California’s Forest 

Products Industry and 

Timber Harvest, 2006

Todd A. Morgan, Jason P. Brandt, Kathleen E. Songster, 

Charles E. Keegan III, and Glenn A. Christensen

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest 

Research Station

General Technical Report 

PNW-GTR-866

August 2012

DEPAR TMENT OF AGRICULT URE
Authors

Todd A. Morgan is director of forest industry research, and Kathleen E. Songster

and Charles E. Keegan III are research associates in the Bureau of Business and 

Economic Research, University of Montana, Gallagher Business Building, 32 Campus Dr. # 6840, Missoula, MT 59812-6840; Jason P. Brandt is a contract specialist, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, National Interagency Fire Center, 

3833 Development Ave., Boise, ID 83705-5354; and Glenn A. Christensen is a forester, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

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

97205.

Cover photographs: Top left: Self-loading truck preparing to take timber to the mill; 

top right: Even-aged harvest in northern California, 2004; bottom left: log deck 

and standing timber in northern California, 2004; bottom right photo: Bureau of 

Business and Economic Research Forester measuring felled trees at a logging site. 

Upper left photo by the Bureau of Business and Economic Research; all others by 

Todd Morgan.

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, SW, Washington, DC 

20250–9410 or call (800) 795–3272 (voice) or (202) 720–6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal 

opportunity provider and employer.
Abstract

Morgan, Todd A.; Brandt, Jason P.; Songster, Kathleen E.; Keegan, Charles 

E., III; Christensen, Glenn 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.

This report traces the flow of California’s 2006 timber harvest through the primary wood products industry (i.e., firms that process timber into manufactured 

products such as lumber, as well as facilities such as pulp mills and particleboard plants, which use the wood fiber or mill residue directly from timber 

processors) and provides a description of the structure, condition, and economic 

impacts of California’s forest products industry. Historical wood products 

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

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

state’s primary and secondary forest products industry.

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

mill residue, mill capacity, wood products.
Highlights

• California’s timber harvest was 1,733 million board feet (MMBF) Scribner 

during 2006. Nearly 60 percent (996 MMBF) of the timber harvest came 

from five counties. Humboldt County had the largest proportion at 20 percent (356 MMBF), followed by Shasta County with a timber harvest

of 209 MMBF. 

• A total of 77 primary forest products facilities operated in California during 2006. These included 33 sawmills, 25 bioenergy plants, 10 bark and 

mulch plants, 4 reconstituted board plants, 2 veneer plants, and 3 manufacturers of other primary wood products. 

• Total sales value for California’s primary forest products was about $1.5 

billion in 2006, with lumber accounting for 64 percent of the total. The 

majority (70 percent) of all products was sold in California. 

• Three sectors accounted for 94 percent of industry sales: sawmills, 

residue-utilizing plants, and bioenergy plants. 

• California sawmills produced nearly 2.5 billion board feet of lumber in 

2006, just under 7 percent of U.S. production of softwood lumber and 

nearly 4 percent of U.S. consumption. 

• California’s forest products industry’s annual capacity to process sawtimber has decreased by nearly 70 percent, from 6 billion board feet Scribner 

in the late 1980s to 1.7 billion board feet in 2009. 

• Approximately 78,100 workers, earning $4.4 billion annually, are 

employed in the primary and secondary wood and paper products 

industry in California. 

• Total employment in California’s wood and paper products industry has 

decreased since 1990, when employment was more than 105,000. Trends 

in labor income show similar declines from approximately $4.8 billion 

(in 2006 dollars) in labor income in 1990 to $4.4 billion in 2006. These 

long-term decreases have resulted almost entirely from losses in the primary industry.
Contents

1 Introduction

1 Forest Industries Data Collection System

2 Overview of California’s Forest Products Industry

3 Operating Environment, 1945–2009

4 California’s Timber Harvest, Products, and Flow

5 California’s Timberlands

6 Harvest by Ownership

9 Harvest by Geographic Source

10 Harvest by Species

10 Harvest by Product Type

15 Product Type by Ownership Source

17 Product Type by Species

17 End Uses of California’s 2006 Timber Harvest

20 Timber Flow

21 International and Interstate Timber Flows

22 Intrastate Timber Flow

24 Structure of California’s Forest Products Industry

28 Sawmill Sector

30 Veneer and Plywood Sector

30 Residue-Utilizing Manufacturers—Pulp and Board, and Bark Facilities

31 Bioenergy Sector

32 Other Sectors

32 Plant Capacity

32 Sawtimber Processing Capacity

34 Lumber-Production Capacity

35 Lumber Recovery Factors and Overrun

36 Mill Residue: Quantity, Type, and Use

38 Forest Product Sales, Employment, and Worker Earnings

40 Employment and Worker Earnings in California’s Forest Products Industry

43 Forest Industry Employment and Labor Income in California

45 Metric Equivalents

46 References

1

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2006

Introduction

This report describes the structure, condition, and production of California’s 

primary forest products industry for 2006, and discusses statewide timber harvest. 

Primary forest products manufacturers are firms that process timber into (manufactured) products such as lumber, as well as facilities such as pulp mills and particleboard plants that use the wood fiber or mill residue directly from timber processors. 

California’s primary forest products include lumber, veneer, utility poles, and log 

home accents. Products made from chipping or grinding timber, as well as from 

mill residue (e.g., bark, sawdust, and planer shavings) generated in the production 

of primary products, also are included. These “reconstituted” primary products 

include pulp and paper, particleboard, medium-density fiberboard, and bioenergy. 

Derivative, or “secondary” products (i.e., goods made from primary products) such 

as window frames, doors, trusses, and furniture, are addressed only in the sales, 

employment, and earnings section of this report.

The principal goal of this study is to draw a detailed picture of the primary 

forest products industry in California and the timber it used during 2006. This 

includes tracking timber harvest from the forest through the manufacturing 

processes and into the marketplace. Detail is provided on type and quantity of 

primary manufacturers, harvest by product use as well as species, and geographic 

and ownership source of timber used. Mill production capacities and outputs, sales 

values, mill residues and their uses, and the general operating conditions facing the 

industry are presented. Historical trends in California’s forest products industry 

are discussed as are the impacts of more recent downturns in housing and lumber 

markets.

The major source of data for this report is a statewide census of California’s 

primary forest products industry and mills in nearby states that received timber 

harvested in California during calendar year 2006. The census, which is done 

approximately every 5 years, represents a cooperative effort between the University 

of Montana’s Bureau of Business and Economic Research (BBER) and the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service, Pacific Northwest (PNW) 

Research Station, Forest Inventory and Analysis program.

Forest Industries Data Collection System

This report represents the second application of the Forest Industries Data Collection System (FIDACS) in the state of California. The first application was in 2000 

(Morgan et al. 2004). The FIDACS consists of a census of all primary forest products manufacturers in a given state during a given year and the analysis and reporting of data collected from these firms. The firms surveyed were identified through 

participation in the previous study, telephone directories, directories of the forest 
2

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-866

products industry (Random Lengths 2006, RISI 2006), and with the assistance 

of the firms contacted. Through a written questionnaire or telephone interview, 

manufacturers provide the following information for each of their facilities: 

• Facility type, location, contact information, and opening date

• Installed equipment and number of employees

• Number of operating days, shifts per day, and hours per shift

• Shift and annual production capacity in units of output

• Preferred and accepted log lengths and diameters

• Volume of raw material received by timber product, county, and ownership

• Species mix and proportion of standing dead timber received

• Raw material inventory at the beginning and end of the year

• Volume and destination of log transfers

• Finished product types, volumes, sales value, and market locations

• Finished product inventory at the beginning and end of the year

• Types, volumes, utilization, and sales of manufacturing residue

Manufacturers who participated in the 2006 California forest industry census 

processed all of the state’s commercial timber harvest. Volume and other characteristics of timber processed by out-of-state facilities were determined through surveys 

of mills in adjacent states. Other data sources (Ehinger 2009, Random Lengths 

2006, RISI 2006, U.S. Department of Commerce 2009, WWPA 2006) were used to 

estimate attributes for firms that did not complete the survey. Secondary 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 at the University of Montana’s 

BBER in Missoula, Montana. Additional information is available by request. 

Individual firm-level data is confidential and cannot be released. 

Overview of California’s Forest Products Industry

California has been a major producer of wood products since attaining statehood 

in 1850. It emerged as the Nation’s third leading softwood lumber-producing state 

in the 1940s, and since then has ranked second or third in the Nation, along with 

Oregon and Washington (Steer 1948, WWPA 1964–2009). Two major structural 

changes in California’s forest products industry between 1945 and 1989 were the 

development and then near-disappearance of the plywood and veneer industries, 

and the development of other major wood products industries (i.e., pulp and paper, 

reconstituted board plants, decorative bark and mulch, and bioenergy) based on mill 

residue from sawmills and other major timber-processing facilities. 
3

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2006

Operating Environment, 1945–2009

This section highlights changes in the operating environment that influenced 

California’s forest products industry from 1945 to 2009. The relative recent past and 

historical trends are also discussed in this section.

California’s forest products industry is continuously influenced by multiple 

factors, including U.S. and global economic forces, market conditions, timber 

inventories, public policy and regulations, and technological changes. Following 

World War II, timber harvest volumes expanded in response to the large increases 

in demand for lumber to supply the upsurge in U.S. home building. Abundant 

timber resources, industry diversification, and generally strong markets led to high 

harvest levels and growth in the value of mill output well into the 1970s. During 

the 1960s and 1970s, national forests became a key source of timber for California’s 

industry. With reduced inventory available on private lands, the state’s total harvest 

dropped about 15 percent from peaks in the late 1950s, and the proportion supplied 

by the national forests increased from just over 10 percent in the mid 1950s to over 

40 percent by 1969. A severe recession and weak markets in the first half of the 

1980s were followed by a substantial recovery in the last half of the 1980s. Mills in 

California benefited from these strong markets and an abundance of federal timber, 

boosting output and sales to unprecedented levels. 

Restricted timber availability, particularly on federal lands, exerted a major 

influence on California’s forest products industry after the 1980s. Harvests from 

federal timberland (mainly national forest land) declined 75 percent during the 

1990s owing to numerous policy and legal constraints on timber harvesting. Private 

harvest was also lower in the 1990s, resulting largely from increasing state regulation of timber harvesting. Overall, California’s timber harvest volume fell sharply 

throughout the 1990s. At the end of the decade, local and national markets for 

lumber and other wood products were strong, but in-state harvest was just over 2 

billion board feet in 1999—less than half of the harvest levels of the late 1980s. 

The years 2000 through 2002 saw weak U.S. and global economies, including a U.S. recession in 2001. This recession was made worse by the September 11 

terrorist attacks. The expiration of the Canadian softwood lumber agreement and 

a strong U.S. dollar led to increased imports as lumber consumption in the U.S. 

remained stagnant. The increased lumber supply, which reduced domestic production, resulted in lower prices. In addition, very high and volatile electricity prices 

in 2000 and 2001 created problems for some California wood and paper products 

producers but opportunities for others. Mills buying electrical power from outside 

sources were faced with substantially higher operating costs. In contrast, a number 

Harvests from federal 

timberland (mainly 

national forest land) 

declined 75 percent 

during the 1990s owing 

to numerous policy and 

legal constraints on 

timber harvesting.
4

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-866

of facilities using wood as fuel to produce electricity benefited by selling electricity 

to other users. 

In the second half of 2003, wood product prices began to rise because of 

increased demand, both domestically and globally, as well as a weakening U.S. dollar. During 2004 and 2005, with U.S. housing starts exceeding 2 million annually, 

demand for wood products was strong and prices reached their highest level since 

the late 1990s. Strong global markets and hurricanes in the Southeastern United 

States brought additional demand for wood products. However, timber availability 

and an uncertain regulatory environment continued to affect California’s forest 

products industry, and lumber output was actually lower in the strong market year 

of 2005 than in the recession year of 2001 (WWPA various years).

During 2006, a decline in U.S. housing construction led to sharp decreases in 

prices for most wood products. High fuel prices during the summer months contributed to higher logging and transportation costs. Many mills were forced to curtail 

production in 2006 because of market conditions. Owing to both ailing wood product markets and decreased timber availability, several large California mills closed 

between 2000 and 2006, and there was a net loss of production capacity in the state. 

New home starts decreased 40 percent from 2005 to 2007. Conditions worsened 

drastically in the last half of 2008, as falling home values and the high number of 

home foreclosures helped spur a severe global financial/credit crisis. This drove 

U.S. home starts in 2009 down to 554,000 units, the lowest level since the 1940s. 

The ongoing slump in housing has led to many temporary or indefinite curtailments 

and some permanent closures of California’s wood product manufacturing facilities 

since 2006 (Random Lengths 2008 and 2009; WWPA 2008 and 2009).

California’s Timber Harvest, Products, and Flow

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

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

focusing on the year 2006. It presents ownership and geographic sources of timber, 

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

fiber from the harvest, and movement of the resulting products both within California and between California and other states and countries.

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

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

Forest Service (annual and periodic), and these sources were used for historical 

comparisons. However, detailed harvest volumes presented in this report for 2006 

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

harvested in California during 2006. Differences may exist between the numbers 

Owing to both ailing 

wood product markets 

and decreased timber 

availability, several 

large California mills 

closed between 2000 

and 2006, and there 

was a net loss of 

production capacity 

in the state.
5

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2006

published here and those published by other sources. These differences are often the 

result of differing reporting units and conversion factors, rounding error, scaling 

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

sellers and buyers, and other reporting variations. 

Timber harvested from California timberland came from three broad land ownership categories: industrial timberland, nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) land, 

and public lands. California’s timber harvest consisted largely of true firs (Abies

spp.), Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco), ponderosa pine (Pinus 

ponderosa Dougl. ex Laws.), redwood (Sequoia sempervirens (D. Don) Endl.), 

sugar pine (Pinus lambertiana Dougl.), western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla (Raf.) 

Sarg.), incense-cedar (Calocedrus decurrens (Torr.) Florin.), and Jeffrey pine (Pinus 

jeffreyi Balf.). Most timber used by California’s industry was harvested from within 

the state, with additional volume coming from Oregon. Some smaller volumes came 

from Washington and Canada. 

California’s Timberlands

California has approximately 99.6 million acres of land area, of which 33.2 million 

acres are forested (Christensen et al. 2008, Miles and Hansen 2008). Of the total 

forest land in California, private landowners hold 13.0 million acres (39 percent), 

national forest lands account for 15.8 million acres (48 percent), and other public 

lands account for the remaining 13 percent or 4.2 million acres. Approximately 19.5 

of the 33.2 million forested acres in California are classified as timberland. Timberland is forest land that is producing or capable of producing more than 20 cubic feet 

of wood per acre per year at culmination of mean annual increment and excludes 

reserved lands (Society of American Foresters 1998). National forests contain 9.8 

million acres (51 percent) of timberland, private landowners hold approximately 8.9 

million acres (45 percent), and the remaining 4 percent (less than 1 million acres) is 

held by other public landowners (fig. 1). 

In 2006, California’s timberlands contained approximately 304 billion board 

feet Scribner of sawtimber (Christensen et al. 2008). Sawtimber is timber of “sufficient size and quality to be suitable for conversion into lumber” (Random Lengths 

1993). Sawtimber volume is calculated from growing-stock trees that are at least 

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

softwoods. Measured in Scribner board feet, live sawtimber on timberland is 94 

percent conifers, with hardwoods at 6 percent. By species, Douglas-fir accounts 

for 33 percent of the Scribner board foot sawtimber volume on timberland. Other 

species contributing the majority of volume on timberland are true fir (22 percent), 

ponderosa and Jeffrey pines (18 percent), redwood (8 percent), and sugar pine 

(5 percent).
6

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-866

Harvest by Ownership

The timber volume harvested in California during 2006 was 1.7 billion board feet 

Scribner (table 1), a decline of about 23 percent from the 2000 harvest of 2.2 billion 

board feet (Morgan et al. 2004). The timber harvest during 2006 was less than 62 

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

of the average over the last 50 years. Industrial landowners provided the majority 

(54 percent) of the timber harvest, with NIPF (32 percent) and national forests (13 

percent) providing nearly all of the remaining volume. 

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

(figs. 2 and 3). However, during the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, as private harvest 

Figure 1—Characteristics of California's timberland by ownership class, 2006.

Table 1—California's timber harvest by ownership class, 2006

Ownership Harvesta Percentage of total

Million board feet Percent

Industrial 942.7 54.40

Nonindustrial private 555.8 32.07

National forest 224.7 12.96

Tribal 5.6 0.32

State 3.5 0.20

Bureau of Land Management 0.3 0.02

Other public 0.4 0.02

 Total 1,733.1 100.00

a Volume in Scribner Decimal C Log Rule, eastside variant.

13.0%

0.2%

86.8%

Timberland area Harvested volume

Percent 100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

51.0%

3.9%

45.1%

Private

Other public

National forest
7

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2006

volumes declined, national forests became an increasingly important source of 

timber for California’s industry and the Nation’s growing demand for housing and 

wood products. National forest timber offerings were fairly constant during these 

decades (averaging about 1.8 billion board feet Scribner), but the proportion of total 

harvest supplied by national forests increased from just over 10 percent in the mid 

1950s to about 45 percent in the late 1980s. Total timber harvest volume in California declined about 15 percent during this period. 

Since the late 1980s, both private and national forest harvests have declined, 

with reductions in national forest harvest accounting for the majority (1.8 billion 

board feet) of the 3-billion-board-foot total decline. Harvests from federal timberland (mainly national forests) declined by 1.5 billion board feet during the 1990s and 

an additional 300 million board feet (MMBF) Scribner by 2007. The major causes of 

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

Tim

b

er h

arv

e

st (millio

n

b

o

ard fe

et S

crib

n

er)

Year

National forests

Bureau of Land Management

Tribal

State

Private

1947194919511953195519571959196119631965196719691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001200320052007

Figure 2—California's timber harvest by ownership class, 1947–2007.
8

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-866

declines in national forest timber offerings since the 1980s have been social, political, and legal constraints on harvesting. The proportion of national forest timber 

in the share of California’s total harvest also dropped sharply from over 45 percent 

in the late 1980s to 15 percent in 2000, 13 percent in 2006, and about 11 percent in 

2007 (fig. 3). Relating these harvest percentages to California’s timberland ownership, national forests supply less than 15 percent of the harvest volume from 51 

percent of the state’s timberland, thus more than 85 percent of the harvest volume is 

coming from the remaining 49 percent of California timberland (fig. 1).

Private harvest in California dropped from more than 2.5 billion board feet in 

the late 1980s to less than 1.5 billion board feet during the mid to late 2000s, resulting largely from increased regulation, set asides for old-growth forest protection, and 

various other social and political pressures, not because of wood products markets. 

Figure 3—Proportion of California timber harvest on private and national forest lands, 1953–2007.

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

Tim

b

er h

arv

e

st (millio

n

b

o

ard fe

et S

crib

n

er)

Year

National forests

Private

1952195419561958196019621964196619681970197219741976197819801982198419861988199019921994199619982000200220042006
9

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2006

Timber harvest volumes from national forest timber lands in California, like private 

lands, declined throughout the 1990s and first half of the 2000s even as demand 

for housing and wood products consumption in California and the United States 

increased substantially. Likewise, the 35 percent decline in new housing starts 

between 2005 and 2007 had surprisingly little impact on timber harvest levels in 

California, with harvest volume only falling about 6 percent from the peak homebuilding years of 2005 through 2007. 

Harvest by Geographic Source

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

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

Central Coast, and Southern California. In 2006, 91 percent (1.5 billion board feet) 

of California’s total timber harvest (1.7 billion board feet) came from the North 

Coast, Northern Interior, and Sacramento regions. Historically, these regions have 

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

Northern Interior

Sacramento

San Joaquin

North

 Coast

Central

 Coast

Southern

 California

Figure 4—California’s forest resource areas.
10

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-866

California State Board of Equalization 1992–2007; Hiserote and Howard 1978; 

Howard 1974, 1984; Howard and Ward 1988, 1991; Morgan et al. 2004; Ward 1995, 

1997). Virtually all of the remaining timber harvest in 2006 came from the San 

Joaquin region. 

Five counties in northern California accounted for over 57 percent of California’s total timber harvest in 2006 (table 2). The timber harvest in each county 

exceeded 120 MMBF Scribner during that year. These proportions are virtually 

unchanged since 2000, when these same counties contributed about 55 percent of 

the total harvest (Morgan et al. 2004).

In 2006, Humboldt County had the largest timber harvest at 346 MMBF. 

Shasta County’s harvest was about 209 MMBF, Siskiyou County accounted for 196 

MMBF, and Mendocino and Plumas Counties each had about 122 MMBF harvested 

during the year. Humboldt County has typically had the largest harvest, around 20 

percent of the annual total (table 3). Other counties that have also generally been top 

producers include Mendocino, Plumas, Shasta, Siskiyou, and Trinity (Barrette et 

al. 1970; Hiserote and Howard 1978; Howard 1974, 1984; Howard and Ward 1988, 

1991; Morgan et al. 2004; Ward 1995, 1997).

Harvest by Species

During 2006, true firs, Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, redwood, and sugar pine were 

the most commonly harvested tree species, accounting for 90 percent of California’s 

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

consistently accounting for 85 percent or more of the total (table 5). The major 

change from 2000 was an increase in true firs from 19 to 28 percent of the harvest 

accompanied by modest declines in the contributions of Douglas-fir and redwood. 

These recent changes are in line with long-term trends, which show proportionate decreases in Douglas-fir and redwood and increases in true firs with the pines 

maintaining a relatively consistent share.

Harvest by Product Type

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

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

cedar shakes and shingles. Products made from chipping or grinding timber, as 

well as from the residues (e.g., bark, sawdust, and planer shavings) generated in 

the production of primary products, also are included. These reconstituted primary 

products include pulp and paper, particleboard, medium-density fiberboard, hardboard, and bioenergy. In this report, timber product classification is based on the 

primary product manufactured directly from timber in roundwood form.

Five counties in 

northern California 

accounted for over 57 

percent of California’s 

total timber harvest 

in 2006. These 

proportions are 

virtually unchanged 

since 2000.
11

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2006

Table 2—California's timber harvest by county, 2000 and 2006 

2000 percentage 2006 percentage

Resource area 2000 volumea of totala 2006 volume of total

Million board feetb Percent Million board feetb Percent

Central Coast: 

Napa — — 0.3 c

 San Benito — — 0.1 c

 San Mateo 5.6 0.3 4.4 0.3

 Santa Clara 4.2 0.2 4.4 0.3

 Santa Cruz 19.6 0.9 9.7 0.6

 Total Central Coast 29.4 1.3 18.8 1.1 

North Coast: 

 Del Norte 50.4 2.2 17.6 1.0

 Humboldt 435.3 19.3 345.7 19.9 

 Mendocino 193.5 8.6 123.1 7.1 

 Sonoma 28.1 1.2 9.9 0.6 

 Total North Coast 707.2 31.4 496.3 28.6 

Northern Interior: 

 Lassen 69.3 3.1 77.9 4.5

 Modoc 49.9 2.2 26.3 1.5

 Shasta 194.3 8.6 209.0 12.1

 Siskiyou 209.7 9.3 196.0 11.3

 Trinity 99.6 4.4 98.0 5.7

 Total Northern Interior: 622.6 27.7 607.2 35.0

Sacramento: 

 Butte 86.4 3.8 89.2 5.1

 El Dorado 106.7 4.7 99.1 5.7

 Glenn 24.7 1.1 4.9 0.3

 Lake 9.6 0.4 1.6 0.1

 Nevada 59.6 2.6 39.4 2.3

 Placer 40.4 1.8 47.4 2.7

 Plumas 193.8 8.6 122.4 7.1

 Sierra 33.1 1.5 16.3 0.9

 Tehama 105.3 4.7 45.7 2.6

 Yolo 2.6 0.1 — —

 Yuba 36.9 1.6 7.2 0.4

 Total Sacramento 699.0 31.1 473.3 27.3

San Joaquin:

 Alpine — — c c

 Amador 22.8 1.0 28.7 1.7

 Calaveras 67.0 3.0 34.9 2.0

 Fresno 19.8 0.9 5.9 0.3

 Kern 3.6 0.2 — —

 Madera 4.8 0.2 0.1 c

 Mariposa 3.6 0.2 3.7 0.2

 Merced 0.3 c — —

 Tulare 8.9 0.4 7.7 0.4

 Tuolumne 60.7 2.7 47.2 2.7

 Total San Joaquin 191.4 8.5 128.1 7.4

Southern California: 

 San Bernardino — — 9.55 0.55

 Total southern California 0 0 9.6 0.6 

State total 2,249.7 100.0 1,733.1 100.0 

a Source: Morgan et al. 2004. 

b Volume in Scribner Decimal C Log Rule, eastside variant.

c Volume is less than .05 MMBF or percentage of total harvest is less than .05%.
12

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-866

Table 3—Percentage of total harvest for California's leading 

timber harvest counties, 1968–2006

County Volumea Percentage of total

Million board feet Percent

1968: 

 Humboldt 1,186.8 21.7

 Mendocino 533.4 9.7

 Siskiyou 502.6 9.2

 Trinity 431.6 7.9

 Shasta 381.1 7.0

 Total county 3,035.5 55.5

California total 5,473.0

1972: 

 Humboldt 1,079.0 19.9

 Mendocino 523.1 9.6

 Siskiyou 518.7 9.5

 Del Norte 354.5 6.5

 Trinity 349.9 6.4

 Total county 2,825.2 52.0

California total 5,435.2

1976: 

 Humboldt 1,073.3 22.7

 Mendocino 489.2 10.3

 Shasta 359.3 7.6

 Siskiyou 337.1 7.1

 Del Norte 236.4 5.0

 Total county 2,495.3 52.7

California total 4,731.0

1982: 

 Humboldt 456.2 18.3

 Mendocino 448.1 17.9

 Plumas 164.7 6.6

 Trinity 161.2 6.5

 Tehama 148.3 5.9

 Total county 1,378.5 55.2

California total 2,497.0

1985: 

 Humboldt 608.1 15.0

 Mendocino 435.1 10.7

 Shasta 204.1 5.0

 Plumas 202.2 5.0

 Siskiyou 201.8 5.0

 Total county 1,651.3 40.7

California total 4,056.0
13

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2006

Table 3—Percentage of total harvest for California’s leading 

timber harvest counties, 1968–2006 (continued)

County Volumea Percentage of total

Million board feet Percent 

1988: 

 Humboldt 769.0 15.9

 Mendocino 499.1 10.3

 Siskiyou 295.6 6.1

 Trinity 272.1 5.6

 Plumas 271.5 5.6

 Total county 2,107.3 43.5

California total 4,840.0

1992: 

 Humboldt 502.2 15.6

 Mendocino 271.6 8.5

 El Dorado 195.1 6.1

 Lassen 158.8 4.9

 Shasta 142.9 4.4

 Total county 1,270.6 39.5

California total 3,214.0

1994: 

 Humboldt 559.6 19.7

 Plumas 163.5 5.8

 Shasta 147.5 5.2

 Lassen 123.3 4.3

 Trinity 117.2 4.1

 Total county 1,111.1 39.1

California total 2,839.0

2000: 

 Humboldt 435.3 19.3

 Siskiyou 209.7 9.3

 Shasta 194.3 8.6

 Plumas 193.8 8.6

 Mendocino 193.5 8.6

 Total county 1,226.6 54.5

California total 2,249.7

2006: 

 Humboldt 345.7 20.0

 Shasta 209.0 12.1

 Siskiyou 196.0 11.3

 Mendocino 123.1 7.1

 Plumas 122.4 7.1

 Total county 996.2 57.5

California total 1,733.1

a Volume in Scribner Decimal C Log Rule, eastside variant

Source: Barrette et al. 1970; Hiserote and Howard 1978; Howard 1974, 1984; Howard 

and Ward 1988, 1991; Morgan et al. 2004; Ward 1995, 1997.
14

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-866

Timber harvested in California falls into five general timber product categories: 

sawlogs (timber used to produce lumber and other sawn products), veneer logs 

(timber sliced or peeled to make veneer for plywood or laminated veneer lumber), 

bioenergy (timber burned industrially to generate electricity or steam), pulpwood 

(timber used to manufacture pulp, paper, and reconstituted boards), and other products. Timber harvested for export is addressed under the “Timber Flow” section of 

this report.

Sawlogs accounted for 88 percent (1,528 MMBF) of the harvest in 2006. 

Historically, sawlogs have accounted for more than 85 percent of the total annual 

harvest (table 6). Veneer logs accounted for 10 percent of the total harvest through 

the 1970s. Since the 1980s, however, veneer logs have accounted for only 4 to 8 

percent of California’s annual timber harvest with the 2006 veneer log harvest at 

8 percent.

Table 4—California's timber harvest by species, 2006

Species Volumea Percentage of total

Million board feet Percent

True firs 491 28.3

Douglas-fir 419 24.2

Ponderosa pine 301 17.4

Redwood 247 14.3

Sugar pine 99 5.7

Incense-cedar 83 4.8

Other softwoods 68 3.9

Western hemlock 25 1.4

Hardwoods 1 0.04

 All species 1,733 100.00

a Volume in Scribner Decimal C Log Rule, eastside variant.

Table 5—Percentage of California's timber harvest by species, 1968–2006a

Species 1968 1972 1976 1982 1985 1988 1992 1994 2000 2006

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

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

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

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

Redwood 18.2 18.7 19.5 24.3 22.6 18.2 24.9 21.9 16.7 14.3

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

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

Hardwoods 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.5 d d 0.5 d

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

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

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

c Included in “Other softwoods.”

d Less than 0.05 percent.

Source: Barrette et al. 1970; Hiserote and Howard 1978; Howard 1974, 1984; Howard and Ward 1988, 1991; Morgan et al. 2004; Ward 1995, 1997.
15

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2006

Generally, timber harvested for products other than sawlogs and veneer logs 

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

been an expanding use of California’s timber in recent years, with 3.6 percent (62.2 

MMBF) of the harvest volume delivered to bioenergy producers in 2006. Bioenergy 

accounted for 2.4 percent (54.6 MMBF) of timber harvest in 2000. Prior to 2000, 

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

Pulpwood accounted for less than 2 percent of the annual harvest volume because 

of the pulp and board sector’s heavy reliance on mill residues. Pulpwood harvest 

has declined further in recent years with the closure of one of the two pulp mills 

operating in the state during 2000. Logs harvested for other products, like shakes 

and shingles, posts and poles, and house log components, have accounted for less 

than 3 percent of the annual harvest. 

Product Type by Ownership Source

As discussed earlier, most of the volume harvested in 2006 came from private 

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

ownership groups. In 2006, private lands provided 87 percent (1,455 MMBF) of 

California’s saw and veneer log harvest; in 2000, private lands contributed 84 

percent (1,836 MMBF) (Morgan et al. 2004). For 2006, Industrial lands were the 

largest private supplier of saw, veneer, and other logs, at 898 MMBF; and national 

forests were the primary supplier of timber from public lands, accounting for 212 

MMBF. Wood for bioenergy came primarily from industrial land as well, accounting for about 73 percent (45.1 MMBF) of the total volume harvested for bioenergy. 

National forests accounted for about 21 percent of the bioenergy harvest 

(13.1 MMBF).

Table 6—Percentage of California's timber harvest by product type, 1968–2006a

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

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

Sawlogs 86 86 86 91.2 92 92.5 99.3 92.9 89.8 88.1

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

Pulpwood 1 1.5 0.1 1.1 0.8 1.1 c c c c

Otherd 3 0.5 2.4 1.6 2.2 1.7 0.7 1.9 0.4 >0.3

Bioenergy e e e e e e e e 2.4 3.6

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

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

b Included in “sawlogs.”

c Included in “other.”

d Includes shakes and shingles, posts and poles, utility poles, houselogs, and log export; does not include bioenergy.

e Not reported prior to 2000.

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

2004; Ward 1995, 1997.

Bioenergy has been 

an expanding use of 

California’s timber in 

recent years.
16

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-866

Minor differences exist between timber volume harvested in California (table 

7) and the volume received by mills in California because of timber flowing into 

and out of state (table 8). This movement is described further in the section on 

timber flow. In 2006, California’s sawmill, veneer, and other plants received 1,730.8 

MMBF of logs. Of that volume, 83 percent came from private timberlands, about 

12 percent came from national forests, and 4 percent came from other ownerships. 

Bioenergy facilities in California received about 62 MMBF of timber, in addition to 

mill residue. Approximately 72 percent of that timber came from industrial lands, 

about 21 percent from national forests, and the rest from nonindustrial private. The 

residue-utilizing sector (reconstituted board and decorative bark facilities) did not 

receive any timber and used mill residues exclusively for their raw material. 

Table 8—Timber products received by California's forest industry sectors by 

ownership source, 2006a

Ownership source Sawlogs Veneer and otherb Bioenergy All products

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

Private timberlands: 1,328.0 121.1 49.1 1,498.2

 Industrial 837.2 91.6 45.1 974.0

 Nonindustrial 485.8 29.5 4.1 519.3

 Tribal 5.0 — — 5.0

Public timberlands: 199.6 22.4 13.1 235.1

 National forests 199.3 12.2 13.1 224.6

 Other public 0.3 10.2 — 10.5

Canada: 59.7 — — 59.7

 Total 1,587.3 143.5 62.2 1,793.0

a Reported volume is net exports.

b Other product types include houselogs and utility poles.

c Volumes in Scribner Decimal C Log Rule, eastside variant.

Table 7—California's timber harvest by ownership source and product type, 2006

Ownership source Sawlogs Veneer and othera Bioenergy All products

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Million board feet b - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Private timberlands: 1,327.3 127.8 49.1 1,504.2

 Industrial 801.2 96.5 45.1 942.7

 Nonindustrial 520.5 31.3 4.1 555.8

 Tribal 5.6 — — 5.6

Public timberlands: 200.5 15.3 13.1 228.9

 National forests 200.2 11.5 13.1 224.7

 Other public 0.4 3.9 — 4.3

Total 1,527.8 143.1 62.2 1,733.1

a Other product types include houselogs and utility poles.

b Volume in Scribner Decimal C Log Rule, eastside variant.
17

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2006

Product Type by Species

In 2006, true firs and Douglas-fir were the species most harvested for saw and 

veneer logs, and other softwoods were the most harvested species for bioenergy 

(table 9). In 2000, other softwoods accounted for more than 85 percent (53 MMBF) 

of timber used for bioenergy but just under 4 percent for all products. Approximately 7 percent of timber harvested for bioenergy was ponderosa pine and about 

4 percent was true firs. Douglas-fir, incense-cedar, and hardwoods made up the 

rest of the species used for bioenergy in 2006. During 2000, Douglas-fir was the 

most used for saw and veneer logs, and true firs accounted for 48 percent of timber 

used for bioenergy at 26 MMBF (Morgan et al. 2004). Similar to 2000, hardwoods 

comprised very little (less than 0.05 percent) of the 2006 harvest and were primarily 

used for sawlogs and bioenergy. 

End Uses of California’s 2006 Timber Harvest

This section traces California’s timber harvest through the various product manufacturing sectors. Because both timber products and mill residue from manufacturing facilities are presented, volumes are expressed in cubic feet rather than board 

feet Scribner. Residue volumes were reported in bone-dry units (BDU = 2,400 

pounds of oven-dry wood) and converted to cubic feet by using a conversion of 96 

cubic feet per BDU (Hartman et al. 1981). Timber harvest volumes of bole wood 

were generally reported in board feet Scribner Decimal C eastside variant. Different 

conversion factors were applied to combine these disparate volume measures into 

cubic-foot volume. The following conversion factors were developed using log size 

Table 9—California's timber harvest by species and product type, 2006

Veneer and All Percentage

Species Sawlogs other a Bioenergy products of total

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Million board feet b - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

True firs 404.7 83.8 2.5 491.0 28.3

Douglas-fir 386.2 31.6 0.9 418.7 24.2

Ponderosa pine 280.3 16.4 4.3 301.1 17.4

Redwood 247.1 — — 247.1 14.3

Sugar pine 97.8 1.3 — 99.2 5.7

Incense-cedar 81.4 0.1 1.1 82.6 4.8

Other softwoods 6.0 9.1 53.1 68.2 3.9

Western hemlock 23.8 0.8 — 24.6 1.4

Hardwoods 0.4 — 0.3 0.7 0.04

 All species 1,527.8 143.1 62.2 1,733.1 100

a Other product types include houselogs and utility poles.

b Volumes in Scribner Decimal C Log Rule, eastside variant.

— = Values less than 0.1 thousand board feet.
18

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-866

specifications as well as product and residue recovery information developed from 

the 2006 FIDACS mill survey in California:

• 5.35 board feet per cubic foot for sawlogs.

• 1.0 board feet per cubic foot for bioenergy logs.

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

California’s 2006 timber harvest was approximately 375 million cubic feet 

(MMCF) of bole wood. Approximately 286 MMCF (76 percent) went to sawmills 

and was processed into lumber and other sawn products, and about 29 MMCF (8 

percent) went to veneer and plywood facilities (fig. 5). Also included in the veneer 

category are small volumes (less than 2 MMCF) that went to other primary processors, including utility pole plants and log home accent facilities. Bioenergy plants 

received 60 MMCF of timber and 21 MMCF of mill residue from other plants 

processing California timber. The pulp and paper industry did not use any timber 

harvested in roundwood form but received substantial volumes of mill residue 

generated from sawmills and other primary processors in California.

Figure 5 shows that of the 286 MMCF of timber received by sawmills, 136 

MMCF (48 percent) became finished lumber and about 7 MMCF was lost to lumber 

shrinkage, with 143 MMCF remaining as mill residue. Most of the mill residue 

generated by sawmills processing California timber went to pulp and board manufacturers (56 MMCF) and bioenergy facilities (19 MMCF). The majority of the 

remaining mill residue was used internally for fuel (53 MMCF), with 15 MMCF 

going to other uses such as animal bedding. A very small amount, less than 0.05 

MMCF of residue from processing California timber into lumber, was unused in 

2006, and is not included in figure 5. This compares to 5 MMCF of unused residue 

in 2000 (Morgan et al. 2004).

During 2006, 29 MMCF of bole wood was delivered to veneer and plywood 

facilities in California. About 55 percent (16 MMCF) became veneer and other 

finished products, 31 percent (9 MMCF) became residue that was sold to pulp 

and board manufacturers, and the remaining 14 percent (4 MMCF) became other 

products such as peeler cores or was used internally for energy. 

Since 2000, there was a decrease in the total amount of wood fiber from California used by the bioenergy sector and the pulp and board industry. This overall 

decrease in wood fiber resulted from the decreased harvest of sawlogs and veneer 

logs and subsequent decrease of mill residue. However, the volume of timber 

harvested specifically for bioenergy rose, increasing from 55 MMCF in 2000 to 61 

MMCF in 2006. In 2000, the harvest of roundwood delivered directly to pulp and 

board mills was 3 MMCF; in 2006, no California timber was harvested and sent 

directly to the pulp and board industry. 
19

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2006

Internal

energy

53MMCF

Total harvest

Bole 375 MMCF

Sawmills

Bole 286 MMCF

Veneer and other

Bole 29 MMCF

Pulp and board

Bole 0 MMCF

Bioenergy

Bole 60 MMCF

Residue to

bioenergy

19 MMCF

Residue to

pulp and board

56 MMCF

Residue to

pulp and board

9 MMCF

Residue to

bioenergy

2 MMCF

Finished dry lumber

136 MMCF

Finished veneer and other

16 MMCF

Raw material for pulp and

board products 63 MMCF

Bioenergy

81 MMCF

Miscellaneous

uses

15 MMCF

Lumber

shrinkage

7 MMCF

Peeler cores

and other

3 MMCF

Energy

1 MMCF

Figure 5—Utilization of California’s timber harvest, 2006. MMCF = million cubic feet.
20

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-866

In total, 375 MMCF of wood fiber (bole wood) was harvested from California 

timberlands in 2006. The timber was utilized as follows:

• 136 MMCF became finished lumber

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

steam or electricity

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

• 16 MMCF became veneer or plywood

• 18 MMCF went to other uses such as animal bedding

• 7 MMCF were lost in shrinkage from green to dry lumber 

Figure 6 demonstrates this final disposition of wood fiber harvested in 

California during 2006.

Timber Flow

This section briefly details the 

movement of timber among California’s wood-producing regions, 

resource areas, and individual 

counties, as well as between California and other states. Because 

this study tracks timber flowing 

into and out of the state, there are 

slight differences in the amount of 

timber harvested versus received 

by facilities in the state (tables 7 and 8).

California timber-processing facilities received nearly 1.8 billion board feet 

of timber in 2006. Slightly less than 127 MMBF or approximately 7 percent of 

timber processed in California came from out of state, whereas slightly less than 67 

MMBF or nearly 4 percent of California’s timber harvest was processed in Oregon, 

making California a net importer of about 60 MMBF of timber in 2006 (table 10). 

Table 10—California's timber imports and exports, 2006

Timber products Imports Exportsa Net imports

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

Saw and veneer logs 126.5 (66.5) 60.0

Bioenergy and otherb logs < 0.05 0 < 0.05

 Total 126.5 (66.6) 59.9

a Volume in Scribner Decimal C Log Rule, eastside variant.

b Other logs include timber harvested for houselogs and utility poles.

Lumber and shrinkage 38%

Biomass energy

36%

Pulp and board

products 17%

Veneer and other

products 9%

Figure 6—Final disposition of wood harvested in 

California by industry sector.
21

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2006

Over 99 percent of the timber that flowed into California and all the timber that 

flowed out was saw and veneer logs. These volumes do not include approximately 

16 MMBF of logs exported internationally from California’s customs districts 

(WWPA 2007).

International and Interstate Timber Flows

The use of foreign timber by California timber processors rose between 2000 and 

2006. In 2006 California mills received 59.7 MMBF of timber from Canada, 

accounting for 3.3 percent of the timber processed in California (table 11). In 2000, 

California facilities imported 20.6 MMBF of timber, again entirely from Canada. 

Past reports (Barrette et al. 1970; Hiserote and Howard 1978; Howard 1974; Howard 

and Ward 1988, 1991; Ward 1995) do not indicate any timber entering California 

from international sources, although timber entering California from other states 

increased substantially from the late 1960s through the 1990s. 

The volumes of timber harvested in 

California, exported from California, and 

processed in California have been declining 

since the 1960s, while the volume of imported 

timber began rapidly increasing in the early 

1990s (fig. 7). From the late 1960s through 

1985, imports of timber from other states 

more than doubled, in-state timber harvest 

decreased 26 percent, log exports declined 

by 70 percent, and the volume of timber 

processed in-state declined by 40 percent. 

Between 1988 and 2006, timber harvest 

dropped by another 61 percent. Imports 

of out-of-state and Canadian timber have 

increased substantially and account for more 

than 6 percent of the annual volume processed in California during recent years. 

These trends reflect a situation that many western mills have wrestled with—

difficulty finding sufficient locally available timber to meet demand for finished 

wood products. During the strong upward trend in housing during the 1990s and 

first half of the 2000s, timber processors in California struggled because of changes 

in the availability of timber from private as well as public lands. To compensate, instate mills have increasingly been procuring timber from out-of-state, particularly 

from Oregon, Washington, and Canadian sources to ensure that their raw material 

needs are met. 

Table 11—Ownership source of timber volume 

received by California mills, 2006

Percentage

Ownership source Volume of total

Million board feet a Percent

Private timberlands: 1,498.20 83.6

 Industrial 974 54.3

 Nonindustrial 519.3 29.0

 Tribal 5 0.3

Public timberlands: 235.1 13.1

 National forests 224.6 12.5

 Other 10.5 0.6

Canada: 59.7 3.3

Total 1,793.0 100.0

a Volume in Scribner Decimal C Log Rule, eastside variant.
22

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-866

In recent years, international export of timber from California ports has made 

up a very small percentage of the annual harvest (fig. 8). From 1999 to 2007, the 

average annual export was 9.8 MMBF, less than 0.5 percent of the annual timber 

harvest during the period (WWPA 1999–2007). This reporting body does not 

indicate how much, if any, of the wood was actually harvested in California. The 

peak for international log exports originating in California was in 1968, at 4 percent 

(202.4 MMBF) of the total harvest.

Intrastate Timber Flow

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

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

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

(table 12). 

Reflecting tighter timber supplies and the development of larger mills, not only 

has the volume of timber imported into California increased, but timber harvested 

and processed within California is travelling farther today than in the past. During 

2000 and 2006, less than one-half of harvested timber was processed in its county 

of harvest, and approximately 82 percent was processed in the resource area of 

harvest. By comparison, in 1968, 74 percent of the volume harvested and used by 

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

1968 1972 1976 1982 1985 1988 1992 1994 2000 2006

Import and export volume (million board feet Scribner) 

Harvest and

processed

v

olumes (million b

oard feet Scribner)

Year

Processed

Harvest

Imports

Exports

Figure 7—California timber volumes: harvested, processed, and imported, various years.
23

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2006

Figure 8—California’s international log exports, 1961–2009 (WWPA 1964–2009). 

0

50

100

150

200

250

L

o

g ex

p

orts (million b

oard feet Scribner)

Year

1961196319651967196919711973197519771979198119831985198719891991199319951997199920012003200520072009

Table 12—California timber flow by resource area, 2006

Receiving area

North Coast

and Northern Out Total

Harvest area Central Coasta Interiorb Sacramentoc San Joaquind of state harvest

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

North Coast and Central Coasta 439.4 65.7 8.5 0.1 1.4 515.1 

Northern Interiorb 21.0 453.1 73.4 — 59.7 607.2 

Sacramentoc 0.4 33.0 420.5 13.8 5.5 473.2 

San Joaquind — — 19.2 108.9 — 128.1 

Southern Californiae — — — 9.6 — 9.6 

Out of state f 105.8 20.7 — 0 N/A 126.5 

Total received 566.6 572.5 521.6 132.4 66.6 

N/A = not applicable. a North Coast and Central Coast regions are combined to avoid disclosure. North Coast includes Del Norte, Humboldt, Mendocino, and 

Sonoma Counties and Central Coast includes Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Monterey, Napa, San Benito, San Francisco, San Mateo, 

Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, and Solano Counties.

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

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

Yolo, and Yuba Counties.

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

Stanislaus, Tulare, and Tuolumne Counties.

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

Santa Barbara, and Ventura Counties.

f Out-of-state region includes Oregon and Washington.
24

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-866

California mills was processed in the county where it was harvested, and 92 percent 

was processed in the resource area of harvest. 

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

origin tended to be delivered to the north or west, or to Oregon. This trend continued in 2006 with the Northern Interior resource area shipping the largest volume of 

timber to be processed out-of-area, mostly to Oregon and the Sacramento resource 

area. The Northern Interior resource area was a net exporting region, and the other 

resource areas were net timber importers. 

Structure of California’s Forest Products Industry

The 2006 FIDACS census identified 77 active primary wood and paper products 

facilities in California, producing an array of products that included lumber and 

other sawn products, veneer, utility poles, log home accents, medium-density 

fiberboard, particleboard, hardboard, bioenergy, and decorative bark (fig. 9, table 

13). The number of primary processors dropped from 93 in 2000 with the bulk of 

the losses in the lumber producing (i.e., sawmill) sector. Since the 2000 mill census, 

the number of veneer facilities remained at two, pulp and board facilities decreased 

with the closure of one pulpmill and two board plants, and producers of “other 

products” increased with the addition of a log home accent manufacturer.

The higher number of timber-processing facilities in 2000 versus the 1994 survey (Ward 1997) was due primarily to the inclusion of the bioenergy and decorative 

bark sectors in the 2000 and 2006 censuses, offsetting declines in the number of 

sawmills and pulp and board facilities. The bioenergy and decorative bark sectors 

included 25 and 10 facilities, respectively, in both 2000 and 2006.

The number of primary plants operating in California over the 38 years prior to 

2006 decreased dramatically (table 13). Most of the change has been in the sawmill 

sector, but large changes have also occurred in the plywood and veneer sector as 

Table 13—Active California primary wood products facilities by sector, 1968–2006

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

Sawmills 216 176 142 101 89 93 56 53 47 33

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

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

Bioenergy b b b b b b b b 25 25

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

Othera 3 13 13 9 9 9 5 6 2 3

 Total 262 232 183 130 115 119 73 75 93 77

a Other includes log home accent producers and shake and shingle manufacturers, as well as post, pole, and 

piling manufacturers. 

b Data unavailable for bioenergy and decorative bark sectors for 1968 to 1994.

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

Morgan et al. 2004; Ward 1995, 1997.
25

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2006

Figure 9—Timber-processing facilities active in California during 2008.

D

D

D

D

D

DC

DC

DC

DC

DC

DC

DC

DC

DC

DC

DC

DC

DC DC

DC

DC

DC

DC

DC

DC

DC

DC

DC DC DC

DC

DC

DC

DC

DC

DC

DC D

DD

D

D D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

DC

D

D

D

DC

j

D

D

D

j

CD

California facilities, 2006

Bark products

Biomass/energy

House log/log home

Particleboard

Post/pole

Pulp/paper

Sawmill

Veneer/plywood

o
26

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-866

well as in the pulp and board sector. The last 50 years have witnessed extensive 

closures of smaller and less competitive mills, especially those unable to handle 

smaller logs, leading to the concentration of production capacity into larger, more 

efficient mills. Between 1988 and 2006, the continued reduction in the number 

of sawmills was due primarily to reduced timber availability, with a considerable 

number of larger mills closing. Similar market forces affected California’s plywood 

and veneer and pulp and board sectors; both now contain only a fraction of the 

mills that operated 40 years ago. With very poor market conditions since 2006, 

about eight additional major primary wood products facilities have closed at least 

temporarily (Ehinger 2009, Spelter et al. 2007). More detail on individual sectors is 

provided in the subsequent discussion. 

Wood and paper product manufacturing facilities operated in 29 of California’s 58 counties in calendar year 2006 (table 14). There were 10 active primary 

timber-processing facilities in Humboldt County in 2006, down from 15 facilities 

in 2000. Shasta County also had 10 active plants during 2006 compared to 14 in 

2000. Tuolumne and Tulare Counties each contained more than four active primary 

timber-processing plants in 2006. Tuolumne had six processors, the same as in 

2000, and Tulare had five facilities in 2006 versus two in 2000. In 2000, Mendocino 

and Sonoma Counties had eight and six facilities, respectively, and by 2006 each 

had only four. 

As mentioned earlier, the distance that California’s timber harvest travels to be 

processed is increasing. This increase is a result of reductions in both the volume 

harvested and the number of facilities that process timber. Similar reductions in 

harvested volumes and local milling infrastructure have occurred in the Interior 

West states (Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming). Previously unanticipated but potentially important consequences of increasing haul distances from forest to primary processors include an increase in fossil 

fuel consumption and corresponding decrease in net carbon sequestration by the 

forest products industry (Healey et al. 2009). The loss of milling infrastructure thus 

potentially reduces the ability to manage forests and carbon stocks but also reduces 

the potential efficiency of carbon sequestration by the forest products industry. 

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

in 2006 was about $1.5 billion, down from $2.6 billion in 2000 (table 15). Product 

prices in 2006 were about even with 2000; the loss is due to closure of mills and 

resultant lower production capacity. The FIDACS system provides sales value information for the entire primary forest products industry in 2000 and 2006. Published 

annual sales data for California’s primary forest products industry are consistently 
27

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2006

Table 14—Active California primary wood products facilities by county and sector, 2006

 Medium-density

	 fiberboard and	 	 Decorative

County Sawmills Veneer particleboard Bioenergy bark Othera Total

Amador — — 1 — — — 1

Butte 1 — — 1 — — 2

Del Norte — — 1 — — — 1

El Dorado 1 — — — — — 1

Fresno — — — 2 — — 2

Glenn — — — — 1 — 1

Humboldt 7 — 1 1 — 1 10

Kern — — — — 1 — 1

Lassen — — — 3 — — 3

Madera — — — 1 — — 1

Mendocino 4 — — — — — 4

Nevada 1 — — — — — 1

Placer 1 — 1 2 — — 4

Plumas 2 — — 2 — — 4

Riverside — — — 1 1 — 2

Sacramento — — — — 1 — 1

San Joaquin — — — 1 1 — 2

Santa Cruz 1 — — — — — 1

Shasta 4 — — 5 — 1 10

Sierra — — — 1 — — 1

Siskiyou — 2 — — 1 — 3

Sonoma 3 — — — 1 — 4

Sutter 1 — — — — — 1

Tehama — — — — 1 — 1

Trinity 1 — — — — — 1

Tulare 1 — — 2 1 1 5

Tuolomne 3 — — 2 1 — 6

Yolo — — — 1 — — 1

Yuba 2 — — — — — 2

2006 total 33 2 4 25 10 3 77

2000 totalb 47 2 5 25 10 4 93

a Other includes log home accent producers and shake and shingle manufacturers, as well as post, pole, and 

piling manufacturers. 

b Source: Morgan et al. 2004.

Table 15—Sales value of California's primary wood products, 2000 and 2006

Product 2000a 2006

Thousands of 2006 U.S. dollars

Lumber, timber, and associated products 1,711,173 984,723

Residue-utilizing sectorb 532,082 257,321

Bioenergy 298,426 201,404

Veneer and other primary wood productsc 88,350 96,294

 Total 2,630,031 1,539,742

a Source: Morgan et al. 2004.

b Residue-utilizing sector includes pulp, paper, and board manufacturers, and decorative bark.

c Veneer and other products include log home accents, peeler cores, posts, poles, pilings, and veneer.
28

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-866

available only for lumber. To put these values in perspective, we estimated lumber 

sales values for previous years using reported lumber sales (WWPA 1964–2009), 

historical production data, trends in the Annual Survey of Manufactures (USDC 

CB 2009), and descriptions of industry sectors in previous industry studies 

(Morgan et al. 2004). The annual sales value of California’s primary forest products 

(free on board the producing mill) would have exceeded $4 billion (in constant 2006 

dollars) for several years in the 1960s and 1970s. 

Sawmill Sector

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

primary forest products industry in terms of sales value (table 15) and volume of 

timber processed (table 8). The 33 sawmills operating in California during 2006 

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

which equates to about 4 percent of U.S. lumber consumption (WWPA 1999–2009). 

Lumber production in California peaked at 6 billion board feet (fig. 10) during 

the late 1950s, concurrent with the post-World War II housing boom. Production 

dropped to about 5 billion board feet and held near that level throughout the 1960s 

and 1970s. With advancing technology, sawmills were able to recover more lumber 

 1,000

0

 2,000

 3,000

 4,000

 5,000

 6,000

 7,000

Lumber production (million board feet lumber tally)

Year

195619581960196219641966196819701972197419761978198019821984198619881990199219941996199820002002200420062008

Figure 10—California’s lumber production, 1956–2009 (WWPA 1964–2009).

Sawmill sector 

continues to be the 

largest component of 

California’s primary 

forest products 

industry in terms of 

sales value and volume 

of timber processed.
29

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2006

from the logs processed and offset the slightly lower overall timber harvest and 

increased use of timber by the plywood industry (Keegan et al. 2010a). Very strong 

markets maintained average annual lumber production above 5 billion board feet 

throughout the 1970s, and annual sales value exceeded $4 billion during four years 

of the decade (fig. 11). 

In late 1979, there was an abrupt and extreme downward shift in wood products 

markets brought on by a severe recession of the post-World War II period. The 

early 1980s were a time of very low prices, and in the recession of 1982, California 

lumber production fell to 2,987 MMBF, with sales of $1.6 billion. In 1988, California sawmills rebounded with lumber production of 5,671 MMBF and sales of $3.0 

billion, owing to a strong national economy, a temporary abundance of sold-butnot-yet-cut federal timber, and continued increases in lumber recovery per unit of 

timber processed. 

During the 1990s, sawmills struggled with declining timber availability. 

Timber harvest levels on national forests in California fell by more than 60 percent, 

and 50 of the state’s 93 sawmills closed between 1988 and 1994. Lumber production 

in 1994 was 3,521 MMBF, down 38 percent or nearly 2.2 MMBF from 1988. With 

good markets and high lumber prices, sales value fell by only 26 percent (figs. 9 

and 10). After strong markets in 1999, the economy weakened in 2000 and timber 

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

Lumber sales (million 2006 U.S. dollars)

Year

196919711973197519771979198119831985198719891991199319951997199920012003200520072009

Figure 11—California’s inflation-adjusted lumber sales, 1969–2009 (WWPA 1964–2009).
30

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-866

availability continued to deteriorate on public and private lands. Lumber production 

for 2000 dropped to 3.1 billion board feet with a sales value of $1.6 billion. The 

declines continued into the decade; despite very strong housing and lumber markets 

in 2004 and 2005, output and sales value were below 2000 levels. With weakening 

markets in 2006, output fell to 2.6 billion board feet, and lumber sales value was at 

$1.2 billion. The housing and lumber market weakness continued into 2009. California’s lumber production volume and sales value were estimated to be 1.9 billion 

board feet and $482 million for 2008 (WWPA 2009), with another 25-to 30-percent 

drop anticipated by the end of 2009.

Veneer and Plywood Sector

Currently there are no plywood plants in California and only two plants producing veneer for further manufacture into plywood and laminated-veneer lumber 

(LVL) by mills located in Oregon. The plywood sector was relatively short-lived in 

California. It emerged and almost completely disappeared in the course of 60 years. 

With strong wood markets and the development of technology to make quality 

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

production grew rapidly in the 1950s and early 1960s, peaking in 1964 at 1.3 billion 

square feet (3/8-inch basis). A number of factors have accounted for the decline and 

near disappearance of California’s plywood and veneer industry. Howard (1974) 

points out that large-diameter Douglas-fir logs became less available. At the same 

time, spikes in log exports in the late 1960s and early 1970s brought increased 

competition for logs (Morgan et al. 2004). More recently, substitute products such 

as oriented strand board captured large portions of construction markets once dominated by plywood. Details about California’s two remaining veneer plants cannot be 

discussed to avoid disclosure of firm-level information.

Residue-Utilizing Manufacturers—Pulp and Board, 

and Bark Facilities

During 2006, there were 15 facilities in California manufacturing products from 

the mill residue from sawmills and other plants that process timber into products. 

These included a pulp mill, four reconstituted board plants—three particleboard 

plants and a medium-density fiberboard facility—and 10 bark plants producing 

landscaping products such as decorative bark and mulch. Since 2000, the number of 

manufacturers using mill residues declined from 17 after the closure of a hardboard 

plant and a pulp and paper mill.

California’s 2006 timber harvest included approximately 59 MMCF of bark, 

of which roughly 42 MMCF was used to produce energy and about 17 MMCF was 

used for other products such as mulch and landscaping bark. As with other mill 
31

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2006

residue in California during 2006, only a very small amount (less than 0.05 MMCF) 

of bark was not used. 

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

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

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

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

1975; this number grew to 10 by 2000 and remained at 10 in 2006.

Sales of residue-utilizing manufacturers totaled nearly $257 million in 2006, 

down from nearly $532 million in 2000. Most of the decline in sales resulted from 

the closures of the pulp mill and board plant, with sales from these producers dropping from $462 million in 2000 to $217 million in 2006. Sales from bark producers 

totaled about $40 million in 2006, down from $53 million in 2000. The decline in 

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

Bioenergy Sector

The bioenergy sector in California in 2006 contained a variety of facilities, including cogeneration plants at timber-processing facilities such as sawmills that produced steam and electricity, as well as stand-alone facilities producing electricity 

using various mixes of urban and agricultural waste, sawmill residue, and timber. 

In 2006, 25 bioenergy facilities used some type of wood fiber, including roundwood, forest chips (i.e., trees or slash chipped in the forest), and sawmill residues. 

Just two facilities operated exclusively on sawmill residues; six used a mixture of 

agricultural waste, urban waste, and sawmill residue; and 17 facilities used forest 

chips, sawmill residue, and urban and agricultural waste.

The energy-producing capacity of the 25 bioenergy facilities that used wood 

fiber in 2006 totaled 485 megawatts (MW). Seven facilities are rated at 10 MW 

or less, six are between 10 and 20 MW, and 12 are greater than 20 MW. These 

producers sold close to 3.1 million megawatt hours (MWh) of power in 2006. 

One megawatt hour equals about one month’s power consumption for about 1,000 

typical California homes (California Energy Commission 2003). Nearly all of the 

energy produced was sold within the state of California. This was also the case in 

2000. The total sales value was about $201 million (table 15) or about $0.0645 per 

kilowatt hour (KWh) on average. 

As the pulp and board sectors have declined, the bioenergy sector has become 

more important to the forest products industry in California as a source of additional revenue for residue-producing facilities and for utilization of slash and other 
32

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-866

low-value forest material. Measured in cubic feet, the bioenergy sector used about 

24 percent of the wood fiber (including bark) from California’s timber harvest. This 

includes over 60 MMCF of timber harvested for energy and 33 MMCF or 350,000 

BDU (nearly 25 percent) of California’s mill residues, including bark.

Other Sectors

The remaining primary wood products manufacturers identified in 2006 included 

one house log accent facility and a utility pole producer. The number and type of 

facilities comprising California’s “other” (wood product) manufacturers have varied 

throughout the years (table 13). Historical information on their operations is limited. 

These producers were typically small operations that come and go with demand 

for their products, making it challenging to determine the total number of facilities operating and obtain information from them. Because of the limited number 

of facilities, no production data for these firms can be reported, and sales data are 

included with the veneer sector.

Plant Capacity

This section focuses on capacity to process timber—specifically sawtimber—

from 1988 through 2007 and the utilized proportion of that capacity. California’s 

sawtimber-processing plants include sawmills, veneer mills, houselog facilities, 

and utility pole plants. Capacity for 2006 was developed from the FIDACS census 

of California’s forest products industry. Capacity for previous years was estimated 

from previous industry censuses (Howard and Ward 1991, Morgan et al. 2004, 

Ward 1995) and for intervening years based on reported mill closures openings and 

expansions (Ehinger 2009, Random Lengths 2007, Spelter et al. 2007).

Sawtimber Processing Capacity

Through the FIDACS census, California mills were asked for their 8-hour shift 

and annual production capacities, given sufficient supplies of raw materials and 

firm market demand for their products. Large sawmills and veneer mills expressed 

annual production capacity equal to two to three 8-hour shifts daily for 240 to 300 

operating days per year. Smaller mills generally reported annual capacity at only 

one shift per day, for not more than 250 days per year.

Sawmill production capacity was reported in thousand board feet lumber tally. 

Veneer production capacity was reported in thousands of square feet on a 3/8-inch 

basis, utility pole capacity was reported in lineal feet of poles, and houselogs used 

for log home accents were reported in number of pieces. To combine capacity 

figures for the state’s sawtimber users and to estimate the industry’s total capacity to process sawtimber, capacity was expressed in units of raw material input 
33

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2006

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

C log scale by dividing production capacity in lumber tally by the mill’s calculated 

lumber recovery per board foot Scribner. For veneer plants, production capacity in 

square feet of 3/8-inch veneer was divided by each mill’s calculated veneer recovery 

figure. Capacities for utility pole plants were adjusted to thousand board feet Scribner by multiplying capacity in lineal feet by an average Scribner board-foot volume 

per lineal foot. For log home accents, an estimate was made using the average 

volume of a log that would be used for that product. These pieces were comparable 

in size to veneer and sawlogs.

California’s capacity to process timber in 2006 was an estimated 2.05 billion 

board feet Scribner, of which 78 percent was used by mills processing just over 1.6 

billion board feet (fig. 12). Several mill closures in 2007 reduced capacity. Although 

this decline was somewhat offset by expansion at a number of existing facilities, it 

appears that, in 2007, capacity to process sawtimber fell to about 1.9 billion board 

feet. During 2008 and 2009, additional sawmill closures occurred and annual 

timber-processing capacity dropped below 1.8 billion board feet. 

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

Timber processing capacity (million board feet Scribner)

Year

1988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009

Total capacity

Capacity used

Figure 12—California's capacity for processing sawtimber, 1988–2009.
34

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-866

There has been a 70-percent drop in capacity to process sawtimber in California since 1988, when capacity was 6 billion board feet of log input, and mills 

processed approximately 4 billion board feet of timber. The major decline in 

capacity took place from 1988 to 1999 with a fall from 6 billion board feet to 2.8 

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

primarily from the decline of 2 billion board feet in federal timber offerings. 

Also negatively affecting capacity during the 1990s and beyond were a series of 

increased state regulations of timber harvest activities, which effectively reduced 

the available private timber volume and increased costs. Changes in use of private 

lands—such as development, urbanization, or purchases/set asides for parks or oldgrowth preservation—have also contributed to reduced timber harvest from private 

forest lands. During the recent poor markets, the portion of capacity used has fallen 

more dramatically than has total capacity, from around 80 percent in the 2000 to 

2006 period to an estimated 55 percent in 2009.

Lumber-Production Capacity

Capacity to produce lumber varies widely among California’s 33 sawmills, and the 

proportion of capacity utilized is highly correlated with mill size (table 16). Total 

lumber production during 2006 was 2,453 MMBF and production capacity was 

3,067 MMBF lumber tally. Thus, approximately 80 percent of California’s annual 

lumber-producing capacity was utilized, which is nearly identical to 2000, when 81 

percent was utilized. The majority, 2,178 MMBF (71 percent) of lumber-producing 

capacity, was concentrated in the 13 largest mills, with over 100 MMBF annual 

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

2000, when 58 percent of capacity was in this size class. During 2006, these largest 

mills accounted for 75 percent (1,846 MMBF) of lumber production in California, 

Table 16—Number of active California sawmills, capacity, production, and proportion of capacity 

used, by capacity size class, 2006

Number Percentage Average Percentage Average

Capacity of of total capacity of total production Capacity

size class mills Capacity capacity per mill Production production per mill used

 MMBFa Percent MMBFa MMBFa Percent MMBFa Percent

10 MMBF or less 5 10.5 0.3 2.1 6.6 0.3 1.3 63.0

Over 10 to 50 MMBF 5 113.2 3.7 22.6 70.6 2.9 14.1 62.4

Over 50 to 100 MMBF 10 765.6 25.0 76.6 530.3 21.6 53.0 69.3

Over 100 MMBF 13 2,178.0 71.0 167.5 1845.8 75.2 142.0 84.7

2006 total 33 3,067.2 100.0 92.9 2453.3 100.0 74.3 80.0

2000 totalb 47 3,878.5 100.0 82.5 3137.7 100.0 66.8 80.9

a Volume in million board feet (MMBF) lumber tally.

b Source: Morgan et al. 2004.
35

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2006

and utilized 85 percent of their lumber-producing capacity on average. Mills with 

capacities of 50 to 100 MMBF accounted for 765 MMBF (25 percent) of total 

capacity, produced 530 MMBF (22 percent) of the state’s lumber, and on 

average utilized about 70 percent of their capacity. This size class lost the most 

mills between 2000 and 2006, going from 18 mills to 10. The remaining 10 

sawmills accounted for approximately 4 percent (124 MMBF) of California’s 

lumber-producing capacity and about 3 percent (71 MMBF) of the state’s lumber 

production. These smallest mills utilized the smallest proportion (about 62 percent) 

of their available capacity. 

Lumber Recovery Factors and Overrun

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

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

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

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

obtained from a log in excess of the estimated volume based on log scale (board 

feet Scribner). Both are measures of mill efficiency. The volume of sawtimber 

used by California’s sawmills in 2006 was approximately 300 MMCF, and lumber 

production was 2,473 MMBF lumber tally. Thus the statewide LRF for California 

sawmills in 2006 was 8.2 board feet of lumber output per cubic foot of log input, 

which is up from approximately 7.96 in 2000 (Morgan et al. 2004) and 7.2 in the 

1970s (Keegan et al. 2010b).

Increases in LRF are attributable primarily to improvements in technology. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

logs with sweep and crook.

During 2006, California sawmills produced 2,473 MMBF lumber tally by 

processing 1,510 MMBF, Scribner Decimal C, of logs yielding an overrun of 64 

percent or 1.64 board feet of lumber per board foot Scribner of log input. A comparison of California sawmill overrun for various years is shown in table 17.

Although overrun is the more common measure, it is not as useful as LRF 

because of the weakness of the Scribner scale as a measure of log input. The average size of logs processed in California has almost certainly decreased over the 
36

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-866

past 50 years. As log diameters decrease, the Scribner log rule underestimates by 

an increasing amount the volume of lumber that can be recovered from a log, often 

increasing overrun.

Mill Residue: Quantity, Type, and Use

As indicated earlier in this report, about 60 percent of the wood fiber (including 

bark) processed by primary forest products plants ends up as mill residue. This 

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

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

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

whereas sawmills are the largest residue producers. 

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

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

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

shavings and sawdust; and bark. The 2006 census gathered information on volumes 

and uses of mill residue. Actual residue volumes, reported in bone-dry units (BDU), 

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

equivalent of 2,400 pounds of oven-dry wood. All mills reported, on a percentage 

basis, how their residue was used.

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

produced, were derived from production and residue output volumes reported 

by mills. California’s sawmills 

produce the majority of residues 

during their normal production 

process. Residue factors for 2000 

and 2006 are shown in table 18 and 

represent statewide averages. During 2006, sawmills in California 

produced less residue per thousand 

board feet (MBF) of lumber 

produced with both lower amounts 

of coarse residue and planer shavings generated. Several factors can 

Table 18—California's sawmill residue 

factors, 2000 and 2006

Type of residue 2000a 2006

Bone-dry units per MBFb

Coarse 0.41 0.37

Sawdust 0.15 0.15

Planer shavings 0.13 0.11

Bark 0.23 0.21

Total 0.92 0.85

a Source: Morgan et al. 2004.

b Bone-dry units (2,400 pounds of oven-dry wood) of the 

various residue types generated for every thousand board 

feet of lumber manufactured.

MBF = thousand board feet.

Table 17—Overrun for selected years

1968 1972 1976 1982 1985 2000 2006

Lumber overun 1.14 1.23 1.32 1.27 1.39 1.53 1.64

Source: Barrette et al. 1970; Hiserote and Howard 1978; Howard 1974, 1984; Howard and Ward 

1988; Morgan et al. 2004.
37

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2006

contribute to changes in mill residue production. In general, changes in the size and 

species mix of logs received and products produced by sawmills can cause residue 

factors to change (Keegan et al. 2010a, 2010b). Improved milling technology tends 

to reduce the amount of planer shavings, sawdust, and coarse residue generated 

per unit of lumber, while decreases in average log size can increase the volume of 

coarse residue generated. Also, demand for mill residue from the residue-utilizing 

sector can affect sawmill residue production, with sawmills allowing more residue 

(particularly coarse residue like clean chips) to be produced when demand for 

residue is relatively high and demand for lumber products is relatively low.

In 2006, California sawmills generated more than 2.1 million BDU of mill 

residue, accounting for nearly 91 percent of all mill residues generated that year 

(tables 19 and 20). The remaining 9 percent of mill residue production came from 

veneer plants, utility pole facilities, and log home accent plants. 

Coarse residue was the state’s largest component of wood products residue 

(table 20). Facilities in California produced 1,005,542 BDU of coarse residue; only 

12 BDU were not used for some purpose. About 54 percent of coarse residue was 

used by the pulp and reconstituted board plants, 40 percent was used to produce 

energy, and about 6 percent was sold and used for other products.

Fine residues—sawdust and planer shavings—made up 25 percent of residue 

(656,818 BDU) in 2006. Sawdust composed 60 percent and planer shavings 40 

percent of fine residue. All fine residue was used in some fashion, primarily as fuel 

(399,746 BDU) or in reconstituted board products (157,786 BDU). California facilities generated 610,503 BDU of bark while processing timber in 2006—all but 0.05 

percent of which was used by other sectors. Seventy-three percent of bark (442,328 

BDU) was used for bioenergy, and 27 percent (167,933 BDU) was used as landscaping or soil additives.

Table 19—Volume of wood residue generated by California's sawmills, 2006

Wood residue Percentage of type Percentage

Residue type Used Unused Total Used Unused of total

- - - - - - - Bone-dry units.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent- - - - - - - - - - - -

Coarse 918,231 — 918,231 100 — 100

Fine 

 Sawdust 363,560 — 363,560 100 — 100

 Planer shavings 264,258 — 264,258 100 — 100

Bark 531,349 227 531,576 99.96 0.04 100

Total 2,077,398 227 2,077,625 99.9 0.01 100
38

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-866

Forest Product Sales, Employment, and 

Worker Earnings

Mills responding to the FIDACS survey summarized their calendar year 2006 shipments, providing information on volume, sales value, and geographic destination of 

finished wood products. Mills usually distributed their products either through their 

own distribution channels or through independent wholesalers and selling agents. 

Because of subsequent transactions, the geographic destination reported here 

may not reflect final delivery points of shipments. The map in figure 13 shows the 

regions where California’s manufactured wood products were distributed in 2006. 

Canada and the Pacific Rim destinations are not shown on the map.

The 2006 census collected market information by geographic destination and 

product type (table 21). California’s primary wood products sales, including bioenergy, totaled slightly more than $1.5 billion in 2006. Sales of lumber and sawn 

products accounted for 64 percent of total sales, slightly less than $985 million. The 

residue-utilizing sector accounted for 17 percent ($257 million) of sales, bioenergy 

sales made up 13 percent ($201 million), and other products made up the other 6 

percent ($96 million).

At nearly $1.1 billion and 70 percent of total sales, California is its own largest 

market for wood and paper products. The majority (75 percent) of lumber remains 

in the state, whereas just over half (52 percent) of output from the residue-utilizing 

sector is retained in-state. Almost all of the energy and electricity produced by the 

Table 20—California's production and disposition of wood products residue, 2006

Landscape products, 

Type of Total Pulp animal bedding, Total

residuea utilized and board Energy and other uses Unutilized produced

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Bone-dry units - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Coarse 1,005,530 540,573 401,227 63,730 12 1,005,542

Fine 

 Sawdust 392,560 68,267 281,666 42,626 — 392,560

 Planer shavings 264,258 89,519 118,080 56,660 — 264,258

Bark 610,261 — 442,328 167,933 242 610,503

All residue 2,272,609 698,359 1,243,301 330,949 253 2,272,862

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percentage of residue by residue type - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Course 99.99 53.8 39.9 6.3 <.01 100

Fine

 Sawdust 100.00 17.4 71.8 10.9 — 100

 Planer shavings 100.00 33.9 44.7 21.4 — 100

Bark 99.96 — 72.5 27.5 0.04 100

All residue 99.99 31.1 54.7 14.6 0.01 100

a Includes residue from the manufacture of lumber, veneer, utility poles, and houselogs.

California’s primary 

wood products sales, 

including bioenergy, 

totaled slightly more 

than $1.5 billion in 

2006.

At nearly $1.1 billion 

and 70 percent of total 

sales, California is its 

own largest market 

for wood and paper 

products.
39

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2006

Figure 13—Shipment destinations of California’s primary wood products. Regions are California (1), Far West (2), Rocky 

Mountains (3), North Central (4), South (5), and Northeast (6). 

HI

6

4

3

2

1

5

2 AK

CA

OR

WA

ID

MT

NV

UT

AZ NM

CO

WY

ND

SD

NE

KS MO

IA

MN

WI

IL

MI

IN

OH

PA

NY

VT

NH

ME

MA

CT RI

NJ

DE MD

PA

VT

NH

MA

CT RI

NJ

DE MD

WV

NC

VA

KY

TN

SC

AL GA

LA

FL

MS TX

OK AR

Table 21—Destination and value of California's primary wood products sales, 2006

 Rocky North

Product California Far West Mountains Central Northeast South Othera Total

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Thousands of 2006 U.S. dollars - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Lumber, timbers, and 737,984 52,017 73,611 65,691 29,935 21,457 4,029 984,723

 associated products 

Residue-utilizing sectorb 133,510 8,728 9,008 2,183 91 835 102,965 257,321

Energy and electric 201,328 77 — — — — — 201,404

Veneer and other

 primary wood productsc 385 91,257 851 — — — 3,800 96,294

2006—All primary 1,073,207 152,079 83,470 67,874 30,026 22,292 110,795 1,539,742

 wood products

2000—All primary 1,418,295 263,675 177,091 213,285 83,975 59,693 77,445 2,293,459

 wood productsd

a Other destinations include the Pacific Rim and Canada.

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

facilities, and bark plants.

c Veneer and other primary wood products include log home accents, peeler cores, pencil stock, utility poles, and veneer.

d Source: Morgan et al. 2004.
40

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-866

bioenergy sector are also used in-state. Veneer and other primary wood products 

are sold in higher proportions out of state with 95 percent of veneer and other 

products sold to the Far West states. The sale of veneer to plywood and LVL mills 

in Oregon accounts for much of these sales.

The Far West states make up the second largest market for primary wood 

products made in California, at $152 million or 10 percent of 2006 sales; primarily 

through lumber and veneer sales. About 5 percent of all lumber is bought by users 

in these states, and lumber constitutes 34 percent of sales to the region. The Rocky 

Mountain States accounted for 5 percent of California’s primary forest industry 

sales, the majority of it (88 percent) in the form of lumber. The North Central states 

received 4 percent of total sales value, again most of it as lumber (97 percent). Sales 

to the Northeast totaled just over $30 million, or about 2 percent of total California 

primary wood product sales, while sales to the South approached $23 million, or a 

little over 1 percent. 

Exports constituted a larger percentage of California’s total primary wood products sales in 2006 relative to earlier years. An estimated $111 million in products 

went to Canada and the Pacific Rim countries, about 7 percent of total sales; this 

compares to $ 77 million or 4 percent in 2000. The bulk ($103 million) of sales to 

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

Employment and Worker Earnings in California’s 

Forest Products Industry

Employment data reported in the FIDACS mill census were used in conjunction 

with employment and earnings data from the U.S. Department of Commerce 

Regional Economic Information System to identify employment and labor income 

for California’s primary and secondary forest products industry. Labor income is 

generally a more reliable measure of economic activity than employment because 

of the often substantial differences in earnings per worker. The primary forest 

products industry includes logging, processing logs into lumber and other wood 

products, processing wood residues from timber-processing plants into outputs such 

as paper or electricity, and private sector forest management services. The secondary industry, as defined in this report, includes the further processing outputs (e.g., 

manufacturing windows or doors from lumber) from the primary industry, although 

the outputs may be from California or elsewhere. The FIDACS census was then 

used to more precisely identify the proportion of the total wood and paper products 

industry classified as primary and to provide additional detail by sector and geographic region within California. 
41

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2006

Starting in 1997, most of the primary and secondary wood products industry 

is reported in the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). The 

forest products industry can be found in four categories: NAICS 113—forestry and 

logging; NAICS 1153—forestry support activities; NAICS 321—wood product 

manufacturing; and NAICS 322—paper manufacturing. Prior to 2001, most of the 

industry could be found in three standard industrial classifications (SIC) as defined 

by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget: SIC 08—forestry services; SIC 

24—lumber and wood products; and SIC 26—pulp, paper, and allied products. 

Industry totals are not completely comparable between the SIC and NAICS systems. To remedy this discrepancy, the U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of 

Economic Analysis has made state-level personal income information available in 

NAICS from 1990 to 2006, thus allowing enough years for reasonable time series 

with the data (USDC BEA 2009). These classifications were used to estimate total 

direct employment and income to workers (labor income) in California’s forest 

products industry. They provide a conservative representation of the wood and 

paper products industry, as they capture the majority of the primary and secondary activity. However, a number of activities (i.e., hauling of logs and other raw 

materials by independent truckers; hauling of finished products by truck, rail, or 

barge; and forest management activities related to timber production by government employees) involving several thousand workers are not included in these 

NAICS sectors. 

Based on the four NAICS sectors (113, 1153, 321, and 322), approximately 

78,100 workers (fig. 14), earning more than $4.4 billion annually (fig. 15), were 

directly employed in the primary and secondary wood and paper products industry, 

including logging, in California during 2006 (USDC BEA 2009). Consequently, 

average worker earnings across California’ primary and secondary wood products 

industries were about $52,400 per year. These employment and earnings figures do 

not include indirect or induced economic impacts, which have suggested that every 

direct job supports an additional 1.5 jobs (Phillips 2006).

About 15,000 workers were employed in the harvesting and processing of 

timber or in private sector land management, and they earned about $680 million in 

labor income. The remaining component of the industry can be classified as secondary and employed about 63,000 workers in 2006, with worker earnings of approximately $3.4 billion. The secondary wood and paper industry relies on the output of 

the primary industry from California and other parts of the world for raw materials.

Total employment in California’s wood and paper products industry has 

decreased since 1990, when employment was over 105,000. Trends in labor income 

show similar declines from about $4.8 billion (in 2006 dollars) in labor income 

Approximately 78,100 

workers earning 

more than $4.4 billion 

annually were directly 

employed in the wood 

and paper products 

industry, including 

logging, in California 

during 2006.
42

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-866

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

5,500

Labor income (millions of 2006 U.S. dollars)

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Year

Figure 15—Adjusted labor income in California's wood and paper products industry, 1990–2007. 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce Census Bureau (2009).

Figure 14—Employment in California's wood and paper products industry, 1990–2006. 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis (2009).

 50

 75

 100

 125

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Number of workers (thousands)

Year
43

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2006

in 1990 to $4.4 billion in 2006. These long-term decreases have resulted almost 

entirely from losses in the primary industry. From 1990 to 2006, overall employment in California’s wood and paper products industry declined by nearly 27,000 

workers. Over this period, primary industry employment fell from about 39,000 

workers in 1990 to about 15,500 in 2006 (table 22). This 60-percent decline in 

employment in California over the last three decades is attributed mostly to declines 

in timber harvest and availability, and some impacts from increased mill efficiency 

as discussed earlier. This was compounded by the persistent economic downturn 

and housing decline in more recent years.

Although the total number of workers employed in California’s primary and 

secondary industry has been declining since the 1990s, the number of workers 

employed per MMBF (Scribner) of timber harvested increased fairly dramatically 

during the 1990s (fig. 16). Sharp declines in the volume of timber harvested in 

California and timber exports from California (see figs. 2 and 7) along with dramatic increases in timber imports and growth in the secondary industry contributed 

to the increase in workers per MMBF of timber harvested. Since 2001, employment 

per MMBF of timber harvested has been gradually declining. This decline may 

be a result of continued low levels of timber harvest resulting in more attrition in 

the primary sector in concert with a generally steeper rate of employment decline 

across the entire industry. The 2008/2009 economic recession is expected to further 

reduce employment as demand for housing and virtually all wood and paper goods 

has declined. This will likely reduce employment per MMBF of timber harvested, 

although a return to early 1990s levels is unlikely. 

Forest Industry Employment and Labor Income in California

California’s secondary wood and paper products industry is concentrated near 

population centers in the state’s southern and central counties. The primary forest 

products industry is concentrated in the northern counties, closer to where timber 

harvesting occurs. About 75 percent of the primary industry is concentrated among 

Table 22—California's primary wood products industry 

employment, selected years

Sector 1990 2000 2006

Logging and forest management 19,000 10,000 8,000 

Sawmills and veneer facilities 12,000 6,000 5,000 

All other manufacturers 8,000 4,000 2,500 

Total primary employment 39,000 20,000 15,500 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis (2009).
44

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-866

11 contiguous northern counties (i.e., Del Norte, Humboldt, Lassen, Mendocino, 

Modoc, Plumas, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, Tehama, and Trinity). These 11 northern 

counties are home to only 1.7 percent of the state’s population, about 1.2 percent of 

labor income, and 1.5 percent of the state’s employment. However, these counties 

contain more than 65 percent of primary forest products industry workers, earning 

over $535 million (70 percent) of labor income.

During 2006, approximately 4 percent of total employment and 5 percent of 

the 11-county region’s total labor income of $535 million was in the primary and 

secondary wood and paper products industry. Considering associated industries 

and indirect impacts, industry likely accounts for 10 percent of earnings by people 

engaged in the work force in these counties. Based on percentage of total labor 

income during 2006, Sierra County had the highest concentration of wood and 

paper products in its economy at 11 percent. Humboldt County, with the largest 

industry concentration, had 7 percent of total labor income directly in wood and 

paper products.

During the 1970s, the wood and paper products industry accounted for over 20 

percent of direct total labor income and over 33 percent of the economic activity in 

these counties. However, with the declines in the wood and paper products industry 

described earlier and diversification of the region’s economy, direct labor income 

Figure 16—Employment per unit volume of timber harvested in California, 1990–2007. 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis (2009).

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Year

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Workers per million board feet Scribner
45

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2006

fell to just over 12 percent in 1990. By 2000, 8.8 percent of the region’s total labor 

income was directly in the wood and paper products industry, and by 2006 that 

dropped to 5 percent. So while these 11 northern counties remain a very important 

part of California’s wood products industry, declines in the industry, particularly in 

the primary sector, can disproportionately affect the region. Consequently, policymakers and others with concerns for the wood products industry should be aware 

that statewide policies and legislation, whether related to the environment, labor, 

or industry, will generally have larger impacts on the residents of these northern 

counties than on the state’s population as a whole. 

Metric Equivalents

When you know:	 Multiply by:	 To find:

Inches 2.54 Centimeters

Feet 0.3048 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 0.06997 Cubic meters per hectare

Ounce 28349.5 Milligrams

Pounds 0.453 Kilograms

Pounds per cubic foot 16.018 Kilograms per cubic meter

Tons per acre 2.24 Megagrams per hectare

Degrees Fahrenheit (°F – 32)/1.8 Degrees Celsius

British thermal units (Btu) .000293 Kilowatt hours

Pounds per cubic foot .016 Grams per cubic centimeter 

 
46

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-866

References

Barrette, B.R.; Gedney, D.R.; Oswald, D.D. 1970. California timber industries, 

1968: mill characteristics and wood supply. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Conservation, Division of Forestry. 117 p.

California Energy Commission. 2003. Glossary of energy terms. http://www.

energyquest.ca.gov/glossary/index.html. (March 7, 2003).

California State Board of Equalization. 1978–2007. California timber harvests. 

Timber Yield Tax Program. http://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/timbertax.htm. 

(December 1, 2008).

Christensen, G.A.; Campbell, S.J.; Fried, J.S., tech. eds. 2008. California’s 

forest resources, 2001–2005: five-year Forest Inventory and Analysis report. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-763. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 183 p.

Ehinger, P.F. 2009. Personal communication. Consulting forester, Paul F. Ehinger 

& Associates, 2300 Oakmont Way, #212, Eugene, OR 97401.

Hartman, D.A.; Atkinson, W.A.; Bryant, B.S.; Woodfin, R.O. 1981. Conversion factors for the Pacific Northwest forest industry. Seattle, WA: University of 

Washington, College of Forest Resources, Institute of Forest Products. 112 p.

Healey, S.P.; Blackard, J.A.; Morgan, T.A.; Loeffler, D.; Jones, G.; Brandt,

J.P.; Moisen, G.G.; DeBlander, L.T. 2009. Changes in timber haul emissions 

in the context of shifting forest management and infrastructure. Carbon Balance 

and Management. 4(9). doi:10.1186/1750-0680-4-9.

Hiserote, B.A.; Howard, J.O. 1978. California’s forest industry, 1976. Resour. 

Bull. PNW-RB-80. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 95 p.

Howard, J.O. 1974. California forest industry: wood consumption and characteristics, 1972. Resour. Bull. PNW-RB-52. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment 

Station. 91 p.
47

California’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2006

Howard, J.O. 1984. California forest industry: 1982. Resour. Bull. PNW-RB-119. 

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

Forest and Range Experiment Station. 79 p.

Howard, J.O.; Ward, F.R. 1988. California’s forest products industry: 1985. 

Resour. Bull. PNW-RB-150. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 72 p.

Howard, J.O.; Ward, F.R. 1991. California’s forest products industry: 1988. 

Resour. Bull. PNW-RB-181. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 69 p.

Keegan, C.E.; Morgan, T.A.; Blatner, K.A.; Daniels, J.M. 2010a. Trends in lumber processing in the western United States, part 1: board foot Scribner volume 

per cubic foot of timber. Forest Products Journal. 60 (2): 133–139.

Keegan, C.E.; Morgan, T.A.; Blatner, K.A.; Daniels, J.M. 2010b. Trends in lumber processing in the western United States, part 2: overrun and lumber recovery 

factors. Forest Products Journal. 60 (2): 140–143.

Miles, P.D.; Hansen, M.H. 2008. Forest inventory EVALIDator web-application 

version 1.0. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Northern Research Station. http://199.128.173.26/evalidator/tmattribute.jsp. 

(February 2009).

Morgan, T.A.; Keegan, C.E.; Dillon, T.; Chase, A.L.; Fried, J.S.; Weber, M.H.

2004. California’s forest products industry: a descriptive analysis. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PNW-GTR-615. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 55 p.

Phillips, R.H. 2006. Jobs and income associated with resource and recreation 

outputs. In: Charnley, S., tech. coord., Northwest Forest Plan: The first ten years 

(1994–2003): socioeconomic monitoring results. Volume III: Rural communities 

and economies. Gen.Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-649. Portland, OR: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 37–51.

Random Lengths. 1976–2009. Forest product market prices and statistics yearbook. Eugene, OR: Random Lengths Publications, Inc.
48

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-866

Random Lengths. 1993. Terms of the trade. Eugene, OR: Random Lengths Publications, Inc. 351 p.

Random Lengths. 2006. Big book 2006: the buyers and sellers directory of the 

forest products industry. Eugene, OR: Random Lengths Publications, Inc. 1168 p.

RISI. 2006. 2007 Lockwood-Post directory of the pulp, paper, and allied trades. 

San Francisco, CA: 793 p.

Society of American Foresters. 1998. The Dictionary of forestry. Helms, J.A., ed. 

Bethesda, MD. 210 p.

Spelter, H.; McKeever, D.; Alderman, M. 2007. Profile 2007: Softwood sawmills 

in the United States and Canada. Res. Pap. FPL-RP-644. Madison, WI: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. 65 p.

Steer, H.B. 1948. Lumber production in the United States, 1799–1946. Misc. Publ. 

669. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 233 p.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau (USDC CB). 2009. Annual 

Survey of Manufactures (ASM). http://www.census.gov/mcd/asmhome.html/. 

(June 2009).

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis (USDC BEA).

2009. Regional Economic Information System (REIS). http//www.bea.gov/

regional/reis/. (February 2009).

Ward, F.R. 1995. California’s forest products industry: 1992. Resour. Bull. PNWRB-206. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 68 p.

Ward, F.R. 1997. California’s forest products industry: 1994. Resour. Bull. PNWRB-217. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 60 p.

Western Wood Products Association [WWPA]. 1964–2009. Statistical yearbook 

of the Western lumber industry. Portland, OR. Annual.
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
U.S. Department of Agriculture

Pacific Northwest Research Station

333 SW First Avenue

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208–3890

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300