# Impact of biopower generation on eastern US forests

Ashkan Mirzaee, Ronald Mcgarvey, Francisco Aguilar, Erin Schliep

► To cite this version:

Ashkan Mirzaee, Ronald Mcgarvey, Francisco Aguilar, Erin Schliep. Impact of biopower generation on eastern US forests. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 2023, 25 (5), pp.4087-4105. 10.1007/s10668-022-02235-4. hal-04134411

HAL Id: hal-04134411

https://hal.science/hal-04134411v1

Submitted on 21 May 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>
# Impact of biopower generation on eastern US forests

Ashkan Mirzaee¹ Ⓓ ID · Ronald G. McGarvey¹,² Ⓓ ID · Francisco X. Aguilar³ Ⓓ ID
Erin M. Schliep⁴ Ⓓ ID

Received: 23 August 2021 / Accepted: 17 February 2022 / Published online: 18 March 2022
© The Author(s) 2022

## Abstract

Biopower, electricity generated from biomass, is a major source of renewable energy in the US. About ten percent of US non-hydro renewable electricity in 2020 was generated from biomass. Despite significant growth in woody biomass use for electricity in recent decades, a systematic assessment of associated impacts on forest resources is lacking. This study assessed associations between biopower generation, and selected timberland structure indicators and carbon stocks across 438 areas surrounding wood-using and coal-burning power plants in the Eastern US from 2005 to 2017. Timberland areas around plants generating biopower were associated with more live and standing-dead trees, and carbon in their respective stocks, than comparable areas of neighboring plants only burning coal. We also detected an inverse association between the number of biopower plants and number of live and dead trees, and respective carbon stocks. We discerned an upward temporal trajectory in carbon stocks within live trees with continued biopower generation. We found no significant differences related to the amount of MWh biopower generation within the analysis areas. Net impacts of biopower descriptors on timberland attributes point to a positive trend in selected ecological conditions and carbon balances. The upward temporal trend in carbon stocks with longer generation of wood-based biopower may point to a plausibly sustainable contribution to the decarbonization of the US electricity sector.

**Keywords** Biopower · Woody biomass · Renewable energy · Forest inventory · Electric power sector

## 1 Introduction

The decarbonization of the electricity sector requires greater reliance on renewable and clean resources to reduce dependence on fossil fuels. Among fossil fuels, coal has been the predominant feedstock in the US electric sector for over a century (EIA, 2021f). Over the last decade, the quantity of electricity generated from coal has declined extensively while consumption of other resources, including natural gas and renewable energies, has experienced steady expansion. Recent forecasts suggest that coal’s share of US electricity generation is expected to fall from 19% in 2020 to 11% by 2050 (EIA, 2021a). In comparison, US

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

<footnote>Francisco X. Aguilar
francisco.aguilar@slu.se</footnote>
renewable electricity generation is expected to rise from 21% of total generation in 2020 to more than 42% by 2050 (EIA, 2021a). Among renewable electricity sources, woody biomass has experienced about 40% growth over the last two decades (EIA, 2021d). In 2020, about ten percent of non-hydro renewable US electricity generation was supplied by biomass including non-wood waste (5.5%), and wood (4.5%) resources (EIA, 2021g).

Many coal-fired plants have been retired or repurposed to burn other feedstocks in efforts to reduce dependence on fossil fuels and their carbon footprint—supported by improved financial competitiveness of low-carbon sources. By 2020, more than 100 coal-fired plants were converted to or replaced by natural gas-fired plants (EIA, 2020). As a result, coal’s share of CO₂ emissions in the electric power sector declined from 1,828 million tons to 786 million tons per year, while CO₂ emissions from natural gas grew over 50% and reached 635 million tons per year over the last decade (EIA, 2021e). Another alternative for repurposing coal-fired plants is using biomass for fuel. This can be an appealing alternative since biomass can be a carbon neutral energy source under certain conditions (Sedjo, 2012). Upgrading boilers in coal-fired generating plants to burn biomass can be a financially sound approach to advance net-zero emissions goals for the electricity sector and support bioenergy markets (The White House, 2021; Dundar et al., 2016, 2019).

Nonetheless, the role of biopower in the decarbonization of the electricity sector can be a contested issue. Since 2010 there has been much debate regarding carbon neutrality when burning biomass to produce electricity (Sedjo, 2013; Walker et al., 2013; Sedjo & Tian, 2012). For instance, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released the first "Framework for Assessing Biogenic CO₂ Emissions from Stationary Sources" in order to provide a more accurate measurement of CO₂ emissions from non-fossilized and biodegradable organic materials in 2011 (EPA, 2011). The revised EPA framework (EPA, 2014) alongside two Science Advisory Board (SAB) reviews (SAB, 2012; 2015) were reflected in the Clean Power Plan (CPP) Final Rule, published in August 2015, to establish an accounting framework for bioenergy emissions from biomass. The CPP Final Rule "recognizes that the use of some biomass-derived fuels can play a role in controlling increases of CO₂ levels in the atmosphere" (EPA, 2015). The CPP also recognizes the potential of "a wide range of environmental benefits, including carbon benefits" for using biomass if "feedstocks are sourced responsibly." The CPP Final Rule was stayed by the US Supreme Court, and a later EPA rule (Affordable Clean Energy) did not qualify biomass used for electricity production as a system of emissions reduction (EPA, 2019), but the suggested model in the CPP to lower air pollutants has been applied by many US states.

Sourcing woody biomass for electricity generation can have impacts that extend beyond its carbon footprint. For instance, removal of low value trees from high-risk wildfire areas can provide a significant source of woody biomass (Rummer, 2005) and simultaneously support efforts to restore habitats and reduce risk of devastating wildfire and disease (Polagye et al., 2007; Neary & Zieroth, 2007). However, large-scale tree harvesting changes forest structure, and can directly or indirectly alter biodiversity of both plants and wildlife species (Cornwall, 2017; Birdsey et al., 2018). As the CPP and other studies have suggested, the long-term benefits of using biomass for electricity generation can be maintained only under the creation of a sustainable cycle of CO₂ capture and release, and preservation of forests' biodiversity (Sterman et al., 2018; Verschuyl et al., 2011). Although there is widespread use of biopower across the US, there is no large-scale, systematic review of changes in forest resources associated with increases (or decreases) in wood combustion by power plants.

We examine *ex post* changes in fundamental timberland structure attributes (number of live trees and standing-dead trees) and respective carbon stocks (carbon in live and
standing-dead trees), associated with different biopower generation intensities. Net bio-
power impacts were discerned when contrasting differences in localized areas surrounding
hundreds of wood-using electric plants against landscape areas where no biopower was
generated (Fig. 1). Timberland attributes were collected from forest inventory data contain-
ing over one hundred thousand plots measured every three years from 2005 to 2017 in the
Eastern US. This study contributes to the state of knowledge of environmental impacts of
biopower generation by: (1) developing and implementing a framework to assess changes
in timberland attributes associated with biopower generation; (2) introducing an empirical
estimation method to discern plant-specific effects within overlapping procurement areas;
(3) reviewing and identifying other significant factors related to forest changes including
wood industries, land use changes, and natural disasters.

**2 Methods**

**2.1 Biopower procurement and control group timberland areas**

We identified 211 woody-biomass-using power plants that were operational between 2005 and 2017 over 27 states in the Eastern US (Figs.1 and 2). Power plants combusting woody biomass were found across each state in the US East with the exception of Delaware, Indiana, New Jersey, and Rhode Island. Information about the power plants, including geographical coordinates, fuel types, and annual MWh generation was collected from the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) (EIA, 2021b, c). We selected power plants (including combined heat-and-power facilities) that burned woody biomass including wood/wood waste solids and liquid mixture of pulping residues from wood pulp and paper production, i.e., wood waste liquids and black liquors. In order to obtain level of

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1** Location of wood-using power plants and corresponding biopower generation in the Eastern US for the first and last studied time window</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2** Locations of 211 wood-using power plants dispersed in the Eastern US that were operational between 2005 and 2017 and the corresponding forest ecological regions. The inset illustrates how overlapping procurement zones were mapped and partitioned</figcaption></figure>

biopower generation within every three-year interval starting with 2005, we have collected EIA information from year 2003.

Our sampling approach takes into consideration woody biomass market and power plant characteristics discerned from a review of the literature and expert validation, as well as available data on forests and biopower generation. It is worth noting that power plants procure woody biomass through contractors and do not engage directly in forest management (Coffin, 2014). Moreover, there is no available database that systematically records plant-level volumes of woody biomass (Goerndt et al., 2013) which prompted our need to derive localized timberland conditions from available forest inventory records and established mensuration methods (Sect. 2.3). We assess changes in timberland attributes and carbon stocks and net of other related covariates. We derive timberland conditions within procurement landscapes motivated by the fact that the low energy density of woody biomass and its high transportation cost severely limit the geographic area from which it is procured (Aguilar et al., 2012;

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>
Goerndt & D'Amato, 2014). Based on a review of the literature, we selected a procure-
ment Euclidean radius of 80 km (50 miles) for power plants having at least two million
MWh biopower generation between 2003 and 2017, and a radius of 48 km (30 miles)
for biopower plants with less than two million MWh total generation (Aguilar et al.,
2020; Goerndt et al., 2013; Perez-Verdin et al., 2008). These procurement radii take
into consideration tortuosity factors common across the US East and defined biopower
plant procurement zones (Fig. 2).

The geographical proximity of power plants results in the frequent overlap of procure-
ment zones. Hence, we partitioned the spatial region into 530 mutually exclusive and
exhaustive biopower procurement areas (BPAs) (each having at least 50 km² area). Each
BPA represents a unit of observation during our study period (Fig. 2, inset). Our control
group denoted comparable timberland landscapes where no biopower was generated during
our study period. We selected 297 power plants that solely burned coal during our study
period that were located within 128 km (80 miles) of one of the biopower plants under
consideration. We used a concentric circle of radius km (30 miles) centered at each coal-
burning power plant to define a control zone. From the overall list of candidate controls, 70
coal-burning plants were excluded due to either having their area contained entirely within
one or more BPAs, or collocation with another coal-burning plant, or multiple control
zones having tangent circles. We were left with a control zone for each of 227 coal-burning
power plants, defining 386 mutually exclusive and exhaustive control group areas (CGAs)
(each having at least 50 km² area). Taken together, BPAs and CGAs defined our analysis
areas consisting of 916 mutually exclusive areas. Within each analysis area, the impact of
the associated power plants on timberland is assumed to be homogenous. For each area
analyzed, we computed selected timberland attributes and assigned measures of biopower
generation.

## 2.2 Timberland attributes

We relied on forest attribute estimates from the US Forest Service's National Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) Program to assess the associated impacts of power plants on forest conditions (USDA, 2021b). FIA estimates of forest conditions consist of three phases, including Phase 1—spatially explicit forest type and size-class estimates based on aerial photographs and satellite imagery; Phase 2—field samples of forest attributes on inventory plots comprising a subset of forest areas from Phase 1; Phase 3—a more detailed inventory of forest health attributes for one out of every 16 Phase 2 sample plots. Full details about FIA sampling, plot design, measurements and data collection are available in the FIA program documentation (USDA, 2020; Burrill et al., 2018; Bechtold & Patterson, 2015).

We assessed fundamental timberland attributes including two forest structure attrib-
utes (i.e., number of live trees, number of standing-dead trees) and two carbon pools (i.e.,
above- and below-ground carbon in live trees, and above- and below-ground carbon in
standing-dead trees). Forest structure attributes were examined for potential concerns over
wildlife habitats and forest biodiversity; carbon pool attributes were examined in the con-
text of carbon neutrality and sustainability of timberland resources (Table 1).

We obtained estimates of timberland attributes for all BPAs and CGAs using the FIA
forest inventory query system based on power plant coordinates and desired procure-
ment radii for years 2005, 2008, 2011, 2014 and 2017. A three-year measurement interval
allowed us to capture trends in timberland attributes. We developed a Python data-scraping
<table><caption>**Table 1** Selected fundamental descriptors of timberland structure and carbon stocks</caption><thead><tr><td>Attributes</td><td>Description</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Number of live trees (trees/km²)</td><td>Number of all live trees (at least 2.54 cm diameter at 1.37 m above the forest floor)</td></tr><tr><td>Number of standing-dead trees (trees/km²)</td><td>Number of standing-dead trees (at least 12.7 cm in diameter at 1.37 m above the forest floor)</td></tr><tr><td>Carbon in live trees (tons/km²)</td><td>Metric tons of carbon in aboveground and belowground (coarse root) biomass of live trees. The estimated volumes of wood and bark are converted to biomass based on the density of each. Additional components (e.g., tops, branches, and coarse roots, estimated according to adjusted component estimates)</td></tr><tr><td>Carbon in standing-dead trees (tons/km²)</td><td>Metric tons of carbon in aboveground and belowground (coarse root) biomass of standing dead trees</td></tr></tbody></table>

program to collect the most recent available data from the FIA database (Mirzaee, 2021). Figure 3 shows the mean of the selected timberland attributes within BPAs and CGAs from 2005 to 2017.

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 3** Annual average values of selected timberland attributes in biopower procurement areas (BPAs) and control group areas (CGAs)</figcaption></figure>
## 2.3 Estimation of timberland attributes and biopower generation within analysis areas

To mitigate inherent dependence in timberland attributes that result from individual FIA plots being located in multiple procurement zones and control zones, we apportion these timberland attributes across the 916 mutually exclusive analysis areas. For procurement/ control zone i (a circular area), let $h_i$ denote the area ($km^2$) of i and let $g_i$ denote the level of the attribute in i. For analysis area j (a Venn diagram subarea), let $v_j$ denote the square kilometers of the analysis area. Let $z_{ij} = 1$ if area j is located within zone i; let $z_{ij} = 0$ otherwise. For each pair of i and j we define $w_{ij} = z_{ij} \times (v_j/h_i)$ denoting the proportion of zone i included in analysis area j. Now consider two cases: either j is located in multiple zones, or j is located in a single zone i. For the first case, the level of attribute in analysis area j is calculated as:

$$t_j = \min_{i: z_{ij} = 1} \{w_{ij} \times g_i\}. \qquad (1)$$

For the second case, the remaining amount of the attribute in zone i is apportioned as:

$$t_j = \sum_i (z_{ij} \times [g_i - \sum_{\hat{j} \neq j} z_{ij} \times t_{\hat{j}}]). \qquad (2)$$

We compute timberland attributes per square kilometer by dividing $t_j$ by $v_j$ to remove bias in the estimates due to size of the analysis areas. To find the level of corresponding biopower generation for the BPAs, we applied the following method. For biopower plant procurement zone i, let $e_i$ denote the level of the biopower generation in i. Then, the level of biopower generation in BPA j is calculated as:

$$q_j = \sum_i (w_{ij} \times e_i). \qquad (3)$$

Note that Eq. 3 uses a different approach than used for Eqs. 1 and 2. This is because unlike the timberland attributes, we do not have any potential over-counting of electricity generation across zones.

## 2.4 Explanatory variables associated with changes in timberland attributes

Changes in forest resources around wood-using power plants are caused by many factors including forest management and policies, land use changes, forest types, natural disasters, wood industries, and the power plants themselves. To have a comprehensive understanding, we gathered a set of explanatory variables that represent the most influential factors related to landscape changes within the analysis areas (Table 2).

We included four variables to determine changes in timberland conditions associated with biopower generation. These were as follows: a dichotomous variable distinguishing biopower generators from non-biopower generators to discern overall biopower effects, total biopower generation over each three-year forest inventory window to evaluate effects of bioenergy generation, average years of biopower operation to control temporal effects of the biopower plants' presence, and number of biopower plants whose
procurement zones intersect with an analysis area to estimate the effect of increased pressure on forest resources.

Competition for fibers by other wood-using industries was also identified by considering overlapping procurement zones of pellet and pulp mills within the analysis areas (FORISK, 2018; Johnson & Steppleton, 2007; John- son et al., 2010; Piva et al., 2014; Bentley & Steppleton, 2013; Gray et al., 2018a, b). Commercial procurement zones, with a radius of 80 km and 120 km, were assigned to wood pellet and pulp industries. We calculated inter- section variables by aggregating the overlap ratio between pellet or pulp mills’ procure- ment zones with analysis areas (Fig. 4).

Natural disturbances can affect forest resources. To find the most relevant natural events, we reviewed historical maps for wildland fires, hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, and insects and forest diseases in the Eastern US for 1-year lagged timepoints (USDA, 2021c). The analysis revealed widespread severe drought in much of the Southeast in years 2007 and 2016, motivating the addition of an extreme drought variable to account for the effect of these natural disasters (U.S. Drought Monitor, 2021) (Fig. 4). Moreover, forest vegeta- tion types have intrinsic dissimilarities to each other causing many timberland attributes to naturally vary from one another. To account for characteristics intrinsic to different forest vegetation types (as shaped by weather, altitude, latitude, topography, hydrology, and site quality), we included indicator variables for each of the four major ecological regions that encompass our study region (Dyer, 2006).

By accounting for the human population density within the analysis areas, we included indicators for potential forest degradation due to land use changes to developed areas. Spe- cifically, we estimated population densities by aggregating the proportional population of counties within analysis areas (U.S. Census Bureau, 2020b, a). We derived proportional population estimates by multiplying counties’ populations to the ratio of the counties’ area that lies inside the analysis area. Land use changes from forest resources to farmlands were

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 4** Location of wood pellet mills, pulp mills, and areas of reported extreme weather conditions (lagged 1 year) in 2005 and 2017</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>
monitored by considering cropland ratio changes. We estimated cropland ratios (USDA, 2021a) by aggregating the proportional crop acreage of counties within the analysis areas. Exports to overseas wood pellet and other forest products markets can also impact forest resources. We added a dichotomous variable to distinguish analysis areas that have access to a major port exporting forest products (USDOT, 2019). Descriptive statistics and explanations for the variables are given in Table 2.

## 2.5 Linear mixed model

We investigated the relationship between timberland attributes and variables listed in Table 2 within the selected locations over five-time intervals. The linear mixed model (LMM) was used to model the longitudinal data in order to capture correlation between observations over time (Laird and Ware, 1982; Schabenberger & Pierce, 2001). The LMM includes both fixed effects and random effects in a panel model structure. There were $p = 13$ fixed effects included in our model: biopower procurement area, total biopower generation in each three-year window, years of biopower operation, number of biopower plants, competing pellet production intersection, competing pulp production intersection, extreme drought, forest eco-regions (four categories), population density, cropland ratio, and port access. We specify the LMM for each timberland attribute separately and model each on a log-scale with normally distributed errors. Let $y_i^t$ denote generally one of the estimated timberland attributes for analysis area $i$ at time $t$ where $i \in \{1, \dots, 916\}$ and $t \in \{1, \dots, 5\}$. We write the LMM as:

$$ \ln(y_i^t) = \beta_0 + \sum_k \beta_k v_{ik}^t + \sum_u \beta_u h_{iu} + \epsilon_i^t, \quad (4) $$

and

$$ \epsilon_i^t = b_i + \epsilon_i^t, \quad (5) $$

where $\beta_0$ is a global intercept, $v_{ik}^t$ and $h_{iu}$ denote time-variant and time-invariant fixed effects for $uth$ and $kth$ variables, respectively, $b_i$ is the analysis area-specific random effect (for each observation, $q = 916$) and $\epsilon_i^t$ is an independent error term assumed to be normally distributed with mean zero i.e., $\epsilon_i^t \sim N(0, \sigma^2)$. The capacity of our model to assess changes within the $i$th analysis area, and between them, taking into consideration time variant and invariant factors allowed discerning biopower effects when comparing BPAs against CGAs.

Regression parameter estimates were obtained using restricted maximum likelihood (REML) (Harville, 1977), utilizing the *lme* function from the *nlme* package in R (R, 2021; Pinheiro et al., 2014). Note that intercept values are computed by summation of fixed intercept and mean of the random intercepts ($\hat{\beta}_0 = \beta_0 + \sum_i b_i/q$). To represent percentage of changes on $y$, coefficients transformed by:

$$ \exp(\beta_j x_j) - 1 \quad j = \{1, \dots, p\}, \quad (6) $$

where $j$ represents any of the time variant or invariant covariates ($x_j$) and associated coefficient ($\beta_j$). These values correspond to expected changes with respect to the geometric means of the timberland attribute, $\exp(\hat{\beta}_0)$. Note that the intercept parameter $\hat{\beta}_0$ defines the *baselevel* of the model that corresponds to an analysis area containing a coal-burning
<table><caption>**Table 2** Descriptions and descriptive statistics for model explanatory variables (n = 4580)</caption><thead><tr><th>Variables</th><th>Description</th><th>Min</th><th>Mean</th><th>Max</th><th>SD</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Total generation in 3-year window</td><td>Estimated bioenergy generation (GWh) in the analysis area within a three-year period starting 2003</td><td>0.00</td><td>97.29</td><td>1756.03</td><td>195.19</td></tr><tr><td>Years of biopower operation</td><td>Average years of operation of biopower plants whose procurement zone intersects with the analysis area since 1990</td><td>0.00</td><td>11.76</td><td>28.00</td><td>10.97</td></tr><tr><td>Number of biopower plants</td><td>Number of biopower plants procurement zones contained in the analysis area</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.27</td><td>7.00</td><td>1.40</td></tr><tr><td>Wood pellet mills intersection</td><td>Total percentage of the analysis area covered by wood pellet plants procurement zones (percent, can be greater than 1 if area intersects with more than one zone)</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.33</td><td>4.72</td><td>0.62</td></tr><tr><td>Pulp mills intersection</td><td>Total percentage of the analysis area covered by pulp mills procurement zones (percent, can be greater than 1 if area intersects with more than one zone)</td><td>0.00</td><td>1.59</td><td>10.28</td><td>1.78</td></tr><tr><td>Population density</td><td>Estimated population per km² within the analysis area</td><td>0.72</td><td>53.28</td><td>1969.21</td><td>108.27</td></tr><tr><td>Cropland ratio</td><td>Estimated ratio of cropland areas within the analysis area</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.10</td><td>5.10</td><td>0.11</td></tr><tr><td>Biopower procurement area</td><td>Dichotomous variable: 1 if the analysis area is a biopower procurement area (BPA), 0 otherwise</td><td>BPA: 58%</td><td></td><td>No: 42%</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Drought</td><td>Dichotomous variable: 1 if severe, extreme, or exceptional drought reported for in at least 5% of the analysis area in August preceding a given year, 0 otherwise</td><td>Drought: 7%</td><td></td><td>No: 93%</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Export market access</td><td>Dichotomous variable: 1 if centroid of the analysis area was located within 100 km of a major port exporting forest products, 0 otherwise</td><td>Access: 39%</td><td></td><td>No: 61%</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Forest ecological regions (FR)</td><td>Categorical variable including four major ecological regions (Fig. 2); the forest region covering the largest share of the analysis area was selected as the corresponding FR</td><td>South. Mixed: 28%</td><td>Beech-Maple-Oak: 23%</td><td>Meso-phytic: 24%</td><td>North-Hard-woods: 25%</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>
power plant in the Southern Mixed forest region. The following transformation was applied to find $(1 - \alpha)$ percent confidence intervals of timberland attributes change:

$$ \exp(\beta_j x_j \pm Z_{(1-\alpha/2)} \times se_j) - 1 \quad j = \{1, \dots, p\}, \qquad (7) $$

where $se_j$ is the standard error of the estimate of coefficient $j$. Of particular interest in response to our study objectives, we calculated *net biopower impact* by adding up the estimated coefficients of variables capturing biopower plant effects. These were as follows: biopower plant presence, years of biopower operation, and number of BPA overlaps. For the last two variables, respectively, we estimated effects at 20 years of operation and a BPA with one additional overlap.

To evaluate the proposed LMM, we compare it to two other modified forms of the model. The first model (M1) is a simplified version of the model where we remove the random effects resulting in a more traditional linear model and is fitted with ordinary least squares. The second model (M2) incorporates an autoregression correlation structure and is fitted using generalized least squares. The LMM outperforms M1 in terms of lower residual standard deviation as well as AIC and BIC values. The LMM results are close to M2 in terms of these metrics of comparison while it has a significantly lower sum of squared residuals (Appendix A, Fig. A1). Therefore, we chose the LMM over the M2 as it is more parsimonious.

## 3 Results

Estimated coefficients, *p* values, and standard errors from the Linear Mixed Model are presented in Appendix A (Table A1). Next, we present the estimated changes of timberland attributes in analysis areas, calculated by Eq. 5, for statistically significant (*p* value ≤ 0.05) outcomes. Corresponding estimated changes, confidence intervals and *p* values are shown in Fig. 5.

The number of biopower plants within analysis areas was negatively associated with the number of trees and corresponding carbon pools (Fig. 5a). For instance, the presence of two biopower plants in analysis areas was associated with approximately 20 percent lower number of live and standing-dead trees and their respective carbon pools. In contrast, the results show carbon pool in live trees to be positively related to the average years of operation of biopower plants. Expected number of carbon stocks in live trees would increase 20 percent, for every 20-year continued biopower plants' operation. Moreover, we observed a greater number of live and dead trees and higher associated carbon stocks in the analysis areas supporting biopower generation. The results show about 60 and 40 percent more live and dead trees and about 15 and 30 percent higher associated carbon pools in the BPAs (Fig. 5b). We did not find a significant correlation between level of biopower generation and level of timberland attributes within the analysis areas.

Our results show relatively small effects of fiber competition between biopower plants and wood pellet and pulp industries. We estimated a 2 percent reduction in the number of standing-dead trees and about 2 percent increase in carbon stocks in live and dead trees within analysis areas containing a wood pellet mill procurement zone. The presence of a pulp mill also resulted in a 2 percent decrease in the estimated number of live trees and about 1 percent reduction in carbon in live and dead trees. Moreover, we detected an inverse association between proximity to an exporting port and the number of live trees and carbon in live trees. We estimated about 10 percent
<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 5** Estimated changes, 95% confidence intervals (CI), and *p* values for **a** continuous variables capturing effects of power plants operation, population density, and cropland ratio, and **b** dichotomous variables for BPAs, severe weather condition, access to export market, and differences within forest regions (FR)</figcaption></figure>

decrease in the number of live trees and carbon in live and dead trees in the analysis areas within 100 km of an exporting port. We also estimated a 2 percent increase in the number of standing-dead trees in analysis areas that experienced drought in the preceding year (Fig. 5b).

An increase in human population density within analysis areas was also found to have important associations with the number of live and dead trees, but not significant on the respective carbon pools. An increase in population of 100 per km² was associated with an estimated 15 percent decrease in live and dead trees. Croplands also showed significant impacts in our attribute estimates. A 10 percent increase in cropland area within the analysis areas resulted in an estimated 5 and 20 percent decrease in number of live and standing-dead trees and approximately 5 and 10 percent decrease in carbon pools in live and dead trees, respectively (Fig. 5a).

Results also indicate that the level of timberland attributes may vary significantly among different ecological regions. For instance, we expect three times more standing-dead trees in the Northern Hardwoods ecological region than the Southern Mixed region. The presence of large and significant estimated values for forest regions suggests the ability of the model to discern timberland attribute differences across different geographical areas. Figure 6 compares the estimated changes in timberland attributes due to biopower plant activity, including areas supporting biopower generation, presence of two biopower plants, and 20 years of operation of biopower power plants.
<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 6** Estimated changes and *p* values for analysis areas supporting biopower generation, containing two biopower plants and 20 years of biopower operation, with average net bioenergy impact</figcaption></figure>

# 4 Discussion

Electricity generation from woody biomass in the Eastern US increased more than 30% from 2005 to 2017 (EIA, 2021b). Many concerns regarding using woody biomass for electricity generation relate to the sustainability of its procurement including potential impacts to forest structure and biodiversity (Kline et al., 2021a). Declines in the number of live and standing-dead trees can point to unsustainable forest management practices that may lead to changes in forest structure that affect plant and wildlife diversity. Lower carbon levels in live and dead trees might call into question the capacity of woody biomass for energy to support decarbonization.

Here, we found wood-using power plants did not have a negative net impact on the number of live and dead trees and corresponding carbon stocks. Our statistical analyses suggest that BPAs had a higher number of trees and carbon pools in comparison to CGAs (Fig. 6). Our *ex post* analysis also shows that both number of live trees and level of carbon in live trees experienced growth from 2005 to 2017 within the BPAs (Fig. 3). We detected a significant increase in the level of carbon in live trees as the years of biopower plants operation increased. This suggests that the carbon neutrality of biopower generation can be more likely achieved over longer time horizons.

Lack of a strong correlation between level of biopower generation and timberland attributes changes can be interpreted as allowing for the possibility of biopower generation expansion without violating key sustainability assumptions. Also, a negative relationship between the number of biopower plants present in an area and the level of forest resources can incentivize expansion of current biopower plants over building new facilities. In areas having high quantities of woody biomass; however, a reduction in live and dead trees through biopower in the short-term could reduce the risk of devastating wildfire and help forest preservation (Neary & Zieroth, 2007).
Strong inverse association of increases in population density and cropland areas with level of the timberland attributes shows the significance of the land cover changes to more developed and agricultural areas (Homer et al., 2020) across the analysis areas. The substantial value added to local economies by producing wood-based biomass (Dahal et al., 2020) can play a key role in preventing forest land cover changes. If the investments and jobs associated with biomass production can help sustain rural communities, the presence or expansion of biopower plants can incentivize rural communities to maintain forests and decelerate forest conversion to agriculture or developed land.

The lucrative European market for the US wood pellets industry has shaped a new demand paradigm for forest products in the Southeastern US (Abt et al., 2014). Recent studies on impacts of increased wood pellet production point to mostly positive effects on level of timberland attributes while generating more affordable and clean energy (Dale et al., 2017; Aguilar et al., 2020; Kline et al., 2021b). In this study, we detected relatively minor yet positive impacts associated with areas located within wood pellet mill procurement. With the caveat that our research was designed to assess changes within BPAs, our results show that access to an exporting port is associated with decreased live trees and carbon pools in the studied timberland areas. Although the studied areas are mostly used by domestic power plants, the lower level of the timberland attributes near exporting ports can reflect an effect of more competition for producing wood-based biofuel for both local and European markets.

Shifting from coal to clean sources of energy to decarbonize the national economy is a stated goal for the US electricity sector. With current technologies, simply repurposing coal-fired plants to use natural gas would likely not significantly cut carbon emissions in the long term. EIA projections show that by 2050 energy-related carbon emissions from natural gas Combustion could exceed 2010's level of emissions from coal (EIA, 2021a). Biomass can be a renewable source of energy in the transitional path toward zero-emitting renewable energy technologies. Moreover, woody biomass procurement can facilitate forest restoration and management objectives by providing markets to help offset the cost of removing low value trees in conjunction with silvicultural prescriptions intended to improve forest health, diversity, resilience, and fire resistance. This is the most likely market-based mechanism underpinning the net growth in carbon stocks over time detected in our study.

# 5 Conclusions

Analysis of timberlands in the Eastern US between 2005 and 2017 within areas surrounding wood-using and non-wood-using power plants indicates net positive trends in timberland structure and carbon stocks near to wood-using power plants. Areas supporting bio-power generation showed more live and dead trees and carbon in their respective pools, than neighboring areas around coal-burning power plants. Biopower procurement areas also showed an upward temporal trend in the level of carbon pools in live trees. Conversely, analysis areas with a greater number of biopower plants were associated with fewer live and dead trees and less carbon in their corresponding stocks. The amount of MWh bioenergy generation was not significantly correlated to timberland attribute changes. Positive net effects associated with biopower plants may point to the potential of using woody biomass to support decarbonization goals for the electricity sector, and its prospective role in a transitional path toward zero-emitting renewable energy.
# Appendix A

See Table A1.

<table><caption>**Table A1** Regression coefficients (log-transformed) of bioenergy generation, wood competition, extreme weather, forest ecological regions, population density, cropland ratio, and export, along with standard errors (SE), and *p* values (n = 4580)</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="2">Number of live trees (trees/km²)</th><th colspan="2">Number of standing-dead trees (trees/km²)</th></tr><tr><th>Coeff. [p value]</th><th>SE</th><th>Coeff. [p value]</th><th>SE</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Intercept</td><td>11.5059 [&lt;0.001]</td><td>0.082</td><td>6.9393 [&lt;0.001]</td><td>0.076</td></tr><tr><td>Biopower plant</td><td>0.4464 [&lt;0.001]</td><td>0.090</td><td>0.3116 [&lt;0.001]</td><td>0.081</td></tr><tr><td>Total gen. in 3-year window</td><td>-0.0001 [0.009]</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.0000 [0.747]</td><td>0.000</td></tr><tr><td>Yrs. of biopower operation</td><td>-0.0007 [0.121]</td><td>0.000</td><td>-0.0008 [0.337]</td><td>0.001</td></tr><tr><td>Num. of biopower plants</td><td>-0.0960 [0.002]</td><td>0.031</td><td>-0.1142 [&lt;0.001]</td><td>0.028</td></tr><tr><td>Wood pellet mills intersection</td><td>-0.0014 [0.642]</td><td>0.003</td><td>-0.0223 [&lt;0.001]</td><td>0.006</td></tr><tr><td>Pulp mills intersection</td><td>-0.0212 [&lt;0.001]</td><td>0.003</td><td>0.0062 [0.280]</td><td>0.006</td></tr><tr><td>Drought</td><td>-0.0013 [0.782]</td><td>0.005</td><td>0.0216 [0.029]</td><td>0.010</td></tr><tr><td>FR: Beech-Maple-Oak</td><td>-1.3187 [&lt;0.001]</td><td>0.089</td><td>0.1514 [0.061]</td><td>0.081</td></tr><tr><td>FR: Mesophytic</td><td>-0.3144 [&lt;0.001]</td><td>0.081</td><td>0.6685 [&lt;0.001]</td><td>0.072</td></tr><tr><td>FR: Northern Hardwoods</td><td>0.2966 [&lt;0.001]</td><td>0.074</td><td>1.3165 [&lt;0.001]</td><td>0.066</td></tr><tr><td>Population density</td><td>-0.0015 [&lt;0.001]</td><td>0.000</td><td>-0.0018 [&lt;0.001]</td><td>0.000</td></tr><tr><td>Cropland ratio</td><td>-0.4915 [&lt;0.001]</td><td>0.107</td><td>-2.5946 [&lt;0.001]</td><td>0.174</td></tr><tr><td>Exporting port access</td><td>-0.1200 [0.030]</td><td>0.055</td><td>-0.0228 [0.644]</td><td>0.049</td></tr></tbody><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="2">Carbon in live trees (tons/km²)</th><th colspan="2">Carbon in standing-dead trees (tons/km²)</th></tr><tr><th>Coeff. [p value]</th><th>SE</th><th>Coeff. [p value]</th><th>SE</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Intercept</td><td>8.1790 [&lt;0.001]</td><td>0.078</td><td>4.8848 [&lt;0.001]</td><td>0.075</td></tr><tr><td>Biopower plant</td><td>0.1418 [0.095]</td><td>0.085</td><td>0.2980 [&lt;0.001]</td><td>0.083</td></tr><tr><td>Total gen. in 3-year window</td><td>0.0000 [0.859]</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.0000 [0.606]</td><td>0.000</td></tr><tr><td>Yrs. of biopower operation</td><td>0.0087 [&lt;0.001]</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.0010 [0.002]</td><td>0.000</td></tr><tr><td>Num. of biopower plants</td><td>-0.1149 [&lt;0.001]</td><td>0.029</td><td>-0.1108 [&lt;0.001]</td><td>0.029</td></tr><tr><td>Wood pellet mills intersection</td><td>0.0165 [&lt;0.001]</td><td>0.003</td><td>0.0082 [&lt;0.001]</td><td>0.002</td></tr><tr><td>Pulp mills intersection</td><td>-0.0084 [0.002]</td><td>0.003</td><td>-0.0122 [&lt;0.001]</td><td>0.002</td></tr><tr><td>Drought</td><td>-0.0017 [0.716]</td><td>0.005</td><td>0.0008 [0.831]</td><td>0.004</td></tr><tr><td>FR: Beech-Maple-Oak</td><td>-0.7806 [&lt;0.001]</td><td>0.084</td><td>-0.2787 [&lt;0.001]</td><td>0.082</td></tr><tr><td>FR: Mesophytic</td><td>0.1123 [0.144]</td><td>0.077</td><td>0.3873 [&lt;0.001]</td><td>0.075</td></tr><tr><td>FR: Northern Hardwoods</td><td>0.0773 [0.269]</td><td>0.070</td><td>0.9562 [&lt;0.001]</td><td>0.068</td></tr><tr><td>Population density</td><td>0.0003 [0.082]</td><td>0.000</td><td>-0.0003 [0.094]</td><td>0.000</td></tr><tr><td>Cropland ratio</td><td>-1.0738 [&lt;0.001]</td><td>0.101</td><td>-0.6942 [&lt;0.001]</td><td>0.082</td></tr><tr><td>Exporting port access</td><td>-0.1730 [0.001]</td><td>0.052</td><td>-0.1133 [0.026]</td><td>0.051</td></tr></tbody></table>
<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>Fig. A1 Residuals versus fitted values for M2 and LMM models</figcaption></figure>

**Acknowledgements** We thank Dr. Stephen Shifley at the University of Missouri's School of Natural Resources for insights throughout the project and in preparing the manuscript. This research was partly funded under US Department of Agriculture's National Institute of Food and Agriculture Project Number MO-C00055871, and US Department of Agriculture McIntire-Stennis Project Number NRSL0893. The computation for this work was performed on the high-performance computing infrastructure provided by Research Computing Support Services which is partly funded by the National Science Foundation under Grant number CNS-1429294 at the University of Missouri, Columbia, MO. https://doi.org/10.32469/10355/69802. This publication is not intended to reflect the opinions of these institutions or individuals. Any errors remain the responsibility of the authors.

**Author Contributions** AM, RGM and FXA performed conceptualization and methodology. AM and EMS were involved in formal analysis. AM performed software and data curation and was also involved in writing—original draft and visualization. RGM, FXA and EMS were involved in writing—review and editing—and supervision.

**Funding** Open access funding provided by Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.

**Code and data availability** Data, results, and graphics that support the findings of this study can be reconstructed by running the source code. The source code is openly available at a software repository at the following URL: https://gitlab.com/ashki23/rc-biopower.

**Open Access** This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
References

Abt, K.L., Abt, R.C., Galik, C.S., et al. (2014). Effect of policies on pellet production and forests in the U.S. south: A technical document supporting the forest service update of the 2010 rpa assessment. *General Technical Reports* SRS-202, Asheville, NC: US Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station 202:33. https://doi.org/10.2737/SRS-GTR-202

Aguilar, F. X., Goerndt, M. E., Song, N., et al. (2012). Internal, external and location factors influencing cofiring of biomass with coal in the us northern region. *Energy Economics*, 34(6), 1790–1798.

Aguilar, F.X., Mirzaee, A., McGarvey, R.G., et al. (2020). Expansion of us wood pellet industry points to positive trends but the need for continued monitoring. *Scientific Reports*, 10(1), 18,607. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-75403-z

Bechtold, W.A., & Patterson, P.L. (2015). The enhanced forest inventory and analysis program—National sampling design and estimation procedures. *General Technical Report* SRS-80 Asheville, NC: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, 85, p. 80. https://doi.org/10.2737/SRS-GTR-80

Bentley, J.W., & Steppleton, C.D. (2013). Southern pulpwood production, 2011. https://www.fs.usda.gov/treeresearch/pubs/43626

Birdsey, R., Duffy, P., Smyth, C., et al. (2018). Climate, economic, and environmental impacts of producing wood for bioenergy. *Environmental Research Letters*, 13(050), 201. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aab9d5

Burrill, E.A., Wilson, A.M., Turner, J.A., et al (2018). The forest inventory and analysis database: database description and user guide version 8.0 for phase 2. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service p 946. http://www.fia.fs.fed.us/library/database-documentation/

Coffin, G. (2014). Use of by-product wood chips and other biomass in a combined heat and power system at the university of missouri power plant. In: *Wood Energy in Developed Economies*. Routledge, pp. 273–298.

Cornwall, W. (2017). The burning question. *Science*, 355. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.355.6320.18

Dahal, R. P., Aguilar, F. X., McGarvey, R., et al. (2020). Localized economic contributions of renewable wood-based biopower generation. *Energy Economics*, 91(104), 913. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2020.104913

Dale, V. H., Parish, E., Kline, K. L., et al. (2017). How is wood-based pellet production affecting forest conditions in the southeastern united states? *Forest Ecology and Management*, 396, 143–149.

Dundar, B., McGarvey, R. G., & Aguilar, F. X. (2016). Identifying optimal multi-state collaborations for reducing co2 emissions by co-firing biomass in coal-burning power plants. *Computers and Industrial Engineering*, 101, 403–415.

Dundar, B., McGarvey, R. G., & Aguilar, F. X. (2019). A robust optimisation approach for identifying multi-state collaborations to reduce co2 emissions. *Journal of the Operational Research Society*, 70(4), 601–619.

Dyer, J. M. (2006). Revisiting the deciduous forests of Eastern North America. *BioScience*, 56, 341–352. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2006)56[341:RTDFOE]2.0.CO;2.

EIA. (2020). More than 100 coal-fired plants have been replaced or converted to natural gas since 2011. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=44636

EIA. (2021a). Annual energy outlook 2021—figure 11. https://www.eia.gov/outlooksaeo/pdf/AEO_Narrative_2021.pdf

EIA. (2021b). Form eia-923 detailed data with previous form data (eia-906/920). https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia923/

EIA. (2021c). From eia-860 detailed data with previous form data (eia-860a/860b). https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia860/

EIA. (2021d). Section 10 of the monthly energy review—table 10.2c. https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec10.pdf

EIA. (2021e). Section 11 of the monthly energy review—table 11.6. https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec11.pdf

EIA. (2021f). Section 7 of the monthly energy review. https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec7.pdf

EIA. (2021g). Short-term energy outlook 2021—table 8a. https://www.eia.gov/outlooksteo/pdf/steo_full.pdf

EPA. (2011). Accounting framework for biogenic CO2 Emissions from stationary Sources. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/biogenic_emissions.html

EPA. (2014). Framework for assessing biogenic CO2 emissions from stationary sources
EPA. (2015). Clean power plan final rule. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-10-23/pdf/2015-22842.pdf

EPA. (2019). Affordable clean energy rule. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-07-08/pdf/2019-13507.pdf

FORISK. (2018). U.S. Wood Bioenergy Database: Q1 2018. http://forisk.com/

Goerndt, M.E., & D'Amato, A.W. (2014). Forest management for sustainable wood energy feedstock supply. In: *Wood energy in developed economies*. Routledge, pp. 113–147.

Goerndt, M. E., Aguilar, F. X., & Skog, K. (2013). Resource potential for renewable energy generation from co-firing of woody biomass with coal in the Northern U.S. *Biomass and Bioenergy*, 59, 348–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.08.032

Gray, J.A., Bentley, J.W., Cooper, J.A., et al (2018a). United states department of agriculture southern pulpwood production, 2014. https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/56235

Gray, J.A., Bentley, J.W., Cooper, J.A., et al (2018b). United states department of agriculture southern pulpwood production, 2016. https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/56531

Harville, D. A. (1977). Maximum likelihood approaches to variance component estimation and to related problems. *Journal of the American Statistical Association*, 72. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1977.10480998

Homer, C., Dewitz, J., Jin, S., et al. (2020). Conterminous united states land cover change patterns 2001–2016 from the 2016 national land cover database. *ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing*, 162, 184–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2020.02.019

Johnson, T.G., & Steppleton, C.D. (2007). United states department of agriculture southern pulpwood production, 2005. https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/27728

Johnson, T.G., Steppleton, C.D., & Bentley, J.W. (2010). United states department of agriculture southern pulpwood production, 2008. https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/34565

Kline, K. L., Dale, V. H., Rose, E., et al. (2021). Effects of production of woody pellets in the southeastern united states on the sustainable development goals. *Sustainability*, 13(2), 821.

Kline, K. L., Dale, V. H., Rose, E., et al. (2021). Effects of production of woody pellets in the southeastern united states on the sustainable development goals. *Sustainability*, 13, 821. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020821

Laird, N.M., & Ware, J.H. (1982). Random-effects models for longitudinal data. Biometrics, pp. 963–974. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529876

Mirzaee, A. (2021). A Python API for accessing Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) database in parallel. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.fishshare.14687547

Neary, D. G., & Zieroth, E. J. (2007). Forest bioenergy system to reduce the hazard of wildfires: White mountains, arizona. *Biomass and Bioenergy*, 31, 638–645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2007.06.028

Perez-Verdin, G., Grebner, D. L., Munn, I. A., et al. (2008). Economic impacts of woody biomass utilization for bioenergy in mississippi. *Forest Products Journal*, 58(11), 75–83.

Pinheiro, J., Bates, D., DebRoy, S., et al (2014). nlme: Linear and nonlinear mixed effects models

Piva, R.J., Bentley, J.W., & Hayes, S.W. (2014). National pulpwood production, 2010. https://doi.org/10.2737/NRS-RB-89, https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/45928

Polagye, B. L., Hodgson, K. T., & Malte, P. C. (2007). An economic analysis of bio-energy options using thinnings from overstocked forests. *Biomass and Bioenergy*, 31, 105–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2006.02.005

R. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. https://www.r-project.org/

Rummer, R.B. (2005). A strategic assessment of forest biomass and fuel reduction treatments in western states. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. https://www.fs.fed.us/research/pdf/Western_final.pdf

SAB. (2012). SAB review of EPA's accounting framework for biogenic CO2 emissions from stationary sources

SAB. (2015). SAB review of framework for assessing biogenic CO2 emissions from stationary sources

Schabenberger, O., & Pierce, F. J. (2001). Contemporary Statistical Models for the Plant and Soil Sciences. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420040197

Sedjo, R., & Tian, X. (2012). Does wood bioenergy increase carbon stocks in forests? *Journal of Forestry*, 110, 304–311. https://doi.org/10.5849/jof.11-073

Sedjo, R. A. (2012). Carbon neutrality and bioenergy: A zero-sum game? *SSRN Electronic Journal*. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1808080

Sedjo, R. A. (2013). Comparative life cycle assessments: Carbon neutrality and wood biomass energy. *SSRN Electronic Journal*. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2286237
Sterman, J. D., Siegel, L., & Rooney-Varga, J. N. (2018). Does replacing coal with wood lower co2 emissions? Dynamic lifecycle analysis of wood bioenergy. *Environmental Research Letters*, 13(015), 007. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aaa512.

The White House. (2021). Executive order on tackling the climate crisis at home and abroad. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/27/executive-order-on-tackling-the-climate-crisis-at-home-and-abroad/

U.S. Census Bureau. (2020a). Cartographic boundary files. https://www.census.gov/geographies/mapping-files/time-series/geo/carto-boundary-file.html

U.S. Census Bureau. (2020b). County population totals. https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/popest/2010s-counties-total.html

U.S. Drought Monitor. (2021). GIS data files. https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/Data/GISData.aspx

USDA. (2020). Sampling and plot design fia fact sheet series. https://www.fia.fs.fed.us/library/fact-sheets/data-collections/SamplingandPlotDesign.pdf

USDA. (2021a). Crop acreage data. https://www.fsa.usda.gov/news-room/efoia/electronic-reading-room/frequently-requested-information/crop-acreage-data/index

USDA. (2021b). Forest inventory and analysis national program. https://www.fia.fs.fed.us/tools-data/

USDA. (2021c). U.S. forest change assessment viewer (ForWarn). https://forwarn.forestthreats.org/fcav2/

USDOT. (2019). Major ports. https://data-usdot.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/major-ports

Verschuyl, J., Riffell, S., Miller, D., et al. (2011). Biodiversity response to intensive biomass production from forest thinning in north american forests— A meta-analysis. *Forest Ecology and Management*, 261, 221–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2010.10.010.

Walker, T., Cardellicchio, P., Gunn, J. S., et al. (2013). Carbon accounting for woody biomass from massachusetts (USA) managed forests: A framework for determining the temporal impacts of wood biomass energy on atmospheric greenhouse gas levels. *Journal of Sustainable Forestry*, 32, 130–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/10549811.2011.652019

**Publisher's Note** Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

## Authors and Affiliations

Ashkan Mirzaee<fnref n="1" /> Ⓓ • Ronald G. McGarvey<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="2" /> Ⓓ • Francisco X. Aguilar<fnref n="3" /> Ⓓ

Erin M. Schliep<fnref n="4" /> Ⓓ

Ashkan Mirzaee
amtwc@umsystem.edu

Ronald G. McGarvey
mcgarveyr@missouri.edu

Erin M. Schliep
schliepe@missouri.edu

<footnote n="1">¹ Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Systems Engineering, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Harry S Truman School of Public Affairs, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ Department of Forest Economics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, 901 83 Umeå, Sweden</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ Department of Statistics, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211, USA</footnote>