Oregon’s Forest Products 

Industry and Timber Harvest, 

2008: Industry Trends 

and Impacts of the Great 

Recession Through 2010

Charles B. Gale, Charles E. Keegan III, Erik C. Berg, 

Jean Daniels, Glenn A. Christensen, Colin B. Sorenson, 

Todd A. Morgan, and Paul Polzin

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest 

Research Station

General Technical Report 

PNW-GTR-868

September 2012

DEPAR TMENT OF AGRICULT URE
Authors

Charles B. Gale is a research associate, Charles E. Keegan lll is an emeritus 

researcher, Erik C. Berg is a research forester, Colin B. Sorenson is a research 

economist, Todd A. Morgan is director of Forest Industry Research, and Paul 

Polzin is emeritus director, Bureau of Business and Economic Research, The 

University of Montana, 32 Campus Drive, Missoula, MT 59812; Jean Daniels is 

a research forester and Glenn A. Christensen is a forester, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences 

Laboratory, 620 SW Main, Suite 400, Portland, OR 97205.

Cover photographs: Clockwise from top left; yarder and slide-boom de-limber, 

residue pile in active logging unit along Oregon coast range, mill residue stored 

for use at bioenergy plant, sawmill in operation, log loader and skyline yarder, and 

skyline carriage in active logging unit along Oregon coast range. Lower right photo 

by Todd Morgan and others by Eric Simmons, University of Montana Bureau of 

Business and Economic Research.

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

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

water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation with the 

States and private forest owners, and management of the National Forests and National 

Grasslands, it strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly greater service 

to a growing Nation.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and 

activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, 

sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic 

information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income 

is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all 

programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of 

program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET 

Center at (202) 720–2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write 

USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 

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

opportunity provider and employer.
Abstract

Gale, Charles B.; Keegan, Charles E., III; Berg, Erik C.; Daniels, Jean; 

Christensen, Glenn A.; Sorenson, Colin B.; Morgan, Todd A.; Polzin, 

Paul. 2012. Oregon’s forest products industry and timber harvest, 2008: 

industry trends and impacts of the Great Recession through 2010. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PNW-GTR-868. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 55 p.

This report traces the flow of Oregon’s 2008 timber harvest through the primary timber processing industry and provides a description of the structure, 

operation, and condition of Oregon’s forest products industry as a whole. It is 

the second in a series of reports that update the status of the industry every 

5 years. Based on a census conducted in 2009 and 2010, we provide detailed 

information about the industry in 2008, and discuss historical changes as well 

as more recent trends in harvest, production, and sales. To convey the severe 

market and economic conditions that existed in 2008, 2009, and 2010, we also 

provide updated information on the industry and its inputs and outputs through 

2010.

Keywords: Oregon forest products industry, timber harvest, timber receipts, 

log flow, timber-processing capacity, lumber overrun, mill residue, employment.
Highlights

• In total, 221 forest products facilities were identified as operating in Oregon 

during 2008:

• 116 lumber facilities.

• 28 plywood and veneer plants.

• 22 house log manufacturers.

• 20 pulp and board facilities.

• 15 chipping, bark product, fuel pellet, and energy plants.

• 10 post, pole, piling, and utility pole manufacturers.

• 10 log furniture, cedar product, export, and engineered wood product 

manufacturers.

• Total 2008 sales were just over $6 billion. The mill residue using pulp 

and reconstituted board sectors accounted for 50 percent of the total, with 

sales of just under $3.2 billion. The lumber sector accounted for almost 23 

percent ($1.5 billion) of the total. Plywood and veneer sectors made up 18 

percent of total sales, with receipts of slightly less than $1.2 billion. 

• By the end of 2010, more than a dozen large mills and numerous small mills 

had closed permanently. Operations at most other facilities were curtailed 

in both 2009 and 2010. Timber processing capacity dropped from 5,142 million board feet (MMBF) in 2006 to 4,531 MMBF in 2010. Capacity utilization exceeds 80 percent in good markets; by 2010 utilization dropped just 

under 57 percent.

• The Oregon forest products industry employed about 51,000 workers and 

paid about $3.05 billion (2008 dollars) in labor income in 2008. The primary sector accounted for about 70 percent of these employees (35,000 

workers) and the secondary sector employed the remaining 16,000 workers. 

• With the drop-off in demand, marked by the decline in U.S. housing markets that began in 2006, the global financial crisis in 2008, and post-World 

War II record-low housing starts in 2009, the sales value of wood and paper 

products from Oregon producers fell sharply from over $9 billion in 2005 to 

just over $5 billion in 2010. 

• Annual harvests from 2008 through 2010 were the lowest since the Great 

Depression, with 2.7 billion board feet harvested in 2009. Similarly, Oregon 

lumber production declined following the collapse of the U.S. housing 

industry; production dropped to 4.7 billion board feet lumber tally in 2008 

and recorded volumes of only 3.8 billion board feet in 2009 and 4.0 billion 

in 2010 (WWPA 2010).

The decline in U.S. 

housing markets, 

the global financial 

crisis, and record-low 

housing starts dropped 

sales of Oregon forest 

products from over 

$9 billion in 2005 to 

$5 billion in 2010.
• Although Oregon’s industry retains 85 percent of its prerecession (2006) 

capacity, just over half of that capacity was utilized in 2010—well below 

the long-term average. This low utilization rate suggests both the possibility 

of additional mill closures or the potential for ramping up to expand output 

rapidly when market conditions improve.

• Eighty-two percent of the 3.6 billion board feet Scribner of timber harvested from Oregon timberlands in 2008 came from private lands. The 

remaining 18 percent came from state lands (7 percent), national forests (6.7 

percent), and Bureau of Land Management lands and other public sources 

(4.5 percent).

• During 2008, sawlogs accounted for 77 percent of Oregon’s timber harvest, 

and veneer logs accounted for 17 percent. Chipped logs made up about 5 

percent and other timber products accounted for the remaining 1 percent.

• In 2008, Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco) was the predominant species harvested on all ownerships, followed by western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla (Raf.) Sarg.) and true firs.

• While Oregon’s timber harvest was over 3.6 billion board feet, Oregon timber processors received slightly more than 3.5 billion board feet of timber 

for processing in 2008. 

• During 2008, Oregon was a net log exporter of 95 MMBF Scribner shipped 

to other states or internationally, with total log imports of 321 MMBF, and 

log exports of 416 MMBF.

• The average log size processed by Oregon sawmills ran counter to a longterm trend and actually increased from 2003 to 2008. Sixty-two percent 

of logs processed by sawmills had a small-end diameter of greater than 10 

inches in 2008 versus 54 percent in 2003.

• About 69 percent of the residue from Oregon’s lumber and plywood facilities was used as raw material by the pulp and paper and reconstituted board 

industries. The remaining 31 percent of residues was used as fuel (26 percent), other uses such as animal bedding and landscape material (5 percent), 

or was unutilized (less than 1 percent). 
Contents

1 Introduction

3 Historical Overview and Recent Market Impacts on Oregon’s 

Forest Products Industry

8 Future Outlook

8 Oregon’s Timber Harvest, Products, and Flow

9 Oregon Timberlands

10 Harvest Levels and Harvest by Ownership

11 Harvest by Species and Product Type

15 Harvest by Geographic Resource Area

18 Timber Flow

21 End Uses of Timber

24 Oregon’s Forest Products Industry

25 Industry Concentrations

27 Sales Value, Product Markets, and Market Areas

30 Trends and Capacity by Sector

30 Sawmill Sector

33 Plywood and Veneer Sector

35 Pulp and Board Sector

35 Remaining Sectors

36 Timber-Processing Capacity: All Sectors

38 Sawmill Capacity

41 Mill Residue Production and Use

42 Economic Aspects of Oregon’s Forest Products Industry

42 Forest Products Industry and the Oregon Economy

44 Trends in Forest Products Employment and Labor Income

46 The Forest Products Industry and Oregon’s Economic Base

47 Regional Dependence on the Forest Products Industry

50 Acknowledgments

50 Metric Equivalents

51 References
1

Oregon’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2008: Industry Trends and Impacts of the Great Recession Through 2010

Introduction

This report details the composition, operation, and timber and wood fiber use by 

Oregon’s primary forest products industry during 2008. It also examines historical trends and impacts of poor wood markets from 2008 through 2010, including 

(1) estimates of wood fiber use and flow from the forest harvest through primary 

manufacturing, (2) a historical perspective of how the forest products industry and 

timber use have changed over time, and (3) a description of how the forest products 

industry has affected Oregon’s economy over time. 

Operations in the forest products industry are influenced by many factors, 

most commonly and frequently by market conditions and timber availability. From 

a national perspective, all of 2008 was part of the official recent Great Recession, 

which ran from December 2007 through June 2009 (NBER 2010). Despite the 

official end of the recession in June 2009, that year brought the poorest new home 

and lumber markets since the Great Depression, with 2010 showing only modest improvement. Additionally, Oregon’s wood-processing capacity had dropped 

precipitously in response to the substantial reduction of federal timber volume 

sold during the 1990s. With these extreme market and timber supply conditions as 

a backdrop, this report discusses both historical trends as well as impacts of the 

extended difficult market conditions on Oregon’s forest products industry from 

2008 through 2010.

This report addresses “primary forest products,” i.e., wood products directly 

manufactured from timber. These include lumber, plywood, veneer, posts and poles, 

pilings and timbers, and cedar shakes and shingles as well as products made from 

chipping or grinding timber, and from the mill residue (e.g., bark, sawdust, and 

planer shavings) generated during production of primary wood products. Products 

from residue include pulp and paper, particleboard, medium-density fiberboard, 

decorative bark, fuel pellets, fireplace logs, and thermal and electrical energy. Secondary products (i.e., goods made from primary products) include window frames, 

doors, trusses, and furniture; however, they are not included in this report. 

The foremost source of data for this report is a statewide census of Oregon’s 

primary forest products industry and out-of-state mills that received timber from 

Oregon during calendar year 2008. Firms were identified through telephone directories, land management agency timber bidders lists, directories of the forest products 

industries (Ehinger 2009, 2011; Lockwood-Post 2008; Random Lengths 2010b), and 

the assistance of the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF), Oregon Forest Industries Council, and the online Oregon Forest Industry Directory. Firms cooperating 

in the 2008 Oregon census, including exporters and out-of-state mills, processed 

the majority of Oregon’s commercial timber harvest. Inventory data were provided 

Despite the official 

end of the recession 

in June 2009, that year 

brought the poorest 

new home and lumber 

markets since the 

Great Depression, with 

2010 showing only 

modest improvement.
2

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-868

by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

(PNW) Research Station Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program (USDA 

FS 2011). 

This census of Oregon timber processors is a cooperative effort between the 

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

the FIA program within the PNW and Rocky Mountain Research Stations. The 

BBER, in cooperation with FIA analysts in the two research stations, developed the 

Forest Industries Data Collection System (FIDACS) to collect, compile, and make 

available state- and county-level information on the forest products industry in the 

West. The FIDACS is based on a census of primary forest product manufacturers 

located in a given state every 5 years. Through a written questionnaire or phone 

interview, manufacturers provide the following information for each of their facilities: 

• Plant production, capacity, and employment. 

• Volume of raw material received by county and ownership of harvest.

• Species of timber received and live/dead proportions.

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

• Utilization and marketing of processed wood residue. 

This effort is the second application of the FIDACS in Oregon; the first was 

completed in 2003. Previous to FIDACS, the BBER and the Forest Service research 

stations have been conducting periodic censuses in the Rocky Mountain and Pacific 

Coast States for almost 40 years. Before that, surveys and censuses of Oregon’s 

forest products industry were conducted periodically by the PNW Research Station and ODF since the 1960s. Information collected through FIDACS is 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. 

In the application of the 2003 FIDACS census, mills accounting for well over 

90 percent of the timber-processing activity and over 85 percent of total facilities 

in Oregon provided specific information on their operations. Owing primarily to 

the extremely poor market conditions in 2009, with a substantial number of facilities having closed or sharply curtailed their operations, a little over 70 percent of 

total facilities responded to the 2008 census, representing a little over 85 percent 

of timber-processing activity. Other data sources (APA 2009–2010; Ehinger 2009, 

2011; ODF 2009, 2010; USDC CB 2009; WWPA 2010) were used to estimate 

attributes for firms that did not complete the survey, to substantiate 2008 census 

results, and to provide 2009 and 2010 information. Discussions with mill personnel, 

questionnaires from the 2003 FIDACS, and the sources referenced above were also 

used to make estimates for nonresponding firms. The authors believe that the profile 
3

Oregon’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2008: Industry Trends and Impacts of the Great Recession Through 2010

presented here is an accurate representation of the activity of Oregon’s primary 

wood products industry during 2008 at the state and regional level and in various 

sectors of the industry.

Historical Overview and Recent Market Impacts on Oregon’s 

Forest Products Industry

This section focuses on historical trends, the relatively recent past, current conditions, and predicted trends through the next few years. For a more comprehensive 

treatment of the earlier years of Oregon’s industry the authors recommend reports 

by Andrews and Kutara (2005), Brandt et al. (2006), and Miller (1982). 

Oregon has been a leading producer of lumber and wood products in the United 

States since the early 20th century and continues to rank first among the states 

in softwood lumber and structural panel production. Timber harvest and forest 

products manufacturing increased substantially during and immediately following World War II. Harvest exceeded 9 billion board feet for several years in the 

1950s and 1960s. With the exception of the recession of the early 1980s, harvest 

remained above 7 billion board feet annually throughout the 1980s (fig. 1). From the 

1960s through the 1980s (after the early 1980s recession), production and capacity 

remained relatively stable. Over half of Oregon’s timber harvest came from federal 

timberlands during this period (fig. 2).

Harvest levels on private and tribal lands are highly dependent on market 

conditions. On Oregon’s public lands, changes in federal and state land management policy have significantly reduced Oregon’s harvest levels and milling capacity. 

The USDA Forest Service, U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM), and ODF sold and harvested less than 1 billion board feet 

annually through most of the 1940s. A post-World War II housing boom spurred a 

jump in federal timber offerings to over 3 billion board feet annually by the 1950s 

and 1960s. From 1960 to the early 1990s, federal lands provided at least 40 percent 

of Oregon’s total annual harvest. However, significant changes in federal land 

management policy contributed to a large decrease in timber offerings starting in 

the late 1980s (ODF 2011, Warren various years). 

The federal government’s shift away from timber harvesting began with the 

listing of the northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) as a threatened 

species in 1990, the listing of the marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) 

in 1992, and the listings of various species of salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.), trout 

(Salvelinus confluentus), and steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Habitat requirements for these species resulted in large areas of forest land being excluded from 

harvest. Additional restrictions on operating in roadless areas, as well as adminis-
4

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-868

trative appeals and litigation, contributed to further reductions in harvest levels 

by federal agencies. Between the late 1980s and 1999, federal timber harvest 

dropped by over 90 percent and harvest from other ownerships fell 20 percent 

(Brandt et al. 2006). 

Harvest from state-owned lands has increased substantially during the past two 

decades, owing to a substantial inventory of commercial timber and high growth 

rates. Harvest from lands managed by the ODF went from approximately 140 million board feet (MMBF) Scribner annually during the 1990s to 341 MMBF in 2005, 

and averaged 270 MMBF annually from 2008 to 2010 (ODF 2011).

Ultimately, curtailed harvests from federal lands had a lasting impact on both 

timber harvest and wood products industries in Oregon. The proportion of timber 

harvested from public versus private sources in Oregon has shifted over time (fig. 

2). By 2008, over 74 percent of timber harvested in Oregon came from forest industry land. Today more than 80 percent of timber harvested in Oregon is coming from 

less than 40 percent of the state’s nonreserved timber land (fig. 3). Over the same 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1849

1854

1859

1864

1869

1874

1879

1884

1889

1894

1899

1904

1909

1914

1919

1924

1929

1934

1939

1944

1949

1954

1959

1964

1969

1974

1979

1984

1989

1994

1999

2004

2009

Timber harvest (billion board feet Scribner)

Year

Figure 1—Oregon timber harvest, 1849–2010. Source: Oregon Department of Forestry 2010.

By 2008, over 74 

percent of timber 

harvested in Oregon 

came from forest 

industry land. Today 

more than 80 percent 

of timber harvested in 

Oregon is coming from 

less than 40 percent of 

the state’s nonreserved 

timber land.
5

Oregon’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2008: Industry Trends and Impacts of the Great Recession Through 2010

period, mill closures reduced Oregon’s timber-processing capacity1 by more than 

half, down from 9 billion board feet in the late 1980s to about 4 billion board feet by 

the late 1990s (p. 31). During this period when markets were generally good, lumber 

production from Oregon mills dropped by over 30 percent, and plywood production 

by nearly 50 percent. 

The 21st century began with a relatively mild recession in 2001; conditions 

improved and product markets strengthened dramatically by mid-decade. Unprecedented demand for lumber and wood products resulted from growing demand for 

new housing; U.S. housing starts exceeded 2 million in both 2004 and 2005 (fig. 4). 

Oregon’s remaining forest industry began to grow; timber-processing capacity rose 

1962

19641966

196819701972

19741976197819801982

198419861988

19901992

1994199619982000

2002

200420062008

2010

Share of timber harvest (percent)

Year

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Federal

Private

State, tribal, other

1 Timber-processing capacity—The volume of timber reported in thousand board feet 

Scribner that could be processed given sufficient supplies of raw materials and firm market 

demand for products. This value was estimated for each facility by applying the product 

recovery ratios to production capacity.

Figure 2—Changing shares of Oregon timber harvest, 1962–2010. Source: Oregon Department of Forestry 2010.
6

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-868

by more than 20 percent from lows in the late 1990s to 5.2 billion board feet Scribner in 2008. Lumber production rose from just over 5 to over 7 billion board feet 

over the same period (p. 31).

By 2006, the speculative housing price bubble that fueled the recovery of forest 

industries in Oregon became unsustainable. When combined with rising foreclosure rates as homebuyers defaulted on mortgage loans, the number of unoccupied 

houses in the U.S. housing industry began to rise. With increasingly large numbers 

of homes on the market, new housing construction fell; starts dropped from 1.49 

million to 1.2 million units by 2007. The decline in housing starts was accompanied 

by a decline in home values and housing-related financial instruments, contributing 

ultimately to a massive global financial crisis in 2008 and 2009. 

47.6

58.2

6.7

9.3

14.6

3.3

0.1

0.4

11..22

4.1

5.3

7.9

23.6

15.3

8.9 6.9

Timberland area Standing volume Harvest volume

Ownership share (percent)

10

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0

20

Nonindustrial private and tribal

Industry

State

Other public

Bureau of Land Management

Federal

12.7

74.1

Figure 3—Characteristics of Oregon’s nonreserved timberland by ownership class, 2008.
7

Oregon’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2008: Industry Trends and Impacts of the Great Recession Through 2010

The collapse of U.S. housing starts to 554,000 units in 2009 reduced lumber 

consumption in the United States to levels not seen since World War II. Lumber 

prices dropped about 40 percent from 2005 to 2009 while capacity utilization 

adjusted to new demand levels. Conditions improved only modestly during 2010. 

In response to curtailed production at mills throughout North America, rising log 

and lumber exports, and a slight uptick in housing starts, 2010 lumber prices were 

approximately 25 percent higher than the very low levels experienced in 2009. 

The expanding log export market of 2010 drove up log prices at a faster rate than 

lumber prices. Although a boon to forest landowners, high log prices negatively 

affected Oregon mills through rising raw material costs (Random Lengths 2010b; 

WWPA 2010).

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0

Housing starts (millions)

1980198119821983198418851986198719881989199019911992199319941995

19961997

199819992000

200120022003200420052006

20072008

2009

20102011

Year

Figure 4—U.S. housing starts, 1980–2010. Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau.

The expanding log 

export market of 2010 

drove up log prices at a 

faster rate than lumber 

prices. Although 

a boon to forest 

landowners, high 

log prices negatively 

affected Oregon mills 

through rising raw 

material costs.
8

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-868

The housing collapse and recession hit Oregon’s forest industry hard. Harvests 

from 2008 through 2010 were the lowest three since the Great Depression, with 2.7 

billion board feet in 2009, the lowest harvest since 1934. By the end of 2010, more 

than a dozen large mills and numerous small mills closed permanently from lack of 

demand. Timber-processing capacity dropped from 5,142 MMBF Scribner in 2006 

to 4,417 MMBF Scribner in 2010. Lumber production dropped by half, falling from 

7.4 billion board feet lumber tally in 2005 to 3.8 billion board feet in 2009, with just 

over 4 billion board feet of lumber produced in 2010 (WWPA 2010). 

Future Outlook

As of this writing, there is little improvement in U.S. lumber and wood products 

markets although export markets and some pulp and paper markets have shown 

improvements. The improved export market has proved to be a mixed blessing for 

Oregon’s industry, with higher log prices helping landowners but increasing costs 

for sawmills and other timber processors. Modest improvements are expected in 

domestic markets in 2012 with substantial improvements not likely until 2013 or 

beyond as U.S. home building recovers and global demand continues to increase 

(Random Lengths 2010a, 2011).

Although there has been a modest loss in timber-processing capacity in the 

last few years, Oregon’s industry retains over 85 percent of its prerecession (2006) 

capacity. Just slightly over half of that capacity was utilized in 2010 versus a 

historic high of more than 80 percent during good markets. Low utilization suggests the possibility of additional mill closures or the potential for expanding output 

rapidly when market conditions improve.

Oregon’s Timber Harvest, Products, and Flow

This section characterizes Oregon’s timber harvest by land ownership, species, 

product type, geographic source, and flow to mills in Oregon and other states and 

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

(Andrews and Kutara 2005; Brandt et al. 2006; Gebert et al. 2002; Howard 1984; 

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

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

used for historical comparisons for this 2008 report. Small differences may exist 

between the numbers published here and those in other sources owing to varying 

reporting units and conversion factors, rounding error, and scaling discrepancies 

among timber sellers and between sellers and buyers, and other reporting variations. 
9

Oregon’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2008: Industry Trends and Impacts of the Great Recession Through 2010

Oregon Timberlands

Oregon has approximately 61.4 million acres of land area, of which 30.1 million 

acres are classified as forest land.2 Of this, about 24.5 million acres (81 percent) are 

classified as timberland,3 2.4 million acres are reserved4 from timber harvest, and 

another 3.1 million acres are “available” other forest land. Of nonreserved timberland in Oregon, the forest industry owns nearly 5.8 million acres (24 percent), 

nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) landowners and tribal lands hold almost 3.8 

million acres (15 percent), and public lands account for roughly 15 million acres (57 

percent) (fig. 3). Approximately 14.1 million acres of forest land in Oregon are part 

of the National Forest System (NFS), and about 11.6 million acres (82 percent) of 

national forest land is nonreserved timberland (USDA FS 2011). 

Ownership distribution of standing (i.e., live) timber volume differs slightly 

from land ownership. Total standing volume5 on Oregon’s nonreserved timberland 

is approximately 388.4 billion board feet Scribner log rule, including only trees 

greater than 9 inches d.b.h.6 The majority, 225.9 billion board feet (58 percent) 

of the volume of trees greater than 9 inches d.b.h. is on NFS land, whereas 34.4 

billion (9 percent) is on NIPF and tribal lands, 49.3 billion (13 percent) is located 

on industrial land, 20.4 billion (5 percent) on state land, 56.8 billion (15 percent) on 

BLM land, and the remaining 1.4 billion (<1 percent) on other public lands (table 1).

2 Forest land—Land that is at least 10-percent stocked by forest trees of any size, or land 

formerly having such tree cover, and not currently developed for a nonforest use. The minimum area for classification as forest land is 1 acre. Roadside, streamside, and shelterbelt 

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

3 Timberland—Forest land that is producing or capable of producing >20 ft3

 per acre 

(1.4 m3 per hectare) per year of wood at culmination of mean annual increment (MAI). 

Timberland excludes reserved forest lands (USDA FS 2006).

4 Reserved forest land—Land permanently reserved from wood products utilization 

through statute or administrative designation. Examples include national forest wilderness 

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

5 Standing volume—Standing volume was calculated for all nonreserved timberland. Total 

aboveground stem volume, net of cull, was calculated on a cubic-foot basis for all trees 

larger than 5 inch diameter at breast height (d.b.h.). Scribner board-foot volume, net of cull, 

was calculated for all trees larger than 9 inches d.b.h.

6 Diameter at breast height (d.b.h.)—Diameter of a tree stem, located at 4.5 ft (1.37 m) 

above the ground (breast height) on the uphill side of a tree. The point of diameter measurement may vary on abnormally formed trees (USDA FS 2006).
10

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-868

Harvest Levels and Harvest by Ownership

During 2008, slightly more than 3.6 billion board feet of timber was harvested 

from forests in Oregon, about 2.3 percent of average annual growth on nonreserved 

timberland7 (Brandt et al. 2006), and sent to mills for processing. This volume was 

less than 1 percent of standing volume (table 1). Harvest fell to unprecedented lows 

the following year, when 2.5 billion board feet of timber was harvested in Oregon, 

rising somewhat in 2010 to 3.2 billion (ODF 2011). 

Most (74 percent) of the timber harvested in Oregon in 2008 came from industrial timberlands (table 1). The remaining 26 percent came from state (7.8 percent), 

NIPF and tribal timberlands (6.9 percent), NFS lands (6.7 percent), and BLM and 

other public sources (4.5 percent). The 2008 NIPF and Tribal timber harvest was 

4.6 percent lower than in 2003; these were the only ownerships to show a modest 

decline in harvest.

Harvests in 2009 and 2010 followed a similar trend. In 2010, over 75 percent of 

the harvest came from private and tribal lands, federal lands supplied about 11 percent, and state lands about 8 percent (ODF 2011). The proportion of harvest supplied 

by private and federal lands has remained relatively consistent since the large drop 

in federal harvest during the 1990s. State lands have become a more substantial 

contributor to Oregon’s harvest in recent years (fig. 5).

7 Average annual growth on nonreserved timberland—Estimated from Forest Inventory 

and Analysis (FIA) plot measurements taken in Oregon during the 1990s (Brandt et al. 

2006). The rate of average annual growth is not expected to change significantly from 

the 1990s to 2008; however, growth rates will be updated as soon as the estimate from 

FIA is available. 

Table 1—Oregon timber harvest and standing volume by ownership, 2008

Harvest Standinga

Percentage Percentage

Ownership Volume of total Volume of total

MMBFb Percent MMBFb Percent

Industry 2,691.0 74.4 49,315 12.7

State 281.8 7.8 20,414 5.3

NIPFc and tribal 244.7 6.8 34,451 8.9

National forest 240.6 6.7 225,924 58.2

Bureau of Land

 Management 116.9 3.2 56,818 14.6

Other public 41.7 1.2 1,429 0.4

 Total 3,616.8 100 388,351 100

a Indicates standing diameter at breast height > 9 inches on nonreserved timberland.

b MMBF = Volume in million board feet Scribner log rule.

c NIPF = nonindustrial private forest.

The proportion of 

harvest supplied by 

private and federal 

lands has remained 

relatively consistent 

since the large drop in 

federal harvest during 

the 1990s. State lands 

have become a more 

substantial contributor 

to Oregon’s harvest in 

recent years.
11

Oregon’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2008: Industry Trends and Impacts of the Great Recession Through 2010

Oregon’s 2008 timber harvest was roughly 91 percent of the average annual 

harvest for the previous 10 years (1998–2008), but only 57 percent of the 40-year 

average. From 1993 to 2009, timber harvests from national forests in Oregon 

averaged 405 MMBF annually, accounting for only 10 percent of the state’s total 

annual harvest. In contrast, between 1962 and 1992, NFS timber harvests in Oregon 

averaged 3,045 MMBF annually, 38 percent of the state’s total annual harvest 

(ODF 2011). 

Harvest by Species and Product Type

Softwoods accounted for 96 percent of Oregon’s 2008 harvest; hardwoods made 

up the remaining 4 percent (table 2). Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) 

Franco) was the leading species harvested, accounting for 71 percent of total harvest. Western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla (Raf.) Sarg.) followed with 13 percent, 

and other softwoods accounted for 13 percent. Hardwoods represented 3.6 percent 

of total harvest, with 2.9 percent red alder (Alnus rubra (Bong.) and 1 percent 

other hardwoods. During 2008, Douglas-fir was the major species harvested on all 

ownerships followed by western hemlock and true firs (table 3). 

Figure 5—Oregon’s timber harvest by ownership, 1962–2010. Source: Oregon Department of Forestry 2010.

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

Timber harvest (million board feet, Scribner)

196219641966

196819701972

197419761978

198019821984

198619881990

1992

1994

1996

1998

20002002

20042006

20082010

Year

Other public

Nonindustrial private and tribal

Industrial

State

Federal
12

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-868

Table 3—Oregon timber harvest by species and ownership, 2008

 Nonindustrial

private National Bureau of Land Other

Species Industry State and tribal forest Management public Total

Million board feet, Scribner

Softwoods:

 Douglas-fir 1,884.1 224.8 164.2 149.5 100.3 25.9 2,548.7

 Hemlock 369.3 42.6 23.5 9.8 5.9 12.2 463.3

 True firs 121.3 8.2 21.5 25.4 6.8 2.1 185.3

 Pines 77.2 3.0 16.9 47.9 2.4 1.4 148.9

 Spruce 62.0 2.7 2.6 3.5 0.5 0.1 71.4

 Cedar 48.4 0.0 3.7 0.9 0.7 — 53.8

 Other softwoods 8.9 0.1 2.9 3.6 0.3 — 15.8

 All softwoods 2,571.2 281.5 235.4 240.5 116.9 41.6 3,487.2

Hardwoods:

 Red alder 98.4 — 6.1 — — — 104.5

 Other hardwoods 21.4 0.3 3.3 0.04 0.01 0.1 25.1

 All hardwoods 119.8 0.3 9.4 0.04 0.01 0.1 129.6

All species 2,691.0 281.8 244.7 240.6 116.9 41.7 3,616.8

— = No value in cells.

Table 4 shows Oregon timber harvest by species over time with data compiled 

from previous industry censuses. Historically, Douglas-fir has been the leading 

species harvested (about 60 to 70 percent of annual harvest volume) in Oregon. The 

largest proportionate decline was in pine species. Although only about 4 percent 

Table 2—Oregon timber harvest and standing volume by species, 2008

Harvest Standinga

Percentage Percentage

Species Volume of total Volume of total

MMBFb Percent MMBFb Percent

Douglas-fir 2,548.7 70.5 227,042 58.5

Hemlock 463.3 12.8 30,316 7.8

True firs 185.3 5.1 41,316 10.6

Pines 148.9 4.1 50,213 12.9

Spruce 71.4 2.0 6,343 1.6

Cedar 53.8 1.5 9,160 2.4

Other softwoods 15.8 0.4 9,543 2.5

 All softwoods 3,487.2 96.4 373,933 96.3

Red alder 104.5 2.9 10,981 2.8

Other hardwoods 25.1 0.7 3,437 0.9

 All hardwoods 129.6 3.6 14,418 3.7

All species 3,616.8 100 388,351 100

a Indicates standing diameter at breast height > 9 inches on nonreserved timberland.

b MMBF = Volume in million board feet Scribner log rule.
13

Oregon’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2008: Industry Trends and Impacts of the Great Recession Through 2010

of the harvest in 2008, pines accounted for almost 18 percent of harvest in 1982 

and 14 percent of harvest in 1992. The decline is attributable to reduced harvest of 

ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa Douglas ex. Loud.) from federal forests in eastern 

Oregon (USDA FS 2012). 

Four general categories of timber products are referred to throughout this 

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

peeled to make veneer for plywood or laminated veneer lumber; pulpwood/chipped 

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

timber products—timber used to manufacture cedar shakes and shingles, posts, 

small poles, utility poles, pilings, log homes, firewood, or log furniture. 

During 2008, sawlogs accounted for 77 percent of Oregon’s timber harvest 

and veneer logs accounted for 17 percent (table 5). Chipped logs made up about 

5 percent and other timber products accounted for the remaining 1 percent. This 

distribution of timber harvest by product type paralleled findings from the 2003 

Oregon mill survey reported in Brandt et al. (2006). However, table 6 shows that the 

proportion of sawlogs has grown while the proportion of veneer logs has declined 

over time.

Sawlogs have consistently been the leading timber product used by Oregon 

mills. Table 6 shows that the sawlog proportion of harvest remained relatively stable 

from 1968 to 1982 but began rising in 1992. By 2003, sawmills were consuming 

over 70 percent of Oregon’s timber harvest. The veneer log component of harvest 

Table 4—Proportion of Oregon timber harvest by species in various years

Species 1968 1972 1982 1992 2003 2008

Percentage of timber harvest

Softwoods:

 Douglas-fir 65.1 61.1 59.2 61.2 65.6 70.5

 Hemlock 10.6 13.4 11.5 9.9 8.8 12.8

 True firs 5.9 5.1 5.2 8.9 8.9 5.1

 Pines 13.6 14.5 17.7 14.0 6.6 4.1

 Spruce 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.8 2.2 2.0

 Cedar 2.2 2.0 2.1 1.5 2.0 1.5

 Other softwoods 0.1 0.7 2.0 2.2 0.8 0.4

 All softwoods 98.6 98.0 99.0 99.5 94.9 96.4

Hardwoods:

 Red alder 0.7 a 0.6 0.7 3.8 2.9

 Other hardwoods 0.1 0.7 0.2 0.8 1.4 0.7

 All hardwoods 0.8 0.7 0.8 1.5 5.2 3.6

All species 100 100 100 100 100 100

a Species not listed for given year.

Sources: Brandt et al. 2006, Howard 1984, Manock et al 1970, Schuldt and Howard 1974, Ward 1995.

Note: Percentages may vary owing to rounding.

The proportion of 

sawlogs has grown 

while the proportion 

of veneer logs has 

declined over time.
14

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-868

Table 5—Oregon timber harvest by product type, 2008

Percentage

Product Volume of total

Million board feet, Scribner Percent

Sawlog 2,775.5 76.7

Plywood/veneer 617.4 17.1

Chipped logsa 196.5 5.4

Other timber productsb 27.3 0.8

Total 3,616.8 100

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

b Other timber products include cedar products, posts, small poles, pilings, utility poles, log 

homes, firewood, and log furniture.

Table 6—Proportion of Oregon timber harvest by product in various years

Product 1968a 1972ab 1982ab 1992ab 2003cd 2008d

Percentage of consumption

Sawlogs 61.1 58.9 57.2 67.3 72.9 76.7

Veneer 37.3 35 34.1 24.7 21.3 17.1

Chipped logs — — — — 4.4 5.4

Other timber productse 1.6 6.2 8.6 8 1.5 0.8

 All products 100 100 100 100 100 100

— = No value in cells. a Pulp and board included in “other timber products” for specified years.

b Log export included in “other timber products” for specified years.

c Log homes, firewood, and log furniture included in “other timber products.”

d Displayed as harvest for specified years.

e Other timber products include cedar products, post, pole, piling, and utility poles.

Sources: Brandt et al. 2006, Howard 1984, Manock et al. 1970, Schuldt and Howard 1974, Ward 1995. 

shows a different trend. In the late 1960s, the proportion of veneer logs was nearly 

40 percent of total harvest owing to development and expansion of the plywood 

industry in Oregon. During the 1970s, Oregon’s plywood industry began to decline, 

and, by 2008, the share of harvest going to veneer logs had fallen to 17.1 percent. 

This long-term decline was brought about by increased competition from oriented 

strand board producers, reduced volumes of veneer-quality timber on private lands, 

harvest reductions on federal lands, periodic increases in demand for veneer-quality 

timber for the export markets, and unfavorable economic conditions that depressed 

markets (Brandt et al. 2006). Other timber product uses have historically accounted 

for 5 to 10 percent of the timber harvested in Oregon with pulpwood/chipped logs 

being the largest component. The proportion of pulpwood/chipped logs tends to 

increase in years of weak lumber markets such as 1982 and 2008. Closures and 

curtailments of sawmills reduce the availability of mill residue available to pulp and 

paper mills; therefore, those pulp and paper mills use more timber in round form to 

fill their fiber needs.

Closures and 

curtailments of 

sawmills reduce the 

availability of mill 

residue available to 

pulp and paper mills; 

therefore, those mills 

use more timber in 

round form to fill their 

fiber needs.
15

Oregon’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2008: Industry Trends and Impacts of the Great Recession Through 2010

Table 7—Oregon timber harvest by ownership class and product type, 2008

Veneer Chipped Other timber All

Ownership class Sawlogs logs logsa productsb products

Million board feet, Scribner

Industrial 2,041.5 444.1 181.6 23.8 2,691.0

State 248.9 32.9 — <0.1 281.8

Nonindustrial 

 private and tribal 205.3 29.1 0 3.3 244.7

National forest 155.1 80.2 5.0 0.2 240.6

Bureau of Land 

 Management 90.7 23.3 2.9 — 116.9

Other public 33.9 7.8 — — 41.7

 All owners 2,775.5 617.4 196.5 27.3 3,616.8

— = No value in cells.

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

b Other timber products include logs for cedar products, posts, small poles, pilings, utility poles, log homes, 

and log furniture.

Sawlogs and veneer logs were the leading products used in each ownership 

class. Table 7 shows that industrial private lands provided at least 70 percent of the 

total harvest for each product type. State timberlands were the second largest source 

of sawlogs and veneer logs followed by nonindustrial and tribal lands. Ninety-two 

percent of chipped logs and other timber products came from industrial lands. 

Douglas-fir was the species most harvested for sawlogs (77 percent), veneer 

logs (61 percent), and pulpwood/chipped logs (89 percent) (table 8). Cedars, primarily western red cedar (Thuja plicata Donn ex D. Don), accounted for 55 percent of 

the “other timber products” category. 

Harvest by Geographic Resource Area

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

The Western Region contains all counties lying west of the crest of the Cascade 

Range (fig. 6); the Eastern Region consists of all the remaining counties (Manock 

et al. 1970). Overall, the Western Region supplied 89 percent of Oregon’s 2008 total 

timber harvest; the Eastern Region supplied the remaining 11 percent. This report 

expands this typology by splitting these two regions into four resource areas: the 

Northwest and Southwest Resource Areas in the Western Region and the Central 

and Blue Mountains Resource Areas in the Eastern Region (fig. 6), as indicated in 

table 9. In 2008, the majority of timber harvested in Oregon originated in the 

Northwest Resource Area. However, the Southwest Resource Area contained the 

greatest volume of standing timber. 
16

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-868

Figure 6—Oregon resource areas and active primary forest products manufacturers, 2008.

Table 8—Oregon timber harvest by species and product type, 2008

Veneer Chipped Other timber All

Species Sawlogs logs logsa productsb products

Million board feet, Scribner

Softwoods:

 Douglas-fir 2,056.6 374.1 107.2 10.9 2,548.7

 Hemlock 337.2 80.8 45.3 0.1 463.3

 True firs 106.3 75.1 4.0 — 185.3

 Pines 113.3 34.6 — 0.9 148.9

 Spruce 22.0 45.4 3.9 0.0 71.4

 Cedar 37.2 1.6 — 15.0 53.8

 Other softwoods 9.3 5.9 0.4 0.2 15.8

 All softwoods 2,681.8 617.4 160.8 27.2 3,487.2

Hardwoods:

 Red alder 81.6 — 23.0 — 104.6

 Other hardwoods 12.1 — 12.8 0.1 25.1

 All hardwoods 93.7 — 35.8 0.1 129.7

All species 2,775.5 617.4 196.5 27.3 3,616.8

— = No value in cells.

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

b Other timber products include logs for cedar products, posts, small poles, pilings, utility poles, log homes, 

and log furniture.
17

Oregon’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2008: Industry Trends and Impacts of the Great Recession Through 2010

Figure 7 shows timber harvest by resource area from 1962 to 2010. The Northwest Resource Area provided approximately half of Oregon’s total harvest in 2008, 

followed by the Southwest Resource Area, which supplied 35 to 40 percent (table 9). 

Prior to the mid-1990s, the Southwest Resource Area was the major timber producing region. Declines in eastern Oregon federal timber harvest resulted in substantial 

reductions in east-side volume delivered to Oregon mills over the past 20 years 

(Andrews and Kutara 2005)—this is particularly true for ponderosa pine. Although 

federal timber offerings have also declined west of the Cascades, accelerated 

harvesting from private and state-owned west-side lands partially compensated for 

shortfalls in federal timber supply. Eastern Oregon is different; there is relatively 

little privately held forest land to make up for reduced federal harvesting in the east. 

Overall, between 1962 and 2010, harvest levels fell by 62 percent, mostly owing to 

reduced harvesting in southwest Oregon.

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

Tim

ber harvest (million b

oard feet Scribner)

Blue Mountains

Central

Southwest

Northwest

196219641966

196819701972

1974

19761978

1980

198219841986

1988

1990

1992

199419961998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

Year

Figure 7—Oregon’s timber harvest by resource area, 1962–2010. Source: Oregon Department of Forestry 2010.

Declines in eastern 

Oregon federal timber 

harvest resulted in 

substantial reductions 

in east-side volume 

delivered to Oregon 

mills over the past 20 

years, particularly for 

ponderosa pine.
18

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-868

Table 10 lists the counties by supply areas and the volume of timber harvested 

from each county in 2008. In 2008, three counties—Clatsop, Lane, and Douglas—led 

the state with harvests of over 400 MMBF each. These counties are all in the Western 

Region with Lane and Douglas Counties in the Southwest and Clatsop County in the 

Northwest Resource Area. Within the Eastern Region, the proportion of harvest by 

resource area has been fairly consistent over time, with the Central Resource Area 

providing slightly more timber than the Blue Mountains Resource Area. Klamath, 

Union, and Wallowa are the major timber-producing counties in the Eastern Region. 

Timber Flow 

Oregon timber processors received more than 3.5 billion board feet Scribner of 

timber for processing during 2008. Over 90 percent of that volume was harvested 

from Oregon timberlands, consistent with the long-term dominance of in-state 

sources (table 11). Timber received from sources outside of Oregon totaled 321 

MMBF, which represents 9.1 percent of the total volume processed in 2008. The 

marked increase of Idaho timber processed in Oregon was the result of major 

timber-processing losses in southern Idaho. Oregon timber was also exported to 

other states and countries for processing, and 416 MMBF (11.9 percent of harvest) 

was exported to Washington, California, and other countries for processing. More 

than 300 MMBF Scribner of Oregon timber went overseas, with the remainder to 

Oregon and California. 

Table 12 shows the flow of timber harvested in Oregon. The majority of Oregon 

timber was processed in the resource area where it was harvested. Mills in each 

resource area received between 67 percent (Blue Mountains) and 88 percent (Northwest) of their timber supply from within their own resource area (table 12). 

The Northwest and Southwest Resource Areas each received 39 percent of the 

timber volume coming from out-of-state. The Central Resource Area received about 

5 percent (15 MMBF), and the Blue Mountains Resource Area received 17 percent 

(54 MMBF) of the out-of-state timber processed in Oregon during 2008. 

Table 9—Oregon timber harvest and standing volume by resource area, 2008

Standing volume

Resource area Harvest volume (>10 inches d.b.h.)

MMBF Percent MMBF Percent

Northwest 1,865 51.6 112,892 29.1 

Southwest 1,362 37.7 189,075 48.7 

Central 208 5.8 47,736 12.3 

Blue Mountains 182 5.0 38,648 10.0 

 State total 3,617 100 388,351 100

MMBF = million board feet Scribner log rule; d.b.h. = diameter at breast height.

Oregon timber 

processors received 

more than 3.5 billion 

board feet Scribner of 

timber for processing 

during 2008.
19

Oregon’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2008: Industry Trends and Impacts of the Great Recession Through 2010

Table 10—Oregon timber harvest by resource area and county, 2008

Resource area Harvest volume Percentage of total

MMBFa Percent

Northwest:

 Bentonb 113.0 3.1

 Clackamas 111.9 3.1

 Clatsop 441.1 12.2

 Columbia 137.7 3.8

 Hood Riverc 29.0 0.8

 Lincolnb 159.3 4.4

 Linnb 268.2 7.4

 Marion 53.1 1.5

 Multnomah 12.7 0.4

 Polk 129.6 3.6

 Tillamook 201.5 5.6

 Washington 120.8 3.3

 Yamhill 87.2 2.4

 Total 1,865.1 51.6

Southwest:

 Coos 303.5 8.4

 Curry 79.8 2.2

 Douglas 421.5 11.7

 Jackson 92.3 2.6

 Josephine 21.6 0.6

 Laneb 443.2 12.3

 Total 1,362.0 37.7

Central:c

 Crook 2.1 0.1

 Deschutes 37.8 1.0

 Gilliam — —

 Jefferson 13.9 0.4

 Klamath 76.4 2.1

 Lake 30.2 0.8

 Sherman — —

 Wasco 42.6 1.2

 Wheeler 5.0 0.1

 Total 208.0 5.8

Blue Mountains:c

 Baker 14.7 0.4

 Grant 17.9 0.5

 Harney 15.9 0.4

 Malheur 1.0 <.1

 Morrow 1.1 <.1

 Umatilla 14.8 0.4

 Union 60.9 1.7

 Wallowa 55.4 1.5

 Total 181.7 5.0

State total 3,616.8 100.0

— = No value in cells. a Volume in million board feet Scribner log rule.

b Previous Oregon forest products industry reports listed these counties in the west-central resource area.

c Counties use east-side scale.
20

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-868

Overall, Oregon was a net exporter of timber to other states or countries (table 

13). Over 90 percent of the 95 MMBF of timber flowing out of Oregon was in 

the form of sawlogs. Chipped/pulpwood, veneer logs, and other timber products 

made up the remaining 10 percent. Log flow into Oregon was primarily sawlogs 

and veneer logs (99.9 percent). Log exports were calculated using the Washington 

Mill Survey 2008 (2010), out of state mill questionnaires, export information from 

export facilities, and from “Production, Prices, Employment, and Trade in Northwest Forest Industries” (Warren, various years). Oregon exports for 2008 is the net 

balance of log flows into Oregon minus log flow out of Oregon. 

Table 11—Log flows to timber processors in Oregon by state of origin

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

Million board feeta

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

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

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

Idaho c 1 1 0 11 16 17 47 18 58 42 

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

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

a Volume in million board feet Scribner log rule.

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

c For 1968 Idaho is combined with “other.”

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

Ward 1995, 1997; Ward et al. 2000.

Table 12—Oregon timber flow by resource area, 2008

Geographic source of timber a

 Blue Out-of-state Total timber

Destination Northwest Southwest Central Mountains timberb received in Oregon 

Million board feet, Scribner 

Northwest 1,274.2 31.3 10.0 — 128.8 1,444.2 

Southwest 196.1 1,320.7 57.6 0.6 123.4 1,698.4 

Central 1.3 7.0 117.5 0.9 15.1 141.7 

Blue Mountains 1.7 — 22.9 158.6 53.9 237.2 

California — 3.0 — — 321.1 3,521.5 

Washington and export 391.7 — — 21.6 

 Total Oregon 

 timber harvest 

 by resource area 1,865.1 1,362.0 208.0 181.7 3,616.8

— = No value in cells. a See table 7 for counties in each resource area.

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

Overall, Oregon was a 

net exporter of timber 

to other states or 

countries.
21

Oregon’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2008: Industry Trends and Impacts of the Great Recession Through 2010

End Uses of Timber 

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

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

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

inputs are generally reported in board feet Scribner west-side or east-side log rule. 

Volumes of mill outputs are provided in the measurement unit common to each 

product, such as board feet lumber tally or square feet of plywood 3/8-inch basis. 

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

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

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

complete accounting of wood fiber through primary processing. 

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

thousand board feet (MBF) lumber tally is assumed to contain approximately 50 to 

60 cubic feet of wood, and board-foot-Scribner-to-cubic conversions for timber vary 

by timber product type, which reflect log size and quality. See Keegan et al. (2010a, 

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

mill residue volumes.

The following factors were used to convert board-foot Scribner log volume of 

the various timber products to cubic-foot volume (Keegan et al. 2010a): 

• 4.35 board feet per cubic foot for sawlogs 

• 4.48 board feet per cubic foot for veneer logs

• 2.41 board feet per cubic foot for chipped logs 

• 4.45 board feet per cubic foot for other timber products 

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

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

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

Table 13—Oregon out-of-state timber flow, 2008

Log flow into	 Log flow out	 Net in

Timber products Oregon of Oregona (net out)

Million board feet, Scribner 

Sawlogs 250.5 (378.5) (128.0)

Veneer logs 65.5 (5.0) 60.6 

Chipped logsb 5.0 (31.0) (26.0)

Other timber productsc 0.1 (1.9) (1.8)

 All products 321.1 (416.3) (95.2)

a Does not include logs received by Oregon export facilities for subsequent export to 

other countries.

b Chipped logs are primarily roundwood pulpwood and also include industrial 

fuelwood.

c Other timber products include logs for cedar products, posts, small poles, pilings, 

utility poles, log homes, and log furniture.
22

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-868

producers of cedar products, log furniture, log homes, and house logs; these were 

combined to avoid disclosing proprietary information on individual firms. Figure 8 

outlines timber flows by sector beginning with total statewide harvest and ending 

with finished primary products. 

The 3.6 billion board feet of timber harvested in 2008 equates to 865 million 

cubic feet (MMCF) of wood fiber, excluding bark (fig. 8). Of this volume, 639 

MMCF (74 percent) was delivered as sawlogs to sawmills; 138 MMCF (16 percent) 

were veneer logs shipped to veneer and plywood plants; 82 MMCF (9 percent) was 

chipped for pulp mills and board plants; and 6 MMCF (1 percent) were delivered 

as other timber products to various types of facilities (in fig. 8, see the first level of 

branching below total harvest). 

Of the 639 MMCF of timber delivered to sawmills, 319 MMCF (50 percent) 

of bole volume became finished lumber or another sawn product, 298 MMCF (47 

percent) became mill residue, and 22 MMCF (3 percent) was lost from shrinkage 

of green lumber. About 213 MMCF of sawmill residue was sold as raw material to 

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

hardboard in Oregon and other states. About 69 MMCF of sawmill residue was 

used for energy; 30 percent of that residue was used by the sawmill producing it, 

and the remaining 70 percent was sold to other facilities generating electricity or 

other forms of energy. Residues used for miscellaneous other purposes such as 

livestock bedding accounted for 16 MMCF, and slightly less than 0.5 MMCF of 

sawmill residue was reported as unused. 

Of the 138 MMCF of Oregon’s timber harvest received by veneer plants in 

Oregon and other states, 79 MMCF (57 percent) of bole volume was processed 

into veneer, and 59 MMCF (43 percent) became residue. Of the 59 MMCF that 

became residue, 45 MMCF was sold as raw material to pulp and paper and board 

manufacturers. Approximately 3 MMCF of veneer mill residue was used for 

miscellaneous other purposes such as livestock bedding, and 11 MMCF was 

used for energy purposes. 

About 82 MMCF (9 percent) of Oregon’s timber harvest was in the form of 

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

board. These facilities received an additional 259 MMCF of mill residues from 

sawmills and plywood plants for use as raw material. In total, 341 MMCF of raw 

material was used for pulp, paper, and board products, and approximately onequarter of that volume was from roundwood pulpwood. 

Other manufacturers, including producers of cedar products, log furniture, and 

house logs and log homes, received 6 MMCF of Oregon’s timber harvest. About 4 

MMCF of this material became finished products, 1 MMCF of residue was used for 
23

Oregon’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2008: Industry Trends and Impacts of the Great Recession Through 2010

Total harvest

865 MMCFa

Other manufacturersb

6 MMCF

Plywood and 

veneer plants

138 MMCF

Pulp mills and

board plants

82 MMCF

Sawmills

639 MMCF

Residue to

pulp mills and

board plants

1 MMCF

Residue for

energy

11 MMCF

Residue to

pulp mills and

board plants

Residue to 213 MMCF

pulp mills and

board plants

45 MMCF

Residue for

miscellaneous

uses

1 MMCF

Unutilized

residue

<0.5 MMCF

Residue for

miscellaneous

uses

3 MMCF

Residue for

miscellaneous

uses

16 MMCF

Lumber

shrinkage

22 MMCF

Residue for

energy

69 MMCF

Other primary

products

4 MMCF

Finished plywood

and veneer

79 MMCF

Raw material for

pulp, paper, and 

board products

341 MMCF

Finished dry

lumber and other

sawn products

319 MMCF

a

 Excluding bark.

b

 Other manufacturers include log furniture manufacturers; house log/log home manufacturers; 

and post, pole, piling, utility pole, and cedar products manufacturers.

MMCF = million cubic feet.

Figure 8—Oregon timber harvest and flow, 2008. 
24

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-868

miscellaneous purposes such as livestock bedding, and the remaining 1 MMCF of 

residue was sold as raw material to pulp, paper, and board manufacturers. 

In total, 865 MMCF of wood fiber, excluding bark, was harvested from Oregon 

timberlands during 2008. About 341 MMCF was used as raw material to produce 

pulp, paper, or reconstituted board products such as particleboard or mediumdensity fiberboard; 319 MMCF became finished lumber; 79 MMCF became veneer 

or plywood; 80 MMCF was used to generate energy usually in the form of steam 

or electricity; 20 MMCF went to other uses such as animal bedding; 4 MMCF was 

used to produce other primary products; 22 MMCF was lost in shrinkage from 

green to dry lumber; and only 0.5 MMCF of wood fiber went unutilized. 

Oregon’s Forest Products Industry 

The FIDACS census identified 221 primary forest products facilities operating in 

Oregon during 2008. Brandt et al. (2006) identified 249 facilities operating in 2003. 

Table 14 shows that the number of facilities has declined substantially over time, 

from 553 in 1968 to 200 in 1998. County Business Patterns (USDC CB 2011a) and 

other sources (Ehinger 2009, 2011) indicate that the number of active primary forest 

products facilities in Oregon during 2010 had fallen back to about 200.

The jump from 200 facilities in 1998 to 249 in 2003 is largely owing to differences in how data were gathered over time. The 2003 and 2008 surveys included 

more facility types than in previous years. Chipping plants were added in 1998 and 

Table 14—Active Oregon primary forest products facilities by sector

Veneer Pulp Posts, pole,

 and and Cedar pilings, and Log Log Other All

Year Lumber plywood board products Export utility poles Chipping homes furniture facilitiesa sectors

Number of active facilities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2003 126 33 23 2 2 12 9 25 6 11 249

2008 116 28 20 2 b 10 8 22 4 11 221

a Other facilities include biomass/energy, bark products, engineered wood products, and fuel pellets/fire logs.

b Log export, posts, small poles, pilings, chipping, log homes, and log furniture were not included in the specified years.

c All the mills did not participate in the specified survey years.

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

Ward 1995, 1997; Ward et al. 2000.

The FIDACS census 

identified 221 primary 

forest products 

facilities operating in 

Oregon during 2008.
25

Oregon’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2008: Industry Trends and Impacts of the Great Recession Through 2010

log home, log furniture, bioenergy, decorative bark and mulch, and fuel pellets were 

included in 2003 and 2008. In addition, efforts to identify mills to include in the 

survey were expanded in 2003. It is possible that some mills were missed in earlier 

surveys. Thus, the downward trend in the number of active forest products facilities 

identified since 1968 has likely continued through the present time. Heightened 

efforts to perform a complete census of the industry in 2003 and 2008 likely 

resulted in the identification of a higher percentage and number of small mills than 

in the previous decade.

The decline in the number of mills in Oregon since the 1960s mirrors a similar 

trend prevalent throughout the Western United States (Keegan et al. 2006). Explanations for this trend include:

• Concentration of production into large, capital-intensive, more 

efficient mills.

• Lack of reliable timber supply following the reduction in timber sales from 

federally managed lands. 

• Progressively smaller diameter timber available from harvest of second- or 

third-growth stands on private lands.

• The decline of cedar product facilities can be ascribed to the reduction in 

harvest of large-diameter cedar from old-growth stands. Cedar harvest currently is focused in second- or third-growth stands.

• Unfavorable market conditions that culminated with recessions in 1980 

and 2007. 

• Competition from such wood products as oriented strand board, which are 

not manufactured in Oregon and which compete with Oregon producers. 

Factors affecting the structure and size of Oregon’s industry are discussed in 

more detail in subsequent sections on the individual sectors and capacity. 

Industry Concentrations 

The majority (79 percent) of active forest products facilities were located in western 

Oregon (table 15). The Southwest Resource Area contained the largest proportion 

of lumber producers (44 percent) and plywood and veneer operations (71 percent). 

Lane County was home to the largest number of active forest products facilities 

in the state, with 33 mills operating during 2008. Douglas County followed with 

22 mills. These findings are consistent with what previous surveys have reported 

(Brandt et al. 2006; Howard 1984; Howard and Hiserote 1978; Howard and Ward 

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

et al. 2000). The Northwest Resource Area was home to 83 active facilities and 

the largest proportion of pulp and board plants (55 percent), chipping operations 

(75 percent), and other facilities (64 percent). Pulp and paper milling capacity was 

The downward trend 

in the number of 

active forest products 

facilities identified 

since 1968 has likely 

continued through the 

present time.
26

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-868

Table 15—Active Oregon primary forest products manufacturing facilities by resource area, county, and 

product produced, 2008

Veneer Pulp Posts, pole,

Resource and and Cedar pilings, and Log Log Other All

area/county Lumber plywood board products utility poles Chipping homes furniture facilitiesa industries

Number of facilities

Northwest:

 Benton 4 — — — — — — — — 4

 Clackamas 9 — 2 1 — — 2 — 1 15

 Clatsop 2 — — — — 1 — — — 3

 Columbia 3 1 3 — 1 — — — 2 10

 Hood River 1 — — — — — — — 2 3

 Lincoln 1 — 1 — — 1 — — — 3

 Linn 5 4 3 — — 1 1 — 1 15

 Marion 2 — — — — 1 — — — 3

 Multnomah 2 — — — — — 1 — — 3

 Polk 3 — — — — — — — 1 4

 Tillamook 3 — — — — — — — — 3

 Washington 5 — 1 — — 1 — 1 — 8

 Yamhill 6 1 1 — — 1 — — — 9

 Total 46 6 11 1 1 6 4 1 7 83

Southwest:

 Coos 11 1 — — — 2 — — — 14

 Curry 1 1 — — — — — — — 2

 Douglas 14 5 1 1 — — — — 1 22

 Jackson 3 6 2 — — — 2 — 1 14

 Josephine 3 2 — — — — — 1 — 6

 Lane 19 5 3 — 3 — 2 — 1 33

 Total 51 20 6 1 3 2 4 1 3 91

Central:

 Crook — — — — — — 1 — — 1

 Deschutes 1 — — — 2 — 8 — 1 12

 Gilliam — — — — — — — — — 0

 Jefferson 1 — — — — — — — — 1

 Klamath 5 1 2 — 1 — — — — 9

 Lake 1 — — — — — — — — 1

 Sherman — — — — — — — — — 0

 Wasco — — — — — — 2 — — 2

 Wheeler — — — — — — 1 1 — 2

 Total 8 1 2 0 3 0 12 1 1 28

Blue Mountains:

 Baker — — — — 1 — — — — 1

 Grant 5 — — — 1 — 1 — — 7

 Harney — — — — — — — 1 — 1

 Malheur — — — — — — — — — 0

 Morrow — — — — — — — — — 0

 Umatilla 3 — — — 1 — — — — 4

 Union 2 1 1 — — — — — — 4

 Wallowa 1 — — — — — 1 — — 2

 Total 11 1 1 0 3 0 2 1 0 19

2008 total 116 28 20 2 10 8 22 4 11 221

— = No value in cells. a Other facilities include biomass/energy, bark products, engineered wood products, and fuel pellets/fire logs.
27

Oregon’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2008: Industry Trends and Impacts of the Great Recession Through 2010

concentrated in the Northwest Resource Area, which contained 80 percent of the 

pulp and paper plants. 

The remaining 47 facilities (21 percent) were located in eastern Oregon. The 

Central Resource Area had 28 facilities and the Blue Mountains Resource Area had 

19. Three board facilities were located in the Central and Blue Mountains Resource 

Areas combined. Deschutes County in the Central Resource Area had the majority 

of east-side mills with 22. The greatest proportion of house log manufacturers (55 

percent) in Oregon was located in Deschutes County as well. Of the 19 mills in the 

Blue Mountains Area, the majority were lumber producers. Most of these mills 

were in Grant County.

Sales Value, Product Markets, and Market Areas 

Oregon facilities reported the value of 2008 shipments of finished products and 

residues. Table 16 shows that product sales were led by pulp and paper followed 

by sawmills, plywood and veneer, and reconstituted board. These four industries 

represented 96.8 percent of total sales. The pulp and board sectors accounted for 

over half of all 2008 sales with just under $3.2 billion. The lumber sector accounted 

for almost $1.5 billion (24 percent) of the total. Plywood and veneer sectors generated 19 percent with nearly $1.2 billion in total sales. Other primary wood products 

sectors made up the remaining 3 percent of sales at $192 million (USDC CB 2009). 

For the first time, the value of products from the pulp and paper ($2.8 billion) 

and reconstituted board industries ($375 million) accounted for over half of the total 

value of primary products at $3.2 billion. Pulp and board sales were greater than 

sales values reported by all other producers combined (USDC CB 2009, WWPA 

2010). This suggests that the decline in housing starts affected lumber, plywood and 

Table 16—Product salesa value of Oregon primary wood product sectors, 2008

Sector 2008 product sales

Thousand U.S. dollars

Pulp and paper 2,821,171 

Sawmills 1,461,155 

Plywood and veneer plants 1,154,709 

Reconstituted board 374,919 

Other sectorsb 136,748 

Chipping facilities 41,369 

Log homes plants 8,002 

Posts, pole, pilings, and utility pole plants 5,217 

Log furniture plants 860 

 Total 6,004,150

a Sales (free on board the producing mill).

b Other sectors includes bark products, cedar products, energy/biomass, engineered wood products, 

exports, and fuel pellet/fire log manufacturers.

For the first time, the 

value of products 

from the pulp and 

paper ($2.8 billion) 

and reconstituted 

board industries ($375 

million) accounted 

for over half of the 

total value of primary 

products at $3.2 billion.
28

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-868

other solid wood products producers disproportionately more than pulp and 

board industries. 

Figure 9 shows the estimated value of sales of Oregon’s primary wood processors for 2001 to 2009. Information collected about product sales value and destination in the 2008 survey was directly comparable to data gathered in the 2003 survey 

(Brandt et al. 2006). The remaining years were interpolated using annual data from 

the Annual Survey of Manufactures and periodic Census of Manufactures (USDC 

CB 2009). The sales value of Oregon’s primary wood and paper products (free on 

board the producing mill) in 2001 was approximately $7.5 billion 2008 dollars. 

Strong demand for new housing resulted in strong markets for wood products; sales 

rose to nearly $10 billion in 2004 and remained over $9 billion in 2005. In 2006, 

conditions changed; U.S. housing starts began declining and fell to record-low levels in 2009. This collapse, combined with the financial crisis in 2008, led to sharp 

declines in the value of wood and paper products from Oregon producers to about 

$6 billion in 2008 and about $4.6 billion in 2009. 

Table 17 reports the sales value and destination of Oregon’s primary wood 

products and mill residues. Mills usually distribute their products either through 

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

Value of primary products output 

(thousands of 2008 dollars)

Year

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Figure 9—Oregon sales value of primary wood products output, 2001–2009. Source: Keegan 2010b, 

Brandt et al. 2006.
29

Table 17—Destination and sales value of Oregon primary wood products and mill residues, 2008 	 Far	 Rocky	 North	 	 	 Pacific	 Product Oregon Westa Mountainsb Centralc Northeastd Southe Rim Canada Ot

Thousands of 2008 dollars Pulp and boardg 216,313 2,324,183 292,909 143,282 21,708 48,135 97,811 35,592 16

Lumber 460,680 561,185 156,214 102,710 79,718 85,313 9,021 4,600 1Plywood 466,486 303,697 77,604 124,456 105,380 60,053 564 16,469  and veneer Other primary 71,620 51,232 23,662 22,514 7,234 15,934 — — 

wood productsh Total primary 1,215,099 3,240,297 550,389 392,961 214,039 209,436 107,397 56,662 17,

product Residuesi 230,766 55,381 — — — — — — 

 Total sales 1,445,865 3,295,678 550,389 392,961 214,039 209,436 107,397 56,662 17, value 2008 Percent Percent total 2008 23 52 9 6 3 3 2 1 Percent total 2003 28 42 10 7 6 3 1 0 Total sales value 2,399,891 3,278,581 813,975 582,677 497,842 274,559 88,083 62,007 20, in 2003 expressed in 2008 dollars — = No value in cells. a Far West includes Alaska, California, Hawaii, and Washington. b Rocky Mountains include Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. c North Central includes Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. d Northeast includes Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont. e South includes Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, TeWest Virginia. f Other includes Europe and Mexico. g Pulp and board includes pulp, paper, reconstituted board, bark, wood pellets, and other energy products. h Other primary wood products include cedar products, export logs, log furniture, house logs, posts, small poles, pilings, and utility poles. i Mill residues in Far West include all out-of-state mill residue sales.
30

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-868

their own distribution channels or through independent wholesalers and selling 

agents. Because of subsequent downstream transactions, the geographic destination 

reported here may not precisely reflect the final delivery points of shipments. 

At $3.3 billion, the Far West states comprised the largest market for Oregon’s 

primary wood and paper products; sales represented 52 percent of the total. The 

majority of these sales occurred in pulp and reconstituted board followed by the 

lumber sector. Plywood, veneer, and other primary products were mostly sold out of 

state; sales to Oregon buyers of primary products were $1.4 billion overall. Many of 

the sales to Oregon buyers were sold again for further processing in other states. 

Market destinations for Oregon products in 2008 are only modestly different 

from 2003 (Brandt et al. 2006). The share of sales in Oregon and other Far West 

states increased from 70 percent in 2003 to 75 percent in 2008 mostly owing to 

modest gains in sales to Far West states. Another difference between the two 

periods was in product exports, which rose from less than 1 percent in 2003 to 3 

percent in 2008. Also, sales to the Northeast Region fell from 6 to 3 percent.

Trends and Capacity by Sector

This section discusses market trends and mill survey results by sector. Specifically, we examine productivity in the sawmill, plywood, pulp and board, and other 

primary products sectors.

Sawmill Sector

Figure 10 shows Oregon lumber production, which peaked in 1955 at just under 9.2 

billion board feet lumber tally. Between 1955 and the late 1970s, lumber production gradually declined, with minor year-to-year troughs and peaks, to 7.3 billion 

in 1979. Production declined during this time primarily because timber volume 

was diverted to plywood manufacturing. Lumber production dropped substantially 

during the recession of the early 1980s to just under 4.7 billion lumber tally in 1982. 

Following the recession lumber markets improved and lumber production climbed 

consistently. The peak of 8.8 billion board feet in 1987 was just below the peak of 

the early 1950s. 

The drop in federal harvest in the first half of the 1990s led to closures and a 

sizable drop in lumber output in Oregon to a low in 1995 of under 5 billion board 

feet (Keegan et al. 2006). In response, harvests from nonfederal lands rose. From 

the mid-1990s through the early 2000s, lumber production rose steadily to a peak of 

7.4 billion board feet lumber tally in 2005. Following this period of strong markets, 

lumber production in Oregon declined drastically with the collapse of the U.S. 

housing industry. Production in 2008 dropped to 4.7 billion board feet lumber tally, 

then to 3.8 billion in 2009 and 4 billion in 2010 (WWPA 2010). 

At $3.3 billion, the Far 

West states comprised 

the largest market for 

Oregon’s primary wood 

and paper products.
31

Oregon’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2008: Industry Trends and Impacts of the Great Recession Through 2010

Sawmill lumber recovery—

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

of efficiency reported by Oregon’s sawmills as lumber recovery factors (LRF) 

and overrun. The LRF is the lumber output (in thousand board feet lumber tally) 

divided by the timber input (thousand cubic feet). Lumber overrun (LO) is the 

amount of lumber actually recovered in excess of the volume predicted by the log 

scale, expressed as a percentage of the log scale (Keegan et al. 2010b). Although LO 

is the most commonly quoted measure of lumber recovery and mill efficiency, LO 

fails to accurately portray differences in lumber recovery, primarily owing to flaws 

in the Scribner log scale used to estimate timber volume. As log diameters decrease, 

generally the Scribner log rule used in Oregon increasingly underestimates the 

volume of lumber that can be recovered from a log, thus increasing overrun. The 

LRF measure better illustrates the relationship between rising lumber output and 

improvements in technology and sawing techniques (Keegan et al. 2010b).

Both LO and LRF have risen substantially over the past 40 years as shown in 

figure 11 and table 18. Lumber overrun increased from 1.27 in 1968 to 2.07 in 2003 

(Brandt et al. 2006, Keegan et al. 2010b, Manock et al. 1970), before a slight decline 

Figure 10—Oregon’s lumber production, 1954–2009. Source: Brodie et al. 1978; WWPA 1954–2010.

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

Lum

ber pro

duction (million b

oard feet, lum

ber tally)

196219641966

1968195419561958

19601970197219741976

1978

19801982

1984

1986

19881990

19921994

19961998

2000

20022004200620082010

Year
32

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-868

to 2.04 in 2008 (fig. 11). Lumber recovery factor followed a similar pattern, increasing from about 7 board feet lumber tally per cubic foot of sawlog input in 1968 to 

8.7 board feet in 2003 and 9.0 board feet in 2008 (table 18). 

The increase in Oregon lumber recovery since 1968 primarily results from 

improved sawing technology and characteristics of the Scribner log scale. Technological improvements have made Oregon mills more efficient in numerous ways. 

Log size (diameter and length) sensing capabilities linked to computers determine 

the best sawing pattern for logs to recover either the greatest volume or greatest 

value from each log. Improved sawing accuracy and curve sawing have reduced 

the amount of size variation in sawn lumber, thus increasing solid wood recovery. 

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

inaccuracies inherent in the Scribner log scale could confound recovery estimates, 

especially because the average log diameter processed by Oregon sawmills has 

consistently trended downward over the past 50 years as harvesting shifted from 

old-growth to second-growth forest (Keegan et al. 2006, Keegan et al. 2010b). 

1968

1.27

1972

1.34

1976

1.37

1982

1.35

1985

1.5

1988

1.57

1992

1.63

1998

1.83

2003

2.07 2008

2.04

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Overrun (lumber per board foot Scribner of timber)

Year

Figure 11—Lumber overrun in Oregon in various years. Source: Brandt et al. 2006; Howard 1984; Howard and Hiserote 

1978; Howard and Ward 1991; Manock et al. 1970; Schuldt and Howard 1974; Ward 1995, 2000.
33

Oregon’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2008: Industry Trends and Impacts of the Great Recession Through 2010

Log size processed by sawmills—

Despite the long-term trend toward smaller logs discussed above, in 2008, the average log size processed by Oregon sawmills actually increased from 2003 (table 19). 

Sixty-two percent of logs processed by sawmills had a small-end diameter greater 

than 10 inches in 2008 versus 54 percent in 2003 (Keegan et al. 2010b). In fact, 

almost 15 percent of logs processed were greater than 24 inches diameter, rising 

from 5 percent in 2003. 

The increase in log size may 

be a result of weak lumber markets 

in 2008. During poor markets, it 

becomes more difficult for lumber 

mills to profitably produce lumber 

from small and low-quality logs. The 

price of stud grade lumber—which 

is predominantly made from small 

logs—fell by a much higher percentage during the recent recession than many other dimension and board and shop 

lumber grades (Random Lengths 2010b). The reduced use of small-diameter logs, 

along with reduced incentive to saw lower grades of lumber from marginal-quality 

logs by sawmills, may have led to the decreased overrun reported in 2008. 

Plywood and Veneer Sector

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

Oregon’s plywood and veneer sector produced 2,595 million square feet, 3/8-inch 

basis (MMSF-3/8-inch) of plywood and 1,428 MMSF-3/8-inch of veneer in 2008, 

making Oregon the leading producer of plywood in the United States (Adair 2010). 

Of the 28 plywood and veneer plants operating in Oregon during 2008, 9 produced veneer only, 11 were both veneer and plywood lay-up operations, and 8 plants 

produced only plywood (table 20). The number of plywood and veneer facilities 

has decreased substantially over time. In 1968, there were 138 plywood and veneer 

plants operating in Oregon (Manock et al. 1970). By 1994, there were just 26 (Ward 

1997), and in 1998, there was an increase to 42 mills.

Table 18—Overrun and lumber recovery factor in various years

1972 1976 1998 2003 2008

Lumber recovery factor 6.95 7.11 8.30 8.64 9.00

Lumber overrun 1.34 1.37 1.83 2.07 2.04

Source: Brandt et al. 2006; Howard 1984; Howard and Hiserote 1978; Howard and Ward 1991, 1998; 

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

Table 19—Proportion of logs processed 

by sawmill by small-end diameter

Small-end diameter 2003 2008

< 7 inches 0.14 0.12

7 to 10 inches 0.32 0.26

<10 inches 0.46 0.38

>10 inches 0.54 0.62

10 to 24 inches 0.49 0.48

> 24 inches 0.05 0.14

Note: Bold values include totals.

Despite the long-term 

trend toward smaller 

logs discussed above, 

in 2008, the average 

log size processed 

by Oregon sawmills 

actually increased 

from 2003.

The number of plywood 

and veneer facilities 

has decreased 

substantially over time.
34

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-868

Oregon’s plywood industry grew rapidly between 1954 and 1965 (fig. 12), 

peaked in the early 1970s, then fluctuated somewhat until the recession in the early 

1980s. Production dropped to 5,113 MMSF 3/8-inch in 1982 (Brodie et al. 1978, 

Warren 1988). Following the recession, plywood production ramped up quickly to 

8,381 MMSF-3/8-inch in 1987 then fell rapidly (Adair 2004). By 2008, production 

had declined to lows not seen since 1954. 

Plywood and veneer manufacturers made gains in product recovery from 2003 

to 2008. The plywood and veneer recovery factor is the plywood/veneer output (in 

thousand square feet 3/8-inch basis) divided by the timber input (thousand board 

feet Scribner). The statewide plywood and veneer recovery factor for Oregon in 

2008 was approximately 4.19 square feet per board foot Scribner of log input; in 

2003 recovery was 4.0. 

The plywood production volume calculated from the 2008 FIDACS census is 

substantially higher than the plywood production volume published by the Engineered Wood Association (Adair 2010; APA 2009): Oregon plywood production 

was estimated at 2,595 MMSF 3/8-inch by FIDACS; The American Plywood Association APA reported 2,256 MMSF 3/8-inch total production. The two main reasons 

for discrepancies in the production numbers are (1) both softwood and hardwood 

plywood production are included in the FIDACS estimate, whereas APA includes 

just softwood plywood, and (2) specialty veneer panel products produced by a few 

Oregon facilities are incorporated in the FIDACS estimate but not in the APA data.

Table 20—Number of Oregon plywood and veneer mills, selected years 

1968–2008

Year Veneer only Veneer and plywood plywood only All

Number of mills

1968 59 58 21 138

1972 46 58 29 133

1976 52 52 28 132

1982 45 37 19 101

1985 36 32 21 89

1988 33 33 21 87

1992 16 13 11 40

1994a — — — 26

1998 15 14 13 42

2003 11 13 9 33

2008 9 11 8 28

— = No value in cells. a For 1994, plywood and veneer mills not separated.

Sources: Brandt et al. 2006; Howard 1984; Howard and Hiserote 1978; Howard and Ward 1991, 

1988; Manock et al. 1970; Schuldt and Howard 1974; Ward 1995, 1997; Ward et al. 2000.
35

Oregon’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2008: Industry Trends and Impacts of the Great Recession Through 2010

Pulp and Board Sector

In 2008, 20 pulp and board facilities operated in Oregon; over 85 percent were 

located in western Oregon. Ten were board plants that produced particleboard, 

hardboard, and medium-density fiberboard (MDF) and 10 were pulp and paper 

mills. Board facilities produced a total of 2,001 MMSF of products including 

particleboard, MDF, and hardboard with a total sales value of close to $404 million. 

Oregon’s pulp and paper sector produced more than 4.4 million dry tons of pulp 

and paper in 2008 with a sales value close to $2.8 billion, representing a 47 percent 

increase from sales reported in 2003. China’s robust demand for North American 

pulp and paper has helped drive up demand (Lang 2008). With weaker markets in 

2009, pulp and paper sales dropped to approximately $2.5 billion and reconstituted 

board sales fell to approximately $300 million. 

Remaining Sectors

Other primary forest product sectors operating in Oregon during 2008 included 

both timber- and residue-utilizing manufacturers. Timber-utilizing manufacturers 

included roundwood pulp-chip conversion operations, export operations; log home 

Figure 12—Oregon’s softwood plywood production, 1954–2009. Source: Adair 2005, APA 1954–2009, Brodie et al. 

1978, Warren 1988.

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

Softwood plywood production 

(million square feet, 3/8-inch basis)

1962196419661968

1954

1956

195819601970

1972

1974197619781980

198219841986

198819901992199419961998

20002002

200420062008

Year
36

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-868

manufacturers; cedar product facilities; log furniture manufacturers; and post, 

small pole, piling, and utility pole facilities. Residue-utilizing sectors included 

bark product plants, biomass/energy production facilities, and firewood and wood 

pellet producers. 

The eight roundwood pulp-chip conversion facilities produced 374,283 BDUs of 

clean chips and shavings with a sales value of $44.2 million. Twenty-two log home 

plants in Oregon in 2008 produced 24,636 thousand lineal feet (MLF) of log products, sold in the form of logs, home kits, or custom-designed homes that generated a 

total sales value of just under $8 million. The 10 post, small pole, piling, and utility 

pole plants operating in Oregon during 2008 produced 812,000 pieces with a sales 

value of $5.2 million. Four log furniture plants operated in Oregon during 2008 and 

produced 1,040 pieces of log furniture and 26,000 lineal feet of furniture pieces 

with a combined sales value of just under $860,000. The sales value presented 

here includes only manufactured products and not the value of logs exported from 

Oregon.

Of the residue-utilizing sectors, only one commercial biomass/energy operation 

and two firewood and wood pellet manufacturers operated during 2008. To ensure 

protection of firm-level information, no further data on these facilities can be 

released. However, three Oregon bark product facilities produced 37,986 BDUs 

with a sales value of $9.4 million. 

Timber-Processing Capacity: All Sectors

Through the FIDACS census, Oregon mills reported their 8-hour-shift and annual 

production capacity given sufficient supply and firm product market demand. Each 

product is reported in different units of volume. Sawmill production capacity was 

reported in MBF, lumber tally. Veneer production capacity was reported in thousands of square feet (MSF), 3/8-inch basis. Cedar product facilities reported capacity in both hundreds of square feet and MBF. Log home manufacturers measured 

capacity in MLF; log furniture, post, small pole, and pilings, reported capacity 

in pieces; and utility pole producers use MLF. Capacity in chipping facilities was 

reported in BDT. Each of these units was converted to a million board foot Scribner 

equivalent based on recovery factors appropriate for that sector to estimate the 

industry’s total timber-processing capacity. For example: sawmill production capacity was converted to timber-processing capacity by dividing production capacity 

in lumber tally by each mill’s overrun; veneer capacity was converted by dividing 

production capacity in square feet of 3/8-inch veneer by each mill’s veneer recovery. 

Capacities for utility pole plants were converted by multiplying capacity in lineal 

feet by an average Scribner board-foot volume per piece or per lineal foot (Keegan 

et al. 2006).
37

Oregon’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2008: Industry Trends and Impacts of the Great Recession Through 2010

Oregon’s timber-processing capacity during 2008 was 5.16 billion board feet 

Scribner (table 21). Sawmills accounted for 3.9 billion board feet (75 percent) of 

the total timber-processing capacity in the state. Sawmills actually processed just 

over 2.4 billion board feet of lumber, a utilization rate of 63 percent. The plywood 

and veneer sectors accounted for 20 percent of statewide capacity; like sawmills, 

the utilization rate in plywood plants was about 65 percent. Chipping facilities 

processed 121 MMBF of timber in 2008 but had capacity to produce 176.5 MMBF; 

their utilization rate of 69 percent was the most of all sectors. These utilization rates 

suggest that mills in all sectors of solid wood products manufacturing had about 

one-third of production capacity sitting idle. 

Annual timber-processing capacity in Oregon was just over 10 billion board 

feet Scribner in the 1970s and 1980s, when the state’s timber users processed over 7 

billion board feet (fig. 13) (Keegan et al. 2006). Following the decline in federal timber offerings, capacity dropped from approximately 10 billion board feet Scribner 

in 1989 to 4.6 billion in 1996; capacity dropped even during years with high lumber 

prices (Random Lengths 1976–2010a). Beginning in the late 1990s, with investment 

in new processing facilities in particular sawmills, and continued relatively high 

product prices, timber processing capacity increased and reached nearly 5.5 billion 

board feet before the catastrophic market conditions of late 2008 and 2009. With 

permanent mill closures in 2009, capacity fell to 4.8 billion board feet Scribner; 

additional closures followed in 2010 and capacity dropped to 4.5 billion. During 

the recent poor markets, the portion of capacity used has fallen more dramatically 

than total capacity, from over 80 percent in the 2003 to 2006 period to 63 percent in 

2008 and an estimated 57 percent in 2010.

Table 21—Oregon timber-processing capacity and use, 2008

Timber-processing

Facility type Timber processed capacitya Capacity used

Million board feet, Scribner Percentage

Sawmills 2,423.6 3,913.3 62

Plywood and veneer 678.0 1,036.3 65

Chipping 121.2 176.5 69

Other facilitiesb 25.3 41.9 60

 All facilities 3,248.1 5,168.1 63

a Volume of timber reported that could be processed given sufficient supplies of raw materials and 

firm market demand for products, estimated for each facility by applying the product recovery ratios 

to production capacity figures provided by each facility.

b “Other facilities” includes cedar products, log furniture, log homes, posts, small poles, pilings, and 

utility poles.

Oregon’s timberprocessing capacity 

during 2008 was 

5.16 billion board 

feet Scribner.
38

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-868

Sawmill Capacity 

Because nearly 76 percent of Oregon’s total 2008 milling capacity was located in 

sawmills, this section focuses specifically on the sawmill sector. Oregon’s 2008 

lumber capacity was approximately 8 billion board feet per year, up modestly from 

the 7.8 billion reported in 2003 (Brandt et al. 2006). Annual production capacity8

differed widely among Oregon’s 116 sawmills, ranging from under 1 MMBF to 

more than 400 MMBF per year (table 22). In 2008, 94 percent of lumber production 

and 93 percent of total lumber-producing capacity was found in the 49 mills with 

annual capacities greater than 50 MMBF. The 16 mills with capacities of 10 to 50 

MMBF accounted for 432 MMBF (5 percent) of total capacity, a 292-MMBF drop 

from 2003. Mills with annual capacities of 10 MMBF or less, almost half of the 

sawmills in Oregon, accounted for only 39 MMBF or 0.5 percent of total capacity–

down from 2003, when this capacity category accounted for 81 MMBF (1 percent) 

of total capacity. 

8 Production capacity—The volume of product output reported in thousand board feet 

lumber tally that could be produced given sufficient supplies of raw materials and firm 

market demand for products. This value was provided by each facility. 

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

1976 1986 1996 2003 2006 2008 2010

Million b

oard feet Scribner

Year

Capacity

Use

65%

69%

75%

84% 85%

63%

57%

Figure 13—Oregon’s timber processing capacity and use, various years. Source: Brandt et al. 2006, 

Howard 1978, Keegan 2006, Schuldt 1974.

Oregon’s 2008 

lumber capacity was 

approximately 8 billion 

board feet per year, up

modestly from the 7.8 

billion reported in 2003.
39

Table 22—Active Oregon sawmills, production capacity, and capacity utilization by size class, 2008 Annual production capacity Annual productio

Percentage Average Percentage Averag

Production Number of total capacity of total productcapacity class of mills Capacity capacity per mill Production production per mi

MMBF Percent MMBF MMBF Percent MMBF 

Over 100 MMBF annual capacity 29 6,124.5 76.4 211.2 3,444.9 70.4 118.8 Over 50 to 100 MMBF annual capacity 20 1,424.0 17.8 71.2 1,127.0 22.2 57.2 Over 10 to 50 MMBF annual capacity 16 431.6 5.4 27.0 345.3 7.1 21.6 10 MMBF or less annual capacity 51 38.8 0.5 0.8 13.3 0.3 0.3 

Total 116 8,018.9 100 77.5 4,930.5 100 49.5 

120 MBF or greater shift capacity 55 7,751 96.7 140.9 4,728.2 95.9 86.0 40 MBF to 119.9 MBF shift capacity 9 213.6 2.7 23.7 175.9 3.6 19.5 Less than 40 MBF shift capacity 52 53.8 0.7 1.0 26.4 0.5 0.5  Total 116 8,018.9 100 69.1 4,930.5 100 42.5 MMBF = million board feet lumber tally. MBF = thousand board feet lumber tally.
40

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-868

Traditionally, the largest mills have operated the greatest number of hours and 

have had the highest capacity utilization. In 2008, however, poor markets drove 

many of the large mills to sharply curtail production. Mills in the 10 to 50 MMBF 

and 50 to 100 MMBF annual capacity categories were still using 80 percent of their 

capacity while mills with annual capacity of greater than 100 MMBF dropped to 

56 percent.

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

into how mill sizes in Oregon have changed over time (table 23). Censuses of mills 

in various 8-hour-shift categories and their reported outputs were used in concert 

with mill directories listing number of shifts operated to estimate annual lumberprocessing capacity prior to 2003 (Keegan et al. 2006). During the mid-1950s and 

again in the late 1980s, annual capacity to produce lumber exceeded 10 billion 

board feet. 

The number of active sawmills in 2003 and 2008 was noticeably greater than 

previous years almost entirely from gains in mills with small capacity. Part of this 

increase may be owing to increased efforts to identify active mills for the 2003 and 

2008 surveys. The discovery and inclusion of more small mills in the 2003 and 

2008 mill surveys could distort previous trends and should be considered when 

calculating summary metrics such as average output per mill. However, the 58 and 

52 mills in this smallest size class accounted for less than 1 percent of Oregon’s 

lumber production and capacity in 2003 and 2008. 

Table 23—Active Oregon sawmills by shift capacity, selected years 1958–2008

120 MBF 80 to 119.9 40 to 79.9 Less than

Year or greater MBF MBF 40 MBF All

Capacity per eight-hour shift 

1958 70 90 157 168 485

1968 59 69 70 102 300

1972 87 60 57 58 262

1976 88 59 45 51 243

1982 71 41 26 23 161

1985 88 35 19 31 173

1988 98 30 11 26 165

1992 56 9 8 13 86a

1994 60 9 5 15 89a

1998 51 15 6 13 85a

2003 57 8 3 58 126

2008 55 5 4 52 116

a

 Includes only mills that participated in the specified survey years.

MBF = thousand board feet.

Sources: Brandt et al. 2006; Howard 1984; Howard and Hiserote 1978; Howard and Ward 1991, 1988; 

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

In 2008, poor markets 

drove many of the large 

mills to sharply curtail 

production.
41

Oregon’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2008: Industry Trends and Impacts of the Great Recession Through 2010

Mill Residue Production and Use

Mill residue from processing timber into primary wood products is the largest 

source of material for pulp and paper mills, board plants, and other manufacturers of residue-based products as well as fuel for thermal and electrical energy 

production. They also provide considerable revenue to the mills that generate them. 

Sawmills and plywood plants processed over 95 percent of the timber used in 

Oregon and generated over 95 percent of all mill residues. These facilities produced 

substantially less residue per unit of lumber or plywood manufactured during 2008 

than had been reported in previous years. 

Mill residue falls into three general categories: (1) coarse residue, including 

chippable material such as slabs, edging, and trim, log ends, and defective veneer; 

(2) fine residue, including sawdust, sander dust, and planer shavings; and (3) bark. 

The volume of mill residue produced during a given year is closely linked to lumber 

and plywood production in that year. In addition, milling equipment, species and 

size of logs, amount of defect in logs, and market conditions also influence the 

amount of residue generated by timber processors.

For 2008, mills reported the volume of residues produced and sold and how 

those residues were used on a percentage basis. From these percentages, total 

residue and residue volume factors (mill residue generated per unit of lumber, 

plywood, or other product produced) were calculated. 

Oregon’s sawmills and plywood plants produced 4.6 million BDUs of residue, 

of which only 6.3 thousand BDUs (less than 0.01 percent) was not utilized (table 

24). About 69 percent of the residue from Oregon’s lumber and plywood facilities 

was used as raw material by the pulp and paper and reconstituted board industries. 

The remaining 31 percent of residues was used as fuel (26 percent), other uses 

such as animal bedding and landscape material (5 percent), and unutilized (less 

than 1 percent).

Table 24—Production and disposition of wood residues from Oregon’s timber 

processing facilities, 2008

Total Pulp and Other 

Type of residue utilized board Fuel usesa Unutilized Total

Bone-dry unitsb

Coarsec 2,530,247 2,349,434 158,059 22,754 319 2,530,566 

Sawdust 655,974 466,439 183,415 6,121 417 656,390 

Planer shavings 371,496 271,404 90,815 9,277 57 371,553 

Bark 1,003,899 49,099 761,174 193,626 5,486 1,009,384 

 All residues 4,561,616 3,136,375 1,193,462 231,779 6,277 4,567,893 

a “Other uses” primarily include animal bedding, landscape material, and soil additives.

b Bone-dry unit = 2,400 pounds of oven-dry wood.

c Peeler cores are included in coarse residue.

Mill residue from 

processing timber 

into primary wood 

products is the largest 

source of material for 

pulp and paper mills, 

board plants, and 

other manufacturers 

of residue-based 

products as well as 

fuel for thermal and 

electrical energy 

production.
42

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-868

Coarse residue was the state’s most common wood products residue, comprising 

55 percent of all residues. About 93 percent of coarse residue was used in pulp and 

paper industry and reconstituted board plants, 6 percent was used as fuel, and about 

1 percent was sold for other uses. Fines—sawdust and planer shavings together—

made up the second largest component (22 percent) of residue, at 1.0 million BDUs 

in 2008. The vast majority (over 99 percent) of all fines were utilized. Oregon 

facilities generated 1.0 million BDUs of bark while processing timber, 75 percent 

of which was used as fuel, most of the remaining 25 percent used for decoration 

or soil additives.

Residue per thousand board feet of lumber produced dropped from 1.1 BDUs 

in the early 1970s to approximately 0.7 BDUs in 2008 (table 25). Declining residue 

factors over time are directly related to gains in mill efficiency; a greater proportion 

of timber is processed into useable products as efficiency increases. Technologies 

that have increased mill efficiency include log-size sensing capabilities, curve 

sawing abilities designed to optimize lumber production from logs with sweep 

and crook, precision sawing patterns, thinner kerf saw blades, improved edging 

and trimming, improved chucks to allow veneer logs to be peeled to smaller core 

diameters, and improved drying techniques (Keegan et al. 2011).

Economic Aspects of Oregon’s Forest Products Industry

Forest Products Industry and the Oregon Economy

The forest products industry has long been an important component of the statewide and regional economies in Oregon. This section looks specifically at forest 

products industry employment and labor income statewide and for multicounty 

regions and analyzes its contribution to the economy. Because the U.S. government 

changed the way in which it reported economic data and classified employment by 

sector in 2001, reliable and consistent data are available only for the recent period 

Table 25—Oregon sawmill residue factors: 1972, 1976, 1998, 2003, and 2008

Type of residue 1972 1976 1998 2003 2008

BDUs per thousand board feet lumber tallya

Coarseb 0.45 0.45 0.40 0.37 0.36 

Sawdust 0.24 0.22 0.14 0.13 0.11 

Planer shavings 0.18 0.17 0.09 0.08 0.08 

Bark 0.22 0.20 0.19 0.17 0.16 

 All residues 1.09 0.84 0.63 0.75 0.71 

a Bone-dry unit (BDU) = 2,400 pounds of oven-dry wood.

b Peeler cores are included in coarse residue.

Note: Years prior to 2008 derived from Brandt et al. 2006; Howard 1984; Howard and Hiserote 1978; Howard 

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

Residue per thousand 

board feet of lumber 

produced dropped 

from 1.1 BDUs in 

the early 1970s to 

approximately 0.7 

BDUs in 2008.
43

Oregon’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2008: Industry Trends and Impacts of the Great Recession Through 2010

2001 to 2009 (USDC BEA 2009). This period formed the basis of the analysis in 

this section. A few key data points have been estimated for earlier years to provide 

historical perspective; in particular, for the period since 1990 to capture the dramatic drop in timber availability during the early 1990s. 

Employment and labor income data for Oregon and multicounty regions were 

derived from a number of federal and state data sources:

• Regional Economic Information System Bureau of Economic Analysis, 

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDC BEA 2009)

• Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages. Bureau of Labor Statistics 

(U.S. Department of Labor 2011)

• County Business Patterns. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of 

Commerce (USDC CB 2011a)

• Covered Wages and Employment Oregon Labor Market Information System 

Oregon Employment Department (Oregon Employment Department 2009)

The classification of forest industries used here follows the North American 

Industrial Classification System (NAICS) available online via the U.S. Department 

of Commerce (2011b). Specifically, we examined employment in the following 

forest industries:

• NAICS 113—forestry and logging.

• NAICS 1153—support activities for forestry.

• NAICS 321—wood products manufacturing.

• NAICS 322—paper manufacturing.

These four categories probably understate total employment in the forest 

products industry (FPI) because they do not include a number of supporting activities. For example, hauling companies, and forest management services performed 

by government employees, are not included in these categories. 

This section focuses on Oregon’s primary FPI, which includes logging, processing logs into lumber and other wood products, and processing wood residues from 

timber-processing plants into outputs such as paper, particleboard, fiberboard, or 

electricity. The secondary industry includes the further processing of the outputs 

from the primary manufacturers regardless of the location of the primary manufacturers. The distinction is not always clear, and portions of the secondary industry, 

such as cutstock manufacturers and portions of the laminated veneer lumber sector, 

which processes veneer but not timber, are directly linked and highly integrated 

with the primary industry.

The Oregon FPI employed about 51,000 workers and paid about $3.05 billion (2008 dollars) in labor income in 2008 (fig. 14 and 15). The primary sector 

accounted for about 70 percent of these employees (35,000 workers), and the 

The Oregon FPI 

employed about 51,000 

workers and paid about 

$3.05 billion (2008 

dollars) in labor income 

in 2008.
44

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-868

secondary sector employed the remaining 16,000 workers. Given that a number of 

workers are excluded from the NAICS categories defining the industry, and because 

the bulk of wood and paper employment and worker earnings are in the primary 

sector or in sectors directly linked to it, the analysis focuses on all employment in 

these categories. 

Trends in Forest Products Employment and Labor Income

Many factors influence forest industry employment and labor income. These can be 

related to the volume, size, and quality of timber; how and where it is harvested and 

processed; the level of processing; the degree of utilization of wood fiber residue; 

market conditions; and technological innovations and other factors such as regulations and shifts in forest management regimes/objectives. 

Although timber availability was the major factor that shaped Oregon’s FPI 

in the 1990s, market conditions have been the driving force over the past decade. 

When Oregon’s timber harvest fell from 6.9 billion board feet Scribner in 1990 to 

Figure 14—Employment in Oregon’s forest products industry, 2001–2009. Source: U.S 

Bureau of Economic Analysis, Oregon Employment Department 2009.

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Num

ber of w

orkers (thousands)

Year

Total

Forestry, logging, and wood products

Paper
45

Oregon’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2008: Industry Trends and Impacts of the Great Recession Through 2010

3.8 billion board feet in 2000, forest industry employment plummeted from about 

72,000 workers in 1990 to just over 58,000 in 1999. 

After market conditions improved in the early 2000s, Oregon’s wood and 

paper industry employment actually declined 3 percent from 59,000 workers in 

2001 to 57,400 workers in 2005 (U.S. Department of Labor 2011). This reduction 

resulted from a number of factors, including investment in labor-saving harvesting 

and wood-processing technology, more efficient use of existing plants and logging 

equipment, and a shift in log processing from the more labor-intensive plywood and 

large-log sawmill industry to capital-intensive small log mills. As markets dramatically weakened and harvest and production fell from the peak levels of 2004 and 

2005, employment dropped by more than 14,000 workers from 2005 to 2009. Most 

of the job losses occurred in the logging and wood product sectors. 

Labor income includes wages and salaries and selected employer-paid benefits 

(such as retirement). Because mill managers can adjust labor more easily than other 

factors of production (by changing workers’ hours, for example), labor income is 

Figure 15—Personal income in Oregon’s forest products industry, 2001–2009. Source: U.S Bureau of 

Economic Analysis, Oregon Employment Department 2009.

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Year

Total

Forestry, logging, and wood products

Paper

4,000

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0

Personal inco

me (millions

of 2008 d

ollars)
46

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-868

more closely correlated with output than employment. Also, labor income provides 

a consistent measure of economic activity at different scales; values can be scaled 

up for statewide estimates and scaled down for county-level estimates. 

Figure 15 shows that, after adjusting for inflation, there was 10-percent growth 

in labor income from 2001 to 2005. Although the number of forest industry workers 

decreased by about 3 percent over that period, earnings per worker increased by 

more than 25 percent. This period of rising wages was short lived; labor income 

fell by more than 30 percent between 2005 and 2009 as markets softened and the 

recessionary conditions intensified (OED 2009, USDC BEA 2009).

The Forest Products Industry and Oregon’s Economic Base

Economic base is a term used to describe and analyze the major industries providing jobs within a given market area. Activities are divided into two categories, basic 

and non-basic. Basic industries are those exporting from the area and bringing in 

wealth from outside; non-basic industries support basic industries. Thus, Oregon’s 

economic base consists of the industries that sell their products outside the state or 

are otherwise injecting new funds into the state’s economy. These new dollars are 

spent and re-spent within Oregon, creating additional jobs and incomes; this phenomenon is called the multiplier effect. Most long-run and short-run trends in the 

overall economy are consequences of events in the basic industries. The designation 

of an industry or industry component as basic or derivative can vary by region and 

over time. In some areas, certain service industries, as well as some construction 

activity, may also be basic activities. But estimating the basic and derivative components of the construction and service industries is complex and imprecise, and 

may change substantially from year to year. Similarly, other components of income 

(such as unearned income) contain both basic and derivative components and they 

are also difficult to measure. Refereed research publications conclude that basic 

industries provide the single best statistical explanation of state economic trends 

(Polzin 1990, 2000; Polzin et al. 1988). 

Oregon’s economic base consists of the FPI, agriculture, fishing, other manufacturing (nonforest products), transportation (rail, truck, water, and associated port 

activities), tourism, and the federal government (both civilian and military). Labor 

income rather than employment was used to analyze Oregon’s economic base. 

There are significant differences between average wages per worker in the various 

basic industries. For example, the average wage per worker in certain manufacturing industries is more than $100,000 while the corresponding figure for hotel/motel 

workers is about $19,000. Labor income has been converted to 2008 dollars to 

correct for inflation.

Labor income fell by 

more than 30 percent 

between 2005 and 2009 

as markets softened 

and the recessionary 

conditions intensified.
47

Oregon’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2008: Industry Trends and Impacts of the Great Recession Through 2010

The largest component of Oregon’s economic base in 2008 was nonforest 

products manufacturing, which accounted for about 52 percent of basic labor 

income. The FPI represented approximately 14 percent of the state’s economic base. 

Agriculture and fishing, tourism and transportation (rail, truck, water and the ports) 

each accounted for about 5 to 7 percent of the economic base. 

The FPI’s share of Oregon’s economic base declined from approximately 16 

percent in 2001 to roughly 14 percent in 2008. Taking a longer view (and recognizing the difficulties associated with estimating a figure derived under a different statistical reporting system), the FPI accounted for approximately 23 percent of basic 

labor income in 1990. Therefore, the share of Oregon’s economic base represented 

by the FPI has declined by about 9 percentage points between 1990 and 2008. This 

decline is especially troubling for Oregon’s rural areas, where the forest industry 

has played an important role in rural employment for decades and few other skilled 

labor jobs are available.

Regional Dependence on the Forest Products Industry 

Although the statewide share of labor income from forest industries decreased from 

2003 to 2008, the ranking of forest industry dependence by resource area remained 

the same. Regional dependence on forest industries was determined by calculating 

forest-sector labor income as a percentage of total labor income in each Oregon 

county. County-level values were then aggregated into the four resource areas 

described previously. 

Counties in the Southwest Resource Area were the most dependent; less 

than 6 percent of labor income was attributable to forest industries. Within that 

region, Curry and Douglas Counties were the most dependent; forest industries 

comprised 17 and 13 percent of their economic base, respectively (fig. 16). In the 

Central Resource Area, forest industries generated 4.7 percent of labor income. 

Three counties were the most dependent: Crook, Jefferson, and Lake Counties. 

In the Blue Mountains Resource Area, forest industries totaled 3 percent of labor 

income overall and contributed to 14 percent of Grant County’s economic base. 

Finally, forest industries in the Northwest Resource Area overall provided only 2 

percent of total labor income. The economic base in this area is largely dominated 

by the Portland metropolitan area. However, in Clatsop County, over one-fourth (27 

percent) of labor income came from forest industries, making it the most forestdependent county in the state with respect to economic base. This local dependence 

was masked when labor income was aggregated to the regional level. 

Figure 17 depicts forest dependency in a different way. Labor income from 

forest industries in each county was divided by the total statewide labor income 

from forest industries. These percentages were then ranked and placed into the five 

The share of Oregon’s 

economic base 

represented by the 

forest products 

industry has declined 

by about 9 percentage 

points between 1990 

and 2008.
48

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-868

categories displayed on the map. Although the Southwest Resource Area was the 

most forest-dependent in terms of economic base, as a percentage of total statewide 

forest industry labor income, the Northwest Resource Area is the most dependent. 

Manufacturers in the Northwest Resource Area generated 55 percent of total FPI 

labor income in 2008. Forest industries in the Southwest Resource Area contributed 

32 percent, Central Resource Area 10 percent, and Blue Mountains Resource Area 

3 percent of wood products income. In total, the North and Southwest Resource 

Areas, combined, contributed 87 percent of the total FPI labor income in the state. 

Morrow

Umatilla

Union

Wallowa

Harney Malheur

Baker

Grant

Deschutes

Hood 

River

Wasco

Sherman

Gilliam

Sherman

Gilliam

Jefferson Wheeler

Crook

Klamath Lake

Morrow

Umatilla

Union

Wallowa

Harney Malheur

Baker

Grant

Deschutes

Wasco

Sherman

Gilliam

Jefferson Wheeler

Crook

Klamath Lake

Clatsop Columbia

Tillamook

Lincoln Polk

Benton Linn

Marion

Clackamas

Multnomah Washington

Yamhill

Northwest

Central

Blue Mountains

Lane

Douglas

Coos

Curry

Joesphine Josephine Jackson

Southwest

County-level forest industry labor income

>1 percent

1–5 percent

5–10 percent

10–15 percent

>15 percent

Percentage of total county labor income

o

Figure 16—Oregon's 2008 forest industry labor income as a percentage of economic base by county.

Although the 

Southwest Resource 

Area was the most 

forest-dependent in 

terms of economic 

base, as a percentage 

of total statewide 

forest industry labor 

income, the Northwest 

Resource Area is the 

most dependent.
49

Oregon’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2008: Industry Trends and Impacts of the Great Recession Through 2010

Figure 17—Oregon's 2008 forest industry labor income by county as a percentage of total state forest industry labor income.

Morrow

Umatilla

Union

Wallowa

Harney Malheur

Baker

Grant

Deschutes

Hood 

River

Wasco

Sherman

Gilliam

Sherman

Gilliam

Jefferson Wheeler

Crook

Klamath Lake

Morrow

Umatilla

Union

Wallowa

Harney Malheur

Baker

Grant

Deschutes

Wasco

Sherman

Gilliam

Jefferson Wheeler

Crook

Klamath Lake

Clatsop Columbia

Tillamook

Lincoln Polk

Benton Linn

Marion

Clackamas

Washington Multnomah

Yamhill

Northwest

Central

Blue Mountains

Lane

Douglas

Coos

Curry

Joesphine Josephine Jackson

Southwest

County-level forest industry labor income

0–1 percent

1–2 percent

2–3 percent

3–7 percent

7–12 percent

Percentage of state total

o

Forest industries in Lane County in the Southwest Resource Area generated over 

$350 million in labor income in 2008, the highest in the state. Douglas and Curry 

County combined had over 25 percent of the statewide FPI income while the other 

counties had between 10 and 20 percent. Clatsop County in the Northwest Resource 

Area is the only county to have the highest dependency rating in both figures 16 

and 17. This suggests that Clatsop County may be a county of concern whose 

economy could be heavily affected by market conditions and policies affecting 

forest sector employment. 
50

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-868

Metric Equivalents

When you know:	 Multiply by:	 To find:

Inches 2.54 Centimeters

Feet 0.3048 Meters

Miles 1.609 Kilometers

Acres 0.405 Hectares

Cubic feet 0.0283 Cubic meters

Cubic feet per acre 0.06997 Cubic meters per hectare

Square feet 0.0929 Square meters

Square feet per acre 0.229 Square meters per hectare

Ounce 28349.5 Milligrams

Pounds 0.453 Kilograms

Pounds per cubic foot 16.018 Kilograms per cubic meter

Tons per acre 2.24 Megagrams per hectare

Degrees Fahrenheit (°F – 32)/1.8 Degrees Celsius

Acknowledgments

In the second series of Oregon’s Forest Industries Data Collection System, we 

express thanks to the people who shared their information with us and gave their 

time and comments to help publish this report. Special thanks to participating 

industry, mill owners, and facility representatives; Gary Lettman, Oregon Department of Forestry; Linc Cannon, Oregon Forest Industries Council; Eric Hansen and 

Scott Leavengood, Oregon State University; Dorian Smith, Washington Department of Natural Resources; the USDA Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis 

program; and especially all reviewers.
51

Oregon’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2008: Industry Trends and Impacts of the Great Recession Through 2010

References

Adair, C. 2004. Regional production and market outlook: structural panels and 

engineered wood products 2004–2009. Report E170. Tacoma, WA: APA—The 

Engineered Wood Association. 56 p. 

Adair, C. 2010. Structural panel and engineered wood yearbook. APA Economics 

Report E176. Tacoma, WA: APA—The Engineered Wood Association. 56 p.

American Plywood Association [APA]. 2009–2010. Member directory. 

http://www.apawood.org/membermills/startsearch.cfm. (June 2011).

Andrews, A., Kutara, K. 2005. Oregon’s timber harvests: 1849–2004. Salem, OR: 

Oregon Department of Forestry. 154 p. 

Brandt, J.P.; Morgan, T.A.; Dillon, T.; Lettman, G.J.; Keegan, C.E. lll.; 

Azuma, D.L. 2006. Oregon’s forest products industry and timber harvest, 2003. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-681. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 53 p.

Brodie, D.J.; McMahon, R.O.; Gabelis, W.H. 1978. Oregon’s forest resources: 

their contributions in the state’s economy. Res. Bull. 23. Corvallis, OR: Oregon 

State University Forest Research Laboratory. 80 p.

Connaughton, K.P.; Polzin, P.E.; Schallau, C.H. 1985. Tests of the economic 

base model of growth for a timber dependent region. Forest Science. 

31(3): 717–725.

Donnegan, J.; Campbell, S.; Azuma, D., tech. eds. 2008. Oregon’s forest 

resources, 2001–2005: five-year Forest Inventory and Analysis report. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PNW-GTR-765. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 186 p.

Ehinger, P.F. 2009. Forest industry data: Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, 

and California. Operating mills and other data. Consulting Forester, Paul F. 

Ehinger & Associates, 2300 Oakmont Way, No. 212, Eugene, OR 97401.

Ehinger, P.F. 2011. Personal communication. Consulting forester, Paul F. Ehinger 

& Associates, 2300 Oakmont Way, No. 212, Eugene, OR 97401.
52

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-868

Gebert, K.M.; Keegan, C.E., III.; Willits, S.; Chase, A. 2002. Utilization of 

Oregon’s timber harvest and associated direct economic effects, 1998. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PNW-GTR-532. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 16 p.

Howard, J.O. 1984. Oregon’s forest products industry: 1982. Resour. Bull. PNWRB-118. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 79 p.

Howard, J.O.; Hiserote, B.A. 1978. Oregon’s forest products industry: 1976. 

Resour. Bull. PNW-RB-79. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 102 p.

Howard, J.O.; Ward, F.R. 1988. Oregon’s forest products industry: 1985. Resour. 

Bull. PNW-RB-149. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 90 p.

Howard, J.O.; Ward, F.R. 1991. Oregon’s forest products industry: 1988. Resour. 

Bull PNW-RB-183. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 91 p.

Keegan, C.E., III; Morgan, T.A.; Blatner, K.A.; Daniels, J.M. 2010a. Trends 

in lumber processing in the western United States. Part I: Board foot Scribner 

volume per cubic foot of timber. Forest Products Journal. 60(2): 133–139.

Keegan, C.E., III; Morgan, T.A.; Blatner, K.A.; Daniels, J.M. 2010b. Trends 

in lumber processing in the western United States. Part II: Overrun and lumber 

recovery factors. Forest Products Journal. 60(2): 140–143.

Keegan, C.E., III; Morgan, T.A.; Blatner, K.A.; Daniels, J.M. [N.d.]. Trends in 

lumber processing in the western United States. Part III: Residue recovered vs. 

lumber produced. Manuscript in preparation.

Keegan, C.E., lll; Morgan, T.A.; Gebert, K.M.; Brandt, J.P.; Blatner , K.A.; 

Spoelma, T.P. 2006. Timber-processing capacity and capabilities in the Western 

United States. Journal of Forestry. 104(5): 262–268.

Lang, C. 2008. Lacking raw material. Pulp Mill Watch Factsheet. http://www.

pulpmillwatch.org/countries/china/. (June 2011).
53

Oregon’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2008: Industry Trends and Impacts of the Great Recession Through 2010

Lockwood-Post. 2008. Directory of pulp and paper mills. The Americas, Traveler’s 

Edition. Atlanta, GA: RISI. 515 p.

Manock, E.R.; Choate, G.A.; Gedney, D.R. 1970. Oregon timber industries: 

wood consumption and mill characteristics, 1968. Salem, OR: Oregon Department of Forestry. 122 p.

Miller, H.M. 1982. Forest, people and Oregon: a history of forestry in Oregon. 

Salem, OR: Oregon State University Department of Forestry. 52 p.

National Bureau of Economic Research [NBER]. 2010. Business Cycle Dating 

Committee. http://www.nber.org/cycles/sept2010.html. (May 2011).

Oregon Employment Department [OED]. 2009. Covered employment and wages. 

http://www.qualityinfo.org/olmisj/CEP?indtype=N&areacode=01000000&action

=industry&submit2=Continue. (February 23, 2011).

Oregon Department of Forestry [ODF]. 2010. Quarterly adjusted softwood log 

price index. http://www.oregon.gov/odf/resource_planning/docs/logpricegraph.

xls. (February 2011).

Oregon Department of Forestry [ODF]. 2011. Complete harvest data 1986–present. http://www.oregon.gov/ODF/STATE_FORESTS/FRP/annual_reports.shtml. 

(February 2011).

Polzin, P.E. 1990. The verification process and regional science. The Annals of 

Regional Science. 24: 61–67.

Polzin, P.E. 2000. Why some states grow faster than others: new growth models 

for state economic policy. Growth and Change. 32: 413–415.

Polzin, P.E.; Connaughton, K.; Schallau, C. H.; and Sylvester, J.T. 1988. 

Forecasting accuracy and structural stability of the economic base model. The 

Review of Regional Studies. 18: 23–36.

Random Lengths. 1976–2010a. Random Lengths yearbook: forest product market 

prices and statistics. Eugene, OR: Random Length Publications, Inc. 

Random Lengths. 2007–2010b. Big book: the buyers and sellers directory of the 

forest products industry. Eugene, OR: Random Lengths Publications, Inc. 
54

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-868

Random Lengths. 2007–2011. Yardstick. [Newsletter]. http://www.randomlengths.

com/base.asp?s1=Newsletters&s2=Yardstick. (June 2011).

Schuldt, J.P.; Howard, J.O. 1974. Oregon forest industries: wood consumption 

and mill characteristics, 1972. Spec. Rep. 427. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State 

University. 113 p.

The Engineered Wood Association. 2009. Regional production and market outlook, U.S, structural panel production by state, 2009. Tacoma, WA: APA—The 

Engineered Wood Association. 8 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2011. Forest 

Inventory and Analysis EVALIDator Version 1.5.00. Arlington, VA. 

http://apps.fs.fed.us/Evalidator/tmattribute.jsp and Forest Inventory Data 

Online (FIDO) http://199.128.173.26/fido/index.html. (July 2011).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2006. Forest 

Inventory and Analysis glossary. On file with: Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 

620 SW Main Street, Suite 400, Portland, OR, 97205.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2012. Forest 

products sold and harvested from national forests and grasslands. http://www.

fs.fed.us/forestmanagement/products/sold-harvest/index.shtml/index.shtml. 

(March 13, 2012).

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis [USDC BEA]. 

2009. State annual personal income. http://www.bea.gov/regional/spi/default.cfm

?selTable=SA25N&selSeries=NAICS. (February 2011).

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau [USDC CB]. 2009. Annual 

survey of manufacturers. http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/

index.xhtml. (June 2011).

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau [USDC CB]. 2011a. County 

business patterns. http://censtats.census.gov/cbpnaic/cbpnaic.shtml. (July 2011).

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau [USDC CB]. 2011b. North 

American Industry Classification System (NAICS). http://www.census.gov/eos/

www/naics/. (June 2011). 
55

Oregon’s Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2008: Industry Trends and Impacts of the Great Recession Through 2010

U.S. Department of Labor. 2011. Bureau of Labor Statistics. http://www.bls.gov/. 

(June 2011).

U.S. Office of Management and Budget. 1997. North American industry classification system (NAICS). Lanham, MD: Bernan Press: 1247 p.

Ward, F.R. 1995. Oregon’s forest products industry: 1992. Resour. Bull. PNWRB-207. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 89 p.

Ward, F.R. 1997. Oregon’s forest products industry: 1994. Resour. Bull. PNWRB-216. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 70 p.

Ward, F.R.; Lettman G.J.; Hiserote, B.A. 2000. Oregon’s forest products industry: 1998. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. Oregon Department of Forestry. 82 p.

Warren, D.D. various years. Production, prices, employment, and trade in Northwest forest industries. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

Washington Department of Natural Resources. 2010. Washington mill survey 

2008. Series report #20. Olympia, WA: 98 p. http://www.dnr.wa.gov/publications/

obe_rpt_millsurv_2008.pdf. (April 2011). 

Western Wood Products Association [WWPA]. 2010. 1964–2009. Statistical 

yearbook of the Western lumber industry. Portland, OR.

Pacific Northwest Research Station

Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/

Telephone (503) 808–2592

Publication requests (503) 808–2138

FAX (503) 808–2130

E-mail pnw_pnwpubs@fs.fed.us

Mailing address Publications Distribution

Pacific Northwest Research Station

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208–3890
U.S. Department of Agriculture

Pacific Northwest Research Station

333 SW First Avenue

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208–3890

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300