Journal of Cleaner Production 76 (2014) 64e73

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Environmental impacts of roundwood supply chain options in

Michigan: life-cycle assessment of harvest and transport stages
Robert M. Handler a, *, David R. Shonnard b, Pasi Lautala c, Dalia Abbas d,1, Ajit Srivastava d
a
Sustainable Futures Institute, Michigan Technological University, 1400 Townsend Dr., Houghton, MI 49931, USA
b
Department of Chemical Engineering, Michigan Technological University, 1400 Townsend Dr., Houghton, MI 49931, USA
c
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Michigan Technological University, 1400 Townsend Dr., Houghton, MI 49931, USA
d
Department of Biosystems & Agricultural Engineering, Michigan State University, 524 S. Shaw Lane, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Here, we analyze greenhouse gas emissions and fossil energy demand for roundwood supply chain
Received 6 November 2013 activities (harvesting and transport) within the state of Michigan. A life-cycle assessment was completed,
Received in revised form relying on a combination of peer-reviewed literature, national databases, and primary data collected
7 April 2014
from Michigan loggers and truckers. Several equipment configurations and operating scenarios for
Accepted 18 April 2014
Available online 6 May 2014
roundwood harvesting have been considered. Results indicated that a full processor/forwarder is the best
combination of harvesting equipment, with greenhouse gas emissions of 9.9e14.7 kg CO2eq/green tonne,
due to relatively low inputs and high reported productivity, although environmental impacts of har-
Keywords:
Life-cycle assessment
vesting depend strongly on the intensity of harvest being conducted. Bimodal truck þ rail transport has
Wood supply chain environmental burdens roughly one third to half that of typical log truck transport at longer transport
Michigan distances, directly related to the increased fuel efficiency of rail transport. Aggregated results for
Forest products industry roundwood supply within Michigan are comparable to similar studies in other regions, although the
Wood harvesting mechanization of the harvesting industry and large size of Michigan log trucks are factors in the smaller
Wood transport environmental burden. A sensitivity analysis indicated that a variety of factors related to truck transport
(distance, fuel economy, load factor, truck capacity) are the most influential for overall environmental
impacts of the forest biomass supply chain. Environmental impacts associated with roundwood supply
are quite low in comparison to the carbon content and embodied energy of delivered wood, implying
that roundwood supply activities do not preclude beneficial use of this feedstock in biofuels or bioenergy
applications.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007a,b). Biofuels

Emissions of greenhouse gases from transportation are a major
contributor to human-caused climate impacts on a global scale.
Recent studies have predicted serious consequences from a “busi-
ness as usual” approach to energy production and use, including
increasing global temperatures, sea level rise, displacements of
human populations from submerged lands, changing weather
patterns, and increase in incidence of certain diseases
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 906 487 1092; fax: þ1 906 487 2943.
E-mail addresses: rhandler@mtu.edu, robert.m.handler@gmail.com (R.M. Handler),
drshonna@mtu.edu (D.R. Shonnard), ptlautal@mtu.edu (P. Lautala), dsaleh@tnstate.edu
(D. Abbas), srivasta@anr.msu.edu (A. Srivastava).
1
Present address: Department of Agricultural and Environmental Science, Ten-
nessee State University, 3500 John A Merritt Blvd, Nashville, TN 37209, USA.
made from renewable feedstocks are among the largest expected
contributors to the transportation industry’s planned emission re-
ductions over the foreseeable future (Hoekman, 2009). Addition-
ally, in recent years the U.S. has roughly half of its oil needs from
foreign sources (U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2012).
Such a high dependence increases U.S. strategic vulnerability, and a
domestic biofuels industry is increasingly seen as a way to combat
this trend while increasing employment in rural areas of the
country (Perez-Verdin et al., 2008).
Biomass from forest resources will be an important feedstock
source in forested regions of the U.S., and are a significant
contributor to the available biomass inventory nationwide
(Department of Energy, 2011). According to statewide U.S. Forest
Service data, the state of Michigan has the seventh largest
timberland area in the United States, and current annual growth

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.04.040
0959-6526/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 R.M. Handler et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 76 (2014) 64e73
exceeds removals and mortality in most forest types (Van Deusen
and Roesch, 2008). Decline of traditional roundwood-utilizing in-
dustries in the region over recent years (pulp and lumber) have
opened up a portion of forest biomass to alternate uses (Leefers
et al., 2010), while alternative markets for this timber would sta-
bilize prices and maintain forest products industry infrastructure in
the region [e.g., (Dwivedi and Alavalapati, 2009). Additionally,
several thousand acres of abandoned or unproductive agricultural
lands in Michigan could be converted to short-rotation forest (SRF)
crops of fast-growing willow or poplar, suitable to the growing
conditions in Michigan [e.g., (Froese and Abbott, 2012).
To be a sustainable and environmentally beneficial industry,
alternative fuels should be produced in a responsible manner that
achieves measurable and significant gains in environmental per-
formance over ‘business as usual’ use of fossil fuels. For biofuels,
this typically translates to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions
and fossil energy demand over the cradle-to-grave life cycle of the
alternative fuel, compared to conventional gasoline or diesel. Many
industry sectors are addressing sustainability issues by reducing
the emission of greenhouse gases across the entire production
chain. Previous life cycle assessments (LCAs) of biofuels produced
from a variety of feedstocks have highlighted the importance of
feedstock production and supply in the overall life cycle of a given
fuel product (Fan et al., 2011; Handler et al., 2012; Shonnard et al.,
2010). Commercial biofuel operations will rely on inputs of feed-
stock grown over a large area, with potentially variable supply over
the course of a year. Assessing supply chain options for this type of
emerging industry will be critical for continued success.
The supply chain environmental assessment presented here
focuses on forest biomass grown within the state of Michigan. Our
objective was to develop environmental metrics for greenhouse gas
emissions and fossil energy demand for forest-based biomass
harvesting and transport within Michigan. Improved estimates of
woody biomass sustainability require a more detailed description
of the full supply chain for these materials, to fully assess costs and
environmental impacts (Department of Energy, 2011), which were
achieved in this study through collection of data from a large
sample of workers in Michigan’s forest products industry.
Furthermore, the intent is that the study results could be utilized
both to understand the impacts associated with a particular forest
biomass supply scenario and to be generally applicable to the cur-
rent forest product industry as it exists in aggregate. To this end, we
have developed a limited-scope life-cycle assessment (LCA) pro-
cedure for several forest biomass harvesting and transportation
scenarios, using a well-detailed process assumptions and inventory
data. The intended audience of results from this study is other LCA
professionals, forest industry companies, environmental managers,
government regulators, and biofuel developers. Results and
methods from this study may be later used at different levels of
data aggregation when considering specific biofuels or bioenergy
projects within the state of Michigan, and may be applicable to
forest-based biomass supply within the broader Great Lakes region.
2. Research methods
2.1. Goal and scope
The goal of our LCA is to determine greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions and fossil energy demand associated with harvesting
and transport of forest-based biomass within the state of Michigan.
For the purposes of this study, harvesting includes cutting trees
from the stump, processing into typical pulpwood length (100
inches), and moving the logs to a forest landing. Transport refers to
movements of wood from the forest landing to a processing facility.
The scope is limited in the sense that our focus is only on those
65
stages in the forest-based biomass supply chain that occur prior to
biomass conversion into biofuels, bioproducts, or bioenergy at a
processing facility (Fig. 1). Material and energy inputs used directly
during feedstock supply chain activities, i.e. wood harvesting and
transport, will be considered. Of these inputs, fuel is the most
important, but other inputs are also included, including major
equipment used to harvest and transport wood (harvesters, for-
warders, log trucks, etc.) and estimates of lubricants and inputs
used to maintain equipment.
We also do not include inputs from any activities that would
occur ‘upstream’ of the wood harvesting process, such as forest re-
planting or carbon stock changes on the landscape resulting from
direct or indirect land-use change. The vast majority of wood
currently harvested in Michigan is from forest stands which were
initiated by natural processes, with no external inputs. These stands
have been cultured by foresters under the guidance of forest
management plans that dictate the intensity of harvest operations
and intended outcomes for future forest regeneration and growth.
Michigan’s forested land base has been increasing in size and vol-
ume of wood fiber for many decades, and we do not expect new
uses of forest biomass to contribute to losses of forestland within
the state. A growing body of research on impacts of different har-
vesting regimes on soil carbon storage reveals a range of potential
outcomes that are likely dependent on specific site characteristics,
although the average result seems to be little or no change in soil
carbon stocks over time [e.g., (Johnson and Curtis, 2001)]. Potential
environmental impacts of increased harvest activity on landscape
carbon stocks, through shorter rotation ages on actively managed
lands or an increased willingness of landowners to actively manage
their forestlands for timber production, is an important issue that
should be addressed in further research.
2.2. Functional unit
The functional unit for this study was one green (50% moisture
content) (Argonne National Laboratory, 2013) metric tonne of forest
biomass, defined here as roundwood pulpwood that can be har-
vested and collected with forestry equipment commonly used in
Michigan. Forest products industry workers in Michigan were most
comfortable with English units as our data collection efforts were
devised and tested on sample respondents, but they have been
converted here. Harvesting activities are normalized to this func-
tional unit, while transportation activities have been normalized on
the basis of a tonne-mile, due to the dependence of transport
burdens on the particular distance moved. No specific origin-
destination pairs of feedstock location and processing facilities
were utilized in this study, so the transportation data can be uti-
lized by parties interested in specific case studies by multiplying
environmental burdens per tonne-mile by the mileage of the spe-
cific transport step, as is done in a few examples presented below.
For the purposes of comparison to other studies, results are also
presented in English units (lb CO2eq per U.S. short ton) and on a dry
weight basis.
2.3. Life cycle input data
The data and assumptions required for this study came from a
variety of sources. An important component of our life cycle in-
ventory was the use of primary input data from loggers within the
state of Michigan. A comprehensive logging and transportation
survey was mailed to loggers within the State of Michigan from
2009 to 2010. Information was collected on current equipment and
operations using in harvesting and transportation supply stages.
The combined results of over 220 unique survey respondents
represent the most current and accurate picture of forest products
66 R.M. Handler et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 76 (2014) 64e73

Fig. 1. Diagram of system boundary for limited-scope life-cycle assessment of the forest biomass supply chain in Michigan.

harvesting operations over the entire state of Michigan. A detailed
explanation of survey results and analysis is explained in Abbas
et al. (2014). In the following sections, we detail how life cycle
input data was developed for harvesting and transport of forest
biomass.
Estimates of harvesting (cutting wood) and forwarding (moving
harvested wood to a truck-accessible collection point) activity were
taken primarily from the state of Michigan logger survey, with
supplementary information from other sources (Table 1). Three
main harvesting/forwarding equipment configurations were used
to characterize the logging industry in Michigan:
essential to make several key assumptions regarding the treatment
of this data. It was assumed that loggers had an average productive
work day of 8 h, and that average harvest rates were maintained
continuously throughout the workday. The lifetime productivity of
a major piece of harvesting equipment (harvester, forwarder,
skidder, etc.) was assumed to be 144,000 tonnes (10 years,
40 weeks/year, 8 loads/day, 45 tonnes/load), based on guidance
from industrial partners and selected loggers in the region. This
estimate can be easily changed to suit local conditions, but overall
LCA burdens for equipment fabrication and repair are likely to be
small, as shown in results.

a)cut-to-length full processor/forwarder

b)feller-buncher/skidder/slasher
c)chainsaws/skidder
2.3.1. Harvest configurations and assumptions
From the logger survey results, we were able to obtain the
average fuel use of various key pieces of forestry equipment. This
data was reported in gallons/hour, which was the most common
and reliable metric of fuel use for loggers in the sample population.
As seen in Table 1, the amount of variability in fuel use estimates is
large. Sensitivity analyses in the following sections will illustrate
the importance of obtaining good estimates of fuel use for the ac-
curacy of overall forest biomass supply chain burdens. Estimates of
lubricants and grease for each equipment configuration came from
operating data collected from experienced loggers by foresters
working for J.M. Longyear (JML), LLC, a forest management com-
pany operating in the Lakes States region with extensive experience
contracting with logging crews in Michigan. In an effort to convert
data to a consistent format and make valid comparisons, it was
2.3.2. Harvest productivity
In order to transform life cycle inventory data for harvesting and
forwarding, reported on the basis of hourly usage rates, into inputs
normalized on the basis of one green tonne of forest biomass, it is
necessary to know the productivity of each equipment configura-
tion in tonnes of wood per hour. In the state of Michigan logger
surveys, respondents were asked to list their average harvest pro-
ductivity in short tons or cords of green timber per hr e most re-
spondents preferred cords. Information was collected for three
theoretical harvest types e clearcutting all merchantable timber, a
70% (shelterwood) removal treatment, and a 30% (selective cut)
removal treatment. In each case, respondents were also asked to list
which of the harvest equipment configurations they would likely
use in each treatment. For each of these treatment scenarios, there
were also separate entry sections for entering productivity esti-
mates for each of four potential forest types e natural hardwood
stands, natural softwood stands, mixed hardwood/softwood
stands, and softwood plantations (Abbas et al., 2014).

Table 1
Summary of inputs for harvesting configurations.

Item Unit Total Data source/comments

Configuration A: full processor/forwarder

Fuel use L/hr 30.7  11.3 Logger survey data, full processor ¼ 18.5  8.7 (na ¼ 142), forwarder ¼ 12.1  7.2 (n ¼ 159)
Lubricants L/d 25.3 JMLb, no variability given
Grease kg/d 0.9 JML, no variability given
Equipment 2 Major pieces of equipment
Configuration B: feller-buncher/grapple skidder/slasher
Fuel use L/hr 55.4  14.1 Logger survey data, feller buncher ¼ 6.3  2.6 (n ¼ 37), slasher ¼ 3.9  1.8 (n ¼ 18),
weighted average of grapple (5.1  2.3, n ¼ 33) and cable skidders (2.4  1.0, n ¼ 11)
Lubricants L/d 9.4 JML, no variability given
Grease kg/d 0.45 JML, no variability given
Saw gas L/d 3.79 JML, no variability given
Equipment 3 Major pieces of equipment
Configuration C: chainsaw/cable skidder
Fuel use L/hr 27.2  7.8 Logger survey data, chainsaws ¼ 1.1  0.6 (n ¼ 35), 2.5 average chainsaws used per logging
crew, weighted average of grapple (5.1  2.3, n ¼ 33) and cable skidders (2.4  1.0, n ¼ 11)
Lubricants L/d 1.5 JML, no variability given
Equipment 1 Major piece of equipment
a
n-values listed in Comments refer to the number of survey responses included in the reported average.
b
JML data was obtained through personal communication with forest industry experts and is used as representative of logging crews in the state.
 R.M. Handler et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 76 (2014) 64e73 67

Estimates of harvest productivity were wide-ranging, and this Table 2

analysis required some standardization to ensure that accurate Combined state of MI productivity estimates for different logging equipment
configurations.
comparisons were being made. In previous survey sections, re-
spondents were asked which equipment configurations (processor/ Treatment Forest type Productivity per harvester
forwarder, feller-buncher/skidder/slasher, etc.) were used in their (tonnes/hr)

operations, along with the number of pieces of equipment owned. Na Average Std. dev
For the full processor and feller-buncher configurations, only re- A: full processor/forwarder
spondents indicating that one or two pieces of harvesting equipment 30% Cut Natural hardwoods 54 7.12 2.95
(one or two processors, one or two feller-bunchers) were included in (Selective) Mixed hardwood/softwood 48 8.17 3.15
Natural softwoods 47 8.41 4.59
the productivity analysis. In situations where respondents indicated
Softwood plantations 37 9.74 4.49
three or more processors or feller bunchers, it was more likely that 70% Cut Natural hardwoods 43 8.72 3.83
these pieces of equipment were working on different sites, or not all (Shelterwood) Mixed hardwood/softwood 41 9.62 3.86
working at the same time, and therefore would not yield produc- Natural softwoods 38 9.93 4.57
tivity data that was reflective of the capability of each machine. No Softwood plantations 29 10.58 4.54
Clearcutting Natural hardwoods 43 11.75 5.84
such distinction was made for the equipment configurations
Mixed hardwood/softwood 47 12.09 5.32
involving chainsaws as the main harvesting equipment. However, an Natural softwoods 40 12.95 5.94
average ownership of 2.6 chainsaws was indicated in the survey Softwood plantations 35 14.86 8.57
responses for loggers who used chainsaws as a tool to cut more than Treatment Forest type Productivity per harvester
50% of their total production in 2009e2010 (Abbas et al., 2014). (tonnes/hr)
Weighted averages for each category were calculated as follows: N Average Std. dev

B: feller-buncher/skidder/slasher
Average Productivity ðcords=hrÞ ¼ ðN1*P1 þ N2*P2Þ= 30% Cut Natural hardwoods 15 7.93 3.24
(1)
ðN1 þ N2*2Þ (Selective) Mixed hardwood/softwood 15 7.79 2.79
Natural softwoods 13 7.19 2.80
Softwood plantations 8 8.55 1.98
where N1 and N2 are the number of 1-harvester and 2-harvester 70%Cut Natural hardwoods 14 10.11 3.05
respondents, respectively, and P1 and P2 represent average pro- (Shelterwood) Mixed hardwood/softwood 15 9.86 3.02
Natural softwoods 16 10.71 3.41
ductivity values for 1-harvester and 2-harvester respondents (in Softwood plantations 9 11.49 3.68
cords/hr). Clearcutting Natural hardwoods 13 14.53 5.71
Below in Table 2 is a summary of productivity estimates (average Mixed hardwood/softwood 13 14.04 6.36
tonnes green timber/hr) for survey respondents that indicated a Natural softwoods 11 13.69 6.04
Softwood plantations 9 15.13 8.92
particular equipment configuration would be used in each cutting
prescription and forest type. To convert these values from cords Treatment Forest type Productivity (tonnes/hr)
into green tonnes/hour, an average conversion factor of 2.35 U.S. N Average Std. dev
short tons per cord has been applied (Blinn and Hendricks, 1997).
C: chainsaws/skidder
This value can vary between regions and tree species, and more 30% Cut Natural hardwoods 32 4.31 2.83
specific data may be substituted if values are known for target (Selective) Mixed hardwood/softwood 19 4.15 3.11
species in a certain area. As expected, average productivity for Natural softwoods 17 3.93 3.32
Softwood plantations 13 3.75 1.84
chainsaws is lower than the more mechanized systems, roughly 4
70% Cut Natural hardwoods 20 4.68 3.44
tonnes/hour across most harvest types and forest types (Table 2). In (Shelterwood) Mixed hardwood/softwood 18 4.15 2.99
both fully-mechanized systems (A and B), productivity increased as Natural softwoods 14 4.01 3.16
harvest treatment intensity rose from 30% to 70% to 100%, with Softwood plantations 12 3.70 2.25
feller-bunchers slightly more productive than full processors in 70% Clearcutting Natural hardwoods 12 4.26 2.39
Mixed hardwood/softwood 14 4.07 1.97
and clearcutting operations.
Natural softwoods 13 3.03 1.27
Softwood plantations 9 3.79 2.34
2.3.3. Data aggregation a
n-values listed refer to the number of survey responses included in the reported
In order to simplify the analysis for this study, the following average.
data aggregation steps have been made. Productivities for all
natural stands were averaged for each harvest configuration
(Table 2: A, B and C) in each harvest type (Table 2: Treatments), and used hereafter, but these estimations can be altered based on
resulting in 9 total productivity estimates. Plantations were left the planned operations for a specific facility and its supply area.
out of the analysis for now because they are still relatively un- Sensitivity analyses that follow indicate the potential changes that
common in the state of Michigan, but this may change in the would result if the proportions of each harvest scenario or
future. In order to estimate productivity for each harvest scenario, equipment configuration are changed.
the data for different equipment configurations was combined
with input from an external review committee (with members 2.3.4. Road and rail transportation
from academia, local government, and private industry) to yield a For forest biomass transportation from a forest landing to a
weighted average for each harvest scenario in the following conversion facility, the two modes of transportation considered
manner (Table 3). In this way, we now have one estimate of pro- here are road and rail. Over-the-road transport can occur in log
ductivity for each of the three harvest scenarios. If one single trucks (roundwood logs) or chip vans (processed biomass). In
metric to encompass all potential harvest activity is desired, the Michigan, log trucks are allowed to attain a gross vehicle weight of
data could be further aggregated by taking a weighted average of 74.4 tonnes (164,000 lb), which is considerably larger than other
the three harvest scenarios to represent their relative importance northern states such as MN or WI (36.3 tonnes, 80,000 lb) (Stewart
in terms of the overall harvest of forest biomass within the state of et al., 2010). Large log trucks are the primary method of roundwood
Michigan. One example of this aggregation is presented in Table 3 transport in the state. We developed LCA profiles of transport based
68 R.M. Handler et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 76 (2014) 64e73
Table 3
Proportion of harvesting done in each scenario by each equipment configuration (%).
on an average log truck reported within the state of Michigan, but
include estimates of fuel use for larger MI-only trucks (10 or 11
axles) and chip vans if LCA burdens for these modes of transport are
desired in future work. Fuel usage data was collected from truck
operators on the basis of an average fuel economy for a tank of
gasoline or a given operation time, which included both loaded and
unloaded segments. We assume here that the proportion of
unloaded miles traveled is 50%, according to guidance from in-
dustrial partners, and use an average fuel economy for all segments
of transportation. Rail transport of forest biomass is typically per-
formed by 72.6 tonne log cars for roundwood logs. Rail is
commonly perceived as being more fuel efficient than truck
transport by a factor of 4 or more (Federal Railroad Administration,
2009). Our estimates of fuel use for rail cars operating in MI come
from national averages of a major rail company operating in the
Upper Peninsula, and are in agreement with general estimates of
rail fuel use (Table 4). We also consider the fuel use required for the
loading activity required to transfer roundwood from the forest
landing to a truck. Most log trucks in MI are equipped with hy-
draulic loaders to accomplish this transfer, and one loading and
unloading cycle of a self-loading log truck was incorporated into
the estimates of supply chain fuel use (Table 4).
2.4. Environmental impact assessment
Environmental impact factors of the production of material and
energy inputs, in addition to their direct use in this supply chain,
were included as part of this assessment through use of the
Ecoinvent 2.1 database (Frischknecht et al., 2004), peer-reviewed
literature, expert opinion, or other sources. We combined the life
cycle input data detailed above with estimates of greenhouse gas
emissions and fossil energy demand resulting from production and
use of each of the inputs listed. Environmental impact factors and
their sources are detailed in Table 5. A majority of the factors are
Table 4
Key input data and assumptions regarding transport of forest biomass in Michigan.
Item Data
Loading/unloading
Fuel use required per tonne of green timber 17.0 L/hr
1 h to load or unload
36.3 green tonne average load
0.77 L/tonne
Truck transportation
Log truck fuel economy per tonne-km 1.90  0.76 km/L
36.3 green tonne average load
50% load factor
0.0290 L/tonne-km
Lifetime tonne-km of log truck 15 yr productive life
88,500 km/yr
Rail transportation
Rail fuel economy per tonne-km 0.0066 L/tonne-km
Lifetime tonne-km of rail equipment 32,180,000 lifetime km
1800 tonnes per load
derived from national or regional databases and peer-reviewed
literature sources. Emissions of different greenhouse gases (CO2,
N2O, CH4, etc.) are normalized on the basis of global warming po-
tential (CO2 e equivalents, CO2eq) using either the IPCC GWP 100-
year average (for Ecoinvent input data) or other life-cycle sources
(see Table 5) and aggregated to estimate the overall impact of a
product or process.
3. Results and discussion
Combining the life cycle inputs (Tables 1, 2 and 4) with the
environmental impacts listed above (Table 5) and normalizing the
data to the basis of one green tonne, we arrive at greenhouse gas
emissions and fossil energy demand per green tonne of forest
biomass for harvesting and transportation stages within the state of
Michigan (Table 6). Due to the different units commonly employed
in the areas of life-cycle assessment and forest products (English vs.
metric units, green freshly cut wood vs. dry biomass), the main
results are presented using a variety of unit configurations. For
conversions between green recently harvested timber and dry
biomass, a moisture content of 50% was assumed in all cases. Re-
sults appear to scale up or down by a factor of 2 due to unit
conversions.
Harvesting activity is the most complicated part of the analysis
(Table 6) due to the many possible levels of data aggregation.
Chainsaw harvesting does not rate as the option with the lowest
environmental footprint despite the low relative machinery and
input requirements, due to the low efficiency of production
compared to other harvesting scenarios. Within the full processor
and feller-buncher harvesting scenarios, overall environmental
impacts fall drastically as harvest intensity is increased from 30% to
clearcutting, due to the increase in productivity in cords per hour. In
our analysis, we combine one average fuel use value (L/hr) for the
equipment configuration with different productivity estimates
Comment
Average of one full-day trial conducted with 2007 MI log truck
equipped with self-loader
Logger survey, average of loaded and unloaded transport
Fuel economy for average of all forest biomass hauling trucks
reported in survey (10-11 axle trucks ¼ 1.57  0.31 km/L,
chip vans ¼ 1.78  0.42 km/L
Logger survey data, estimates from industry experts Same load
factor and load weight used as above
CN Railroad (2009), comparable to Ecoinvent estimates
(Frischknecht et al., 2004)
Assumed values
 R.M. Handler et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 76 (2014) 64e73 69

Table 5
Environmental impact factors and major assumptions.

Item Data Comment

GHG emissions factor for fuels 3.28 kg CO2eq/L diesel, 2.97 kg (Skone and Gerdes, 2008), combining data on emissions
CO2eq/L gasoline per MJ of fuel, energy content of fuels, density of fuels
Energy demand of fuels 40.6 MJ/L, used for diesel and (Klvac et al., 2003), roughly 10% due to production of fuels
for gasoline
GHG Emissions factor for oils, lubricants 4.22 kg CO2eq/kg material 1.05 kg GHG emissions from production (Ecoinvent)
(Frischknecht et al., 2004) plus 3.17 kg GHG emissions for
mineralization to CO2
Energy demand of oils, lubricants 57.9 MJ/L (Klvac et al., 2003) values for synthetic oil
Emissions factor of grease 0 Assumed to be fairly recalcitrant, not combusted or biodegraded
Energy demand of Grease 76.7 MJ/kg Ecoinvent factor for lubricating oil production
(Frischknecht et al., 2004)
Emissions factors of harvesting/forwarding 0.43 kg CO2eq/green tonne, Calculations based on Swedish forwarder (Athanassiadis et al., 2002),
machine fabrication and repair for each large machine 41,873 kg CO2eq per original machine, plus 50% extra for lifetime of
involved repairs and maintenance, then normalized to lifetime estimated
wood production
Energy demand for machine fabrication 8.4 MJ/green tonne, for full Calculations based on Swedish forwarder (Athanassiadis et al., 2002),
and repair processor/feller/bunchers 66 MJ/kg for original machine, assumed 15,000 kg for harvesters and
6.7 MJ/green tonne for 12,000 kg for forwarders/skidders, plus 50% extra for lifetime of
forwarders/skidders repairs and maintenance, then normalized to estimated lifetime
production
Emissions for log truck production, 55,400 kg CO2eq Ecoinvent for 40-t lorry production, maintenance
maintenance (Frischknecht et al., 2004)
Energy demand for log truck production, 1,308,350 MJ Ecoinvent for 40-t lorry production, maintenance
maintenance (Frischknecht et al., 2004)
Emissions for rail equipment production, 2,537,000 kg CO2eq Ecoinvent for long-distance train production, maintenance
maintenance (Frischknecht et al., 2004)
Energy demand for rail equipment 54,368,890 MJ Ecoinvent for long-distance train production, maintenance
production, maintenance (Frischknecht et al., 2004)

(tonnes/hr) for different harvest types to arrive at different fuel
intensity factors (L/tonne of wood). While it may have been more
accurate to ask loggers to report an average fuel use for each
equipment type as it was being used in a variety of harvest types,
initial testing of the survey instrument deemed this line of ques-
tioning too difficult for the majority of respondents to answer
clearly. Environmental impacts from fabrication and maintenance
of equipment represents between 2 and 10% of overall greenhouse
gas emissions and 3e15% of fossil energy demand, a small but non-
trivial component of the environmental burdens for this life cycle
stage.
Transportation of biofuels or bioenergy feedstocks is potentially
the largest source of environmental impacts in the entire supply
chain (Sonne, 2006), and this stage of the supply chain deserves as
much scrutiny in regards to potential optimization as other life
cycle stages. The small environmental metrics displayed here
(Table 7) are normalized on the basis of a tonne-km as opposed to a
tonne, so multiplication of these values by an actual transport
distance will yield an environmental burden with the same func-
tional unit as the harvesting life cycle stage. For instance, if biomass
is to be transported 100 km by truck, greenhouse gas emissions
for one-way transport become 0.097 kg CO2eq/tonne-
km  100 km ¼ 9.7 kg CO2eq/tonne feedstock, which is comparable
to estimates of the harvesting stage. If no backhauls are possible
from the end-use facility, which is often the case in roundwood
truck transport, impacts of the truck return trip must also be

Table 6
Environmental impacts of harvesting/forwarding at different levels of data aggregation.

Greenhouse gas emissions Fossil energy demand

lb CO2 eq kg CO2 eq kg CO2 eq MJ MJ MJ

green tona green tonneb dry tonne green ton green tonne dry tonne

A: full processor/forwarder
30% Cut (selective) 29.4 14.7 29.4 178.9 197.2 394.4
70% Cut (shelterwood) 24.6 12.3 24.6 150.5 165.9 331.7
Clearcutting 19.8 9.9 19.8 122.7 135.2 270.4
B: feller-buncher/skidder/slasher
30% Cut (selective) 52.6 26.3 52.6 305.7 337.0 674.0
70% Cut (shelterwood) 38.3 19.1 38.3 225.1 248.1 496.3
Clearcutting 27.2 13.6 27.2 162.4 179.0 358.0
C: chainsaws/skidder
30% Cut (selective) 48.6 24.3 48.6 276.0 304.2 608.5
70% Cut (shelterwood) 46.6 23.3 46.6 264.8 291.9 583.7
Clearcutting 44.0 22.0 44.0 250.0 275.5 551.1
All 30% selective cut harvesting 41.8 20.9 41.8 245.7 270.8 541.6
All 70% shelterwood cut harvesting 32.5 16.3 32.5 193.5 213.3 426.6
All clearcut harvesting 20.6 10.3 20.6 126.6 139.6 279.2
All harvesting activityc 35.7 17.8 35.7 211.4 233.1 466.1
a
‘ton’ refers to U.S. short ton.
b
‘tonne’ refers to metric tonne.
c
Baseline result that will be used in the rest of the study.
70 R.M. Handler et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 76 (2014) 64e73
Table 7
Environmental impacts of forest biomass transport.
Item Greenhouse gas emissions
lb CO2eq kg CO2eq
ton e mile tonne e km
Log truck operations and equipment 0.313 0.097
Percentage due to equipment 2.3%
Rail operations and equipment 0.069 0.022
Percentage due to equipment 0.2%
allocated to the feedstock, effectively doubling the impact of the
transport stage. A range of possible environmental burdens for
sample truck trips is presented below in Table 8, using a range of
assumed transport distances, indicating that transportation could
potentially be the most significant stage of the biomass supply
chain if backhaul opportunities are limited and transport distance
is increased. Bimodal transportation that combines a short truck
movement with a longer rail transport segment has the ability to
move forest biomass a greater distance while maintaining an
environmental burden similar to truck movements from a smaller
supply radius, as the example in Table 8 shows. As expected,
environmental burdens from the equipment fabrication and
maintenance considered in both truck and rail cases represents a
small component of the environmental impacts considered here.
Other transportation infrastructure could be considered, such as
roads or rail lines, but normalization of this specific use among the
lifetime of potential use experienced by that transportation infra-
structure would inevitably make the impacts small enough to be
disregarded in this type of analysis.
Not explicitly shown in Tables 7 or 8 below is the environmental
impact of the loading/unloading steps in the forest feedstock sup-
ply chain, which amount to 3.1 kg CO2eq/green tonne and 17.3 MJ/
green tonne for greenhouse gas emissions and fossil energy de-
mand, respectively. These figures are based on fuel use estimates
for self-loaders commonly supplied with Michigan log trucks
(Table 4), but could be altered to reflect specific operating condi-
tions. Bimodal transportation with rail will require at least one
extra loading cycle to complete the truck-rail interchange. In order
to minimize the need for additional loading/unloading re-
quirements in bimodal transportation, the final destination should
have rail access and logs should ideally be loaded directly from log
truck to waiting rail cars at the rail siding.
In order to explore the relative importance of inputs to our LCA
model of the forest biomass supply chain, a sensitivity analysis
was performed on several variables in the harvesting and trans-
portation unit operations. Input variables were increased or
decreased 10%, and overall supply chain GHG emissions were
recalculated and compared to the baseline (Fig. 2). Emissions
factors for petroleum fuels used in harvest or transport activities
Table 8
Potential environmental burdens associated with different trucking distances.
One-way trip distancea 50 km 100 kmb 150 km 200 km 20 km Truck þ
(baseline) 150 km rail
(bimodal)
GHG emissions (kg CO2 12.8 22.5 32.3 42.3 16.5
eq/green tonne)c
Fossil energy demand 140.1 263.0 385.8 508.7 163.7
(MJ/green tonne)
a
Environmental burdens calculated on the basis of round-trip impacts, assuming
no backhauls.
b
100 km is assumed baseline scenario for additional comparisons.
c
Includes emissions due to one loading/unloading cycle for truck trips and two
cycles for bimodal trips.
Fossil energy demand
kg CO2eq dry MJ MJ MJ dry
tonne e km ton e mile tonne e km tonne e km
0.194 1.79 1.23 2.46
4.4%
0.043 0.39 0.27 0.53
0.3%
had a large impact on overall results, while emissions factors for
large machinery fabrication and maintenance were small, as
would be expected. Changing the productivity of harvest systems
A, B, or C (full processor, feller-buncher, or chainsaws) had a larger
impact than increasing or decreasing the proportion of each har-
vest system in our data aggregation strategy outlined in Table 3.
For variables involved in aggregation of harvest data, an increase
of 10% in one harvest system was paired with an equivalent
decrease split equally between the other two harvest systems (e.g.,
increasing the use of feller-bunchers from 50 to 55% and reducing
systems A and C by 2.5% each). The variable that induced the most
change in GHG emissions was the GHG emissions intensity of fuels
being used, however this variable is a nation-wide estimate and
local operators have little control over changes in this variable. Key
harvesting variables which are under some control of forest op-
erators include system productivity for all harvest systems A, B
and C, and use of harvest system A (increasing values for these
variables results in decreased overall GHG emissions). Decreasing
the use of 30% selective cuts would also decrease GHG emissions,
but selective cuts serve other important ecosystem functions as
part of a sustainable harvesting plan, and their use is not likely to
be reduced within Michigan. Because so many harvest system
variables are aggregated to derive a single value for harvesting
GHG emissions, the individual impact of harvest system variables
on the overall supply chain emissions was reduced. In the trans-
portation system, however, most input data was used without
aggregation or weighting to directly calculate environmental im-
pacts in the baseline assumption of round-trip truck use. An in-
crease of 10% in truck capacity, fuel economy, or load factor
resulted in decreases of roughly 5% in total cradle-to-gate emis-
sions. Notably, an increase in use of bimodal rail transportation
(90% truck/10% bimodal) compared to our base case (100% truck)
using transport distances outlined in Table 9 would reduce GHG
emissions by 2.25%, even though the average overall transport
distance would increase by 7%, increasing the potential supply
radius while reducing environmental impacts.
Environmental impacts for supplying forest-based biomass
within the state of Michigan calculated in this work can be
compared to similar estimates made in the literature, although the
comparisons depend upon different assumptions and scenario
boundaries among studies. Table 9 provides a comparison of our
work with other published results. Our results for the state of
Michigan are in reasonable agreement with studies from Europe
and different regions in the United States that consider harvest and
transport of forest-based biomass grown in natural stands. It was
unclear from Sonne (2006) what transport distance was used to
calculate emissions for this stage of the supply chain, but their GHG
emissions value is roughly twice as large as the baseline assump-
tion here considering a 200 km roundtrip distance. Johnson et al.
(2005) consider a transport distance in line with our own
assumption, but harvesting systems for the US Southeast and Pa-
cific Northwest appear to be more energy intensive than our
Michigan logger survey data and default assumptions indicate e
although if we were to assume a combination of feller-buncher and
 R.M. Handler et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 76 (2014) 64e73 71

Fig. 2. Sensitivity analysis for key inputs to harvesting and transportation unit operations. Input variables were increased or decreased by 10% to observe resulting changes in overall
GHG emissions for harvesting or transport unit operations.

chainsaw harvesting, Michigan harvesting impacts could be much
higher.
The supply chain environmental impacts presented in Table 9
are significant, but they should not be viewed as a barrier to
sustainable development of forest-based biofuels or bioenergy. To
place the results in context, a cumulative GHG emissions value of
40.4 kg CO2eq/green tonne is much smaller than the carbon credit
associated with incorporating a renewable carbon feedstock into a
biofuel or bioenergy system. Assuming the roundwood contains
50% carbon (Argonne National Laboratory, 2013), a green tonne of
forest biomass would correspond to 916.7 kg CO2eq available for
conversion into a useful product. If the wood is used to create
ethanol (LHV 26.8 MJ/kg) via fermentation with a conservative
yield of 334 L/dry tonne (Argonne National Laboratory, 2013), the

Table 9
Comparison of forest biomass supply life cycle environmental impacts.

Source GHG emissions kg CO2 Fossil energy demand Comments

eq/tonnea MJ/tonne

(Sonne, 2006) 17.4 Harvesting e U.S. Pacific NW, 2.9 Mg CO2 eq/300 m3 timber and 5.5 Mg
38.2 Transport CO2 eq/300 m3 timber for mechanized harvest and transport,
55.6 Total respectively, Douglass fir density 0.48 g/cm3 (Seely, 2011) used
for all density assumptions needed in subsequent comparisons
(Johnson et al., 2005) w50e58 Total w615e715 Total Table 4b, harvesting and hauling, fuel use and lubricant data
for U.S. SE and Pacific NW, 90e120 km one-way transport,
CORRIM group
(Gonzalez-Garcia et al., 2009) e 283e340 harvesting Data for Spain (eucalyptus plantation, low value) and Sweden
226e100 transport (softwoods, high value), 90 km transport, 40% moisture assumed
509e440 total
(Slade et al., 2009) 23.8 Harvesting e Softwood logs, UK and Swedish data, 107 km transport, assume
9.2 Transport 50% moisture to convert data from dry tonnes to green tonnes
33 Total
(Klvac et al., 2003) e 214e250 Harvesting Only Estimates from Sweden and Ireland
(Keoleian and Volk, 2005) 5.9 Harvesting Only 157.1 Harvesting Only Willow plantation, high intensity growth with periodic coppice
harvest every 3 years, very different system
(Valente et al., 2011) 15.2 Harvesting 204 Harvesting Norwegian forestry in mountainous regions, 64 km transport
10.2 Transport 155 Transport
25.4 Total 359 Total
This Study 17.8 Harvest 233 Harvest Assuming aggregated harvest data and baseline transport
3.1 Loading 17.3 Loading scenario as discussed above
19.4 Transport 246 Transport
40.4 Total 495.3 Total
a
All values in table listed on the basis of green tonnes.
72 R.M. Handler et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 76 (2014) 64e73
supply chain GHG emissions would translate to roughly 11.5 g
CO2eq/MJ final ethanol product. These emissions are only for the
feedstock supply, but this level of emission prior to the fuel con-
version stage should still allow for production of fuel that has a
cradle-to-grave emissions profile well below the comparable
standard for petroleum gasoline (91.3 g CO2eq/MJ) (Skone and
Gerdes, 2008). This is especially true in this case, because ligno-
cellulosic ethanol production often assumes a significant envi-
ronmental credit from lignin that is used to create an electricity
co-product (Argonne National Laboratory, 2013). Similarly, fossil
energy demands of wood supply amount to 495.3 MJ/green tonne,
but this energy use is corresponds to roughly 3% of the energy that
is embodied in the forest biomass (LHV 16.5 MJ/kg) (Argonne
National Laboratory, 2013). If the same ethanol yield of 334 L/
dry tonne is applied, the baseline fossil energy demand for
roundwood feedstock would correspond to 14% of the embodied
energy within the ethanol product.
4. Conclusions
Using a combination of data from a survey of the Michigan forest
products industry, expert opinion, literature, and database sources,
a limited-scope life-cycle assessment of the forest biomass supply
chain in Michigan was constructed. Greenhouse gas emissions and
fossil energy demand for wood harvesting were calculated for a
range of equipment configurations and harvest scenarios, revealing
important differences between the harvesting practices commonly
observed within the state. Transport of forest biomass by truck
carries a higher environmental burden per ton-mile than an
equivalent distance of rail transport, usually by a factor of 4e5. One
loading and unloading cycle of wood accounted for roughly 8% of
overall GHG emissions and 3.5% of fossil energy demand, while
remaining environmental burdens were divided relatively equally
between harvest and transport steps. Calculated environmental
burdens for a defined harvest and transport supply chain base case
in MI were within the range of values reported for similar opera-
tions in the literature. Baseline scenario results indicate that wood
harvest and transport can be equally important components of an
overall wood product, biofuels, or bioenergy supply chain, but the
level of impacts observed here do not prevent forest biomass from
serving as an environmentally friendly feedstock source for biofuels
or bioenergy. For instance, fossil energy demand in our baseline
scenario is 495.3 MJ/green tonne of wood, which is only 3% of the
energy content embodied in the delivered wood. We hope that a
detailed summary of our approach to arriving at these values will
allow policy makers, business developers, and other stakeholders
in the forest biomass industry to utilize these values with some
degree of confidence when considering the environmental burdens
of the forest biomass supply chain for planned biofuels and bio-
energy facilities, or highlight areas where more location-specific
data would improve the accuracy of a particular assessment.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported through an agreement with the
Michigan Economic Development Corporation with funding from
the U.S. Department of Energy award DE-EE-0000280 and from the
Michigan Economic Development Corporation Center of Energy
Excellence Program, a program funded through the State’s 21st
Century Jobs Fund. The authors wish to acknowledge the generous
input from several MI-based industries and logging firms and op-
erators, from Michigan Technological University: Rui Shi for assis-
tance in report preparation, and from Michigan State University:
Mr. Michael D. Schira (MSU Extension).
Disclaimer
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an
agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States
Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees,
makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal lia-
bility or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness
of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or
represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights.
Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or
service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does
not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommen-
dation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency
thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not
necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government
or any agency thereof.
References
Abbas, D., Handler, R., Hartsough, B., Dykstra, D., Srivastava, A., Hembroff, L., et al.,
2014. Forest logging and transportation Logistics in Michigan. Croat. J. For. Eng.
(under review).
Argonne National Laboratory, 2013. The Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions,
and Energy Use in Transportation (GREET) Model. Available at: https://greet.es.
anl.gov/.
Athanassiadis, D., Lidestav, G., Nordfjell, T., 2002. Energy use and emissions due to
the manufacture of a forwarder. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 34, 149.
Blinn, C.R., Hendricks, L.T., 1997. Marketing Timber from the Private Woodland.
University of Minnesota Extension Services, St. Paul, MN.
CN Railroad, 2009. Canadian National Railroad Greenhouse Gas Calculator Emission
Factors.
Department of Energy, 2011. U.S. Billion-Ton Update: Biomass Supply for a Bio-
energy and Bioproducts Industry. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge,
TN, U.S.
Dwivedi, P., Alavalapati, J.R.R., 2009. Stakeholders perceptions on forest
biomass-based bioenergy development in the southern US. Energy Policy 37,
1999.
Fan, J., Kalnes, T.N., Alward, M., Klinger, J., Sadehvandi, A., Shonnard, D.R., 2011. Life
cycle assessment of electricity generation using fast pyrolysis bio-oil. Renew.
Energy 36, 632.
Federal Railroad Administration, 2009. Comparative Evaluation of Rail and Truck
Fuel Efficiency on Competitive Corridors. Prepared for the U.S. Department of
Transportation.
Frischknecht, R., Althaus, H.-J., Doka, G., Dones, R., Heck, T., Hellweg, S., et al., 2004.
Overview and Methodology, Final Report. Ecoinvent v2.0 No. 1. Swiss Centre for
Life Cycle Inventories, Duebendorf, CH. http://www.ecoinvent.ch/.
Froese, R., Abbott, Z., 2012. Energy Crop Opportunities in the Western Upper
Peninsula of Michigan. Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI.
Gonzalez-Garcia, S., Berg, S., Feijoo, G., Moreira, M.T., 2009. Environmental impacts
of forest production and supply of pulpwood: Spanish and Swedish case
studies. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 14, 340.
Handler, R.M., Canter, C.E., Kalnes, T.N., Lupton, F.S., Kholiqov, O., Shonnard, D.R.,
et al., 2012. Evaluation of environmental impacts from microalgae cultivation in
open-air raceway ponds: analysis of the prior literature and investigation of
wide variance in predicted impacts. Algal Res. 1, 83.
Hoekman, S.K., 2009. Biofuels in the US: challenges and opportunities. Renew.
Energy 34, 14.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007a. Climate Change 2007 e the
Physical Science Basis: Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment
Report of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007b. Climate Change 2007: Miti-
gation Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of
the IPCC. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
Johnson, D.W., Curtis, P.S., 2001. Effects of forest management on soil C and N
storage: meta analysis. For. Ecol. Manag. 140, 227.
Johnson, L.R., Lippke, B., Marshall, J.D., Comnick, J., 2005. Life-cycle impacts of forest
resource activities in the Pacific Northwest and Southeast United States. Wood
Fiber Sci. 37, 30.
Keoleian, G.A., Volk, T.A., 2005. Renewable energy from willow biomass crops: life
cycle energy, environmental and economic performance. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci.
24, 385.
Klvac, R., Ward, S., Owende, P.M.O., Lyons, J., 2003. Energy audit of wood harvesting
systems. Scand. J. For. Res. 18, 176.
Leefers, L.A., Vasievich, J.M., 2010. Timber Resources and Factors Affecting Timber
Availability and Sustainability for Kinross, Michigan. Michigan State University,
Department of Forestry, East Lansing, MI.
Perez-Verdin, G., Grebner, D.L., Munn, I.A., Sun, C., Grado, S.C., 2008. Economic
impacts of woody biomass utilization for bioenergy in Mississippi. For. Prod. J.
p. 75þ.
 R.M. Handler et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 76 (2014) 64e73
Seely, Oliver, 2011. Physical Properties of Common Woods. California State Uni-
versity, Dominguez Hills. Available at: http://www.csudh.edu/oliver/chemdata/
woods.htm (Web Accessed 2011).
Shonnard, D.R., Williams, L., Kalnes, T.N., 2010. Camelina-derived jet fuel and diesel:
sustainable advanced biofuels. Environ. Prog. Sustain Energy 29, 382.
Skone, T., Gerdes, K., 2008. Development of Baseline Data and Analysis of Life Cycle
Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Petroleum-Based Fuels. US Department of Energy,
National Energy Technology Laboratory, Office of Systems, Analysis and
Planning.
Slade, R., Bauen, A., Shah, N., 2009. The greenhouse gas emissions performance of
cellulosic ethanol supply chains in Europe. Biotechnol. Biofuels, 2.
Sonne, E., 2006. Greenhouse gas emissions from forestry operations: a life cycle
assessment. J. Environ. Qual. 35, 1439.
73
Stewart, R.D., Cao, M., Lautala, P., Paterson, K., Graman, G., Hicks, J., et al., 2010.
Study of Greenhouse Gas Savings Associated with Congestion Reduction Using
Multi-modal Optimization of Timber Shipments in the North Central United
States. Transportation Logistics and Research Center, University of Wisconsin-
Superior.
U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2012. Annual Energy Outlook 2012, with
Projections to 2035. U.S. Department of Energy.
Valente, C., Hillring, B.G., Solberg, B., 2011. Bioenergy from mountain forest: a life
cycle assessment of the Norwegian woody biomass supply chain. Scand. J. For.
Res. 26, 429.
Van Deusen, P.C., Roesch, F.A., 2008. Alternative definitions of growth and removals
and implications for forest sustainability. Forestry 81, 177.