United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station Resource Bulletin RB-21 May 2016

The Four Corners Timber 

Harvest and Forest Products 

Industry, 2012
Sorenson, Colin B.; Hayes, Steven W.; Morgan, Todd A.; Simmons, Eric A.; Scudder, Micah G.; 

McIver, Chelsea P.; Thompson, Mike T. 2016. The Four Corners timber harvest and forest 

products industry, 2012. Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-21. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 62 p.

Abstract

This report traces the flow of timber harvested in the “Four Corners” States (Arizona, Colorado, 

New Mexico, and Utah) during calendar year 2012, describes the composition and operations of the 

region’s primary forest products industry, and quantifies volumes and uses of wood fiber. Recent 

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

and sales of primary wood products.

Keywords: forest economics, lumber production, mill residue, primary forest products, timber 

products

Authors

Colin B. Sorenson is an Economist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Region One, 

Missoula, Montana, Steven W. Hayes is a Research Forester, Todd A. Morgan is Director of Forest 

Industry Research, Eric. A. Simmons is a Research Associate, Micah G. Scudder is a Research 

Forester, and Chelsea P. McIver is a Research Specialist, Bureau of Business and Economic 

Research, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana. Mike T. Thompson is a Forester, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Forestry Sciences 

Laboratory, Ogden, Utah.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge Erik C. Berg for his work collecting data for Colorado mills, including extensive phone interviews and site visits to several mills in the State. We also thank the following people 

for reviewing and offering feedback on various portions of the report: Patrick Rappold, Tim Reader, 

Mike Retzlaff, Brent Racher, Darren McAvoy, and Bill Zanotti.

All Rocky Mountain Research Station publications are written and produced by U.S. Forest Service employees and 

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

they are formatted according to U.S. Department of Agriculture standards and research findings and formatting 

cannot be altered in reprints. Altering content or formatting, including the cover and title page, is strictly prohibited.
Report Highlights

•  During calendar year 2012, more than 201.7 million board feet (MMBF)

of timber was harvested from the Four Corners States (Arizona,

Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah). Most (73 percent) of the harvested

volume came from national forests; the rest came from nonindustrial

private and tribal timberlands. Ponderosa pine was the leading species

harvested for timber in the Four Corners States during 2012, accounting

for 43 percent of the total. Lodgepole pine accounted for 26 percent, followed by Douglas-fir at 12 percent and aspen at 9 percent.

•  During 2012, the Four Corners States had a net outflow of timber. Four

Corners timber outflow totaled 8.9 MMBF Scribner. Total timber inflow

to Four Corners mills was 0.4 MMBF Scribner.

•  Timber-processing capacity (in other words, the volume of timber that

could be used by existing timber processors if demand for products were

firm and sufficient raw material were available) in the Four Corners

during 2012 was about 451 MMBF Scribner, representing a 30 percent

increase from the 2007 capacity. The increase in processing capacity in

the region is primarily due to new or reconfigured mills designed to generate electricity or produce energy products like fuel pellets.

•  This report identified 129 primary timber processing facilities active during 2012 in the Four Corners. Among these facilities were 70 sawmills,

22 log home or house log manufacturers, 7 post and pole facilities, 6 log

furniture producers, 6 viga and latilla producers, and 18 other facilities.

•  During 2012, production of lumber and other sawn products exceeded

185 MMBF lumber tally. Lumber production was 50 MMBF in Arizona,

98 MMBF in Colorado, 25 MMBF in New Mexico, and 12 MMBF in

Utah.

•  Four Corners timber processors produced 232,366 bone-dry units (BDU)

of residue during 2012, of which just 5,783 BDU (3 percent) went unused. Sawmills generated 191,796 BDU—83 percent of all mill residues

in the region.

•  The Four Corners primary wood product sales value (f.o.b. the producing

mill), including mill residues, totaled $233 million during 2012. Nearly

$153 million (65 percent) of sales were within the Four Corners States.

Lumber and other sawn products sales totaled $73 million or 31 percent

of sales.

Contents

Introduction......................................................................................................................1

Four Corners Regional Summary .................................................................................2

Timber Harvest..............................................................................................................2

Forest Products Industry Composition and Operations ................................................5

Mill Residue: Quantity, Types, and Use.........................................................................5

Primary Forest Products Sales and Industry Employment............................................7

Arizona .............................................................................................................................8

Timber Harvest, Flow, and Use.....................................................................................8

Capacity and Utilization...............................................................................................18

Mill Residue Volumes, Types, and Uses .....................................................................18

Primary Forest Products Sales and Industry Employment..........................................19

Colorado.........................................................................................................................20

Timber Harvest, Flow, and Use...................................................................................21

Forest Industry Sectors ...............................................................................................27

Capacity and Utilization...............................................................................................31

Mill Residue Volumes, Types, and Uses .....................................................................31

Primary Forest Products Sales and Industry Employment..........................................32

New Mexico....................................................................................................................34

Timber Harvest, Flow, and Use...................................................................................34

Forest Industry Sectors ...............................................................................................40

Capacity and Utilization...............................................................................................44

Mill Residue Volumes, Types, and Uses .....................................................................44

Primary Forest Products Sales and Industry Employment..........................................45

Utah.................................................................................................................................46

Timber Harvest, Flow, and Use...................................................................................47

Forest Industry Sectors ...............................................................................................53

Capacity and Utilization...............................................................................................57

Mill Residue Volumes, Types, and Uses .....................................................................57

Primary Forest Products Sales and Industry Employment..........................................58

References .....................................................................................................................60

iii
Figure 4C-1—Map of Four Corners primary timber processors.

iv
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-21. 2016. 1

Introduction_______________________________________

This report details timber harvest and describes the composition and operations of the primary forest products industry in the “Four Corners” States

(Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah) during calendar year 2012. The report focuses on trends and changes in timber harvest and timber processing since

the last industry census of 2007 operations. More information on prior years and

historical perspectives can be found in Hayes et al. (2012).

Timber used in the direct manufacture of products is the focus of this report. Products directly manufactured from timber are referred to as “primary

products” and include lumber, posts and poles, house logs, log furniture, vigas

and latillas, and excelsior. Reconstituted products made from chipped or ground

timber, as well as products from mill residue (i.e., bark, sawdust, log ends, chips,

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

included. These reconstituted primary products include wood pellets, bark products, and fuelwood. Mills manufacturing derivative, or “secondary” products

(e.g., window frames, doors, trusses, and furniture) made from primary products

were not surveyed for this report.

The major source of data for this report was a census of primary forest products facilities in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah and mills in other

States that received timber from the Four Corners States during calendar year

2012. Firms were identified through telephone directories, Internet queries, and

directories of the forest products industries (Random Lengths 2012), and with

the assistance of State forestry agencies, extension foresters, and the mills themselves. Firms cooperating in the Four Corners census, including out-of-State

mills, processed virtually all of the commercial timber harvested from Arizona,

Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah in 2012.

This report is the direct result of a cooperative effort between the University

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

USDA Forest Service, Interior West Forest Inventory and Analysis (IW-FIA)

program. Together, BBER and Forest Service research stations have been conducting periodic mill censuses in the Rocky Mountains since the 1970s. The

Forest Industries Data Collection System (FIDACS) was developed by BBER

and IW-FIA to collect, compile, and make available State- and county-level information on the operations of the forest products industry and the timber it uses.

The FIDACS uses a written questionnaire or phone interview of forest products

manufacturers to collect the following information for each facility for a given

calendar year: production capacity and employment; volume of raw material

received by county and ownership; species and live versus dead proportions

of timber received; finished product volumes, types, sales values, and market

locations; and utilization and marketing of manufacturing residue. Information

collected through the FIDACS is processed, analyzed, and stored at the BBER

in Missoula, Montana. Additional information is available by request; however,

individual firm-level data are confidential and will not be released.
2 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-21. 2016.

Four Corners Regional Summary

This chapter discusses the Four Corners region as a whole, providing information on the forest products industry and timber harvest in 2012, with some

historical context. It presents ownership and species composition of harvested

timber, types of timber products harvested and processed, and movement of

timber within the Four Corners and between the region and other States. Timberprocessing and production capacities, utilization of mill residues, and forest

products sales and employment are also discussed at the regional level.

Timber Harvest

Harvest volumes presented in this report for calendar year 2012 came from

the FIDACS census of Four Corners and out-of-State mills receiving timber harvested from the region. Periodic State-level reports (Wilson and Spencer 1967;

Setzer and Wilson 1970; Setzer 1971a,b; Green and Setzer 1974; Setzer and

Barrett 1977; Setzer and Shupe 1977; Setzer and Throssell 1977a,b; McLain

1985, 1988, 1989; Keegan et al. 1995, 2001a,b; Morgan et al. 2006; Hayes et al.

2012) provided the bulk of historical timber harvest information. Small differences may exist between the numbers reported here and those in harvest and “cut

and sold” reports by the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management

and the Forest Service. These differences are due to varying reporting units and

conversion factors, rounding error, scaling discrepancies between sellers and

buyers, and other reporting variations.

During calendar year 2012, more than 201.7 million board feet (MMBF) of

timber was harvested from Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah. This

harvest volume represents just 0.1 percent of the approximately 153.9 billion

board feet of sawtimber inventory on nonreserved timberlands in the four States

(USDA Forest Service 2014). Of the timber harvested in the Four Corners States

in 2012, 49 percent was live and 51 percent was salvage or standing dead when

harvested. Timber harvested from Four Corners timberland and manufactured

into wood products came from three broad ownership classes: tribal lands, nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) land, and public lands. Most (76.3 percent) of

the harvested volume came from public lands; the rest (23.7 percent) came from

NIPF and tribal timberlands (table 4C-1). Ponderosa pine was the leading species harvested for timber in the Four Corners States during 2012, accounting

for 43 percent of the total (table 4C-2). Lodgepole pine accounted for 25.8 percent, followed by Douglas-fir and aspen at 11.7 and 9.3 percent, respectively.

Although sawlogs were the leading component of the Four Corners timber harvest in 2012 (table 4C-3), the 2012 sawlog harvest marked a decrease compared

to 2007, in terms of thousand board feet (MBF) Scribner and percentage of the

total. Trees harvested for fiber logs and industrial fuelwood were 23 percent of

the total, a threefold increase from 2007, and house logs fell from 5.9 percent of

the 2007 harvest to 3.9 percent of the harvest in 2012.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-21. 2016. 3

Table 4C-1—Four Corners timber harvest by ownership class, 2002, 2007 and 2012 (Morgan et al. 2006; Hayes et al. 2012).

2002 2007 2012

MBF Percentage MBF Percentage MBF Percentage

Ownership class Scribner of harvest Scribner of harvest Scribner of harvest

Private and tribal timberland 234,456 72.5 117,708 55.9 47,739 23.7

Tribal 134,840 41.7 23,714 11.3 8,796 4.4

Private 99,616 30.8 93,994 44.7 38,942 19.3

Public timberland 89,105 27.5 92,700 44.1 153,943 76.3

National Forest 84,536 26.1 86,036 40.9 147,918 73.3

Other public 4,569 1.4 6,664 3.2 6,025 3.0

All owners 323,561 100 210,408 100 201,682 100

Table 4C-2—Four Corners timber harvest by species, 2002, 2007 and 2012 (Morgan et al. 2006; Hayes et al. 

2012).

2002 2007 2012

MBF Percentage MBF Percentage MBF Percentage

Species Scribner of harvest Scribner of harvest Scribner of harvest

Ponderosa pine 186,955 57.8 73,041 34.7 86,696 43.0

Lodgepole pine 21,822 6.7 50,648 24.1 52,115 25.8

Douglas-fir 30,165 9.3 19,065 9.1 23,673 11.7

Aspen 20,399 6.3 28,088 13.3 18,748 9.3

Spruces 46,850 14.5 27,057 12.9 11,490 5.7

Firs 16,882 5.2 12,351 5.9 6,005 3.0

Other speciesa 489 0.2 158 0.1 2,954 1.5

All species 323,562 100 210,408 100 201,682 100

a Other species include juniper, other softwoods, and hardwoods other than aspen.

Table 4C-3—Four Corners timber harvest by product, 2002, 2007 and 2012 (Morgan et al. 2006; Hayes et al. 

2012).

2002 2007 2012

MBF Percentage MBF Percentage MBF Percentage

Product Scribner of harvest Scribner of harvest Scribner of harvest

Sawlogs 279,317 86.3 174,629 83.0 141,160 70.0

Fiber logs and 

industrial fuelwood 14,763 4.6 15,144 7.2 46,450 23.0

House logs 20,695 6.4 12,495 5.9 7,906 3.9

Posts and poles 4,104 1.3 5,497 2.6 3,801 1.9

Vigas 3,655 1.1 2,368 1.1 1,649 0.8

Other productsa 1,029 0.3 275 0.1 717 0.4

All products 323,562 100 210,408 100 201,682 100

a Other products include furniture logs, pilings, and utility poles.
4 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-21. 2016.

Timber Flow and Mill Receipts

During 2012, the Four Corners region had a net outflow of timber, with 4.2

percent (8,912 MBF) of the regional harvest flowing to States outside of the

Four Corners region for processing (table 4C-4). About 82 percent (7,300 MBF)

of this volume was sawlogs. By ownership, timber from national forests flowed

to States outside of the region in the largest volumes (6,289 MBF), and timber from State lands accounted for 1,500 MBF. This flow of timber out of the

region created a difference in the volume of timber harvested from the Four

Corners and the volume received by the region’s mills. Almost all (99.7 percent)

of the timber used by primary forest products firms in the Four Corners came

from within the four-State region. A small amount of additional volume (0.4

MMBF Scribner) came from Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Oregon, Mississippi,

and Canada.

The 2012 harvest was more than 201.7 MMBF, and total receipts by Four

Corners mills were slightly more than 193 MMBF, or 96 percent of the harvest.

Sawlogs accounted for the majority (70 percent) of timber received by Four

Corners mills (table 4C-5), followed by fuelwood/bioenergy logs (16 percent).

The National Forest System (NFS) lands (national forests) supplied the largest share (71 percent) of timber received by mills in the four States, followed

by NIPF owners (21 percent) and then tribal landowners (5 percent). Timberprocessing capacity (the volume of timber that could be used by existing timber

processors if demand for products were firm and sufficient raw material were

available) in the Four Corners during 2012 was about 451 MMBF, Scribner.

Thus, about 43 percent of timber-processing capacity in the region was utilized

during 2012. Although overall timber processing capacity increased 30 percent

between 2007 and 2012, most of the increase was capacity to process timber

products other than sawlogs and houselogs, such as logs going to biomass energy facilities and fuel pellet manufacturers. The low level of capacity utilization

in the region, particularly among sawmills, indicates an ability to increase production as timber availability and markets improve. It also suggests that some

mills are running at or below their financial operating limits and may close in

the future.

Table 4C-4—Four Corners timber product inflow and outflowa, 2012.

Timber product Inflow Outflow Net inflow (net outflow)

-----Thousand board feet, Scribner-----

Sawlogs 35 7,300 (7,265)

House logs 62 705 (643)

Other productsb 352 907 (556)

All products 449 8,912 (8,464)

a Inflows are from other States and Canada. Outflows are to other States only.

b Other products include post and poles, fiber logs, firewood, furniture logs, vigas and 

industrial fuel wood.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-21. 2016. 5

Forest Products Industry Composition and Operations

The FIDACS census identified 129 primary timber-processing facilities active during 2012 in the Four Corners region. These facilities were 70 sawmills,

22 log home or house log manufacturers, 7 post and pole facilities, 6 log furniture producers, 6 viga and latilla producers, and 18 other facilities.

Primary timber processors in the Four Corners produced an array of products

including: dimension lumber, board and shop lumber, timbers, pallet stock, dunnage, excelsior, posts, poles, vigas, latillas, finished house logs, log homes, and

log furniture, as well as wood pellets, biomass-generated electricity, firewood,

bark, mulch, and pulp chips from mill residues. During 2012, production of lumber and other sawn products exceeded 185 MMBF lumber tally. Contributions

from Colorado were 98 MMBF, from Arizona 50 MMBF, from New Mexico 25

MMBF, and from Utah 12 MMBF. Production of house logs, vigas, and latillas

totaled 2.8 million lineal feet (MMLF). Facilities in the Four Corners States also

produced more than 1.8 million pieces for log furniture, and thousands of posts

and poles.

Mill Residue: Quantity, Types, and Use

A substantial portion of the timber processed by primary forest product plants

ends up as mill residue. Three types of wood residues are typically generated

by the primary wood products industry: coarse or chippable residue consisting

of slabs, edging, trim, and log ends; fine residue consisting primarily of planer

shavings and sawdust; and bark. The 2012 census collected 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 residue.

All mills reported how their residue was used on a percentage basis. One BDU

is the equivalent of 2,400 pounds of oven-dry wood.

Table 4C-5—Timber received by the Four Corners primary forest products industry by ownership class and product, 2012.

 Fuelwood/ Other All

Ownership class Sawlogs bioenergy House logs Post/pole productsb products

------------------------------Thousand board feet, Scribner------------------------------

Private and tribal timberland 35,668 1,407 2,557 1,336 5,737 46,705

Private 28,762 786 2,512 1,336 4,513 37,908

Tribal 6,905 621 45 1,225 8,796

Public timberland 98,227 28,155 4,706 1,558 13,868 146,514

National Forest 95,459 27,893 4,644 1,410 12,304 141,710

Other ownersa 2,769 262 62 148 1,564 4,803

All owners 133,895 29,561 7,263 2,894 19,605 193,218

--------------------------Percentage of product by ownership--------------------------

Private and tribal timberland 26.6 4.8 35.2 46.2 29.3 24.2

Private 21.5 2.7 34.6 46.2 23.0 19.6

Tribal 5.2 2.1 0.6 - 6.2 4.6

Public timberland 73.4 95.2 64.8 53.8 70.7 75.8

National Forest 71.3 94.4 63.9 48.7 62.8 73.3

Other ownersa 2.1 0.9 0.8 5.1 8.0 2.5

All owners 69.3 15.3 3.8 1.5 10.1 100

a Other owners include other public ownerships and Canadian imports.

b Other products include fiber logs, pulp logs, for log furniture, vigas, latillas, and fiber logs.
6 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-21. 2016.

Four Corners timber processors produced 232,366 BDU of residue during

2012, of which just 5,783 BDU (2.5 percent) went unused (table 4C-6). Coarse

residue was the region’s largest residue component (54 percent of all residue),

with just over 1 percent going unused. About 26 percent of coarse residue was

used by the pulp and board sector, 38 percent went to the energy sector, and an

additional 35 percent went to other uses. Fine residue made up the second largest component (27 percent) in 2012, with sawdust composing 20 percent and

shavings 7 percent. All but 964 BDU (1.5 percent) of fine residue was used,

primarily as mulch or animal bedding and for biomass energy. Four Corners

facilities generated 45,172 BDU of bark while processing timber in 2012, of

which 92 percent was utilized. About 54 percent of bark was used as mulch, and

31 percent went to energy. During 2012, sawmills generated 191,795 BDU—83

percent of all mill residue in the region. Residue volume factors, which express

mill residue generated per unit of lumber produced, were derived from production and residue output volumes provided by mills (table 4C-7).

Table 4C-6—Production and disposition of Four Corners mill residues, 2012.

Total Pulp and Mulch/ Unspecified Total

Residue type utilized board Energy bedding use Unused produced

---------------------------------------------Bone-dry unitsa---------------------------------------------

Coarse 123,233 32,217 47,064 - 43,952 1,341 124,573

Fine 61,656 - 25,806 33,823 2,027 964 62,620

Sawdust 47,027 - 20,384 25,083 1,561 457 47,485

Planer shavings 14,628 - 5,422 8,740 466 507 15,135

Bark 41,694 - 14,106 24,146 3,441 3,478 45,172

All residues 226,582 32,217 86,977 57,969 49,420 5,783 232,366

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

Coarse 98.9 25.9 37.8 0.0 35.3 1.1 53.6

Fine 98.5 0.0 41.2 54.0 3.2 1.5 26.9

Sawdust 99.0 0.0 42.9 52.8 3.3 1.0 20.4

Planer shavings 96.7 0.0 35.8 57.7 3.1 3.3 6.5

Bark 92.3 0.0 31.2 53.5 7.6 7.7 19.4

All residues 97.5 13.9 37.4 24.9 21.3 2.5 100

a Bone-dry unit = 2,400 lb oven-dry wood.

Table 4C-7—Four Corners sawmill residue factors, 2002, 2007, and 2012 

(Morgan et al. 2006; Hayes et al. 2012).

2002 2007 2012

Residue type BDU per MBF BDU per MBF BDU per MBF

Coarse 0.56 0.56 0.63

Sawdust 0.19 0.19 0.19

Planer shavings 0.16 0.10 0.06

Bark 0.28 0.17 0.19

Total 1.19 1.02 1.07

a Bone-dry unit (BDU = 2,400 lb oven-dry wood) of residue generated for every 1,000 

board feet of lumber manufactured.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-21. 2016. 7

Primary Forest Products Sales and Industry Employment

Mills responding to the FIDACS survey summarized their calendar year 2012

shipments of finished wood products, providing information on volume, sales

value, and geographic destination. 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 the final delivery points of shipments.

The Four Corners primary wood product sales value (f.o.b. the producing

mill), including mill residue, totaled $233 million during 2012 (table 4C-8).

Nearly $153 million (65 percent) of these sales were within the Four Corners

States, and 31 percent ($73 million) of all sales were lumber, timbers, and other

sawn products, down from 44 percent of sales in 2007. Other products—which

include shavings, electricity, fuel pellets, erosion control products, firewood,

mulch, clean chips, animal bedding, utility poles, and mill residues—accounted

for $122 million or 52 percent of total sales, compared to 26 percent of sales

from this product category in 2007 (Hayes et al. 2012). Colorado led the region

with almost $91 million in sales, of which about $32 million came from the

other products sector (table C15). At $86 million, Arizona sales were a larger

share of the Four Corners region total than in prior industry census years. New

Mexico and Utah had sales of $40 million and $16 million, respectively, during

2012 (tables A18, N17, and U17).

Table 4C-8—Destination and sales value of Four Corners primary wood products and mill residues, 2012.

Within Other Mexico,

4-Corner Rocky Mtn North Canada,

Product States Statesa Far Westb Northeastc Southd Centrale or otherf Total

-------------------------------------------------Thousand 2012 dollars-------------------------------------------------

Lumber, timbers, and other 

sawn products 32,724 6,571 1,310 2,525 4,423 13,028 12,007 72,589

House logs and log homes 16,453 1,147 310 1,210 1,473 1,576 22,168

Posts, poles, vigas, latillas, 

and log furniture 11,074 1,343 1,147 945 885 1,381 16,775

Other productsg 92,591 3,518 5,399 2,501 7,248 6,761 3,912 121,931

Total 152,842 12,579 8,166 7,181 14,029 22,745 15,920 233,463

------------------------------------Percentage of regional sales by product-------------------------------------

Lumber, mine timbers, and 

other sawn products 21.4 52.2 16.0 35.2 31.5 57.3 75.4 31.1

House logs and log homes 10.8 9.1 3.8 16.8 10.5 6.9 - 9.5

Posts, poles, vigas, latillas, 

and log furniture 7.2 10.7 14.0 13.2 6.3 6.1 - 7.2

Other productsg 60.6 28.0 66.1 34.8 51.7 29.7 24.6 52.2

Total 65.5 5.4 3.5 3.1 6.0 9.7 6.8 100

a Other Rocky Mountains includes Idaho, Montana, Nevada.

b Far West includes Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington.

c Northeast includes Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont. d South includes Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South 

Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia. e North Central includes Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and 

Wisconsin. f

 Other areas consist of products being shipped outside the UnitedStates. g Other products include shavings, electricity, fuel pellets, erosion control products, firewood, mulch, clean chips, animal bedding, utility poles, and 

mill residues.
8 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-21. 2016.

Data reported in the FIDACS mill census were used in conjunction with

employment data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis to identify employment in the Four Corners States’ primary and secondary forest products industry.

The classification of the forest products industry used here follows the North

American Industry Classification System (NAICS) available from the U.S.

Department of Commerce. In this report, employment in the forest products

industry corresponds to the following categories: NAICS 113—forestry and

logging; NAICS 1153—forestry support activities; NAICS 321—wood product manufacturing; and NAICS 322—paper manufacturing. These categories

include employees who work in both the primary and secondary forest products

sector.

Based on the four NAICS sectors (113, 1153, 321, and 322), about 21,300

workers were directly employed in the primary and secondary forest products

industry in the Four Corners States during 2012 (U.S. Department of Commerce,

BEA 2014). Although employment in the industry increased slightly from

29,900 in 2002 to 32,300 in 2007, the 2012 employment in the forest industry

declined 34 percent from 2007. This is indicative of the pervasive impact of the

Great Recession, U.S. housing collapse, and slow recovery (Keegan et al. 2012).

About 4,000 workers were employed in harvesting and processing timber

or in private sector land management in the Four Corners region during 2012.

The remaining component of the industry can be classified as secondary and

employed about 17,300 workers. Based on the periodic industry censuses conducted, employment in timber processing mills decreased from 2,200 in 2002, to

1,700 in 2007, and 1,350 in 2012. The secondary wood and paper industry relies

on the output of the primary industry from the Four Corners States and other regions for raw materials; this is in contrast to the primary industry, which sources

the vast majority of raw material from within the four-State region. Therefore,

the primary industry is more closely linked to the timber resource and land management policy in the region.

Arizona_________________________________________________________

This chapter reviews Arizona’s 2012 timber harvest and forest products

industry activities and changes that occurred since the 2007 industry census

conducted by Hayes et al. (2012). Details of timber harvest, flow, and use are

followed by descriptions of the primary processing sectors, capacity and utilization statistics, and mill residue characteristics. The chapter concludes with

information on primary wood products industry sales by Arizona mills.

Timber Harvest, Flow, and Use

In 2012, Arizona had about 3.0 million acres of nonreserved timberland

(USDA FIDO 2014), with national forests accounting for 74 percent, private and

tribal owners accounting for 25 percent, and other public agencies accounting

for the remaining 1 percent (table A1). All private timberland was classified as

NIPF timberland. With the exception of several Native American tribes, Arizona

had no large tracts of timberland owned by entities operating primary wood
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-21. 2016. 9

processing facilities. Sawtimber volume on nonreserved timberlands was about

5.1 billion cubic feet (USDA FIDO 2014) or 30.5 billion board feet Scribner in

2013.

Timber Harvest

Arizona’s 2012 timber harvest was 71.4 MMBF Scribner (table A2), up 33

percent from the 2007 harvest (Hayes et al. 2012), but still just 56 percent of the

2002 harvest (Morgan et al. 2006). Since 2007, a major trend has been increased

harvest of timber products other than sawlogs. Although overall harvest was up

by one-third, the sawlog harvest was down by 8 percent and amounted to 66 percent of the total in 2012, compared to 95 percent of the total in 2007 (Hayes et al.

2012). In terms of ownership, timber harvest on private and tribal lands as a percentage of the total harvest declined sharply from 2007 to 2012, while the share

of the harvest on National Forest System lands more than doubled (table A3).

This period saw increased forest management through stewardship contracts

and coincided with implementation of the 10-year White Mountain Stewardship

Project, which began in August 2004 (Sitko and Hurteau 2010). The decrease in

private and tribal harvest was influenced by the fact that Arizona’s major users

of private and tribal timber during 2007 were inactive during 2012. Salvage harvest of dead timber was prevalent, with 56 percent of the harvest coming from

dead trees in 2012, versus just 8 percent in 2007. This large increase in salvage

harvest in 2012 was most likely due to salvage operations from the Wallow Fire,

which burned more than 535,000 acres in 2011 (USDA Forest Service 2011).

Table A1—Arizona nonreserved timberland by ownership class (U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, FIDO 2014).

 Percentage of

Ownership class Thousand acres nonreserved timberland

National Forest 2,227 74

Private and tribal 756 25

Other public 39 1

Total 3,022 100

Table A2—Arizona timber products harvested by ownership class, 2012.

Ownership class Sawlogs House logs Other productsa All products

-------------------Thousand board feet, Scribner---------------------

National Forest 44,802 1,420 22,447 68,669

Tribal timberland 1,662 5 558 2,225

Private timberland 270 60 63 393

State 130 130

All owners 46,864 1,485 23,069 71,418

---------Percentage of harvested product by ownership---------

National Forest 95.6 95.6 97.3 96.2

Tribal timberland 3.5 0.3 2.4 3.1

Private timberland 0.6 4.0 0.3 0.6

State 0.3 - - 0.2

All owners 65.6 2.1 32.3 100

a Other products include industrial fuelwood, fiber logs, energywood logs, posts and poles, and viga logs.
10 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-21. 2016.

Historically, 80 percent or more of the State’s annual timber harvest has

come from three counties: Apache, Coconino, and Navajo. Apache County

had the highest timber harvest in the State in 2007 (Hayes et al. 2012), but

Coconino County led Arizona’s 2012 timber harvest with 45 percent of total

volume. Apache County followed with 34 percent in 2012 (table A4), followed

by Navajo County with 13 percent.

Ponderosa pine continued to be the leading species harvested among all product typesinArizona in 2012 (tableA5), accounting for 84 percent of total harvest,

down from 86 percent in 2007 (table A5). Douglas-fir, white and subalpine firs,

and Engelmann spruce were harvested in relatively small quantities (table A6).

The 2012 harvest of 23.1 MMBF marked a tenfold increase in harvest of timber

products other than sawlogs and house logs from 2007 levels (table A7; Hayes

et al. 2012). These other products included industrial fuelwood, fiber logs, posts,

poles, and viga logs.

Timber Flow

The majority (97 percent) of Arizona’s 2012 timber harvest was processed

in-State. However, Arizona had a net outflow of timber. Just over 1.8 MMBF of

Table A4—Arizona timber harvest by county, selected years (McLain 1988; Keegan et al. 2001a; Morgan et al. 

2006; Hayes et al. 2012).

County 1984 1998 2002 2007 2012 1984 1998 2002 2007 2012

------------------------MBF Scribner------------------------ ------------------Percentage------------------

Apache 171,128 15,641 6,350 31,610 23,916 44.7 20.5 5.0 58.8 33.5

Coconino 150,727 15,314 14,889 14,353 32,118 39.4 20.1 11.6 26.7 45.0

Gila 931 5,405 39,960 1,960 2,729 0.2 7.1 31.2 3.6 3.8

Graham - - 1,100 1,100 - - - 0.9 2.0 -

Greenlee 4,623 1,515 - - - 1.2 2.0 - - -

Maricopa - - - - - - - - a a

Navajo 52,745 38,384 64,027 3,094 8,938 13.8 50.3 49.9 5.8 12.5

Pima - 33 - - 12 - a - - 0.0

Santa Cruz - - - 48 120 - - - 0.1 0.2

Yavapai 2,220 20 1,895 1,612 3,585 0.6 a 1.5 3.0 5.0

Totalb 382,674 76,312 128,220 53,777 71,418 100 100 100 100 100

a Less than 0.05 percent.

b Percentage detail may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

Table A3—Proportion of Arizona timber harvest by ownership class, selected years (Setzer 

1971a; Setzer and Throssell 1977; McLain 1988; Keegan et al. 2001a; Morgan et al. 2006; 

Hayes et al. 2012).

Ownership class 1966 1974 1984 1998 2002 2007 2012

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

Private and tribal timberland 25.0 41.0 33.5 63.0 84.4 59.0 3.8

Private 1.0 - 33.5 3.0 1.6 51.0 0.6

Tribal 24.0 41.0 - 60.0 82.8 8.0 3.2

Public timberland 75.0 59.0 66.5 37.0 15.6 41.0 96.2

National Forest 75.0 59.0 66.2 37.0 15.6 40.0 96.1

Other public - - 0.3 - - 1.0 0.2

All owners 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-21. 2016. 11

Table A5—Proportion of Arizona timber harvest by species, selected years 

(McLain 1988; Keegan et al. 2001a; Morgan et al. 2006; Hayes et al. 

2012).

Species 1984 1998 2002 2007 2012

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

Ponderosa pine 90.6 87.5 94.8 86.4 83.6

Douglas-fir 4.5 6.9 2.4 3.6 8.1

Other speciesa 0.2 1.2 <0.05 1.4 4.3

White fir 2.4 1.3 1.5 3.1 2.6

Engelmann spruce 2.3 3.1 1.2 5.5 1.4

All speciesb 100 100 100 100 100

a Other species include juniper, other softwoods, and hardwoods.

b May not sum due to rounding.

Table A6—Arizona timber harvest by species, selected years (McLain 1988; Keegan 

et al. 2001a; Morgan et al. 2006; Hayes et al. 2012).

Species 1984 1998 2002 2007 2012

---------------------------MBF Scribner---------------------------

Ponderosa pine 346,851 66,804 121,614 46,483 59,714

Douglas-fir 17,217 5,264 3,129 1,915 5,754

Other speciesa 722 943 26 769 3,053

White fir 9,214 961 1,900 1,662 1,886

Engelmann spruce 8,667 2,340 1,551 2,948 1,010

All speciesb 382,674 76,312 128,220 53,777 71,418

a Other species include juniper, other softwoods, and hardwoods.

b May not sum due to rounding.

Table A7—Arizona timber harvest by species and product, 2012.

Species Sawlogs House logs Other productsa All products

---------------------Thousand board feet, Scribner---------------------

Ponderosa pine 39,432 1,460 18,822 59,714

Douglas-fir 3,492 2,262 5,754

Other speciesb 1,628 1,426 3,053

True firsc 1,886 1,886

Engelmann spruce 426 25 559 1,010

All species 46,864 1,485 23,069 71,418

-----------------Percentage of product by species-----------------

Ponderosa pine 84.1 98.3 81.6 83.6

Douglas-fir 7.5 - 9.8 8.1

Other speciesb 3.5 - 6.2 4.3

True firsc 4.0 - - 2.6

Engelmann spruce 0.9 1.7 2.4 1.4

All species 65.6 2.1 32.3 100

a Other products include industrial fuelwood, fiber logs, energywood logs, posts and poles, and viga logs.

b Other species include juniper, other softwoods, and hardwoods.

c True firs include white and subalpine fir.

Table A8—Timber product flow into and out of Arizona, 2012.

Log flow Log flow out Net inflow

Timber product into Arizona of Arizona (net outflow)

------Thousand board feet, Scribner------

Sawlogs 9 1,800 (1,792)

House logs and viga logs 10 25 (15)

All products 19 1,825 (1,807)
12 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-21. 2016.

Arizona timber was processed in Colorado, while a very small amount of timber

flowed from New Mexico and Oregon for processing in Arizona (table A8).

Timber processors in Arizona received 69,611 MBF of timber in 2012. In

prior census years, timber delivered to Arizona mills came from a variety of

ownerships; in contrast, the vast majority (96 percent) of timber was from national forest land in 2012 (table A9). Timber receipts from tribal lands were just

3.2 percent of the total in 2012, and less than 1 percent of receipts came from

private and State lands (A10).

Timber Use

Arizona’s 2012 timber harvest—15,346 thousand cubic feet (MCF), exclusive

of bark (fig. A1)—was used by several manufacturing sectors both within and

outside Arizona. Of this volume, 8,599 MCF was delivered as logs to sawmills,

397 MCF went to house log and viga manufacturers, and 6,350 MCF went to

other plants, including firewood, wood pellet, and post and pole manufacturers,

as well as to residue-utilizing facilities including bioenergy plants and mulch

Table A10—Timber received by Arizona forest products industry by ownership class and product, 

2012.

Ownership class Sawlogs House logs Other productsa All products

-----------------Thousand board feet, Scribner------------------

Private and tribal timberland 1,932 60 631 2,623

Private 270 60 73 403

Tribal 1,662 558 2,220

Public timberland 43,141 1,400 22,447 66,988

National Forest 43,011 1,400 22,447 66,858

State lands 130 130

All owners 45,073 1,460 23,079 69,611

---------------Percentage of product by owner--------------

Private and tribal timberland 4.3 4.1 2.7 3.8

Private 0.6 4.1 0.3 0.6

Tribal 3.7 - 2.4 3.2

Public timberland 95.7 95.9 97.3 96.2

National Forest 95.4 95.9 97.3 96.0

State lands 0.3 - - 0.2

All owners 64.7 2.1 33.2 100

a Other products include industrial fuelwood, fiber logs, energywood logs, posts and poles, and viga logs.

Table A9—Ownership of timber products received by Arizona forest products industry, 1998, 2002, 2007 and 2012 (Keegan et al. 

2001a; Morgan et al. 2006; Hayes et al. 2012).

1998 2002 2007 2012

MBF Percentage MBF Percentage MBF Percentage MBF Percentage

Ownership class Scribner of total Scribner of total Scribner of total Scribner of total

Private and tribal 

timberland 48,102 71.1 58,108 76.3 31,706 60.8 2,623 3.8

Tribal 45,964 68.0 56,150 73.8 4,400 8.4 2,220 3.2

Private 2,138 3.2 1,958 2.6 27,306 52.4 403 0.6

National Forests 19,510 28.9 18,006 23.7 20,427 39.2 66,858 96.0

State lands - - - - - - 130 0.2

All owners 67,612 100 76,114 100 52,133 100 69,611 100
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-21. 2016. 13

Figure A1—Arizona timber harvest and flow, 2012.

and animal bedding producers. Volumes are presented in cubic feet rather than

board feet Scribner because both mill residue and timber products are displayed.

The following conversion factors were used to convert Scribner board foot

volume to cubic feet:

• 5.93 board feet per cubic foot for house logs and vigas

• 5.95 board feet per cubic foot for sawlogs

• 1.8 board feet per cubic foot for all other products

Of the 8,599 MCF of timber received by sawmills, 3,518 MCF (41 percent) was

processed into finished lumber or other sawn products, and about 166 MCF was lost

to shrinkage. The remaining 4,914 MCF (57 percent) yielded mill residue. About

Figure A1-Arizona timber harvest and flow, 2012. 

Sawmills

8,599 MCF Other plantsa

6,350 MCF

Finished house logs 

and vigas 

197 MCF

Finished lumber and 

other sawn products

3,518 MCF

Total Harvest

15,346 MCF

House log and viga 

manufacturers

397 MCF

Other products

11,460 MCF

Residue for other 

products 199 MCF

Residue for other 

products 4,911 MCF

Unutilized 

residue 

1 MCF

a Other plants include firewood, wood pellet, post and pole manufacturers, as well as residue-utilizing facilities 

including bioenergy facilities and mulch and animal bedding producers.

Unutilized 

residue 

 2 MCF

Shrinkage

166 MCF

Internal

energy

 1 MCF
14 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-21. 2016.

4,911 MCF of sawmill residue was utilized by other sectors within Arizona and in

other States. With major outlets for mill residue use in the State, including a biomass energy facility and a fuel pellet manufacturer, only 2 MCF of sawmill residue

remained unused. House log and viga manufacturers received 387 MCF of timber,

of which 197 MCF (50 percent) became finished house logs and vigas. The remaining 200 MCF became mill residue. About 199 MCF of house log residue was used

by other sectors, and about 1 MCF remained unused. Of the 6,350 MCF of timber

received by other manufacturers, all was either utilized for solid wood products such

as posts, vigas, latillas, or firewood, or used in residue-related products like mulch,

livestock bedding, and fuel pellets, or for biomass energy production.

Forest Industry Sectors

Arizona’s primary forest products industry in 2012 consisted of 25 active

manufacturers in 8 counties (table A11). Facilities tended to be located near

the forest resource along the northern side of the Mogollon Plateau, with concentrations in southern Apache and Navajo Counties (fig. A2). The sawmill

sector, which manufactures lumber and other sawn products, was the largest

sector operating in 2012 with 14 facilities—6 more than the number operating

in 2007. Two Arizona facilities primarily produced house logs and log homes,

three fewer than reported in 2007. Three firewood producers, one viga and latilla

manufacturer, one post and pole plant, two bark and mulch producers, a biomass

energy facility, and a fuel pellet manufacturer were also actively purchasing

or utilizing timber in 2012. These nine firms were indicative of the trend of

increased diversity of timber-processors in Arizona since the end of the 1980s.

Primary wood products sales increased, as did the variety of producers, since

2007, with finished product sales in 2012 more than twice the sales value reported

in 2007 (table A12). Although sales value from Arizona sawmills increased 45

percent from 2007, the largest source of the sales increase was from other mills,

Table A11—Active Arizona primary wood products facilities by county and product, 2012 

(McLain 1988; Keegan et al. 2001a; Morgan et al. 2006; Hayes et al. 2012).

 House logs Other Pulp and

County Lumber and vigas productsa paper Total

Apache 5 1 1 7

Coconino 2 1 1 4

Gila 1 1

Maricopa 2 2 4

Navajo 1 3 4

Pima 1 1

Pinal 1 1

Santa Cruz 1 1

Yavapai 1 1 2

2012 Total 14 2 9 0 25

2007 Total 8 5 4 0 17

2002 Total 11 5 7 0 23

1998 Total 6 4 2 1 13

1990 Total 14 3 1 1 19

1984 Total 20 0 2 1 23

a Other products include industrial fuelwood, fuel pellets, biomass energy, posts and poles.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-21. 2016. 15

which nearly tripled from 2007 to 2012. In 2012, sales from the house log and

other products manufacturers exceeded $51 million, and accounted for 61 percent

of finished products sales. Much of this increase was due to increased sales of

residue-related products including biomass energy, fuel pellets, and bark products.

Sawmill Sector

The number of active Arizona sawmills increased from 8 to 14 between 2007

and 2012, although total lumber production decreased slightly from about 55

MMBF in 2007 to 49 MMBF in 2012 (table A13). A number of the State’s largest sawmills closed between 1998 and 2007, and this trend continued through

2012 as a larger proportion of the State’s lumber production shifted to small

Figure A2. Map of Arizona primary timber processors 

Figure A2—Map of Arizona primary timber processors.
16 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-21. 2016.

mills producing less than 10 MMBF annually. Consequently, average annual

lumber production per mill continued to decline from 13.5 MMBF in 1998 to

3.5 in 2012 (table A14). The State’s five largest sawmills in 2012 produced an

average of 8.5 MMBF, accounting for 86 percent of the lumber production;

the remaining nine sawmills had an average lumber production of less than 1

MMBF (table A15).

On average, Arizona sawmills produced approximately 1.20 board feet of

lumber for every board foot Scribner of timber processed, for an average overrun of 20 percent in 2012. Overrun was 12 percent in 2007 (Hayes et al. 2012)

and 27 percent in 2002 (Morgan et al. 2006). The changes in overrun over time

coincide with shifts in the type of timber products processed and the resulting

size, condition, and product mix that could be recovered from the harvested timber. In 2002, only 22 percent of the lumber produced by Arizona’s sawmills was

dimension and studs; 69 percent of production was board and shop lumber, and

Table A13—Arizona sawmills by production size class, selected years 

(Setzer and Wilson 1970; WWPA 1992, 1993; Keegan et al. 2001a; 

Morgan et al. 2006; Hayes et al. 2012).

Year Under 10 MMBFa Over 10 MMBFa Total

-----------------Number of sawmills------------------

2012 14 c 14

2007 8 c 8

2002 9 2 11

1998 2 4 6

1990 5 9 14

1966 13 10 23

---Percentage of lumber output--- Volume (MBFb)

2012 100 c 49,336

2007 100 c 54,860

2002 25 75 82,658

1998 1 99 80,970

1990 4 96 388,000

1966 11 89 437,000

a Size class is based on reported lumber production. MMBF denotes million 

board feet lumber tally.

b MBF = thousand board feet lumber tally.

c All mills were included in <10 MMBF to avoid disclosing individual operations.

Note: 2 other mills (house log plants), also had lumber production (840 mbf 

total)—that production is currently excluded from the 2012 data above.

Table A12—Finished product sales of Arizona’s primary wood products sectors, selected years 

(WWPA various years; Keegan et al. 2001a; Morgan et al. 2006; Hayes et al. 2012).

Sector 1984 1990 1998 2002 2007 2012

---------------------Thousands of 2012 dollars---------------------

Sawmills 193,169 158,069 33,452 30,217 22,335 32,403

Log home and other sectorsa 271 622 2,613 7,853 17,551 51,397

Totalb 193,440 158,692 36,064 38,070 39,886 83,800

a Other sectors include producers of industrial fuelwood, fuel pellets, biomass energy, posts and poles, and 

viga logs.

b All sales are reported F.O.B. the manufacturer’s plant. Sales of mill residues, mulch, and paper not included 

for comparison to previous years.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-21. 2016. 17

19 percent was timbers, cants, and pallet stock (Morgan et al. 2006). In 2007,

93 percent of production was timbers, cants, and pallet stock, which produce a

lower overrun than smaller dimension lumber products. In 2012, timbers, cants,

and pallet stock decreased to 76 percent of products, and dimension and stud

lumber increased to 23 percent of production, leading to a slight increase in

overrun in 2012 compared to 2007.

The sawmill sector accounted for more than 99 percent of Arizona wood

products sales in the 1980s (Keegan et al. 2001a), but that proportion slipped to

79 percent in 2002 and 56 percent in 2007 (Hayes et al. 2012). In 2012, this trend

continued and sales from sawmills accounted for just 21 percent ($18.1 million)

of primary wood products sales in the State. Of the lumber and sawn products

sales, timbers, cants, and pallet stock accounted for $12.6 million (69.7 percent),

dimension lumber was $5.1 million (28.2 percent), furniture parts sales were

$0.2 million (1.1 percent), and board and shop lumber accounted for just under

$0.2 million (1.0 percent) of sawn products sales in 2012.

Log Home and Other Products Sectors

The 2012 census of timber processors identified two facilities that process

primarily house logs, compared to five facilities in 2007. To avoid disclosing

confidential information for individual house log and log home facilities, house

log and viga manufacturers are combined. In 2012, the three Arizona facilities

categorized as house log or viga manufacturers processed 2.3 MMBF Scribner

and generated $4.4 million in product sales.

Table A14—Number of Arizona sawmills and average lumber 

production, selected years (McLain 1988; Setzer and Wilson 1970; 

Keegan et al. 2001a; Morgan et al. 2006; Hayes et al. 2012).

Year Number of sawmills Average lumber production

 MMBFa

2012 14 3.5

2007 8 6.9

2002 11 7.5

1998 6 13.5

1990 14 27.7

1984 20 19.2

1966 23 19.0

1962 28 11.6

1960 38 8.7

a MMBF = million board feet lumber tally.

Table A15—Arizona lumber production by mill size, 2012.

Size classa Number of mills Volume Percentage of total Average per mill

MBFb MBFb

Over 5 MMBF 5 42,318 86 8,464

Under 5 MMBF 9 7,018 14 780

Total 14 49,336 100 3,524

a Size class is based on reported lumber production. MMBF denotes million board feet lumber tally.

b MBF = thousand board feet lumber tally.
18 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-21. 2016.

The other products sector in Arizona grew rapidly from 2007 to 2012. There

were eight facilities in this category during 2012. Of those facilities, three were

firewood manufacturers, processing 11.3 MMBF of timber and producing $11.2

million in sales. The five other facilities active in Arizona during 2012 were a

post and pole manufacturer, a pellet mill, two producers of decorative bark or

mulch, and a biomass energy plant. These facilities processed both timber and

mill residues and sold their finished products for a total of $35.8 million in 2012.

Capacity and Utilization

Two aspects of capacity were examined for calendar year 2012 in Arizona

and the other Four Corners States: production capacity and timber-processing

capacity. Production capacity is defined as the amount of finished product that

could be produced given sufficient supplies of raw materials and firm market demand for the products, considering normal maintenance and down time. Primary

wood products producers specified annual and 8-hour shift production capacities

in units of output (for example, MBF of lumber, MLF of house logs, number of

vigas) for each firm. Product recovery ratios were calculated for each firm by

using reported timber input and product output volumes. Timber-processing capacity was defined as the volume of timber reported in MBF Scribner that could

be processed given sufficient supplies of raw materials and firm market demand

for the products, and was estimated for each firm by applying the product recovery ratios to production capacity.

Arizona’s annual sawmill production capacity was 108,665 MBF of lumber

in 2012, a 40 percent increase from 2007. However, nearly 50 MMBF of that

capacity existed at mills that were inactive during 2012 and did not manufacture

lumber. Producing 49,336 MBF of lumber, sawmills utilized about 51 percent

of their lumber production capacity, compared to 70 percent of lumber production capacity used in 2007. Across all industry sectors, total timber-processing

capacity was 138,857 MBF Scribner in 2012. Accounting for changes in log

inventories, a total of 80,775 MBF Scribner was processed by Arizona firms

in 2012, with timber-processing capacity utilization of about 58 percent, down

from 69 percent utilization across the industry in 2007.

Mill Residue Volumes, Types, and Uses

In 2012, Arizona mills produced 67,991 BDU, or 81,859 bone-dry tons of

mill residue, with 99.9 percent utilized (table A16). Three types of wood fiber residue were produced by Arizona mills: coarse residue (chips) consisting

of slabs, edging, trim, peelings, and log ends; fine residue consisting of planer

shavings and sawdust; and bark. Coarse residue was the State’s largest residue

component at 41,171 BDU (60.6 percent) of all residues in 2012. About 19,000

BDU of the coarse material was used for energy, and just over 22,000 BDU went

to other various uses (table A16). Fine residue was the second largest component

at 13,274 BDU (19.5 percent) of mill residue. Most of the fine residue was used

for mulch or animal bedding, with a smaller amount (13.5 percent) being used

for energy. Bark accounted for 20 percent of all residue and was largely used

for mulch or landscape applications (86 percent) or energy (14 percent) in 2012.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-21. 2016. 19

The amount of residue per MBF of lumber produced by sawmills declined

somewhat in 2012, compared to previous mill census years (table A17). Most of

the reduction was due to very little planing of lumber.

Primary Forest Products Sales and Industry Employment

Sales from Arizona’s primary wood products industry in 2012 totaled $85.9

million, including finished products and mill residues (table A18). The 2012

census marked a large upswing in sales of products other than lumber. Lumber,

timbers, and other sawn products accounted for 21 percent ($18.1 million) of

total sales. House logs and log homes accounted for 4 percent ($3.8 million),

and other products and mill residues accounted for 75 percent ($64.0 million).

Foreign countries, primarily Mexico, were the leading destination for lumber

and other sawn products, followed by in-State sales and sales to customers in the

other Four Corners States (Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah). Arizona was the

leading market area for both house logs and log homes, and the other products

category.

Table A16—Production and disposition of Arizona mill residues, 2012.

Total Pulp and Mulch/ Unspecified Total

Residue type utilized board Energy bedding use Unused produced

------------------------------------------------Bone-dry unitsa------------------------------------------------

Coarse 41,171 - 19,036 - 22,135 41,171

Fine 13,241 - 1,788 11,453 - 33 13,274

Sawdust 12,194 - 1,000 11,194 - 23 12,217

Planer shavings 1,047 - 788 259 - 10 1,057

Bark 13,541 - 1,925 11,600 16 5 13,546

Total 67,953 - 22,749 23,053 22,151 38 67,991

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

Coarse 100.0 - 46.2 - 53.8 - 60.6

Fine 99.8 - 13.5 86.3 - 0.2 19.5

Sawdust 99.8 - 8.2 91.6 - 0.2 18.0

Planer shavings 99.1 - 74.6 24.5 - 0.9 1.6

Bark 100.0 - 14.2 85.6 0.1 0.0 19.9

Total 99.9 - 33.5 33.9 32.6 0.1 100

a Bone-dry unit = 2,400 lb oven-dry wood.

Table A17—Arizona sawmill residue factors, 1998, 2002 and 

2007 (Keegan et al. 2001a; Morgan et al. 2006; Hayes et al. 

2012).

Residue type 1998 2002 2007 2012

------BDU/MBF lumber tallya------

Coarse 0.50 0.44 0.68 0.65

Sawdust 0.22 0.15 0.17 0.18

Planer shavings 0.19 0.14 0.12 0.00

Bark 0.21 0.23 0.25 0.24

Total 1.12 0.96 1.22 1.07

a Bone-dry unit (BDU = 2,400 lb oven-dry wood) of residue generated 

for every 1,000 board feet of lumber manufactured.
20 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-21. 2016.

Based on the four NAICS sectors of the forest industry (113, 1153, 321, and

322), about 6,700 workers were directly employed in the primary and secondary

forest productsindustry inArizona during 2012 (U.S. Department of Commerce,

BEA 2014). This marked a 42 percent decline from 2007 employment in the industry, with most of the loss coming from wood products manufacturing, which

declined from over 8,400 jobs in 2007 to about 3,900 in 2012. Just fewer than

800 workers were employed in harvesting and processing timber or in private

sector land management (i.e., the primary sector) in 2012, roughly the same

level of primary sector employment as in 2007.

Colorado________________________________________________________

This chapter focuses on Colorado’s timber harvest and forest products industry during 2012. Details of timber harvest, flow, and use are followed by

descriptions of the primary processing sectors, capacity and utilization statistics, and mill residue characteristics. The chapter concludes with information

on primary wood products industry sales by Colorado mills. Comparisons with

previous years are provided where possible. Limited historical information is

available about timber harvesting and mill production and residues in Colorado.

The last comprehensive report on the State’s industrial roundwood production

and mill residues was conducted in 2007 (Hayes et al. 2012), and data for previous years include 1962 (Spencer and Farrenkopf 1964), 1969 (Setzer 1971b),

1974 (Setzer and Shupe 1977), and 1982 (McLain 1985). Lynch and Mackes

(2001) published a study on wood use in Colorado from 1997 to 2000, and

Table A18—Destination and sales value of Arizona’s primary wood products and mill residues, 2012.

 Other Other

4-Corner Rocky Mtn North

Product Arizona States Statesa Far Westb Northeastc Southd Centrale Otherf Total

-------------------------------------------------------Thousand 2012 dollars-------------------------------------------------------

Lumber, timbers, and 

other sawn products 6,331 2,739 445 515 944 7,107 18,081

House logs and other 

productsg 54,263 8,552 1,765 2,826 51 368 7 67,832

Total 60,594 11,291 2,210 3,341 51 944 368 7,114 85,913

--------------------------------------------Percentage of regional sales by product-------------------------------------------

Lumber, timbers, and 

other sawn products 10.4 24.3 20.1 15.4 - 100.0 - - 21.0

House logs and other 

productsg 89.6 75.7 - 84.6 - - 100.0 - 79.0

Total 70.5 13.1 2.6 3.9 0.1 1.1 0.4 8.3 100

a Other Rocky Mountains includes Idaho, Montana, Nevada.

b Far West includes Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington.

c Northeast includes Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont. d South includes Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South 

Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia. e North Central includes Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. f

 Other areas consist of products being shipped outside the UnitedStates. g Other products include electricity, shavings, firewood, fuel pellets, mulch, posts, poles, vigas, latillas, and mill residues.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-21. 2016. 21

Morgan et al. (2006) reported on the Colorado forest products industry for calendar year 2002.

Timber Harvest, Flow, and Use

In 2012, Colorado had about 10.75 million acres of nonreserved timberland

(USDA Forest Service 2014), with national forests accounting for 70 percent,

private owners accounting for 21 percent, and other public agencies accounting

for the remaining 9 percent (table C1). All private timberland was classified as

NIPF timberland. Colorado had no large tracts of timberland owned by entities

operating primary wood processing facilities. Sawtimber volume on timberland

was estimated at 15.3 billion cubic feet or about 68.7 billion board feet Scribner

in 2012 (USDA Forest Service 2014).

Timber Harvest

Colorado’s 2012 commercial timber harvest was 82.1 MMBF Scribner (table

C2), a 5 percent decrease from the 2007 harvest of 86.5 MMBF Scribner (Hayes

et al. 2012). The 2012 harvest was 3 percent more than the 2002 harvest of

79.9 MMBF reported by Morgan et al. (2006), and 26 percent less than the

1982 harvest of 103.5 MMBF Scribner (McLain 1985). Only modest changes

in Colorado’s total annual timber harvest occurred despite increased salvage of

dead timber, which accounted for 56 percent (46.3 MMBF) of the 2012 harvest

volume, very similar to 2007 when 55 percent (47.8 MMBF; Hayes et al. 2012)

was dead, but more than doubling the 26 percent (20 MMBF) harvest of dead

timber in 2002 (Morgan et al. 2006).

Table C1—Colorado nonreserved timberland by ownership class (U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, FIDO 2014).

 Percentage of

Ownership class Thousand acres nonreserved timberland

National Forest 7,532 70

Private 2,249 21

Other public 965 9

Total 10,746 100

Table C2—Colorado timber harvest by ownership class, 1982, 2002, 2007 and 2012 (McLain 1985; Morgan et al. 2006; Hayes et al. 

2012).

1982 2002 2007 2012

MBF Percentage MBF Percentage MBF Percentage MBF Percentage

Ownership Class Scribner of total Scribner of total Scribner of total Scribner of total

Private and tribal 

timberland 14,814 14.3 45,723 57.4 41,334 47.8 24,332 29.6

Private 14,814 14.3 45,223 56.7 40,810 47.2 24,332 29.6

Tribal - 0.0 500 0.6 524 0.6 - 0.0

Public timberland 88,618 85.7 33,989 42.6 45,206 52.2 57,737 70.4

National Forest 83,106 80.3 30,631 38.4 43,179 49.9 54,789 66.8

State lands 4,977 4.8 2,749 3.4 1,837 2.1 1,479 1.8

Other public 535 0.5 609 0.8 190 0.2 1,469 1.8

All owners 103,448 100 79,711 100 86,540 100 82,070 100
22 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-21. 2016.

The share of Colorado’s timber harvest from National Forest System lands

(national forests) had decreased from over 80 percent in 1982 (McLain 1985)

to less than 40 percent in 2002 (Morgan et al. 2006), but this trend was reversed

in the last two periodic censuses of the industry. The national forests’ share of

the harvest increased to 50 percent in 2007 (Hayes et al. 2012) and to 67 percent in 2012 (table C2). Private and tribal landowners provided 30 percent of

Colorado’s timber harvest for 2012. National forests provided the majority of

sawlogs (63 percent) and other products (85 percent) harvested in 2012, but

private landowners provided the majority of house logs, and posts and poles

(table C3). Sawlogs accounted for about 70 percent (57.4 MMBF) of the total

volume harvested, other products and house logs accounted for about 23 percent

and 4 percent, respectively, and posts and poles were just over 3 percent of the

harvest in 2012.

During 2012, Grand County again led Colorado’s timber harvest with almost

24 percent (19.4 MMBF Scribner) of the volume; Teller and Montrose Counties

followed with 12 percent and 9 percent, respectively (table C4). For comparison, Grand County’s 2007 timber harvest was just over 35 percent (30.4 MMBF

Scribner) of the volume and Delta and Mesa Counties followed with 15 and 6

percent, respectively.

As in 2007, lodgepole pine was the leading species harvested in Colorado

during 2012, accounting for 50 percent of the volume (table C5). The continued

harvest of lodgepole pine at higher rates than other species is likely due to the

massive quantity of the species either killed or threatened by mountain pine

beetle attack. At 19 percent of the total, spruce was the second leading species

harvested in 2012, followed by ponderosa pine with 13 percent of the total and

aspen at 9 percent. Lodgepole pine and spruce were the leading species harvested for sawlogs in 2012, accounting for 47 and 24 percent, respectively (table

C6). Spruces constituted 46 percent of the house log harvest, and lodgepole pine

was also the leading species harvested for posts and poles (93 percent) and other

products (59 percent).

Table C3—Colorado timber products harvested by ownership class, 2012.

Ownership class Sawlogs House logs Post and pole Other productsa All products

------------------Thousand board feet, Scribner-------------------

National Forest 36,201 1,378 1,232 15,979 54,789

Private timberland 18,817 1,608 1,386 2,521 24,332

Other public lands 2,409 62 148 330 2,948

Tribal timberland - - - - -

All owners 57,426 3,047 2,766 18,830 82,070

----------------Percentage of harvested product by ownership-----------------

National Forest 63.0 45.2 44.6 84.9 66.8

Private timberland 32.8 52.8 50.1 13.4 29.6

Other public lands 4.2 2.0 5.3 1.8 3.6

Tribal timberland - - - - -

All owners 70.0 3.7 3.4 22.9 100

a Other products include furniture logs, fiber logs, viga logs, and industrial fuelwood.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-21. 2016. 23

Table C4—Colorado timber harvest by county, selected years (Setzer and Shupe 1977; McLain 1985; Morgan et al. 2006; 

Hayes et al. 2012).

County 1974 1982 2002 2007 2012 1974 1982 2002 2007 2012

--------------------------MBF Scribner-------------------------- -------------- Percentage of harvest--------------

Adams - - 8 2 1 - - a a a

Alamosa 397 800 - 0 - 0.2 0.8 - - -

Archuleta 24,856 300 1,640 260 890 11.6 0.3 2.1 0.3 1.1

Boulder 90 514 44 3 2 a 0.5 0.1 a a

Chaffee - 252 595 48 - - 0.2 0.7 0.1 -

Clear Creek - 500 - 0 3,500 - 0.5 - - 4.3

Conejos 6,007 1,221 740 618 1,355 2.8 1.2 0.9 0.7 1.7

Costilla - - 3,684 4,986 2,418 - - 4.6 5.8 2.9

Custer 2,383 2,526 300 717 150 1.1 2.4 0.4 0.8 0.2

Delta 1,324 933 2,376 13,195 3,462 0.6 0.9 3.0 15.2 4.2

Dolores 12,687 7,801 5,907 3,275 3,000 5.9 7.5 7.4 3.8 3.7

Douglas 213 1,600 40 417 306 0.1 1.5 0.1 0.5 0.4

Eagle 5,221 1,500 200 - 144 2.4 1.5 0.3 - 0.2

Elbert 265 - - - - 0.1 - - - -

El Paso 285 470 240 49 - 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.1 -

Fremont - 1,100 1,673 348 - - 1.1 2.1 0.4 -

Garfield 2,218 500 9,321 1,924 622 1.0 0.5 11.7 2.2 0.8

Gilpin - - 20 - - - - a - -

Grand 18,406 618 3,113 30,387 19,381 8.6 0.6 3.9 35.1 23.6

Gunnison 12,431 2,336 4,249 4,110 4,243 5.8 2.3 5.3 4.7 5.2

Huerfano 2,192 1,800 500 500 0 1.0 1.7 0.6 0.6 -

Jackson 20,786 16,273 4,373 2,916 2,610 9.7 15.7 5.5 3.4 3.2

Jefferson - 1,881 361 21 2 - 1.8 0.5 a a

La Plata 39,950 1,271 2,312 321 510 18.7 1.2 2.9 0.4 0.6

Lake - - 844 - - - - 1.1 - -

Larimer 5,219 2,497 3,145 528 1,152 2.4 2.4 3.9 0.6 1.4

Las Animas 993 1,600 7,057 2,300 170 0.5 1.5 8.9 2.7 0.2

Logan 33 - - - - a - - - -

Mesa 5,252 1,765 8,660 4,973 4,798 2.5 1.7 10.9 5.7 5.8

Mineral 11,876 6,531 372 683 629 5.5 6.3 0.5 0.8 0.8

Moffat 158 - 124 - 399 0.1 - 0.2 - 0.5

Montezuma 4,169 15,001 4,495 3,242 2,202 1.9 14.5 5.6 3.7 2.7

Montrose 2,714 7,735 3,029 1,625 7,335 1.3 7.5 3.8 1.9 8.9

Ouray - 2,565 30 8 129 - 2.5 a a 0.2

Park 252 2,456 4,369 2,432 911 0.1 2.4 5.5 2.8 1.1

Pitkin 331 - - - 149 0.2 - - - 0.2

Pueblo 176 - 306 48 - 0.1 - 0.4 0.1 0.0

Rio Blanco 370 10 730 - - 0.2 a 0.9 - -

Rio Grande 10,857 9,277 557 100 4,313 5.1 9.0 0.7 0.1 5.3

Routt 10,442 1,976 1,143 2,008 6,593 4.9 1.9 1.4 2.3 8.0

Saguache 11,426 4,802 520 1,459 - 5.3 4.6 0.7 1.7 -

San Juan - - 274 - - - - 0.3 - -

San Miguel - 2,131 1,020 - 25 - 2.1 1.3 - a

Summit - 193 289 2,606 1,072 - 0.2 0.4 3.0 1.3

Teller 46 713 1,049 432 9,598 a 0.7 1.3 0.5 11.7

Total 214,025 103,448 79,711 86,540 82,070 100 100 100 100 100.0

a Less than 0.05 percent.
24 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-21. 2016.

Timber Flow

The majority (98.7 percent) of Colorado’s 2012 timber harvest was processed

in-State; during 2012 Colorado had a net inflow of about 7.1 MMBF of timber. About 1.1 MMBF was processed in Wyoming, Utah, and New Mexico;

there was an inflow of 8.2 MMBF of timber from New Mexico, Utah, Arizona,

Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho, for processing in Colorado (table C7).

Timber processors in Colorado received 89,186 MBF of timber in 2012,

including 8,183 MBF that was harvested outside the State. National forests

provided about 66 percent (58,716 MBF) of the timber delivered to Colorado

mills in 2012, with 37—more than 60 percent—of Colorado’s timber processors

Table C5—Colorado timber harvest by species, selected years (Setzer and Shupe 1977; McLain 1985; Morgan et al. 

2006; Hayes et al. 2012).

Species 1974 1982 2002 2007 2012 1974 1982 2002 2007 2012

-----------------------MBF Scribner----------------------- -----------Percentage of harvest-----------

Lodgepole pine 42,187 15,500 12,457 45,026 41,091 19.7 15.0 15.6 52.0 50.1

Sprucea 91,638 41,877 19,908 10,203 15,488 42.8 40.5 25.0 11.8 18.9

Ponderosa pine 34,306 22,716 22,526 6,899 10,983 16.0 22.0 28.3 8.0 13.4

Aspen 4,825 12,737 15,292 17,319 7,727 2.3 12.3 19.2 20.0 9.4

Douglas-fir 26,927 6,574 6,959 3,946 5,334 12.6 6.4 8.7 4.6 6.5

True firsb 14,142 3,986 2,512 3,132 1,350 6.6 3.9 3.2 3.6 1.6

Other speciesc - 58 58 14 96 - 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1

All species 214,025 103,448 79,711 86,539 82,070 100 100 100 100 100

a Spruce includes Engelmann and blue spruce.

b True firs include white and subalpine fir.

c Other species include cottonwood, western redcedar, gambel oak, Rocky Mountain juniper, and pinyon.

Table C6—Colorado timber harvest by species and product, 2012.

Species Sawlogs House logs Posts and poles Other productsa All products

--------------------------------Thousand board feet, Scribner--------------------------------

Lodgepole pine 26,959 485 2,559 11,089 41,091

Spruceb 13,849 1,406 50 184 15,488

Ponderosa pine 6,380 532 113 3,959 10,983

Aspen 4,966 163 12 2,586 7,727

Douglas-fir 3,917 424 25 969 5,334

True firsc 1,327 0 8 16 1,350

Other speciesd 29 38 0 29 96

All species 57,426 3,047 2,766 18,830 82,070

----------------------------Percentage of product by species----------------------------

Lodgepole pine 46.9 15.9 92.5 58.9 50.1

Spruceb 24.1 46.1 1.8 1.0 18.9

Ponderosa pine 11.1 17.4 4.1 21.0 13.4

Aspen 8.6 5.3 0.4 13.7 9.4

Douglas-fir 6.8 13.9 0.9 5.1 6.5

True firsc 2.3 - 0.3 0.1 1.6

Other speciesd 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.2 0.1

All species 70.0 3.7 3.4 22.9 100

a Other products include furniture logs, fiber logs, viga logs, and industrial fuelwood.

b Spruce includes Engelmann and blue spruce.

c True firs include white and subalpine fir.

d Other species include gambel oak, Rocky Mountain juniper, pinyon, cottonwood, and western redcedar.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-21. 2016. 25

receiving timber cut from national forests. Private and tribal timberlands provided 30 percent of timber receipts with 26,344 MBF coming from private lands

and 45 MBF from tribal lands (table C8). The remaining 4 percent of timber receipts were provided by State lands and other public ownerships. During 2012,

national forests provided 66 percent of the sawlogs and 46 percent of the house

log volume processed in-State. Private and tribal landowners provided 30 percent of sawlogs and 52 percent of house logs. Private timberlands supplied most

of the posts and poles processed in Colorado; public timberlands provided the

majority of timber for other products (table C8).

Table C7—Timber product flow into and out of Colorado, 2012.

Log flow into Log flow out Net inflow

Timber product Colorado of Colorado (net outflow)

---------Thousand board feet, Scribner-------

Sawlogs 4,570 - 4,570

House logs 202 120 82

Other productsa 3,412 947 2,465

All products 8,183 1,067 7,116

a Other products include fiber logs, post and pole logs, energywood logs, and industrial 

fuelwood.

Table C8—Timber received by Colorado forest products industry by ownership class and product, 2012.

Ownership class Sawlogs Posts and poles House logs Other productsa All products

----------------------------------Thousand board feet, Scribner----------------------------------

Private and tribal timberland 18,852 1,263 1,637 4,637 26,389

Private 18,852 1,263 1,592 4,637 26,344

Tribal 45 45

Public timberland 43,144 741 1,492 17,420 62,796

National Forest 40,736 593 1,430 15,957 58,716

State lands 1,373 16 8 1,216 2,611

Other public 1,036 132 54 247 1,469

Other owners - - - - -

Other mills - - - - -

Canada - - - - -

All owners 61,996 2,004 3,129 22,057 89,186

-------------------------------Percentage of product by owner-------------------------------

Private and tribal timberland 30.4 63.0 52.3 21.0 29.6

Private 30.4 63.0 50.9 21.0 29.5

Tribal - - 1.4 - 0.1

Public timberland 69.6 37.0 47.7 79.0 70.4

National Forest 65.7 29.6 45.7 72.3 65.8

State lands 2.2 0.8 0.2 5.5 2.9

Other public 1.7 6.6 1.7 1.1 1.6

Other owners - - - - -

Other mills - - - - -

Canada - - - - -

All owners 69.5 2.2 3.5 24.7 100

a Other products include energywood logs, fiber logs, furniture logs, and industrial fuelwood.
26 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-21. 2016.

Timber Use

Colorado’s 2012 timber harvest—about 21,598 MCF, exclusive of bark (fig.

C1)—was used by several manufacturing sectors both within and outside of

Colorado. Of this volume, 12,651 MCF went as logs to sawmills, 437 MCF went

to log home manufacturers, and 8,510 MCF went to post and pole, log furniture,

fuel pellet, and excelsior manufacturers.

Figure C1: Colorado Timber Harvest and Flow, 2012 

Sawmills

Other plantsa 12,651 MCF

8,510 MCF

Finished house logs 

and log homes

198 MCF

Finished lumber and 

other sawn products

5,155 MCF

Total Harvest

21,598 MCF

House log and log 

home manufacturers

437 MCF

Other products

14,662 MCF

Internal 

energy

3 MCF

a Other plants include fuel pellet, post, pole, log furniture, shavings, and excelsior manufacturers, as well as biomass 

energy plants.

Unutilized 

residue 

1 MCF

Unutilized 

residue 

1 MCF

Residue for 

other products

5,918 MCF

Shrinkage

243 MCF

Internal 

energy

1,334 MCF

Residue for 

other products

235 MCF

Internal 

energy

1 MCF

Figure C1—Colorado timber harvest and flow, 2012.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-21. 2016. 27

The following conversion factors were used to convert Scribner board foot

volume to cubic feet:

•  4.99 board feet per cubic foot for house logs

•  4.49 board feet per cubic foot for sawlogs

•  2.79 board foot per cubic foot for all other products

Of the 12,651 MCF of timber received by sawmills, 5,155 MCF (41 percent)

was processed into finished lumber or other sawn products, and about 243 MCF

(2 percent) was lost to shrinkage. The remaining 7,253 MCF (57 percent) became mill residue. About 7,252 MCF of sawmill residue was utilized, of which

1,334 MCF went for internal energy production, the remaining 5,918 MCF was

sent to other plants for their use, and about 1 MCF remained unused. Of the

437 MCF of timber received by log home manufacturers, about 198 MCF (45

percent) was manufactured into house logs, and the remaining 239 MCF became

mill residue. About 238 MCF of house log residue was utilized, and about 1

MCF remained unused. Of the 8,510 MCF of timber received by other manufacturers combined with 6,153 MCF of residue from sawmills and house log

sectors, 14,662 MCF was utilized in solid wood products (such as posts, poles,

and log furniture) or was used in the production of fuel pellets and excelsior.

About 1 MCF of residues was used for internal energy production and no residue

went unused.

Forest Industry Sectors

Colorado’s primary forest products industry in 2012 consisted of 58 active

manufacturers in 25 counties (table C9). Facilities tended to be located near

the forest resource in the central and southwestern portions of the State (fig.

C2). The sawmill sector, manufacturing lumber and other sawn products, was

the largest sector operating in 2012 with 31 mills; 12 facilities produced house

logs and log homes. There were three log furniture producers, six post and pole

firms, two excelsior producers, and four energy/fuel pellet facilities operating in

2012. Hayes et al. (2012) identified 64 primary wood-processing plants in 2007:

30 sawmills, 19 house log plants, 5 post and pole facilities, and 10 facilities

producing log furniture and other products including an excelsior manufacturer.

Changes in Colorado’s industry structure over the past 20 years were similar to

those experienced throughout the West, with the number of sawmills decreasing

(Morgan et al. 2006).

In 2012, sales value of finished products from Colorado’s primary wood

products industry totaled $86.9 million. This compares to 2007 sales of $110

million and 2002 sales of $119 million, in 2012 dollars (table C10). Sales from

sawmills accounted for 44 percent, about the same as in 2007. House log and log

home manufacturers accounted for 16 percent, a $7.7 million drop from 2007.

The other products sector accounted for about 40 percent, down about $5.5 million from 2007.
28 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-21. 2016.

Sawmill Sector

After a decline in the number of sawmills from 84 in 1982 (McLain 1985)

to 50 in 2002 and 30 in 2007 (Hayes et al. 2012), 31 sawmills were identified

as producing lumber in 2012 (table C11). There was one more sawmill in the

State in 2012 compared to 2007, but Colorado lumber production decreased 18

percent from about 116 MMBF in 2007 (Hayes et al. 20012) to 95 MMBF in

2012, with average production decreasing from 3.9 MMBF to 3.1 MMBF per

sawmill during the period. The State’s eight largest sawmills produced an average of 10.8 MMBF in 2012, with six of these mills producing between 2 and 5

MMBF. The remaining 23 sawmills produced an average of 386 MBF in 2012

(table C12).

Technological improvements have made Colorado mills more efficient.

Thinner kerf saws reduce the proportion of the log that becomes sawdust.

Additionally, mill-delivered log diameters are believed to have decreased over

the past 25 years, with reduced old-growth harvesting and increased use of

Figure C2—Map of Colorado primary timber processors.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-21. 2016. 29

Table C9—Active Colorado primary wood products facilities by county and product, 2012 

(McLain 1985; Morgan et al. 2006; Hayes et al. 2012).

County Lumber House logs and log homes Other productsa Total

Arapahoe 1 1

Archuleta 2 2

Boulder 1 0 1 2

Conejos 2 2

Custer 1 1

Delta 3 1 4

Denver 1 1

Eagle 1 1

El Paso 1 1

Fremont 1 1

Garfield 2 1 1 4

Grand 1 1 3 5

Jackson 1 1

Jefferson 1 1

La Plata 1 2 3

Larimer 3 2 5

Mesa 1 1

Mineral 1 1

Montezuma 3 2 5

Montrose 2 3 5

Park 1 2 3

Pueblo 1 1

Rio Grande 2 2

Saguache 1 1 2

Teller 2 2

Weld 1 1

2012 Total 31 12 15 58

2007 Total 30 19 15 64

2002 Total 50 46 37 133

1982 Total 84 5 6 95

a Other products include excelsior, fuel pellets, posts, poles, log furniture and biomass/energy.

Table C10—Finished product sales of Colorado’s primary wood products 

sectors, 2002, 2007, and 2012 (Morgan et al. 2006; Hayes et al. 2012).

Sector 2002 2007 2012

---Thousands of 2012 dollarsa---

Sawmills 51,523 49,176 38,867

House logs and log homes 34,727 21,246 13,524

Other sectorsb 32,901 40,015 34,465

Total 119,151 110,437 86,856

a All sales are reported f.o.b. the manufacturer’s plant.

b Other sectors include producers of posts, poles, log furniture, fuel pellets, biomass/

energy and excelsior.

restoration and fuels treatments that favor retention of larger trees and the removal of smaller stems. As log diameters decrease, the Scribner log rule, which

is used in Colorado, underestimates—by an increasing amount—the volume of

lumber that can be recovered from a log, thus increasing overrun. On average,

Colorado sawmills produced about 1.58 board feet of lumber for every board
30 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-21. 2016.

Table C12—Colorado lumber production by mill size, 2012.

Size classa Number of mills Volume Percentage of total Average per mill

MBFb MBFb

Over 2 MMBF 8 86,507 91 10,813

Under 2 MMBF 23 8,887 9 386

Total 31 95,394 100 3,077

a Size class is based on reported lumber production. MMBF denotes million board feet lumber tally.

b MBF = thousand board feet lumber tally.

foot Scribner of timber processed for an average overrun of 58 percent in 2012,

slightly higher than the 54 percent overrun in 2007 (Hayes et al. 2012) and the

47 percent overrun in 2002 (Morgan et al. 2006).

Sales from sawmills declined from 2007 to 2012, from $49 million to $39

million, in 2012 dollars. However, with decreasing overall sales from Colorado

timber processors, the sawmill share of total primary mill sales in the State

stayed roughly the same at 45 percent in 2012, versus 43 percent in 2002 and

45 percent in 2007 (Hayes et al. 2012; Morgan et al. 2006et al.). In comparison,

sawmill sales accounted for 39 and 29 percent of timber processors’ finished

product sales in Arizona and New Mexico, respectively, during 2012, and historically accounted for 90 percent or more of sales throughout the Interior West

(Keegan et al. 2001a,b,c; Morgan et al. 2004b). Dimension lumber and studs

accounted for $24.6 million (63 percent) of sawmill product sales in 2012, board

and shop lumber accounted for $4.9 million (12 percent), timbers accounted for

$3.8 million (10 percent), and other sawn products accounted for $3.1 million

(8 percent). Finally, other miscellaneous products accounted for nearly $2.6 million (7 percent) of finished product sales from sawmills during 2012.

Log Home Sector

From 1982 to 2002, Colorado’s log home industry grew from six to 46 facilities (table C9). By 2007, the number of log home and house log manufacturers

had dropped to 19, and there were 12 facilities operating in 2012. Only firms

that processed timber and manufactured house logs or log homes, not log home

distributors, are included in the censuses. In 2012, Colorado’s 12 log home manufacturers processed almost 2.3 MMBF Scribner, produced about 310 thousand

lineal feet (MLF) of house logs, and generated $13.5 million in product sales.

Table C11—Number of Colorado sawmills and average lumber production, 

selected years (McLain 1985; WWPA 1983; Morgan et al. 2006; Hayes et 

al. 2012).

Year Number of sawmills Average lumber production

 MMBFa

2012 31 3.1

2007 30 3.9

2002 50 1.7

1982 84 1.4

a MMBF = million board feet lumber tally.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-21. 2016. 31

Other Products Sector

Following the same trend as the log home sector, Colorado’s producers of

posts and poles and other primary wood products significantly expanded production from 1982 to 2002, and production subsequently declined from 2002

to 2012. The number of facilities increased from 6 to 37 between 1982 and

2002, falling to 15 facilities in 2007 and remaining at 15 in 2012 (table C9).

In 2012, three of these other products facilities manufactured log furniture, six

were post and pole producers, four were biomass/fuel pellets facilities, and two

were excelsior plants. Finished products sales by manufacturers of posts and

poles exceeded $4 million, and sales by manufacturers of log furniture, fuel pellets/energy, and excelsior exceeded $30 million in 2012. Additional detail about

this sector is withheld to protect the confidentiality of firm-level information.

Capacity and Utilization

Colorado’s annual sawmill production capacity was 176.3 MMBF of lumber

in 2012, down from 205.5 MMBF in 2007. Sawmills produced 95.4 MMBF of

lumber in 2012, utilizing 54 percent of their lumber production capacity. This

was on par with the 2007 capacity utilization rate of 56 percent, when sawmills

produced 115.4 MMBF (Hayes et al. 2012). Timber-processing capacity among

Colorado sawmills was 116,889 MBF Scribner, with 60,262 MBF Scribner of

timber processed, making utilization of timber-processing capacity among sawmills about 52 percent in 2012. Across all industry sectors in the State, total

timber-processing capacity was 144.3 MMBF Scribner. Accounting for changes in mills’ log inventories, Colorado firms processed 84.2 MMBF Scribner,

utilizing about 44 percent of timber-processing capacity across all sectors in

2012. The lower capacity utilization of all sectors compared to sawmills alone

indicates that processors other than sawmills were operating well below their

processing capacity and could increase production quickly under favorable market conditions.

Mill Residue Volumes, Types, and Uses

Sawmills, the leading timber sector, were also the main residue producers in

Colorado. In 2012, sawmills produced 0.99 BDU of residue per MBF of lumber

(table C13). Across all sectors, Colorado timber processors produced 108,009

BDU, or about 10,385 MCF of mill residue, with 99.1 percent utilized (table

C14). Total residue production declined from 22,749 MCF in 1974 and 12,420

MCF in 1982, but increased from 9,115 MCF in 2002, while the proportion

utilized increased from 40 percent in 1974 to 64 percent in 1982 (McLain 1985)

and 98.7 percent in 2007 (Hayes et al. 2012). Colorado’s decreased residue

production stemmed from a combination of increased milling efficiencies and

decreased timber volumes processed. Increased residue utilization rates between

1974 and 2012 could be attributable to both a decreased supply of residue in the

market, and increased demand for residues as inputs for residue-related product

manufacturing.

Coarse residue was the State’s largest residue component at 53 percent

(57,563 BDU) of all residues in 2012, with 100 percent utilized. Out-of-State
32 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-21. 2016.

pulp, paper, and reconstituted board facilities used 32,217 BDU of the coarse

material, and the remaining volume was used for energy production and unspecified uses (table C14). Fine residues were the second largest component at

slightly over 30 percent (32,797 BDU) of mill residues. Almost 100 percent of

fine residue was utilized in 2012, primarily for energy, with a little over 40 percent of fine residues going to mulch or animal bedding facilities. Bark accounted

for just over 16 percent of all residues and was largely burned for energy, used

for mulch, or listed as unspecified uses in 2012, with 16,671 BDU (95 percent)

utilized.

Primary Forest Products Sales and Industry Employment

Sales from Colorado’s primary wood products industry during 2012 totaled

nearly $91 million, including finished products and mill residues (table C15).

Lumber, timbers, and other sawn products accounted for 41 percent (more than

$37 million) of total sales. Other products and mill residues accounted for almost 36 percent (more than $32 million). Posts and poles and log furniture made

up nearly 12 percent ($10.8 million) of sales, and house logs and log homes

Table C13—Colorado’s sawmill residue factors, 2002, 

2007 and 2012 (Morgan et al. 2006; Hayes et al. 

2012).

Residue type 2002 2007 2012

----BDU/MBF lumber tallya----

Coarse 0.42 0.60 0.56

Sawdust 0.17 0.21 0.20

Planer shavings 0.13 0.09 0.09

Bark 0.29 0.14 0.15

Total 1.01 1.04 0.99

a Bone-dry unit (BDU = 2,400 lb oven-dry wood) of 

residue generated for every 1,000 board feet of lumber 

manufactured.

Table C14—Production and disposition of Colorado mill residues, 2012.

Total Pulp and Mulch/ Unspecified Total

Residue type utilized board Energy bedding use Unused produced

----------------------------------------------Bone-dry unitsa----------------------------------------------

Coarse 57,563 32,217 11,200 - 14,147 - 57,563

Fine 32,797 - 18,323 13,173 1,301 19 32,816

Sawdust 22,732 - 13,689 7,742 1,301 17 22,749

Planer shavings 10,065 - 4,634 5,431 0 2 10,067

Bark 16,671 - 6,804 6,647 3,220 958 17,629

Total 107,031 32,217 36,327 19,820 18,668 978 108,009

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

Coarse 100.0 56.0 19.5 - 24.6 - 53.3

Fine 99.9 - 55.8 40.1 4.0 0.1 30.4

Sawdust 99.9 - 60.2 34.0 5.7 0.1 21.1

Planer shavings 100.0 - 46.0 53.9 0.0 0.0 9.3

Bark 94.6 - 38.6 37.7 18.3 5.4 16.3

Total 99.1 29.8 33.6 18.3 17.3 0.9 100

a Bone-dry unit = 2,400 lb oven-dry wood.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-21. 2016. 33

accounted for 11 percent (more than $10 million). Colorado was the leading

market area for log homes, posts, poles, log furniture, and other products with

in-State sales accounting for 38.5 percent of total sales. The North Central

United States accounted for 22.5 percent of total sales, 33.3 percent of lumber,

timbers, and other sawn products sales, and 19.7 percent of other products sales.

The other Four Corners States (Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah) accounted for

just 7.4 percent of total sales, the majority of which were posts and poles and

log furniture, as well as log home products. Other Rocky Mountain States and

the South were major market areas for lumber and other products, including

excelsior and mill residues.

Employment in Colorado’s forest industry, defined as the sum of employment in forestry and logging, forestry support, wood product manufacturing, and

paper manufacturing, has declined in recent years, although it remains an important source of jobs in many communities around the State. There were about

6,700 jobs in the industry in Colorado in 2012, compared to 9,250 in 2007 (U.S.

Department of Commerce, BEA 2014). About 2,050 workers were employed in

the “primary” industry—harvesting and processing timber or in private sector

land management—during 2012, and the remaining component of the industry

can be classified as secondary, employing approximately 4,650 workers in 2012.

From 2007 to 2012, employment in Colorado’s forest industry declined nearly

30 percent overall. However, primary forest industry employment actually increased over that period, with the employment decrease coming entirely from

the secondary industry.

Table C15—Destination and sales value of Colorado’s primary wood products and mill residues, 2012.

 Other Other

4-Corner Rocky Mtn Far North

Product Colorado States Statesa Westb Northeastc Southd Centrale Otherf Total

-------------------------------------------------------Thousand 2012 dollars-------------------------------------------------------

Lumber, timbers and other 

sawn products 11,573 1,484 5,446 740 1,023 2,458 12,418 2,115 37,257

House logs and log homes 7,135 942 307 274 314 617 668 10,255

Posts, poles, and log furniture 4,760 2,035 953 942 645 503 951 10,788

Other productsg 11,502 2,264 1,646 2,749 1,908 3,800 6,399 2,224 32,490

Total 34,969 6,723 8,351 4,704 3,890 7,377 20,436 4,339 90,790

----------------------------------------Percentage of product sales by region------------------------------------------------

Lumber, timbers and other 

sawn products 31.1 4.0 14.6 2.0 2.7 6.6 33.3 5.7 41.0

House logs and log homes 69.6 9.2 3.0 2.7 3.1 6.0 6.5 - 11.3

Posts, poles, and log furniture 44.1 18.9 8.8 8.7 6.0 4.7 8.8 - 11.9

Other productsg 35.4 7.0 5.1 8.5 5.9 11.7 19.7 6.8 35.8

Total 38.5 7.4 9.2 5.2 4.3 8.1 22.5 4.8 100

a Other Rocky Mountains includes Idaho, Montana, Nevada.

b Far West includes Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington.

c Northeast includes Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont. d South includes Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South 

Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia. e North Central includes Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and 

Wisconsin. f

 Other areas consist of products being shipped outside the United States.

g Other products include erosion control products, wood pellets, shavings, mulch, firewood, clean chips, and mill residues.
34 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-21. 2016.

New Mexico______________________________________________________

This chapter focuses on New Mexico’s timber harvest and forest products

industry during 2012, and discusses changes that occurred since the 2007 industry census conducted by Hayes et al. (2012). Details of timber harvest, flow,

and use are followed by descriptions of the primary processing sectors, capacity

and utilization statistics, and mill residue characteristics. This chapter concludes

with information on sales from New Mexico’s primary wood products industry.

Timber Harvest, Flow, and Use

In 2012, New Mexico had approximately 4.24 million acres of nonreserved

timberland (USDA Forest Service 2014), with national forests accounting for

63 percent of the total, private and tribal owners accounting for 33 percent, and

other public agencies accounting for the remaining 4 percent (table N1). All private timberland was classified as NIPF timberland. With the exception of several

Native American tribes, New Mexico had no large tracts of timberland owned

by entities operating primary wood processing facilities. Sawtimber volume on

nonreserved timberlands was estimated at 5.8 billion cubic feet or about 32.5

billion board feet Scribner in 2012 (USDA, FIDO 2014).

Timber Harvest

New Mexico’s 2012 commercial timber harvest was 28,839 MBF Scribner,

73 percent of the 2007 harvest (Hayes et al. 2012), 39 percent of the 2002 harvest (Morgan et al. 2006), and 30 percent of the 1997 harvest (Keegan et al.

2001b). Of the timber harvested in New Mexico in 2012, 89 percent was live

and 11 percent was salvage or standing dead when harvested. As recently as

1989, 210 MMBF Scribner of timber was harvested annually in New Mexico,

with 65 percent of that volume coming from the national forests (Keegan et al.

2001b). Although the public share of New Mexico’s timber harvest had fallen

to just 12 percent by 1997, that percentage was slightly higher in 2002 (Morgan

et al. 2006) and 2007 (table N2; Hayes et al. 2012), and National Forest System

(national forests) accounted for nearly 50 percent of harvested volume in 2012.

Sawlogs accounted for 78 percent (22.5 MMBF) of the total volume harvested.

National forests provided the majority of sawlogs, vigas, and house logs harvested in New Mexico in 2012; the remaining volume was split between private

and tribal timberlands (table N3). The largest share (48 percent) of other products, including posts, poles, furniture logs, fiber logs, and fuelwood, was harvest

from private timberland.

Table N1—New Mexico nonreserved timberland by ownership class (U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, FIDO 2014).

 Percentage of

Ownership class Thousand acres nonreserved timberland

National Forest 2,674 63

Private and tribal 1,412 33

Other public 158 4

Total 4,244 100
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-21. 2016. 35

The 2012 New Mexico harvest was spread across 12 counties, with 5 counties contributing more than 75 percent of the harvest (table N4). In 2012, Lincoln

County led New Mexico’s timber harvest with 19 percent of the total volume;

Otero, Rio Arriba, and Colfax Counties followed, with 18, 16, and 14 percent, respectively. Historically, Rio Arriba was among the State’s three leading

timber-producing counties, contributing 15 percent or more of annual harvest

volumes. But in 2007 it accounted for only about 4 percent. Colfax County,

however, was not a significant contributor to New Mexico’s annual harvest until

recently, only occasionally accounting for more than 10 percent of harvest in

previous censuses (Setzer and Wilson 1970; McLain 1989; Keegan et al. 2001b;

Morgan et al. 2006; Hayes et al. 2012).

Ponderosa pine continued to be the leading species harvested in New

Mexico, accounting for 54 percent of the harvest in 2012; Douglas-fir retained

its long-held position as the second most harvested species (table N5). White

and subalpine firs and Engelmann spruce together accounted for 12 percent of

the 2012 harvest. Ponderosa pine was the leading species harvested for sawlogs, vigas, and house logs in 2012 (table N6). Douglas-fir and true firs were a

Table N3—New Mexico timber products harvested by ownership class, 2012.

 Other All

Ownership class Sawlogs Vigas House logs productsa products

----------------Thousand of board feet, Scribner----------------

National Forest 11,921 810 44 1,568 14,343

Private timberland 5,355 335 15 2,260 7,965

Tribal timberland 5,243 425 - 863 6,531

State timberland - - - - -

All owners 22,519 1,570 59 4,691 28,839

------Percentage of harvested product by ownership-------

National Forest 52.9 51.6 74.6 33.4 49.7

Private timberland 23.8 21.3 25.4 48.2 27.6

Tribal timberland 23.3 27.1 - 18.4 22.6

State timberland - - - - -

All owners 78.1 5.4 0.2 16.3 100.0

a Other products include posts, poles, furniture logs, fiber logs, and industrial fuelwood.

Table N2—New Mexico timber harvest by ownership class, 1997, 2002, 2007 and 2012 (Keegan et al. 2001b; Morgan et al. 

2006; Hayes et al. 2012).

1997 2002 2007 2012

MBFa Percentage MBF Percentage MBF Percentage MBF Percentage

Ownership class Scribner of total Scribner of total Scribner of total Scribner of total

Private and tribal timberland 85,903 88.0 64,201 86.3 33,001 83.0 14,496 50.3

Private 61,853 63.4 36,821 49.5 14,971 37.6 7,965 27.6

Tribal 24,050 24.6 27,380 36.8 18,030 45.3 6,531 22.6

Public timberland 11,723 12.0 10,160 13.7 6,769 17.0 14,343 49.7

National Forest 11,723 12.0 10,160 13.7 5,644 14.2 14,343 49.7

State timberland - - - - 1,125 2.8 - -

All owners 97,626 100 74,361 100 39,770 100 28,839 100

a MBF = thousand board feet
36 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-21. 2016.

Table N4—New Mexico timber harvest by county, selected years (Setzer and Wilson 1970; McLain 1989; Keegan et al. 2001b; 

Morgan et al. 2006; Hayes et al. 2012).

County 1966 1986 1997 2002 2007 2012 1966 1986 1997 2002 2007 2012

------------------------------MBF Scribner------------------------------ --------------------------Percentage--------------------------

Bernalillo 691 - 490 100 - 0.3 - 0.5 0.1 - -

Catron 25,588 29,494 2,973 250 1,500 3,009 10.6 17.7 3.0 0.3 3.8 10.4

Cibola - 13,857 7,973 15 - 1,523 - 8.3 8.2 a - 5.3

Colfax 32,853 4,000 18,450 3,777 9,423 4,030 13.6 2.4 18.9 5.1 23.7 14.0

Eddy - 548 - - - - 0.3 - - - -

Grant 538 663 - - 279 646 0.2 0.4 - - 0.7 2.2

Lincoln - 1,450 198 - 1,800 5,495 - 0.9 0.2 - 4.5 19.1

Los Alamos 54 - - - - a - - - - -

McKinley 36,692 - 2,000 - - 15.1 - 2.0 - - -

Mora 957 3,830 2,040 10,864 215 224 0.4 2.3 2.1 14.6 0.5 0.8

Otero 17,335 16,982 36,866 30,825 18,835 5,121 7.2 10.2 37.8 41.5 47.4 17.8

Rio Arriba 37,156 69,367 17,107 17,869 1,733 4,472 15.3 41.7 17.5 24.0 4.4 15.5

Sandoval 66,619 5,932 4,360 1,200 2,190 1,849 27.5 3.6 4.5 1.6 5.5 6.4

San Juan - 8,159 500 - - - 4.9 0.5 - - -

San Miguel 9,140 2,075 2,259 8,100 795 365 3.8 1.2 2.3 10.9 2.0 1.3

Santa Fe - 2,865 - 670 1,000 601 - 1.7 - 0.9 2.5 2.1

Socorro 2,739 - 1,025 220 - 1.1 - 1.0 0.3 - -

Taos 6,767 7,066 1,245 175 2,000 1,506 2.8 4.2 1.3 0.2 5.0 5.2

Torrance - - 120 175 - - - 0.1 0.2 - -

Valencia 4,548 - 20 120 - 1.9 - a 0.2 - -

Totalb 242,313 166,342 97,626 74,361 39,770 28,839 100 100 100 100 100 100

a Less than 0.05 percent.

b Percentage detail may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

Table N5—New Mexico timber harvest by species, selected years 

(Setzer and Wilson 1970; McLain 1989; Keegan et al. 2001b; 

Morgan et al. 2006; Hayes et al. 2012).

Species 1966 1986 1997 2002 2007 2012

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

Ponderosa pine 49 68 57 50 47 54

Douglas-fir 17 16 26 22 25 19

Other speciesa 15 4 < 0.5 2 8 15

True firsb 5 9 11 16 17 8

Engelmann spruce 14 3 7 10 3 4

All species 100 100 100 100 100 100

a Other species include aspen, lodgpole pine, and southwestern white pine.

b True firs include white and subalpine fir.

substantial component of the sawlog harvest; Engelmann spruce was a minor

component of house logs at 20 percent. Engelmann spruce and Douglas-fir were

also small components of the viga harvest. Other species like aspen and juniper

were the leading species harvested for other products, a category that includes

posts, poles, furniture logs, and firewood logs. Ponderosa pine was also a significant component to the other products category.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-21. 2016. 37

Timber Flow

The majority (78 percent) of New Mexico’s 2012 timber harvest was processed in-State. About 3.8 MMBF of New Mexico timber was processed

in Colorado, and 2.5 MMBF in Texas, while a small amount of timber from

Colorado and Montana was processed in New Mexico (table N7).

Timber processors in New Mexico received 22,934 MBF of timber in 2012,

including 418 MBF that was harvested outside the State. Timber receipts dropped

nearly 40 percent since 2007, when New Mexico mills received 37,917 MBF of

timber. Ownership sources of timber delivered to New Mexico mills changed

substantially since 2007, with the proportion from private and tribal lands decreasing from 79 percent to nearly 56 percent in 2012 (table N8). National

forests supplied 44 percent of timber delivered to New Mexico’s mills in 2012,

an increase from just 18 percent in 2007. Similar to other States in the four-State

region, New Mexico’s national forests provided forest products manufacturers

in 2012 with a large portion of timber products, supplying more than 41 percent

of sawlogs, 45 percent of vigas, 100 percent of the house logs, and 57 percent of

other products, mostly posts and poles and firewood logs (table N9).

Table N6—New Mexico timber harvest by species and product, 2012.

Species Sawlogs Vigas House logs Other productsa All products

----------------------Thousand of board feet, Scribner----------------------

Ponderosa pine 13,165 1,033 47 1,381 15,625

Douglas-fir 4,121 365 - 1,018 5,504

Other speciesb 751 - - 2,011 2,762

White and subalpine fir 2,071 71 - 221 2,363

Lodgepole pine 1,566 - - - 1,566

Engelmann spruce 846 101 12 60 1,019

All species 22,520 1,570 59 4,691 28,839

--------------------Percentage of product by species--------------------

Ponderosa pine 58.5 65.8 79.5 29.4 54.2

Douglas-fir 18.3 23.3 - 21.7 19.1

Other speciesb 3.3 - - 42.9 9.6

White and subalpine fir 9.2 4.5 - 4.7 8.2

Lodgepole pine 7.0 - - - 5.4

Engelmann spruce 3.8 6.4 20.5 1.3 3.5

All species 78.1 5.4 0.2 16.3 100.0

a Other products include posts, poles, furniture logs, fiber logs, and industrial fuelwood.

b Other species include alligator juniper, Southwestern white pine, and Aspen.

Table N7—Timber product flow into and out of New Mexico, 2012.

Log flow into Log flow out of Net inflow

Timber product New Mexico New Mexico (net outflow)

--------Thousand board feet, Scribner--------

Sawlogs - 4,309 (4,309)

House logs - 15 (15)

Other productsa 418 2,000 (1,582)

All products 418 6,324 (5,906)

a Other products include vigas, furniture logs, fiber logs, and industrial fuelwood.
38 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-21. 2016.

Timber Use

New Mexico’s 2012 timber harvest—approximately 6,252 MCF, exclusive

of bark (fig. N1)—was used by several manufacturing sectors both within and

outside of New Mexico. Of this volume, 4,284 MCF went as logs to sawmills,

405 MCF went to log home and viga manufacturers, and 1,563 MCF went to

other plants, including post and pole, log furniture, and excelsior manufacturers. The following conversion factors were used to convert Scribner board foot

volume to cubic feet:

•  5.58 board feet per cubic foot for sawlogs

•  4.49 board feet per cubic foot for house logs and vigas

•  2.1 board foot per cubic foot for all other products

Of the 4,284 MCF of timber received by sawmills, 1,709 MCF (40 percent)

was manufactured into finished lumber or other sawn products, and about 81

MCF (2 percent) was lost to shrinkage. The remaining 2,494 MCF (58 percent)

became mill residue. About 2,487 MCF (99 percent) of sawmill residue was utilized, of which 1,782 MCF of residue was used for other products and 705 MCF

Table N8—Ownership of timber products received by New Mexico mills, 1997, 2002, 2007 and 2012 (Keegan et al. 2001b; Morgan et 

al. 2006; Hayes et al. 2012).

1997 2002 2007 2012

MBF Percentage MBF Percentage MBF Percentage MBF Percentage

Ownership class Scribner of total Scribner of total Scribner of total Scribner of total

Private and tribal timberland 82,238 90.6 58,698 85.2 30,023 79.2 12,763 55.7

Private 57,788 63.6 31,318 45.5 11,993 31.6 6,531 28.5

Tribal 24,450 26.9 27,380 39.8 18,030 47.6 6,232 27.2

National Forests 8,562 9.4 10,160 14.8 6,769 17.9 10,103 44.1

State lands - - - - 1,125 3.0 68 0.3

All owners 90,800 100 68,858 100 37,917 100 22,934 100 

Table N9—Timber received by New Mexico forest products industry by ownership class and 

product, 2012.

Ownership class Sawlogs Vigas House logs Other productsa All products

----------------------Thousand of board feet, Scribner----------------------

National Forest 7,613 810 44 1,636 10,103

Tribal timberland 5,243 425 - 863 6,531

Private timberland 5,355 583 - 294 6,232

State lands - - - 68 68

All owners 18,211 1,818 44 2,861 22,934

---------------------Percentage of product by owner---------------------

National Forest 41.8 44.6 100.0 57.2 44.1

Tribal timberland 28.8 23.4 - 30.2 28.5

Private timberland 29.4 32.1 - 10.3 17.8

State lands - - - 2.4 0.3

All owners 79.4 7.9 0.2 12.5 100

a Other products include posts, poles, fiber logs, and industrial fuelwood.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-21. 2016. 39

was utilized for internal energy use at the mill. About 7 MCF remained unused.

Of the 405 MCF of timber received by log home and viga manufacturers, about

242 MCF (60 percent) was used for house logs and vigas. The remaining 163

MCF became mill residue, all of which was utilized. Of the 1,563 MCF of timber received by other manufacturers, combined with the additional 1,945 MCF

of residue from the other sectors, about 2,115 MCF (60 percent) was utilized in

solid wood products such as posts, poles, fuel wood, and log furniture, or was

used in the production of excelsior. Thirty-seven percent (1,393 MCF) of the

residues from these other sectors was utilized in internal energy production, and

none went unused.

Figure N1: New Mexico Timber Harvest and Flow, 2012 

Sawmills

Other plants 4,284 MCF a

1,563 MCF

Finished house logs 

and vigas

242 MCF

Finished lumber and 

other sawn products

1,709 MCF

Total Harvest

6,252 MCF

House log and viga 

manufacturers

405 MCF

Other products

2,115 MCF

a Other plants include firewood, shavings, and excelsior manufacturers.

Unutilized 

residue 

7 MCF

Residue for 

other products

1,782 MCF

Shrinkage

81 MCF

Internal 

energy

705 MCF

Residue for 

other products

163 MCF

Internal 

energy

1,393 MCF

Figure N1—New Mexico timber harvest and flow, 2012.
40 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-21. 2016.

Forest Industry Sectors

New Mexico’s primary forest products industry in 2012 consisted of 28 active manufacturers in 13 counties (table N10). Facilities tended to be located

near the forest resource in north-central New Mexico and in Otero County (fig.

N2). The sawmill sector, manufacturing lumber and other sawn products, was

the largest sector operating during 2012, with 17 facilities—5 more mills identified than were operating in 2007. Five facilities produced vigas and latillas, the

same as in 2007. The number of other products manufacturers operating in 2012

increased to eight, with one post and pole manufacturer, one log home producer,

one bark products facility, one fuelwood/pellet facility, two firewood producers,

and two wood shaving/excelsior facilities. Primary wood products sales as well

as the number of producers increased in 2012, with finished product sales in

2012 increasing 31 percent in real (inflated-adjusted) dollars since 2007 (table

N11). The increase in sales was due to the dramatic increase in other products

sales and a slight increase in viga and latilla sales. Other products sales more

than doubled from 2007 to 2012. Since 1986, other products sales have been

increasing while lumber and sawn products sales have been declining, both in

quantity and as proportions of total sales. In 2012, sales from other products

manufacturers accounted for 61 percent of finished products sales, compared to

39 percent in 2007, and 17 percent in 2002.

Sawmill Sector

Total lumber production in New Mexico dropped 70 percent in 10 years,

from about 81.5 MMBF in 2002 to less than 25 MMBF in 2012. To avoid disclosure of individual firm information, the number of sawmills by production

Table N10—Active New Mexico primary wood products facilities by county 

and product, 2012 (McLain 1989; Keegan et al. 2001b; Morgan et al. 

2006; Hayes et al. 2012).

County Lumber Vigas and latillas Othera Total

Bernalillo 0 0 1 1

Catron 2 2

Cibola 1 1 2

Colfax 1 1 2

Grant 1 1

Lincoln 1 1

Mora 1 1

Otero 4 2 6

Rio Arriba 2 2

Sandoval 2 1 3

San Miguel 1 1 2

Santa Fe 2 1 3

Taos 1 1 2

2012 Total 17 5 6 28

2007 Total 12 5 7 24

2002 Total 21 8 7 36

1997 Total 22 15 7 44

1986 Total 26 5-10 10 41-46

a Other products include posts, poles, house logs, firewood, pellets, shavings, erosion 

control products and bark products. 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-21. 2016. 41

size class cannot be reported (table N12). As a result of the number of smaller

mills and the reduction in total production, average annual lumber production

fell 57 percent from 3.3 MMBF per mill in 2007 to 1.4 MMBF per mill in 2012

(table N13). In 2012, the State’s six largest sawmills produced an average of 3.5

MMBF, accounting for 86 percent of lumber production in New Mexico. The

remaining 11 mills had an average annual lumber production of less than 321

MBF per mill (table N14).

Figure N2—Map of New Mexico primary timber processors.
42 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-21. 2016.

On average, New Mexico sawmills produced about 1.25 board feet of lumber

for every board foot Scribner of timber processed in 2012. Overrun averaged 28

percent in 2007 (Hayes et al. 2012). The slight decrease in overrun from 2007 to

2012 was likely due to the shift in products produced, with an increase in timbers and board and shop lumber, and a decrease in dimension and stud lumber

from 2007. In 2012, lumber produced by New Mexico’s sawmills consisted of:

47 percent dimension and studs, 37 percent timbers, and 16 percent board and

shop lumber. Timbers accounted for $4.3 million (40 percent) of sawmill product sales in 2012, dimension lumber was about $4.3 million (40 percent), and

board and shop lumber accounted for $ 2.1 million (20 percent).

Table N11—Finished product sales of New Mexico’s primary wood products, selected 

years (McLain 1989; Miller Freeman, Inc. 1998; Keegan et al. 2001b; Morgan et al. 

2006; Hayes et al. 2012).

Product 1986 1997 2002 2007 2012

-----------------Thousand 2012 dollars-----------------

Lumber and sawn products 125,422 57,996 42,514 13,774 10,708

Vigas and latillas 4,862 13,707 5,704 3,438 3,712

Other productsa 6,077 6,271 9,612 11,029 22,670

Totalb 136,361 77,975 57,830 28,241 37,090

a Other products include posts, poles, log homes, log furniture, pellets and bark products.

b All sales are reported f.o.b. the manufacturer’s plant.

Table N12—New Mexico sawmills by production size class, selected years 

(Setzer and Wilson 1970; McLain 1989; Keegan et al. 2001b; Morgan et 

al. 2006; Hayes et al. 2012).

Year Under 10 MMBFa Over 10 MMBFa Total

-----------------Number of Sawmills--------------

2012 17 c 17

2007 12 c 12

2002 18 3 21

1997 18 4 22

1986 17 9 26

1966 58 6 64

1962 85 c 85

1960 117 c 117

---Percentage of lumber output--- Volume (MBFb)

2012 100 c 24,450

2007 100 c 39,823

2002 12 88 81,515

1997 10 90 108,675

1986 12 88 232,000

1966 38 62 262,848

1962 100 c 242,500

1960 100 c 224,400

a Size class is based on reported lumber production. MMBF denotes million board feet 

lumber tally.

b MBF = thousand board feet lumber tally.

c In 1960, 1962, 2007 and 2012 all mills were included in <10 MMBF to avoid 

disclosing individual operations.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-21. 2016. 43

Viga and Latilla Sector

New Mexico’s viga and latilla sector was fairly stable between 2007 and

2012. The same viga and latilla manufacturers were identified in 2012 as in

2007, and even though quantity sold decreased, an increase in average price led

to an overall sales increase of $274,000 (8 percent) in 2012 dollars. In 2012, the

five firms operating in the sector processed 1,818 MBF Scribner, versus 2,412

MBF processed in 2007 (Hayes et al. 2012). Production was just over 597 thousand lineal feet (MLF) of vigas and latillas in 2012, a decline from 2007 when

more than 828 MLF were produced. Due to the part-time nature of many viga

and latilla operations, the sector could respond quickly with increased production and sales if demand for traditional styles of construction should increase

and if sufficient timber were available.

Other Products Sector

The same mills generally produced other primary wood products in 2012 as

in 2007; one new pellet facility opened during this 5-year period. Product sales

by manufacturers of posts, poles, log homes, firewood, pellets, and bark and

mulch, and by wood shavings producers, exceeded $22.6 million in 2012; this

was an increase of almost 106 percent over the period. Inflation-adjusted sales

from the sector were about $11 million in 2007. Additional detail about the sector is withheld to maintain the confidentiality of individual firms.

Table N13—Number of New Mexico sawmills and average lumber production, 

selected years (McLain 1989; Setzer and Wilson 1970; Keegan et al. 

2001b; Morgan et al. 2006; Hayes et al. 2012).

Year Number of sawmills Average production per mill

MMBFa

2012 17 1.4

2007 12 3.3

2002 21 3.9

1997 22 4.9

1986 25 9.2

1966 64 4.1

1962 85 2.9

1960 117 1.9

a MMBF = million board feet lumber tally.

Table N14—New Mexico lumber production by mill size, 2012.

Number Percentage Average

Size classa of mills Volume of total per mill

MBFb MBFb

Over 1 MMBF 6 20,920 86 3,487

Under 1 MMBF 11 3,530 14 321

Total 17 24,450 100 1,438

a Size class is based on reported lumber production. MMBF denotes million board 

feet lumber tally.

b MBF = thousand board feet lumber tally.
44 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-21. 2016.

Capacity and Utilization

New Mexico’s annual lumber production capacity was 63,020 MBF lumber

tally in 2012. Sawmills produced 24,450 MBF of lumber and utilized about 39

percent of their production capacity. Across all industry sectors, total timberprocessing capacity was 60,687 MBF Scribner. Accounting for changes in log

inventories, 22,934 MBF Scribner was processed by New Mexico firms in 2012,

with total timber-processing capacity utilization about 38 percent. Sawtimberprocessing capacity was 170,000 MBF Scribner in 1997, with 48 percent utilized

(Keegan et al. 2001b). By 2002, sawtimber-processing capacity had dropped to

88,162 MBF Scribner, with 65,116 MBF Scribner (74 percent) utilized (Morgan

et al. 2006). In 2007, sawtimber-processing capacity was 67,425 MBF Scribner,

with 39,823 MBF Scribner (59 percent) utilized (Hayes et al. 2012). Decreases

in capacity in the sawmill sector have resulted from the permanent closing of

large sawmills since 2002, which were operating well below capacity. With the

relatively low timber harvest levels of the past 10 to 15 years, many mills were

unable to procure enough timber to operate profitably. With capacity utilization

levels below 50 percent, additional mills can be expected to close unless timber

harvest levels increase and markets for wood products continue to improve.

Mill Residue Volumes, Types, and Uses

When the Arizona paper mill changed to recycled inputs, and the New

Mexico particleboard plant closed between 1997 and 2002, markets for mills

residues in the region underwent major changes. Sawmills had to develop new

markets for the residues, use more residues in their own operations, and factor

residue disposal costs into their business decisions. Despite this major change in

outlets for mill residue, subsequent industry censuses have shown that residue

utilization rates have remained high.

During 2012, New Mexico mills produced 39,705 BDU of mill residue with

96.4 percent being utilized (table N15). Residue production decreased in 2012

and the proportion utilized increased from 2007, when New Mexico sawmills

generated 42,896 BDU, utilizing 91.4 percent (Hayes et al. 2012). The decrease

in total residue volume generated was due primarily to a smaller volume of timber being processed. In 2007, sawmills produced 1.03 BDU per MBF of lumber;

by 2012 that residue factor had increased to 1.11 BDU per MBF of lumber,

similar to the 2002 residue factor (table N16).

Coarse residue (chips) was the State’s largest residue component at 40.7 percent (16,142 BDU) of all residue in 2012, with 100 percent utilized. Energy

facilities used about 14,436 BDU of the coarse material, with the remaining utilized volume going to unspecified uses (table N15). Fine residues—sawdust and

planer shavings—were the second largest component at 32.7 percent (12,994

BDU) of mill residue. Virtually all (98.9 percent) of fine residue was utilized

in 2012, primarily as mulch or animal bedding and for energy production. Bark

accounted for 26.6 percent of all residue and was largely used for energy and

mulch, with 9,293 BDU (87.9 percent) utilized in 2012.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-21. 2016. 45

Primary Forest Products Sales and Industry Employment

Sales from New Mexico’s primary wood products industry in 2012 totaled

slightly over $40 million, including finished products and mill residue (table

N17). Other products and mill residues accounted for 64 percent ($25.8 million) of total sales. Lumber, timbers, and other sawn products accounted for

27 percent of sales ($10.7 million); vigas and latillas accounted for 9 percent

($3.7 million). New Mexico was the leading market area for each of the product

categories, accounting for 44 percent of lumber sales, 53 percent of viga and

latilla sales, and 73 percent of other products and mill residue sales. Other areas

outside the United States (mostly Mexico) accounted for 26 percent of lumber

sales. The other Four Corners States (Arizona, Colorado, and Utah) were the

second leading market area for vigas and latillas, and the South was the second

leading destination for the other products category.

Based on the four NAICS sectors of the forest industry (113, 1153, 321, and

322), about 2,300 workers were directly employed in the primary and secondary forest products industry in New Mexico during 2012 (U.S. Department of

Table N15—Production and disposition of New Mexico mill residues, 2012.

Total Pulp and Mulch/ Unspecified Total

Residue type utilized board Energy bedding use Unused produced

-----------------------------------------------Bone-dry unitsa-----------------------------------------------

Coarse 16,142 - 14,436 - 1,706 - 16,142

Fine 12,856 - 5,695 7,152 10 138 12,994

Sawdust 10,470 - 5,695 4,772 2 122 10,591

Planer shavings 2,387 - - 2,380 7 16 2,403

Bark 9,293 - 5,378 3,898 17 1,276 10,570

Total 38,292 - 25,509 11,050 1,733 1,414 39,705

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

Coarse 100.0 - 89.4 - 10.6 - 40.7

Fine 98.9 - 43.8 55.0 0.1 1.1 32.7

Sawdust 98.8 - 53.8 45.1 0.0 1.2 26.7

Planer shavings 99.4 - - 99.1 0.3 0.6 6.1

Bark 87.9 - 50.9 36.9 0.2 12.1 26.6

Total 96.4 - 64.2 27.8 4.4 3.6 100.0

a Bone-dry unit = 2,400 lb oven-dry wood.

Table N16—New Mexico sawmill residue factors, 1997, 2002, 

2007 and 2012 (Keegan et al. 2001b; Morgan et al. 2006; 

Hayes et al. 2012).

Residue type 1997 2002 2007 2012

----BDU/MBF lumber tallya----

Coarse 0.52 0.56 0.58 0.58

Sawdust 0.29 0.20 0.17 0.20

Planer shavings 0.18 0.15 0.06 0.09

Bark 0.23 0.21 0.22 0.24

Total 1.22 1.12 1.03 1.11

a Bone-dry unit (BDU = 2,400 lb oven-dry wood) of residue generated 

for every 1,000 board feet of lumber manufactured.
46 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-21. 2016.

Commerce BEA 2014). This marked a 29 percent decline from the employment

in the industry in 2007. Most of the decline came from wood products manufacturing, which fell from over 2,000 jobsto just over 1,300 in 2012.Approximately

700 workers were employed in harvesting and processing timber or in private

sector land management (i.e., the primary sector) in 2012, a decline of about 70

jobs from the 2007 level.

Utah____________________________________________________________

This chapter focuses on Utah’s timber harvest and forest products industry

during 2012. Details of timber harvest, flow, and use are followed by descriptions of the primary processing sectors, capacity and utilization statistics, and

mill residue characteristics. The chapter concludes with information on primary

wood products industry sales by Utah mills. Comparisons to previous years

are provided where possible. Limited historical information is available about

timber harvesting and mill production and residues in Utah. The last comprehensive study of the State’s industrial roundwood production and mill residues

was conducted in 2007 (Hayes et al. 2012), and data for previous years include

1966 (Setzer and Wilson 1970), 1969 (Setzer 1971c), 1970 (Green and Setzer

1974), 1974 (Setzer and Throssell 1977b), 1992 (Keegan et al. 1995), and 2002

(Morgan et al. 2006).

Table N17—Destination and sales value of New Mexico’s primary wood products and mill residues, 2012.

 Other Other

New 4-Corner Rocky Mtn North

Product Mexico States Statesa Far Westb Northeastc Southd Centrale Otherf Total

----------------------------------------------------Thousand 2012 dollars----------------------------------------------------

Lumber, timbers and 

other sawn products 4,653 1,762 114 45 903 445 2,785 10,708

Vigas and latillas 1,961 1,239 360 152 3,712

Other productsg 18,711 1,186 107 580 3,449 61 1,682 25,776

Total 25,326 4,187 581 45 1,483 4,046 61 4,467 40,197

-----------------------------------------Percentage of product sales by region------------------------------------------

Lumber, timbers and 

other sawn products 43.5 16.5 1.1 0.4 8.4 4.2 - 26.0 26.6

Vigas and latillas 52.8 33.4 9.7 - - 4.1 - - 9.2

Other productsg 72.6 4.6 0.4 - 2.3 13.4 0.2 6.5 64.1

Total 63.0 10.4 1.4 0.1 3.7 10.1 0.2 11.1 100.0

a Other Rocky Mountains includes Idaho, Montana, Nevada.

b Far West includes Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington.

c Northeast includes Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont. d South includes Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South 

Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia. e North Central includes Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and 

Wisconsin. f

 Other areas consist of products being shipped outside the United States.

g Other products include mulch, shavings, posts, poles, utility poles, log homes, firewood, fuel pellets, and mill residues.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-21. 2016. 47

Timber Harvest, Flow, and Use

In 2012, Utah had approximately 3.7 million acres of nonreserved timberland

(USDA Forest Service 2014) with national forests accounting for 75 percent,

private and tribal owners accounting for 16 percent, and other public agencies

accounting for the remaining 9 percent (table U1). All private timberland was

classified as NIPF timberland. Utah had no large tracts of timberland owned

by entities operating primary wood processing facilities. Sawtimber volume on

nonreserved timberlands was estimated at 4.3 billion cubic feet (USDA Forest

Service 2014) or about 22.2 billion board feet Scribner in 2012.

Timber Harvest

Utah’s 2012 commercial timber harvest was 19.4 MMBF Scribner (table

U2), 36 percent less than the 2007 harvest of approximately 30.3 MMBF (Hayes

et al. 2012), 53 percent less than the 2002 harvest of around 41 MMBF Scribner

(Morgan et al. 2006), and almost 70 percent less than the 1974 harvest of 62

MMBF (Setzer and Throssell 1977b). Of the timber harvested in Utah during

2012, 37 percent was live and 63 percent was salvage or standing dead when

harvested. Utah harvest has declined from each of the ownerships, but the largest share of the decrease in Utah’s total annual timber harvest since 1992 has

been due to the decline in National Forest timber harvest. In 1992, National

Forest timber accounted for almost 50.0 MMBF (77 percent) of the annual harvest (Keegan et al. 1995). As in most of the Western States, decreasing Federal

timber harvests during the 1990s led to greater shares of annual timber harvest coming from other ownerships. National Forest System lands (national

forests) still provided most of the State’s harvest (52 percent) in 2012, but the

Table U1—Utah nonreserved timberland by ownership class (U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, FIDO 2014).

Percentage of

Ownership class Thousand acres nonreserved timberland

National Forest 2,807 75

Private and tribal 606 16

Other public 330 9

Total 3,743 100

Table U2—Utah timber harvest by ownership class, 1992, 2002, 2007 and 2012 (Keegan et al. 1995; Morgan et al. 2006; 

Hayes et al. 2012).

1992 2002 2007 2012

MBFa Percentage MBF Percentage MBF Percentage MBF Percentage

Ownership class Scribner of total Scribner of total Scribner of total Scribner of total

Private and tribal timberland 11,385 17.6 16,282 39.5 11,669 38.5 6,292 32.5

Public timberland 53,289 82.4 24,987 60.5 18,652 61.5 13,064 67.5

National Forest 49,989 77.3 23,776 57.6 15,490 51.1 10,117 52.3

Other publicb 3,300 5.1 1,211 2.9 3,162 10.4 2,947 15.2

All owners 64,674 100 41,269 100 30,321 100 19,356 100

a MBF=thousand board feet.

b Other public includes BLM and State.
48 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-21. 2016.

volume and share supplied by private and tribal owners continues to be

an important component. During 2012, private and tribal landowners

accounted for 32.5 percent (6.3 MMBF) of Utah’s timber harvest, although this harvest volume represented a 46 percent decline from 2007.

At 15 percent of the total, the share of harvest from U.S. Department of

the Interior, Bureau of Land Management and State lands in Utah was

the highest among Four Corners States in 2012.

National forests provided most (76 percent) of the house logs harvested in 2012. In the harvest of sawlogs, national forests were evenly

split with private timberlands and the other public ownership combined; each provided about 50 percent of the sawlog harvest (table U3).

For other products (such as furniture logs, posts and poles, and fiber

logs) the other public ownership provided the majority of timber at 72

percent. Sawlogs accounted for about 74 percent (14.3 MMBF) of the

total volume harvested in 2012, house logs were 17 percent, and other

products accounted for about 9 percent.

In 2012, Summit County led Utah’s timber harvest with 33 percent (6.4 MMBF) of total volume. Uintah was second with almost 12

percent (2.3 MMBF) followed by three Counties: Emery, Rich, and

Sanpete, each providing 7.7 percent (1.5 MMBF) (table U4). In 2007,

Wasatch County led Utah’s timber harvest, with 14 percent (4.3 MMBF

Scribner) of total volume; Sanpete and Garfield Counties followed with

13 and 10 percent, respectively (Hayes et al. 2012). In 2002, Kane and

Summit Counties led the harvest with 5.5 MMBF (13 percent) and 4.1

MMBF (10 percent) of the harvest, respectively (Morgan et al. 2006).

Lodgepole pine was the leading species harvested in Utah, accounting for almost 41 percent (7.9 MMBF) of the harvest in 2012,

spruces accounted for 31 percent, Douglas-fir 11 percent, and aspen

and cottonwood 10 percent (table U5). This represents a shift in species harvested, as spruces, including Engelmann and blue spruce, were

the leading species harvested in Utah in 2002 (Morgan et al. 2006)

and 2007 (Hayes et al. 2012). During the 1960s and 1970s, ponderosa

Table U3—Utah timber products harvested by ownership class, 2012.

Ownership class Sawlogs House logs Other productsa All products

-----------------Thousand board feet, Scribner----------------------

National Forests 7,300 2,508 309 10,117

Private and tribal timberland 5,320 807 165 6,292

Other publicb 1,730 1,217 2,947

All owners 14,350 3,315 1,691 19,356

---------Percentage of harvested product by ownership--------

National Forests 50.9 75.7 18.3 52.3

Private and tribal timberland 37.1 24.3 9.8 32.5

Other publicb 12.1 - 72.0 15.2

All owners 74.1 17.1 8.7 100

a Other products include industrial fuelwood, furniture logs, fiber logs, posts, and poles.

b Other ownership class include BLM and State.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-21. 2016. 49

pine was the leading species harvested, accounting for 30 to 50 percent of the

harvest; lodgepole pine and spruces each accounted for 15 to 25 percent of the

total (Setzer and Wilson 1970; Setzer 1971c; Green and Setzer 1974; Setzer and

Throssell 1977b).

Table U4—Utah timber harvest by county, selected years (Setzer and Throssell 1977b; Keegan et al. 1995; 

Morgan et al. 2006; Hayes et al. 2012).

County 1974 1992 2002 2007 2012 1974 1992 2002 2007 2012

---------------------MBF Scribner--------------------- ------------------Percentage------------------

Beaver 155 2,952 633 468 200 0.2 4.6 1.5 1.5 1.0

Cache 1,389 175 1,180 1,150 - 2.2 0.3 2.9 3.8 -

Carbon 260 100 1,670 1,564 1,480 0.4 0.2 4.0 5.2 7.6

Daggett 3,193 2,850 375 - 25 5.1 4.4 0.9 - a

Davis - - 135 - - - - 0.3 - -

Duchesne 2,539 1,767 3,469 1,793 515 4.1 2.7 8.4 5.9 2.7

Emery 250 - 45 284 1,500 0.4 - 0.1 0.9 7.7

Garfield 8,502 7,047 3,446 3,141 965 13.6 10.9 8.4 10.4 5.0

Grand 5,000 - 20 1,925 - 8.0 - a 6.3 -

Iron - 1,435 773 1,554 200 - 2.2 1.9 5.1 1.0

Juab - - 1 - - - - 0.0 - -

Kane 6,480 4,117 5,520 60 - 10.4 6.4 13.4 0.2 -

Millard 30 - 342 - - a - 0.8 - -

Morgan 11 25 250 150 100 a a 0.6 0.5 0.5

Piute 440 620 3,288 500 - 0.7 1.0 8.0 1.6 -

Rich 2,159 - 3,000 - 1,500 3.5 - 7.3 - 7.7

Salt Lake - - 65 59 74 - - 0.2 0.2 0.4

San Juan 5,000 4,503 1,444 1,865 1,400 8.0 7.0 3.5 6.2 7.2

Sanpete 520 3,750 2,468 3,800 1,500 0.8 5.8 6.0 12.5 7.7

Sevier 715 3,663 1,703 1,483 155 1.1 5.7 4.1 4.9 0.8

Summit 5,589 10,000 4,107 2,700 6,430 8.9 15.5 10.0 8.9 33.2

Uintah 14,652 16,624 2,715 1,398 2,300 23.5 25.7 6.6 4.6 11.9

Utah 20 - 323 793 - a - 0.8 2.6 -

Wasatch 1,606 2,908 3,750 4,300 1,012 2.6 4.5 9.1 14.2 5.2

Washington - - 375 1,334 - - - 0.9 4.4 -

Wayne 3,905 2,110 110 - 6.3 3.3 0.3 - -

Weber 50 20 60 - - 0.1 a 0.1 - -

Total 62,465 64,666 41,268 30,321 19,356 100 100 100 100 100

a Less than 0.05 percent.

Table U5—Proportion of Utah timber harvest by species, selected years (Setzer 

and Wilson 1970; Setzer 1971c; Setzer and Throssell 1977b; Keegan et al. 

1995; Morgan et al. 2006; Hayes et al. 2012).

Species 1966 1969 1974 1992 2002 2007 2012

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

Lodgepole pine 18 18 27 46 23 13 41

Spruces 19 13 22 35 44 42 31

Douglas-fir 3 11 8 4 8 11 11

Aspen and cottonwood c c 4 5 10 29 10

Ponderosa pine 50 43 33 5 13 3 4

True firsa 4 7 3 5 2 2 2

Other speciesb 6 8 3 c c c 1

All species 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

a True firs include white, subalpine, and corkbark fir.

b Other species include juniper and western white pine.

c Less than 0.5 percent
50 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-21. 2016.

Lodgepole pine was the leading species harvested for sawlogs in 2012, accounting for 7.1 MMBF (50 percent) followed by spruce and Douglas-fir (24

and 14 percent, respectively) (table U6). Aspen and cottonwood accounted for

slightly more than 1.2 MMBF (72 percent) of the volume harvested for other

products. Spruce was the leading species for house logs with 79 percent.

Timber Flow

More than half (58 percent) of Utah’s 2012 timber harvest was processed inState, and Utah had a net outflow of almost 7.9 MMBF of timber to other States.

About 3.4 MMBF was processed in Wyoming, 2.4 MMBF in Colorado, and 2.2

MMBF in Idaho; there was an inflow of 167 MBF from Colorado, Idaho, and

Canada for processing in Utah mills (table U7).

Timber processors in Utah received 11,488 MBF of timber in 2012. Private

and tribal timberlands provided 5,177 MBF (45 percent) of the timber delivered

to Utah mills in 2012 (table U9). National forests provided 52.5 percent (6,034

MBF) of timber receipts, with half of Utah’s timber processors receiving timber

cut from national forests. In 2012, Utah mills’ timber receipts were 58 percent

lower than in 2007, when the national forests supplied 56 percent (15,502 MBF)

of the timber, and private and tribal owners supplied 42 percent (11,587 MBF).

During 2012, national forests provided Utah timber processors with 67 percent

of house logs, 48 percent of sawlogs, and 68 percent of other timber products

including furniture logs (table U9). Private and tribal landowners provided 50

percent of sawlogs, 33 percent of house logs, and 13 percent of other timber

products. State lands provided 2 percent of the timber received by mills in Utah.

Table U6—Utah timber harvest by species and product, 2012.

Species Sawlogs House logs Other productsc All products

------------------Thousand board feet, Scribner----------------

Lodgepole pine 7,117 478 291 7,887

Spruces 3,366 2,633 158 6,157

Douglas-fir 2,014 118 23 2,155

Aspen and cottonwood 657 6 1,210 1,873

Ponderosa pine 824 0 0 824

True firsa 319 79 8 406

Other speciesb 55 0 1 56

All species 14,350 3,315 1,691 19,356

--------------Percentage of product by species---------------

Lodgepole pine 49.6 14.4 17.2 40.7

Engelmann spruce 23.5 79.4 9.4 31.8

Douglas-fir 14.0 3.6 1.4 11.1

Aspen and cottonwood 4.6 0.2 71.5 9.7

Ponderosa pine 5.7 0.0 0.0 4.3

True firsa 2.2 2.4 0.5 2.1

Other speciesb 0.4 d d 0.3

All species 74.1 17.1 8.7 100

a True firs include white, subalpine, and corkbark fir.

b Other species include juniper, western white pine and hardwoods.

c Other products include industrial fuelwood, furniture logs, fiber logs, posts, and poles.

d Less than 0.1 percent
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-21. 2016. 51

Table U7—Timber product flow into and out of Utah, 2012.

Log flow Log flow Net inflow

Timber product into Utah out of Utah (net outflow)

---Thousand board feet, Scribner---

Sawlogs - 5,735 (5,735)

House logs 120 805 (685)

Other productsa 47 1,495 (1,448)

All products 167 8,035 (7,868)

a Other products include industrial fuelwood, furniture logs, fiber logs, posts, and poles.

Table U8—Ownership of timber products received by Utah mills, 1992, 2002, 2007 and 2012 (Keegan et al. 1995; Morgan et al. 2006; 

Hayes and other 2012).

1992 2002 2007 2012

MBF Percentage MBF Percentage MBF Percentage MBF Percentage

Ownership class Scribner of total Scribner of total Scribner of total Scribner of total

Private timberland 11,341 19.3 9,241 28.4 11,587 42.2 5,177 45.1

Public timberland 46,927 79.9 23,245 71.5 15,732 57.3 6,264 54.5

National Forest 46,595 79.3 21,898 67.3 15,502 56.4 6,034 52.5

State lands 332 0.6 1,346 4.1 230 0.8 230 2.0

Other ownersa 485 0.8 33 0.1 152 0.6 47 0.4

All owners 58,753 100 32,518 100 27,470 100 11,488 100.0

a Other owners include the BLM, Canada, and (for 1992) unknown owners.

Table U9—Timber received by Utah forest products industry by ownership class and 

product, 2012.

 Other All

Ownership class Sawlogs House logs productsb products

-------------Thousand board feet, Scribner-----------

Private timberland 4,285 860 32 5,177

Public timberland 4,330 1,770 164 6,264

National Forest 4,100 1,770 164 6,034

State lands 230 - - 230

Other ownersa - - 47 47

All owners 8,615 2,630 243 11,488

---------Percentage of product by owner----------

Private and tribal timberland 49.7 32.7 13.2 45.1

Public timberland 50.3 67.3 67.5 54.5

National Forest 47.6 67.3 67.5 52.5

State lands 2.7 - - 2.0

Other ownersa - - 19.3 0.4

All owners 75.0 22.9 2.1 100

a Other owners include the BLM and Canada.

b Other products include furniture logs, fiber logs, posts and poles.
52 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-21. 2016.

Timber Use

Utah’s 2012 timber harvest—approximately 3,991 MCF, exclusive of bark

(fig. U1)—was used by several manufacturing sectors both within and outside

of Utah. Of this volume, 2,543 MCF went as logs to sawmills, 914 MCF went

to log home manufacturers, and 534 MCF went to other plants, including log

furniture, post and pole, and fire/fuel wood facilities. The following conversion

factors were used to convert Scribner board foot volume to cubic feet:

• 5.56 board feet per cubic foot for house logs

• 5.08 board feet per cubic foot for sawlogs

• 2.75 board foot per cubic foot for all other products

Of the 2,543 MCF of timber received by sawmills, 1,008 MCF (40 percent)

was milled into finished lumber or other sawn products, and about 48 MCF

Figure U1: Utah Timber Harvest and Flow, 2012 

Sawmills

Other plantsa 2,543 MCF

534 MCF

Finished house logs 

and log homes

357 MCF

Finished lumber and 

other sawn products

1,008 MCF

Total Harvest

3,991 MCF

House log and log 

home manufacturers

914 MCF

Other products

1,742 MCF

a Other plants include post, pole, log furniture, and excelsior manufacturers.

Unutilized 

residue 

301 MCF

Residue for 

other products

1,186 MCF

Shrinkage

48 MCF

Residue for 

other products

510 MCF

Unutilized 

residue 

47 MCF Unutilized 

residue 

3 MCF

Figure U1—Utah timber harvest and flow, 2012.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-21. 2016. 53

was lost to shrinkage. The remaining 1,487 MCF (58 percent) was mill residue. About 701 MCF of sawmill residue was utilized, and about 786 MCF (53

percent) remained unused. Of the 914 MCF of timber received by log home

manufacturers, about 357 MCF (39 percent) was processed into house logs,

while the remaining 557 MCF became mill residue. About 510 MCF of house

log residue was utilized, and about 47 MCF remained unused. Of the 534 MCF

of timber received by the other plants, combined with the residues (1,211 MCF)

from the other sectors, about 1,742 MCF was utilized as solid wood products

such as log furniture, posts and poles, and fire/fuel wood. About 3 MCF of residues from these other sectors went unused.

Forest Industry Sectors

Utah’s primary forest products industry in 2012 consisted of 18 active

manufacturers in 10 counties (table U10). Facilities tended to be located near

the forest resource along the mountainous central spine of the State (fig. U2).

Changes in Utah’s industry structure over the past 30 years were similar to those

experienced throughout the West, with the number of sawmills decreasing and

the number and diversity of other manufacturers increasing (Keegan et al. 1995,

2001a,b; Morgan et al. 2004a,b, 2006; Hayes et al. 2012). The sawmill sector

(manufacturing lumber and other sawn products) had the most facilities, with

8 mills in 2012. Seven facilities produced house logs and log homes, and there

were three log furniture and other products facilities operating in 2012. For

comparison, Hayes et al. (2012) identified 27 facilities operating during 2007.

Morgan et al. (2006) identified 49 primary wood-processing plants in 2002.

Both the number of primary wood products producers and their sales decreased again between 2007 and 2012. Sales of finished products in 2012 of

$15.1 million were about 49 percent lower than 2007 sales ($29.8 million, adjusted for inflation) (table U11). This substantial decline was evident across all

Table U10—Active Utah primary wood products facilities by county and product, 2012 

(Keegan et al. 1995; Morgan et al. 2006; Hayes et al. 2012).

 Log homes Log furniture

County Lumber and house logs and other productsa Total

Beaver 1 1

Cache 1 1

Duchesne 3 3

Morgan 1 1

Salt Lake 1 2 3

Sanpete 1 1

Summit 2 2

Uintah 3 3

Wasatch 2 2

Weber 1 1

2012 Total 8 7 3 18

2007 Total 12 10 5 27

2002 Total 23 14 12 49

1992 Total 34 13 4 51

a Other products include posts, poles, and bark products.
54 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-21. 2016.

sectors: lumber, log home, and other sector sales. Lumber sales were down $5.4

million from the 2007 totals, and log home manufacturers’ sales decreased by

$6.2 million; the sales of other products decreased by $3.1 million. In 2012,

lumber sales accounted for less than 23 percent of finished product sales, versus

30 percent in 2007, 40 percent in 2002, and 73 percent in 1992. House logs and

log homes accounted for a larger percentage (nearly 68 percent) of sales in 2012

than in 2002 and 2007 (roughly 55 percent of sales in both years). Other products sales declined nearly 69 percent in 2012 but remained close to 9 percent of

total sales in 2012.

Figure U2—Map of Utah primary timber processors.

Figure U2: Map of Utah primary timber processors. 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-21. 2016. 55

Sawmill Sector

Utah’s sawmill sector has been in decline for several decades. Lumber production in 2012 was 58 percent lower than in 2007, 64 percent lower than in

2002, 85 percent lower than in 1992, and 87 percent lower than in 1966, while

the number of mills declined 33, 65, 76, and 84 percent over the same periods

(table U12). Most of the production loss was among the State’s larger mills,

which produced more than 1 MMBF of lumber annually. The greatest loss in

number of milling facilities was among the small mills. The proportion of lumber production by large versus small mills decreased from the 2007 level of 94

percent with larger mills contributing 87 percent of the production in 2012, but

the average annual lumber production per mill returned to the 2002 level (table

U13). Average annual lumber production among the State’s four largest mills

was about 2.1 MMBF lumber tally in 2012 (table U14), compared to 4.3 MMBF

among five mills in 2007. The remaining four small mills had an average lumber

production of 303 MBF in 2012, compared to the 2007 average production of

182 MBF at seven small mills (Hayes et al. 2012).

Table U11—Finished product sales of Utah’s primary wood 

products sectors, 1992, 2002, 2007, 2012 (Keegan et al. 1995; 

Morgan et al. 2006; Hayes et al. 2012).

Sector 1992 2002 2007 2012

----------Thousands of 2012 dollars----------

Sawmills 29,902 15,970 8,859 3,443

Log home sector 10,053 22,935 16,434 10,264

Other sectorsa 1,072 3,592 4,547 1,425

Total 41,027 42,497 29,840 15,131

a Other sectors include producers of posts, poles, and log furniture. 

Mill residues, firewood, mulch, and bark products not included for 

comparison to previous years.

Table U12—Utah sawmills by production size class, selected years 

(Setzer and Wilson 1970; Keegan et al. 1995; Morgan et al. 

2006; Hayes et al. 2012).

Year Under 1 MMBFa Over 1 MMBFa Total

--------------Number of sawmills---------------

2012 4 4 8

2007 7 5 12

2002 17 6 23

1992 25 9 34

1966 37 13 50

---Percentage of lumber output--- Volume (MBFb)

2012 13 87 9,553

2007 6 94 22,892

2002 13 87 26,524

1992 13 87 63,637

1966 10 90 72,000

a Size class is based on reported lumber production. MMBF = million board 

feet lumber tally.

b MBF = thousand board feet lumber tally.
56 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-21. 2016.

On average, Utah sawmills produced about 1.25 board feet of lumber for

every board foot Scribner of timber processed. This average overrun of 25 percent in 2012 is slightly higher than the 2007 overrun of 20 percent (Hayes et al.

2012). The increase in overrun over the past 5 years indicates a possible shift

in products manufactured, smaller or higher quality logs utilized, or sawmills’

investment in new milling technology to help improve their efficiency.

Sales from sawmills accounted for just 23 percent ($3.4 million) of Utah

timber processors’ finished products sales in 2012. This proportion of sales from

sawmills was the smallest of the Four Corners States. Sales from sawmills accounted for more than 39 percent of sales in Arizona, 29 percent of sales in

New Mexico, and more than 45 percent in Colorado during 2012. Dimension

lumber and studs accounted for almost $1.4 million (40 percent) of sawmill

product sales in 2012; timbers and cants accounted for $913 thousand (27 percent). Board and shop lumber accounted for $540 thousand (16 percent) and

other sawn products accounted for the balance (17 percent) of finished products

sales from sawmills.

Log Home Sector

Sales value from Utah’s log home sector decreased over the past 5 years. This

sector lost facilities during the period; seven house log manufacturers were identified in 2012—three fewer than in 2007. Only firms that processed timber and

manufactured house logs or log homes, not log home distributors, were included

in the 1992, 2002, 2007 and 2012 censuses. In 2012, Utah’s seven log home

manufacturers processed 2.6 MMBF of timber, produced about 731 MLF of

house logs, and generated about $10.3 million in product sales. By sales value,

Table U13—Number of Utah sawmills and average lumber production, 

selected years (Setzer and Wilson 1970; Keegan et al. 1995; Morgan et 

al. 2006; Hayes et al. 2012).

Year Number of sawmills Average production per mill

MMBFa

2012 8 1.2

2007 12 1.9

2002 23 1.2

1992 34 1.9

1966 50 1.4

a MMBF = million board feet lumber tally.

Table U14—Utah lumber production by mill size, 2012.

Number Percentage Average

Size classa of mills Volume of total per mill

MBFb MBFb

Over 1 MMBF 4 8,343 87 2,086

Under 1 MMBF 4 1,210 13 303

Total 8 9,553 100 1,194

a Size class is based on reported lumber production. MMBF denotes million board feet lumber tally.

b MBF = thousand board feet lumber tally.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-21. 2016. 57

Utah’s log home sector is the third largest in the Western United States behind

Montana and Colorado.

Other Products Sector

The number of facilities in Utah’s other products sector decreased significantly in the past 10 years, with less than one-quarter as many facilities operating in

2012 as in 2002. Sales of the other products sector have also greatly decreased

proportionally from 2007. There were three other product facilities in 2012 that

produced log furniture. Sales of log furniture totaled almost $1.4 million in

2012. Additional detail about the sector is withheld to protect the confidentiality

of firm-level information.

Capacity and Utilization

Utah’s annual sawmill lumber production capacity was 51.1 MMBF in 2012.

Sawmills produced 9.6 MMBF (lumber tally) of lumber and utilized 19 percent

of their production capacity. This was the lowest level of sawmill production capacity utilization in the Four Corners States in 2012. Timber-processing capacity

among Utah sawmills was 38,269 MBF Scribner, with 8,994 MBF Scribner of

timber processed, making utilization of timber-processing capacity among sawmills about 24 percent in 2012. Such low levels of capacity utilization often

signal the closing of mills and this was no exception for Utah, which saw the

closing of four sawmills and increased outflow of timber to be processed in

other States. Across all industry sectors, total timber-processing capacity was

66,082 MBF Scribner. Accounting for changes in mills’ log inventories, a total

of 13,197 MBF Scribner was processed by Utah firms in 2012, making timberprocessing capacity utilization about 20 percent across all sectors.

Mill Residue Volumes, Types, and Uses

Across all sectors, Utah timber processors produced 16,661 BDU (about

1,602 MCF) of mill residue, with 80 percent being utilized (table U15). Total

residue production in 2012 declined from 2,654 MCF in 2007, and the proportion utilized also decreased from 87 percent in 2007 (Hayes et al. 2012). Utah’s

decreased residue production was a function of decreased timber processing

in 2012 compared to prior years. Residue utilization declined by 7 percentage

points, with a greater share of bark and fine residues going unused, compared

to 2007. Sawmills, the leading timber processors, were also the main residue

producers in Utah, producing 1.13 BDU of residue per MBF of lumber in 2012

(table U16).

Coarse residue was the State’s largest residue component at 58 percent (9,697

BDU) of all residues in 2012, with 86.2 percent utilized. In-State facilities used

5,964 BDU of the coarse material for unspecified uses, with the remaining

utilized volume going to energy. Fine residues—sawdust and planer shavings—

were the second largest component at 21 percent (3,536 BDU) of mill residues.

More than 78 percent of fine residue was utilized in 2012, primarily as mulch or

animal bedding, with about one-fifth of fine residues going to unspecified uses.
58 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-21. 2016.

Bark accounted for 21 percent of all residues, with 3,216 BDU (36 percent) going unused.

The reduced residue utilization rate in Utah represents a challenge for the

State’s timber processors. Without buyers/users of mill residue, the residue can

present a disposal problem and increase costs for timber processors. In many

other Western States without the traditional residue users like particle board

plants or pulp mills, mill residues are increasingly being used for biomass energy, as decorative landscaping mulch, and as animal bedding.

Primary Forest Products Sales and Industry Employment

Sales from Utah’s primary wood products industry during 2012 totaled

$16.7 million, including finished products and mill residues (table U17). House

logs and log homes accounted for 45 percent ($7.2 million) of total sales (and

manufacturers in the house log category had another $3 million in sales of

other products, primarily lumber). Lumber, timbers, and other sawn products

accounted for about 39 percent ($6.5 million); other products and mill residues

Table U15—Production and disposition of Utah mill residues, 2012.

Total Pulp and Mulch/ Unspecified Total

Residue type utilized board Energy bedding use Unused produced

-------------------------------------------Bone-dry unitsa------------------------------------------

Coarse 8,357 - 2,393 - 5,964 1,341 9,697

Fine 2,762 - - 2,045 717 774 3,536

Sawdust 1,632 - - 1,375 258 295 1,927

Planer shavings 1,129 - - 670 459 479 1,609

Bark 2,189 - - 2,001 188 1,239 3,428

Total 13,307 - 2,393 4,046 6,868 3,354 16,661

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

Coarse 86.2 - 24.7 - 61.5 13.8 58.2

Fine 78.1 - - 57.8 20.3 21.9 21.2

Sawdust 84.7 - - 71.3 13.4 15.3 11.6

Planer shavings 70.2 - - 41.7 28.5 29.8 9.7

Bark 63.8 - - 58.4 5.5 36.2 20.6

Total 79.9 - 14.4 24.3 41.2 20.1 100

a Bone-dry unit = 2,400 lb oven-dry wood.

Table U16—Utah sawmill residue factors, 1992, 2002, 2007 

and 2012 (Keegan et al. 1995; Morgan et al. 2006; Hayes et 

al. 2012).

Residue type 1992 2002 2007 2012

-------BDU/MBF lumber tallya---------

Coarse 0.56 0.48 0.44 0.64

Sawdust 0.19 0.19 0.21 0.14

Planer shavings 0.06 0.10 0.15 0.10

Bark 0.28 0.21 0.20 0.25

Total 1.09 0.98 1.00 1.13

a Bone-dry unit (BDU = 2,400 lb oven-dry wood) of residue generated 

for every 1,000 board feet of lumber manufactured.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-21. 2016. 59

accounted for 16 percent (nearly $3.0 million). Utah was the leading market

area for lumber, log homes, posts, poles, and log furniture, with in-State sales

accounting for almost 38 percent of total sales. The other Four Corners States

(Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico) accounted for 21 percent of total sales,

with lumber and sawn products accounting for 61 percent of sales in the region.

The North Central region accounted for 11 percent of total sales, with log homes

accounting for 45 percent of sales to the region. Other Rocky Mountain States

followed the Four Corners States as a major market area for lumber and other

sawn products as well as for house logs and log homes.

There were about 5,600 jobs in Utah’s primary and secondary forest industry

during 2012, representing a 32 percent decline from the more than 8,200 jobs in

the industry in 2007. Based on the 2012 industry census and employment data

from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (U.S. Department of Commerce, BEA

2014), about 460 (8 percent) of Utah’s forest industry jobs were in the primary

sector, or jobs that involve harvesting and processing of timber and mill residues. The remaining 5,140 jobs in Utah’s forest sector are considered secondary,

or jobs that involve further processing of primary sector outputs.

Table U17—Destination and sales value of Utah’s primary wood products and mill residues, 2012.

 Other Other

4-Corner Rocky Mtn North

Product Utah States Statesa Far Westb Northeastc Southd Centrale Total

------------------------------------------Thousand 2012 dollars-------------------------------------------------

Lumber, timbers, and other

sawn products 2,013 2,170 566 9 599 576 610 6,544

House logs and log homes 2,550 1,197 840 37 858 856 840 7,178

Other productsf 1,759 200 30 30 300 230 430 2,979

Total 6,321 3,567 1,436 76 1,758 1,662 1,880 16,700

-------------------------------Percentage of regional sales by product---------------------------------------

Lumber, timbers, and other

sawn products 31.8 60.8 39.4 12.4 34.1 34.7 32.4 39.2

House logs and log homes 40.3 33.6 58.5 48.3 48.8 51.5 44.7 43.0

Other productsf 27.8 5.6 2.1 39.3 17.1 13.8 22.9 17.8

Total 37.9 21.4 8.6 0.5 10.5 10.0 11.3 100

a Other Rocky Mountains includes Idaho, Montana, Nevada.

b Far West includes Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington.

c Northeast includes Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont. d South includes Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, 

South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia. e North Central includes Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and 

Wisconsin. f

 Other products include posts, poles, log furniture, and mill residues.
60 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-21. 2016.

References______________________________________________________

Green, A.W.; Setzer, T.S. 1974.The Rocky Mountain timber situation, 1970.

Resour. Bull. INT-10. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 78 p.

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

Four Corners timber harvest and forest products industry, 2007. Resour.

Bull. RMRS-RB-13. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 61 p.

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

Mortimer, M. 2001a. Arizona’s forest products industry: A descriptive

analysis 1998. Missoula, MT: University of Montana, Bureau of Business

and Economic Research. 20 p.

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

Mortimer, M. 2001b. New Mexico’s forest products industry: A descriptive

analysis 1997. Missoula, MT: University of Montana, Bureau of Business

and Economic Research. 24 p.

Keegan, C.E.; Sorenson, C.B.; Morgan, T.A.; Hayes, S.W.; Daniels, J.M. 2012.

Impact of the Great Recession and housing collapse on the forest products

industry in the Western United States. Forest Products Journal. 61(8):

625–634.

Keegan, C.E.; Wichman, D.P.; Van Hooser, D.D. 1995. Utah’s forest products

industry: A descriptive analysis, 1992. Resour. Bull. INT-RB-83. Ogden,

UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain

Research Station. 21 p.

Lynch, D.L.; Mackes, K. 2001. Wood use in Colorado at the turn of the twentyfirst century. Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-32. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 23 p.

McLain, W.H. 1985. Colorado’s industrial roundwood production and mill

residue, 1982. Resour. Bull. INT-35.Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station.13 p.

McLain, W.H. 1988. Arizona’s timber production and mill residue, 1984.

Resour. Bull. INT-55. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Intermountain Research Station.16 p.

McLain, W.H. 1989. New Mexico’s timber production and mill residue, 1986.

Resour. Bull. INT-59. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Intermountain Research Station.17 p.

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

The Four Corners timber harvest and forest products industry, 2002. Resour.

Bull. RMRS-RB-7. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 64 p.

Morgan, T.A.; Keegan, C.E.; Dillon, T.; Chase, A.L.; Fried, J.S.; Weber, M.N.

2004a. California’s forest products industry: A descriptive analysis. Gen.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-21. 2016. 61

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-615. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 54 p.

Morgan, T.A.; Keegan, C.E.; Spoelma, T.P.; Dillon, T.; Hearst, A.L.; Wagner,

F.G.; DeBlander, L.T. 2004b. Idaho’s forest products industry: A descriptive

analysis. Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-4. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 31 p.

Random Lengths. 2012. Big book 2012: The buyers and sellers directory of the

forest products industry. Eugene, OR: Random Lengths Publications, Inc.

880 p.

Setzer, T.S. 1971a. Estimates of timber products output and plant residues,

Arizona, 1969. Res. Note INT-130. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment

Station. 4 p.

Setzer, T.S. 1971b. Estimates of timber products output and plant residues,

Colorado, 1969. Res. Note INT-131.Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment

Station. 4 p.

Setzer, T.S. 1971c. Estimates of timber products output and plant residues,

Utah and Nevada, 1969. Res. Note INT-135. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment

Station. 4 p.

Setzer, T.S.; Barrett, M.K. 1977. New Mexico timber production and mill

residues, 1974. Res. Note INT-231. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment

Station. 6 p.

Setzer, T.S.; Shupe, D.G. 1977. Colorado timber production and mill residues,

1974. Res. Note INT-232. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 6 p.

Setzer, T.S.; Throssell, T.S.1977a. Arizona timber production and mill residues,

1974. Res. Note INT-230.Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 6 p.

Setzer, T.S.; Throssell, T.S.1977b. Utah timber production and mill residues,

1974. Res. Note INT-234. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 5 p.

Setzer, T.S.; Wilson, A.K. 1970. Timber products in the Rocky Mountain

States, 1966. Resour. Bull. INT-9. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment

Station. 93 p.

Sitko, S.; Hurteau, S. 2010. Evaluating the impacts of forest treatments: The

first five years of the White Mountain Stewardship Project. The Nature

Conservancy. Phoenix, Arizona.

Spencer, J.S.; Farrenkopf, T.O. 1964. Timber products output in Colorado,

Wyoming, and western South Dakota, 1962. Res. Pap. INT-14. Ogden, UT:
62 USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-21. 2016.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and

Range Experiment Station. 18 p.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis [BEA].

2014. Regional economic accounts, Table SA25N. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Commerce. http://www.bea.gov/regional/ [Accessed

September 30, 2014].

USDA Forest Service. 2011. Wallow Fire 2011—Large Scale Event Recovery

Rapid Assessment Team. Fire/fuels report Apache-Sitgreaves National

Forests. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southwestern

Region. http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/

stelprdb5333354.pdf [Last accessed August 19, 2015]. 23 p.

USDA Forest Service. 2014. Forest Inventory Data Online (FIDO) [Database].

FIDO version 1.5.1.05b. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service. http://fiatools.fs.fed.us/fido/index.html [Accessed January

30, 2015].

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis [BEA]. 2014.

Regional economic accounts, Table SA25N. http://www.bea.gov/regional/

[Accessed September 30, 2014].

Wilson, A.K. Spencer, J.S., Jr. 1967.Timber resources and industries in the

Rocky Mountain States. Resour. Bull. INT-7. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment

Station. 67 p.

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

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

participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on 

race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual 

orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public 

assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any 

program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the 

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

USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information 

may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and 

at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. 

Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, 

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

To learn more about RMRS publications or search our online titles:

www.fs.fed.us/rm/publications

www.treesearch.fs.fed.us