 2016. For 

comparison, the 12 sawmills with processing capacity 

of 50 MMBF or less utilized about 71 percent of their 

available capacity in 2012.

Table 17—Number of active California sawmills, capacity, production, and proportion of capacity utilized by capacity size class, 2016 Production capacity size class

Number 

of mills

Production 

capacity

Percentage 

of total 

capacity

Average 

capacity 

per mill Production

Percentage 

of total 

production

Average 

production 

per mill

Capacity 

utilized

MMBFa Percent MMBFa MMBFa Percent MMBFa Percent

10 MMBF or less 10 18.1 0.8 1.8 8.7 0.4 0.9 48.310 to 50 MMBF 6 166.4 7.2 27.7 138.3 6.8 23.1 83.150 to 100 MMBF 5 415.0 18.1 83.0 347.5 17.2 69.5 83.7More than 100 MMBF 11 1,697.0 73.9 154.3 1,527.9 75.5 138.9 90.02016 Total 32 2,296.5 100.0 71.8 2,022.5 100.0 63.2 88.12012 Total 30 2,467.5 100.0 82.2 1,917.0 100.0 63.9 77.72006 Total 33 3,067.2 100.0 92.9 2,453.3 100.0 74.3 80.02000 Total 47 3,878.5 100.0 82.5 3,137.7 100.0 66.8 80.9MMBF = million board feet.a Volume in million board feet lumber tally.Source: McIver et al. 2015; Morgan et al. 2004, 2012.
44

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-994

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) 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 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 2016 was approximately 232 MMCF (fig. 5) and lumber production was 2,022 MMBF lumber tally. 

Thus the statewide LRF for California sawmills in 2016 was 8.72 board feet of 

lumber output per cubic foot of log input, a 10 percent increase since 2000 (Morgan 

et al. 2004, 2012) and a 2 percent decrease since 2012 (McIver et al. 2015).

Increases in LRF are attributable primarily to improvements in processing 

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 percentage of the 

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

from logs with sweep and crook (Keegan et al. 2010a). Small deviations up or down 

in LRF from year to year are not unusual and can be caused by an array of factors, 

including the number, size, and type of sawmills in operation during a given year.

During 2016, California sawmills produced 2,022 MMBF lumber tally by 

processing 1,235 MMBF, Scribner Decimal C, of logs yielding an overrun of 64 

percent or 1.64 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. Though variations can be observed from year to year, both overrun and LRF for 

California sawmills has trended in an upward direction since 1968.

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

log size processed by California sawmills increased slightly from 2012 to 2016 

(table 18). During 2016, 78 percent of logs processed by sawmills had a small-end 

diameter greater than 10 inches. This represents an increase over the 75 percent of 

logs with small-end diameters of more than 10 inches in 2012 (McIver et al. 2015) 

and the 72 percent in 2006 (Morgan et al. 2012).

The statewide lumber 

recovery factor for 

California sawmills in 

2016 was 8.72 board 

feet of lumber output 

per cubic foot of log 

input, a 10 percent 

increase since 2000 

and a 2 percent 

decrease since 2012.
45

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2016

Mill Residuals: Quantity, Type, and Use

In 2016, roughly 50 percent of the total fiber (wood and bark) processed by primary 

wood manufacturing facilities ended up as mill residuals, down from 56 percent 

in 2012 and 60 percent in 2006 (McIver et al. 2015, Morgan et al. 2012). These 

residuals can present difficult and expensive disposal problems or they can be used 

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

bioenergy industry is the largest consumer of the wood residual generated in the 

state, whereas sawmills are the largest residual producers. Facilities producing 

landscaping mulch, decorative bark, and animal bedding products are also large 

users of mill residuals in California.

1.14

1.23

1.32 1.27

1.39

1.53 1.53

1.64 1.63 1.64

6.84

7.38

7.95

7.62 7.43

7.74 7.96

8.30

8.87 8.72

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0 0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

1968 1972 1976 1982 1985 1994 2000 2006 2012 2016

Lumber recovery factor

Overrun

Year

Lumber recovery factor

Overrun

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

Table 18—Proportion of logs processed by sawmills by small-end diameter

Small-end diameter 2006 2012 2016

Inches Percent

<7 9 7 7

7–10 19 18 0.15

Total <10 28 25 22

10–24 51 52 58

>24 21 23 20

Total >10 72 75 78

Roughly 50 percent 

of the total fiber 

(wood and bark) 

processed by primary 

wood manufacturing 

facilities ended up as 

mill residuals, down 

from 56 percent in 2012 

and 60 percent in 2006.
46

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-994

Three types of wood residuals are created by California’s primary wood products industry: coarse or chippable residuals consisting of slabs, edging, trim, log 

ends, and pieces of veneer; fine residuals consisting primarily of planer shavings 

and sawdust; and bark. The 2016 census gathered information on volumes and uses 

of mill residuals. Actual residual volumes, reported in BDU, were obtained from 

facilities that sold all or most of their residuals. One BDU is the equivalent of 2,400 

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

were used.

Residual volume factors, which express mill residuals generated per unit 

of output produced, were derived from production and residual output volumes 

reported by mills. California’s sawmills produce residuals during their normal 

production process. Residual factors for 2000, 2006, 2012, and 2016 as shown in 

table 19 represent statewide averages. During 2016, sawmills in California produced a similar amount of residuals per thousand board feet of lumber as in 2012, 

producing a slightly higher amount of planer shavings and slightly less bark. The 

2016 and 2012 sawmill residual factors indicate lower residual production than 

during 2000 and 2006. Several factors can contribute to changes in mill residual 

production. In general, changes in the size and species mix of logs received and 

products produced by sawmills can cause residual factors to change (Keegan et al. 

2010a, 2010b). Improved milling technology and increases in average log size tend 

to reduce the amount of planer shavings, sawdust, and coarse residual generated per 

unit of lumber.

In 2016, California sawmills generated 1.58 million BDU of mill residuals, 

accounting for 90 percent of all mill residuals generated that year (table 20). Veneer 

plants, a utility pole facility, a log home accent plant, and a log furniture facility 

accounted for the remaining 9 percent of mill residuals produced during 2016. 

Coarse residual accounted for the largest proportion of residuals at approximately 

Table 19—California’s sawmill residual factors, 2000–2016 

Type of residual 2000 2006 2012 2016

- - - - - - - - - - - Bone-dry units per MBFa - - - - - - - - - - -

Coarse 0.41 0.37 0.33 0.33

Sawdust 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.14

Planer shavings 0.13 0.11 0.08 0.10

Bark 0.23 0.21 0.22 0.21

Total 0.92 0.85 0.77 0.78

a Bone-dry units (2,400 lbs of oven-dry wood) of the various residual types generated for every thousand board 

feet (MBF) of lumber manufactured. 

Source: McIver et al. 2015; Morgan et al. 2004, 2012. 
47

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2016

42 percent, with bark accounting for 27 percent. More than 99 percent of residuals 

generated by sawmills during 2016 was utilized, either internally by the mill or sold 

for other products.

More than 1.75 million BDU of wood products residuals were generated during 2016, which is 7 percent more than in 2012. Coarse residuals were the largest 

component of wood products residuals in the state (table 21). Facilities in California 

produced 754,214 BDU of coarse residuals, and only 80 BDU were not used. Sixtytwo percent of coarse residuals was used to produce energy, 21 percent was used by 

reconstituted board plants, and 16 percent was sold and used for other products.

Fine residuals—sawdust and planer shavings—made up 29 percent of residuals (505,216 BDU) in 2016. Fine residuals increased 22 percent from 2012 to 2016. 

Sawdust composed 57 percent and planer shavings 43 percent of fine residuals. 

Table 20—Volume of wood residuals generated by California’s sawmills, 2016

Wood residuals Percentage of type

Residual type Used Unused Total Used Unused Total

- - - - - - - - - Bone-dry unitsa - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - -

Coarse 664,937 65 665,002 99.99 0.01 42.01

Fine

Sawdust 276,012 1,488 277,500 99.46 0.54 17.53

Planer shavings 211,693 29 211,722 99.99 0.01 13.37

Bark 427,881 877 428,758 99.80 0.20 27.09

All residuals 1,580,523 2,458 1,582,981 99.84 0.16 100

a One bone-dry unit = 2,400 lbs of oven-dry wood.

Table 21—California’s production and disposition of wood products residuals, 2016

Type of residuala

Total 

utilized

Reconstituted 

board Energy

Landscape products, animal 

bedding, and other uses Unutilized

Total 

produced

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Bone-dry unitsb - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Coarse 754,134 160,450 470,734 122,951 80 754,214

Fine 

Sawdust 287,770 16,559 221,259 49,952 1,488 289,258

Planer shavings 215,929 15,172 56,475 144,282 29 215,958

Bark 490,416 — 259,355 231,061 1,177 491,593

All residuals 1,748,249 192,181 1,007,822 548,246 2,773 1,751,022

— = zero.

a Includes residuals from the manufacture of lumber, veneer, utility poles, log furniture, firewood, export logs, and house logs. 

b

 One bone-dry unit = 2,400 lbs of oven-dry wood.

More than 99 percent 

of residuals generated 

by sawmills during 

2016 was utilized, 

either internally by the 

mill or sold for other 

products.
48

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-994

Nearly 100 percent of fine residuals were utilized, with less than 1 percent left 

unutilized, most of which was sawdust. Fine residuals were primarily used as fuel 

in the production of energy (277,734 BDU or 55 percent) or for landscaping and 

other products (194,234 BDU or 38 percent). In 2016, California timber-processing 

facilities generated 491,593 BDU of bark—practically all of which was used by 

other sectors. Fifty-three percent of bark (259,355 BDU) was used for bioenergy and 

47 percent (231,061 BDU) was used as landscaping or soil additives.

Forest 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 (USDC) 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 it reported economic data and classified employment by 

sector in 2001, the USDC Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) has made state-level 

personal income information available from 1998 through the present. This period 

formed the basis of the analysis in this section. For further reading on changes in 

government reporting systems for economic data, see Morgan et al. (2012).

Primary forest products manufacturers are just one component of the broader 

forest industry in California. The classification of forest industries used here follows the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) available online 

on the BEA website. The forest products industry shows up in four categories: 

• NAICS 113—forestry and logging

• NAICS 1153—forestry support activities

• NAICS 321—wood products manufacturing

• NAICS 322—paper manufacturing (secondary)

These categories include employees who work in both the primary and secondary wood products and paper-manufacturing sector. Given the absence of primary 

paper manufacturing in California, all figures mentioned pertain solely to recycled 

paper or secondary paper manufacturing. Note that the four NAICS categories used 

to characterize the forest industry likely underestimate total employment because 

they do not include log hauling (trucking) companies, lumber and construction 

material wholesalers, road construction and maintenance contractors, and forest 

management services performed by government agencies or nonprofit organizations. Data from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, a product of the 

U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics, were combined with BEA 

data to estimate employment and labor income associated with forestry support 

activities. These publicly available data sources provide a point of comparison for 
49

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2016

estimates of employees and labor income for the primary forest products manufacturers as well as additional information on the larger forest industry.

In 2016, total employment in the forest industry in California was an estimated 

57,890 full- and part-time workers (USDC BEA 2018a; USDL BLS 2017). Of these, 

approximately 28,680 workers were employed in the manufacturing of primary and 

secondary wood products. In addition, we estimate that nearly 5,200 were employed 

in forestry and logging and 1,595 provided supporting activities for forestry operations. An additional 22,340 workers manufactured secondary paper products in 

California during 2016 (fig. 14).

Although 2009 is considered the end of the Great Recession, 2011 and 2012 had 

the lowest levels of total forest industry employment for California in the past two 

decades. Wood products manufacturing in California experienced the most dramatic decline over the past 15 years, with all employment sectors seeing decreases 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

20142015

2016

Number of workers (thousands)

Total forest industry employment

Wood products manufacturing

Secondary paper manufacturing

Forestry and logging

Support activities for forestry

Year

Figure 14—Employment in California’s forest industry, 1998–2016.

In 2016, total 

employment in the 

forest industry in 

California was an 

estimated 57,890 fulland part-time workers.
50

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-994

beginning in 2003 and lasting for nearly a decade. The Great Recession contributed 

to weak demand for wood products, and mill closures and curtailments were 

observed across all Western states. Recovery has been slow, but employment in 

California’s forest industry has experienced growth during recent years. Since 2012, 

total employment in the forest industry has been on an upward trend. The 9 percent 

growth in total forest industry employment from 2012 to 2016 was led by wood 

products manufacturing, which increased by 18 percent. Although forestry and 

logging employment decreased by 2 percent from 2012 to 2016, secondary paper 

manufacturing employment increased by 4 percent and forestry support activities 

by 2 percent over the same period.

Workers in the forest industry earned more than $3.6 billion in labor income 

or worker earnings in 2016 (USDC BEA 2018b; USDL BLS 2017) (fig. 15), with 

the average employee across all sectors of the forest industry making $60,500 

annually. Labor income includes wages and salaries, some benefits, and earnings 

of the self-employed. Labor income growth for the forest industry as a whole (14 

percent) between 2012 and 2016 exceeded total forest industry employment growth 

(9 percent) over the same period. Since 2012, inflation-adjusted earnings in the 

wood products manufacturing sector increased by 22 percent, slightly outpacing 

employment growth in that sector. The average wood products manufacturing 

employee earned approximately $48,000 in 2016. Despite decreasing employment 

in forestry and logging between 2012 and 2016, labor income for these employees 

grew by 30 percent over the same period. Labor income for forestry support activities and secondary paper manufacturing increased between 2012 and 2016 by 2 and 

7 percent, respectively—amounts that are similar to the employment growth in each 

sector over the same period.

Wage growth outpacing employment could be attributed to a variety of factors, including general wage increases across forest industry sectors and efforts 

toward employee retention, as well as the inclusion of both full- and part-time 

workers in BEA employment estimates. For example, when wages grow faster than 

employment, it may point to employees who were previously working part time 

adding more hours or days, which increases wages paid by businesses but does not 

change the overall employment estimate. Although nearly every sector of the forest 

industry has experienced increasing labor income levels since 2012, income levels 

generally declined across the industry after 2006 (a 23 percent decrease), with the 

exception of support activities for forestry.

Support activities for forestry (NAICS 1153) encompasses a variety of activities, including wildfire suppression and prevention activities, tree thinning and 

planting, and pest management. The employment and wage growth experienced in 

Workers in the forest 

industry earned more 

than $3.6 billion in 

labor income or worker 

earnings in 2016.
51

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2016

this category may be explained by a number of interrelated factors. First, the timing 

of the upward trend (2009–2010) coincides with federal investments in infrastructure made through the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act. Second, as 

timber harvest levels have declined, businesses previously involved in commercial 

timber harvesting have diversified into noncommercial thinning, fuels reduction, 

and wildfire suppression activities, thus causing these businesses to be reclassified 

from forestry and logging to support activities for forestry. Finally, investments in 

noncommercial forest management activities likely increased in Western states, 

including California, during this time because of extensive mortality resulting from 

the mountain pine beetle epidemic and severe drought conditions.

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

Labor income (millions of 2016 dollars)

19981999

2000

2001

20022003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

20122013

20142015

2016

Total forest industry employment

Wood products manufacturing

Secondary paper manufacturing

Forestry and logging

Support activities for forestry

Year

Figure 15—Inflation-adjusted earnings in California’s forest industry, 1998–2016. 
52

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-994

Economic Contribution of California’s Forest Industry

Economic contribution analyses measure gross changes in economic activity in an 

existing regional economy that can be associated with an industry, event, or policy 

(Watson et al. 2007). For this report, we assessed the contribution of California’s 

forest industry as dollars spent on intermediate inputs, taxes, and labor and, in turn, 

by households. All these expenditures generate economic opportunities as they 

cycle through the state’s economy.

The wood products and secondary paper manufacturers, forestry and logging 

workers, and forestry support firms that constitute California’s forest industry directly 

contributed approximately 57,891 jobs and $3.6 billion dollars in labor income to 

the state. The activity associated with this direct employment generated additional 

economic opportunities, as they rely on other industries’ intermediate inputs and 

services, thus indirectly supporting employment and wages in additional sectors.

Using regional data and existing linkages within California’s economy represented by the BEA’s RIMS II multipliers (USDC BEA 2016), we estimated that the 

wood products manufacturing sector alone supported more than 66,000 full- and 

part-time jobs and an associated $3.4 billion dollars in labor income in 2016 (table 

22). In other words, for every wood products manufacturing job in the state, 

another 1.3 jobs were supported in related sectors, and for every $1 dollar paid in 

labor income by wood products manufacturers, another $1.50 is paid in supporting 

sectors, including forestry and logging, forestry support, trucking, wholesale trade, 

and management.

Likewise, we estimated that the 5,266 people employed in the forestry and 

logging sector support an additional 6,824 full- and part-time jobs along with more 

than $250 million dollars in labor income in supporting sectors, such as equipment 

sales and repair. Note that we intentionally do not aggregate sectors nor provide 

estimates of the total employment and labor income contribution for the entire 

forest industry. Doing so would result in double-counting, as some employment 

and labor income feature as both direct contribution of one sector and indirect or 

induced contributions of another sector. For example, some or all of direct employment and labor income in the forestry and logging sector would be included as 

indirect and induced contributions of the wood products manufacturing sector 

because these manufacturers rely upon forestry and logging businesses to supply 

their raw material inputs.

Wood products and paper manufacturing represent both primary and secondary 

employment and labor income estimates. California’s secondary wood and paper 

products industries are concentrated near population centers in the state’s southern and 

central counties. The primary forest products industry is concentrated in the northern 

For every 

wood products 

manufacturing job in 

the state, another 1.3 

jobs were supported 

in related sectors, 

and for every $1 dollar 

paid in labor income 

by wood products 

manufacturers, 

another $1.50 is paid in 

supporting sectors.
53

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2016

counties, closer to where timber harvesting occurs. The primary portion of the industry is integrally linked to forest management practices 

in the state, while the link is not as pronounced with the secondary 

industry. Consequently, statewide policies and legislation, whether 

related to the environment, labor, or forest products industry, will 

generally have larger impacts on the residents of the northern counties 

than the state’s population as a whole.

Since 2012, the California State Legislature has been interested 

in wood utilization and increasing forest industry processing capacity 

in response to severe wildfires and tree mortality. Several state bills, 

policies, and key reports have indicated the need to increase woodprocessing capacity across all sectors of the forest industry, including 

assembly bills about mass timber and innovative forest products 

(AB2518 and AB1823); the BioRAM and BioMAT programs for 

biomass energy facilities; the AB1504 California Forest Ecosystem 

and Harvested Wood Product Carbon Inventory; and other regional 

or local efforts. Forest industry processing capacity in California continues to be challenged by many issues such as the high cost of doing 

business in California, labor shortage, lack of appropriate workforce 

skills, and the high cost or limited supply of raw materials. Despite 

these challenges, new opportunities and emerging markets for wood 

products, including low-value wood for biomass energy, may help 

increase the financial viability of ecosystem restoration goals and 

play a role in forest management efforts in response to beetle kill, 

drought, extreme weather conditions, and population expansion 

affecting California forests.

Acknowledgments 

We thank all the participating wood products facility owners, 

managers, and staff who provided detailed information about their 

operations. In addition, we are grateful for the comments and input 

provided by Steve Brink, California Forestry Association; Larry 

Swan and Helena Murray, USDA Forest Service State and Private 

Forestry; Bill Stewart, University of California, Berkeley; Nadia 

Tase, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection; the 

USDA Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis program; and 

all the reviewers of the manuscript and summary data tables.

Table 22—Average annual employment and labor income contributions from California’s forest industry, 2016Sector

Direct 

employment

Indirect 

and induced 

employment

Total 

employment 

contributiona

Direct labor 

income

Indirect and 

induced labor 

income

Total labor 

income 

contributiona

- - - - - - - - - - - Number of jobs - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Thousand 2016 dollars - - - - - - - - -

Wood product manufacturing 28,685 37,534 66,219 1,374,406 2,061,265 3,435,671Forestry and logging 5,266 6,824 12,090 273,460 251,200 524,660Forestry support activities 1,595 627 2,222 105,093 53,009 158,102Secondary paper manufacturing 22,345 58,573 80,918 1,886,131 2,834,289 4,720,420

Total forest industry 57,891 a a 3,639,090 a a

a Indirect and induced employment and labor income should not be summed for multiple sectors because some employment and income shows up as both direct contributions to their sector and indirect contributions to other sectors.
54

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-994

Metric Equivalents

When you know: Multiply by: To find:

Inches 2.54 Centimeters

Feet (ft) 0.3048 Meters

Square feet (ft2

) 0.0929 Square meters

Acre (ac) 0.404 Hectare

Cubic feet (ft3

) 0.0283 Cubic meters

Cubic feet per acre (ft3

/ac) 0.06997 Cubic meters per hectare

Pounds (lbs) 0.3732 Kilogram

References

Barrette, B.R.; Gedney, D.R.; Oswald, D.D. 1970. California timber industries, 

1968: mill characteristics and wood supply. Sacramento, CA: California Division 

of Forestry. 117 p.

Benda, D. 2016. Burney biomass plant gives notice it will shut down. Redding 

Record Searchlight. August 12. http://archive.redding.com/business/local/

burney-biomass-plant-gives-notice-it-will-shut-down-39befbc2-2a3a-0489-e053-

0100007f6940-390047131.html/. (31 July 2020).

Brodie, L.; Palmer, M. 2020. California’s forest resources, 2006–2015: 10-year 

Forest Inventory and Analysis report. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-983. Portland, 

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

Station. 60 p.

California Biomass Energy Alliance [CBEA]. 2016. California biomass energy 

alliance commends Governor Brown for assisting the biomass industry by 

signing Senate Bill 859. CBEA press release. September 14. http://www.

calbiomass.org/news-events/. (4 August 2020).

California Department of Tax and Fee Administration [CDTFA 2018]. Timber 

yield tax and harvest values schedule. https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes-and-fees/

timber-tax.htm. (28 March 2018).

Christensen, G.A.; Waddell, K.L.; Stanton, S.M.; Kuegler, O. 2015. California’s 

forest resources: Forest Inventory and Analysis, 2001–2010. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

PNW-GTR-913. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 293 p.
55

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2016

Christensen, G.A.; Gray, A.N.; Kuegler, O.; Tase, N.A.; Rosenberg, M. 2017.

AB 1504 California forest ecosystem and harvested wood product carbon 

inventory: 2006–2015. Final report. Agreement no. 7CA02025. Sacramento, CA: 

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and California Board of 

Forestry and Fire Protection. 390 p.

Ehinger, P.F. 2012. Forest industry data for Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana 

and California: operating mills and other data. On file with: Paul F. Ehinger and 

Associates, 2300 Oakmont Way No. 212, Eugene, OR 97401.

Hayes, S.W.; Morgan, T.A. 2017. The forest products industry in Montana, 

part 2: industry sectors, capacity and outputs. Forest Industry Brief No. 4. 

Missoula, MT: University of Montana, Bureau of Business and Economic 

Research. 6 p. http://www.bber.umt.edu/pubs/forest/fidacs/MT2014.2%20

Mills.pdf. (31 July 2020).

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-080. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 103 p.

Howard, J.O. 1974. California forest industry wood consumption and 

characteristics, 1972. Resour. Bull. PNW-52. Portland, OR: U.S. Department 

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. 

PNW-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.

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., III; Morgan, T.A.; Blatner, K.A.; Daniels, J.M. 2010a. 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.
56

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-994

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

in lumber processing in the Western United States, part 2: 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. 2011.

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.

Langley, M.E. 2017. Power plant looking for spark to reopen. Tracy Press. April 19. 

http://www.ttownmedia.com/tracy_press/news/power-plant-looking-for-spark-to

reopen/article_193f1492-2561-11e7-b6f5-eb4ba2615c93.html. (31 July 2020). 

Lofthouse, J.; Simmons, R.T.; Yonk, R.M. 2015. Reliability of renewable energy: 

biomass. Logan, UT: Utah State University, Institute of Political Economy. 26 p. 

https://www.strata.org/reliability-of-renewable-energy/biomass/. (31 July 2020).

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.

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.

McIver, C.P.; Meek, J.P.; Scudder, M.G.; Sorenson, C.B.; Morgan, T.A.; 

Christensen, G.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.

Random Lengths. 1976–2016. Forest product market prices and statistics 

yearbook. Eugene, OR: Random Lengths Publications, Inc.

Random Lengths. 1993. Terms of the trade. Eugene, OR: Random Lengths 

Publications, Inc. 351 p.

Simet, G. 2017. From high hazard to bioenergy boost. Biomass Magazine. 

September 4. http://biomassmagazine.com/articles/14628/from-high-hazard-tobioenergy-boost. (31 July 2020).

Simmons, E.A.; Scudder, M.G.; Morgan, T.A.; Berg, E.C.; Christensen, G.A. 

2016. Oregon’s forest products industry and timber harvest 2013 with trends 

through 2014. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-942. Portland, OR: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 58 p.
57

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2016

Simmons, E.A.; Morgan, T.A. 2017. The forest products industry in Idaho, 

part 2: industry sectors, capacity and outputs. Forest Industry Brief No. 11. 

Missoula, MT: University of Montana, Bureau of Business and Economic 

Research. 8 p. http://www.bber.umt.edu/pubs/forest/fidacs/ID2015.2%20Mills.

pdf. (31 July 2020).

Souza, C. 2016. State seeks way to solve ‘a big biomass problem.’ AgAlert: The 

Weekly Newspaper for California Agriculture. August 24. https://www.agalert.

com/story/?id=10110. (31 July 2020).

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.

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 Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2015. Pacific 

Northwest Forest Inventory and Analysis database (PNW-FIADB): annual 

inventory data for California, Oregon, and Washington 2001–2014. Portland, OR: 

Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forest Inventory and Analysis. https://www.

fs.fed.us/pnw/rma/fia-topics/inventory-data/.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS] 2019. Forest 

Inventory EVALIDator web application, version 1.8.0.00. St. Paul, MN: Northern 

Research Station, Forest Inventory and Analysis. http://apps.fs.usda.gov/

Evalidator/evalidator.jsp.

U.S. Department of Commerce, International Trade Commission [USDC ITC]. 

2018. USITC DataWeb: interactive tariff and trade data. Washington, DC. https://

dataweb.usitc.gov/login.

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration [USDE 

EIA]. 2018. Frequently asked questions. http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.

cfm?id=97&t. (May 2019).

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics [USDL BLS]. 2017.

Quarterly census of employment and wages (QCEW). https://www.bls.gov/cew/. 

(September 2018).

Ward, F.R. 1995. California’s forest products industry, 1992. Resour. Bull. PNWRB-206. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 76 p.
58

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-994

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.

Watson, P.; Wilson, J.; Thilmany, D.; Winter, S. 2007. Determining economic 

contributions and impacts: What is the difference and why do we care? Journal of 

Regional Analysis and Policy. 37(2): 140–146.

Western Wood Products Association [WWPA]. 1964–2016. Statistical yearbook 

of the Western lumber industry. Portland, OR. Annual.

Woody Biomass Utilization Group. 2019. Woody biomass utilization: California 

forest products and biomass power plant map. Berkeley, CA: University of 

California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Data download from: 

https://ucanr.edu/sites/WoodyBiomass/Project/California_Biomass_Power_

Plants/. (June 2019).

Zhou, X.; Daniels, J.M. 2018. Production, prices, employment and trade in 

Northwest forest industries, all quarters 2014. Resour. Bull. PNW-RB-267. 

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

Research Station. 162 p.


Pacific Northwest Research Station

Website https://www.fs.usda.gov/pnw/

Telephone (503) 808–2100

Publication requests (503) 808–2138

FAX (503) 808–2130

E-mail sm.fs.pnw_pnwpubs@usda.gov

Mailing address Publications Distribution

Pacific Northwest Research Station

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208–3890
U.S. Department of Agriculture

Pacific Northwest Research Station

1220 SW 3rd Ave., Suite 1400

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208–3890

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300