Oregon’s Forest Products Industry 

and Timber Harvest 2013 With 

Trends Through 2014

Eric A. Simmons, Micah G. Scudder, Todd A. Morgan, Erik C. Berg, 

and Glenn A. Christensen

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest 

Service

Pacific Northwest 

Research Station

General Technical Report

PNW-GTR-942

November

2016
Authors

Eric A. Simmons is a research associate, Micah G. Scudder is a research forester,

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

Berg is a research forester, Bureau of Business and Economic Research, The University of Montana, 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, Suite 400, Portland, 

OR 97205.

Cover: Top left to right: Micah Scudder tourimg a facility, circular saw blades, a 

lumber company. Bottom left to right: Log truck in Douglas County, Oregon; ship 

being loaded with logs, deck of export logs.

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

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

and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from 

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

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

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

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

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

incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

usda.gov(link sends e-mail).

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

Simmons, Eric A.; Scudder, Micah G.; Morgan, Todd A.; Berg, Erik C.; 

Christensen, Glenn 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. 

This report traces the flow of Oregon’s 2013 timber harvest through the primary 

wood products industry and provides detailed description of the structure, timber 

use, operations, and condition of Oregon’s forest products sector. It is the third in 

a series of reports that update the status of the industry every 5 years, and is based 

on a census of timber-using facilities conducted during 2014. Historical forest 

products industry changes are discussed, as well as trends in harvest, production, 

mill residue, and sales. Also examined are employment and worker earnings in the 

state’s primary and secondary forest products industry. 

Keywords: Wood products, timber harvest, log exports, timber receipts, log 

flow, timber-processing capacity, lumber overrun, mill residue, employment, forest 

economics, sawmills.
Report Highlights

• A total of 188 primary forest products facilities operated in Oregon during 

2013 compared to 251 in 2008. These included:

▪ 90 sawmills

▪ 26 plywood/veneer facilities

▪ 19 pulp/paper and board plants

▪ 12 log home and 3 log furniture producers

▪ 11 roundwood chipping facilities

▪ 9 post, pole, piling, and utility pole plants

▪ 14 other facilities including biomass, wood pellet, charcoal 

briquette, artisan wood products, landscape bark/mulch, and 

animal bedding producers

▪ 4 export log concentrating or exporting yards

• Oregon’s timber harvest was 4.2 billion board feet (BBF) Scribner in 2013, 

representing a 17.4 percent increase compared to 2008. Almost 90 percent 

(3.8 BBF Scribner) of the timber harvest came from counties west of the 

Cascade Range. Eighty percent of Oregon’s 2013 timber harvest came from 

private lands, 12 percent from federal lands, nearly 7 percent from Oregon 

Department of Forestry lands, and the remaining harvest from other public 

sources. 

• About 84 percent of the timber harvested in Oregon was processed in-state 

with nearly 16 percent (662 million board feet (MMBF)) exported internationally to countries in the Pacific Rim. Less than 1 percent (31 MMBF) 

was exported to surrounding states, while 206 MMBF was imported from 

neighboring states into Oregon, making Oregon a net exporter of 488 

MMBF in 2013. 

• Sawmills received 2.6 BBF (70 percent) of the timber processed in 

Oregon during 2013. Plywood/veneer plants received 713 MMBF. These 

two sectors combined accounted for nearly 90 percent of Oregon’s 2013 

timber receipts. Nine percent of the receipts were chipped, primarily for 

pulp/paper and board products, and the remaining timber was used for 

“other products.”
• Oregon sawmills produced 5.2 BBF of lumber in 2013 with a sales value of 

nearly $2.3 billion compared to 4.7 BBF of lumber with a sales value of $1.6 

billion in 2008. These mills produced an average of 2.12-board-feet lumber 

tally for every board foot Scribner of log input, the highest overrun for any 

census year. 

• The capacity of Oregon’s sawmills to process timber rose by nearly 8 percent from 3.9 BBF Scribner in 2008 to 4.2 BBF in 2013, despite the permanent closure of several facilities since 2008. Sawmill capacity utilization 

decreased from 62 percent in 2008 to 60 percent in 2013.

• Sales values in 2013 for primary wood products (including export logs) 

were $7.1 billion, a 9 percent increase from $6.5 billion in 2008 (all sales 

values comparisons to 2008 are in 2013 dollars). Sales of pulp/paper and 

board were still the largest portion of total sales (including mill residuals) at 

37 percent, a decline from 51 percent of sales value in 2008. Lumber sales 

were 31 percent of the total in 2013, compared to 23 percent in 2008.

• Sales values from the “other sectors” increased from 2 percent of total sales 

in 2008 to over 6 percent in 2013. This increase was primarily because of 

increased international log exports.

• Oregon’s primary facilities produced nearly 5.5 million bone-dry units of 

residue in 2013, with less than 1 percent unutilized. Pulp/paper and board 

plants received 60 percent of all mill residuals. Most of the remaining 

residuals were used as fuel. 

• About 43,200 workers were employed in Oregon’s forest industry during 

2013, nearly 8 percent more than the 2011 low of 40,138. Total workers 

earnings have rebounded as well, increasing over 18 percent from $2.7 billion in 2011 to $3.2 billion in 2013.

In 2013, sawmills produced 

an average of 2.12-boardfeet lumber tally for every 

board foot Scribner of log 

input, the highest overrun 

for any mill census year.

Contents

1 Introduction

2 Forest Industries Data Collection System

3 The Operating Environment of Oregon’s Forest Products Industry

5 Oregon’s Timber Harvest, Products, and Flow

6 Oregon Timberlands and Harvest by Ownership

9 Harvest by Species

11 Harvest by Product

13 Harvest by Geographic Resource Area

16 Timber Flow

18 Oregon Log Exports: Past and Current Trends

22 End Uses of Timber

25 Timber Receipts

26 Oregon’s Primary Forest Products Industry

28 Industry Concentrations

28 Sales Value, Product Markets, and Market Areas

35 Timber-Processing Capacity

37 Trends by Sector

37 Sawmills

38 Sawmill Lumber Recovery

40 Sawmill Capacity

42 Plywood and Veneer Sectors

45 Engineered Wood Products

45 Pulp and Board Sector

46 Remaining Sectors

47 Mill Residue Production and Use

49 Economic Aspect of Oregon’s Forest Products Industry

52 Acknowledgments

53 Metric Equivalents

53 Literature Cited

1

Oregon’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest 2013 With Trends Through 2014

Introduction 

This report describes the utilization of Oregon’s 2013 timber harvest and the 

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

Primary forest products manufacturers are firms that receive timber for processing 

into manufactured goods such as lumber or veneer, or for international export, and 

facilities such as biomass power or particleboard plants that use the wood fiber 

residue directly from harvest sites or other timber processors. Also described are 

recent and historical trends in the state’s timber use, including raw material sources, 

inventory, growth, log exports, and harvest. Other areas covered in this report 

include the extent and efficiency of Oregon’s processing infrastructure and the 

volume and value of primary products and residues. 

Information presented in this report was generated through a statewide census 

of Oregon’s manufacturers of primary forest products active in 2013. The census 

also includes data from firms in adjacent states utilizing raw material from Oregon 

during the 2013 calendar year. Although great effort is made to collect data from 

every primary facility that operated during a census year, facilities that were not 

surveyed may be added in a subsequent census. Wherever appropriate, data from 

previous reports have been updated to make comparisons with new results. Both 

“Eastside Scribner” (short log) and “Westside Scribner” (long log) rules are used 

for timber measurement in Oregon (Fonseca 2005). Log volumes are presented in 

this analysis as they were reported by the participating facilities; no distinction or 

standardization is made between the two Scribner log rules. 

This report focuses primarily on changes since the 2008 census (Gale et al. 

2012) with updated information through 2014 where available. Important relationships or trends prior to 2008 have been noted. For a more detailed discussion of 

historical trends in timber harvesting and processing in Oregon, see Gale et al. 

(2012) and Brandt et al. (2006), which summarize previous applications of the 

statewide industry census.

This report is a cooperative effort between The University of Montana’s Bureau 

of Business and Economic Research (BBER) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest (PNW) Research Station. The BBER, 

in cooperation with the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program at the PNW 

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

1998. Work on this report was also sponsored in part by the Northwest Advanced 

Renewables Alliance supported by the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative 

Competitive Grant No. 2011-68005-30416 from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Institute of Food and Agriculture. In addition, the Oregon 

Department of Forestry, Oregon Forest Industries Council, and Wood Innovation 

This report focuses on 

industry and harvest 

changes since the 

2008 mill census with 

information through 

2014 where available.
2

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-942

Center at Oregon State University provided assistance and information. This report 

represents BBER’s third such study of Oregon’s timber harvest and forest products 

industry since 2003.

Forest Industries Data Collection System

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

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

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

manufacturers.

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

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

Questionnaires are distributed by mail, fax, or e-mail and are administered over the 

telephone or during onsite visits of timber-processing facilities. A single questionnaire is completed for each wood-processing facility and includes the following 

information:

• Plant production, capacity, and employment.

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

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

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

locations. 

• Utilization and marketing of manufacturing residue.

About 54 percent (102 of 188) of active primary timber products manufactures 

responded to the FIDACS survey, representing 75 percent of the timber processed 

in Oregon during 2013. Other information sources (Ehinger 2012, Elling 2015, 

Random Lengths 1976–2013, WWPA 1964–2015) along with prior survey data 

were used to estimate attributes for firms that did not participate in the 2013 survey. 

Additional information from federal, state, and private sources was used to verify 

estimates of the total timber harvest, lumber production, employment, and sales 

value of products.

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

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

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

this information available to the public at the earliest opportunity, summary tables 

and highlights are made available online as they are compiled and reviewed (http://

www.bber.umt.edu/fir). Additional information is available by request. However, 

individual firm-level data are confidential and will not be released.
3

Oregon’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest 2013 With Trends Through 2014

The Operating Environment of Oregon’s Forest 

Products Industry 

By the midpoint of the first decade of the 21st century, U.S. wood products demand 

and consumption had reached record levels; this then gave way to lows not seen 

since the Great Depression. The 2 million U.S. housing starts in 2005 (fig. 1) and 

record lumber consumption from 2003 to 2005 could not be sustained, and 2006 

saw an increase in inventories of unsold homes, which was a precursor of the bursting of the U.S. housing bubble (Keegan et al. 2012, Woodall et al. 2012). United 

States housing starts declined further throughout 2007 leading to an official U.S. 

recession beginning in late 2007 and then, as home values fell, mortgage-backed 

securities rapidly lost value starting a global financial crisis in the last quarter of 

2008. With the global financial crisis, came a near-total collapse in U.S. housing 

starts and wood products markets. New home starts dropped to 554,000 in 2009, the 

lowest level in the post-World War II period. Driven by the poor housing market, 

lumber consumption in the United States fell by more than 50 percent, and lumber 

prices dropped about 40 percent from 2005 to 2009.

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

1976 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2014

U.S. housing starts (thousand units)

Year

Figure 1—United States housing starts, 1976–2014. Source: USDC CB (2015b).
4

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-942

New U.S. home starts rose somewhat in 2010 and 2011, and lumber prices 

responded with only modest increases (Random Lengths Yardstick 2008–2014). 

Housing starts have continued trending slowly upwards but have been inconsistent, 

reaching 924,900 in 2013 and finally topping 1 million in 2014. Wood product 

prices are up substantially from the low points in 2009 but have not returned to prerecession highs and have shown considerable variation with increasing but erratic 

U.S. home starts, higher but inconsistent demand from China and other Asian users, 

and increased lumber shipments from Canada—driven in part by a strengthening 

U.S. dollar (Random Lengths Yardstick 2008–2014). 

As documented throughout this report, the extreme market conditions and 

slow recovery substantially affected the structure and operations of Oregon’s forest 

products industry. Timber harvest declined steeply and has been increasing, owing 

in part to recovering domestic markets and foreign demand for logs. Outputs and 

value of wood products declined in line with the magnitude of the housing market 

declines. Lumber production, the major wood product from Oregon’s industry, 

dropped from over 7 billion board feet (BBF) in 2004 and 2005 to under 4 BBF 

in 2009 (WWPA 2015). The value of output of Oregon’s primary forest products 

industry dropped from over $10.6 billion in 2004 to under $5 billion in 2009.

Postrecession recovery in Oregon’s industry has been ongoing, but not as fast 

as many have hoped. Oregon lumber production has increased to around 5.2 BBF, 

and sales value of products has risen to around $7.2 billion, but many measures of 

industry output remain well below prerecession levels. Oregon’s milling capacity, 

measured by capacity to process timber, fell during the poor market years—from 

just over 5 BBF Scribner in 2006 to 4.3 BBF Scribner in 2011. However, primarily because of investments at existing mills, current capacity is slightly higher 

than prerecession levels. And although capacity utilization dropped from about 85 

percent in the strong market years to barely 50 percent at the depth of the recession, 

utilization increased to 65 percent by 2013 and 2014. Given that normal utilization is more than 80 percent, there is considerable potential for Oregon’s is forest 

industry to witness production increases as markets improve. With housing starts 

well below the long-term average of 1.5 million per year, future demand for Oregon 

forest products should be expected to rise from current levels.

Although capacity 

utilization dropped 

from about 85 percent 

in the strong market 

years of 2004 and 2005 

to barely 50 percent 

at the depth of the 

recession in 2009, 

utilization increased

to 65 percent by 2013 

and 2014.
5

Oregon’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest 2013 With Trends Through 2014

Oregon’s Timber Harvest, Products, and Flow

This section characterizes Oregon’s 2013 timber harvest by land ownership, species, product type, geographic source, and flow to mills in Oregon and other states 

and countries. Several similar efforts analyzed Oregon’s timber harvest in the past 

(Andrews and Kutara 2005; Brandt et al. 2006; Gale et al. 2012; Gebert et al. 2002; 

Howard 1984; Howard and Hiserote 1978; Howard and Ward 1988, 1991; Manock 

et al. 1970; Schuldt and Howard 1974; Ward 1995, 1997; Ward et al. 2000). These 

sources were used for historical comparisons for this 2013 report. Figure 2 shows a 

165-year history of timber harvests in Oregon.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1849185418591864186918741879188418891894189919041909191419191924192919341939194419491954195919641969197419791984198919941999200420092014

Timber harvest (billion board feet)

Year

Figure 2—Oregon timber harvest, 1849–2014. Source: Andrews and Kutara 2005, Oregon Department of Forestry 2015.
6

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-942

Oregon Timberlands and Harvest by Ownership 

Oregon has about 63 million acres of land area, of which 29.7 million acres are 

classified as forest land.1

 Of this, about 23.7 million acres (80 percent) are classified as timberland2

 (table 1). Approximately 11.1 million acres (47 percent) of the 

nonreserved timberland3

 in Oregon is national forest. Private owners (e.g., forest 

industry, nonindustrial private, and tribal) account for nearly 9.4 million acres (40 

percent). The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has 2.2 million acres (9 percent), 

and the state and other public owners account for the remaining 0.96 million acres 

(4 percent). 

Total standing4

 volume on Oregon’s nonreserved timberland is approximately 

386,119 million board feet (MMBF) Scribner log rule, including only softwood 

trees greater than 9 inches diameter at breast height (d.b.h.5

) and hardwood trees 

greater than 11 inches d.b.h. National forests contain the majority, 213,685 MMBF 

(55 percent) of the volume, while private lands account for 86,843 MMBF (22 percent); 65.7 MMBF (17 percent) is on BLM and other public lands, and the remaining 

19.9 MMBF (5 percent) is on state timberlands (table 2). Total timber harvest during 

2013 was 4,246 MMBF and declined slightly in 2014 to 4,126 MMBF. 

The majority (64.6 percent) of the timber harvested in Oregon in 2013 came 

from industrial timberlands; nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) and tribal timberlands provided 15.4 percent, national forests 9.0 percent, state lands 6.6 percent, 

and BLM and other public sources provided the remaining 4.3 percent. The 2013 

NIPF and tribal timber harvest grew by 168 percent from 2008. This large increase 

reflects increased domestic homebuilding and increased log demand from the 

Pacific Rim countries, predominantly China. Timber harvest on national forest and 

BLM lands also experienced increases from 2008, with a growth of 58 percent and 

16 percent, respectively.

1

 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. The minimum area for 

classification as forest land is 1 acre. Roadside, streamside, and shelterbelt strips of timber 

must be at least 120 feet wide to qualify as forest land (USDA FS 2006).

2

 Forest land that is producing or capable of producing >20 ft3 per acre (1.4 m3 per hectare) 

per year of wood at culmination of mean annual increment. Timberland excludes reserved 

forest lands (USDA FS 2006).

3

 Land that has not been permanently reserved from wood products use through statute 

or administrative designation. Examples of reserved timberland include national forest 

wilderness areas and national parks and monuments (USDA FS 2006).

4

 Standing volume was calculated for all nonreserved timberland. Total aboveground stem 

volume net of cull was calculated on a cubic-foot basis for all trees larger than 5-inches 

diameter at breast height (d.b.h.). Scribner board-foot volume, net of cull, was calculated for 

all trees larger than 9 inches d.b.h.

5

 Diameter of a tree stem, located at 4.5 ft (1.37 meters) above the ground (breast height) 

on the uphill side of a tree. The point of diameter measurement may vary on abnormally 

formed trees (USDA FS 2006).

The 2013 nonindustrial 

private and tribal 

timber harvest grew by 

168 percent from 2008. 

This large increase 

reflects increased 

domestic homebuilding 

and increased log 

demand from the 

Pacific Rim countries, 

predominantly China.
7

Oregon’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest 2013 With Trends Through 2014

Harvest in 2014 followed a similar trend. In 2014, over 78 percent of the harvest 

came from private and tribal lands, federal lands supplied about 9 percent, and state 

lands about 6 percent. The proportion of harvest supplied by private and federal 

lands has remained relatively consistent since the large drop in federal harvest during the 1990s. State lands have become a more substantial contributor to Oregon’s 

harvest in recent years, accounting for 6 to 9 percent of the harvest since 2000 (fig. 

3). Historically, timber harvests on national forest lands provided a majority share of 

the total harvest volume in Oregon. This trend was altered in the late 1980s resulting in the majority of Oregon timber harvests occurring on private lands (fig. 4).

Table 1—Oregon timberlanda by ownership class, 2004–2013 

Ownership class Acresb

Percentage of 

nonreservedc

timberland 

National forest 11,086 46.9

Industrial 6,050 25.6

Nonindustrial private and tribald 3,336 14.1

Bureau of Land Management 2,225 9.4

State 817 3.5

Other public 145 0.6

 All owners 23,659 100.0 a

 Timberland is forest land that is producing or capable of producing more than 20 cubic feet of wood per acre 

per year at culmination of mean annual increment and excludes reserved lands (Helms 1998).

b

 Acres: thousands of acres (23,659 = 23.7 million acres).

c

 Forest land not withdrawn from harvest by statute or administrative regulation. Includes forest lands that are 

not capable of producing in excess of 20 cubic feet per acre per year of industrial wood in natural stands.

d

 Nonindustrial private and tribal also includes nongovernment organizations and unincorporated local 

partnership/association/clubs.

Source: PNW-FIADB 2004–2013. 

Table 2—Oregon timber harvest and standing volume by ownership, 2013

Harvest Standinga

Ownership Volume

Percentage 

of total Volume 

Percentage 

of total

MMBFb Percent MMBFa Percent

Industrial 2,745.2 64.6 53,312.7 13.8

Nonindustrial private and tribalc 656.0 15.4 33,530.7 8.7

National forest 380.1 9.0 213,685.0 55.3

State 281.7 6.6 19,854.2 5.1

Bureau of Land Management 136.1 3.2 64,096.3 16.6

Other public 47.6 1.1 1,640.4 0.4

 Total 4,246.7 100.0 386,119.3 100.0 a

 Represents sawlog portion of growing-stock trees with diameter at breast height ≥ 9 inches on nonreserved 

timberland. Source: PNW-FIADB 2004–2013.

b

 MMBF = million board feet Scribner.

c

 Nonindustrial private and tribal also includes nongovernment organizations and unincorporated local partnership/

association/clubs.
8

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-942

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

196219641966196819701972197419761978198019821984198619881990199219941996199820002002200420062008201020122014

Timber harvest (million board feet, Scribner log rule)

Year

Other public

State

 Federal

NIPF and tribal

Industry

Figure 3—Oregon’s timber harvest by ownership, 1962–2014. Source: ODF 2015.

NIPF = nonindustrial private forest.

Federal 

Private 

Other public and tribal

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

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

Year

Share of timber harvest (percent)

Figure 4—Changing shares of Oregon timber harvest, 1962–2014. Source: Andrews and Kutara 2005, ODF 2015. 
9

Oregon’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest 2013 With Trends Through 2014

Harvest by Species

Softwoods accounted for 96.5 percent of Oregon’s 2013 harvest; hardwoods made 

up the remaining 3.5 percent (table 3). Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) 

Franco) was the leading species harvested, accounting for 69.5 percent of total 

harvest. Western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla (Raf.) Sarg.) followed with 11.2 

percent, and the remaining other softwoods accounted for 15.7 percent. Red alder 

(Alnus rubra Bong.) represented 1.9 percent of the total timber harvest, and other 

hardwoods represented 1.6 percent. Douglas-fir was the leading species harvested 

on each ownership followed by western hemlock and true firs, except on national 

forests where pines (Pinus) were the second-most harvested species group by 

volume (table 4).

Table 3—Oregon timber harvest and standing volume by species, 2013

 Harvest Standinga

Species Volume

Percentage 

of total Volume

Percentage 

of total

MMBFb Percent MMBFa Percent

Douglas-fir 2,953.4 69.5 224,214.6 58.1

Hemlock 476.9 11.2 29,488.7 7.6

True firs 340.2 8.0 39,501.7 10.2

Pines 205.9 4.8 49,524.5 12.8

Cedar 63.7 1.5 9,450.8 2.4

Spruce 49.1 1.2 6,292.9 1.6

Other softwoods 8.3 0.2 8,136.2 2.1

 All softwoods 4,097.5 96.5 366,609.5 94.9

Red alder 82.3 1.9 10,773.0 2.8

Other hardwoodsc 66.9 1.6 8,736.9 2.3

 All hardwoods 149.2 3.5 19,509.9 5.1

All species 4,246.7 100 386,119.3 100 a Represents sawlog portion of growing-stock trees with diameter at breast height ≥ 9 inches on nonreserved 

timberland (PNW-FIADB 2004–2013).

b MMBF = million board feet Scribner.

c Other hardwoods include cottonwood/poplar, bigleaf maple, tanoak, Pacific madrone, and others.

The decline in pine 

harvest corresponds 

to declines in federal 

lands harvest, 

particularly in eastern 

and central Oregon, 

as well as reduced 

standing volumes 

of large pine trees 

on private lands 

as a result of past 

harvesting.
10

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-942

Harvest proportions of most species have remained fairly consistent through 

time (table 5). Historically, Douglas-fir has been the leading species harvested, 

accounting for 60 to 70 percent of annual harvest volume. The most notable exception is pines, which have declined as a proportion of total harvest. The proportionate decline in pine harvest corresponds to declines in federal lands harvest levels, 

particularly in eastern and central Oregon, as well as reduced standing volumes of 

large pine trees on private lands as a result of past harvesting.

Table 4—Oregon timber harvest by species and ownership, 2013

Species Industry

Nonindustrial 

private and 

tribal National forest State

Bureau 

of Land 

Management

Other 

public Total

Softwoods: Million board feet, Scribner 

 Douglas-fir 1,959.3 436.2 245.9 179.7 96.6 35.8 2,953.4

 Hemlock 330.3 64.3 23.0 43.0 12.0 4.5 476.9

 True firs 183.3 64.7 39.4 39.1 11.5 2.2 340.2

 Pines 75.5 62.2 62.4 3.7 1.8 0.3 205.9

 Cedar 37.7 5.7 4.6 11.6 0 4.0 63.7

 Spruce 36.8 9.9 0.5 1.3 0.1 0.5 49.1

 Other softwoods 1.2 5.6 1.0 0 0.1 0.3 8.3

 All softwoods 2,624.0 648.7 376.8 278.4 122.0 47.6 4,097.5

Hardwoods:

 Red alder 60.2 5.7 2.2 2.2 11.9 0 82.3

 Other hardwoods 60.9 1.6 1.2 1.1 2.1 0 66.9

 All hardwoods 121.2 7.3 3.3 3.3 14.1 0 149.2

All species 2,745.2 656.0 380.1 281.7 136.1 47.6 4,246.7

Softwoods: Percent by ownership 

 Douglas-fir 71.4 66.5 64.7 63.8 71.0 75.2 69.5

 Hemlock 12.0 9.8 6.0 15.3 8.8 9.4 11.2

 True firs 6.7 9.9 10.4 13.9 8.5 4.6 8.0

 Pines 2.7 9.5 16.4 1.3 1.3 0.7 4.8

 Cedar 1.4 0.9 1.2 4.1 0 8.5 1.5

 Spruce 1.3 1.5 0.1 0.5 0.1 1.1 1.2

 Other softwoods 0 0.9 0.3 0 0.1 0.6 0.2

0 0 0 0 0 0

 All softwoods 95.6 98.9 99.1 98.8 89.7 100.0 96.5

Hardwoods: 0 0 0 0 0 0

 Red alder 2.2 0.9 0.6 0.8 8.8 0 1.9

 Other hardwoods 2.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 1.6 0 1.6

 All hardwoods 4.4 1.1 0.9 1.2 10.3 0 3.5

0 0 0 0 0 0

All species 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
11

Oregon’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest 2013 With Trends Through 2014

Harvest by Product

Four general categories of timber products are referred to throughout this report: 

sawlogs—timber sawn to produce lumber; veneer logs—timber peeled or sliced to 

make veneer for plywood or laminated veneer lumber; pulpwood/chipped logs—

timber chipped or ground to use in pulp manufacturing or as fuel; and other timber 

products—timber used to manufacture posts, small poles, utility poles, pilings, 

energy products, log homes, and log furniture. 

Sawlogs accounted for 75.3 percent of Oregon’s timber harvest, and veneer 

logs accounted for 14.8 percent in 2013 (table 6). Chipped logs made up about 9 

percent, and other timber products accounted for the remaining 0.9 percent. This 

distribution of timber harvest by product type was similar to findings from the 

2008 Oregon mill census (Gale et al. 2012), with a slight decline in plywood/veneer 

allocation and an increase in pulp/chipped logs. This decline in the plywood/veneer 

timber harvest allocation is a trend that has been occurring since 1968 (table 7). The 

cause of this decline is discussed in Brandt et al. (2006) and Gale et al. (2012). The 

apparent growth in chipped logs represents nearly a doubling in volume compared 

to 2008. This increase likely resulted from the addition of roundwood chipping 

facilities that were not identified previously but were operating during 2008.

Table 5—Proportion of Oregon timber harvest by species in various years

Species 1968 1972 1982 1992 2003 2008 2013

Percentage of timber harvest 

Softwoods:

 Douglas-fir 65.1 61.1 59.2 61.2 65.6 70.5 69.5

 Hemlock 10.6 13.4 11.5 9.9 8.8 12.8 11.2

 True firs 5.9 5.1 5.2 8.9 8.9 5.1 8.0

 Pines 13.6 14.5 17.7 14.0 6.6 4.1 4.8

 Cedar 2.2 2.0 2.1 1.5 2.0 1.5 1.5

 Spruce 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.8 2.2 2.0 1.2

 Other softwoods 0.1 0.7 2.0 2.2 0.8 0.4 0.2

 All softwoods 98.6 98.0 99.0 99.5 94.9 96.4 96.5

Hardwoods:

 Red alder 0.7 a 0.6 0.7 3.8 2.9 1.9

 Other hardwoods 0.1 0.7 0.2 0.8 1.4 0.7 1.6

 All hardwoods 0.8 0.7 0.8 1.5 5.2 3.6 3.5

All species 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 a

 Species not listed for given year.

Sources: Brandt et al. 2006, Gale et al. 2012, Howard 1984, Manock et al. 1970, Schuldt and Howard 1974, 

Ward 1995.
12

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-942

During 2013, sawlogs were, by volume harvested, the leading product utilized 

from each ownership class followed by veneer logs and chipped logs (table 8). The 

vast majority of chipped log volume (78.6 percent) came from industrial lands, with 

just 16.8 percent from nonindustrial and tribal lands, and less than 5 percent from 

other ownerships combined. 

Douglas-fir was the species most harvested for sawlogs (71.3 percent), veneer 

logs (71.9 percent), pulpwood/chipped logs (51.7 percent), and other timber products 

(64.3 percent) (table 9). Hemlock represented the second highest proportion of 

chipped logs (20.8 percent), and cedar represented the second highest proportion 

of other timber products (27.7 percent). Unlike softwoods, where chipped logs 

accounted for about 8 percent of softwood harvest, about one-third of hardwood 

volume was chipped.

Table 6—Oregon timber harvest by product type, 2013

Product Volume Percentage of total

Million board feet, Scribner Percent 

Sawloga 3,197.7 75.3

Plywood/veneer 627.5 14.8

Pulp/chipped logsb 383.7 9.0

Other timber productsc 37.8 0.9

 Total 4,246.7 100.0 a

 Sawlogs include export logs.

b

 Chipped logs are primarily roundwood pulpwood and also include industrial fuelwood.

c

 Other timber products includes posts, small poles, pilings, utility poles, log homes, firewood, and 

log furniture.

Table 7—Proportion of Oregon timber harvest by product in various years

Product 1968 1972 1982 1992 2003a 2008a 2013a

Percentage of consumption 

Sawlogsb 61.1 58.9 57.2 67.3 72.9 76.7 75.3

Veneer 37.3 35.0 34.1 24.7 21.3 17.1 14.8

Pulp/chipped logs c c c c 4.4 5.4 9.0

Other timber products b d 1.6 6.2 8.6 8.0 1.5 0.8 0.9

All products 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 a

 Displayed as harvest for specified years, as receipts for other years.

b

 Log export included in “Other timber products” for 1972, 1982, 1992, and in sawlogs for 2003, 2008, and 2013.

c

 Pulp and board included in “Other” for specified years.

d

 Other timber products include firewood, log furniture, log homes, posts, poles, pilings, and utility poles.

Sources: Brandt et al. 2006, Gale et al. 2012, Howard 1984, Manock et al. 1970, Schuldt and Howard 1974, 

Ward 1995.
13

Oregon’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest 2013 With Trends Through 2014

Harvest by Geographic Resource Area

Oregon has traditionally been divided into two major wood-producing regions. 

The Western Region, or Westside, contains all counties lying west of the crest of 

the Cascade Range; the Eastern Region, or Eastside, consists of all the remaining 

counties (Manock et al. 1970). This report expands this typology by splitting these 

two regions into four resource areas: the Northwest and Southwest Resource Areas 

in the Western Region and the Central and Blue Mountains Resource Areas in the 

Eastern Region (fig. 5).

The Western Region supplied almost 90 percent of Oregon’s 2013 total timber harvest; with a relatively even split between the Northwest (47 percent) and 

Southwest (43 percent) Resource Areas. However, the Southwest Resource Area 

contained the greatest volume of standing timber (table 10). The Eastern Region 

supplied the remaining 10 percent.

Since the early 1990s, timber harvests have declined in both the Western and 

Eastern Regions (Andrews and Kutara 2005). Oregon’s Eastern Region has experienced the largest decline in harvests during this time, which is primarily attributed 

to a decline in harvests on federal lands (fig. 6). Although federal timber harvests 

have also declined west of the Cascades, harvesting from private and state-owned 

west-side lands have partially offset the impact of reduced federal timber supply. 

Table 8—Oregon timber harvest by ownership class and product type, 2013

Ownership class Sawlogsa Veneer logs

 Chipped

 logsb

Other timber 

productsc All products

Million board feet, Scribner

Industrial 2,092.1 324.3 301.7 27.1 2,745.2

Nonindustrial private and tribal 452.2 131.1 64.3 8.4 656.0

National forest 285.9 81.0 10.9 2.4 380.1

State 229.2 52.5 0 0 281.7

Bureau of Land Management 101.0 28.3 6.8 0 136.1

Other public 37.5 10.2 0 0 47.6

 All owners 3,197.7 627.5 383.7 37.8 4,246.7

Percent by product 

Industrial 65.4 51.7 78.6 71.6 64.6

Nonindustrial private and tribal 14.1 20.9 16.8 22.2 15.4

National forest 8.9 12.9 2.8 6.2 9.0

State 7.2 8.4 0 0 6.6

Bureau of Land Management 3.2 4.5 1.8 0 3.2

Other public 1.2 1.6 0 0 1.1

 All owners 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 a

 Export logs are included in sawlogs.

b

 Chipped logs are primarily roundwood pulpwood and also include industrial fuelwood.

c

 Other timber products include logs for posts, small poles, pilings, utility poles, log homes, firewood, and log furniture.

The Western Region 

supplied almost 90 

percent of Oregon’s 

2013 total timber 

harvest, with a 

relatively even split 

between the Northwest 

(47 percent) and 

Southwest (43 percent) 

Resource Areas.
14

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-942

Table 9—Oregon timber harvest by species and product type, 2013

Species Sawlogsa Veneer logs

Chipped 

logsb

Other 

timber 

productsc All products

Softwoods: Million board feet, Scribner 

Douglas-fir 2,279.1 451.4 198.6 24.3 2,953.4

Hemlock 355.2 42.0 79.8 0 476.9

True firs 228.7 93.5 17.7 0.4 340.2

Pines 163.9 23.3 17.0 1.7 205.9

Cedar 51.0 0 2.1 10.5 63.7

Spruce 22.6 7.2 19.2 0.1 49.1

Other softwoods 2.6 4.6 0.4 0.7 8.3

All softwoods 3,103.2 622.0 334.7 37.7 4,097.5

Hardwoods:

Red alder 63.4 5.5 13.3 0 82.3

Other hardwoods 31.1 0 35.7 0.1 66.9

All hardwoods 94.5 5.5 49.0 0.2 149.2

All species 3,197.7 627.5 383.7 37.8 4,246.7

Softwoods: Percent by product

Douglas-fir 71.3 71.9 51.7 64.3 69.5

Hemlock 11.1 6.7 20.8 0 11.2

True firs 7.2 14.9 4.6 1.0 8.0

Pines 5.1 3.7 4.4 4.4 4.8

Cedar 1.6 0 0.6 27.7 1.5

Spruce 0.7 1.1 5.0 0.3 1.2

Other softwoods 0.1 0.7 0.1 1.9 0.2

0 0 0 0

All softwoods 97.0 99.1 87.2 99.5 96.5

Hardwoods: 0 0 0 0

Red alder 2.0 0.9 3.5 0.1 1.9

Other hardwoods 1.0 0 9.3 0.3 1.6

All hardwoods 3.0 0.9 12.8 0.5 3.5

All species 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

a

 Export logs are included in sawlogs.

b

 Chipped logs are primarily roundwood pulpwood and also include industrial fuelwood.

c

 Other timber products include logs for posts, small poles, pilings, utility poles, log homes, firewood, and 

log furniture.
15

Oregon’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest 2013 With Trends Through 2014

Figure 5—Resource areas and land ownership.

Table 10—Oregon timber harvest and standing volume by resource area, 2013

Resource area Harvest Standing volumea

MMBFb Percent MMBFb Percent

Northwest 1,986.1 46.8 108,174.3 28.0

Southwest 1,820.9 42.9 190,670.0 49.4

Central 246.3 5.8 49,198.7 12.7

Blue Mountains 193.4 4.6 38,076.3 9.9

 State total 4,246.7 100.0 386,119.3 100.0 a Represents sawlog portion of growing-stock trees with diameter at breast height ≥ 9 inches on nonreserved 

timberland (PNW-FIADB 2004–2013).

b

 MMBF = million board feet Scribner.
16

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-942

In eastern Oregon, there is relatively little privately held forest land to make up for 

reduced federal harvest with approximately 70 percent of all forestland existing 

under federal ownership (Donnegan et al. 2008).

In 2013, Lane and Douglas Counties, both in the Southwest Resource Area, 

led the state with harvests of 646.5 and 581.2 MMBF, respectively (table 11). The 

second two leading harvest counties were in the Northwest Resource Area: Linn 

and Clatsop Counties, with harvests of 286.7 and 284.6 MMBF, respectively. Within 

the Eastern Region, the proportion of harvest by resource area has been fairly consistent over time, with the Central Resource Area providing slightly more timber 

than the Blue Mountains Resource Area. Klamath County led the Eastern Region’s 

timber harvest at 126.9 MMBF during 2013.

Timber Flow 

Oregon timber processors received more than 3.7 BBF Scribner of timber during 

2013. Approximately 94.5 percent of that volume was harvested from Oregon 

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

19621963196419651966196719681969197019711972197319741975197619771978197919801981198219831984198519861987198819891990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011201220132014

Timber harvest (million board feet, Scribner)

Year

Blue Mountains

Central

Southwest

Northwest

Figure 6—Oregon’s timber harvest by resource area, 1962–2014. Source: ODF 2015. 
17

Oregon’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest 2013 With Trends Through 2014

Table 11—Oregon timber harvest by resource area and county, 2013

Resource area Harvest volume Percentage of total

MMBFa Percent

Northwest:

Benton 136.9 3.2

Clackamas 185.6 4.4

Clatsop 284.6 6.7

Columbia 160.7 3.8

Hood River 44.1 1.0

Lincoln 148.1 3.5

Linn 286.7 6.8

Marion 88.0 2.1

Multnomah 12.2 0.3

Polk 162.4 3.8

Tillamook 165.2 3.9

Washington 201.5 4.7

Yamhill 110.4 2.6

 Total Northwest 1,986.1 46.8

Southwest:

Coos 324.9 7.6

Curry 85.9 2.0

Douglas 581.2 13.7

Jackson 129.6 3.1

Josephine 52.8 1.2

Lane 646.5 15.2

 Total Southwest 1,820.9 42.9

Central:

Crook 4.3 0.1

Deschutes 23.3 0.5

Jefferson 31.4 0.7

Klamath 126.9 3.0

Lake 12.8 0.3

Wasco 47.0 1.1

Wheeler 0.6 0

 Total Central 246.3 5.8

Blue Mountains:

Baker 13.9 0.3

Grant 8.8 0.2

Harney 8.2 0.2

Malheur 0 <.1

Morrow 52.7 1.2

Umatilla 50.3 1.2

Union 29.7 0.7

Wallowa 29.9 0.7

 Total Blue Mountains 193.4 4.6

State totalb 4,246.7 100.0 a

 MMBF = million board feet Scribner.

b

 Columns may not sum to 100 because of rounding.
18

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-942

timberlands, consistent with the long-term dominance of in-state sources (table 

12). Timber received from sources outside of Oregon totaled 206 MMBF, which 

represented 5.5 percent of the total volume processed in 2013. The considerable 

decline in log volume received from Washington can likely be attributed to demand 

from international log exporters in that state. Like Oregon, Washington exported 

considerably more timber in 2013 than in 2008, about 60 percent more (Washington 

Department of Natural Resources 2015). Timber exported to California, Idaho, 

Washington, and internationally totaled 693.5 MMBF (16.3 percent of harvest).

The majority of Oregon timber was processed in the resource area where it was 

harvested (table 13). About one-quarter of the harvest in the Northwest Resource 

Area and 8 percent of the Southwest Resource Area harvest were exported to 

California, Idaho, Washington, and internationally. 

Mills in each resource area received between 82 percent (Southwest) and 92 

percent (Northwest) of their timber from within their own resource area. Mills 

in the Southwest Resource Area received the largest share (41 percent) of out-ofstate timber volume, followed by the Blue Mountains (31 percent) and the Central 

Resource Area (21 percent). 

During 2013, Oregon was a net exporter of timber to other states or countries 

(table 14). Over 99 percent of the 693.5 MMBF of timber flowing out of Oregon 

was sawlogs. Also, sawlogs were the leading timber product brought into Oregon. 

However, veneer logs accounted for about one-third (82.5 MMBF) of log imports 

into Oregon. 

Oregon Log Exports: Past and Current Trends

The recent surge in exports of PNW logs has created a large amount of interest 

among state governments, land managers, and forest product manufacturers. These 

Table 12—Log flows to timber processors in Oregon by state of origin in various years

State of origin 1968a 1972 1976 1982 1985 1988 1992 1994 1998 2003 2008 2013

Million board feet, Scribner

Oregon 9,169 9,892 8,923 5,703 7,756 8,201 3,674 3,203 3,752 3,905 3,200 3,553

Washington 268 458 284 130 224 272 183 289 515 261 222 83

California 152 82 131 127 281 308 155 203 151 67 47 72

Idaho a 1 1 0 11 16 17 47 18 58 42 49

Otherb 5 0 1 0 0 1 4 33 64 8 10 2

 Total 9,595 10,434 9,339 5,961 8,272 8,798 4,033 3,775 4,500 4,299 3,522 3,759 a

 For 1968, Idaho is combined with “Other.”

b Other contains log flows from states and countries not listed.

Sources: Brandt et al. 2006; Gale et al. 2012; Howard 1984; Howard and Hiserote 1978; Howard and Ward 1988, 1991; Manock et al. 1970; Schuldt and 

Howard 1974; Ward 1995, 1997; Ward et al. 2000. 

 The majority of 

Oregon timber was 

processed in the 

resource area where it 

was harvested (table 

13). About one-quarter 

of the harvest in the 

Northwest Resource 

Area and 8 percent 

of the Southwest 

Resource Area harvest 

were exported to 

California, Idaho, 

Washington, and 

internationally.
19

Oregon’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest 2013 With Trends Through 2014

organizations and individuals have sought information on the origins of exported 

logs, the proportion of total annual harvest they represent, and overall international 

trade flows. The information contained in this section focuses on export sort yards, 

Oregon port facilities, and international log brokers. Note that there are regulations 

prohibiting the export of federal- and state-owned timber. Export logs can only 

originate from private lands.

Beginning in 2010, there was significant growth in the volume of Oregongrown logs exported overseas, which persisted through 2013 (fig. 7). During this 

period, Asian markets experienced a large increase in their demand for log imports, 

which was primarily dominated by China. In 2013, China imported approximately 

14,699 MMBF of logs. The other two leading log importers in this region in 2013 

were Japan and South Korea, which imported approximately 1,227 and 1,009 

Table 13—Oregon timber flow by resource area, 2013

Geographic source of timber

Resource areaa Northwest Southwest Central

Blue 

Mountains

Total

Oregon 

timber

Out-ofstate

timberb

Total 

timber 

received in 

Oregon

Million board feet, Scribner

Destination:

 Northwest 1,155.0 96.1 0.3 0 1,251.4 13.7 1,265.1

 Southwest 294.8 1,554.2 47.5 7.7 1,904.2 84.3 1,988.5

 Central 3.5 8.4 164.9 1.2 178.0 44.0 222.0

 Blue Mountains 5.6 0.0 33.2 180.8 219.6 63.8 283.3

 California, Idaho, Washington, 

 and international exports 527.2 162.2 0.5 3.6 3,553.2 205.8 3,758.9

 Total Oregon timber harvest 

 by resource area

1,986.1 1,820.9 246.3 193.4 4,246.7

a

 See table 11 for counties in each resource area.

b

 Imports from California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Washington, and international sources were combined to avoid disclosure.

Table 14—Log flow in and out of Oregon, 2013

Timber products

Log flow 

into 

Oregon

Log flow 

exported 

(international)

Log flow out 

of Oregon 

(domestic)

Net in 

(net out)

Million board feet, Scribner

Saw logs 109.7 662.5 26.7 (579.5)

Veneer logs 82.5 0 0.6 81.9 

Chipped logsa 11.3 0 3.5 7.8 

Other timber productsb 2.1 0 0.2 1.9 

 All products 205.7 662.5 31.0 (487.8) a

 Chipped logs are primarily roundwood pulpwood.

b

 Other timber products include logs for posts, small poles, pilings, utility poles, log homes, firewood, and 

log furniture.
20

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-942

MMBF, respectively (FAOSTAT 20156). During this period, numerous industrial 

and nonindustrial private timberland owners in Oregon were able to receive higher 

prices for their logs from the Chinese market than they were from the U.S. 

domestic market. 

Log exporting out of the PNW to Pacific Rim countries (China, Japan, and 

South Korea) is not a new phenomenon and regularly occurred throughout the 20th

century (Daniels 2005). In the early part of the 20th century, the export market was 

predominantly specialized in small niche markets. Beginning in 1962, the volume 

of PNW log exports began to increase dramatically as the excess supply of PNW 

logs was used to satisfy excess demand for softwood logs in Japan (Daniels 2005). 

The log trade with Japan drove the expansion of log exports through the remaining 

part of the 20th century, eventually bringing in China and South Korea. The peak 

600

650

700

750

800

850

900

950

1,000

 -

 500

 1,000

 1,500

 2,000

 2,500

 3,000

 3,500

 4,000

 4,500

 5,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Price per thousand board feet (MBF) Scribner in dollars

Oregon 

timber harvest million board feet Scribner

Year

OR timber harvest exported

OR timber harvest processed in

United States

Average price per MBF (FAS)

Figure 7—Comparison of Oregon (OR) timber harvest exported to total harvest. Source: USITC 2015. FAS = free along 

sideship.

6

 FAOSTAT is a reporting tool of the United Nation’s Food and Agricultural Organization 

that reports volumes of internationally traded goods in cubic meters. To convert the log 

volumes in cubic meters to board feet other entities, use a conversion factor of 4.53 m3/

MBF (Zhou 2013, 2015; Zhou and Warren 2012). This same conversion factor was applied 

to convert all cubic meter data to board feet.
21

Oregon’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest 2013 With Trends Through 2014

year for PNW log exports to Japan occurred in 1989 at 2,400 MMBF, and the peak 

year for China was in 1988 at 1,052 MMBF (Daniels 2005). Export volumes began 

to decline in 1990 and continued into the early 2000s, owing to supply-side shocks 

in the PNW and demand-side shocks in the Pacific Rim (Daniels 2005). In 2009, 

China became the dominant destination for PNW log exports, which continued 

through 2013 (FAOSTAT 2015). 

Just over 662 MMBF of Oregon-grown logs were estimated to have been 

exported to Pacific Rim countries in 2013. This volume represents approximately 

15.6 percent of Oregon’s total timber harvest in 2013. Log trade-flow data produced 

by the Food and Agriculture Organization lists the total U.S. log exports to Pacific 

Rim countries at approximately 2,009 MMBF in 2013 (FAOSTAT 2015). The estimated portion occurring from Oregon timberland represents 33 percent of this U.S. 

Pacific Rim export total. The total log volume imported by Pacific Rim countries 

from all source countries in 2013 was estimated to be 16,935 MMBF (FAOSTAT 

2015). Log volume from Oregon represents approximately 3.9 percent of total 

Pacific Rim log imports.

The majority of Oregon log exports originated in the Northwest Resource Area 

(75.8 percent), with the remainder from counties in the Southwest Resource Area 

(table 15). Based on information from log exporters, Oregon export logs generally 

have to originate on the western side of the Cascade Mountains in order for total 

costs (including stumpage, harvest, and haul costs) to be competitive with export 

market rates. Douglas-fir was the primary softwood species exported in 2013 (72 

percent), followed by western hemlock (23 percent), and other conifers (5 percent). 

Hardwood species represented less than 1 percent of 2013 total export volume 

(USITC 2015).

The majority of logs exported from Oregon are break-bulk7 shipments, shipped 

from three primary ports; Astoria, Coos Bay, and Longview. While the Longview 

port is located in Washington, its proximity to the Oregon border has resulted in a 

large portion of Oregon logs being exported through this facility. It is estimated that 

less than 1 percent of the total log volume exported was shipped in containers from 

other Oregon ports. To estimate the relative proportion of log export volumes for 

these ports, two data sources were used; WISERTrade, (WISERTrade 2013) and the 

U.S. International Trade Commission Dataweb tool (USITC 2015).8

 The total value 

of softwood logs exported out of each of these three ports in 2013 (WISERTrade 

7

 Break-bulk refers to a shipping system of transporting cargo as separate pieces rather than 

in containers.

8

 Log export volume data are reported by the U.S. International Trade Commission in cubic 

meters. Other entities have then republished this annual data in thousand board feet (MBF) by 

using a conversion factor of 4.53 m3

/MBF (Zhou 2013, 2015; Zhou and Warren 2012).

Just over 662 MMBF 

of Oregon-grown logs 

were estimated to 

have been exported to 

Pacific Rim countries 

in 2013. This represents 

approximately 15.6 

percent of Oregon’s 

total timber harvest in 

2013.
22

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-942

2013) was compared with the average 2013 FAS9 value for 1 MBF of softwood logs 

exported out of the Columbia-Snake Customs District10 (USITC 2015).11 Using 

these data, an estimate was made of the total softwood log volume exported out 

of these three ports: Longview represented approximately 85 percent, Coos Bay 9 

percent, and Astoria 6 percent. Of the total softwood log volume exported out of 

Longview in 2013, 54 percent was estimated to have originated in Oregon with the 

remaining 46 percent originating in Washington.

End Uses of Timber 

This section traces the path of Oregon’s harvested timber through the various 

primary processing sectors. Timber, primary wood products, and mill residues 

from manufacturing are commonly quantified in different units of measure. Timber 

inputs are generally reported in board feet Scribner Westside or Eastside 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 3⁄8th inch basis. 

Mill residue is commonly reported in bone-dry units (BDU) or bone-dry tons 

(BDT). In this section, volumes are expressed in cubic feet because expressing 

input, output, and residue volumes in a common unit of measure allows for more 

complete accounting of wood fiber through primary processing. 

Table 15—Oregon international log exports by resource area, 2013

Resource area/county groups Harvest volume Percentage of total

MMBF Percent

Northwest:

Columbia/Clatsop 169.3 25.6

Tillamook/Washington 46.2 7.0

Clackamas/Yamhill 116.3 17.6

Benton/Linn/Polk 170.0 25.7

 Total Northwest 501.8 75.8

Southwest:

Coos/Curry/Josephine 42.3 6.4

Douglas/Lane 118.4 17.9

 Total Southwest 160.6 24.2

State total 662.5 100.0

MMBF = million board feet Scribner.

9

 Free Alongside Ship.

10 The Columbia-Snake Customs District includes all Oregon ports as well as Longview 

and Vancouver in Washington.

11 Log export volume data are reported by the U.S. International Trade Commission in 

cubic meters. Other entities have then republished this annual data in MBF by using a 

conversion factor of 4.53 m3

/MBF (Zhou 2013, 2015; Zhou and Warren 2012).
23

Oregon’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest 2013 With Trends Through 2014

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

1-MBF lumber tally is assumed to contain approximately 50 to 60 cubic feet of wood, 

and board-foot-Scribner-to-cubic conversions for timber vary by timber product type, 

which reflect log size and quality. See Blatner et al. (2013) and Keegan et al. (2010a, 

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

mill residue volumes. The following factors were used to convert board-foot Scribner 

log volume to cubic-foot volume for the various timber products. 

• 4.08 board feet per cubic foot for sawlogs 

• 4.79 board feet per cubic foot for veneer logs 

• 2.64 board feet per cubic foot for chipped logs 

• 4.85 board feet per cubic foot for other timber products 

The following cubic volumes refer to Oregon’s timber harvest and include 

timber products shipped to out-of-state mills; the figures do not include timber 

that was harvested in other states and processed in Oregon. Other manufacturers 

include producers of posts and poles, utility poles, energy products, log furniture, 

log homes, and house logs; these were combined to avoid disclosing proprietary 

information on individual firms. Figure 8 outlines timber flows by sector beginning 

with total statewide harvest and ending with finished primary products. 

The 4,246.7 MMBF of timber harvested in 2013 equates to 1,057 million 

cubic feet (MMCF) of wood fiber, excluding bark. Of this volume, 626 MMCF 

(59 percent) was delivered as sawlogs to sawmills; 131 MMCF (12.4 percent) was 

veneer logs shipped to veneer and plywood plants; 152 MMCF (14.4 percent) was 

shipped to export facilities; 137 MMCF (13 percent) was chipped for pulp mills and 

board plants; and 9.8 MMCF (0.9 percent) was delivered as other timber products to 

various facilities (fig. 8).

Of the 626 MMCF of timber delivered to sawmills, 309.7 MMCF (49.4 percent) 

became finished lumber or other sawn products, 302 MMCF (48 percent) became 

mill residue, and approximately 14.5 MMCF (2.3 percent) was lost from shrinkage 

of green lumber. About 264 MMCF of sawmill residue was sold as raw material to 

manufacturers of pulp and paper, particleboard, medium-density fiberboard, and 

hardboard in Oregon and other states. About 32 MMCF of sawmill residue was 

used for energy. Residues used for miscellaneous purposes such as livestock 

bedding accounted for 6 MMCF, and about 0.1 MMCF of sawmill residue was 

reported as unused. 

Of the 131 MMCF of Oregon’s timber harvest delivered to veneer plants in 

Oregon and other states, approximately 82 MMCF (63 percent) was processed

into veneer, and 49 MMCF (37 percent) became residue. Of the residue, most
24

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-942

Figure 8—Oregon’s timber harvest and products flow, 2013. MCF = thousand cubic feet.
25

Oregon’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest 2013 With Trends Through 2014

(43.5 MMCF) was sold as raw material to pulp and paper and board manufacturers, approximately 5.5 MMCF was used for energy purposes, and 0.3 MMCF was 

unused. 

About 137.2 MMCF (9 percent) of Oregon’s timber harvest was in the form of 

pulpwood that was chipped and used to manufacture pulp, paper, and reconstituted 

board. These facilities received an additional 308.3 MMCF of mill residues from 

sawmills and plywood plants for use as raw material. In total, 425.9 MMCF of 

raw material was used for pulp, paper, and board products, and 32 percent of that 

volume was from roundwood pulpwood. This sector received about 13 percent of 

the raw log volume and ended up with 40 percent of the total wood fiber from the 

2013 timber harvest. 

Other manufacturers, which include producers of posts and poles, utility poles, 

energy products, log furniture, and house logs and log homes, received 9.9 MMCF 

of Oregon’s timber harvest. About 8.4 MMCF of this material became finished 

products; 0.4 MMCF was sold as raw material to pulp, paper, and board manufacturers; and 0.02 was used for other uses.

In total, 1,057 MMCF of wood fiber, excluding bark, was harvested from 

Oregon timberlands during 2013. About 425.9 MMCF was used as raw material 

to produce pulp, paper, or reconstituted board products such as particleboard or 

medium-density fiberboard; 309.7 MMCF became finished lumber; 152.3 MMCF 

was exported; 81.9 MMCF became veneer or plywood; 56.5 MMCF was used to 

generate energy, usually in the form of steam or electricity; 7.3 MMCF went to 

other uses such as animal bedding or mulch; 14.6 MMCF was lost in shrinkage 

from green to dry lumber; and only 0.5 MMCF (0.05 percent) of wood fiber went 

unused. 

Timber Receipts

Timber receipts are the volumes of timber received for processing by Oregon mills 

for the census year. This includes timber received from within and outside Oregon 

but excludes timber exported out of the state, distinguishing receipts from harvest. 

Oregon timber receipts by mill type in 2013 (table 16) closely mirrored the harvest 

by timber product type (table 5). Sawmills received 70 percent of all the timber processed in Oregon, plywood/veneer plants 19 percent, roundwood chipping facilities 

9 percent, and the remainder was received by other timber processors (excluding 

log exporters). Private timberlands (industrial, nonindustrial and tribal) provided 

76 percent of the volume received by all processors. Federal lands (National Forest System and Bureau of Land Management) supplied 14 percent, state lands 8 

percent, and 2 percent came from other public lands or unidentified out-of-state 

ownerships.
26

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-942

Oregon’s Primary Forest Products Industry

The FIDACS census identified 188 primary forest products facilities operating in 

Oregon during 2013 (table 17) compared to 25112 in 2008 (Gale et al. 2012). The 

sharp declines in certain sectors, particularly lumber, were related to the collapse 

of new home starts and very weak lumber and other markets throughout the Great 

Recession. The general reduction in the number of facilities operating in Oregon 

since the late 1960s mirrored the industry throughout the Western United States 

(Gale et al. 2012, Keegan et al. 2006). The increase in total facilities between 1998 

and 2003 was primarily the result of differences in how data were collected over 

time and the types of facilities included in census years. Changes in the structure 

and size of Oregon’s industry since 2008 are discussed more thoroughly in the 

“Trends by Sector” section of this report.

12 Facility counts from 2008 (Gale et al. 2012) were revised based on new information.

Table 16—Timber received by Oregon processors (excluding log exporters) by ownership class and 

mill type, 2013

Ownership class Sawmills

Plywood/ 

veneer 

Chipping 

facilitiesa

Other timber 

productsb All products

Million board feet, Scribner

Industrial 1,589 382 279 49 2,299

Nonindustrial, private and tribal 341 142 56 8 547

National forest 304 85 2 1 391

State 252 66 0 0 318

Bureau of Land Management 105 28 3 0 136

Otherc 53 10 5 0 68

All owners 2,643 713 345 58 3,759

Percentage of total receipts

Industrial 42 10 7 1 61

Nonindustrial, private and tribal 9 4 1 0 15

National forest 8 2 0 0 10

State 7 2 0 0 8

Bureau of Land Management 3 1 0 0 4

Otherc 1 0 0 0 2

All owners 70 19 9 2 100 a

 Chipping facilities chip pulpwood primarily for pulp and board but also for industrial fuelwood.

b

 Other timber products facilities include cedar products, posts, small poles, pilings, utility poles, log homes, and log furniture.

c

 Includes other public ownerships and unidentified out-of-state ownerships.
27

Oregon’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest 2013 With Trends Through 2014

Table 17—Active Oregon primary forest products facilities by sector

Year Lumber

Veneer and 

plywood

Pulp and 

board

Cedar 

products Export

Posts, poles, 

pilings, and 

utility poles Chipping Log homes

Log 

furniture

Other 

facilitiesa All sectors

1968 300 168 37 48 b b b b b b 553

1972 262 133 40 43 38 10 b b b b 526

1976 243 132 40 46 28 9 b b b b 498

1982 161 101 36 34 32 8 b b b b 372

1985 173 89 35 26 35 7 b b b b 365

1988 165 87 33 24 33 18 b b b b 360

1992c 115 64 30 16 13 15 b b b b 253

1994c 106 34 31 10 10 10 b b b b 201

1998c 93 43 29 7 b 8 20 b b b 200

2003d 126 33 23 2 2 12 9 25 6 9 25,112

2008d 122 30 22 2 3 14 12 22 4 17 248

2013 90 26 19 e 4 9 11 12 3 14 188

a Other facilities include biomass/energy, bark products, and fuel pellets/fire logs.b Log export, posts, small poles, pilings, chipping, log homes, and log furniture facilities not included in the specified years.c All the mills did not participate in the specified survey years.d 2008 facility counts revised to reflect updated information.e Only two cedar sawmills operated in Oregon during 2013. Their data were combined with lumber to prevent disclosure. 

Sources: Brandt et al. 2006; Gale et al. 2012; Howard 1984; Howard and Hiserote 1978; Howard and Ward 1988, 1991; Manock et al. 1970; Schuldt and Howard 1974; Ward 1995, 1997;Ward et al. 2000. 
28

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-942

Industry Concentrations

Traditionally, western Oregon has had the highest concentration of primary wood 

products facilities (Brandt et al. 2006; Gale et al.2012; Howard 1984; Howard and 

Hiserote 1978; Howard and Ward 1988, 1991; Manock et al. 1970; Schuldt and 

Howard 1974; Ward 1995, 1997; Ward et al. 2000). In 2013, 143 active primary 

forest products facilities were located in western Oregon, 29 fewer facilities than 

2008 (fig. 9; table 18). The Southwest Resource Area contained the largest proportion of lumber producers (39 percent) and plywood and veneer operations (73 

percent). Lane County was home to the largest number of active forest products 

facilities in the state, with 28 mills operating during 2013. Coos County followed 

with 17. Douglas and Linn Counties each had 16. Douglas County encountered the 

largest decline in the number of active sawmills, with 6 (43 percent) fewer facilities 

operating in 2013 than during 2008. The Northwest Resource Area was home to 69 

active facilities and the largest concentrations of pulp and board plants (47 percent), 

chipping operations (45 percent), and other facilities (50 percent). 

The remaining 44 primary wood products facilities were located in eastern 

Oregon, just three fewer facilities than operated in 2008. The Central Resource 

Area and the Blue Mountains Resource Area each had 22. Three board facilities were located in the Central and Blue Mountains Resource Areas combined. 

Deschutes and Grant Counties had the majority of mills in their respective resource 

areas. The greatest concentration of house log manufacturers (36 percent) in Oregon 

was located in Deschutes County. Of the 22 primary facilities in the Blue Mountains Area, the majority were lumber producers. Most of these mills were in Grant 

County. The Blue Mountains Area was the only resource area to show an increase 

in the number of facilities since the 2008 census, with three more facilities operating during 2013.

Sales Value, Product Markets, and Market Areas

Annual sales from Oregon’s primary wood processors (fig. 10) demonstrate the 

strength of the industry’s recovery from the recession. Prior to the recession, 

sawmills and plywood/veneer plants, combined, typically had the largest share of 

Oregon’s wood products sales. This changed during 2008–2011, when weak housing 

starts resulted in poor markets for lumber and plywood. Between 2001 and 2007, 

sawmills and plywood/veneer sales were 60 percent of total sales, while pulp/paper/

board sales were 38 percent. In 2009, at the depth of the recession, pulp/paper/board 

facilities accounted for 62 percent and sawmills, plywood/veneer for 35 percent. In 

the last few years, sales have been shifting toward the prerecession “norms,” with 

Douglas County 

encountered the 

largest decline in 

the number of active 

sawmills, with 6 (43 

percent) fewer facilities 

operating in 2013 than 

during 2008.
29

Oregon’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest 2013 With Trends Through 2014

Figure 9—Active Oregon primary forest products facilities, 2013. MDF = medium density fiberboard. BLM = Bureau of 

Land Management. 
30

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-942 Table 18—Active Oregon primary forest products manufacturing facilities by resource area, county, and product, 2013 (continued) Resource area/county Lumber Veneer and plywood Pulp and board Cedar products Export facilities Posts, poles, pilings, and utility poles Chipping Log homes Log furniture Other facilitiesa Total Northwest: Benton 3 — — — — — — — — — 3

Clackamas 7 — 1 b — — — — — 1 9

Clatsop 2 — — — 1 — 1 — — — 4Columbia 3 — 2 — 1 1 — — — 2 9Hood River 1 — — — — — — — — 1 2Lincoln 1 — 1 — — — 1 — — — 3Linn 6 4 3 — — 1 1 — — 1 16

Marion 2 — — — — 1 — — — — 3Multnomah — — — — — — — 1 — — 1Polk 1 — — — — — — — — 1 2Tillamook 3 — — — — — — — — — 3Washington 3 — 1 — 1 — 1 — — 1 7Yamhill 3 1 1 — — 1 1 — — — 7 Northwest total 35 5 9 b 3 4 5 1 0 7 69

Southwest:

Coos 10 1 — — 1 — 3 — 1 1 17

Curry 1 1 — — — — — — — — 2Douglas 9 5 1 b — 1 — — — 16

Jackson — 6 2 — — — — 1 — 1 10

Josephine — 1 — — — — — — 1 — 2Lane 16 5 3 — — — 1 1 — 2 28

 Southwest total 36 19 6 b 1 1 4 2 2 4 75
31

Oregon’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest 2013 With Trends Through 2014

Table 18—Active Oregon primary forest products manufacturing facilities by resource area, county, and product, 2013 (continued)Resource area/county Lumber

Veneer 

and 

plywood

Pulp and 

board

Cedar 

products

Export 

facilities

Posts, poles, 

pilings,

 and utility 

poles Chipping Log homes

Log 

furniture

Other 

facilitiesa Total

Central:

Crook 1 — — — — — — — — — 1Deschutes 1 — — — — 2 — 4 — 1 8Gilliam — — — — — — — — — — 0Jefferson 1 — — — — — — — — — 1Klamath 3 1 2 — — 1 — — — — 7Lake 2 — — — — — — — — — 2Sherman — — — — — — — — — — 0Wasco — — — — — — — 2 — — 2Wheeler — — — — — — — 1 — — 1 Central total 8 1 2 0 0 3 0 7 0 1 22

Blue Mountains:

Baker — — — — — — — — — — 0Grant 4 — — — — 1 — 1 — 1 7Harney — — — — — — — — 1 — 1Malheur — — — — — — — — — — 0Morrow 1 — 1 — — — 1 — — — 3Umatilla 3 — — — — — 1 — — 1 5Union 2 1 1 — — — — — — — 4Wallowa 1 — — — — — — 1 – — 2 Blue Mountains total 11 1 2 0 0 1 2 2 1 2 22

2013 state total 90 26 19 b 4 9 11 12 3 14 188

— =no facilities.a Other facilities include biomass/energy, bark products, and fuel pellets/fire logs.b Only two cedar sawmills operated in 2013, data for these facilities were combined with lumber to prevent disclosure. 
32

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-942

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Value of primary product outputs (millions of 2013 dollars)

Year

Other products

Pulp/paper/board

 Sawmills/plywood/veneer

Figure 10—Oregon sales value of primary wood products output, 2001–2014. Source: Brandt et al. 2006, Keegan et al. 

2010b, USDC CB 2015b.

56 percent from sawmills and plywood/veneer, and 39 percent from pulp/paper/

board in 2014. Also since the recession, sales of other products have grown from

2 percent to 5 percent of total sales, levels not seen before the recession. 

All sales are reported free on board (f.o.b.) the producing mill and all comparisons are in constant 2013 dollars. Oregon’s primary wood products facilities 

reported 2013 sales of finished products at nearly $7.1 billion, a 9 percent increase 

from $6.5 billion in sales during 2008 (table 19). Sales were led by the pulp/paper 

and board sector followed by sawmills and plywood/veneer producers. These three 

industry sectors represented over 93 percent of total primary wood product sales. 

Pulp/paper and board sales ($2.7 billion) dropped from an all-time high of 53 percent of total primary wood products sales in 2008 to about 38 percent during 2013. 

Sawmills and plywood/veneer sales rebounded from 2008 levels, increasing by 46 

percent and 29 percent, respectively. Sales by sawmills were just under $2.3 billion 

and 32 percent of total sales. Plywood and veneer sales ($1.6 billion) represented 

nearly 23 percent of the total.

 Primarily because 

of higher lumber and 

plywood/veneer sales, 

pulp/paper and board 

sales ($2.7 billion) 

dropped from an alltime high of 53 percent 

of total primary wood 

products sales in 2008 

to about 38 percent 

during 2013. 
33

Oregon’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest 2013 With Trends Through 2014

Sales from “other sectors” were nearly double that in 2008, increasing from 

$147 million to $292 million, and grew to 4 percent of total sales in 2013. Increases 

in this sector were driven primarily by a robust international log export market. The 

remaining 3 percent of total product sales came from smaller primary wood products sectors, with a 72 percent increase in sales for chipping facilities and a modest 

increase for posts, poles, pilings, and log furniture plants. At only $4.3 million, 

2013 log home-sector sales were half of what they were in 2008. 

During 2013, Oregon’s primary wood products and mill residues were marketed 

within the United States and internationally (table 20). Mills usually distributed 

their products through their own distribution channels or through independent 

wholesalers and selling agents. Because of subsequent downstream transactions, 

the geographic destination reported here may not precisely reflect the final delivery 

points of shipments.

Market destinations for Oregon products in 2013 were similar to trends found 

in earlier reports (Brandt et al. 2006, Gale et al. 2012). The majority of sales for all 

products were to the Far West and within Oregon. Sales to these market areas combined were 70 percent of the total, the same proportion as in 2003 and 5 percentage 

points less than in 2008. Sales to the Pacific Rim increased from 2 percent to 6 

percent of total sales. The other market areas were stable or had modest increases. 

The Far West States once again comprised the largest market for Oregon’s 

primary wood products and mill residues. At $3.2 billion, 2013 sales were nearly 44 

percent of the total, a decrease from 52 percent in 2008. The majority of these sales 

occurred in pulp and board followed by the lumber sector. Plywood and veneer 

Table 19—Product sales value of Oregon primary wood product 

sectors, select years

Sector 2008 2013

 Millions of 2013 dollars 

Pulp/paper and board facilitiesa 3,429.3 2,713.7

Sawmills 1,567.8 2,295.2

Plywood and veneer plants 1,239.0 1,600.9

Other sectorsb 146.7 291.7

Chipping facilitiesc 61.0 105.0

Posts, poles, pilings, utility poles 

and log furniture plantsc

58.5 61.4

Log homes plants 8.6 4.3

 Total 6,510.8 7,072.2 a

 Pulp and board includes pulp, paper, and reconstituted board products. 

b

 Other sectors includes bark products, biomass/energy, export logs, and fuel pellet/fire logs.

c

 2008 sales value adjusted to reflect facilities not reported previously.

Sales from “other 

sectors” were nearly 

double that in 2008, 

and grew to 4 percent 

of total sales in 2013, 

driven primarily by a 

robust international log 

export market.
34

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-942 Table 20—Destination and sales value of Oregon primary wood products and mill residues, 2013 Product Oregon Far Westa Rockiesb North Centralc Northeastd Southe Pacific Rim Canada Other countriesf Total Millions of 2013 dollars

Pulp/paper and boardg 513.2 1,691.2 146.4 107.5 19.3 56.1 116.1 25.6 38.4 2,713.7

Lumber 626.2 860.8 293.2 179.6 85.3 139.9 90.1 7.1 3.1 2,285.3

Plywood and veneer 387.0 509.7 171.4 239.7 148.4 108.4 10.3 23.4 0 1,598.4

Other primary wood productsh 185.3 91.6 13.0 2.0 0 0 183.0 0 0 474.8

 Total primary product 1,711.7 3,153.2 624.0 528.7 253.0 304.5 399.5 56.1 41.5 7,072.2

Mill residuesi 172.3 12.4 184.7

 Total sales value in 2013 1,884.0 3,165.6 624.0 528.7 253.0 304.5 399.5 56.1 41.5 7,256.9

 Percent total 2013 26.0 43.6 8.6 7.3 3.5 4.2 5.5 0.8 0.6 100.0

 Percent total 2008 23.0 52.4 8.7 6.2 3.4 3.3 1.7 0.9 0.3 100.0

 Total sales value in 2008 1,554.7 3,543.7 591.8 422.5 230.1 225.2 115.5 60.9 19.2 6,763.8

a Far West includes Alaska, California, Hawaii, and Washington.b Rockies includes Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming.c North Central includes Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin.d Northeast includes Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont.e South includes Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, 

and West Virginia.

f Other countries includes Europe and Mexico. g Pulp and board includes pulp, paper, and reconstituted board products. h Other primary wood products include bark, chipped logs, export logs, log furniture, house logs, posts, small poles, pilings, utility poles, wood pellets, and other energy products.i Mill residues in Far West include all out-of-state mill residue sales.
35

Oregon’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest 2013 With Trends Through 2014

sales to the Far West surpassed in-state sales, increasing from $326 million in 2008 

to $509 million during 2013. In the “other primary wood products category,” sales 

to the Pacific Rim increased dramatically from less than 1 percent to 38 percent 

($183 million) of other product sales, primarily owing to increased log exports. 

In-state sales increased in all product categories, except plywood/veneer and mill 

residue, contributing to an overall increase from 23 percent ($1.5 billion) of total 

sales in 2008 to 26 percent ($1.9 billion) of total sales in 2013. Sales of mill residue, 

primarily as raw material for in-state pulp and board producers, added $185 million in sales to Oregon’s primary wood products industry, 40 percent less than in 

2008. The mill residues produced in the greatest volume and with the highest value 

are coarse residues, primarily in the form of clean chips. Low chip prices would 

contribute to a decrease in overall residue sales. In 2008, the average price per 

oven-dry metric ton of Northwest conifer chips was $123. In 2013, it was $88,

30 percent less (Random Lengths Yardstick 2008–2014).

Timber-Processing Capacity

Timber-processing capacity is the volume of timber that could be processed given 

sufficient supply of logs and firm market demand for products, and was calculated 

by applying each facility’s product recovery ratio to the production capacity provided by each facility (Keegan et al. 2006). Through the FIDACS census, Oregon 

timber processors reported their 8-hour shift and annual production capacities. 

Production capacities were reported in different units of volume corresponding to 

different products. Sawmill production capacity was reported in thousand-boardfeet (MBF), lumber tally. Veneer production capacity was reported in thousands 

of square feet (MSF), 3⁄8-inch basis. Cedar product facilities reported capacity in 

both hundreds of square feet and MBF. Log home manufacturers measured capacity in thousands of lineal feet (MLF); log furniture, posts, small poles, and pilings 

reported capacity in pieces; and utility pole producers use MLF or pieces. Capacity in chipping facilities was reported in BDTs. These production capacities were 

converted to a board-foot Scribner equivalent of timber input based on each facility’s recovery ratio (i.e., the quantity of product divided by the board-foot volume 

of timber received). For example, a sawmill’s timber-processing capacity was 

calculated by dividing the mill’s reported production capacity in board-feet-lumber 

tally by the mill’s overrun, and a veneer plant’s timber-processing capacity was 

calculated by dividing production capacity in square feet of veneer by the facility’s 

veneer recovery. 

Annual timber-processing capacity in Oregon for all sectors combined was

just over 10 billion board feet Scribner in the 1970s and 1980s (fig. 11), with

about 70 percent of total capacity utilized (Keegan et al. 2006). Capacity declined
36

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-942

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

1976 1986 1996 2003 2006 2008 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Million board feet Scribner

Year

Capacity

Use

66%

70%

75%

84% 86%

58%

54%

65%

62%

61%

66%

Figure 11—Oregon’s timber processing capacity and use, various years. Source: Brandt et al. 2006; Gale et al. 2012; Howard and 

Hiserote 1978; Keegan et al. 2006, 2010a; Schuldt and Howard 1974.

dramatically with the closure of many sawmills during the collapse of federal 

timber harvesting in the 1990s. Since 2003, processing capacity has ranged from 

an all-time low of 4.3 BBF in 2011 to 5.5 BBF in 2013, the highest for the period. 

Capacity utilization peaked at 86 percent in 2006 just prior to the Great Recession and bottomed out at 54 percent in 2010. Since then, capacity utilization has 

increased to 66 percent in 2014.

Oregon’s timber-processing capacity during 2013 was 5.5 BBF Scribner, and 

capacity utilization for all sectors combined was 65 percent (table 21). Sawmills 

accounted for almost 4.2 BBF (76 percent) of the total-timber-processing capacity in 

the state, and processed just over 2.5 BBF of timber, a utilization rate of 60 percent. 

The plywood and veneer sector accounted for 15 percent of statewide capacity and 

the utilization rate was 81 percent. Chipping facilities processed 345 MMBF of

timber in 2013 but had capacity to process 423 MMBF; their utilization rate of 82 

percent was the highest of all sectors. The capacity to process timber increased in 
37

Oregon’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest 2013 With Trends Through 2014

all sectors from 2008 as did capacity utilization—except for sawmills, which saw 

capacity utilization decline slightly as a result of increased timber-processing

capacity.

Trends by Sector

This section discusses industry trends and mill survey results by sector. Specifically, changes in number of facilities, capacity, production, sales, and product 

recovery are examined for the sawmill, plywood, pulp and board, and other primary products sectors.

Sawmills 

There were 9013 sawmills active in Oregon during 2013, a decrease from 12414 in 

2008. However, 16 facilities that were active in 2008 were inactive in 2013 (i.e., 

not permanently closed or dismantled). Since 2013, two of these inactive facilities 

have resumed production (Random Lengths Woodwire 2015). As in other Western 

States, the number of sawmills has decreased in Oregon (table 17), with changes 

in mill efficiency, timber supply, and industry consolidation (Keegan et al. 2006, 

McIver et al. 2013, Morgan et al. 2012, Simmons et al. 2014). 

Sawmills produced over 5 BBF lumber tally in 2013, 8 percent more than in 

2008 (fig. 12). Lumber production in Oregon has decreased overall since 1954. 

Annual production peaked in 1955 at 9.2 BBF, in 1987 at 8.8 BBF, and in 2005 at 

7.4 BBF. Significant lows coincided with domestic economic crises in 1982 at 4.6 

BBF, the early to mid-1990s, and in 2009 at 3.8 BBF, the lowest point in more than 

60 years. Since 2009, lumber production has increased to over 5.4 BBF in 2014 

(WWPA 2015). Sales by sawmills were just under $2.3 billion in 2013, a 44 percent 

increase from 2008 ($1.6 billion).

13 Includes two cedar products facilities, combined with sawmills to prevent disclosure.

14 Facility counts from 2008 (Gale et al. 2012) were revised based on new information.

Table 21—Oregon timber-processing capacity and use, 2013

Facility type

Timber 

processed

Timber-processing 

capacity

Utilized 

capacity

Million board feet, Scribner Percentage

Sawmills 2,520 4,181 60

Plywood and veneer 690 850 81

Chipping 345 423 82

Other facilitiesa 35 66 53

 All facilities 3,589 5,518 65 a

 Other facilities includes log furniture, log homes, posts, small poles, pilings, and utility poles.
38

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-942

Sawmill Lumber Recovery

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

efficiency calculated from the data provided by Oregon’s sawmills. Lumber overrun 

(LO) is the amount of lumber actually recovered in excess of the volume predicted 

by the Scribner log scale, expressed as a percentage of the log scale. Lumber 

recovery factor (LRF) is the ratio of lumber output expressed in thousand board feet 

lumber tally divided by the timber input expressed in thousand cubic feet (Keegan 

et al. 2010b). 

Although LO is the most commonly quoted measure of lumber recovery and 

mill efficiency, LO fails to accurately portray changes in lumber recovery. Nuances 

of the Scribner log scale complicate the interpretation of changes in LO. As log 

diameters decrease, the Scribner log rule disproportionately underestimates the log 

input volume. Thus, LO increases when smaller logs are processed, not because 

more lumber is actually being recovered from the smaller logs but because the 

Scribner log scale underestimates the log input volume. The LRF, on the other 

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

Lumber production (million-board-feet lumber tally)

Year

Figure 12—Oregon’s lumber production, 1954–2014. Source: Brodie et al. 1978, WWPA 1954–2015. 
39

Oregon’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest 2013 With Trends Through 2014

6.95

7.11

8.30

8.64

9.00

8.63

1.34 1.37

1.83

2.07

2.04 2.116442087

1

2

3

4

4

6

8

10

1972 1976 1998 2003 2008 2013

Overrun (BF lumber tally per BF Scribner log input)

Lumber recovery (BF lumber tally per CF log input)

Year

Lumber recovery Overrun

Figure 13—Oregon lumber recovery and overrun, various years. Source: Brandt et al. 2006; Gale et al. 2012; Howard 1984; Howard

and Hiserote 1978; Howard and Ward 1988, 1991; Manock et al. 1970; Schuldt and Howard 1974; Ward 1995, 1997; Ward et al. 2000.

BF = board feet, CF = cubic feet.

hand, will tend to decrease when smaller diameter logs are being used (all other 

conditions being the same), because less lumber is being recovered from fewer 

cubic feet of log input volume. Because it is not disproportionately affected by 

changes in log diameter, LRF may better illustrate the long-term relationship 

between rising lumber output and improvements in technology and sawing techniques (Keegan et al. 2010b). 

Oregon sawmills recovered an average of 2.12 board feet lumber tally per board 

feet Scribner of log input in 2013, a nearly 4 percent increase in LO from 2008 (fig. 

13). The LO ranged from 1.15 to just under 2.70, with the 21 mills that produced 

over 100 MMBF averaging 2.27. The increase in LO is primarily thought to reflect 

an increase in the proportion of smaller diameter logs used by sawmills in 2013 

(table 22). The 2013 LRF (8.63 board feet of lumber per cubic foot of timber) for 

Oregon sawmills was about 4 percent lower than in 2008. The reduction in LRF is 

likewise believed to be associated with the increased use of smaller diameter logs 

during 2013. 
40

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-942

The increased use of smaller diameter logs by Oregon sawmills during 2013 

(table 22) may be attributed to a combination of improved lumber markets, shorter 

harvest rotations on industrial private timberlands, and competition for larger diameter logs from log exporters. Stronger lumber markets can make it more profitable 

to produce lumber from small and low-quality logs—even though lumber recovery 

may be somewhat lower from smaller diameter logs. Oregon lumber production was 

8 percent higher in 2013 compared to 2008, whereas lumber sales were 44 percent 

higher in 2013. This was due in part to softwood lumber prices being about 42 

percent higher in 2013 versus 2008 (Random Lengths Yardstick 2008–2014).

Sawmill Capacity

Because three-quarters of Oregon’s total 2013 timber-processing capacity was 

located in sawmills (table 23), this section focuses specifically on the sawmill 

sector. Sawmill timber-processing capacity increased since 2008, from 3.9 to 

almost 4.2 BBF Scribner. This increase in capacity was primarily the result of mill 

upgrades and the construction of two high-capacity sawmills, replacing older lower 

capacity mills. However, owing to a lack of proportional increase in timber volume 

processed, capacity utilization actually decreased from 62 percent in 2008 to 60 

percent in 2013.

Annual lumber production capacity for Oregon’s 90 active sawmills was 

approximately 8.1 BBF lumber tally in 2013, up one percent from 2008 (Gale et al. 

2012). Up to 370 MMBF of additional processing capacity could become available, 

if the 16 sawmills that were idle (i.e., not permanently closed) in 2013 renew operations. Production capacity utilization in 2013 was nearly 66 percent. Annual production capacity varied widely among sawmills, ranging from under 1 MMBF to 

more than 500 MMBF per year. In 2013, 94 percent of lumber production (5.0 BBF) 

and 95 percent of total lumber-producing capacity resided in the 45 largest mills 

Table 22—Percentage of log volumea processed by 

sawmills by small-end diameter

Small-end diameter 2003 2008 2013

<7 inches 14 12 16

7 to 10 inches 32 26 31

10 to 24 inches 49 48 50

>24 inches 5 14 3

<10 inchesb 46 38 47

≥10 inches 54 62 53 a

 Volume = thousand board feet Scribner. 

b

 Bold values indicate total percentage per size group.

Annual lumber 

production capacity 

for Oregon’s 90 

active sawmills was 

approximately 8.1 BBF 

lumber tally in 2013, 

and capacity utilization 

was nearly 66 percent.
41

Oregon’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest 2013 With Trends Through 2014

Table 23—Active Oregon sawmills, lumber production capacity, and utilized capacity by size class, 2013

Annual capacity Annual production

Production capacity class

Number 

of mills Capacity

Percentage 

of total 

capacity

Average 

capacity by 

mill class Production 

Percentage 

of total 

production

Average 

production 

by mill class

Utilized 

capacity 

Annual capacity: MMBFa Percent MMBFa MMBFa Percent MMBFa Percent

Over 100 MMBF annual capacity 28 6,593.0 81.1 235.5 4,122.5 77.3 147.2 62.5 Over 50 to 100 MMBF annual capacity 17 1,129.4 13.9 66.4 895.2 16.8 52.7 79.3 

Over 10 to 50 MMBF annual capacity 11 361.0 4.4 32.8 293.9 5.5 26.7 81.4 

10 MMBF or less annual capacity 34 44.7 0.5 1.3 21.6 0.4 0.6 48.3 

Total 90b 8,128.1 100 84 5,333.2 100 56.8 65.6 

Shift capacity: MBFc MBFc MBFc

120 MBF or greater shift capacity 46 7,587.2 93.3 164.9 4,966.0 93.1 108.0 65.580 to 120 MBF shift capacity 8 401.2 4.9 50.2 283.7 5.3 35.5 70.740 MBF to 80 MBF shift capacity 4 93.0 1.1 23.3 60.0 1.1 15.0 64.5

Less than 40 MBF shift capacity 32 46.7 0.6 1.5 23.6 0.4 0.7 50.5

Total 90b 8,128.1 100 61.8 5,333.2 100 41 65.6

a MMBF = million board feet lumber tally.b Includes two cedar sawmills.c MBF = thousand board feet lumber tally.
42

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-942

with annual capacities greater than 50 MMBF. Despite four fewer mills operating 

during 2013, production capacity of the larger mills increased, and capacity utilization was 65 percent, compared to 60 percent utilization in 2008.

The 11 sawmills with capacities of 10 to 50 MMBF accounted for 4 percent 

(361 MMBF) of total capacity and 5 percent (294 MMBF) of lumber production 

during 2013. There were six fewer active sawmills in this capacity class than in 

2008, resulting in an 18-percent reduction in production capacity. Mills with annual 

capacities of 10 MMBF or less accounted for only 0.5 percent (45 MMBF) of total 

Oregon lumber production capacity and 0.4 percent of lumber production in 2013. 

About one-third fewer sawmills in this smallest size class were active in 2013 

than in 2008, yet production capacity increased about 15 percent, and utilization 

increased almost 40 percent among the remaining active mills. Most of the mills in 

this size class were small, portable, or producers of specialty timber products. It is 

likely that given an adequate supply of timber and demand for product, the active 

facilities were able to add employees, add shifts, or make process improvements 

that affected production capacity and capacity utilization. 

Mill-level detail on annual capacity is not available prior to 2003, but summaries of 8-hour-shift capacity are available for several earlier years and offer insights 

into how mill sizes in Oregon have changed over time (fig. 14). During the mid1950s and again in the late 1980s, total annual lumber production capacity exceeded 

10 BBF.

The number of active low-capacity sawmills in 2003 and 2008 was noticeably 

greater than in previous reports primarily as a result of increased FIDACS efforts 

to identify and include all active sawmills. Although direct comparisons of shift 

capacities by class throughout time would be problematic, general observations 

of the long-term trends are reliable for some classes. Also, looking at data from 

1992 to the present would characterize trends only since the collapse of the federal 

timber harvest. Strictly on the basis of number of facilities, the highest capacity 

class is likely the most accurate. The number of mills in the 120-MMBF-or-greater 

shift capacity class has declined by 18 percent since 1992. In the same period, the 

number of mills in the 40 to 80 MMBF classes has declined by 30 percent. The 

trend toward concentration of capacity into fewer and larger sawmills in Oregon is 

consistent with findings in Idaho (Simmons et al. 2014).

Plywood and Veneer Sectors

In Oregon, veneer is used to produce plywood, laminated veneer lumber (LVL), 

and other engineered wood products (EWP). Oregon’s plywood and veneer sector 

Oregon’s plywood 

and veneer sector 

produced 3,408 

million square feet 

(MMSF), 3⁄8-inch 

basis of plywood, of 

which more than 575 

MMSF was hardwood 

plywood, making 

Oregon the leading 

producer of plywood in 

the United States.
43

Oregon’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest 2013 With Trends Through 2014

produced 3,408 million square feet, 3⁄8-inch basis (MMSF-3⁄8-inch) of plywood, of 

which more than 575 MMSF 3⁄8-inch was hardwood plywood, and an additional 

1,372 MMSF 3⁄8-inch of veneer in 2013, making Oregon the leading producer of 

plywood in the United States (Elling 2015). In 2013, more than 75 percent of all the 

veneer produced in Oregon was used to produce plywood in Oregon. Sales for this 

sector were about $1.6 billion during 2013, an increase of nearly 29 percent from 

2008. Figure 15 shows Oregon plywood production from 1954 to 2014.

There were 26 plywood and veneer plants operating in Oregon during 2013; 4 

fewer than in 2008. Of these 26 plants, 4 produced veneer only, 9 were both veneer 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Number of sawmills by shi

ft capacity

Year

120 MBF* or greater

80 MBF to 119.9 MBF

40 MBF to 79.9 MBF

Less than 40 MBF

1958 1968 1972 1976 1982 1985 1988 1992a 1994a 1998a 2003 2008b 2013c

a Includes only mills that participated in the specified survey years.

b 2008 facility counts revised to reflect updated information.

c Includes two cedar sawmills.

*MBF = thousand board feet.

Figure 14—Active Oregon sawmills by shift capacity, selected years 1958-2013. Sources: Brandt et al. 2006; Gale et al 2012; 

Howard and Hiserote 1978; Howard 1984; Howard and Ward 1991, 1988; Manock et al 1970; Schuldt and Howard 1974; 

Ward 1995, 1997; Ward et al. 2000. 
44

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-942

and plywood layup operations, and 13 plants produced only plywood layup (table 

24). Like most sectors of the industry, the number of plywood and veneer facilities 

has decreased substantially over time, from 138 in 1968 to present levels. For more 

information on the causes of the decline in facilities, see Gale et al. 2012. 

Plywood and veneer recovery decreased slightly from 4.19 thousand square feet 

3⁄8-inch basis per MBF Scribner of timber input in 2008 to 4.17 in 2013. The 2013 

FIDACS total plywood production volume (3,408 MMSF) was substantially higher 

than the softwood plywood production volume (2,589 MMSF) published by APA—

The Engineered Wood Association (Elling 2015). Different production estimates 

were a result of both softwood and hardwood plywood production being included in 

the FIDACS estimate, whereas APA included just softwood plywood. Furthermore, 

the FIDACS identified 22 facilities, 5 producing primarily hardwood plywood and 2 

producing other specialty plywood panels, whereas the APA yearbook listed 15. 

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

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

Softwood plywood production (million square feet 

3⁄8 -inch basis)

Year

Softwood plywood production (million square feet 

3⁄8-inch basis)

Figure 15—Oregon’s softwood plywood production, 1954–2014. Source: Adair 2005, APA 1954–2015, Brodie et al. 1978, 

Warren 1988.
45

Oregon’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest 2013 With Trends Through 2014

Table 24—Number of Oregon plywood and veneer mills, selected years 

1968–2013

Year Veneer only Veneer and layup Layup only All

1968 59 58 21 138

1972 46 58 29 133

1976 52 52 28 132

1982 45 37 19 101

1985 36 32 21 89

1988 33 33 21 87

1992 16 13 11 40

1994 a a a 26

1998 15 14 13 42

2003 11 13 9 33

2008b 9 9 12 30

2013 4 9 13 26 a

 For 1994, plywood and veneer mills not separated.

b

 2008 facility counts revised to reflect updated information.

Sources: Brandt et al. 2006; Gale et al. 2012; Howard 1984; Howard and Hiserote 1978; Howard and Ward 

1988, 1991; Manock et al. 1970; Schuldt and Howard 1974; Ward 1997, 1995; Ward et al. 2000.

Engineered Wood Products

Engineered wood products include specialty panels (other than plywood), I-joists, 

LVL, and glued laminated lumber products (glu-lam). Because EWP facilities do 

not process logs, EWP are considered secondary wood products. In Oregon, EWP 

facilities are closely linked to primary manufactures, purchasing substantial quantities of veneer and lumber, and are significant contributors to the wood products 

industry as a whole. Because they are secondary manufacturers, BBER researchers 

did not attempt a complete census of EWP facilities, but 5 of the 11 EWP manufacturers listed in the 2015 APA yearbook (Elling 2015) participated in the FIDACS 

survey. These facilities had $312 million in sales in 2013, equivalent to one-quarter 

of Oregon plywood/veneer sales. Future FIDACS studies will attempt to census 

all the active EWP facilities in Oregon to produce more complete and detailed 

information on the sector incorporating the emerging cross-laminated timber 

industry. 

Pulp and Board Sector

Oregon had 19 pulp and board facilities operating in 2013, three less than in 2008. 

All but four of these facilities were located in western Oregon. Ten were board 

plants that produced particleboard, hardboard, and medium-density fiberboard 

(MDF). Board facilities produced a total of 1,368 MMSF of products including particleboard, MDF, and hardboard, 32 percent less than in 2008. At $414 million, 2013 

sales values were 5 percent less than in 2008 ($433 million 2013 dollars). Oregon’s 

pulp and paper sector produced more than 3.3 million dry tons of pulp and paper in 

The contraction 

in pulp/paper 

production and sales 

is likely related to the 

dynamics of global 

markets combined 

with Oregon's loss of 

nearly 600,000 tons of 

production capacity 

(15 percent) since 2008 

from closed facilities.
46

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-942

2013 with a sales value close to $2.3 billion, representing a 25 percent decrease in 

production and a 21 percent decrease in sales value since 2008. The contraction in 

production and sales is likely related to the dynamics of global markets combined 

with the loss of nearly 600,000 tons of production capacity (15 percent) since 2008 

from closed pulp and paper facilities. Pulp and paper milling capacity was concentrated in the Northwest Resource Area, which contained seven of the state’s nine 

pulp and paper plants. 

Remaining Sectors

Other primary forest product sectors operating in Oregon during 2013 included 

both timber- and residue-utilizing manufacturers. Timber-utilizing manufacturers 

included roundwood pulp-chip conversion operations, export operations; log home 

manufacturers; log furniture manufacturers; post, pole, piling, and utility pole 

facilities. Other residue-utilizing sectors included pellets and charcoal producers, 

bark/mulch product plants, and biomass/energy production facilities. 

Four facilities operated as concentration points and log exporters in Oregon 

during 2013. The processing of timber for exporting primarily consists of debarking 

and sorting the logs by size, grade, or destination. These facilities received about 

662 MMBF Scribner, making this sector the third largest recipient of timber in 

2013. Most of these logs were exported from the Longview Port in Washington. See 

the “Oregon Log Exports” section of this report for more details.

The 11 roundwood pulp-chip conversion facilities produced 1.2 million BDT of 

clean chips and shavings with a sales value of $105 million. Production and sales 

for these facilities are dramatically higher than in 2008 owing to the inclusion of 

facilities not previously reported. As in other Western States (McIver et al. 2013, 

2014; Simmons et al. 2014), the number of log home facilities in Oregon declined 

drastically during the Great Recession, from 22 in 2008 to 12 in 2013. Production 

and sales were essentially 50 percent of what they were in 2008. There were nine 

post, pole, piling, utility pole, three log furniture; and two miscellaneous users of 

roundwood operating in Oregon during 2013, producing 771,000 pieces with a sales 

value of $61.1 million. 

Six fuel pellet producers, one commercial biomass energy plant, and one charcoal manufacturer operated during 2013. The pellet and charcoal facilities produced 

402,000 BDT of products, and all eight facilities had combined sales of about $103.7 

million. The remaining users of mill residue, primarily for landscape and mulch 

products, produced about 630,000 cubic yards and generated $9.3 million in sales. 
47

Oregon’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest 2013 With Trends Through 2014

Mill Residue Production and Use

For the 2013 Oregon FIDACS effort, mills reported the volumes of residue produced and sold and how residue was used on a percentage basis. From these percentages, total residue and residue volume factors (mill residue generated per unit 

of lumber, plywood, or other product) were calculated. Mill residue falls into three 

general categories: (1) coarse residue including chippable material such as slabs, 

edging, trim, log ends, and defective veneer; (2) fine residue including sawdust, 

sander dust, and planer shavings; and (3) bark. The volume of mill residue produced 

during a given year is closely linked to lumber and plywood production in that year. 

In addition, milling equipment, species and size of logs, amount of defect in logs, 

and market conditions also influence the amount of residue generated by timber 

processors. 

Mill residue generated by processing timber into primary wood products is 

the largest source of material for pulp and paper mills, board plants, and other 

manufacturers of residue-based products, as well as fuel for producing process heat 

and steam at wood products facilities. Selling mill residue also provides considerable revenue to the mills. Oregon’s primary facilities produced nearly 5.5 million 

BDU of mill residue with sales values totaling nearly $185 million. Sawmills and 

plywood/veneer plants produced 4.8 million BDU of residue, of which only 2.7 

thousand BDU (less than 0.1 percent) was not used (table 25). All other primary 

processors produced 620,000 BDU of residue and 2.1 thousand BDU went unused 

(0.34 percent). 

Sawmills and plywood/veneer plants processed just over 89 percent of the 

timber used in Oregon and generated about the same percentage of all mill residue, 

Table 25—Production and disposition of wood residues from Oregon primary wood processing facilities, 2013

Type of residue Total used Pulp and board Fuel Other usesa Unused Total

Sawmills, plywood/veneer Thousand bone-dry unitsb

Coarsec 2,567.7 2,415.2 124.5 28.0 0.1 2,567.8 

Sawdust 749.2 590.4 142.3 16.5 0.1 749.4 

Planer shavings 435.4 285.7 132.2 17.5 0.8 436.3 

Bark 1,092.9 7.0 962.1 123.8 1.7 1,094.6 

 Total 4,845.3 3,298.3 1,361.1 185.9 2.7 4,848.0 

All other facilities

 Total 618.4 3.9 535.1 79.5 2.1 620.5 

All residues 5,463.7 3,302.2 1,896.1 265.4 4.8 5,468.5 a

 Other uses primarily include animal bedding and landscape material.

b

 Bone-dry unit = 2,400 pounds of oven-dry wood.

c

 Peeler cores are included in coarse residue.
48

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-942

4 percent more residue than in 2008. About 68 percent of these residues were used 

as raw material by the pulp and paper and reconstituted board industries, about the 

same as in 2008. Of the remaining 32 percent, most was used as fuel (28 percent); 

other uses such as animal bedding and landscape material accounted for nearly 4 

percent. 

Mill residue from other sectors was mostly used as fuel onsite or sold as firewood (86 percent); 13 percent went to other uses, and a fraction (0.6 percent) went 

to pulp and board plants. Facilities other than sawmills and veneer/plywood plants 

produced almost half of Oregon’s unused mill residue in 2013. These facilities often 

generate relatively small quantities of residue and are frequently not located near 

larger residue-utilizing facilities. Developing financially viable onsite uses or local 

markets for these smaller volumes of residue can often be challenging for facilities. 

For sawmills and plywood/veneer plants, coarse residue was the state’s most 

common wood products residue, comprising 53 percent of all residues. About 94 

percent of coarse residue was used in pulp and paper industry and reconstituted 

board plants, nearly 5 percent was used as fuel, and about 1 percent was sold for 

other uses. Fines—sawdust and planer shavings together—made up the second largest component (24 percent) of residue, at 1.0 million BDU in 2013. The vast majority (over 99 percent) of all fines were used. Oregon facilities generated 1.0 million 

BDU of bark while processing timber, 88 percent of which was used as fuel, most of 

the remaining 12 percent was used for landscaping or soil additives.

Long-term declines in residue factors (i.e., the volume of residue produced per 

unit of mill output) have been directly related to gains in milling efficiency, with a 

greater proportion of timber converted into useable products and less of each log 

becoming mill residue. Technologies that have increased mill efficiency include 

log-size sensing capabilities, curve sawing abilities designed to optimize lumber 

production from logs with sweep and crook, precision sawing patterns, thinner kerf 

saw blades, improved edging and trimming, improved chucks to allow veneer logs 

to be peeled to smaller core diameters, and improved drying techniques (Blatner et 

al. 2013). However, year-to-year variations in markets for lumber and other finished 

products versus markets for clean chips can lead mills to reduce lumber output and 

generate additional residue. Also, variations in the mix of log sizes and log quality 

received by mills can affect annual residue production. 

Sawmill residue factors were slightly higher in 2013 than 2008 (table 26). 

Factors increased for all types of residue except planer shavings. Factors for 2013 

are the same as in 2003 when log sizes were similar and somewhat smaller than 

in 2008 (table 22). 
49

Oregon’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest 2013 With Trends Through 2014

Table 26—Oregon sawmill residue factors, various years

Type of residue 1972 1976 1998 2003 2008 2013

BDUa

 per thousand board feet lumber tally

Coarse 0.45 0.45 0.40 0.37 0.36 0.37

Sawdust 0.24 0.22 0.14 0.13 0.11 0.13

Planer shavings 0.18 0.17 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.08

Bark 0.22 0.20 0.19 0.17 0.16 0.17

 All residues 1.09 0.84 0.63 0.75 0.71 0.75 a

 BDU = bone-dry unit = 2,400 pounds of oven-dry wood.

Sources: Brandt et al. 2006; Gale et al 2012; Howard and Hiserote 1978; Howard 1984; Howard and Ward 1991, 

1988; Manock et al. 1970; Schuldt and Howard 1974; Ward 1995, 1997; Ward et al. 2000.

Economic Aspect of Oregon’s Forest Products Industry

The forest products industry has long been an important component of the statewide and regional economies in Oregon. This section looks specifically at forest 

products industry employment and labor income statewide and analyzes trends 

since the 2008 FIDACS (Gale et al. 2012). Because the U.S. government changed 

the way in which it reported economic data and classified employment by sector in 

2001, reliable and consistent data are available only for the recent period of 2001 to 

2014 (U.S. Department of Commerce 2015a). This period formed the basis of the 

analysis in this section. A few key data points have been estimated for earlier years 

to provide historical perspective; in particular, for the period since 1990 to capture 

the dramatic drop in timber availability during the early 1990s. 

Employment and labor income data for Oregon were derived from a number 

of federal and state data sources, including the Regional Economic Information 

System, Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce, and the 

Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, Bureau of Labor Statistics (U.S. 

Department of Labor 2014). The classification of forest industries used here follows 

the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) available online via 

the U.S. Department of Commerce (2012). Specifically, we examined employment 

in the following categories: 

• NAICS 113—forestry and logging. 

• NAICS 1153—support activities for forestry. 

• NAICS 321—wood products manufacturing. 

• NAICS 322—paper manufacturing.

These four categories probably understate total employment in the forest products industry because they do not include a number of activities. For example, log 

hauling, forest management performed by government employees, and log exporting occupations such as longshoremen are not included in these NAICS categories. 
50

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-942

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Number of workers

Year

Forestry, logging, and support

Wood products

Paper

Figure 16—Employment in Oregon’s forest products industry, 1998–2014. Source: USDC BEA 2015. 

The Oregon forest products industry employed about 43,200 workers and paid 

approximately $3.18 billion (2013 dollars) in labor income in 2013 (figs. 16 and 17). 

The primary industry accounted for over 73 percent of these employees (31,700 

workers), and the secondary industry employed the remaining 11,500 workers. The 

primary forest products industry includes logging; processing logs into lumber and 

other wood products; and processing wood residues from timber-processing plants 

into outputs such as paper, particleboard, fiberboard, or electricity. The secondary 

industry includes the further processing of the outputs from the primary manufacturers regardless of the location of the primary manufacturers. The distinction is not 

always clear, and portions of the secondary industry, such as cut stock manufacturers and portions of the laminated veneer lumber sector, which processes veneer 

but not timber, are directly linked and highly integrated with the primary industry. 

The Oregon Forest Resource Institute (OFRI 2014) in cooperation with the Oregon 

Employment Department, and the Oregon Department of Forestry reported 58,814 
51

Oregon’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest 2013 With Trends Through 2014

Figure 17—Personal income in Oregon’s forest products industry, 1998–2014. Source: USDC BEA (2015).

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Personal income (millions of dollars)

Year

Paper

Wood products

Forestry, logging, and support

forest sector jobs for 2013, including federal agency forestry workers, wood and 

paper wholesaling, transportation, and secondary forest products. 

Many factors influence forest industry employment and labor income. These 

can be related to the volume, size, and quality of timber; how and where it is 

harvested and processed; the level of processing; the degree of utilization of wood 

fiber residue; market conditions; technological innovations; and other factors such 

as public policy, regulations, and shifts in forest management regimes/objectives. 

Although changing timber availability was a major factor influencing Oregon’s 

forest products industry in the 1990s (Brandt et al. 2006, Keegan et al 2006), market conditions have been the driving force over the past decade (Gale et al. 2012, 

Keegan et al. 2012). As Oregon’s timber harvest fell from 6.9 BBF Scribner in 1990 

to 3.8 BBF in 2000, total forest industry employment declined from approximately 

72,000 workers in 1990 to just over 65,000 in 1999. 
52

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-942

Although market conditions improved in the early 2000s, Oregon’s wood 

product and paper industry employment actually declined about 2.7 percent from 

about 59,000 workers in 2001 to 57,400 workers in 2005 (U.S. Department of Labor 

2014). This reduction resulted from a number of factors including investment in 

labor-saving wood-processing technology, more efficient use of existing plants and 

equipment, and a shift in log processing from the more labor-intensive plywood and 

large-log sawmill industry to capital-intensive small-log mills. As markets dramatically weakened and harvest and production fell from the peak levels of 2004 and 

2005, employment dropped by more than 18,000 workers from 2005 to 2011. Most 

of the job losses occurred in the wood product sector (72 percent) followed by the 

forestry, logging, and support sector (19 percent). Since 2011, there has been a slow 

recovery with about 3,300 jobs added by 2013. Most of these jobs have occurred in 

the wood products sector (57 percent), followed by the forestry, logging, and support sectors (43 percent). The paper manufacturing sector continues to experience 

decline.

Labor income includes wages, salaries, and selected employer-paid benefits 

(such as retirement). Because mill managers can adjust labor (e.g., by changing 

workers’ hours) more easily than other factors of production, labor income is more 

closely correlated with output than employment. Also, labor income provides a 

consistent measure of economic activity at different scales; values can be scaled 

up for statewide estimates and scaled down for county-level estimates. There was 

6.5-percent growth in labor income from 2001 to 2005 after adjusting for inflation

(fig. 17). From 2005 to 2011, labor income experienced a dramatic decline of 31 

percent, associated with the financial crisis and resultant housing market collapse. 

By 2013, labor income had recovered somewhat, increasing 18 percent from 2011. 

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the USDA Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forest Inventory and Analysis 

Program, Portland, Oregon, and the Northwest Advanced Renewables Alliance 

supported by the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grant no. 

2011-68005-30416 from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture. We 

thank all the participating wood products facility owners, managers, and staff who 

took the time to provide detailed information about their operations. In addition, 

we are grateful for our cooperators and the people who provided reviews of the 

tables and manuscript for this report including Roy Anderson, The Beck Group; 

Linc Cannon, Oregon Forest Industries Council; Charles Gale, Stimson Lumber 
53

Oregon’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest 2013 With Trends Through 2014

Company; Brandon Kaetzel, and Gary Lettman, Oregon Department of Forestry; 

Scott Leavengood, Oregon State University; and Sharon Stanton, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Finally, we offer a special expression of 

gratitude to Charles E. Keegan III, Director Emeritus of Forest Industry Research 

at the Bureau of Business and Economic Research, University of Montana. Without 

Chuck’s mentorship and pioneering efforts to develop the FIDACS data collection 

and analysis process, this report would not be possible. 

Metric Equivalents 

When you know: Multiply by: To find: 

Inches 2.54 Centimeters 

Feet 0.305 Meters 

Miles 1.609 Kilometers 

Acres 0.405 Hectares 

Square feet 0.0929 Square meters 

Square feet per acre 0.229 Square meters per hectare 

Cubic feet 0.0283 Cubic meters 

Cubic feet per acre 0.07 Cubic meters per hectare 

Ounce 28,349.5 Milligrams 

Pounds 0.454 Kilograms 

Pounds per cubic foot 16.02 Kilograms per cubic meter 

Tons per acre 2.24 Megagrams per hectare 

Pounds per cubic foot 0.016 Grams per cubic centimeter

Degrees Fahrenheit .56 (°F–32) Degrees Celsius 

Literature Cited

Adair, C. 2005. Regional production and market outlook: structural panels and 

engineered wood products 2004–2009. Report E170. Tacoma, WA: APA–The 

Engineered Wood Association. 56 p. 

Andrews, A.; Kutara, K. 2005. Oregon’s timber harvests: 1849–2004. Salem, OR: 

Oregon Department of Forestry. 154 p. 

Blatner, K.A.; Keegan, C.E.; Daniels, J.M.; Morgan, T.A. 2013. Trends in 

lumber processing in the Western United States. Part III: Residue recovered vs. 

lumber produced. Forest Products Journal. 62(6): 429–433.

Brandt, J.P.; Morgan, T.A.; Dillon, T.; Lettman, G.J.; Keegan, C.E.; Azuma, 

D.L. 2006. Oregon’s forest products industry and timber harvest, 2003. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-681. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 53 p. 
54

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-942

Brodie, D.J.; McMahon, R.O.; Gabelis, W.H. 1978. Oregon’s forest resources: 

their contributions in the state’s economy. Res. Bull. 23. Corvallis, OR: Forest 

Research Laboratory, Oregon State University. 80 p. 

Daniels, J.M. 2005. The rise and fall of the Pacific Northwest log export market. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-624. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 80 p.

Donnegan, J.; Campbell, S.; Azuma, D., tech. eds. 2008. Oregon’s forest 

resources, 2001–2005: five-year Forest Inventory and Analysis report. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PNW-GTR-765. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 186 p.

Ehinger, P.F. 2012. Forest industry data: Oregon, Washington, California, Idaho, 

Montana—operating mills and closed mill history. Eugene, OR: Paul F. Ehinger 

& Associates. 55 p. 

Elling, J. 2015. Structural panel & engineered wood yearbook. Tacoma, WA:

APA–The Engineered Wood Association. 73 p.

Fonseca, M.A. 2005. The measurement of roundwood methodologies and 

conversion ratios. Cambridge, MA: CABI Publishing. 269 p.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations [FAOSTAT] 2015.

Pacific Rim log import quantity, 2013. Statistics Division. United Nations, ed. 

http://faostat3.fao.org/home/E. (May 2016).

Gale, C.B.; Keegan, C.E., III; Berg, E.C.; Daniels, J.; Christensen, G.A.; 

Sorenson, C.B.; Morgan, T.A.; Polzin, P. 2012. Oregon’s forest products 

industry and timber harvest, 2008: industry trends and impacts of the Great 

Recession through 2010. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-868. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

55 p.

Gebert, K.M.; Keegan, C.E., III; Willits, S.; Chase, A. 2002. Utilization of 

Oregon’s timber harvest and associated direct economic effects, 1998. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PNW-GTR-532. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 16 p. 

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

American Foresters 210 p.
55

Oregon’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest 2013 With Trends Through 2014

Howard, J.O. 1984. Oregon’s forest products industry. 1982; Resour. Bull. 

PNW-RB-118. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 79 p. 

Howard, J.O.; Hiserote, B.A. 1978. Oregon’s forest products industry: 1976. 

Resour. Bull. PNW-RB-79. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 102 p. 

Howard, J.O.; Ward, F.R. 1988. Oregon’s forest products industry: 1985. Resour. 

Bull. PNW-RB-149. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 90 p. 

Howard, J.O.; Ward, F.R. 1991. Oregon’s forest products industry: 1988. Resour. 

Bull. PNW-RB-183. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 91 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 I: Board foot Scribner 

volume per cubic foot of timber. Forest Products Journal. 60(2): 133–139. 

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

in lumber processing in the Western United States. Part II: Overrun and lumber 

recovery factors. Forest Products Journal. 60(2): 140–143. 

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

Spoelma, T.P. 2006. Timber-processing capacity and capabilities in the Western 

United States. Journal of Forestry. 104(5): 262–268. 

Keegan, C.E.; Sorenson, C.B.; Morgan, T.A.; Hayes, S.W.; Daniels, J.M. 2012. 

Impact of the Great Recession and housing collapse on the forest products 

industry in the western United States. Forest Products Journal. 61(8): 625–634.

Manock, E.R.; Choate, G.A.; Gedney, D.R. 1970. Oregon timber industries: 

wood consumption and mill characteristics, 1968. Salem, OR: Oregon 

Department of Forestry. 122 p. 

McIver, C.P.; Sorenson, C.B.; Keegan, C.E.; Morgan, T.A.; Menlove, J. 2013. 

Montana’s forest products industry and timber harvest, 2009. Resour. Bull. 

RMRS-RB-16. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 42 p.

McIver, C.P.; Sorenson, C.B.; Keegan, C.E.; Morgan, T.A.; Thompson, M.T. 

2014. Wyoming’s forest products industry and timber harvest, 2010. Resour. 

Bull. RMRS-RB-17. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 29 p.
56

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-942

Morgan, T.A.; Brandt, J.P.; Songster, K.E.; Keegan, C.E.; 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.

Oregon Department of Forestry [ODF]. 2015. Complete harvest data 

1962–present. https://data.oregon.gov/Natural-Resources/Oregon-TimberHarvest-Data/2p6a-trc8. (May 2016). 

Oregon Forest Resource Institute [OFRI]. 2014. Oregon forest facts and figures 

2015–16. Portland, OR. 32 p.

Random Lengths. 1976–2013. Random Lengths yearbook: forest product market 

prices and statistics. Eugene, OR. 342 p. 

Random Lengths. WoodWire. 2015. Daily WoodWire e-mail news alerts.

http://www.randomlengths.com/Product/Detail/daily-woodwire/. (June 2015).

Random Lengths Yardstick. 2008–2014. Yardstick: 2013 annual price averages 

special report. Eugene, OR. 8 p.

Schuldt, J.P.; Howard, J.O. 1974. Oregon forest industries: wood consumption 

and mill characteristics, 1972. Spec. Rep. 427. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State 

University. 113 p. 

Simmons, E.A.; Hayes, S.W.; Morgan, T.A.; Keegan, C.E., III; Witt, C. 2014. 

Idaho’s forest products industry and timber harvest, 2011. Resour. Bull. RMRSRB-19. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station. 46 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2004–2013. 

EVALIDator. Version 4.01.01. Forest Inventory and Analysis. http://apps.fs.fed.

us/Evalidator/evalidator.jsp. (May 2016). 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2006. Forest 

Inventory and Analysis glossary. On file with: Pacific Northwest Research 

Station, Forest Inventory and Analysis program, 620 SW Main Street, Suite 400, 

Portland, OR 97205. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis [USDC BEA]. 

2015. State annual personal income. http://bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=70&s

tep=1&isuri=1&acrdn=6#reqid=70&step=1&isuri=1. (January 2016). 
57

Oregon’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest 2013 With Trends Through 2014

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. [USDC CB]. 2015a. Annual 

survey of manufacturers. http://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/asm/data.

html (September 2015).

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. [USDC CB]. 2015b. New 

residential construction. http://www.census.gov/construction/nrc/index.html. 

(May 2016).

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau [USDC CB]. 2012. North 

American Industry Classification System. http://www.census.gov/eos/www/

naics/. (September 2015). 

U.S. Department of Labor. 2014. Bureau of Labor Statistics. http://www.bls.gov/. 

(June 2014). 

U.S. International Trade Commission Dataweb [USITC]. 2015. USITC 

interactive tariff and trade data web 3.1.0. Washington, DC. https://dataweb.usitc.

gov/scripts/user_set.asp: (May 2016). 

Ward, F.R. 1995. Oregon’s forest products industry: 1992. Resour. Bull. 

PNW-RB-207. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 89 p. 

Ward, F.R. 1997. Oregon’s forest products industry: 1994. Resour. Bull. 

PNW-RB-216. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 70 p. 

Ward, F.R.; Lettman, G.J.; Hiserote, B.A. 2000. Oregon’s forest products 

industry: 1998. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 82 p.

Warren, D.D. 1988. Production, prices, employment and trade in Northwest forest 

industries, first quarter 1988. Resour. Bull. PNW-RB-159. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

88 p.

Washington Department of Natural Resources. 2015. Washington mill survey 

2014. Series Report #23. Olympia, WA. 84 p. http://www.dnr.wa.gov/about/fiscalreports/washington-state-mill-surveys. (May 2016).

Western Wood Products Association [WWPA]. 2015. 1964–2014. Statistical 

yearbook of the Western lumber industry. Portland, OR. 22 p.
58

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-942

WISERTrade, World Institute for Strategic Economic Research. 2013. Online 

international trade data and statistics. http://www.wisertrade.org/home/portal/

index.jsp. (April 2016).

Woodall, C.W.; Ince, P.J.; Skog, K.E.; Aguilar, F.X.; Keegan, C.E.; Sorenson, 

C.B.; Hodges, D.G.; Smith, W.B. 2012. An overview of the forest products 

sector downturn in the United States. Forest Products Journal. 61(8): 595–603.

Zhou, X. 2013. Production, prices, employment, and trade in Northwest forest 

industries, all quarters 2012. Resour. Bull. PNW-RB-265. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

163 p.

Zhou, X. 2015. Production, prices, employment, and trade in Northwest forest 

industries, all quarters 2013. Resour. Bull. PNW-RB-266. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

163 p.

Zhou, X.; Warren, D.D. 2012. Production, prices, employment, and trade in 

Northwest forest industries, all quarters 2011. Resour. Bull. PNW-RB-264. 

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

Research Station. 167 p.
Pacific Northwest Research Station

Website http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/

Telephone (503) 808–2592

Publication requests (503) 808–2138

FAX (503) 808–2130

E-mail pnw_pnwpubs@fs.fed.us

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.

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208–3890

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300