Domestic Market Opportunities for Alaska Lumber-Species Preferences by Secondary Wood Products Manufacturers...

1

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest

Research Station

Research Note

PNW-RN-550

March 2006

Domestic Market Opportunities for

Alaska Lumber-Species Preferences

by Secondary Wood Products

Manufacturers in the Continental

United States

Joseph Roos and David L. Nicholls1

Abstract

New equipment, technology, and marketing efforts have allowed Alaska’s

wood products producers to consider opportunities previously unavailable to

them. Until recently, the primary product produced by Alaska firms was rough,

unseasoned lumber sold primarily within local markets. Given the purchase

and installation of new drying and planing equipment, Alaska producers can

now enter domestic and export markets for a variety of secondary wood

products. Previously underutilized species, such as red alder (Alnus rubra

Bong.), paper birch (Betula papyrifera Marsh.), and Alaska yellow-cedar

(Chamaecyparis nootkatensis (D. Don) Spach) are also gaining in popularity

and market potential. A detailed knowledge of species preferences for Alaska

lumber, across business types and geographic regions, will be essential if

Alaska producers are to be competitive.

Information for this paper was obtained from producers attending national

and regional woodworking shows. Research objectives were to identify which

Alaska species are preferred by selected wood products manufacturers in the

continental United States. Manufacturing sectors investigated include cabinet,

furniture, door and window, and moulding and millwork. A second objective

was to determine which geographic regions of the United States have the

greatest potential to purchase lumber produced from various Alaska species.

Furniture and cabinet manufacturers were the most common business

types among survey responses, representing more than 80 percent of respondents. Overall, Alaska yellow-cedar was the most popular Alaska species,

1

Joseph Roos is a research associate, Center for International Trade of Forest Products,

University of Washington, Box 352100, Seattle, WA 98195-2100; David L. Nicholls is a

forest products technologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Research Station, Alaska Wood Utilization Research and Development Center,

204 Siginaka Way, Sitka, AK 99835.
RESEARCH NOTE PNW-RN-550

2

followed by Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis (Bong.) Carr.) and western redcedar

(Thuja plicata Donn ex D. Donn). Of the four business types represented,

door/window manufacturers showed preferences for western hemlock (Tsuga

heterophylla (Raf.) Sarg.), whereas moulding/millwork producers preferred

Sitka spruce, Alaska yellow-cedar, and western redcedar. Both western hemlock and Alaska yellow-cedar were generally preferred by respondents from

the Northwest region. However, the overall popularity of Alaska species was

relatively low, with the most popular species (Alaska yellow-cedar) being used

by only about 7 percent of all respondents.

Results of this study indicate a strong potential for development of niche

markets by using Alaska species, in particular use of Alaska yellow-cedar by

Pacific Northwest producers. Further opportunities could include substitution

of Alaska species such as red alder and western hemlock within established

markets in the continental United States. The high costs of producing lumber

in Alaska (including transportation, labor, and equipment costs) will need to be

considered in developing successful export programs.

Keywords: Wood products, Alaska, export, lumber, underutilized species,

furniture.

Introduction

Aggregate lumber use in the United States has been well documented for a

number of secondary manufacturing industries including furniture (Meyer et

al. 1992a, 1992b), cabinets (Olah et al. 2003), and millwork (Briggs and

Bialozynski 1995). More recently, strong housing markets have also contributed to increasing national expenditures for an array of secondary wood

products, most notably those related to patios and terraces, kitchen improvements, and bathroom improvements (table 1). Despite the large volumes of

lumber involved nationally (often in the billions of board feet annually),

manufacturing within certain secondary wood products sectors is often done

on a small scale, especially in Alaska. Cassens and Bradtmueller (1996)

evaluated custom woodworkers nationally, and found that most companies

were small (51 percent had three or fewer employees), and that cabinets were

the most common product type.

In Alaska, the current domestic market for solid wood products, including

lumber and timbers, has been estimated to be between 80 and 90 million

board feet (mmbf) per year, and the demand for kiln-dried lumber to be 65

to 70 mmbf per year (McDowell Group 1998). Historically, many of Alaska’s
Domestic Market Opportunities for Alaska Lumber-Species Preferences by Secondary Wood Products Manufacturers...

3

Table 1—U.S. national expenditures for selected home improvement projects: 1994 to

2004 (by type of job, owner-occupied properties)

Increase

Type of job 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 (2000 to 2004)

– – – – – – – – Millions of dollars – – – – – – – – Percent

Patios and terraces 790 1,006 687 1,606 1,090 3,685 129.5

Kitchen

remodeling 3,716 2,738 7,720 3,636 6,608 10,555 190.3

Bathroom

remodeling 1,407 2,086 2,708 3,744 4,492 7,231 93.1

Interior

 restructuring 3,651 3,778 4,428 2,120 3,588 9,481 347.2

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2005.

sawmills have produced mostly rough-cut green lumber or cants. In calendar

year 2002, actual mill production of softwood lumber in southeast Alaska was

estimated to be 39.7 mmbf (table 2) (Kilborn et al. 2004). Although we have

no data on the volume of secondary wood products produced in Alaska, the

number of firms has grown consistently across product types (table 3) (Parrent

2000, 2004).

Lumber drying and processing have been key elements of this expansion.

Just 4 years ago it was estimated that there were 12 commercial dry kilns in

Alaska, having total installed capacity2 of about 94 mbf (Nicholls and Kilborn

2001). Today there are an estimated 21 dry kilns having total installed capacity of about 220 mbf. Adding to the state’s capabilities for secondary processing of lumber are an estimated five to six planers or moulders, which have

recently come online. Indeed, some firms have constructed integrated wood

products facilities that include some or all of the following: sawmills, planers,

molders, dry kilns, lumber storage buildings, and wood energy facilities.

With the continued growth of the lumber drying and secondary wood

processing industries in Alaska comes increased opportunities for lumber

products to serve local needs as well as broader markets within the continental

United States and internationally. The goal of our research was to determine

which Alaska species are in greatest demand within various regions of the

2

 Installed capacity is the volume of dry kiln space available at any given time and represents a

“snapshot” of all of the current kilns in Alaska, but does not provide information regarding

how much lumber can be dried during a given period.
RESEARCH NOTE PNW-RN-550

4

continental United States. A secondary goal was to determine which types of

wood products firms would be most interested in using lumber from Alaska

species.

Study Goals and Rationale

Many Alaska species are known for their unique characteristics and features,

which can include strength (Green et al. 2002, McDonald et al. 1997), tight

ring spacing (Laroque and Smith 1999), and natural decay resistance

(Donovan 2004). For Alaska producers to more fully realize opportunities

within continental U.S. markets, information is needed regarding preferred

species and product types. Market research in these areas as well as product

Table 2—Geographic range and estimated lumber production of commercially

important timber species in Alaska

Geographic

Species name Species name region(s) Estimated lumber

(common) (scientific) of Alaska production

Thousand board feet

Western hemlock Tsuga heterophylla Southeast 21,416a

Sitka spruce Picea sitchensis Southeast 11,555a

Alaska yellow-cedar Chamaecyparis Southeast 1,192a

nootkatensis

Western redcedar Thuja plicata Southeast 5,354a

Paper birch Betula papyrifera South-central <100

and interior

White spruce Picea glauca South-central 4,000

and interior

a 2002 calendar year production as per Kilborn et al. 2004.

Table 3—Number of firms in the secondary wood products industry in Alaska,

2000 and 2004

Alaska firms listeda

Business category 2000 2004

Number

Furniture 22 25

Moulding and

millwork 13 18

Cabinets 8 15

Total 43 58 a

 Source: Parrent 2004.

For Alaska producers

to more fully realize

opportunities within

continental U.S.

markets, information

is needed regarding

preferred species and

product types.
Domestic Market Opportunities for Alaska Lumber-Species Preferences by Secondary Wood Products Manufacturers...

5

pricing is important because it allows producers to accurately target their

customer groups, focusing on those that are most profitable.

Further, the unique qualities of Alaska species are being identified in order

to justify the additional costs (including transportation, labor, and equipment

costs) for Alaska-produced lumber to be exported to continental U.S. locations. By identifying preferences for Alaska species of industrial woodworking

firms within several national regions, we hope to recognize those species

having the strongest potential for export to these markets. In this paper,

domestic markets refers to all markets within the continental United States

(i.e., the lower 48 States), not including Alaska and Hawaii.

Alaska Species of Interest

Most of the commercial lumber production in Alaska is from six species,

including five softwoods and one hardwood (table 2). Many of Alaska’s larger

commercial softwood sawmills produce primarily western hemlock and Sitka

spruce. In southeast Alaska during calendar year 2002, actual mill production

consisted of western hemlock (21,416 mbf), Sitka spruce (11,555 mbf), western redcedar (5,354 mbf), and Alaska yellow-cedar (1,192 mbf) (Kilborn et al.

2004) (table 2).

Lumber from other species, such as paper birch, are produced by smaller

sawmills in south-central and interior Alaska in limited quantities for local

markets. There is currently very little lumber production from red alder in

Alaska, although there is an inventoried growing stock in southeast Alaska

(van Hees 2001a, 2001b). Although it is a relatively insignificant forest type

in terms of board foot volume, red alder is often found in easily accessible

areas, including roadbeds and previously harvested stands. In this study we

consider not only primary timber species, but also underutilized species for

which emerging opportunities and markets might be present.

Methods

Data were collected at three regional and national industrial woodworking

events in California, Michigan, and Washington during 2003 and 2004.

Attendees represented a broad cross section of secondary wood products firms

that could potentially be interested in lumber from Alaska species. Respondents were screened only on the basis that they used lumber in a commercial

woodworking enterprise; as such, the sample population did not include other

users, such as home hobbyists or those employed by equipment manufacturing firms. Respondents were asked to indicate Alaska species that they had
RESEARCH NOTE PNW-RN-550

6

used at least once in their commercial operations. Therefore, it is important to

note that our study results were not based on aggregate (board foot volume)

lumber use, but rather percentage of responding firms that had used a given

species in any amount at least once. Geographic region of respondents was

based on location of company headquarters, and are indicated by state in the

appendix. The Southeast region is not included in our results, as very few

respondents (approximately 1 percent of total) were from this region. Demographic information regarding company size, primary and secondary business

categories, years in business, and state of headquarters was also noted.

Our primary comparisons of interest were between industry groups and

between geographic regions for commercial use of the seven Alaska species.

Comparisons among means were conducted by using ANOVA and Bonferroni

procedures for multiple comparisons between means. The four business types

evaluated in this study represent the four most common businesses sampled at

the industrial woodworking events.

Results

Product Lines and Company Size

Furniture and cabinets were the most common product lines, representing

more than 80 percent of the total responses (table 4). Moulding and millwork

and doors and windows accounted for about 11 and 6 percent of responses,

respectively. Cabinet producers were the most common business type in

Northeast and Northwest regions, whereas in the Southwest, cabinet and

furniture producers were equally represented. More than 51 percent of respondents had annual sales of less than $500,000 (and median company

size was five employees), indicating a preponderance of small businesses.

These results are similar to a national survey of 168 custom woodworkers

in which 54 percent had 10 or fewer employees (Cassens and Bradtmueller

1996). Southeast Alaska is also characterized by small firms, where 17 of 20

sawmills evaluated had fewer than 10 employees (Kilborn et al. 2004).

Alaska Species Preferences (by Region)

Seven Alaska species were evaluated: western hemlock, Sitka spruce, Alaska

yellow-cedar, western redcedar, red alder, paper birch, and white spruce (Picea

glauca (Moench) Voss). Relatively few respondents (about 16 percent) had

ever used Alaska species commercially. There were statistical differences in

species use by region for only two of these species. Use of western hemlock
Domestic Market Opportunities for Alaska Lumber-Species Preferences by Secondary Wood Products Manufacturers...

7

was greater in the Northwest region vs. other regions (significant at the 0.05

level) (table 5). Likewise, use of Alaska yellow-cedar was greater in the

Northwest region vs. other regions (significant at the 0.01 level).

The greatest regional use of any species was (by a large margin) Alaska

yellow-cedar in the Northwest region (over 17 percent of respondents had

used this species at least once). Alaska yellow-cedar was also the overall most

popular species, followed by Sitka spruce and western redcedar.

Alaska Species Preferences (by Business Type)

There were no statistically significant differences in species use between

business types (table 6); however, some general observations are noted:

• Western hemlock was favored by door and windows manufacturers.

• Use of Alaska yellow-cedar was generally strong, and consistent across

business types.

• Use of western redcedar was favored by moulding and millwork

manufacturers.

• Door and window manufacturers indicated no use of white spruce, red

alder, paper birch, or western redcedar.

• Molding and millwork manufacturers indicated no use of white spruce or

red alder.

Considerations

We offer the following considerations for Alaska producers wishing to increase shipments of lumber and secondary wood products to the continental

United States:

• Target the Pacific Northwest and California markets, and establish

distributor relationships.

Table 4—Primary business category of respondents, by region of company headquarters

 U.S. geographic region

Total

Primary business Northeast Northwest Southwest (all regions

category region region region combined)

Number of times listed (percent)

Furniture 44 (35.5) 29 (23.4) 51 (41.1) 124 (100)

Moulding and millwork 11 (29.7) 9 (24.3) 17 (46.0) 37 (100)

Cabinets 61 (38.4) 48 (30.2) 50 (31.4) 159 (100)

Doors and windows 9 (47.4) 8 (42.1) 2 (10.5) 19 (100) The greatest regional

use of any species

was (by a large

margin) Alaska

yellow-cedar in the

Northwest region

(over 17 percent of

respondents had used

this species at least

once).
RESEARCH NOTE PNW-RN-550

8

• Focus lumber sales efforts primarily on furniture manufacturers and

cabinet manufacturers.

• In Pacific Northwest markets, emphasize Alaska yellow-cedar, western

redcedar, and Sitka spruce.

• In all geographic regions (Northwest, Southwest, Northeast), emphasize

Alaska yellow-cedar.

• In all business categories, emphasize Alaska yellow-cedar.

• Develop methods to advertise Alaska forest products in target markets.

• Attend trade shows that draw visitors from target markets; display Alaska

lumber and secondary products at these shows.

Table 5—Lumber use of Alaska species, as indicated by number of respondents at

regional industrial woodworking events who had used a given species at least once

U.S. geographic location

Total

Northwest Northeast Southwest (all regions

Species region region region combined) F-value

– – – – – – – Percent – – – – – – –

Alaska yellow-cedar 17.17ab 2.22a 5.84b 7.45 6.910**

Paper birch 5.05 0.74 5.11 3.46 1.684

Red alder 5.05 0. 3.65 2.66 2.192

Sitka spruce 8.08 2.96 3.65 4.52 1.382

Western hemlock 5.05a 0.a .73 1.60 3.544*

Western redcedar 7.07 1.48 5.11 4.26 1.652

White spruce 2.02 .74 1.46 1.33 .265

Note: Values sharing the same letter are significantly different at the 0.05 significance level by using the

Bonferroni post hoc test.

* Significant at = 0.05 level by using ANOVA analysis.

** Significant at = 0.01 level by using ANOVA analysis.

Table 6—Lumber use of Alaska species, as indicated by respondents at regional industrial woodworking events (percentage of respondents who had used a given species at least once)

Business type

Doors and Moulding and Overall

Species windows millwork Cabinets Furniture average F-valuea

– – – – – – – – – – – – Percent – – – – – – – – – – – –

Alaska yellow-cedar 8.33 8.11 6.63 6.20 7.11 0.02

Paper birch — 5.41 4.82 2.33 3.19 1.72

Red alder — — 2.41 3.88 2.45 .76

Sitka spruce 4.17 8.11 3.61 4.65 4.41 .43

Western hemlock 8.33 2.70 1.20 0.78 1.47 2.21

Western redcedar — 8.11 3.01 3.88 3.92 .85

White spruce — — 1.20 .78 1.23 .75

a

 There were no significant differences between business types found by using ANOVA analysis.
Domestic Market Opportunities for Alaska Lumber-Species Preferences by Secondary Wood Products Manufacturers...

9

• Adopt quality programs designed to ensure target lumber thickness

between 1 and 2 inches; emphasize 1-inch thickness.

• Be prepared to provide wood samples of Alaska species to prospective

purchasers.

Discussion

Alaska yellow-cedar, Sitka spruce, and western redcedar were the most

popular Alaska species among firms in the continental United States; however, relatively few firms had used any Alaska species commercially. Our

study found statistically significant regional differences between species

for only western hemlock and Alaska yellow-cedar. When considering

the seven Alaska species and three geographic regions of the continental

United States that we evaluated, the strongest opportunities appear to be

for use of Alaska yellow-cedar lumber by producers in the Northwest region.

Further, Alaska yellow-cedar had strong and consistent use across the four

primary business categories, suggesting that it could be used to produce a

variety of secondary products (including furniture, cabinets, doors and windows, and moulding and millwork).

Alaska producers should develop marketing strategies targeting select

geographic regions, for example, California, which continues to be one of

the strongest housing markets in the Nation. Although the annual demand

for California housing is between 230,000 and 250,000 units, owing to

regulation and a poor business environment, California housing starts lag

substantially behind demand (Frith 2004). Therefore, housing starts should

remain strong in California to support this state’s increasing population.

Alaska producers could find strong opportunities by targeting California

markets in addition to markets closer to home (e.g., the Pacific Northwest).

For these and other markets, Alaska producers could ship larger quantities to

stocking distributors rather than smaller quantities shipped directly to end

users. Other strategies for reaching niche markets within various regions could

include creating industry advertising cooperatives (in which multiple producers are listed and ad costs shared), and attending regional trade shows. Although not considered in this study, product pricing and perceived value (and

the relation between price and value) are important considerations for Alaska

producers entering new markets.

An important consideration not addressed in this study is lumber grade.

Alaska producers will need to recognize the lumber grade requirements of

their customers to develop successful marketing programs. For example,

Our study found

statistically significant

regional differences

between species

for only western

hemlock and Alaska

yellow-cedar.
RESEARCH NOTE PNW-RN-550

10

within the kitchen cabinet sector, it is estimated that close to 95 percent of

hardwood lumber purchases require No. 1 Common or Better grade (Olah et

al. 2003). Over the long term, opportunities could be greater for Alaska lumber

producers (both hardwoods and softwoods) who have established lumber

grading procedures. Other options could include developing proprietary

grading rules to account for features common to Alaska species (Nicholls et al.

2004). Lumber thickness is another important consideration, and this study

indicates a strong preference (close to two-thirds of total used) for 1-inch-thick

lumber (table 7).

All seven of the Alaska species we considered in this study are also grown

within the continental United States, at locations considerably closer to primary

markets. For Alaska wood products firms to reach these distant, yet substantial

markets, the unique qualities of Alaska species—including decay resistance,

tightness of growth rings, strength, and machinability, among others—must be

identified and successfully promoted. Several positive trends within Alaska’s

wood products industry all bode well for increased lumber exports—including

greater dry kiln capacity, quality lumber drying practices, and greater control

of final product dimension (through new planing, profiling, and moulding

equipment). However, in-state production of kiln-dried lumber is still considerably less than in-state market demand. With increased lumber manufacturing in

Alaska, firms will need to decide between meeting growing in-state demands

vs. opportunities within regional and export markets.

Table 7—Lumber thickness by business type (percentage of total lumber used, by

respondent)

Preferred

lumber Moulding and Kitchen Doors and

thickness Furniture millwork cabinets windows Total F-value

Inches – – –– – – – – – – – – – – Percent – – – – – – – – – – – –

4/4 56.73c 54.24b 75.14abc 50.33a 64.94 11.98**

5/4 16.71 16.86 11.75 25.62 14.88 2.91*

6/4 8.49 10.25 4.64 5.76 6.65 4.05**

7/4 1.57 3.08 .87 .76 1.34 0.96

8/4 11.94a 10.71 5.45a 15.14 8.88 5.49**

Note: Values sharing the same letter are significantly different at the 0.05 level using the Bonferroni post hoc

multiple comparison test.

* Significant at the 0.05 level using ANOVA analysis.

** Significant at the 0.01 level using ANOVA analysis.
Domestic Market Opportunities for Alaska Lumber-Species Preferences by Secondary Wood Products Manufacturers...

11

Metric Equivalents

When you know: Multiply by: To get:

Inches (in) 2.54 Centimeters

Feet (ft) .3048 Meters

Square feet (ft2) .093 Square meters

Cubic feet (ft3

) .028 Cubic meters

Literature Cited

Briggs, D.G.; Bialozynski, L. 1995. Use of wood raw materials by the U.S.

millwork industry in 1990. Forest Products Journal. 45(2): 27-34.

Cassens, D.L.; Bradtmueller, J.P. 1996. Characterization of the custom

woodworking industry. Forest Products Journal. 46(5): 29-36.

Donovan, G.H. 2004. Consumer willingness to pay a price premium for

standing-dead Alaska yellow-cedar. Forest Products Journal. 54(5): 38-42.

Frith, J. 2004. California home builders will break the 200,000 unit barrier

this year for the first time sine 1989. California Industry Research Board

publication. Sacramento, CA: [Publisher unknown].

Green, D.W.; McDonald, K.A.; Hennon, P.E. [et al.]. 2002. Flexural properties of salvaged dead yellow-cedar from southeast Alaska. Forest Products

Journal. 52(1): 81-88.

Kilborn, K.; Parrent, D.; Housley, E. 2004. Estimating sawmill processing

capacity for Tongass timber. Res. Note PNW-RN-545. Portland, OR: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research

Station. 12 p.

Laroque, C.P.; Smith, D.J. 1999. Tree-ring analysis of yellow-cedar

(Chamaecyparis nootkatensis) on Vancouver Island, British Columbia.

Canadian Journal of Forest Research. (29): 115-123.

McDonald, K.A.; Hennon, P.E.; Stevens, J.H. [et al.]. 1997. Mechanical

properties of salvaged dead yellow-cedar in southeast Alaska. Phase I.

Res. Pap. FPL-RP-565. Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. 9 p.

McDowell Group. 1998. The Alaska market for value-added lumber products.

[Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. final report. 70 p.
RESEARCH NOTE PNW-RN-550

12

Meyer, C.J.; Michael, J.H.; Sinclair, S.A. 1992a. The U.S. wood furniture

industry: a profile of products and channels of distribution. Forest Products

Journal. 42(3): 65-70.

Meyer, C.J.; Michael, J.H.; Sinclair, S.A. [et al.]. 1992b. Wood material use

in the U.S. wood furniture industry. Forest Products Journal. 42(5): 28-30.

Nicholls, D.L.; Kilborn, K. 2001. An assessment of Alaska’s lumber drying

industry and current potential for value-added processing. Gen. Tech. Rep.

PNW-GTR-522. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 20 p.

Nicholls, D.L.; Parrent, D.; Pavia, K. 2004. Investigating the potential for

developing alternate grading rules for Alaska birch lumber. Forest Products

Journal. 54(2): 57-60.

Olah, D.; Smith, R.; Hansen, B. 2003. Wood material use in the U.S. cabinet

industry 1999 to 2001. Forest Products Journal. 53(1): 25-31.

Parrent, D. 2000. Alaska wood products manufacturers directory. Juneau,

AK: Juneau Economic Development Council. 71 p.

Parrent, D. 2004. Alaska wood products manufacturers directory. Juneau,

AK: Juneau Economic Development Council. 76 p.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2005. Expenditures for residential improvements

and repairs. Expenditures by type of job, owner-occupied properties:

1994-2004. Washington, DC.

van Hees, W.W.S. 2001a. Summary estimates of forest resources on unreserved lands of the Ketchikan inventory unit, Tongass National Forest,

southeast Alaska, 1998. Resour. Bull. PNW-RB-233. Portland, OR: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research

Station. 8 p.

van Hees, W.W.S. 2001b. Summary estimates of forest resources on

unreserved lands of the Stikine inventory unit, Tongass National Forest,

southeast Alaska, 1998. Resour. Bull. PNW-RB-232. Portland, OR: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research

Station. 8 p.
Domestic Market Opportunities for Alaska Lumber-Species Preferences by Secondary Wood Products Manufacturers...

13

Appendix

States making up the geographic regions used in this study.

Southwest Region

Arizona

California (south)

Colorado

Hawaii

Kansas

Missouri

Nevada

New Mexico

Oklahoma

Texas

Utah

Northwest Region

Alaska

California (north)

Idaho

Iowa

Minnesota

Montana

Nebraska

North Dakota

Oregon

South Dakota

Washington

Wyoming

Northeast Region

Connecticut

Delaware

District of Columbia

Illinois

Indiana

Kentucky

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New York

Ohio

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

Vermont

Virginia

West Virginia

Wisconsin
This page has been left blank intentionally.

Document continues on next page.

.
RESEARCH NOTE PNW-RN-550

14

Pacific Northwest Research Station

Web site 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

The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the principle

of multiple use management of the Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of

wood, water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation

with the States and private forest owners, and management of the national forests

and national grasslands, it strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly

greater service to a growing Nation.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and

where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual

orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an

individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited

bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means

for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should

contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights,

1400 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800)

795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider

and employer.
Domestic Market Opportunities for Alaska Lumber-Species Preferences by Secondary Wood Products Manufacturers...

15

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Pacific Northwest Research Station

333 S.W. First Avenue

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208-3890

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300