Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass 

Products and a Feasibility Research Report 

for Insuring Fast Growing Trees (such as 

Poplar & Willow) and other Woody Biomass 

Products 

Deliverable 1: Data Collection Report for Woody 

Biomass Products 

Contract Number: D11PX18878 

Submitted to: 

USDA-RMA 

COTR: Quintrell Hollis 

6501 Beacon Drive 

Kansas City, Missouri 64133-4676 

(816) 926-3270 

Submitted by: 

Watts and Associates, Inc. 

4331 Hillcrest Road 

Billings, Montana 59101 

(406) 252-7776 

twatts@wattsandassociates.com 

Due Date: November 28, 2011
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report.

i

Table of Contents 

Section I. Executive Summary ....................................................................................................1

Section II. Introduction ...............................................................................................................5

II.A. Congressional Mandated Biomass Activities ................................................................. 13

II.B. Research Approach ....................................................................................................... 15

Section III. Short-rotation Woody Species ................................................................................. 18

Section IV. Government Data.................................................................................................... 25

IV.A. USDA Data ................................................................................................................. 25

IV.B. DOE Data .................................................................................................................... 39

Section V. Private Data ............................................................................................................. 41

Section VI. Academic Data ....................................................................................................... 45

Section VII. Summary of Findings ............................................................................................ 53

Section VIII. Bibliography ........................................................................................................ 58

List of Tables 

Table 1. 2010 United State Primary Energy Production by Source ..............................................7

Table 2. United State Biomass Energy Production and Total Primary Production (1975-2010) ...8

Table 3. Energy Content of Biomass Feedstocks .........................................................................9

Table 4. 2008 United States Biomass Energy Utilization by Energy Sources and Energy 

Utilization Sector ......................................................................................................... 10

Table 5. Availability of Net Tree Volume Data for Birch, Douglas fir, Eucalyptus, 

Juniper, Larch, Magnolia, Poplar, Norway Spruce, Pine, and/or Willow in the 

USDA FS FIA FIDO System by State and Years. ........................................................ 28

Table 6. Cottonwood and Aspen (Group ID 37) Periodic Annual Mortality Average 

and Range by Year. ...................................................................................................... 29

Table 7. Cottonwood and Aspen (Group ID 44) Periodic Annual Mortality Average 

and Range by Year. ...................................................................................................... 30

Table 8. Douglas Fir (Group ID 10) Periodic Annual Mortality Average and Range by Year. ... 30

Table 9. Loblolly and Shortleaf Pine (Group ID 2) Periodic Annual Mortality Average 

and Range by Year. ...................................................................................................... 31

Table 10. Longleaf and Slash Pine (Group ID 1) Periodic Annual Mortality Average and 

Range by Year. .......................................................................................................... 31

Table 11. Other Eastern Soft Hardwoods (Group ID 41) Periodic Annual Mortality Average 

and Range by Year. .................................................................................................... 32

Table 12. Other Eastern Softwoods (Group ID 9) Periodic Annual Mortality Average 

and Range by Year. .................................................................................................... 32

Table 13. Other Western Softwoods (Group ID 24) Periodic Annual Mortality Average 

and Range by Year. .................................................................................................... 33

Table 14. Other Yellow Pines (Group ID 3) Periodic Annual Mortality Average 

and Range by Year. .................................................................................................... 33

Table 15. Sweetgum (Group ID 34) Periodic Annual Mortality Average and Range by Year..... 34

Table 16. Yellow Birch (Group ID 30) Periodic Annual Mortality Average and 

Range by Year. .......................................................................................................... 34

Table 17. Yellow Poplar (Group ID 39) Periodic Annual Mortality Average and 

Range by Year. .......................................................................................................... 35

Table 18. Net Tree Volume by Tree ID and Year in Chippewa County, Michigan. .................... 36
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report.

ii

Table 19. Net Tree Volume by Tree ID and Year in Glade County, Florida. .............................. 36

Table 20. Net Tree Volume by Tree ID and Year in Sterns County, Minnesota. ........................ 37

Table 21. Mean Annual Increment (MAI) Growth Estimates for Poplar (Populus spp.) ............. 48

Table 22. Mean Annual Increment (MAI) Growth Estimates for Poplar (Populus spp.) 

Grown in Field Trials by Year in Rotation ................................................................. 49

Table 23. Mean Annual Increment (MAI) Growth Estimates for Shrub Willow 

(Salix spp.) Based on Plantation Management Practices ............................................. 50

Table 24. Mean Annual Increment (MAI) Growth Estimates for Loblolly Pine (Pinus taeda).... 51

Table 25. Mean Annual Increment (MAI) Growth Estimates for Eucalyptus spp. ...................... 51

List of Appendices 

Appendix A. DOE Biomass Program Biorefineries 

Appendix B. Sample Government Data 

 Exhibit 1. NASS Data 

 Exhibit 2. FS FIA Data 

 Exhibit 3. Sample FS Species Groupings Cottonwood/Poplar 

Appendix C. FSA Information Service Centers Contacted 

Appendix D. Pulpwood Producers and Processors 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report.

1

SECTION I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The Statement of Work (SOW) for Project Number D11PX18878 identifies the objectives of the 

Data Collection portion of the contracted project as ―to obtain information and data on grown 

woody biomass crops [related to insuring] willow, poplar trees, and other woody biomass 

products as bio-fuel feedstock.‖ The United States Department of Energy (DOE) defines 

biomass as ―organic matter available on a recurring basis.‖ For the purposes of this report, 

―woody biomass‖ is defined as ―organic matter available on a recurring basis derived from 

willow, poplar trees, and other perennial trees and shrubs.‖ Plant-derived materials such as 

woody biomass are used as a primary energy source for heating and electrical generation and as a 

feedstock for gasification and production of liquid biofuels. Direct combustion of biomass 

resources is common. In the production of biofuels from woody biomass, refinery operations are 

used to extract sugars from the biomass feedstocks; in turn these sugars are converted to 

alcohols. The alcohols are combined with petroleum refinery outputs to produce fuels that can 

be used for industrial, commercial, and transportation applications. 

The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (2008 Farm Bill) (Title XII, section 15322) 

calls for research activities addressing federally subsidized insurance for ―dedicated” energy 

crops. The bill defines a dedicated energy crop as an “annual or perennial crop that (i) is grown 

expressly for the purpose of producing a feedstock for renewable bio-fuel, renewable electricity, 

or bio-based products; and is not typically used for food, feed, or fiber.” Plans of insurance 

based on market prices and yields as well as approaches based on ―weather or rainfall indices‖

are to be evaluated to assess their potential efficacy in providing protection for production losses, 

revenue losses, or both. 

This data collection study focuses on woody biomass products for use as biorefinery feedstocks 

that are or can be commercially grown in the United States. The resulting report is designed to 

assist RMA in determining if it is practical to proceed with a feasibility study on federal 

insurance of woody biofuel feedstock. 

All told, the literature on woody biomass resources is vast. An internet search on the term 

―forest‖ produces 728,000,000 hits; a search on ―tree farms‖ produces more than 1.5 million hits. 

Adding the term ―yields‖ to the tree farm search cuts the number of pages in half. Adding the 

term ―biomass‖ (or alternatively bio-mass) drops the count to just over 7,000. Of these, just a 

handful include any quantitative data and even fewer include empirical data .

1

 The dearth of 

useful quantitative information available on the internet is broadly indicative of the literature on 

purpose-grown woody biomass crops as a bioenergy feedstock. A large volume of topical 

reports are available, but the Contractor was unable to identify any time-series quantitative data 

of the type frequently relied on for development of data-driven yield-based crop insurance 

instruments. Many of the values presented in these reports are extrapolations from small 

experiments to a state, industry or nationwide scale or predictive forecasts based on limited 

historical data. There are also numerous research journals addressing tree production (and 

consequently the production of woody biomass). Few of the articles in these journals address 

woody biomass crop production from an agronomic perspective. Most of the focus on biomass 

 

1

 In this context, quantitative data are defined as data assigned a numeric value. The Contractor uses this construct to contrast 

with empirical data, which are quantitative data derived by some measurement of the identified attribute. 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report.

2

yields in the articles in these print journals is documentation of one-off, small-plot field trials 

and/or on predictive forecasts. 

Due to their rapid growth, short-rotation woody types for biomass production might include 

birch, Douglas fir, Eucalyptus, juniper, larch, Magnolia, poplar, Norway spruce, pine, and 

willows. The economic potential for short-rotation woody crop species is enhanced by use of 

improved genetics and management practices. Based on a search of the literature and interaction 

with crop experts, it appears the most likely candidates for purpose-grown woody biomass crops 

are poplars and willows in the northern states and pines, poplars, and Eucalyptus in the southern 

states. 

The Contractor examined potential data for development of insurance products from government 

and private sources. Government sources included United States Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), Economic Research Service (ERS), the 

Farm Service Agency (FSA), and Forest Service (FS), as well as the DOE. Potential private data 

sources examined included biorefineries using woody biomass as a feedstock, producer 

organizations, and business intelligence services. The Contractor also reviewed the academic 

literature to identify sources of time-series data addressing number of producers, planted acreage, 

harvested acreage, total production, value, or yield of woody biomass crops. 

NASS is the primary data collection and statistical estimating service of the USDA. The 

Contractor was not able to identify any annual NASS production or pricing data dealing with 

woody biomass crops, firewood, or pulpwood. The Census of Agriculture does report on sales of 

forest products (excluding short rotation woody crops) and on agronomic characteristics of 

Christmas trees and short rotation woody crops collectively. Inasmuch as the woody biomass 

crops are excluded in the former and aggregated with irrelevant data in the latter, these census 

data cannot be used to identify number of producers, planted acreage, harvested acreage, total 

production, value, or yield of woody biomass crops. 

ERS collects data and provides analysis on crop product supply and demand, as well as 

information on industry structure, pricing, trade, production policies, production systems, and 

processing. FSA provides financial assistance to producers facing losses from natural disaster 

(i.e., drought, flood, fire, freeze, tornadoes, pest infestation, and other ―calamities‖). The 

Contractor was not able to identify any ERS or FSA reports or analyses dealing with woody 

biomass crops, firewood, or pulpwood. 

The Quantitative Sciences section of the Research and Development branch of the FS maintains 

forestry data in some ways comparable to NASS agricultural data. FS activities include 

maintenance of the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) Program. Forest Inventory Data Online 

(FIDO), a data-mining tool, provides public access to the terabytes of data in the FIA databases. 

While there are no data in this system on yield, production, or price, there are related data 

including tree biomass removal and tree mortality by species group and size class. 

Unfortunately, the mortality data do not document the death of trees in small size classes (e.g., 

trees during the entire production cycle of shrub willow bioenergy crops). Instead, the focus is 

on mortality of trees larger than five inches in diameter at breast height (DBH). Furthermore, the 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report.

3

species groups and geographic areas are aggregated at levels that would not allow the data to be 

used for an insurance risk analysis. 

The DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) manages data that address 

biomass, biorefineries, and bioenergy. The focus of EERE reports is on cost competitiveness of 

biomass feedstocks rather than agronomic production. Furthermore, feedstock supplies from 

purpose-grown trees represent a tiny portion of the currently available cellulosic feedstocks. The 

Contractor was not able to identify any empirical EERE data concerning the number of 

producers, planted acreage, harvested acreage, total production, value, or yield of woody 

biomass crops. 

The Contractor explored the possibility of collecting data from organizations whose membership 

is comprised of agricultural producers of woody biomass. No such organization could be 

identified. 

The Contractor also explored the possibility of collecting data through biorefineries that use 

woody biomass as a feedstock. Most biorefineries using cellulosic feedstocks are recently 

commissioned or still under construction. Furthermore, most commissioned biorefineries are 

non-commercial2 scale operations or operations that use multiple feedstock sources depending on 

availability and price. Consequently, meaningful data regarding purpose-grown woody biomass 

for bioenergy feedstock from are not available from the latter group. As cellulosic biofuel 

refineries come online, it is possible that they can assist in collection of data regarding woody 

biomass yield, production, and pricing. However, incentivizing their participation in such data 

collection may be challenging. 

Pulpwood was considered as a proxy for woody biomass biorefinery feedstocks. The Contractor 

identified more than 100 pulpwood producers and consolidators. Despite assurances of 

confidentiality, none of the producers or consolidators the Contractor contacted was willing to 

share any data with the Contractor. This behavior is easily understood when the highly 

competitive nature of the paper industry is examined. The industry is characterized by numerous 

producer organizations and business intelligence services. These organizations do not have data 

on production of biomass feedstock. However, they have data for sale on pulpwood feedstocks. 

No reported available pulpwood data series addresses yield or production (in the sense of the 

words as used for crop insurance). Pulpwood price data are available. 

In the academic literature, extremely limited production and yield data on cropped woody 

biomass species exist. These data address field trials rather than commercial production. Often 

the empirical data are used by academic and government researchers to estimate potential 

commercial yields or production. There are data from which maximum prices at national and 

regional levels can be inferred because of the fungibility of feedstock materials used in 

biorefineries. 

Despite extensive research, the Contractor did not identify any source of empirical data on the 

number of producers, planted acreage, harvested acreage, total production, value, and yield of 

 

2

 Most existing facilities are pilot, demonstration, or research and demonstration scale operations that have required limited input 

from their feedstock sources when compared to the requirements of an operational commercial biorefinery. 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report.

4

woody biomass crops. Data on woody biomass resources are sporadic. The few government 

data that exist do not address purpose-grown woody biomass crops. Extrapolations of empirical

data from small plot trials to estimate potential yields and production are much more common. 

Any private data on woody biomass crops are closely held and proprietary. More likely, as the 

DOE reports, ―There is ... no nationwide source of information on woody or herbaceous crops 

being used for energy since this is occurring only on a very small scale in a few isolated 

experimental situations.‖

3

The Government could choose to begin a systematic collection of actual yield and production 

data for purpose-grown woody biomass biorefinery feedstock crops for the purpose of insurance 

development. However, even the shortest production cycles (those for shrub willows) require 

four to five years. Eight to ten year production cycles are not unusual. Consequently, decades of 

data collection would be necessary to accumulate the requisite data for a non-parametric crop 

insurance yield plan development effort.4

 Moreover, testimony suggests there are very few risks 

affecting production of woody biomass crops. The significant risks are major catastrophic events 

(wild fires, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc.). The infrequent nature of these risks would require an 

even longer historical database for rating purposes for a specific location, such as a county. 

Fortunately, data addressing these events do exist, including data from government sources, 

albeit not in a form that supports non-parametric development efforts. These data, combined 

with experiential data for forest resources more generally (particularly the FS data in the FIDO 

system) and expert judgment about agricultural risks (like the process used in the development of 

premium rates in the Quarantine Pilot Program) constitute an attractive alternative to a protracted 

data collection on a rapidly evolving industry. If crop insurance development is to be undertaken 

in the next five years, it will almost certainly be based on unique development approaches rather 

than on time-series yield data analyses. 

 

3

 U.S. DOE, 2010, Biomass Energy Data Book: Edition 3, http://cta.ornl.gov/bedb/download.shtml, accessed August, 2011. 

4

 The Contractor uses the term non-parametric to reference a program development effort in which the rating is based on 

empirical data. 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report.

5

SECTION II. INTRODUCTION 

This is the data collection report required by the Statement of Work (SOW) for the United States 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) Risk Management Agency (RMA) project entitled ―Data 

Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products and a Feasibility Research Report for Insuring 

Fast Growing Trees (such as Poplar & Willow) and other Woody Biomass Products‖ (Project 

Number D11PX18878). The SOW identifies the objective of the data collection portion of the 

contracted project as ―to obtain information and data on grown woody biomass crops [related to 

insuring] willow, poplar trees, and other woody biomass products as bio-fuel feedstock.‖ The 

government indicated to the Contractor that ―other woody biomass crops‖ should include, at a 

minimum, Eucalyptus and pine species. 

Biomass is biological material derived from living, or recently living organisms. 5 It is composed 

of a mixture of organic (carbon-based) molecules containing hydrogen and usually including 

oxygen. Biomass also generally includes molecules containing nitrogen and small quantities of 

sulfur, phosphorus, and metals. The carbon in biomass is derived from atmospheric carbon 

dioxide by plants during the process of photosynthesis. 

The United States Department of Energy (DOE) further characterizes biomass as organic matter 

available on a recurring basis.6

 Consequently, this characterization includes plants, plant-derived 

materials (e.g., logs, seeds, etc.), animal manure, and municipal residues. Plant biomass can be 

derived from agricultural crops, trees, native grasses, and aquatic plants (including single-celled 

algae as well as more complex organisms). Plant biomass is of particular interest because the 

organic chemicals in plants (carbohydrates, proteins, and lipids) directly store energy captured 

during photosynthesis. Biomass energy can subsequently be used by humans either by direct 

combustion (burning) or by conversion to solid, liquid, or gaseous fuels.7

The carbohydrate components of plants include simple sugars and starches in the body of the cell 

and cellulose,8 hemicellulose,9and lignin10 in the cell walls. Starches can be converted to sugars 

through digestion. The sugars, in turn, can be converted to alcohol by the process of 

fermentation.11 The digestion of starches to sugars and fermentation of sugars is the principal 

process by which corn grain ethanol (a biofuel) is produced. The cellulose, hemicellulose, and 

lignin in the cell walls, the principal biomass constituents of woody species, are less easily 

converted to biofuels.

Biofuels are fuels derived in some way from primary biomass. In energy economics, a primary 

energy source is the energy form used by an energy sector to generate a supply of energy for 

human use. So, for example, if wood is burned for heating a home or business, the primary 

 

5

 Fossil fuels also have a biological origin, but its origin is much older and the chemicals have been changed by the geological 

processes involved in the ―fossilization‖ of the raw materials used to prepare fossil fuels. 

6

 United States Department of Energy, 2010, Biomass Energy Data Book: Edition 3. 

7

 It is also used by humans when they eat plant matter, but that use of plant biomass is not the subject of this report. 

8

 A linear carbohydrate polymer made of glucose molecules. 

9

 A carbohydrate polymer made of a mixture of simple sugars which forms an amorphous and random mass in the cell wall. 

10 A complex cross-linked polymer made of cyclical alcoholic subunits. 

11 Alternative chemical pathways exist for conversion of sugars to alcohols. In particular, biorefinery processes that convert 

sugars to organic acids and organic acids to alcohols have been developed. The simple fermentation processes capture a 

smaller portion of the energy embodied in the sugars, but require less complex refinery processes. 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report.

6

energy source is the wood. The energy for human use is the heat derived from the combustion of 

the wood. Energy from primary sources is often converted to other forms (e.g., electricity or 

liquid and gaseous fuels). The conversion may be undertaken to simplify storage or 

transportation of the energy. Furthermore, some energy forms are easier to use than others. For 

example, alcohol-based biofuels are more conveniently used as motor fuels than the biomass 

from which they are derived. They require little or no modification of the technology and 

infrastructure used in fueling existing motor vehicles.

The most common biofuels are ethanol and biodiesel. However, raw biomass itself, liquid fuels 

refined from biological materials, and biogases can all be used as fuels. In 2008, approximately 

35 percent of the primary biomass energy produced in the United States was converted to 

biofuels.12

 From 2005 to 2010, production of biofuels in the United States nearly tripled. 

Initially in the production of biofuels from woody biomass, the biomass is chipped to reduce the 

particle size and increase surface area. The hemicelluloses in the wood chips are extracted by 

hydrolysis. This can be accomplished enzymatically, or through a non-enzymatic process when 

dilute mineral acids (particularly sulfuric acid) are mixed with the biomass feedstock. During 

the hydrolysis, the complex chains of sugars in the hemicellulose are broken down, releasing 

simple sugars including xylose and arabinose (both five-carbon sugars), and mannose and 

galactose (six-carbon sugars). 

The simple sugars released by the hydrolysis of hemicelluloses can be broken down by a variety 

of microorganisms (or by enzymes derived from these organisms) to produce organic acids 

and/or alcohols. Fermentation of the five-carbon sugars is less efficient than fermentation of the 

six-carbon sugars.13

 Consequently, alternatives to fermentation have been one goal of biorefinery 

development projects. Following the hydrolysis of hemicelluloses, the remaining plant materials 

include the cellulose and lignin from the cell walls of the woody biomass. 

Cellulose is digested by microorganisms or by solutions of commercial enzymes derived from 

microorganisms to produce glucose (the most common six-carbon sugar). The glucose solution 

can be fermented anaerobically using brewer‘s yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) to produce 

ethanol, water, and carbon dioxide. However, due to the energy released during the fermentative 

production of the carbon dioxide, this classical fermentation is not particularly efficient. 

Alternatively, refinery processes based on other microorganisms (or enzymes derived from those 

organisms) can be used to convert the glucose to organic acids. These in turn can be converted 

to alcohol-based biofuels including ethanol and butanol. 

The principal constituent of the solids remaining after the extraction of hemicelluloses and 

cellulose is lignin. The lignin can be burned to produce electricity without additional 

purification or can be further purified for use in pharmaceutical and cosmetic products. 

 

12 U.S. Department of the Interior, 2011, The National Atlas of the United States of America, Renewable Energy Sources in the 

United States, http://nationalatlas.gov/articles/people/a_energy.html, accessed September, 2011. 

13 Ferrari, M.D., E. Neirotti,.C. Albornoz, and E. Saucedo, 1992, Ethanol production from eucalyptus wood hemicellulose 

hydrolysate by Pichia stipitis, Biotechnology and Bioengineering 40: 753-759, Gregg, D.J. and J.N. Saddler, 1996, Factors 

affecting cellulose hydrolysis and the potential of enzyme recycle to enhance the efficiency of an integrated wood to ethanol 

process, Biotechnology and Bioengineering 51: 375-383; Sun, Y. and J. Cheng, 2002, Hydrolysis of lignocellulosic materials 

for ethanol production: a review, Bioresource Technology 83: 1-11.
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report.

7

For comparison purposes, primary energy production from a source is converted into a common 

unit (for example, a British thermal unit (BTU)). According to the DOE, 75.06 quadrillion 

(75,060,000,000,000,000) BTU of energy were produced in the United States in 2010. Of this 

total, 4.32 quadrillion (4,320,000,000,000,000) BTU were produced from biomass (Table 1). 

This represented a ten percent increase in biomass energy production over the previous year 

(Table 2). The share of primary energy production from biomass has been increasing. 

Table 1. 2010 United State Primary Energy Production by Source 

Total Fossil Fuels 58.54

Nuclear Electric Power 8.44

Hydroelectric Power 2.51

Geothermal Energy 0.21

Solar/Photovoltic Energy 0.11

Wind Energy 0.92

Biomass Energy 4.32

Total Primary Energy Production 75.06

Source: U.S. Energy Administration, 2011, Total Energy: 1011 Monthly Energy 

Review: 1.2: Primary Energy Production by Source, 

http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/mer.pdf, accessed September 2011. 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report.

8

Table 2. United State Biomass Energy Production and Total Primary Production 

(1975-2010) 

Year Biomass Energy ProductionTotal Primary Energy ProductionProportion from Biomass

(Quadrillion BTU) (Quadrillion BTU) (Percent)

1973 1.53 63.56 2.4

1974 1.54 62.34 2.5

1975 1.50 61.32 2.4

1976 1.71 61.56 2.8

1977 1.84 62.01 3.0

1978 2.04 63.10 3.2

1979 2.15 65.90 3.3

1980 2.48 67.18 3.7

1981 2.60 66.95 3.9

1982 2.66 66.57 4.0

1983 2.90 64.11 4.5

1984 2.97 68.84 4.3

1985 3.02 67.70 4.5

1986 2.93 67.07 4.4

1987 2.87 67.54 4.2

1988 3.02 68.92 4.4

1989 3.16 69.32 4.6

1990 2.74 70.70 3.9

1991 2.78 70.36 4.0

1992 2.93 69.96 4.2

1993 2.91 68.32 4.3

1994 3.03 70.73 4.3

1995 3.10 71.17 4.4

1996 3.16 72.49 4.4

1997 3.11 72.47 4.3

1998 2.93 72.88 4.0

1999 2.97 71.74 4.1

2000 3.01 71.33 4.2

2001 2.62 71.73 3.7

2002 2.71 70.77 3.8

2003 2.81 70.04 4.0

2004 3.00 70.19 4.3

2005 3.10 69.43 4.5

2006 3.23 70.79 4.6

2007 3.49 71.44 4.9

2008 3.87 73.11 5.3

2009 3.92 72.60 5.4

2010 4.32 75.06 5.8

Source: U.S. Energy Administration, 2011, Total Energy: 1011 Monthly Energy Review: 1.2: Primary Energy 

Production by Source, http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/mer.pdf, accessed September, 2011. 

The DOE defines primary biomass as the biomass produced directly by photosynthesis. The 

department further defines primary biomass feedstocks as primary biomass harvested for 

conversion to solid, liquid or gaseous fuels. Common primary biomass feedstocks includes 

grains; oilseeds; crop residues such as stover, straw, orchard trimmings, and nut hulls, wood, and 

forestry wastes. Regardless of the source, the primary energy embodied in a dry unit weight of 

plant biomass is approximately the same (Table 3). 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report.

9

Table 3. Energy Content* of Biomass Feedstocks 

Feedstock Scientific Name BTU/lb

American Sycamore Platanus occidentalis 8354 to 8481

Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia 8409 to 8582

Corn Stover Zea mays 7697 to 7967

Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides 8431

Eucalyptus Eucalyptus spp. 8384 to 8432

Hybrid Poplar Populus spp. X 8384 to 8491

Monterey Pine Pinus Radiata 8422

Sericea Lespedeza Lespedeza cuneata 8289 to 8570

Sugarcane Bagasse Gramineae saccharum 8149 to 8349

Switchgrass Panicum virgatum 7886 to 8233

Wheat Straw Triticum aestivum 7481

* Moisture Free High Heating Value (HHV) determined using ASTM D-2015 procedures. 

Source: U.S. Department of Energy, 2006, Biomass Feedstock Composition and Property Database: All 

Sample Types, All Heat Properties, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/feedstock_databases.html, 

accessed September, 2011. 

As a result of the similarities in embodied energy in the cellulosic biomass feedstocks, many 

biorefinery managers consider the feedstocks to be fungible. Inasmuch as the fixed cost of the 

biorefineries is substantial, they are operated around the clock and throughout the year. 

Consequently, the managers of biorefineries are first concerned with the cost of the feedstock 

and then with a readily and dependably available supply. 

In the United States, wood and wood-derived products are the largest source of biomass-derived 

energy (Table 4). While direct combustion of wood is the oldest method for extraction of 

biomass energy, a wide variety of alternative extraction mechanisms are available. Most wood 

and wood-derived energy products are used in the generation of electricity and industrial-process 

heat and/or steam (or in hybrid plants which use a combination of these extraction processes). 

The largest source of energy from wood is pulping liquor (black liquor) from the paper and 

paperboard industry. Fuel wood, chips, pellets, compressed logs, and charcoal are alternate 

forest-derived energy sources. In spite of all these energy products, most of the biomass 

harvested from the forests is used for lumber rather than energy. Substantial energy embodied in 

forests is also lost in situ as the result of bacterial and fungal decay. 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report.

10

Table 4. 2008 United States Biomass Energy Utilization by Energy Sources and Energy Utilization Sector* 

Residential Commercial Industrial Transportation Electrical Generation Total Commercial Independent

Biofuels 0.002 0.544 0.827 1.373

Waste 0.034 0.144 0.018 0.240 0.436

Wood and Wood-derived Fuels 0.420 0.073 1.344 0.029 0.148 2.014

Total Biomass 0.420 0.109 2.031 0.827 0.047 0.388 3.822

*Rounding errors are evident in total biomass sums. A small fraction of the biomass energy identified as produced in Table 2 is not accounted for in this utilization analysis. 

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2010, Renewable Energy Annual 2008, http://205.254.135.24/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/rea_data/rea.pdf, accessed September, 2011. 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report.

11

As documented in Table 4, biomass energy is also extracted from organic wastes. These can 

include municipal solid wastes, landfill gas, sludge waste from municipal wastewater treatment, 

tires, and agricultural byproducts. 

While most currently used biofuels feedstocks in the United States are starches from grains or 

oils and fats derived from the agricultural products, whole plants and plant residues are gaining 

importance as feedstock for cellulosic biofuels. The SOW for the Combined Synopsis/ 

Solicitation (Solicitation) focuses on the feasibility of insuring biorefinery feedstocks derived 

from fast growing woody species. As the Solicitation notes, the ―bio-fuels industry could be best 

described as at an infant stage currently.... Research indicates that further studies need to be 

conducted to improve technology and efficiency before bio-fuel crops could be considered for 

commercial production.‖

14

 

The DOE Biomass Program (http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/) began supporting the 

development of integrated biorefineries using cellulosic biomass in 2007. As of December, 

2010, there were 6 commercial biorefineries, 12 pilot biorefineries, 9 demonstration biorefineries 

and 2 research and development biorefineries supported under this program (Appendix A). 

In spite of the DOE efforts to support biorefining, data on cellulosic feedstocks are quite limited. 

According to the DOE: ―It would be desirable to include information on the amount and types of 

crop residues and forest logging, or pulp fiber residues currently being used for energy on a state 

by state basis, but that information is not readily available....There is also no nationwide source 

of information on woody or herbaceous crops being used for energy since this is occurring only 

on a very small scale in a few isolated experimental situations.‖

15

The SOW points out, ―the Energy Policy Act of 2005 required 7.5 billion gallons of renewable 

fuel to be produced annually by 2012. More recently, Congress passed the Energy Independence 

and Security Act of 2007 .... [which] specifies that 21 billion gallons, of the 36 billion gallon 

2022 target, must be  ̳advanced bio-fuels‘.‖16

 Production of cellulosic ethanol, one advanced 

biofuel, is projected to increase fivefold by 2022. This drastic increase is proportionally higher 

than that of any other biofuel. Crop residue and woody biomass are the two major feedstocks 

from agriculture for the cellulosic biofuel industry.17 A 2005 study projects approximately 25 

percent of the renewable energy biomass will come from crop residues by 2022. 18 Based on 

these projections, woody biomass crops grown as bioenergy feedstocks will need to increase 

significantly to provide the raw material for a substantial proportion of the remaining cellulosic 

ethanol. However, it is important to remember the potential contributions of waste. Forestry 

residue and mill wastes can be baled or chipped for transport to biorefineries. Additional woody 

biomass can be collected from orchard prunings and urban wood waste. 

Fast growing trees include willows, hybrid and native poplars, birch, Douglas fir, Norway 

spruce, larch, a variety of pine species in the northern states and willows, poplars, pines, 

 

14 Solicitation (page 45) 

15 DOE, 2010, Biomass Energy Data Book: Edition 3, http://cta.ornl.gov/bedb/download.shtml, accessed August, 2011. 

16 Advanced biofuels must embody no more than 50 percent of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, on a life cycle basis, of the 

gasoline or diesel fuels they replace. 

17 DOE and USDA, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/final_billionton_vision_report2.pdf, accessed March 21, 2011. 

18 DOE and USDA, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/2007ethanolreview.pdf, accessed March, 2011. 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report.

12

junipers, eucalyptus and magnolia species in southern states. Many of these species are currently 

grown as windbreaks, for horticultural use, and/or for pulpwood. 

As a biofuels feedstock, woody crops have the distinct advantage over crop residues of being 

―self storing‖ (i.e., the trees can be left standing until needed) and have the potential advantage 

of year-round harvest. However, field conditions affect when a harvest can actually occur. 

Trees grown to produce woody biomass feedstocks can be harvested using various heavy 

machinery types. For example, the willow and young poplar can be harvested using a biomass 

baler that cuts the trees and bundles the material into a bale or using a forage harvester with a 

short rotation coppice woody crop header. The forage harvester mulches the trees and deposits 

the chips into a cart. 

Perlack, et. al. (2005) estimate the contiguous United States can produce 368 million dry tons of 

woody biomass annually. This projection includes 52 million dry tons of fuel wood harvested 

from forests, 145 million dry tons of residues from wood processing mills and pulp and paper 

mills, 47 million dry tons of urban wood residues (construction and demolition debris), 64 

million dry tons of residues from logging and site clearing operations, and 60 million dry tons of 

biomass removed to reduce fire hazards.19 It is important to note these estimates do not include 

woody biomass purposefully grown as a biorefinery feedstock crop. Although data are sparse, 

an average woody biomass yield is expected to be approximately 8 dry tons per acre;20 the noncropped biomass therefore provides the equivalent of the harvest from 46 million acres of farmed 

woody biomass crops. 

According to DOE, a 20 million gallon/year ethanol facility requires 775 dry tons/day of woody 

biomass for optimal operation.21

 Consequently, the above estimate of potential woody biomass 

production could support about 1,300 biomass processing facilities. There are currently only 

five commercial scale biomass refineries using woody biomass feedstocks in operation or under 

construction. One facility, located in Soperton, Georgia, is in operation and processes woody 

biomass, forest residues, and thinning residues from forests. A second facility located in Fulton, 

Mississippi, will process un-merchantable lumber and logging residues. The third facility 

located in Kinross Charter Township, Michigan will process hardwood pulpwood. A fourth 

facility located in Park Falls, Wisconsin, will process un-merchantable lumber and logging 

residues and other woody biomass. The fifth facility, located in Hugoton, Kansas, will process 

stover, switchgrass, and woody biomass. Current commercial scale starch bioethanol facilities, 

the vast majority of the existing ethanol biorefining industry, are not capable of converting 

woody biomass into ethanol without substantial additional equipment and retrofitting under 

current technology regimes. 

In an effort to encourage the growth of second generation biofuels feedstock production, such as 

perennial grasses, crop residues, forestry products, and waste, Congress established the 

Cellulosic Biofuel Producer Tax Credit (CBPTC). The CBPTC, created under the Food, 

 

19 Perlack, R.D., L.L. Wright, A.F. Turhollow, R.L. Graham, B.J. Stokes, and D. C. Erbach, DOE and USDA, 2005, 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/final_billionton_vision_report2.pdf, accessed, March, 2011. 

20 SunGrant Initiative, North Central Biomass Energy Feedstock Partnership, http://bio-energy.ornl.gov/main.aspx, accessed 

March 21, 2011. 

21 DOE and USDA, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/integrated_bio-refineries.html, March 21, 2011. 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report.

13

Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (2008 Farm Bill), provides producers of ethanol from 

cellulosic feedstocks an income tax credit of up to $1.01 per gallon of the ethanol produced. 

However, the CBPTC expires December 31, 2012.22 The USDA Biorefinery Assistance Program 

provides loan guarantees for the development and construction of commercial-scale biorefineries 

or for retrofitting existing facilities using eligible technologies. 

The DOE contracted with Oak Ridge National Laboratory to prepare a document called the 

Biomass Energy Data Book. Now in its third edition, the Biomass Energy Data Book 

incorporates DOE Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates of biomass energy 

utilization and availability along with data from industry groups. The Biomass Energy Data 

Book states: 

“Since most of the biomass resources currently being used for energy are 

residuals from industrial, agricultural or forestry activities, there is no way to 

systematically inventory biomass feedstock collection and use and report it in 

standard units. All biomass resource availability and utilization information 

available in the literature are estimates, not inventories of actual collection and 

utilization. Biomass utilization information is derived from biomass energy 

production data, but relies on assumptions about energy content and conversion 

efficiencies for each biomass type and conversion technology. Biomass 

availability data relies on understanding how much of a given biomass type (e.g., 

corn grain) is produced, alternate demands for that biomass type, economic 

profitability associated with each of those alternate demands, environmental 

impacts of collection of the biomass, and other factors such as incentives.... In 

all cases it should be recognized that estimates are not precise and different 

assumptions will change the results.”

Finally, the solicitation and contract address woody biomass ―crops.‖ Much of the woody 

biomass available for energy is not purpose grown. Construction debris, woodlot trimmings, 

stumps, and other byproducts have been used for energy. However, these materials are not crops 

and consequently have not been addressed as such in this report. Instead, the Contractor has 

focused efforts on obtaining data on purpose-grown woody biomass crops grown for any 

purpose, and not just on such crops grown for energy. 

II.A. Congressional Mandated Biomass Activities 

The 2008 Farm Bill (Public Law 110-234) was a $288 billion, five-year agricultural policy bill 

enacted in June 2008. The bill continues many elements of the 2002 Farm Bill, and substantially 

increases support for the production of cellulosic ethanol. The 2008 Farm Bill creates and funds 

programs to support production of biomass crops while providing matching payments to 

producers for harvest, transportation, and storage of biomass delivered to refineries. The bill 

also provides for loan guarantees for commercial scale and funding for grants to support 

retrofitting existing biorefineries for production using biomass feedstocks. 

 

22 DOE and USDA, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/current_state_of_the_us_ethanol_industry.pdf.
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report.

14

The bill continues funding for the Biomass Research and Development program. 

SEC. 15322. COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF BIO-FUELS. 

(a) Study- The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of 

Agriculture, the Secretary of Energy, and the Administrator of the 

Environmental Protection Agency, shall enter into an agreement with the 

National Academy of Sciences to produce an analysis of current scientific 

findings to determine--

(1) current bio-fuels production, as well as projections for future 

production, 

(2) the maximum amount of bio-fuels production capable in United States 

forests and farmlands, including the current quantities and character 

of the feedstocks and including such information as regional forest 

inventories that are commercially available, used in the production of 

bio-fuels,

(3) the domestic effects of an increase in bio-fuels production levels, 

including the effects of such levels on--

(A) the price of fuel, 

(B) the price of land in rural and suburban communities, 

(C) crop acreage, forest acreage, and other land use, 

(D) the environment, due to changes in crop acreage, fertilizer use, 

runoff, water use, emissions from vehicles utilizing bio-fuels, and 

other factors, 

(E) the price of feed, 

(F) the selling price of grain crops and forest products, 

(G) exports and imports of grains and forest products, 

(H) taxpayers, through cost or savings to commodity crop payments, 

and

(I) the expansion of refinery capacity, 

(4) the ability to convert corn ethanol plants for other uses, such as 

cellulosic ethanol or biodiesel, 

(5) a comparative analysis of corn ethanol versus other bio-fuels and 

renewable energy sources, considering cost, energy output, and ease 

of implementation, 

(6) the impact of the tax credit established by this subpart on the regional 

agricultural and silvicultural capabilities of commercially available 

forest inventories, and 

(7) the need for additional scientific inquiry, and specific areas of interest 

for future research. 

(b) Report- The Secretary of the Treasury shall submit an initial report of the 

findings of the study required under subsection (a) to Congress not later 

than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act (36 months after 

such date in the case of the information required by subsection (a)(6)), 

and a final report not later than 12 months after such date (42 months 

after such date in the case of the information required by subsection 

(a)(6)). 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report.

15

Under Title XII, section 15322, the 2008 Farm Bill calls for research activities addressing 

federally subsidized insurance for energy crops. Section 522(c) of the Federal Crop Insurance 

Act (7 U.S.C.1522) is amended—

(11) ENERGY CROP INSURANCE POLICY.—

(A) DEFINITION OF DEDICATED ENERGY CROP.—In this subsection, 

the term „dedicated energy crop‟ means an annual or perennial crop 

that—

(i) is grown expressly for the purpose of producing a feedstock for 

renewable bio-fuel, renewable electricity, or biobased products; and 

(ii) is not typically used for food, feed, or fiber. 

(B) AUTHORITY.—The Corporation shall offer to enter into 1 or more 

contracts with qualified entities to carry out research and development 

regarding a policy to insure dedicated energy crops. 

(C) RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.—Research and development 

described in subparagraph (B) shall evaluate the effectiveness of risk 

management tools for the production of dedicated energy crops, including 

policies and plans of insurance that—

(i) are based on market prices and yields; 

(ii) to the extent that insufficient data exist to develop a policy based on 

market prices and yields, evaluate the policies and plans of insurance 

based on the use of weather or rainfall indices to protect the interests 

of crop producers; and 

(iii) provide protection for production or revenue losses, or both. 

II.B. Research Approach 

In general, the Contractor sought first to develop an understanding of relevant literature on shortrotation woody species, current economic conditions, available government and private data, and 

characteristics of the industry sectors. After systematic analysis, the Contractor organized this 

report on quantitative data availability for short-rotation woody species. The focus of the 

research is to provide information about woody biofuel feedstock data. The data collection study 

focuses on woody biomass products that are or can be commercially grown in the United States. 

The resulting report is designed assist RMA in determining if it is practical to proceed with a 

feasibility study on federal insurance of woody biofuel feedstock. 

All told, the research literature available is vast. An internet search revealed relatively little 

relevant data, offering a poor starting point for an exhaustive literature review. A search on 

―forest‖ produces 728,000,000 hits; a search on ―tree farms‖ produces more than 1.5 million hits. 

Adding the term ―yields‖ to the tree farm search cuts the number of relevant pages in half. 

However, many of the referenced yields focus on ornamental nursery or Christmas tree 

production, which do not provide data on biomass. Adding the term ―biomass‖ or ―bio-mass‖ 

drops the count to just over 7,000. Of these, very few include any quantitative data. 

There are also numerous professional journals addressing tree production, including: 

 Forestry, published since 1927 and described at http://forestry.oxfordjournals.org/, 

 Journal of Forestry, published since 1903 and described at 

http://www.safnet.org/publications/jof/, 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report.

16

 Forest Science, published since 1955 and described at 

http://www.safnet.org/publications/forscience/index.cfm, and 

 Journal of Sustainable Forestry, published since 1992 and described at 

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/aboutThisJournal? 

show=aimsScope&journalCode=wjsf20. 

Additional resources are found in the more recent literature addressing biomass production for 

energy, including journals such as Biomass and Bio-energy (published since 1991 and described 

at http://www.journals.elsevier.com/ biomass-and-bio-energy/), and online Journals like Biofuels (published since 2010 and described at http://www.future-science.com/loi/bfs). Again, few 

of the articles in these journals address woody biomass crop production from an agronomic 

perspective; most of the focus on yields is on predictive forecasts and/or one-off, small-plot field 

trials. 

The information explosion threatens to swamp the limited quantitative information available in a 

flood of other material that has no meaningful quantitative content. Most issues of many 

journals addressing forestry and biomass production contain no relevant data. Consequently, the 

Contractor needed to develop a strategy to collect any meaningful data for this report. The 

Contractor therefore focused on identifying the available data addressing the following concepts 

relevant to crop insurance development: 

1) Production: The amount of a crop grown and harvested in a given time period. The 

units of production for woody biomass are generally cubic feet; cords (128 cubic feet); 

cubic yards or meters (generally for chips); green tons; and short, long, or metric tons dry 

weight. For the purpose of insurance development the Contractor determined a time 

period longer than five years is not useful. For example, knowing that a certain number 

of dry weight tons were harvested after 50 years of growth provides no information 

useful to the development of insurance. For the purpose of insurance development, the 

Contractor also considered the possibility that changes in standing inventory per unit time 

represents an alternative measure of production.

2) Yield: The amount of a crop grown and harvested in a given unit of area. The units of 

yield for woody biomass are generally cubic feet (yards, meters, etc.) per acre; cords per 

acre; green tons per acre; and short, long, or metric tons dry weight per acre. For the 

purpose of insurance development, the Contractor also considered the possibility that 

changes in standing inventory per unit area represents an alternative measure of yield.

3) Price: The cost to purchase a given unit volume of the crop. The units of price for 

woody biomass in the United States are generally expressed in dollars per cubic foot 

(yard, meter); dollars per cord; dollars per green ton; and dollars per short, long, or metric 

ton dry weight. Contract and open market prices have been consistent and relatively 

stable, although regional differences have been noted. 

The Solicitation requires the data report include crop descriptions that include both the common 

and scientific names for the crop, the crop‘s life cycle, and the parts of the cropped plants to be 

used as a biorefinery feedstock. The Contractor also sought data on the number of producers, 

planted acreage, harvested acreage, total production, value, yield, and prices received for the last 

five crop years at national, state, and county levels. The Contractor was unable to identify any 

sources for such data. If they exist, they are closely-held and proprietary. 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report.

17

The energy utilization of the woody biomass crops (i.e., for biofuel, electricity, or biobased 

products), as the DOE Biomass Report explains, is poorly documented. Processing 

infrastructure locations and capacity of biorefineries that can handle woody biomass are 

documented in Appendix A. However, it is important to note that most of the refineries listed 

have either only recently gone online or are still under development. These refineries cannot yet 

supply information relevant to their pricing mechanisms and the market dynamics of their 

feedstock materials. 

Only limited production and market data on cropped woody biomass species from acceptable 

sources exist. Consequently, the Contractor provides an overview of the missing data. This 

provides the reader with an understanding of the information constraints of the individual crops, 

perhaps the single most important aspect of assessing feasibility of using quantitative data for 

non-parametric development of crop insurance for an emerging crop. Should the Government 

choose to further pursue an insurance development, this information could be used to establish 

new data collection efforts that could eventually provide a path to insurance feasibility for these 

data-sparse crops. 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report.

18

SECTION III. SHORT-ROTATION WOODY SPECIES 

Short-rotation woody biomass species are grown to produce large quantities of biomass in a short 

period. The economic potential for these short-rotation species is enhanced by use of improved 

genetics and management practices. Due to their rapid growth, short-rotation woody species 

might include birch, Douglas fir, Eucalyptus, juniper, larch, Magnolia, poplar, Norway spruce, 

pine, and willows. 

Birch 

Birch trees are small to medium sized, perennial, deciduous, broadleaf trees in the genus Betula

(Family Betulaceae). The genus includes 30 to 60 species widely distributed in the Northern 

Hemisphere. Most of these birch species grow in temperate environments, although some are 

boreal. The rapid growth characteristic of birch produces wood that contains less lignin than 

many hardwoods, resulting in a relatively weak structure. Consequently, birches are more 

susceptible to damage due to physical stress (e.g., icing or winds). This creates a dilemma for 

crop production, since rapid growth is desirable for accumulation of biomass, while slower 

growth results in desirable tolerance of stressful conditions. 

Birch trees have been cultivated as an energy crop, although most available data are from sample 

plots in northern European locations.23

 Species with documented potential as an energy crop 

include Betula nigra, Betula pendula, and Betula pubescens. Birch for energy is generally 

planted as seed or nursery seedlings and is ready for harvest in 8 to 15 years. Most of the aboveground biomass can be harvested for its embodied energy. The birch trees can be coppiced24

after the first harvest, with a second harvest accelerated by 2 to 3 years. Generally, after the 

coppice harvest, the field must be reconditioned and replanted. Depending on the reconditioning 

processes, biomass in the root system may be available for harvest during the reconditioning. 

Douglas Fir 

Douglas fir range from medium to large size, perennial, evergreen, coniferous trees in the genus 

Pseudotsuga (Family Pinaceae). The genus includes five species: three in North America and 

two in Asia. Most of these species grow in temperate forests, primarily in moist mountainous 

environments. The wood of Douglas fir contains substantial quantities of lignin, terpenes,25 and 

resins. These compounds improve the quality of the wood for use as lumber. The terpenes and 

resins complicate the processes for production of biofuels from the Douglas fir biomass. 

 

23 Vande Walle, I., N. Van Camp, L. Van de Casteele, K. Verheyen, and R. Lemeu. 2007, Short-rotation forestry of birch, maple, 

poplar and willow in Flanders (Belgium) I—Biomass production after 4 years of tree growth, Biomass and Bio-energy 31: 

267-275. 

Aylott, M.J., E. Casella, I. Tubby, N.R. Street, P. Smith, and G. Taylor, 2008, Yield and spatial supply of bio-energy poplar 

and willow short-rotation coppice in the UK, New Phytologist 178: 358–370; Hytönen, J. and L. Aro, 2010, Biomass 

production of birch on cut-away peatlands – energy wood with short rotation?, 

http://www.metla.fi/hanke/3479/doc/posteri.pdf, accessed September, 2011. 

Mola-Yudego, B. and P. Aronsson, 2008, Yield models for commercial willow biomass plantations in Sweden, Biomass and 

Bio-energy 32: 829–837. 

24 Coppicing is the process of allowing stumps to regenerate stems which can be harvested for their energy content. Biomass 

accumulation is facilitated by the growth of coppice stems from an existing root system. 

25 Terpenes are a class of organic compounds found in abundance in conifers. They are generally volatile hydrocarbons, and are 

also found are as constituents of essential oils.
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report.

19

Douglas fir from natural stands and plantations have been harvested for lumber. The wood is 

dense and has relatively high energy content per wet weight unit; this limits the costs for drying 

and transportation. To date, most Douglas fir wood for energy has been derived from forest 

thinning and lumber yard wastes. These wastes have been converted to clean-burning fuel 

pellets with a high embodied heat content and relatively little ash. 26

 The value of the lumber for 

construction may limit the potential for use of Douglas fir for biomass feedstock. 

Douglas fir trees have historically been cultivated to replace harvested lumber trees and are 

among the most commonly grown Christmas tree species. The trees used for Christmas tree 

production have been selected for their uniform and rapid growth, but not necessarily for 

production of biomass. Douglas firs are generally planted as nursery seedlings and are ready for 

harvest as an energy crop in 10 to 25 years.27

 Plantation Douglas firs can be harvested for lumber 

after 30 to 40 years, although much of the harvested lumber wood is from older plantations. Mill 

wastes from these harvests can be diverted to provide biomass as a biofuels feedstock. 

Conifers have little or no potential for coppicing. Consequently, following harvest, Douglas fir 

fields must be reconditioned and replanted. While biomass in the root system would technically 

be available for harvest during the reconditioning, removal of these root systems has not been 

reported as a management practice.28

Eucalyptus 

The genus Eucalyptus is in Family Myrtaceae. The genus includes about 700 perennial, woody 

species occurring primarily in Australia. While some of the species are shrubs, many are trees 

with single or multiple boles. The mature trees vary in height, with the largest growing to over 

200 feet. 

Eucalyptus plantations have been established outside their native range in many tropical and 

subtropical regions. Extensive plantations have been established in South Africa, Brazil, Chile, 

India, Spain, and Portugal. Industrial plantations of Eucalyptus have been established on a 

modest scale in Florida. 29 Eucalyptus has been cultivated as an energy crop in Hawaii.30 Species 

shown to have potential as an energy crop include Eucalyptus ampifolia, E. grandis, E. robusta

E. saligna, and E. urophylla. A highly productive hybrid, E. grandis x E. urophylla, modified 

 

26 Armstrong Pellets, Inc., 2011, Armstrong Premium Wood Pellet Fuel, http://www.armstrongpellets.com/pellets.html, accessed 

September, 2011. 

27 Mitchell, C.P., 1984, An Experimental Study of Short Rotation Forestry for Energy, in Solar Energy R & D in the European 

Community, Reidel, 5: 88-95, 

http://books.google.com/books?id=lXBhn2RPIvEC&pg=PA89&lpg=PA89&dq=douglas+fir+for+energy+short+rotation&sour

ce=bl&ots=UpJ642T87s&sig=TCVL_e3JaTvgh8c7NAmm_t4Tts8&hl=en#, accessed September, 2011; 

Zumrawi, A.A. and D.W. Hann, 1993, Diameter Growth Equations for Douglas-fir and Grand Fir in the Western Willamette 

Valley of Oregon, Research Contribution 4, Oregon State University, Forest Research Laboratory, 

http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1957/7618/RC4.pdf;jsessionid=4D7BC90BE6FE98BBDBA9E668999

39603?sequence=1, accessed September, 2011. 

28 Talbert, C., and D. Marshall, 2005, Plantation Productivity in the Douglas-Fir Region Under Intensive Silvicultural Practices: 

Results from Research and Operations, Journal of Forestry 103: 65-70, 

http://courses.washington.edu/esrm427/Talbert_Marshall_Plantations.pdf, accessed November, 2011. 

29 Segrest, S.A. Rockwood, D.L. Stricker, J.A. Green, A.E.S. (1998). Energy crop yields for Eucalyptus and cottonwood, 

http://www.treepower.org/yields/main.html 

30 Whitesell, C.D., D.S. DeBell, T.H. Schubert, R.F. Strand, and T.B. Crabb, 1992. Short-rotation management of Eucalyptus: 

guidelines for plantations in Hawaii. Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 

http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr137/psw_gtr137.pdf, Accessed September, 2011. 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report.

20

through biotechnology to tolerate freezing, allows production in areas of the southeastern United 

States that would otherwise be too cold. The yields obtained from cold-tolerant Eucalyptus are 

predicted to meet targets set by the DOE for long-term energy production. Eucalyptus for energy 

is generally planted as asexually propagated nursery cuttings and is ready for harvest in five to 

eight years. It can be coppiced after the first harvest, with a second harvest accelerated by one to 

three years. There has been some success with second coppice harvests, although growth during 

this third cycle is slower than if the field is reconditioned and replanted after the coppice harvest.

Inasmuch as most Eucalyptus species produce substantial quantities and varieties of aromatic 

compounds, disease and insect problems are limited. However, the tropical origin of these 

species makes them particularly susceptible to cool and cold temperature damage. While the 

Contractor was not able to find information focused on replanting harvested Eucalyptus

plantations, it seems logical that the biomass in the root system would be available for harvest

during the field reconditioning process.

Juniper 

Junipers are small to medium in size, perennial, evergreen, coniferous trees and shrubs in the 

genus Juniperus (Family Cupressaceae). The genus includes more than 50 species, widely 

distributed in North and South America, Eurasia, and Africa. The wood of junipers contains 

substantial quantities of aromatic compounds that tend to color the wood in shades of red. 

Natural stands of junipers have been harvested for fuel, lumber, and craft woods. The wood is 

dense and has a relatively high energy content. Most cultivated junipers are grown for 

horticultural purposes. As a conifer, junipers have limited potential for coppicing. 

Consequently, following harvest, replanted of fields would be required. The Contractor found no 

reference to junipers being used as a short-rotation biomass or bioenergy crop. 

Larch 

Larches are medium to large in size, perennial, deciduous, coniferous trees in the genus Larix

(Family Pinaceae). The genus includes at least ten species growing primarily in the northern 

portions of the Northern Hemisphere. Larches are particularly common in Canada and Russia. 

Most of these species grow in boreal forests, often in moist environments otherwise not suitable 

for agricultural production. Larch is an unusual conifer; it is deciduous, whereas most plants in 

the family are evergreen. The wood of most larch species contains relatively low amounts of 

terpenes and resins. Natural stands of larch trees have been harvested for lumber and fuel. Some 

plantation growth of larches in Asia and Europe is documented, but despite a substantial effort, 

the Contractor did not identify any data on the use of larch as a short-rotation biomass or 

bioenergy crop. 

Magnolia 

Magnolia are small to large sized, perennial, deciduous, flowering trees and shrubs in the Family 

Magnoliaceae. The genus includes approximately 200 species growing throughout the temperate 

world. Magnolia have been propagated primarily for horticultural purposes. They hybridize 

freely. Despite a substantial effort, the Contractor did not identify any data on the use of 

Magnolia as a short-rotation biomass or bioenergy crop. 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report.

21

Norway Spruce 

Norway spruce trees (Picea abies in the family Pinaceae) are large, perennial, evergreen, 

coniferous trees native to Europe. Norway spruces are widely planted in the northeastern, 

Pacific Northwestern, and Rocky Mountain states. As a result of early plantation plantings, 

naturalized populations have developed in the northeastern quarter of the United States.31

 

While the wood of Norway spruce contains substantial quantities of lignin, terpenes, and resins, 

these compounds improve the quality of the wood for use as lumber. Nonetheless, the terpenes 

and resins complicate the processes for production of biofuels from the Norway spruce biomass. 

To date, most Norway spruce wood for energy has been derived from forest thinning and lumber 

yard wastes. These wastes have been converted to clean-burning fuel pellets with a high 

embodied heat content and relatively little ash. 

Norway spruces are planted as nursery seedlings. They have been cultivated to replace harvested 

lumber trees. Plantation Norway spruce can be harvested for lumber after 50 to 75 years, 

although older plantations exist. Mill wastes from harvests of Norway spruce can be diverted to 

provide biomass as a biofuels feedstock. Since the most rapid period of growth occurs during 

the first 15 to 25 years, biomass harvests would likely occur earlier than lumber harvests. 

Norway spruce cannot be coppiced. Therefore, Norway spruce fields must be reconditioned and 

replanted following harvest. While field reconditioning would provide the opportunity to harvest 

biomass from the root system, to date it appears biomass and biofuels from Norway spruce are 

produced from forest and mill wastes. 

Pine 

Pines are small to large in size, perennial, coniferous trees and shrubs in the genus Pinus (Family 

Pinaceae), valued as a source of wood pulp and lumber. The genus includes more than 100 

species. Most of these species grow in temperate or boreal forests throughout the world, often in 

mountainous environments. The wood of pines, like the wood of most conifers, contains 

substantial quantities of lignin, terpenes, and resins. In temperate and tropical plantations, they 

grow rapidly and can be grown in relatively dense stands. The wood of pines grown in 

plantations is more dense and resinous than the wood of spruce, but less dense than the wood of 

Douglas fir. To date, most pine wood for energy has been derived from forest thinning and 

lumber mill wastes.32 

Pines are planted to replace harvested lumber trees and some species are grown as Christmas tree 

species. The trees for Christmas tree production have been selected for uniform and rapid 

growth, but biomass production is selected against in this practice. Pines are generally planted as 

 

31 Sullivan, J, 1994, Picea abies. In: Fire Effects Information System, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/, accessed November, 2011. 

32 Eisenbies, M.H., E.D. Vance, W.M. Aust, and J R. Seiler, 2009, Intensive Utilization of Harvest Residues in Southern Pine 

Plantations: Quantities Available and Implications for Nutrient Budgets and Sustainable Site Productivity, Bio-energy 

Research 2: 90-98, http://ddr.nal.usda.gov/bitstream/10113/36119/1/IND44249891.pdf, accessed November, 2011. 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report.

22

seedlings and would be ready for harvest as an energy crop in 15 to 20 years.33 Seedlings from 

tissue culture modified using biotechnological processes are expected to accelerate growth rates

and reduce rotation times. A doubling of typical normal biomass production is expected. 

Loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) and slash pine (Pinus elliottii) are among the more common species 

planted in southern states for pulp and are expected to be among the common biomass species as 

well.34 A large variety of species are used in northern plantations where growth is slower. 

Plantation pine can be harvested for lumber after 30 to 40 years. Mill wastes from these harvests 

can be diverted to provide biomass as a biofuels feedstock. Conifers have little or no potential 

for coppicing; consequently, following harvest, pine fields must be reconditioned and replanted. 

In southern plantations where the soil is loose, pines planted for pulp can be pulled from the 

ground, capturing the biomass in the root system. 

Poplar 

Poplars are small to medium sized, perennial, deciduous, broadleaf trees in the genus Populus

(Family Salicaceae). The genus includes more than 20 species widely distributed in the Northern 

Hemisphere including plants identified by the common names poplar, aspen, and cottonwood. 

The species hybridize freely and have been manipulated as a fuelwood genus for more than 50 

years.35 Most poplar species grow readily in a variety of temperate settings, with slower growth 

in boreal environments. 

Hybrid poplars have been cultivated as an experimental energy crop in Europe and North 

America, although most of the available data are from small sample plots.36

 Hybrids with 

documented potential as an energy crop are produced from P. tremuloides, P. maximowiczii, P. 

nigra, and P. trichocarpa. Poplars grown for energy or biomass are generally planted as nursery 

seedlings derived clonally, often from tissue cultures that have been genetically modified. 

Several genes brought into the poplar hybrids have increased growth as much as 20 to 40 percent

through a variety of mechanisms.37

 Clonal hybrid poplars are ready for harvest in five to ten

years. Most of the above-ground biomass can be harvested for its embodied energy. The trees 

 

33 Mitchell, C.P., 1984, An Experimental Study of Short Rotation Forestry for Energy, in Solar Energy R & D in the European 

Community (Reidel) 5: 88-95, http://books.google.com/books?id=lXBhn2RPIvEC&pg=PA89&lpg=PA89&dq 

=douglas+fir+for+energy+short+rotation&source=bl&ots=UpJ642T87s&sig=TCVL_e3JaTvgh8c7NAmm_t4Tts8&hl=en#, 

accessed September, 2011; 

Zumrawi, A.A. and D.W. Hann, 1993, Diameter Growth Equations for Douglas-fir and Grand Fir in the Western Willamette 

Valley of Oregon, Research Contribution 4, Oregon State University, Forest Research Laboratory, 

http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1957/7618/RC4.pdf;jsessionid=4D7BC90BE6FE98BBDBA9E668999

39603?sequence=1, accessed September, 2011. 

34 Vermis, W. 2008, Genetic Improvement of Bio-energy Crops, Springer-Verlag, New York, p. 397. 

35 Frysville Farm, 2011, History of Hybrid Poplar, http://www.frysvillefarms.com/history.htm, accessed November, 2011. 

36 Vande Walle, I., N. Van Camp, L. Van de Casteele, K. Verheyen, and R. Lemeu. 2007, Short-rotation forestry of birch, maple, 

poplar and willow in Flanders (Belgium) I—Biomass production after 4 years of tree growth, Biomass and Bio-energy 31: 

267-275; 

Aylott, M.J., E. Casella, I. Tubby, N.R. Street, P. Smith, and G. Taylor, 2008, Yield and spatial supply of bio-energy poplar 

and willow short-rotation coppice in the UK, New Phytologist 178: 358–370, 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2008.02396.x/full, accessed October and November, 2011; 

Hytönen, J. and L. Aro, 2010, Biomass production of birch on cut-away peatlands – energy wood with short rotation?, 

http://www.metla.fi/hanke/3479/doc/posteri.pdf, accessed September, 2011;. 

Mola-Yudego, B. and P. Aronsson, 2008, Yield models for commercial willow biomass plantations in Sweden, Biomass and 

Bio-energy 32: 829–837. 

37 Shani, Z., M. Dekel, G Tsabary, R. Goren, and O. Shoseyov, 2004, Growth enhancement of transgenic poplar plants by over 

expression of Arbidopsis thaliana endo-1,4-β–glucanase, Molecular Breeding 14: ̈321-330. 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report.

23

can be coppiced after the first harvest, with a second harvest accelerated by two to three years. 

Generally, after two coppice harvests, the stumps have grown too large for efficient biomass 

production. Consequently, the field is reconditioned and replanted. Depending on the 

reconditioning processes, some biomass in the root system may be available for harvest during 

the reconditioning. 

Willows 

Willows are small to large in size, perennial, deciduous, broadleaf trees in the genus Salix

(Family Salicaceae). The genus includes 200 species widely distributed in the Northern 

Hemisphere. In contrast to the other types discussed, willows are a fast growing woody shrub. 

Initial field trials with Salix biomass production were conducted as early as the mid-1970‘s in 

Sweden.38 More than 400 hectares (approximately 1,000 acres) of commercial willow biomass 

crops were under production in Sweden by 2006. 

Willows can be grown on agricultural land, including land with limited production potential for 

other crops in the northeastern, midwestern, and parts of the southeastern United States. If 

weeds are controlled by chemical and/or mechanical means, high yields of Salix spp. can be 

sustained on three to four year rotations. Once a suitable variety has been selected, the crop can 

be propagated by planting dormant stem cuttings. Young trees are coppiced to stimulate branch 

formation. The shrubs then grow for three to five years. Forage harvesters with speciallyengineered heads cut the crop two to four inches above the ground, feeding the harvested 

material into a chopper to produce chips that are collected immediately after cutting. 

Research is underway to refine agronomic practices for new willow varieties. Salix shrubs, with 

the ability to re-sprout even after several harvest cycles, have been selected for biomass 

production. Willow is being cropped on a commercial scale in Sweden39 and in other countries 

commercial production is being encouraged through initiatives such as the Willow Biomass 

Project in the United States and the Energy Coppice Project in the United Kingdom. 

Most of the available data for willow are from small sample plots.40 Clonal hybrid willows are 

ready for harvest in three to five years. Most of the above-ground biomass can be harvested for 

its embodied energy. The trees can be coppiced after harvest, with the next harvest accelerated 

by one to three years. As many as half a dozen coppice harvests might be possible before the 

stump structure becomes limiting. Then the field needs to be replanted. Depending on the field 

 

38 Volk, T.A., L.P. Abrahamson, C.A. Nowak, L.B. Smart, P.J. Tharakan, and E.H. White, 2006, The development of shortrotation willow in the northeastern United States for bio-energy and bioproducts, agroforestry and phytoremediation, Biomass 

& Bio-energy 30: 715-27, http://www.mendeley.com/research/development-shortrotation-willow-northeastern-united-statesbio-energy-bioproducts-agroforestry-phytoremediation-1/, accessed November, 2011. 

39 Mola-Yudego, B. and P. Aronsson, 2008, Yield models for commercial willow biomass plantations in Sweden Biomass and 

Bio-energy 32: 829–837, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096195340800007X, accessed November, 2011. 

40 Vande Walle, I., N. Van Camp, L. Van de Casteele, K. Verheyen, and R. Lemeu. 2007, Short-rotation forestry of birch, maple, 

poplar and willow in Flanders (Belgium) I—Biomass production after 4 years of tree growth, Biomass and Bio-energy 31: 

267-275; 

Aylott, M.J., E. Casella, I. Tubby, N.R. Street, P. Smith, and G. Taylor, 2008, Yield and spatial supply of bio-energy poplar 

and willow short-rotation coppice in the UK, New Phytologist 178: 358–370, 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2008.02396.x/full, accessed October and November, 2011; 

Hytönen, J. and L. Aro, 2010, Biomass production of birch on cut-away peatlands – energy wood with short rotation?, 

http://www.metla.fi/hanke/3479/doc/posteri.pdf, accessed September, 2011;. 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report.

24

preparation processes, biomass in the root system may be available for harvest during the 

reconditioning.
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report.

25

SECTION IV. GOVERNMENT DATA 

The Contractor examined potential data from government and private sources for use in the 

development of insurance products. The government sources examined included NASS, ERS, 

FSA, and FS, as well as the DOE. 

IV.A. USDA Data 

NASS is the primary data collection and statistical estimating service of the USDA. Its data 

series are widely used by producers, businesses, and researchers. Major commodity crop data 

are collected both annually and as an element of the Census of Agriculture. The Contractor was 

not able to identify any NASS production or pricing data dealing with woody biomass crops, 

firewood, or pulpwood. The Contractor‘s search of NASS documents on forests, pulpwood, and 

firewood did not identify any relevant empirical data for the development of crop insurance for 

woody biomass crops grown as biofuel feedstocks. From an extensive search of available data, it 

does not appear time-series data relevant to woody biomass crops are maintained by NASS. 

The Census of Agriculture does report on sales of forest products (excluding short-rotation 

woody crops) (see for example Tables 7, 58, 59, and 60 in Chapter 1, Volume 1 of the 2007 

Census of Agriculture41) and on agronomic characteristics of Christmas trees and short rotation 

woody crops collectively (see for example Tables 2, 7, and 40 in Chapter 1, Volume 1 of the 

2007 Census). Inasmuch as the short-rotation woody crops are excluded in the first instance and 

aggregated with irrelevant data in the second, these Census data are not useful for the 

development of insurance. Tables 38 in Chapter 1 and 37 in Chapter 2 (Appendix B, Exhibit 1) 

provide some data about number of producers, planted acreage, harvested acreage, total 

production, value, or yield of short-rotation woody crops. However, the Census defines these 

crops as ―crops that grow from seed to a mature tree in 10 years or less. These are trees for use 

by the paper or pulp industry or as engineered wood. This does not include lumber. Acres in 

production were included in Cropland harvested in the ―Land‖ section of the report form.‖ 

Consequently, based on this definition, the values concerning producer populations in these 

tables included producers who do not grow biorefinery feedstocks and most likely exclude some 

who do. 

The USDA Economic Research Service (ERS) collects data and provides analysis on crop 

product supply and demand, as well as information on industry structure, pricing, trade, 

production policies, production systems, and processing. The ERS reports regarding this sector 

focus on biofuels, biorefinery activities, and woody biomass in general, rather than documenting 

yield, production, or markets for woody biomass quantitatively based on empirical data. The 

Contractor‘s search for ERS documents on pulpwood and firewood did not identify any 

empirical data relevant to the development of crop insurance for woody biomass crops grown as 

biofuel feedstocks. 

FSA provides financial assistance to producers facing losses from natural disaster (i.e., drought, 

flood, fire, freeze, tornadoes, pest infestation, and other ―calamities‖). The SOW requires 

documentation of ―NAP payments, disaster program payments, and other government payments‖

made for woody biomass crops in the last five years, by state and county. To address this 

 

41 USDA, 2009, 2007 Census of Agriculture, http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/usv1.pdf. 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report.

26

requirement, the Contractor made a FOIA request for these data to the USDA FSA. 42 The 

Contractor also made a general request for information about disaster payments for woody 

biomass crops to state FSA offices (Appendix C). No data documenting such disaster payments 

were provided under either the national or state-level requests. Many of the responding FSA 

offices also indicated they had no data on production, yield, or price of woody biomass crops.

FSA‘s Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP) provides payments to producers of 

non-insurable crops when low yields, loss of inventory, or prevented planting occur due to a 

natural disaster. The Contractor was not able to identify any use of the NAP program to 

indemnify against losses of woody biomass intended for use as biorefinery feedstock. This is not 

surprising for a number of reasons. First, consider the extremely limited incorporation of woody 

biomass as biorefinery feedstock into producers‘ cash crop portfolios. Second, the structure of 

NAP records does not identify the intended use of an indemnified crop. Finally, eligible crops 

under the NAP do not include woody biomass crops. Trees are specifically excluded under the 

fiber crop category.43 Other FSA disaster programs are generally linked to the NAP program or 

to existing insurance under the RMA crop insurance programs. As a result, it would be 

surprising if any ―NAP payments, disaster program payments, and other government payments‖

were made to address losses of production or revenue.

Research has been part of the FS mission since the service was founded in 1905; the research 

covers all states, territories, and commonwealths administered to by the federal government. The 

FS research focuses on ―informing policy and land management decisions.‖

44

 The information 

derived from this research, including aggregated data, is publicly available. Every five years the 

FS prepares national reports describing current conditions and recent trends in the health, 

diversity, and productivity of forests, along with related socioeconomic information about 

forests. Prospective reports that look ahead 50 years are also produced. 

The Quantitative Sciences section of the Research and Development branch of the FS maintains 

forestry data for the FS. The Quantitative Sciences section activities include maintenance of the 

Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) Program (http://www.fia.fs.fed.us/). The FIA dataset is the 

most comprehensive dataset for woody biomass in existence, containing terabytes of data.45

Forest Inventory Online (FIDO), a data-mining tool, provides public access to the data in the FIA 

databases. FIDO creates both standard and customizable reports on public and private forest 

land. (Standard reports are located at the following web address: 

http://apps.fs.fed.us/fido/standardrpt.html, while customizable reports are at: 

http://apps.fs.fed.us/fido/customrpt.html) 

FIA origins can be found in the McSweeney-McNary Forest Research Act of 1928 (P.L. 70-466 

45 stat. 699). That act authorized a nationwide survey of all acreage of forest land under all 

 

42 Sue Ellen Sloca, FOIA Advisor, USDA, FSA, 1400 Independence Ave. SW, Room 3617, Mailstop 0506, Washington, D.C. 

20250, 202-720-1598, sueellen.sloca@wdc.usda.gov. 

43 USDA FSA, 2009, Program Fact Sheet: Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program for 2009 and Subsequent Years, 

http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/nap09.pdf, Accessed October, 2011. 

44 USDA, FS, 2005, Forest Service Research and Development: Science You Can Use, FS-832. inside cover. 

45 Dr. Richard Guldin, Director, Quantitative Sciences, USDA, FS, 1400 Independence Ave., S.W., Washington, DC 20250-

1120, 1-703-605-4177, rguldin@fs.fed.us. 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report.

27

types of ownership. The first FS survey, begun in 1930, was completed in 1947. Current 

inventories are based on technology rather than survey instruments, such as questionnaires. 

FIA incorporates data on public and private forestry resources including species (or species 

grouping), size (linear and volume measurements), health, growth, mortality, production, 

harvest, as well as utilization rates and ownership. These can be parsed temporally and 

geographically to at least the county level. 

The initial data currently used for the FIA inventories are satellite imagery. The data are parsed 

using a hexagonal geographic grid system with 250 acre ―tiles.‖ Computer analyses develop 

inventory elements for each grid hexagon first by classifying the scenes into forest and nonforest categories. Field locations with a sample distribution of approximately one for every 

6,000 acres are visited by field crews to collect forest ecosystem data. Over the years, these data 

have been used to develop algorithms to generate analyses of the satellite imagery. FIA program 

personnel develop ground-truth for a sample of the inventoried grids to assure the efficacy of the 

algorithms. Verification of the ground-truthing is performed by a second FIA team on a subsample of the ground-truthed tiles. 

On site ground-truthing does occur on private and state lands, but only with the permission of the 

owners. Alternate proximal ground-truthing locations are chosen if permission is not obtained. 

To protect privacy, FIA reports aggregate data in much the same way that NASS does. 

Consequently, the smallest standard reporting area is a county. Custom data reports for specific 

geographic locations are also controlled46 to assure no proprietary or private data are revealed in 

these reports. A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) shield is in place to further protect private 

data. Consequently, no ―farm-level‖ data for insurance development will be available from this 

dataset. 

Recently, the FS has enhanced the FIA program by changing from a periodic to an annual digital 

survey. However, it is important to note the ground-truthing protocol is repeated on a five-year 

cycle in the eastern part of the United States and a ten-year cycle in the western parts of the 

United States. 

Despite the limitations of the FS data, the Contractor extracted inventory data on birch, Douglas 

fir, Eucalyptus, juniper, larch, Magnolia, poplar, Norway spruce, pine, willows. The FS 

inventories include data on both natural and managed forests. However, data are aggregated to 

protect confidentiality of individuals (including corporations). Data were available in most states 

for some years between 2000 and 2010 (See Table 5). The more frequent reporting of some data 

in recent years is also evident in these data (Appendix B Exhibit 2). However, it is important to 

note the ground-truth activities are still constrained by the scope of this project and the enormous 

expanses of forested land in the United States. 

 

46 Dr. Richard Guldin of the FIA project with the FS, described this as making geographic extractions ―fuzzy.‖
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report.

28

Table 5. Availability of Net Tree Volume Data for Birch, Douglas fir, Eucalyptus, Juniper, 

Larch, Magnolia, Poplar, Norway Spruce, Pine, and/or Willow in the USDA FS FIA FIDO 

System by State and Years. 

State Years Data are Available

Alabama 2000 - 2010

Alaska 2003, 2009

Arizona 2008, 2009

Arkansas 2005 - 2010

California 2009

Colorado 2008, 2009

Connecticut 2005 - 2010

Delaware 2004 - 2010

Florida 2004, 2007, 2009, 2010

Georgia 2000 - 2010

Idaho 2008, 2009

Illinois 2003 - 2009

Indiana 2003 - 2010

Iowa 2003 - 2010

Kansas 2003 - 2009

Kentucky 2004 - 2010

Louisiana 2005

Maine 2003, 2005 - 2010

Maryland 2004 - 2009

Massachusetts 2005 - 2010

Michigan 2003 - 2010

Minnesota 2003 - 2010

Mississippi 2006, 2010

Missouri 2003 - 2010

Montana 2008, 2009

Nebraska 2003 - 2010

Nevada 2005

New Hampshire 2005 - 2010

New Jersey 2004 - 2010

New Mexico none

New York 2005 - 2009

North Carolina 2002 - 2010

North Dakota 2003 - 2010

Ohio 2004 - 2009

Oklahoma 2008, 2010

Oregon 2009

Pennsylvania 2004 - 2009

Rhode Island 2005 - 2010

South Carolina 2001 - 2010

South Dakota 2003 - 2010

Tennessee 2000 - 2010

Texas 2003 - 2010

Utah 2008, 2009

Vermont 2005 - 2010

Virginia 2001 - 2003, 2005 - 2010

Washington 2009

West Virginia 2000, 2004 - 2009

Wisconsin 2003 - 2010

Wyoming 2000

Source: The Contractor‘s Research Department after USDA, FS, 

FIA, FIDO search by state for birch, Douglas fir, Eucalyptus, 

juniper, larch, Magnolia, poplar, Norway spruce, pine, and willow 

data. 

Dr. Richard Guldin, Director of Quantitative Sciences, USDA, FS, with primary responsibilities 

for the FIA dataset, indicated during a discussion that the natural mortality of inventoried trees 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report.

29

documented by the FIA project was quite low (averaging less than 0.75 percent per year, with a 

range of 0.73 percent to 0.79 percent). This raised the possibility that FIDO data might be used 

as a proxy for actual plantation mortality data. To explore this possibility, the Contractor 

examined data for species or species groups within FIDO that parallel potential biorefinery 

feedstocks plant types. The Contractor mined data on Periodic Annual Mortality, the measure of 

mortality available through FIA FIDO standard reports. The FS defines Periodic Annual 

Mortality as: 

“an estimate of the average annual volume of trees dying between two 

measurements, usually the current inventory and previous inventory, where the 

same plot is evaluated twice. Periodic annual mortality is the loss of volume 

between inventories divided by the number of years between each inventory. 

Periodic average annual mortality is the most common type of annual mortality 

estimated.”

47

Examining the mortality by species (or species group) by state, then by year, the Contractor 

notes remarkable differences between the general levels of mortality described by Dr. Guldin and 

the specific annual mortalities seen for a species or species group in a particular state (Tables 6-

17). 

Table 6. Cottonwood and Aspen (Group ID 37)48 Periodic Annual Mortality Average and 

Range by Year. 

Year

Average 

Mortality 

(percent)

Minimum 

(percent)

Maximum 

(percent)

Minimum 

State

Maximum 

State

2000

2002 0.55 0.55 0.55 Tennessee Tennessee

2003 0.11 0.00 0.76 Indiana Indiana

2004 3.24 0.00 3.66 Georgia Georgia

2005 2.75 0.00 4.93 Georgia South Carolina

2006 2.68 0.39 5.27 Illinois New York

2007 2.47 0.05 4.53 Kentucky North Carolina

2008 2.60 0.35 7.13 Maryland Delaware

2009 2.58 0.15 4.20 Virginia Kentucky

2010 2.74 0.15 16.71 Virginia Mississippi

Source: The Contractor‘s Research Department after USDA, FS, FIA, FIDO search by for Periodic 

Annual Mortality data by state and year.

 

47 Woudenberg, S.W., B.L. Conkling, B.M. O‘Connell, E.B. LaPoint, J.A. Turner, and K.L. Waddell, 2010, The Forest Inventory 

and Analysis Database: Database Description and Users Manual Version 4.0 for Phase 2, page 36, 

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr245.pdf, accessed November, 2011. 

This attribute is blank (null) for a plot if the plot does not contribute to the mortality estimate. 

48 The FS type categories reflect regional differences in species groupings. So, for example, the Type 37 cottonwoods and aspens 

are species growing in the moister eastern environments while Type 44 cottonwoods and aspens are found in the dryer 

mountainous environments (Appendix Appendix B, Exhibit 3). 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report.

30

Table 7. Cottonwood and Aspen (Group ID 44) Periodic Annual Mortality Average and 

Range by Year. 

Year

Average 

Mortality 

(percent)

Minimum 

(percent)

Maximum 

(percent)

Minimum 

State

Maximum 

State

2000 0.88 0.88 0.88 Wyoming Wyoming

2002

2003

2004

2005 2.98 2.98 2.98 Nevada Nevada

2006

2007

2008 1.01 0.77 2.19 Utah Arizona

2009 1.00 0.71 2.51 Utah Arizona

2010

Source: The Contractor‘s Research Department after USDA, FS, FIA, FIDO search by for Periodic Annual 

Mortality data by state and year. 

Table 8. Douglas Fir (Group ID 10) Periodic Annual Mortality Average and Range by 

Year. 

Year

Average 

Mortality 

(percent)

Minimum 

(percent)

Maximum 

(percent)

Minimum 

State

Maximum 

State

2000 1.03 1.03 1.03 Wyoming Wyoming

2002

2003

2004

2005 5.10 5.10 5.10 Nevada Nevada

2006

2007

2008 1.52 0.98 2.25 Colorado Arizona

2009 1.52 0.97 2.51 Colorado Arizona

2010

Source: The Contractor‘s Research Department after USDA, FS, FIA, FIDO search by for Periodic 

Annual Mortality data by state and year. 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report.

31

Table 9. Loblolly and Shortleaf Pine (Group ID 2) Periodic Annual Mortality Average and 

Range by Year. 

Year

Average 

Mortality 

(percent)

Minimum 

(percent)

Maximum 

(percent)

Minimum 

State

Maximum 

State

2000

2002 9.12 9.12 9.12 Tennessee Tennessee

2003 2.48 1.81 8.34 Alabama Tennessee

2004 1.53 0.42 8.52 Missouri Tennessee

2005 1.32 0.27 8.97 Missouri Tennessee

2006 0.87 0.23 6.50 Missouri Tennessee

2007 1.03 0.21 21.33 Missouri Ohio

2008 0.99 0.35 10.65 Missouri Ohio

2009 0.93 0.34 15.10 Missouri Pennsylvania

2010 0.90 0.42 2.88 Delaware Kentucky

Source: The Contractor‘s Research Department after USDA, FS, FIA, FIDO search by for Periodic Annual 

Mortality data by state and year. 

Table 10. Longleaf and Slash Pine (Group ID 1) Periodic Annual Mortality Average and 

Range by Year. 

Year

Average 

Mortality 

(percent)

Minimum 

(percent)

Maximum 

(percent)

Minimum 

State

Maximum 

State

2000

2002

2003 1.24 1.24 1.24 Alabama Alabama

2004 0.71 0.57 1.10 Georgia Alabama

2005 0.73 0.60 1.06 Georgia Alabama

2006 0.57 0.57 0.86 Texas Alabama

2007 0.73 0.30 1.26 North Carolina Alabama

2008 0.88 0.66 2.21 Georgia Texas

2009 0.95 0.33 2.81 North Carolina Texas

2010 0.88 0.38 3.24 North Carolina Texas

Source: The Contractor‘s Research Department after USDA, FS, FIA, FIDO search by for Periodic Annual 

Mortality data by state and year. 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report.

32

Table 11. Other Eastern Soft Hardwoods (Group ID 41) Periodic Annual Mortality 

Average and Range by Year. 

Year

Average 

Mortality 

(percent)

Minimum 

(percent)

Maximum 

(percent)

Minimum 

State

Maximum 

State

2000

2002 1.59 1.59 1.59 Tennessee Tennessee

2003 1.08 1.51 1.59 Tennessee Alabama

2004 2.08 1.32 4.52 Indiana Iowa

2005 2.05 1.22 3.22 South Carolina Iowa

2006 1.75 0.29 4.89 Rhode Island Nebraska

2007 2.17 0.50 4.45 Texas Nebraska

2008 2.23 0.34 4.25 Rhode Island Iowa

2009 2.17 0.55 4.35 Delaware Nebraska

2010 2.22 0.84 4.85 Oklahoma Iowa

Source: The Contractor‘s Research Department after USDA, FS, FIA, FIDO search by for Periodic Annual 

Mortality data by state and year. 

Table 12. Other Eastern Softwoods (Group ID 9) Periodic Annual Mortality Average and 

Range by Year. 

Year

Average 

Mortality 

(percent)

Minimum

(percent)

Maximum 

(percent)

Minimum 

State

Maximum

State

2000

2002 0.98 0.98 0.98 Tennessee Tennessee

2003 0.70 0.57 0.90 Alabama Tennessee

2004 0.62 0.23 1.24 Missouri Georgia

2005 0.75 0.18 1.58 Missouri South Carolina

2006 0.77 0.20 2.23 Missouri New Hampshire

2007 0.78 0.16 3.88 Texas North Carolina

2008 0.74 0.05 5.29 Maryland Connecticut

2009 0.84 0.18 3.73 Texas Connecticut

2010 0.92 0.23 10.21 Missouri Florida

Source: The Contractor‘s Research Department after USDA, FS, FIA, FIDO search by for Periodic Annual Mortality data 

by state and year. 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report.

33

Table 13. Other Western Softwoods (Group ID 24) Periodic Annual Mortality Average and 

Range by Year. 

Year

Average 

Mortality 

(percent)

Minimum 

(percent)

Maximum 

(percent)

Minimum 

State

Maximum 

State

2000 0.74 0.74 0.74 Wyoming Wyoming

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008 2.07 0.36 2.70 Colorado Montana

2009 2.32 0.59 3.08 Colorado Montana

2010

Source: The Contractor‘s Research Department after USDA, FS, FIA, FIDO search by for Periodic 

Annual Mortality data by state and year. 

Table 14. Other Yellow Pines (Group ID 3) Periodic Annual Mortality Average and Range 

by Year. 

Year

Average 

Mortality 

(percent)

Minimum 

(percent)

Maximum 

(percent)

Minimum

State

Maximum

State

2000

2002 9.01 9.01 9.01 Tennessee Tennessee

2003 7.92 5.76 10.07 Alabama Tennessee

2004 6.40 1.13 11.47 Minnesota Tennessee

2005 4.89 0.27 14.90 Wisconsin Tennessee

2006 3.57 0.10 28.99 New Hampshire Connecticut

2007 3.80 0.17 47.14 Minnesota Missouri

2008 3.77 0.24 75.90 Rhode Island Nebraska

2009 3.18 0.12 87.07 Minnesota Nebraska

2010 2.82 0.10 74.34 Minnesota Nebraska

Source: The Contractor‘s Research Department after USDA, FS, FIA, FIDO search by for Periodic Annual 

Mortality data by state and year. 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report.

34

Table 15. Sweetgum (Group ID 34) Periodic Annual Mortality Average and Range by 

Year. 

Year

Average 

Mortality 

(percent)

Minimum 

(percent)

Maximum 

(percent)

Minimum 

State

Maximum 

State

2000

2002 0.61 0.61 0.61 Tennessee Tennessee

2003 0.87 0.66 0.99 Tennessee Alabama

2004 0.86 0.38 1.23 Missouri Indiana

2005 0.85 0.49 1.00 Virgina Indiana

2006 0.56 0.13 1.59 Illinois Indiana

2007 0.83 0.13 1.50 Illinois Indiana

2008 0.73 0.31 1.32 Maryland Indiana

2009 0.82 0.27 1.20 Illinois Louisiana

2010 0.78 0.28 1.25 Illinois Missouri

Source: The Contractor‘s Research Department after USDA, FS, FIA, FIDO search by for Periodic Annual 

Mortality data by state and year. 

Table 16. Yellow Birch (Group ID 30) Periodic Annual Mortality Average and Range by 

Year. 

Year

Average 

Mortality 

(percent)

Minimum 

(percent)

Maximum 

(percent)

Minimum 

State

Maximum 

State

2000

2002 0.41 0.41 0.41 Tennessee Tennessee

2003 0.50 0.50 0.50 Tennessee Tennessee

2004 0.63 1.06 1.06 Tennessee Tennessee

2005 1.03 0.25 1.63 Minnesota Wisconsin

2006 1.03 0.37 6.81 Massachusetts New Jersey

2007 1.15 0.47 3.58 Minnesota Georgia

2008 1.27 0.44 11.17 Minnesota Ohio

2009 1.17 0.19 9.10 Tennessee Ohio

2010 1.16 0.22 3.94 Connecticut Virginia

Source: The Contractor‘s Research Department after USDA, FS, FIA, FIDO search by for Periodic 

Annual Mortality data by state and year. 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report.

35

Table 17. Yellow Poplar (Group ID 39) Periodic Annual Mortality Average and Range by 

Year. 

Year

Average 

Mortality 

(percent)

Minimum 

(percent)

Maximum 

(percent)

Minimum 

State

Maximum 

State

2000

2002 0.39 0.39 0.39 Tennessee Tennessee

2003 0.45 0.36 0.87 Tennessee Alabama

2004 0.55 0.32 0.74 Tennessee Georgia

2005 0.47 0.34 0.83 Virginia Indiana

2006 0.35 0.04 0.63 New York Indiana

2007 0.43 0.04 0.64 Illinois Indiana

2008 0.40 0.03 1.09 Michigan Delaware

2009 0.42 0.03 1.01 Michigan Delaware

2010 0.53 0.06 3.39 Michigan Florida

Source: The Contractor‘s Research Department after USDA, FS, FIA, FIDO search by for Periodic Annual 

Mortality data by state and year. 

To understand this pattern, the Contractor examined county-level net tree volume data to further 

understand the FS FIA data available through FIDO. Tree types that may prove useful as 

biorefinery feedstocks in three representative counties are presented in Tables 18 through 20. 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report.

36

Table 18. Net Tree Volume by Tree ID and Year in Chippewa County, Michigan 

Species 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Balsam Poplar (741) 35,794,181 31,091,209 30,923,040 31,747,307 31,704,033 25,531,921 28,812,146 27,837,526

Bebb Willow (923) 54,087 63,183 76,422 76,485 67,332

Bigtooth Aspen (743) 17,677,960 19,018,792 19,990,918 19,460,688 16,931,968 20,443,038 19,978,337 22,636,419

Eastern Cottonwood (742) 59,442 47,654

Eastern White Pine (129) 43,453,005 42,731,728 45,996,809 41,082,541 25,430,862 49,316,613 56,684,001 57,223,177

Jack Pine (105) 55,425,078 52,540,711 53,649,692 51,836,700 47,514,199 40,106,314 39,080,230 36,687,289

Larch spp. (70) 42,608 34,159 83,390 83,459 73,472 87,019 109,389

Paper Birch (375) 58,315,320 55,652,328 51,410,857 47,678,500 54,995,633 49,195,797 50,957,461 46,509,971

Peachleaf Willow (921) 25,993 21,338 24,231

Quaking Aspen (746) 112,221,680 112,731,898 127,473,145 120,074,896 101,843,967 113,201,856 124,415,037 142,119,108

Red Pine (125) 65,412,105 74,621,113 73,506,264 69,814,975 71,353,767 91,699,974 94,622,887 97,757,049

Scotch Pine (130) 6,195,370 5,380,815 6,357,912 6,844,240 6,013,810 377,071

Tamarack (Native) (71) 16,223,543 19,104,995 21,514,159 22,594,046 20,035,186 20,537,351 19,299,234 20,896,507

White Spruce (94) 50,675,514 45,919,700 49,190,522 46,679,080 47,045,855 43,686,815 48,871,184 51,567,995

Yellow Birch (371) 17,888,706 18,502,316 17,946,389 17,490,910 15,353,561 16,710,034 17,889,995 16,946,489

Source: The Contractor‘s Research Department after USDA, FS, FIA, FIDO search by for Periodic Annual Mortality data by state and year. 

Table 19. Net Tree Volume by Tree ID and Year in Glade County, Florida 

Species 2004 2007 2009 2010

Eucalyptus spp. (510) 348,906 333,780

Grand Eucalyptus (513) 1,692,582 1,619,202 1,313,526 1,558,854

Longleaf Pine (121) 3,925,823 3,755,623 3,046,630 4,136,154

Slash Pine (111) 775,744 7,679,841 9,299,003 9,672,768

Source: The Contractor‘s Research Department after USDA, FS, FIA, FIDO search by for Periodic Annual Mortality data by 

state and year. 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report.

37

Table 20. Net Tree Volume by Tree ID and Year in Sterns County, Minnesota 

Species 2003 2,004 2,005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Bigtooth Aspen (743) 3,349,094 2,991,449 2,851,042 2,728,690 2,868,743 2,867,560 3,104,954 3,173,564

Paper Birch (375) 3,790,714 3,561,992 3,396,773 3,435,626 3,131,580 3,372,073 3,476,664 3,339,862

Quaking Aspen (746) 1,218,543 1,338,312 4,133,879 4,157,637 7,384,925 7,346,019 7,172,072 5,960,317

Tamarack (Native) (71) 201,111 198,212 317,364 310,954 383,982 343,804 435,733 470,809

Yellow Birch (371) 430,782 379,175 372,331 405,988 422,968 443,524 445,170 444,630

Source: The Contractor‘s Research Department after USDA, FS, FIA, FIDO search by for Periodic Annual Mortality data by state and year. 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report.

38

While these tables illustrate the depth of the FIA data, they also demonstrate a characteristic 

consistent with NASS data: the sampling regime is intended to minimize the error of the 

estimate at the national level. In other words, the big picture (state or national) is more precise 

and accurate than the county-level data; aggregate data on all trees are more precise and accurate 

than data for a species group. The FS addresses this pattern in its discussion of accuracy 

standards: 

“Forest inventory plans are designed to meet sampling error standards for area, 

volume, growth, and removals provided in the Forest Service directive (FSH 

4809.11) known as the Forest Survey Handbook (U.S. Department of Agriculture 

2008). These standards, along with other guidelines, are aimed at obtaining 

comprehensive and comparable information on timber resources for all parts of 

the country. FIA inventories are commonly designed to meet the specified 

sampling errors at the State level at the 67 percent confidence limit (one standard 

error). The Forest Survey Handbook mandates that the sampling error for area 

cannot exceed 3 percent error per 1 million acres of timberland. A 5 percent 

(Eastern United States) or 10 percent (Western United States) error per 1 billion 

cubic feet of growing-stock on timberland is applied to volume, removals, and net 

annual growth. Unlike the mandated sampling error for area, sampling errors for 

volume, removals, and growth are only targets. 

FIA inventories are extensive inventories that provide reliable estimates for large 

areas. As data are subdivided into smaller and smaller areas, such as a 

geographic unit or a county, the sampling errors increase and the reliability of 

the estimates goes down. 

 A State with 5 million acres of timberland would have a maximum 

allowable sampling error of 1.3 percent (3% x (1,000,000)0.5 / 

(5,000,000)0.5). 

 A geographic unit within that State with 1 million acres of timberland 

would have a 3.0 percent maximum allowable sampling error (3% x 

(1,000,000)0.5 / (1,000,000)0.5). 

 A county within that State with 100 thousand acres would have a 9.5 

percent maximum allowable sampling error (3% x (1,000,000)0.5 / 

(100,000)0.5) at the 67 percent confidence level”.

49

In summary, there are several limitations that stand in the way of using these FS data to address 

the number of producers by the crop year, planted acreage, harvested acreage, total production, 

value, prices received, or yield of woody biomass crops. In the first place, none of these 

categories, as they are construed for insurance purposes, are documented in the FIDO system. It 

might be possible to extrapolate a measure of production from inventories. However, the basis 

for changes in inventories is not limited to productive growth. Reductions in inventory due to 

harvests, along with increases in inventory due to growth and losses due to a wide variety natural 

causes (e.g., fire, disease, and landslides) would all contribute to changes in inventory. 

Consequently the variation in inventories from year to year is enormous. Furthermore, the data 

in the FIDO system are extrapolations that have undergone significant manipulation. They are 

 

49 Woudenberg, S.W., B.L. Conkling, B.M. O‘Connell, E.B. LaPoint, J.A. Turner, and K.L. Waddell, 2010, The Forest Inventory 

and Analysis Database: Database Description and Users Manual Version 4.0 for Phase 2, page 36, 

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr245.pdf, accessed November, 2011. 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report.

39

not direct measures of productivity. FIDO values have been aggregated and at times even 

blended across substantial geographic distances to maintain confidentiality. Finally, as a forest 

(as opposed to a plantation) inventory, the FIA reports do not generally represent intensively 

managed commercial farming operations; therefore, even when plot-level risk can be 

extrapolated, it offers an imperfect proxy to farm-level risk. 

The FS does support occasional research on prices for forest products. Several time-series 

studies on stump prices were identified, although none specifically addressed short-rotation 

woody biomass crops.50 Nonetheless, due to the fungibility of biorefinery feedstocks, these data 

may prove useful in the development of woody biomass price models for crop insurance. 

IV.B. DOE Data 

The DOE is a cabinet-level department of the United States government concerned with energy 

policies. Its responsibilities include the nuclear weapons program, nuclear reactor production for 

the U.S. Navy, radioactive waste disposal, energy conservation, energy-related research, and 

domestic energy production. 

The DOE‘s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) works with partners in 

industry, academia, and the national laboratories on research concerning biomass feedstocks and 

conversion technologies. The Biomass Program supports research, development, and 

demonstration activities addressing development of integrated biorefineries. The Biomass 

Program primarily focuses on research and development efforts to ensure cellulosic ethanol is 

price competitive by 2012 and that bio-based aviation fuel, diesel fuel, and gasoline are price 

competitive by 2017. 

The DOE Biomass Energy Data Book, now in its third edition, incorporates DOE Energy 

Information Administration (EIA) estimates of biomass energy utilization and availability and 

data from industry groups. Chapter Five of this report documents DOE information on biomass 

feedstocks. There is no information on Eucalyptus, poplar, pine and willow in this chapter. 

There are data on mill residues and forest harvest wastes. There are no data for purpose-grown 

woody biomass crops. 

The editors of the DOE Biomass Energy Data Book note the data in the book does not

“systematically inventory biomass feedstock.” Instead, the data are derived and rely “on 

assumptions about energy content and conversion efficiencies for each biomass type and 

conversion technology...In all cases it should be recognized that estimates are not precise and 

different assumptions will change the results.”51 While most of the values in the Biomass Energy 

Data Book are extrapolated, they are updated frequently. The first edition of the Data Book was 

published in 2006, the second in 2009. The DOE is currently preparing a fourth edition, portions 

of which are available online at http://cta.ornl.gov/bedb/download.shtml. The Contractor did not 

 

50 Irland, L.C., P.E. Sendak, and R.H. Widmann, 2001, Hardwood pulpwood stumpage price trends in the northeast, 

http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/newtown_square/publications/technical_reports/pdfs/2001/gtrne286.pdf, accessed November, 2011; 

Wagner, J.E. and P.E. Sendak, 2005, The annual increase of Northeastern regional timber stumpage prices: 1961 to 2002. 

Forest Products Journal 55:36-45. 

51 U.S. DOE, 2010, Biomass Energy Data Book: Edition 3, http://cta.ornl.gov/bedb/download.shtml, accessed August, 2011. 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report.

40

find DOE data on the number of producers, planted acreage, harvested acreage, total production, 

value, or yield of woody biomass crops. 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report.

41

SECTION V. PRIVATE DATA 

The Contractor examined potential data from private sources for use in the development of 

insurance products. The private sources examined include biorefineries, producer organizations, 

pulpwood producers/processors, and pulpwood industry business intelligence firms. 

The Contractor explored the possibility of collecting data from biorefineries using woody 

biomass as a feedstock. These efforts were hampered by three insurmountable barriers. In the 

first place, virtually all the biorefinery projects are either under construction or only recently 

commissioned. Consequently, this source has no data on production or yield and no credible 

time-series data on price. Furthermore, the limited data on price are considered proprietary. 

Finally, since the woody biomass feedstocks are fungible, refinery input data does not 

distinguish between waste wood feedstocks and purpose-grown crops. It is possible as cellulosic 

biofuel refineries come online that they can assist in collection of data regarding woody biomass 

yield, production, and pricing. Most likely some incentives will be needed to encourage such 

cooperation. The incentive with the greatest likelihood of encouraging participation might be the 

validation of a crop insurance model for producers. 

The Contractor explored the possibility of collecting data from organizations whose membership 

is comprised of agricultural producers of woody biomass. Despite an exhaustive effort, the 

Contractor was unable to identify any such association or organization. It appears there are 

organizations in development that will support the managers of biorefineries in the United States 

(such as the Renewable Fuels Association), and similar associations in Europe (e.g., European 

Biomass Industry Association). 

The Contractor identified more than 100 pulpwood producers and consolidators (Appendix D). 

The Paperwork Reduction Act constrains government contractors‘ use of survey instruments, 

therefore it was not possible to systematically survey this industry to collect data that might be 

used as a proxy for woody biomass biorefinery feedstock producers. Instead, the Contractor 

sought to identify any pulpwood producer or consolidator who would share any agronomic 

information (e.g., production, yield, and prices) or any producer demographic information (e.g., 

producer population, plantation size, etc.). None of the producers or consolidators the Contractor 

contacted expressed a willingness to share information with the Contractor, despite assurances of 

confidentiality. 

This behavior is easily understood when the highly competitive nature of the paper industry is 

examined. The industry is characterized by numerous producer organizations and business 

intelligence services. The dynamics of these organizations seem quite different from that of 

most agricultural producer organizations; rapid changes in the organizations appear to be 

influenced by changes in the paper industry as domestic and foreign competition, and 

competition among the alternate feedstock resources within the U.S. paper industry effect 

changes in the markets. 

Associations 

The Contractor identified several national associations that might serve as a proxy for elements 

of data for insurance development for woody crops grown as biorefinery feedstocks. These 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report.

42

include the American Forest & Paper Association,

52 the American Forest Foundation (and the 

American Tree Farm System),

53 the American Forest Resource Council,54 the Association of 

Consulting Foresters,

55 the Bioenergy Development Consortium,56 and Forest Resources 

Association, Inc.57 

The American Forest & Paper Association (http://www.afandpa.org/) addresses education and 

advocacy issues related forestry and paper manufacturing. It maintains some proprietary data on 

pulpwood prices available to members, however, these data are reported to be derived from 

public reports and do not appear to have been collected by an independent survey. The reports 

are sporadic and not necessarily collected by a uniform methodology. 

The American Forest Foundation addresses conservation, education, and advocacy issues related 

to private and public forests; it does not maintain data on production, yields, pricing or other 

agronomic characteristics of any segment of the forest industry that might be useful in this study. 

The American Tree Farm System operates from the same offices with a different Web presence 

(info@treefarmsystem.org).

The American Forest Resource Council supports producers in the forest products industries in 

the states of California, Idaho, Oregon, Montana, and Washington. It is primarily an advocacy 

group. 

The Association of Consulting Foresters was founded in 1948 to advance the professionalism, 

ethics, and interests of professional foresters whose primary work was consulting to the public. 

This organization is the only national association for consulting foresters and does not maintain a 

database on forestry. 

The Bioenergy Development Consortium was spun off from the Biorefinery Deployment 

Collaborative. The Collaborative helps commercialize energy conservation and renewable 

energy technologies. The Consortium provides educational programs addressing energy more 

generally. 

The Forest Resources Association, Inc. is an educational and advocacy organization with a focus 

on industry practices. The association has six regional offices that encompass the 49 continental 

United States. It does not maintain a dataset relevant to this study. 

In summary, although a number of associations exist whose membership is comprised of 

stakeholders in various sectors of the forestry industry, the Contractor did not identify any 

association that might have data that is useful toward insurance development for woody biomass 

crops grown as biorefinery feedstocks (either directly or as proxy crops). 

 

52 American Forest & Paper Association, 1111 19th Street, NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20036, 202-463-2700. 

53 American Forest Foundation, 1111 19th Street, NW, Suite 780, Washington, DC 20036, 202-463-2460. 

54 American Forest Resource Council, 5100 SW Macadam, Suite 350,Portland, OR 9739, 530-222-9505. 

55 Association of Consulting Foresters, 312 Montgomery Street, Suite 208, Alexandria, VA 22314, 703-548-0990. 

56 Bioenergy Development Consortium;176 Jonathan Court; Glen Ellyn, IL 60137; 630-858-4897. 

57 Forest Resources Association Inc., 2129 Electric Road, SW, Suite 205, Roanoke, VA 24018, 540-989-4171. 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report.

43

Business Intelligence Organizations 

The Contractor identified several business intelligence organizations that maintain data on the 

pulpwood industry. These include Forest2Market,58 RISI,59 Timber Mart South,60 and Wood 

Resources International LLC.61 

Forest2Market is a wood product and fiber consultancy that maintains timber price and 

benchmark databases with transaction-level data from actual contracts. It collects and analyzes 

quantitative information about the wood supply chain to create information/intelligence products 

and services for the industry. Its products include price series for timber, logs, wood fiber, 

lumber, and feedstocks; price and cost benchmarking services; timber price forecasts; and price 

indices for supply and purchase agreements. 

RISI produces a monthly Wood Biomass Market Report. RISI was founded in 1985 as Resource 

Information Systems, Inc. In 2000, RISI was acquired by Paperloop, the leading pulp and paper 

industry data aggregator. The Wood Biomass Market Report provides market information and 

woody biomass feedstock pricing for the North American market. In addition, the report 

documents biomass business developments, capital investments, government incentives, 

regulations, and policies, and feedstock availability. Regional reports for the United States 

address the Northeast, Southeast, South Central, and Pacific Northwest markets. The current 

annual cost of reports is $597. While RISI has developed price indices for North American 

woody biomass generally and for pellet grade wood,62 most of the RISI data are business 

intelligence. The Contractor found no evidence RISI can provide producer-level data including 

acreage and production. The nature of the business data it sells focuses on inventory and sales 

rather than production and yield. 

Timber Mart-South, owned by the Frank W. Norris Foundation, provides forest and forest 

product price reports, trend analysis, and history. The foundation contracts with the Daniel B. 

Warnell School of Forest Resources at University of Georgia to compile, publish, and distribute 

Timber Mart-South publications. These include quarterly and annual reports addressing market 

prices in the U.S. South. Timber Mart-South has been surveying timber prices since 1976. The 

reports are available by subscription or by individual issue and provide information on timber 

market changes as well as average prices in 22 southeastern timber markets. 

Wood Resources International, LLC is a consulting firm that publishes two quarterly price 

reports tracking delivered wood costs in North America and internationally. The reports are 

available by annual subscription. These publications include data and analyses of market prices 

for woodchips, pulpwood, and sawlogs. The North American Wood Fiber Review (Review) has 

tracked wood fiber markets in all major regions of the United States and Canada for almost 30 

years. It covers both pulpwood and biomass markets. The report provides updates of softwood 

and hardwood prices, (average and range) for all major U.S. markets. 

 

58 Forest2Market, Inc., 14045 Ballantyne Corporate Place Suite 150, Charlotte, NC 28277-2845, 704-540-1440. 

59 RISI, info@risi.com, no published physical address, 866-271-8525 

60 Timber Mart-South, Center for Forest Business, Daniel B. Warnell School of Forestry & Natural Resources, University of 

Georgia, Athens, GA 30602-2152. 

61 Wood Resources International LLC, P.O. Box 1891, Bothell, WA, 9804, USA 425-402-8809 

62 Pellet grade wood is used to create fuels for direct combustion and for gasification. 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report.

44

In summary, there are several business intelligence firms that might serve as a source for data 

and indices that could be used in a development effort. Data supplied by these firms are all 

available by subscription. The costs for access to the reports are relatively modest. Excepting 

the data in the Review, the data available would be a proxy for bioenergy feedstock data rather 

than data directly addressing bioenergy feedstocks. However, it is important to note, bioenergy 

feedstock data in the North American Wood Fiber Review are summary data (i.e., not raw data) 

and are reported following an analysis of raw data by Wood Resources International LLC, the 

publisher of the Review. 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report.

45

SECTION VI. ACADEMIC DATA 

There is rich literature addressing cellulosic ethanol production. This reflects the wide range of 

technologies and industries involved, as well as rapidly changing perceptions in developed 

economies concerning economic and environmental constraints on energy consumption. 

The technologies involved in harvesting energy contained in plant cell walls include agriculture 

and forestry on the one hand and fermentation/refinery operations on the other. The refinery 

processes have engaged researchers in biology, biochemistry and chemistry. Chemical, 

industrial, materials, and systems engineering are all required to implement improvements in the 

technologies used to develop the biorefineries. Consequently, there is a wide range of treatises 

addressing the topic of cellulosic ethanol production from quite different perspectives. Some 

focus almost exclusively on the chemistry and chemical engineering of the biorefinery 

processes.63

 Others are focused on the biology of the ethanol production processes.64 Still others 

address what might be categorized as the socioeconomic benefits (and problems) associated with 

the technology.65 While the Contractor examined this literature to develop a context for the study 

of woody biomass crops grown as biorefinery feedstocks, reporting on this latter category is far 

beyond the scope of the contracted work. 

The literature is herein reviewed with the goal of accomplishing the Government‘s stated 

objectives, which are: 

“to obtain information and data on grown woody biomass crops and then 

determine the feasibility of and issues related to insuring those willow, poplar 

trees, and other woody biomass products as bio-fuel feedstock. The contractor 

shall initially provide RMA with the results of data collection for the grown 

woody biomass crops including willow and poplar. Once the data collection is 

completed, RMA will determine the woody biomass crops that the contractor shall 

produce a research report that determines the feasibility of developing an 

insurance program for the willow, poplar trees, and other woody biomass with 

their recommendation of the most viable type of insurance program, if any are 

feasible.”66

 

 

63 Brethauer, S. and C.E. Wyman, 2010, Review: Continuous hydrolysis and fermentation for cellulosic ethanol production, 

Bioresource Technoligy, 2010, 101:4862-74. 

64 Himmel, M.E., S-Y. Ding, D.K. Johnson, W.S. Adney, M.R. Nimlos, J.W. Brady, T.D. Foust, 2007, Biomass Recalcitrance: 

Engineering Plants and Enzymes for Biofuels Production Science 315, 804 (2007), 

http://www.uta.edu/biology/grover/classnotes/5101/Himmel%20et%20al.pdf, accessed October, 2011; 

Sticklen, M.B., 2008, Plant genetic engineering for biofuel production: towards affordable cellulosic ethanol Nature Reviews 

Genetics 9, 433-443. 

65 Kim, S. and B.E. Dale, 2005, Life cycle assessment of various cropping systems utilized for producing biofuels: bioethanol and 

biodiesel, Biomass & Bioenergy 29:426–39; 

Hill, J., E. Nelson, D. Tilman, S. Polasky, and D. Tiffany, 2006, Environmental, economic, and energetic costs and benefits of 

biodiesel and ethanol biofuels, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science U S A. 103:11206-10; 

Hoekman, S.K., 2009, Biofuels in the U.S. – Challenges and Opportunities, Renewable Energy 34: 14–22, 

http://www.dri.edu/images/stories/editors/receditor/2009_hoekmank_busco.pdf, Accessed September, 2011; 

Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, 2010, Biomass Sustainability and Carbon Policy Study, Commonwealth of 

Massachusetts; Department of Energy Resources, 182 pp, 

http://www.manomet.org/sites/manomet.org/files/Manomet_Biomass_Report_Full_LoRez.pdf, accessed September, 2011. 

66 SOW, page 19 of Contract D11PX78748. 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report.

46

Purpose-grown woody biomass crops are grown on plantations. In this report, the term 

―plantation‖ will be used to describe an agricultural enterprise on which trees are grown as the 

crop. This will distinguish the plantation from an orchard or grove, where trees are grown to 

produce a fruit crop, and from nurseries where trees are grown to be transplanted to plantations, 

groves, orchards, forests, or landscapes. The plantation is distinguished from a forest by the 

level of management. Trees in a plantation are generally planted in rows. Soil preparation, 

including weed management and fertilization preceded planting are common management 

practices in plantations. Thinning is used to maintain an appropriate ratio of stem to crown for 

the plantation trees. Pest management (including additional weed management) and fertilization 

are used to maximize growth which can be measured as accumulation of biomass. In most ways, 

a biomass plantation appears like a farm field. However, the physical scale of the crop and the 

length of time to harvest are different. While a forest may be planted (or replanted), with regard 

to management, growth in a forest is largely left to nature. 

Matti Parikka, in a 2004 review of biomass resources available as primary energy sources, 

estimated just under 0.1 percent of the North American land area and just over a third of one 

percent of the wooded areas on the continent were plantations.67

 In that review of available 

resources worldwide, woody biomass crops grown as biorefinery feedstocks were not even 

mentioned. The biomass resources from woody species included waste wood and roundwood 

(i.e., logs) from natural forest populations and pulp mill and lumber mill wastes from the 

processing of natural and plantation-grown trees. The plantations making up such a small 

element of the landscape were the lumber and pulpwood plantations supplying the mills. 

While substantial research has improved the prospects for plantation-grown biomass production 

as a biofuels resource, the relationship of these cropped sources of biomass energy to the natural 

or waste-based energy sources has hardly changed. Commercial plantation acreage for most 

species can be measured in the hundreds or thousands of acres (by species), which pales in 

comparison to the approximately 750 million acres of forests in the nation.68

For this section of the data report, the Contractor focused the major research efforts on woody 

biomass production from plantations. A search of the agronomic and extension literature for 

data addressing number of producers, planted acreage, harvested acreage, total production, value, 

and yield of woody biomass crops as bioenergy resources was not productive. These operations 

may not yet be common enough to justify such reports. The focus of the search then turned to 

academic literature addressing short-rotation woody species targeted as biomass resources, 

particularly information concerning yield. A portion of the literature addresses special uses of 

short-rotation species in reclaiming marginal land.69 Data from such reports are not included in 

this study, since the focus of the reclamation research is on conservation rather than production. 

The yields in these studies are influenced by the limitations of the land being reclaimed. 

Depending on the characteristics of the land, these yields are highly variable and do not reflect 

 

67 Parikka, M., 2004, Global biomass fuel resources, Biomass & Bioenergy 27: 613–620, 

http://faculty.washington.edu/stevehar/World%20woody%20biomass.pdf, accessed September, 2011. 

68 U.S. Department of Interior, 2011, National Atlas of the United States: Forest Resources in the United States, 

http://nationalatlas.gov/articles/biology/a_forest.html, accessed November, 2011. 

69 For example, Böhm, C., A. Quinkenstein, D. Freese, and R. F. Hüttl, 2011, Assessing the short rotation woody biomass 

production on marginal post-mining areas, Journal of Forest Science, 57: 303-311, 

http://journals.uzpi.cz/publicFiles/44220.pdf, accessed September, 2011. 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report.

47

―agricultural production.‖ Limited yield data (comparable to data from field trials for row or 

field crops) are available for moderately dense stands of poplar and Eucalyptus and for dense 

stands of willows and loblolly pine (P. taeda). 

Poplar 

Poplar species and their hybrids are among the most rapidly growing temperate trees. However, 

the high growth potential of poplars is realized only under favorable weather conditions on good 

sites; that is to say, under optimal agricultural conditions. Many of the reports on poplar 

productivity address small to moderate scale field trials of new varieties, 70 not production 

agriculture. To limit destructive sampling in these field trials, a variety of non-destructive 

measure of  ̳yield‘ are used including measuring basal area (BA) and measuring diameter at 

breast height (DBH). Estimates of productivity are made by converting area dimensions to 

volume dimensions (usually reported by using cubic feet per acre) and then converting the 

volume measures to mass (dry or green tons per acre). When destructive sampling is used, more 

direct volumetric or mass measurements are made. However, the harvest of poplar essentially 

resets the production clock in a new system (i.e., under a substantially different management 

regime), since coppicing is a common practice in field trials addressing productivity. 

P. deltoides (Eastern Cottonwood) planted under optimal conditions can produce average yields 

of three to seven green tons/acre/year.71

 Populus clones with greater productivity and greater 

tolerance of poor environments are being developed commercially and by academic researchers. 

Productivity of poplar pulp mill feedstock (unselected P. trichocarpa varieties) managed with 

two-year coppice rotations in the Pacific Northwest was 7.7 green tons/acre/year.72 Further study 

showed that P. trichocarpa yields were maximized during the second two-year coppice or the 

third four-year coppice rotations at 4.0 and 4.3 oven dry tons/acre/year), respectively.73 Varieties 

were tested at a site in western Washington for 4 years in plots established at 1.2 × 1.2 m 

spacing. Yields of 50 different P. trichocarpa clones averaged 5.6 oven dry tons/acre/year and 

ranged from 2.3 and 10.3 oven dry tons/acre/year. 74 In recent unpublished studies, 3 P. generosa

hybrid clones had yields between 6.9 and 12.3 oven dry tons/acre/year. However, these more 

recent productivity values were established on yield plots with just nine trees per replicate.75

 

The yields from field trials of plantation poplars, including clones selected for production of pulp 

and saw logs, show considerable variation (Table 21). This variation is expected in a long-lived 

woody species that is substantially affected by growing conditions. Best management practices 

 

70 Miller, R.O., and B.A. Bender, 2008, Growth and Yield of Poplar and Willow Hybrids In the Central Upper Peninsula of 

Michigan, 

http://www.cinram.umn.edu/srwc/docs/Powerpoints/R.Miller_Growth%20and%20Yield%20of%20Poplar%20and%20 

Willow%20Hybrids.pdf, accessed September, 2011. 

71 Dickens, E.D. B. Borders, and B. Jackson, 2011, Short Rotation Woody Crops Yield Estimates for Georgia Growers, Series 

Paper 1, http://www.warnell.uga.edu/outreach/pubs/pdf/forestry/SRWB_Growth_and_Yield_Paper_6_July_2011.pdf, accessed 

October, 2011. 

72 Heilman, P.E., D.V. Peabody, D.S. DeBell, and D.F. Strand, 1972, A test of close-spaced, short rotation culture of black 

cottonwood. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 2: 456-459. 

73 Heilman, P.E. and D.V. Peabody, 1981, Effect of harvest cycle and spacing on productivity of black cottonwood in intensive 

culture, Canadian Journal of Forest Research 11: 118-123. 

74 Heilman, P.E. and R.F. Stettler, 1985, Genetic variation and productivity of Populus trichocarpa and its hybrids. II. Biomass 

production in a 4-year plantation, Canadian Journal of Forest Research 15: 384–388. 

75 Unpublished yield data, personal communication, T.A. Volk. 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report.

48

for poplar grown in northern regions have been published.76 However, as substantial research 

into the effects of management on yield potential is still in progress, it is not clear that these 

practices as published reflect the practices actually used in the production of the woody biomass 

crops.77

While meristem cloning technology 78 has allowed plantations to be populated with individuals 

having uniform genetic characteristic, there is very limited literature addressing yields rather 

than yield potential of the various clones. The Contractor found limited academic literature 

documenting commercial yields of any poplar species. This literature that was found does not 

address bioenergy feedstock production per se, but addresses biomass for any use (i.e., pulp, 

roundwood, or energy). 

Table 21. Mean Annual Increment (MAI) Growth Estimates for Poplar (Populus spp.) 

First Growth Age

(years)

MAI

(Oven dry

tons/acre/year)

2 1.5 to 3.5

4 2.3 to 10.3

9 1.5 to 3.2

10 1.6-3.6

Coppice Rotation 

Frequency

(years)

2 3.8 to 4.0

4 4.3

Source: The Contractor‘s Research Department after data in Heilman, P.E., D.V. 

Peabody, D.S. DeBell, and D.F. Strand, 1972, A test of close-spaced, short rotation 

culture of black cottonwood. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 2: 456-459; 

Heilman, P.E. and D.V. Peabody, 1981, Effect of harvest cycle and spacing on 

productivity of black cottonwood in intensive culture, Canadian Journal of Forest 

Research 11: 118-123; Heilman, P.E. and R.F. Stettler, 1985, Genetic variation and 

productivity of Populus trichocarpa and its hybrids. II. Biomass production in a 4-year 

plantation, Canadian Journal of Forest Research 15: 384–388; and Dickens, E.D. B. 

Borders, and B. Jackson, 2011, Short Rotation Woody Crops Yield Estimates for 

Georgia Growers, Series Paper 1, 

http://www.warnell.uga.edu/outreach/pubs/pdf/forestry/SRWB_Growth_and_Yield_P

aper_6_July_2011.pdf, accessed October, 2011, and assuming 50 percent of the green 

tonnage is dry tonnage.. 

 

76 VanOosten, C., SilviConsult Woody Crops Technology, Inc., 2006, Hybrid Poplar Crop Manual for the Prairie Provinces, 

http://www.poplar.ca/pdf/cropman.pdf, accessed November, 2011; 

J.G. Isebrands, 2007, Best Management Practices Poplar Manual For Agroforestry Applications in Minnesota, 

http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/naturalresources/00095.html, accessed September, 2011. 

77 Geyer, W.A., 2006, Biomass production in the Central Great Plains USA under various coppice regimes, Biomass & 

Bioenergy 30: 778-783, http://www.gpsaf.unl.edu/GPPubs/Coppice%20article%20biomass%20bioenergy.pdf, accessed 

October, 2011; 

Evans, S. (coordinator), M. Baldwin, P. Henshall, R. Matthews, G. Morgan, J. Poole, P. Taylor, P., I. and Tubby, 2007, Final 

Report: Yield models for Energy: Coppice of Poplar and willow. Volume A – Empirical Models. Report to DTI 

(B/W2/00624/00/00 URN). Ed: I Tubby and J Poole. 91pp., 

http://www.biomassenergycentre.org.uk/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/BEC_TECHNICAL/RESEARCH%20AND%20STUDIES/EN

ERGY%20CROP%20STUDIES/YIELD%20MODELS%20FOR%20SRC%20A.PDF, accessed September, 2011. 

78 Rutledge, C.B., and G. C. Douglas, 1988, Culture of meristem tips and micropropagation of 12 commercial clones of poplar in 

vitro, Physiologia Plantarum 72: 367-373. 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report.

49

The Contractor was provided unpublished data from field trials conducted from 1996 through 

2011. The yields reported from these trials varied by clone, by year, by year within the rotation 

(Table 22), and by location. The substantial range of annual incremental growth in each year of 

production would significantly affect the ability of these data to serve as a basis for data-driven 

crop insurance development. It is further noted, these increments are estimates rather than actual 

yields harvested. 

Table 22. Mean Annual Increment (MAI) Growth Estimates for Poplar (Populus spp.) 

Grown in Field Trials by Year in Rotation 

Year within the 

Rotation

Lowest MAI

(Oven dry

tons/acre/year

Highest MAI

(Oven dry

tons/acre/year)

2 0.1 3.8

3 0.2 3.6

4 0.2 4.0

5 0.4 4.6

6 0.9 4.4

7 0.9 4.2

8 0.9 4.1

9 1.0 4.2

Source: The Contractor‘s Research Department after data provided by W.E. Berguson. 

Willow 

Extensive work in Sweden and the United Kingdom contributed to the development of 

commercial willow woody biomass production in North America. The production systems for 

willow use genetically improved plant material grown on open agricultural land. Production 

involves intensive site preparation to control weeds, mechanical planting at densities of 

approximately 6,000 trees per acre, nitrogen fertilization at the beginning of each rotation, and 

multiple 3 to 4 year rotations.79

Earlier studies reported yields of short-rotation willows ranging from three to seven oven-dry 

tons/acre/year.80 More recently, after years of selection, only modest improvements in yields 

have been realized.81

 The yields from field trials of plantation willows, like those for poplars, 

show considerable variation. The variability is especially noticeable when plantation 

management practices are examined (Table 23). The effects of irrigation are especially notable, 

but it is unlikely irrigation will be a commercial management practice. The costs, benefits, and 

logistics are all likely to contribute to those management decisions. While most willows are 

 

79 Volk, T.A., L.P. Abrahamson, C.A. Nowak, L.B. Smart, P.J. Tharakanc, and E.H. White, 2006, The development of shortrotation willow in the northeastern United States for bioenergy and bioproducts, agroforestry and phytoremediation, Biomass 

and Bioenergy 30 (2006) 715–727, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0961953406000687. 

80 Mead, D.J., 2005, Forests for energy and the role of planted trees. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 24: 407–421; Mercker D., 

2007, Short rotation woody crops for biofuels. University of Tennessee Agricultural Experiment Station, 

http://www.utextension.utk.edu/publications/spfiles/SP702-C.pdf, accessed October, 2011. 

81 T.A. Volk, L.P. Abrahamson, K.D. Cameron, P. Castellano, T. Corbin. E. Fabio, G. Johnson, Y. Kuzokina-Eischen, M. 

Labrecgue, R. Miller, D. Sidders, L.B. Smart, K. Staver, G.R. Stanosz, K.VanRees, unpublished, Yields of willow biomass 

crops across a range of sites in North America. 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report.

50

easily propagated using rooted cuttings, meristem culture82 is useful for clonal propagation on a 

commercial scale because of the large number of shoots that can be produced. Volk, et al. report 

yields from second and subsequent coppice rotations substantially higher than those from the 

initial rotations. 

Table 23. Mean Annual Increment (MAI) Growth Estimates for Shrub Willow (Salix spp.) 

Based on Plantation Management Practices 

Practice

MAI

(Oven dry 

tons/acre/year)

Irrigated Initial 

Rotation 10.9 to 12.1

Non-irrigated Initial 

Rotation 3.4 to 4.7

Commercial Yields 3.0

Source, the Contractor‘s Research Department after data in Volk, T.A., 

L.P. Abrahamson, C.A. Nowak, L.B. Smart, P.J. Tharakanc, and E.H. 

White, 2006, The development of short-rotation willow in the northeastern 

United States for bioenergy and bioproducts, agroforestry and 

phytoremediation, Biomass and Bioenergy 30 (2006) 715–727, 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0961953406000687. 

The Contractor found limited academic documentation of commercial yields of willow species. 

Instead the academic literature focuses on field trials of new varieties and management practice 

studies. This makes it particularly challenging to use academic yield reports to predict 

commercial yields in different locations and under different practices. 

Pine 

Loblolly pines are grown on much longer rotations (e.g., 15 to 25 years) than are shrub willows 

and poplars. Loblolly pine is the most widely planted forestry species in the world. Due to its 

chemistry, loblolly pine is best suited for direct combustion and/or gasification bioenergy 

applications. To address this limitation, tree-breeding programs currently underway are using 

genetic-engineering techniques to develop high-performing seedlings. ArborGen introduced 

genes into loblolly pine that almost double the biomass production in the first three years of field 

trials. Even without these improvements, loblolly pines grown in plantation settings can produce 

about four dry tons/acre/year.83

 However, it is important to note that the range of potential 

annual incremental growth for pine, like those for poplar and willow, is affected by variety, 

location, weather, and age. 

 

82 Beauchesne G., and C. Poulin, 1970, La culture de méristèms, ses possibilitiés et ses limits actuelles pour les plantes ligneuses, 

Comptes Rendus Academie Sciences: Prosp. Hort. Phytotron 2: 219-231; 

Bhojwani, S.S., 1980, Micropropagation method for a hybrid willow (Salix matsudana × alba,. New Zealand Journal of 

Botany 18:209-214.

83 Mercker D., 2007, Short rotation woody crops for biofuels. University of Tennessee Agricultural Experiment Station, 

http://www.utextension.utk.edu/publications/spfiles/SP702-C.pdf, accessed October, 2011. 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report.

51

Table 24. Mean Annual Increment (MAI) Growth Estimates for Loblolly Pine (Pinus taeda) 

Age (years) MAI

(green tons/acre/year)

4 1.7-5.3

5 2.5

6 3.6-3.9

7 7.8

8 8.4 -9.5

9 10.5-12.7

15,19 6.7

Source, the Contractor‘s Research Department after data in Dickens, E.D. 

B. Borders, and B. Jackson, 2011, Short Rotation Woody Crops Yield 

Estimates for Georgia Growers, Series Paper 1, 

http://www.warnell.uga.edu/outreach/pubs/pdf/forestry/SRWB_Growth_an

d_Yield_Paper_6_July_2011.pdf, accessed October, 2011. 

Eucalyptus 

Some species and hybrids of Eucalyptus have unusually high biomass productivity. In Brazil, E. 

grandis × E. urophylla yield 10 to 12 dry tons/acre/year. Eucalyptus species and hybrids with 

this level of productivity are adapted to the tropics and intolerant to cold temperatures. A study 

with E. grandis in Florida indicated this species might achieve total biomass productivity of 15 

dry tons/acre/year,

84 but to date no productivity at that level has been documented in U.S. 

plantations. In field trials in Florida, yields ranging from 5 to 35 green tons per acre have been 

reported (Table 25). These vast differences result from differences in planting density and soil 

amendment treatments and are based on green tons per acre measurements.85

 

Table 25. Mean Annual Increment (MAI) Growth Estimates for Eucalyptus spp. 

Species Age (years) MAI

(green tons/acre/year)

Eucalyptus amplifolia 3.5 5.1 – 35.5

Eucalyptus grandis 3.5 10.2 – 31.9

Source, the Contractor‘s Research Department after data in Dickens, E.D. B. Borders, and B. 

Jackson, 2011, Short Rotation Woody Crops Yield Estimates for Georgia Growers, Series 

Paper 1, http://www.warnell.uga.edu/outreach/pubs/pdf/forestry 

/SRWB_Growth_and_Yield_Paper_6_July_2011.pdf, accessed October, 2011. 

Management practices for Eucalyptus species have an enormous impact on yields from the field 

trials. In E. amplifolia field trials carried out in 1999 and 2000, weed control using mulching 

and/or composting increased average yields as much as 4.5 times. However, it is important to 

note, 32 fold differences in yields between replicates of E. amplifolia grown under identical 

management regimes were observed in this study.86 

 

84 Stricker J.A., D.L. Rockwood, S.A. Segrest, G.R. Alker, G.M. Prine.; and D.R. Carter, 2000, Short Rotation Woody Crops For 

Florida. University of Florida, http://www.treepower.org/papers/strickerny.doc, accessed November, 2011. 

85 Rockford, D.L., D.R. Carter, and J.A. Stricker, 2008, Commercial Tree Crops for Phosphate Mined Lands: Final report, 

Publication No. 03-141-225, Univ. of Florida.110 pp. 

86 Planet Power, undated, Energy Crop Yields for Eucalyptus and Cottonwoods, detailed data link, 

http://www.treepower.org/yields/main.html, accessed November, 2011. 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report.

52

Summing Up the Academic Literature 

Candidates for commercial production of woody biomass are typically selected based on 

projected yields following five to ten years of field testing. The biomass yields achieved in these 

yield trials are highly variable and may not accurately reflect the yields achieved under 

commercial production. The variety cultivated, management practices, the geography and 

weather can all affect these differences (the Contractor believes these are listed in the order of 

their importance). The biomass yields achieved in northern short-rotation yield trials are similar 

to those from warmer regions. However, management practices may have a larger effect on

northern production, where the risk of cold temperatures and shorter growing seasons can affect 

production. Among management practices, irrigation, fertilization, spacing, and rotation length 

appear to have the biggest effects on differences in yield.87

 Lynn Wright, under contract to the 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory, has compiled many of the data illustrating these differences for 

willow, poplar, and pine.88 The data in that report support the conclusion that can be drawn from 

the sample data presented in this report: the large variability in field trial yields resulting from 

the relatively small scale of the samples limits the utility of these data for a data-driven crop 

insurance development effort. Indeed, a parametric assessment of these data would imply high 

standard deviations in yields, suggesting inappropriately high premium rates. Since new 

varieties of woody biomass species are still being developed, substantial yield differences within 

a species are likely to be observed going forward. This argues that a data-driven insurance 

development approach, even with a reasonable protocol to systematically collect data, will be 

futile in the near term. 

Limited cost of production data are available in the academic literature. Estimates are generally 

standardized to cost-per-oven dry ton of production. The costs are generally comparable for the 

various species proposed as woody biomass crops and range from $50 to $70 per ton.89 These 

values are generally comparable to the stumpage costs per ton for plantation harvests of 

pulpwood.90

 

 

87 Weih, M., 2004, Intensive short rotation forestry in boreal climates: present and future perspectives, Canadian Journal of 

Forestry Research 34: 1369–1378, http://research.eeescience.utoledo.edu/lees/papers_PDF/Weih_2004_CJFR.pdf, accessed 

September, 2011. 

88 Lynn Wright under contract to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 2010, US Woody Crop Yield Summary – 2010, 

http://www.woodycrops.org/NR/rdonlyres/BF9B2067-FDB0-49B0-9543-

8EEA03A415FD/2844/USWoodyCropsYieldSummaryOct2010.pdf, accessed October, 2011. 

89 Volk, T.A., L.P. Abrahamson, C.A. Nowak, L.B. Smart, P.J. Tharakanc, and E.H. White, 2006, The development of shortrotation willow in the northeastern United States for bioenergy and bioproducts, agroforestry and phytoremediation, Biomass 

and Bioenergy 30: 715–727. 

90 Gallagher, T. R. Shaffer and R. Rummer, 2006, An economic analysis of hardwood fiber production on dryland irrigated sites 

in the US Southeast, Biomass and Bioenergy 30: 794–802, http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/ja/ja_rummer016.pdf, accessed 

November, 2011. 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report.

53

SECTION VII. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 

The Statement of Work (SOW) for Project Number D11PX18878 identifies the objectives of the 

Data Collection portion of the contracted project as ―to obtain information and data on grown 

woody biomass crops...[related to insuring]...willow, poplar trees, and other woody biomass 

products as bio-fuel feedstock.‖ The DOE defines biomass as organic matter available on a 

recurring basis. A complex mixture of organic molecules, biomass is derived from living or 

recently living organisms. The limitation on the period since the organic matter was formed 

helps to distinguish biomass from fossil fuels. While fossil fuels had biological origins, they are 

not derived from ―recently living organisms‖ and their chemical composition has been 

substantially modified by geological processes. 

Plant biomass is of particular interest because the organic matter in plants stores energy captured 

during photosynthesis, which can subsequently be used by people. The focus of this study is not 

on the embodied energy in the woody biomass, but instead on yields, prices, and risks of woody 

biomass crops. These data are crucial to the development of an appropriate, effective, and 

actuarially sound crop insurance product. The Contractor conducted an extensive study to 

identify data that might serve as the basis for a development effort for insurance for fast-growing 

trees managed for production of woody biomass for use as biofuels feedstocks. 

The data study was complicated by several factors. First, fast growing trees are an element of 

many forest populations. A forest incorporates dynamic populations of many species. The 

composition of the forest changes over time. The forest data may be useful in identifying some 

of the market and risk characteristics of individual fast growing woody species, but there is no 

mechanism to extract production data for a species from mixed forest datasets. However, data 

on the forest growth cannot be assumed to reflect the yield performance (or even the yield 

potential) of individual species within the forest. The forest environment has a large impact on 

the growth of a species within that environment. Consequently, data on individual species within 

the forest cannot be assumed to reflect the yield performance or potential of individual species in 

a plantation where a single woody species is maintained. Forest data are a poor proxy for 

plantation data. 

In addition, there are multiple approaches to extract biomass energy from woody biomass. In the 

United States, wood and wood-derived products are the largest source of biomass-derived 

energy. The most common mechanism of energy extraction is direct combustion. Wood fires 

have been used as energy sources for light, heat and cooking for hundreds of thousands of years. 

Recent reports suggest intentional burning of wood for bioenergy began 300,000 to 400,000 

years ago.

91

 Consequently, there should be data on the value of wood over time. Yet the 

management practices and processing of wood for combustion is quite different from the 

management practices and processing of wood as a biofuel feedstock. Consequently, marketing 

data for fuel wood, with its embodied processing component, is not useful for establishing 

biofuel feedstock pricing.

 

91 Roebroeks, W, and P. Villa, 2011. On the earliest evidence for habitual use of fire in Europe, Proceedings of the National 

Academy of Sciences 108: 5209-5214, http://www.pnas.org/content/108/13/5209, accessed October, 2011. 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report.

54

The solicitation and contract address woody biomass ―crops.‖ Much of the woody biomass 

available for energy is not purpose-grown. Woody biomass for biofuel generation can be 

derived from waste wood (e.g., construction and demolition debris, mill waste, etc.) as well as 

from purpose-grown trees. Energy embodied in wastes (solid waste, landfill gas, sludge waste, 

tires, and agricultural byproducts) is the second largest source of biomass energy, after energy 

from crops (grain in the United States and sugar cane in more tropical countries). Since

availability of biomass feedstocks impacts supply, prices for biofuel feedstocks will be affected 

by the availability of these alternative biomass sources.

Finally, while direct combustion of wood is the oldest method for extraction of biomass energy 

(for uses other than as food and feed), a wide variety of mechanisms are available to capture this 

energy for human use. Much of the wood-derived energy is used to generate electricity and 

industrial-process heat. The largest source of energy from wood is pulping liquor (black liquor) 

from the paper and paperboard industry. Native logs, chips, pellets, compressed logs, and 

charcoal are additional alternate forest-derived energy sources. Yet, in spite of all these energy 

products, most of the biomass harvested from the forests is used for lumber rather than energy. 

There are no data from these uses that address ―woody biomass products as bio-fuel feedstock.‖

Information on cellulosic feedstocks is currently quite limited. As noted earlier, there is ―no 

nationwide source of information on woody ... crops being used for energy since this is 

occurring only on a very small scale in a few isolated experimental [emphasis added] 

situations.‖

92

 From a search of the literature, it appears the most likely candidates as purposegrown woody biomass crops are poplars and willows in the northern states and pines, poplars, 

and Eucalyptus in the southern states. Woody biomass from these species for use as biorefinery 

feedstocks will likely become a substantial crop as it provides raw material for the production of 

cellulosic ethanol. Yet as the SOW notes, ―The biofuels industry could be best described as at an 

infant stage currently....‖

93

 The feasibility study that will follow this report is one more step 

toward  ̳improving efficiency‘ of biofuel production, since production of a dependable supply of 

feedstocks is essential to that efficiency. However, cropping these woody biofuel feedstock 

species will only be undertaken if producers find an acceptable level of risk in the production 

process. Consequently, appropriate risk management strategies are essential for the development 

of a dependable supply of cropped woody biomass feedstocks. 

The Contractor examined potential data for development of insurance product available from 

government and private sources. The government sources examined included NASS, ERS, FSA, 

and FS, as well as the DOE. Potential private data sources examined include biorefineries using 

woody biomass as a feedstock, producer organizations, and business intelligence services. The 

Contractor also reviewed the academic literature to identify sources of time-series data in that 

literature addressing number of producers, planted acreage, harvested acreage, total production, 

value, or yield of woody biomass crops. 

The NASS Census of Agriculture does report on sales of forest products (excluding shortrotation woody crops) and on agronomic characteristics of Christmas trees and short-rotation 

woody crops collectively. Inasmuch as the woody biomass crops are excluded in the first 

 

92 U.S. DOE, 2010, Biomass Energy Data Book: Edition 3, http://cta.ornl.gov/bedb/download.shtml, accessed August, 2011. 

93 SOW (page 18). 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report.

55

instance and aggregated with irrelevant data in the second, these Census data cannot be used to 

identify number of producers, planted acreage, harvested acreage, total production, value, or 

yield of woody biomass crops. Furthermore, the Contractor was not able to identify any ERS or 

FSA reports or analyses dealing with woody biomass crops, firewood, or pulpwood or any DOE 

data that addressed number of producers, planted acreage, harvested acreage, total production, 

value, or actual (as opposed to projected) yield of woody biomass crops. 

The Quantitative Sciences section of the Research and Development branch of the FS maintains 

forestry data in some ways comparable to NASS agricultural data. FS activities include 

maintenance of the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) Program. Forest Inventory Online 

(FIDO), a data-mining tool, provides public access to the terabytes of data in the FIA databases. 

While there are no data in this system on yield, production, or price, there are related data 

including data on tree biomass removal and tree mortality by species group and size class. 

Unfortunately, the mortality data do not document the death of trees in small size classes (e.g., 

trees during the entire production of shrub willow bioenergy crops). Instead the focus is on 

mortality of trees larger than five inches in diameter at breast height (DBH). Furthermore, the 

species groups and geographic areas are aggregated at levels that would not allow the data to 

identify differences in insurance risk among smaller geographic areas. 

No organization whose membership is comprised of agricultural producers of woody biomass 

was identified. Since most biorefineries using cellulosic feedstocks are still under construction, 

recently commissioned, very small, or use multiple feedstock sources depending on availability 

and price, no meaningful data are available from this sector of the industry. It is possible as 

cellulosic biofuel refineries using woody biomass cropped species come online they can assist in 

collection of data regarding woody biomass yield, production, and pricing. However, 

incentivizing their participation in such data collection may be challenging. 

Pulpwood was considered as a proxy for woody biomass biorefinery feedstocks. The Contractor 

identified more than 100 pulpwood producers and consolidators. Despite assurances of 

confidentiality, none of the producers or consolidators the Contractor contacted were willing to 

share any data with the Contractor. The pulpwood industry is characterized by numerous 

producer organizations and business intelligence services. These organizations do not have data 

on production of biomass feedstock; however they have data available for sale on pulpwood 

feedstocks. None reported available pulpwood data series that address yield or production (in 

the sense of the word as it is used for insurance development). Pulpwood price data are available 

for purchase. 

In the academic literature, extremely limited production and yield data on cropped woody 

biomass species exist. These data address field trials rather than commercial production. Often 

the empirical data are used to estimate potential commercial yields or production. However, 

there are data available from which prices received at national and regional levels can be inferred 

because of the fungibility of feedstock materials used in biorefineries. In the end, the value of 

the energy extracted and sold minus the costs of extracting that energy sets an upper limit on the 

price of any feedstock. 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report.

56

None of the short-rotation tree species grown for energy have all the requisite data from 

consistent and reliable sources for county-level production and market statistics. Despite 

extensive research, the Contractor did not identify any source of empirical data on the number of 

producers, planted acreage, harvested acreage, total production, value, and yield of woody 

biomass crops of the sort used for insurance development. Data on woody biomass resources are 

sporadic. The few government data that exist do not address purpose-grown woody biomass 

crops. Extrapolations of empirical data from small plot trials to estimate potential yields and 

production are much more common. If private data on woody biomass crops exist, they are 

closely-held and proprietary. More likely, as the DOE reports, ―There is ... no nationwide 

source of information on woody or herbaceous crops being used for energy since this is 

occurring only on a very small scale in a few isolated experimental situations.‖

94

The Government could choose to begin a systematic collection of actual yield and production 

data for purpose-grown woody biomass biorefinery feedstock crops for the purpose of insurance 

development. However, even the shortest production cycles require four to five years (and eight 

to ten year cycles are not unusual). Consequently, decades of data collection would be necessary 

to accumulate time series representative of the life-cycle of these crops. Moreover, testimony 

suggests there are very few risks to production of woody biomass crops, and the significant risks 

identified are major catastrophic events (wild fires, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc.). The infrequent 

nature of these risks argues for an even longer historical database for rating purposes. 

Fortunately, data addressing these events exist, including data from government sources, albeit 

not in a form that would traditionally be applied to crop insurance design; there are no field trials 

or extended insurance experience. These existing data, combined with experiential data for 

forest resources more generally (particularly the FS data in the FIDO system) and expert 

judgment about agricultural risks (like that used in the development of premium rates in the 

Quarantine Pilot Program) constitute an attractive alternative to a protracted data collection on a 

rapidly evolving industry as the basis for development of risk management tools. In fact, if a 

crop insurance product is needed in the near term, this is the only approach that has any potential 

for achieving that goal. 

The relevant language in the 2008 Farm Bill focuses on research into the development of datadriven crop insurance instruments for woody biomass bioenergy crops. Consequently, language 

in the SOW for this project focuses on data of the sorts that would normally be used for 

development of a risk management tool for a field or row crop. However, purpose-grown woody 

biomass for use as a biorefinery feedstock, while planted in rows, is in no way a typical crop. It 

is derived from long-lived perennials. There is no set harvest point or period. For the nonconiferous types, coppicing allows multiple harvests from the same plant. Consequently, the 

concepts of yield and production as they are used in the development of federally-subsidized 

crop insurance do not appropriately capture information about risks and risk management. 

A feasibility study for the insurance of woody biomass crops for biorefinery feedstocks will need 

to address the RMA criteria for feasibility, but in the context of an agronomic focus on the losses 

producers of these crop face (that is, incremental costs associated with replanting, salvage, and/or 

rehabilitation) rather than in the context of a row or field crop yield. This report has provided an 

 

94 U.S. DOE, 2010, Biomass Energy Data Book: Edition 3, http://cta.ornl.gov/bedb/download.shtml, accessed August, 2011. 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report.

57

overview of the available data and its constraints. Recognizing these constraints, in light of the 

Farm Bill mandate, RMA must determine whether an alternative approach is the most likely to 

achieve successful development. 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report.

58

SECTION VIII. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Aylott, M.J., E. Casella, I. Tubby, N.R. Street, P. Smith, and G. Taylor, 2008, Yield and spatial 

supply of bio-energy poplar and willow short-rotation coppice in the UK, New 

Phytologist 178: 358–370. 

Beauchesne G., and C. Poulin, 1970, La culture de méristèms, ses possibilitiés et ses limits 

actuelles pour les plantes ligneuses, Comptes Rendus Academie Sciences: Prosp. Hort. 

Phytotron 2: 219-231. 

Bhojwani, S.S., 1980, Micropropagation method for a hybrid willow (Salix matsudana × alba,. 

New Zealand Journal of Botany 18:209-214. 

Böhm, C., A. Quinkenstein, D. Freese, R.F. Hüttl, 2011, Assessing the Short Rotation Woody 

Biomass Production on Marginal Post-Mining Areas, Journal of Forest Science 57: 303-

311, http://journals.uzpi.cz/publicFiles/44220.pdf. 

Brethauer, S. and C.E. Wyman, 2010, Review: Continuous hydrolysis and fermentation for 

cellulosic ethanol production, Bioresource Technoligy, 2010, 101:4862-74. 

Brown, S.L. and P.E. Schroeder, 1999, Spatial Patterns of Above Ground Production and 

Mortality of Woody Biomass for Eastern US Forests, Ecological Applications 9: 968–

980, http://www.winrock.org/ecosystems/files/spatialpatters.pdf. 

Buchholz, T. and T. Volk, 2011, Improving the Profitability of Willow Crops – Identifying 

Opportunities with a Crop Budget Model, BioEnergy Research 4: 85–95, 

http://www.bionity.com/en/publications/231795/improving-the-profitability-of-willowcrops-identifying-opportunities-with-a-crop-budget-model.html. 

Bungart, R. and R.F. Huttl, 2001, Production of biomass for energy in post-mining landscapes 

and nutrient dynamics, Biomass and Bio-energy 20: 181-187.

Dickens, E.D., B. Borders, and B. Jackson, 2011, Short Rotation Woody Crops Yield Estimates 

for Georgia Growers, http://www.warnell.uga.edu/outreach/pubs/pdf/forestry 

/SRWB_Growth_and_Yield_Paper_6_July_2011.pdf. 

Dong, J., R.K. Kaufmann, R.B. Myneni, C.J. Tucker, P. Kauppi, J. Liski, W. Buermann, V. 

Alexeyev, and M.K. Hughes, 2003, Remote Sensing Estimates of Boreal and Temperate 

Forest Woody Biomass: Carbon Pools, Sources, and Sinks; Remote Sensing of 

Environment 84: 393–410; http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/ 

viewcontent.cgi?article=1042&context=usdafsfacpub&sei 

redir=1#search=%22Remote%20sensing%20estimates%20boreal%20temperate%20fores

t%20woody%20biomass%3A%20carbon%20pools%2C%20sources%2C%20sinks%22. 

Eisenbies, M.H., E.D. Vance, W.M. Aust, and J R. Seiler, 2009, Intensive Utilization of Harvest 

Residues in Southern Pine Plantations: Quantities Available and Implications for Nutrient 

Budgets and Sustainable Site Productivity, Bio-energy Research 2: 90-98, 

http://ddr.nal.usda.gov/bitstream/10113/36119/1/IND44249891.pdf. 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report.

59

Evans, S. (coordinator), M. Baldwin, P. Henshall, R. Matthews, G. Morgan, J. Poole, P. Taylor, 

P., I. and Tubby, 2007, Final Report: Yield models for Energy: Coppice of Poplar and 

willow. Volume A – Empirical Models. Report to DTI (B/W2/00624/00/00 URN). Ed: I 

Tubby and J Poole. 91pp., 

http://www.biomassenergycentre.org.uk/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/BEC_TECHNICAL/RES

EARCH%20AND%20STUDIES/ENERGY%20CROP%20STUDIES/YIELD%20MOD

ELS%20FOR%20SRC%20A.PDF. 

Ferrari, M.D., E. Neirotti,.C. Albornoz, and E. Saucedo, 1992, Ethanol production from 

eucalyptus wood hemicellulose hydrolysate by Pichia stipitis, Biotechnology and 

Bioengineering 40: 753-759. 

Forestry Commission (UK), Yield Models for Energy Coppice of Poplar and Willow, Empirical 

Models, Volume A, http://www.biomassenergycentre.org.uk. 

Forestry Resources Task Force, Idaho Strategic Energy Alliance, 2009, Wood Bioenergy 

Homegrown Baseload Energy for Idaho, 

http://www.energy.idaho.gov/energyalliance/d/forest_packet.pdf. 

Gallagher, T., B. Shaffer, and B. Rummer, 2006, An Economic Analysis of Hardwood Fiber 

Production on Dryland Irrigated Sites in the US Southeast, Biomass & Bioenergy 30: 

794–802, http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/ja/ja_rummer016.pdf. 

Geary, T.F., G.F. Meskimen, and E.C. Franklin, 1983, Growing eucalyptus in Florida for 

industrial wood production, USDA Forest Service General Technical. Report. SE-23.

Geyer, W.A., 2006, Biomass Production in the Central Great Plains USA under Various Coppice 

Regimes, Biomass & Bioenergy 30: 778-783, 

http://www.gpsaf.unl.edu/GPPubs/Coppice%20article%20biomass%20bioenergy.pdf. 

Gregg, D.J. and J.N. Saddler, 1996, Factors affecting cellulose hydrolysis and the potential of 

enzyme recycle to enhance the efficiency of an integrated wood to ethanol process, 

Biotechnology and Bioengineering 51: 375-383. 

Heilman, P.E., D.V. Peabody, D.S. DeBell, and D.F. Strand, 1972, A test of close-spaced, short 

rotation culture of black cottonwood. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 2: 456-459.

Heilman, P.E. and D.V. Peabody, 1981, Effect of harvest cycle and spacing on productivity of 

black cottonwood in intensive culture, Canadian Journal of Forest Research 11: 118-123.

Heilman, P.E. and R.F. Stettler, 1985, Genetic variation and productivity of Populus trichocarpa 

and its hybrids. II. Biomass production in a 4-year plantation, Canadian Journal of Forest 

Research 15: 384–388.

Hill, J., E. Nelson, D. Tilman, S. Polasky, and D. Tiffany, 2006, Environmental, economic, and 

energetic costs and benefits of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels, Proceedings of the National 

Academy of Science U S A. 103:11206-10.
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report.

60

Himmel, M.E., S-Y Ding, D.K. Johnson, W.S. Adney, M.R. Nimlos, J.W Brady, and T.D. Foust, 

, 2007, Biomass Recalcitrance: Engineering Plants and Enzymes for Biofuels Production, 

Science 315: 804, http://www.uta.edu/biology/grover/classnotes/5101/ 

Himmel%20et%20al.pdf. 

Hinchee, M., W. Rottmann, L. Mullinax, C. Zhang, S. Chang, M. Cunningham, L. Pearson, and 

N. Nehra, 2009, Short rotation woody crops for bioenergy and biofuels applications, In 

Vitro Cellular & Developmental Biology 45: 619–629, 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2778772/. 

Hoekman, S.K., 2009, Biofuels in the U.S. – Challenges and Opportunities. Renewable Energy 

34:14–22, http://www.dri.edu/images/stories/editors/receditor 

/2009_hoekmank_busco.pdf. 

Howell, F.M., J.R. Porter, P.B. Mason, and T.C. Blanchard, 2010, Spatial Contours of Potential 

Biomass Crop Production: An Examination of Variations by US Region, Journal of Rural 

Social Sciences, 25:1-32, 

http://www.ag.auburn.edu/auxiliary/srsa/pages/Articles/JRSS%202010%2025%202%201

-32.pdf. 

Hytönen, J. and L. Aro, 2010, Biomass production of birch on cut-away peatlands – energy wood 

with short rotation?, http://www.metla.fi/hanke/3479/doc/posteri.pdf. 

Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range Policy Analysis Group, 2000, Toward Sustainable Forest 

Management: Part II—The Role and Effects of Timber Harvesting in Idaho, 

http://www.cnrhome.uidaho.edu/documents/Report19ES.pdf?pid=69505&doc=1. 

Indiana Department of Natural Resources, 2008, Woody Biomass Feedstock for the Bioenergy 

and Bioproducts Industries, http://www.in.gov/dnr/forestry/files/foWoodyBiomass_final.pdf. 

Irland, L.C., P.E. Sendak, and R.H. Widmann, 2001, Hardwood pulpwood stumpage price trends 

in the northeast, 

http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/newtown_square/publications/technical_reports/pdfs/2001/gtrne2

86.pdf. 

Isebrands, J.G., 2007, Best Management Practices Poplar Manual For Agroforestry Applications 

in Minnesota, http://www.extension.umn.edu /distribution/naturalresources/00095.html. 

Kim, S. and B.E. Dale, 2005, Life cycle assessment of various cropping systems utilized for 

producing biofuels: bioethanol and biodiesel, Biomass & Bioenergy 29:426–39.

Labrecque, M., T.I. Teodorescu, and S. Daigle, 1997, Biomass productivity and wood energy of 

Salix species after 2 years growth in SRIC fertilized with wastewater sludge, Biomass 

and Bio-energy 12: 409-417.
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report.

61

Langholtz, M., D.R. Carter, D.L. Rockwood, J.R.R. Alavalapati, and A Green, 2005, Effect of 

dendroremediation incentives on the profitability of short-rotation woody cropping of 

Eucalyptus grandis, Forest Policy and Economics 7: 806-817.

Langholtz, M., D.R. Carter, and D.L. Rockwood. 2007, Assessing the Economic Feasibility of 

Short-Rotation Woody Crops in Florida, Florida Cooperative Extension Service Circular 

1516, http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/FR169.

Licht, L.A., and J.G. Isebrands, 2005, Linking phytoremediated pollutant removal to biomass 

economic opportunities, Biomass and Bio-energy 28: 203-218.

Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, 2010, Biomass Sustainability and Carbon Policy 

Study, Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Department of Energy Resources, 182 pp, 

http://www.manomet.org/sites/manomet.org/files/Manomet_Biomass_Report_Full_LoRe

z.pdf.

Mantau, U., U. Saal, K. Prins, F. Steierer, M. Linder, H. Verkerk, J. Eggers, N. Leek, J. 

Oldenburger, A. Asikainen, and P. Anttila, 2010, Real Potential for Changes in Growth 

and Use of EU Forests, 

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/studies/doc/bioenergy/euwood_final_report.pdf. 

McCracken, A.R. and L. Walsh, 2010, Developments in SRC Willow R&D in Northern Ireland, 

UK, http://www.esf.edu/ outreach/pd/2010 /srwc/documents 

/AMcCrackenDevelopSRC.pdf. 

McKeand S.E. and B. Li, eds., 2005, Proceedings of the 28th Southern Forest Tree Improvement 

Conference, http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/nreos/forest/feop/Agenda2005/SFTIC/proceedings. 

pdf.

Mead, D.J., 2005, Forests for energy and the role of planted trees. Critical Reviews in Plant 

Sciences 24: 407–421; Mercker D., 2007, Short rotation woody crops for biofuels. 

University of Tennessee Agricultural Experiment Station, 

http://www.utextension.utk.edu/publications/spfiles/SP702-C.pdf. 

Mercker, D., 2007, Short rotation woody crops for biofuels. University of Tennessee 

Agricultural Experiment Station, 

http://www.utextension.utk.edu/publications/spfiles/SP702-C.pdf. 

Miller, R.O., and B.A. Bender, 2008, Growth and Yield of Poplar and Willow Hybrids in the 

Central Upper Peninsula of Michigan, http://www.cinram.umn.edu 

/srwc/docs/Powerpoints/R.Miller_Growth%20and%20Yield%20of%20Poplar%20and%2

0Willow%20Hybrids.pdf. 

Mirck, J., J.G. Isebrands, T. Verwijst, and S. Ledin, 2005, Development of short-rotation willow 

coppice systems for environmental purposes in Sweden, Biomass & Bioenergy 28: 219-

228.
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report.

62

Mitchell, C.P., 1984, An Experimental Study of Short Rotation Forestry for Energy, in Solar 

Energy R & D in the European Community, Reidel, 5: 88-95, 

http://books.google.com/books?id=lXBhn2RPIvEC&pg=PA89&lpg=PA89&dq=douglas

+fir+for+energy+short+rotation&source=bl&ots=UpJ642T87s&sig=TCVL_e3JaTvgh8c

7NAmm_t4Tts8&hl=en#.

Mola-Yudego, B. and P. Aronsson, 2008, Yield models for commercial willow biomass 

plantations in Sweden, Biomass & Bioenergy 32: 829–837.

Myneni, R.B., J. Dong, C.J. Tucker, R.K. Kaufmann, P.E. Kauppi, J. Liski, L.Zhou, V. 

Alexeyev, and M.K. Hughes, 2001, A Large Carbon Sink in the Woody Biomass of 

Northern Forests, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 98: 14784-14789, 

http://www.pnas.org/content/98/26/14784.full.pdf. 

O‘Laughlin, J., 2010, Accounting for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Wood Bioenergy: 

Response to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency‘s Call for Information, 

http://www.cnrhome.uidaho.edu/documents/JayO''L_to-EPA_9-13-

2010_PAG_31.pdf?pid=11P9711&doc=1. 

Parikka, M., 2004, Global Biomass Fuel Resources. Biomass & Bioenergy 27: 613–620, 

http://faculty.washington.edu/stevehar/World%20woody%20biomass.pdf. 

Perez-Verdin, G., D. Grebner, C. Sun, I. Munn, E. Schultz, and T. Matney, 2007, Woody 

Biomass Feedstock Supplies and Management for Bioenergy in Southwestern 

Mississippi, http://sofew.cfr.msstate.edu/papers/Perez-Verdin07.pdf. 

Perlack, R.D., L.L. Wright, A.F. Turhollow, R.L. Graham, B.J. Stokes, and D. C. Erbach, US 

Dept of Energy and US Dept of Agriculture, 2005, 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/final_billionton_vision_report2.pdf.Rockwoo

d D.L., D.R. Carter, M.H. Langholtz, and J.A. Stricker, 2006, Eucalyptus and Populus 

short rotation woody SEQ CHAPTER 1 crops for phosphate mined lands in Florida USA, 

Biomass & Bioenergy 30: 728–734. 

Rockwood, D.L., and D.R. Dippon. 1989. Biological and economic potential of Eucalyptus 

grandis and slash pine as biomass energy crops. Biomass 20: 155–166.

Rockwood, D.L., N.N. Pathak, and P.C. Satapathy, 1993, Woody biomass production systems 

for Florida, Biomass & Bioenergy 5: 23–34.

Rockwood, D.L., G.F. Peter, M.H. Langholtz, B. Becker, A.Clark III, and J. Bryan, 2005, 

Genetically improved eucalypts for novel applications and sites in Florida. In: 

Proceedings of the 28th Southern Forest Tree Improvement Conference, 64–75. 

http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/nreos/forest/feop/Agenda2005/SFTIC/proceedings.pdf. 

Rockwood, D.L. and G.F. Peter, 1998 (reviewed 2011), Eucalyptus and Corymbia Species for 

Pulpwood, Mulchwood, Energywood, Windbreaks, and/or Phytoremediation, Circular 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report.

63

1194 of the School of Forest Resources and Conservation, Florida Cooperative Extension 

Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida.

Rockwood, D.L., S.M. Pisano, and W.V. McConnell, 1996, Superior cottonwood and Eucalyptus 

clones for biomass production in wastewater bioremediation systems, Proceedings of 

Bio-energy  ̳96, Seventh National Bio-energy Conference: 254–261.

Rockford, D.L., D.R. Carter, and J.A. Stricker, 2008, Commercial Tree Crops for Phosphate 

Mined Lands: Final report, Publication No. 03-141-225, Univ. of Florida.110 pp.

Rockwood D. L., and B. Tamang.2010.Description and performance of four Eucalyptus grandis 

cultivars released by IFAS/UF in 2009. Proceedings Florida State Horticultural Society 

123:330-332.

Roebroeks, W, and P. Villa, 2011. On the earliest evidence for habitual use of fire in Europe, 

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108: 5209-5214, 

http://www.pnas.org/content/108/13/5209.

Rosenqvist, H., P. Aronsson, K. Hasselgren, and K. Perttu, 1997. Economics of using municipal 

wastewater irrigation of willow coppice crops, Biomass & Bioenergy 12: 1-8.

Rutledge, C.B., and G. C. Douglas, 1988, Culture of meristem tips and micropropagation of 12 

commercial clones of poplar in vitro, Physiologia Plantarum 72: 367-373

Schmidt, D., 2006, Biomass Energy Opportunities from Hybrid Poplars In Minnesota, Woody 

Biomass Harvesting and Utilization Workshop, 

http://www.extension.umn.edu/agroforestry/biomass/schmidt.pdf. 

Searchinger, T., R. Heimlich, R.A. Houghton, F. Dong, A. Elobeid, J. Fabiosa, S. Tokgoz, D. 

Hayes, and T-H. Yu, 2008, Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse 

Gases Through Emissions from Land-Use Change, 

http://www.abengoabioenergia.eu/corp/export/sites/abg_bioenergy/resources/pdf/acerca_

de/informacion_tecnica/en/Sciencexpress_Croplands_for_Biofuels_Increase_Greenhouse

_Gases.pdf. 

Segrest, S.A. Rockwood, D.L. Stricker, J.A. Green, A.E.S. (1998). Energy crop yields for 

Eucalyptus and cottonwood, http://www.treepower.org/yields/main.html. 

Shani, Z., M. Dekel, G Tsabary, R. Goren, and O. Shoseyov, 2004, Growth enhancement of 

transgenic poplar plants by over expression of Arbidopsis thaliana endo-1,4-β–glucanase, 

Molecular Breeding 14: ̈321-330. 

Stanton, B.J., 2007, Hybrid Poplar Feedstock Production: Economic Opportunity for Renewable 

Energy in North America, TAPPI International Conference on Renewable Energy, 

http://www.tappi.org/content/Events/07renew/07ren05.pdf. 

Sticklen, M.B., 2008, Plant genetic engineering for biofuel production: towards affordable 

cellulosic ethanol Nature Reviews Genetics 9, 433-443. 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report.

64

Stricker J.A., D.L. Rockwood, S.A. Segrest, G.R. Alker, G.M. Prine.; and D.R. Carter, 2000, 

Short Rotation Woody Crops For Florida. University of Florida, 

http://www.treepower.org/papers/strickerny.doc. 

Sullivan, J, 1994, Picea abies. In: Fire Effects Information System, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, 

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/. 

Sun, Y. and J. Cheng, 2002, Hydrolysis of lignocellulosic materials for ethanol production: a 

review, Bioresource Technology 83: 1-11. 

Talbert, C., and D. Marshall, 2005, Plantation Productivity in the Douglas-Fir Region Under 

Intensive Silvicultural Practices: Results from Research and Operations, Journal of 

Forestry 103: 65-70, 

http://courses.washington.edu/esrm427/Talbert_Marshall_Plantations.pdf. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2009, 2007 Census of Agriculture, 

http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/usv1.pdf. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, 2009, Program Fact Sheet: Noninsured 

Crop Disaster Assistance Program for 2009 and Subsequent Years, 

http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/nap09.pdf, Accessed October, 2011. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis Program, 

http://www.fia.fs.fed.us/. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 2006, Biomass Feedstock Composition and Property Database: All 

Sample Types, All Heat Properties, 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/feedstock_databases.html. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 2010, Biomass Energy Data Book: Edition 3, 

http://cta.ornl.gov/bedb/download.shtml or 

http://cta.ornl.gov/bedb/pdf/BEDB3_Full_Doc.pdf. 

U.S. Department of Energy and U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2007, 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/2007ethanolreview.pdf. 

U.S. Department of Energy and U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2011, 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/integrated_bio-refineries.html. 

U.S. Department of Interior, 2011, National Atlas of the United States: Forest Resources in the 

United States, http://nationalatlas.gov/articles/biology/a_forest.html. 

U.S. Energy Administration, 2011, Total Energy: 1011 Monthly Energy Review: 1.2: Primary 

Energy Production by Source, http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/mer.pdf. 

U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2010, Renewable Energy Annual 2008, 

http://205.254.135.24/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/rea_data/rea.pdf. 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report.

65

Van deWalle, I., N. van Camp, L. van de Casteele, K. Verheyen, and R. Lemeu. 2007, Shortrotation forestry of birch, maple, poplar and willow in Flanders (Belgium) I—Biomass 

production after 4 years of tree growth, Biomass and Bio-energy 31: 267-275. 

Van Oosten, C., 2006, Hybrid Poplar Crop Manual for the Prairie Provinces, 

http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/apa11037. 

Van Oosten, C., 2008, Purpose-Grown Woody Biomass Crops, 

http://www.poplar.ca/pdf/woodybiomrep.pdf. 

Vermis, W. 2008, Genetic Improvement of Bio-energy Crops, Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 

397. 

Volk, T.A., L.P. Abrahamson, C.A. Nowak, L.B. Smart, P.J. Tharakan, and E. H. White, E.H., 

2006, The Development of Short-Rotation Willow in the Northeastern United States for 

Bioenergy and Bioproducts, Agroforestry and Phytoremediation, Biomass & Bioenergy 

30: 715–727, http://www.sciencedirect.com science/article/pii/S0961953406000687. 

Volk, T.A., M.A. Buford, B. Berguson, J. Caputo, J. Eaton, J.H. Perdue, T.G. Rials, D. 

Riemenschneider, B. Stanton, and J.A. Stanturf, 2010, Woody Feedstocks-Management 

and Regional Differences, http://www.swcs.org/documents /resources 

/Chapter_7__Volk__Woody_ Feedstocks_6D4F290C2D22F.pdf. 

Volk, T.A., P. Woodbury, P. Castellano, R. Germain, and T. Buchholz, 2011, Woody Biomass 

Feedstock Supply Potential in New York State, http://www.uvm.edu 

/~cfcm/symposium/PDFs/Volk.pdf. 

Wagner, J.E. and P.E. Sendak, 2005, The annual increase of Northeastern regional timber 

stumpage prices: 1961 to 2002. Forest Products Journal 55:36-45. 

Walker, T., P. Cardellechio, A. Colnes, J. Gunn, B. Kittler, B. Perschel, C. Recchia, and D. Saah, 

2010, Biomass Sustainability and Carbon Policy Study, 

http://www.manomet.org/sites/manomet.org/files/Manomet_Biomass_Report_Full_LoRe

z.pdf. 

Weih, M., 2004, Intensive Short Rotation Forestry in Boreal Climates: Present and Future 

Perspectives, Canadian Journal of Forest Research 34: 1369–1378, 

http://research.eeescience.utoledo.edu /lees/papers_PDF/Weih_2004_CJFR.pdf. 

Whitesell, C.D., D.S. DeBell, T.H. Schubert, R.F. Strand, and T.B. Crabb, 1992. Short-rotation 

management of Eucalyptus: guidelines for plantations in Hawaii. Pacific Southwest 

Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 

http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr137/psw_gtr137.pdf. 

Wilhelm, W.W., J.M.F. Johnson, D.L. Karlen, D.T. Lightle, 2007, Corn Stover to Sustain Soil 

Organic Carbon Further Constrains Biomass Supply, Agronomy. Journal 99:1665–1667, 

http://ddr.nal.usda.gov/bitstream/10113/14703/1/IND44011589.pdf. 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report.

66

Woudenberg, S.W., B.L. Conkling, B.M. O‘Connell, E.B. LaPoint, J.A. Turner, and K.L. 

Waddell, 2010, The Forest Inventory and Analysis Database: Database Description and 

Users Manual Version 4.0 for Phase 2, http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr245.pdf.

Wright, L. 2006. Worldwide commercial development of bio-energy with a focus on energy 

crop-based projects, Biomass & Bioenergy 30: 706-714.

Wright, L., contract to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 2010, US Woody Crop Yield 

Summary - 2010, http://www.woodycrops.org /NR/rdonlyres/BF9B2067-FDB0-49B0-

9543-8EEA03A415FD/2844 /USWoodyCropsYieldSummaryOct2010.pdf. 

Zumrawi, A.A. and D.W. Hann, 1993, Diameter Growth Equations for Douglas-fir and Grand 

Fir in the Western Willamette Valley of Oregon, Research Contribution 4, Oregon State 

University, Forest Research Laboratory, 

http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1957/7618/RC4.pdf;jsessionid=4

D7BC90BE6FE98BBDBA9E66899939603?sequence=1.
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

Appendix A. 

DOE Biomass Program Biorefineries 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A1

ABENGOA BIO-ENERGY LLC. 

Feedstock Stover, Switchgrass, Woody Biomass 

Conversion Technology Biochemical 

Primary Product ethanol 

Bio-fuel Capacity 15,000,000 

Scale Commercial 

Location Hugoton, Kansas 

ARCHER DANIELS MIDLAND, INC. 

Feedstock Corn Stover 

Conversion Technology Biochemical 

Primary Product ethanol 

Bio-fuel Capacity 25,800 

Scale Pilot 

Location Decatur, Illinois 

ALGENOL BIO-FUELS, INC. 

Feedstock Algae 

Conversion Technology Biochemical 

Primary Product ethanol 

Bio-fuel Capacity 100,000 

Scale Pilot 

Location Freeport, Texas 

AMYRIS BIOTECHNOLOGIES INC. 

Feedstock Sweet Sorghum 

Conversion Technology Biochemical 

Primary Product renewable hydrocarbons 

Bio-fuel Capacity 1,370 

Scale Pilot 

Location Emeryville, California 

AMERICAN PROCESS, INC. 

Feedstock Hardwood Derived Hydrolyzate 

Conversion Technology Biochemical 

Primary Product ethanol 

Bio-fuel Capacity 894,000 

Scale Pilot 

Location Alpena, Michigan 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A2

MYRIANT 

Feedstock Sorghum 

Conversion Technology Biochemical 

Primary Product bioproducts 

Bio-fuel Capacity NA 

Scale Demonstration 

Location Lake Providence, Louisana 

CLEAR FUELS TECHNOLOGY 

Feedstock Woody waste and bagasse 

Conversion Technology Thermochemical - Gasification 

Primary Product renewable diesel, jet fuel 

Bio-fuel Capacity 151,000 

Scale Pilot 

Location Commerce City, Colorado 

ELEVANCE RENEWABLE SCIENCES 

Feedstock Algae oil, Plant and Animal oils 

Conversion Technology Chemical 

Primary Product renwable jet fuel and diesel 

Bio-fuel Capacity NA 

Scale R&D 

Location Bolington, Illinois 

ENERKEM 

Feedstock Municipal Sewage Waste, Forest Residues 

Conversion Technology Thermochemical - Gasification 

Primary Product ethanol 

Bio-fuel Capacity 10,000,000 

Scale Demonstration 

Location Pontotoc, Mississippi 

GAS TECHNOLOGY INSTITUTE 

Feedstock Wood waste, corn stover, and algae 

Conversion Technology Thermochemical - Pyrolysis 

Primary Product renewable gasoline, diesel 

Bio-fuel Capacity NA 

Scale R&D 

Location Des Plaines, Illinois 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A3

HALDOR TOPSOE, INC. 

Feedstock Wood waste and non-merchantable wood 

Conversion Technology Thermochemical - Gasification 

Primary Product renewable hydrocarbons 

Bio-fuel Capacity 345,000 

Scale Pilot 

Location Des Plaines, Illinois 

ICM, INC. 

Feedstock Corn Fiber, Switchgrass, Energy Sorghum 

Conversion Technology Biochemical 

Primary Product ethanol 

Bio-fuel Capacity 245,000 

Scale Pilot 

Location St. Joseph, Missouri 

INEOS NEW PLANET BIO-ENERGY JV 

Feedstock Municipal Sewage Waste 

Conversion Technology Hybrid 

Primary Product ethanol 

Bio-fuel Capacity 8,000,000 

Scale Demonstration 

Location Vero Beach, Florida 

LOGOS TECHNOLOGIES 

Feedstock Agricultural Residues, Energy Crops, Forest Resources 

Detailed Feedstock Corn Stover, Switchgrass, Wood Chips 

Conversion Technology Biochemical 

Primary Product ethanol 

Bio-fuel Capacity 50,000 

Scale Pilot 

Location Visalia, California 

RENEWABLE ENERGY INSTITUTE INTERNATIONAL 

Feedstock Rice hulls and forest residues 

Conversion Technology Thermochemical - Gasification 

Primary Product ethanol 

Bio-fuel Capacity 625,000 

Scale Pilot 

Location Toledo, Ohio 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A4

SAPPHIRE ENERGY INC. 

Feedstock Algae 

Conversion Technology Algae 

Primary Product algal lipids 

Bio-fuel Capacity 1,000,000 

Scale Demonstration 

Location Columbus, New Mexico 

SOLAZYME INC. 

Feedstock Algae 

Conversion Technology Algae 

Primary Product algal lipids 

Bio-fuel Capacity 300,000 

Scale Pilot 

Location Riverside, Pennsylvania 

UOP LLC. 

Detailed Forest Residues, Corn Stover, Bagasse, Switchgrass, Algae 

Conversion Technology Thermochemical - Pyrolysis 

Primary Product renewable diesel, gasoline, and jet fuel 

Bio-fuel Capacity 60,000 

Scale Pilot 

Location Kapolei, Hawaii 

ZEACHEM 

Feedstock Hybrid Poplar, Stover and Cobs 

Conversion Technology Hybrid 

Primary Product ethanol 

Bio-fuel Capacity 250,000 

Scale Pilot 

Location Boardman, Oregon 

BLUEFIRE LLC 

Feedstock Wood waste, Municipal Sewage Waste 

Conversion Technology Biochemical 

Primary Product ethanol 

Bio-fuel Capacity 19,000,000 

Scale Commercial 

Location Fulton, Mississippi 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A5

PACIFIC BIOGASOL INC. 

Feedstock Hybrid Poplar, Stover, Wheat Straw 

Conversion Technology Biochemical 

Primary Product ethanol 

Bio-fuel Capacity 2,700,000 

Scale Demonstration 

Location Boardman, Oregon 

LIGNOL 

Feedstock Woody Biomass 

Conversion Technology Biochemical 

Primary Product ethanol 

Bio-fuel Capacity 2,500,000 

Scale Demonstration 

Location Ferndale, Washington 

NEW PAGE CORPORATION 

Feedstock Mill Residues and un-Merchantable Wood 

Conversion Technology Thermochemical - Gasification 

Primary Product Renewable FT liquids 

Bio-fuel Capacity 5,500,000 

Scale Demonstration 

Location Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin 

VERENIUM LOUISIANA, LLC. 

Feedstock sugarcane bagasse, energy cane and sorghum 

Conversion Technology Biochemical 

Primary Product ethanol 

Bio-fuel Capacity 1,400,000 

Scale Demonstration 

Location Jennings, Louisiana 

RANGE FUELS 

Feedstock Woody biomass, forest residues, thinnings 

Conversion Technology Thermochemical - Gasification 

Primary Product ethanol and methanol 

Bio-fuel Capacity 20,000,000 

Scale Commercial 

Location Soperton, Georgia 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

A6

POET, LLC. 

Feedstock Corn Cobs 

Conversion Technology Biochemical 

Primary Product ethanol 

Bio-fuel Capacity 25,000,000 

Scale Commercial 

Location Emmetsburg, Iowa 

FLAMBEAU RIVER BIO-FUELS, LLC. 

Feedstock Mill Residues, Unmerchantable Forest Material, and Other Woody Biomass 

Conversion Technology Thermochemical - Gasification 

Primary Product renewable diesel, FT waxes 

Bio-fuel Capacity 9,000,000 

Scale Commercial 

Location Park Falls, Wisconsin 

MASCOMA 

Feedstock Woody Biomass (aspen) 

Conversion Technology Biochemical 

Primary Product ethanol 

Bio-fuel Capacity 20,000,000 

Scale Commercial 

Location Kinross, Michigan 

RED SHIELD ACQUISITION 

Feedstock Forest Resources 

Conversion Technology Biochemical 

Primary Product biobutanol 

Bio-fuel Capacity 1,500,000 

Scale Demonstration 

Location Old Town, Maine 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

Appendix B. 

Sample Government Data 

Exhibit 1. NASS Data 

Exhibit 2. FS FIA Data

Exhibit 3. Sample FS Species Groupings: Cottonwood/Poplar 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

B1

Exhibit 1. 

NASS Data 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

B2

2007 Census Volume 1, Chapter 1 Table 38

Crop Acres in Production Harvested Irrigated

Farms Acres Farms Acres Farms Acres

Short-rotation woody crops - 2007 4,717 228,335 1,769 31,007 668 (D)

Short-rotation woody crops - 2002 6,285 288,686 1,940 31,920 (NA) (NA)

2007 farms by acres in production

1 to 9 acres 1,948 7,052 751 1,572 433 1,098

10 to 49 acres 1,926 43,191 696 7,310 178 2,484

50 to 99 acres 484 32,844 185 5,313 35 1,151

100 to 249 acres 270 38,571 90 5,409 12 468

250 to 499 acres 56 18,050 24 2,479 6 1,700

500 acres or more 33 88,627 23 8,924 4 (D)

500 to 749 acres 16 9,489 12 1,212 2 (D)

750 to 999 acres 2 (D) 1 (D)

1,000 to 1,999 acres 5 7,486 2 (D)

2,000 to 2,999 acres 5 12,185 4 2,870

3,000 to 4,999 acres 2 (D) 1 (D)

5,000 to 9,999 acres 1 (D) 1 (D) 1 (D)

10,000 acres or more 2 (D) 2 (D) 1 (D)

2002 farms by acres in production

1 to 9 acres 2,892 9,193 910 1,928 (NA) (NA)

10 to 49 acres 2,335 50,016 726 6,985 (NA) (NA)

50 to 99 acres 570 38,393 139 4,562 (NA) (NA)

100 to 249 acres 353 51,041 108 6,446 (NA) (NA)

250 to 499 acres 92 31,320 33 2,836 (NA) (NA)

500 acres or more 43 108,723 24 9,163 (NA) (NA)

500 to 749 acres 19 12,158 10 (D) (NA) (NA)

750 to 999 acres 4 3,565 2 (D) (NA) (NA)

1,000 to 1,999 acres 10 12,186 4 (D) (NA) (NA)

2,000 to 2,999 acres 3 7,090 2 (D) (NA) (NA)

3,000 to 4,999 acres 4 15,662 3 785 (NA) (NA)

5,000 to 9,999 acres (NA) (NA)

10,000 acres or more 3 58,062 3 (D) (NA) (NA)
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

B3

2007 Census Volume 1, Chapter 1 Table 37 

Geographic Area

2007 2002

Acres in Production Acres Harvested Acres in Production Acres Harvested

Farms Acres

Acres 

Irrigated Farms Acres Farms Acres Farms Acres

United States Total

United States 4,717 228,335 (D) 1,769 31,007 6,285 288,686 1,940 31,920

States

Alabama 13 99 2 (D) 145 1,635 38 428

Alaska 1 (D) 4 44 2 (D)

Arizona 14 213 48 7 11 21 710 12 (D)

Arkansas 62 1,749 29 511

California 97 2,086 631 53 420 173 4,247 87 166

Colorado 119 2,768 962 72 435 88 1,931 41 190

Delaware 9 181 5 9

Florida 198 6,562 38 395

Georgia 71 2,813 364 39 658 170 2,206 49 304

Hawaii 59 (D) 29 25 50 16 (D) 5 (D)

Idaho 91 1,670 377 42 161 91 1,268 8 29

Illinois 117 2,152 523 53 595 148 4,796 67 1,550

Indiana 116 3,103 127 45 394

Iowa 59 692 (D) 28 114 112 1,004 42 236

Kansas 26 (D) 11 23

Kentucky 83 1,222 45 46 301 54 1,260 37 304

Louisiana 203 16,329 65 46 3,356 183 20,350 35 1,495

Maryland 34 524 32 16 162 78 903 30 254

Michigan 311 7,934 431 127 1,234 422 10,966 147 1,482

Minnesota 225 (D) 116 83 672 274 10,060 86 762

Mississippi 527 44,638 231 128 4,866 387 33,892 89 4,421

Missouri 99 3,145 231 56 622

Nebraska 28 152 31 14 19 25 262 14 44

Nevada 2 (D) (D) 2 (D) 2 (D)

New Mexico 13 49 27 4 6 15 121 8 46

New York 221 5,753 113 100 1,276 448 18,805 154 2,096

North Carolina 44 289 40 26 71 400 7,418 122 766

North Dakota 8 16 11

Ohio 307 5,433 42 121 1,267 346 8,663 122 1,123

Oklahoma 52 877 61 31 420 59 1,783 19 181

Oregon 211 26,787 (D) 65 2,918 367 26,330 91 2,467

Pennsylvania 23 414 (D) 13 59 510 11,358 180 2,823

South Carolina 351 17,493 1,129 100 3,348 395 17,047 76 1,496

South Dakota 1 (D) 1 (D) 15 193 6 34

Tennessee 72 1,178 43 48 309 59 (D) 35 295

Texas 731 29,635 1,380 215 4,265 599 37,763 157 3,599

Utah 2 (D) (D) 1 (D) 13 32 3 4

Virginia 176 (D) 81 55 708 242 6,133 56 512

Washington 153 12,638 (D) 71 1,714 148 22,463 62 3,535

West Virginia 15 188 (D) 1 (D) 32 112 4 5

Wisconsin 4 86 2 (D) 1 (D) 1 (D)

Wyoming 2 (D) (D) 2 (D) 10 307 1 (D)
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

B4

Exhibit 2. 

FS FIA Data 

Net Tree Volume on Forest Land By Species or Species Grouping 

(in Cubic Feet) 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

B5

Arkansas Net Tree Volume on Forest Land By Species or Species Grouping (in Cubic Feet) 

Species 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Grand Total

Ashe Juniper 16,821,135 13,093,236 13,033,327 11,982,692 12,994,215 18,461,998 86,386,603

Black Willow 152,289,039 174,677,635 162,401,461 149,601,344 167,501,021 150,805,426 957,275,926

Cottonwood and Poplar spp. 10,162,011 10,162,011

Eastern Cottonwood 107,378,464 113,066,312 113,802,601 125,728,116 116,940,406 120,345,195 697,261,094

Loblolly Pine 6,055,488,958 6,002,641,404 6,072,054,129 6,190,294,053 6,223,032,572 6,490,927,537 37,034,438,653

Shortleaf Pine 3,507,028,599 3,577,980,814 3,599,752,205 3,625,304,146 3,629,753,466 3,655,885,140 21,595,704,370

Swamp Cottonwood 28,300,352 329,729 323,578 28,953,659

Willow spp. 41,702,672 28,120,977 26,280,096 26,190,043 122,293,788

Yellow-Poplar 9,218,727 9,689,039 11,902,829 12,012,994 13,859,130 13,960,072 70,642,791

AR Total 10,599,904,320 10,597,788,867 10,686,368,094 10,820,774,620 10,877,607,755 11,163,888,466 64,746,332,122
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

B6

Alabama Net Tree Volume on Forest Land By Species or Species Grouping (in Cubic Feet) 

Species 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Black Willow 6,017,486 6,627,140 9,806,363 18,761,407 24,136,941 27,407,273

Cottonwood and Poplar spp. 11,204,588 13,651,083 14,020,031 14,239,953 14,352,522 14,239,953 14,310,312

Eastern Cottonwood 18,178,729 22,029,067 21,935,563 20,435,667 20,563,658 22,338,086 23,748,247

Loblolly Pine 9,013,127,136 8,972,916,741 9,091,300,771 9,393,784,016 9,844,383,867 10,235,859,484 10,509,353,595

Longleaf Pine 1,013,628,259 1,013,665,664 1,018,216,163 988,578,268 950,765,390 942,387,644 934,050,246

Pond Pine 8,027,362 8,073,102 8,131,015 8,154,413

Sand Pine 1,495,768 1,499,256 1,503,731 3,086,349 3,086,349 3,095,562 3,086,349

Shortleaf Pine 1,239,628,819 1,227,722,738 1,212,871,173 1,154,456,523 1,106,501,654 1,064,103,822 1,051,523,828

Slash Pine 914,969,092 902,862,139 917,306,547 918,280,897 912,372,736 890,678,655 890,381,635

Spruce Pine 246,833,422 250,714,174 236,836,558 225,823,305 196,865,883 180,993,562 189,288,737

Swamp Cottonwood 303,068 302,724 274,646 262,914 261,878 263,189 263,962

Virginia Pine 542,080,745 495,858,892 502,439,629 491,809,978 492,345,843 480,995,491 502,168,947

Willow spp. 39,292,040 38,100,374 34,095,396 34,555,868 20,926,164 11,066,711 8,820,761

Yellow Birch 111,447 111,116 111,447

Yellow-Poplar 1,505,559,723 1,506,058,532 1,553,358,736 1,538,337,445 1,549,120,214 1,592,289,210 1,604,232,890

AL Total 14,995,456,735 14,920,515,020 15,089,297,103 15,292,389,031 15,611,136,166 15,958,982,874 16,239,669,576

Species 2007 2008 2009 2010 Grand Total

Black Willow 28,383,697 33,735,581 36,562,007 37,355,948 228,793,843

Cottonwood and Poplar spp. 14,198,512 110,216,954

Eastern Cottonwood 24,825,992 42,927,198 43,375,345 44,654,480 305,012,032

Loblolly Pine 10,688,251,644 10,941,217,291 11,185,531,068 11,631,008,159 111,506,733,772

Longleaf Pine 903,367,563 893,679,282 875,959,927 874,836,070 10,409,134,476

Pond Pine 8,154,413 8,119,366 8,195,738 8,207,435 65,062,844

Sand Pine 3,104,830 3,086,349 1,813,765 1,824,593 26,682,901

Shortleaf Pine 1,002,960,897 955,211,368 918,742,493 867,799,498 11,801,522,813

Slash Pine 860,033,528 848,747,759 820,442,735 822,492,665 9,698,568,388

Spruce Pine 167,746,359 158,951,174 163,174,150 156,519,779 2,173,747,103

Swamp Cottonwood 266,667 263,962 91,752 92,300 2,647,062

Virginia Pine 505,744,152 518,121,021 535,981,164 504,615,521 5,572,161,383

Willow spp. 6,201,741 2,939,122 1,725,787 1,482,829 199,206,793

Yellow Birch 334,010

Yellow-Poplar 1,633,562,242 1,677,894,197 1,723,657,085 1,741,630,034 17,625,700,308

AL Total 16,310,402,468 16,533,156,635 16,767,231,535 17,149,021,978 174,867,259,121
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

B7

Connecticut Net Tree Volume on Forest Land By Species or Species Grouping (in Cubic Feet) 

Species 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Grand Total

Bigtooth Aspen 41,364,068 37,755,983 29,860,702 21,957,097 22,537,003 22,765,784 176,240,637

Eastern Cottonwood 6,719,704 7,519,658 5,619,117 7,329,712 5,439,350 5,595,617 38,223,158

Eastern White Pine 292,903,905 363,719,603 307,884,165 350,206,044 274,079,091 272,392,471 1,861,185,279

Pitch Pine 580,331 3,495,317 3,565,169 3,900,769 3,976,259 15,517,845

Quaking Aspen 10,808,104 7,531,782 7,866,747 8,090,736 6,929,110 7,513,310 48,739,789

Red Pine 3,552,151 9,183,526 5,855,873 6,297,953 7,223,003 6,606,060 38,718,566

Scotch Pine 921,209 948,362 878,233 2,248,141 4,995,945

Willow spp. 848,747 594,065 626,891 602,589 1,276,663 3,948,955

Yellow Birch 41,761,440 49,686,699 58,464,702 58,267,170 60,347,812 63,624,013 332,151,836

Yellow-Poplar 43,923,905 90,991,492 65,031,760 66,095,423 103,892,690 106,534,649 476,469,919

CT Total 456,346,782 594,236,558 503,920,892 542,318,296 506,038,058 512,637,906 3,115,498,492
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

B8

Delaware Net Tree Volume on Forest Land By Species or Species Grouping (in Cubic Feet) 

Species 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Grand Total

Bigtooth Aspen 1,704,290 1,436,242 1,523,236 1,564,300 6,228,068

Black Willow 2,459,839 2,504,908 1,520,638 1,607,191 1,541,050 950,813 787,348 11,371,787

Loblolly Pine 125,813,168 86,784,370 77,858,871 97,637,824 98,352,753 113,082,640 118,180,993 717,710,619

Virginia Pine 8,316,436 18,366,993 16,952,889 24,506,152 24,782,357 20,009,416 18,949,098 131,883,341

Yellow-Poplar 192,207,506 121,726,997 88,446,006 91,350,136 94,652,226 105,821,088 99,979,102 794,183,061

DE Total 384,698,407 275,327,600 236,843,761 264,970,582 264,409,477 284,072,547 281,087,740 1,991,410,114
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

B9

Florida Net Tree Volume on Forest Land By Species or Species Grouping (in Cubic Feet) 

Species 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Grand Total

Black Willow 3,214,629 2,641,251 2,493,010 2,690,115 11,039,005

Coastal Plain Willow 3,361,560 7,147,729 11,226,881 11,990,305 33,726,475

Eucalyptus spp. 348,906 333,780 682,686

Grand Eucalyptus 1,692,582 1,619,202 1,313,526 1,558,854 6,184,164

Loblolly Pine 1,544,191,034 1,417,384,322 1,433,006,507 1,404,695,835 5,799,277,698

Longleaf Pine 1,207,040,720 1,125,528,352 1,141,302,503 1,140,388,777 4,614,260,352

Pond Pine 122,058,842 143,969,289 145,290,421 141,595,310 552,913,862

Sand Pine 547,986,001 672,900,773 733,988,050 738,741,570 2,693,616,394

Shortleaf Pine 59,671,931 40,959,679 38,250,144 40,988,262 179,870,016

Slash Pine 5,201,282,124 5,178,450,375 5,431,293,882 5,547,667,869 21,358,694,250

Spruce Pine 43,395,354 56,801,351 49,012,494 53,892,255 203,101,454

Swamp Cottonwood 799,384 472,564 474,207 764,757 2,510,912

Willow spp. 964,663 585,579 1,550,242

Yellow-Poplar 109,185,156 94,395,583 96,496,298 88,013,445 388,090,482

FL Total 8,909,917,396 8,817,020,367 9,161,783,481 9,251,216,137 36,139,937,381
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

B10

Georgia Net Tree Volume on Forest Land By Species or Species Grouping (in Cubic Feet) 

Species 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Birch spp. 49,247,758 37,155,372 32,914,154 24,983,205

Black Locust 21,453,454 21,847,197 20,266,860 19,627,815 20,628,823 20,712,692 20,079,838

Black Willow 674,642 5,249,520 14,919,550 23,100,485 30,137,256 33,027,166

Cottonwood and Poplar spp. 4,823,150 4,061,899 4,047,042 1,238,682 453,713 454,240 453,713

Eastern Cottonwood 662,088 1,483,202 1,525,753 6,713,771 7,877,376 8,259,333 7,420,247

Eastern White Pine 379,114,261 351,256,186 371,177,177 363,576,245 336,796,269 346,606,509 350,897,848

Loblolly Pine 9,115,552,859 9,154,529,681 9,462,448,884 9,529,721,715 10,091,107,770 10,520,353,407 10,806,202,192

Longleaf Pine 757,070,601 761,611,382 776,728,242 773,965,572 759,825,654 748,247,638 733,389,773

Pitch Pine 31,742,141 29,281,673 30,108,192 36,431,471 37,042,174 33,870,901 34,484,205

Pond Pine 138,765,760 133,197,354 121,753,312 117,809,286 105,418,285 109,559,302 108,340,975

Sand Pine 46,652,012 35,349,369 28,922,978 28,980,924 30,374,042 38,128,123 28,941,000

Shortleaf Pine 976,479,753 962,028,922 926,679,213 939,586,800 936,068,670 920,671,985 903,544,420

Slash Pine 4,109,829,972 4,170,898,499 4,182,816,894 4,200,010,313 4,219,666,919 4,326,922,228 4,375,262,011

Spruce Pine 55,955,167 56,407,802 69,616,524 61,548,068 55,703,537 56,065,197 58,728,162

Table Mountain Pine 9,162,221 9,509,009 9,549,235 9,734,892 9,601,354 9,621,395 6,482,027

Virginia Pine 602,625,390 629,466,549 630,598,820 603,588,458 605,547,731 587,918,302 561,651,172

Willow spp. 24,886,277 24,687,739 22,110,733 18,156,194 13,703,820 8,134,761 7,435,453

Yellow Birch 721,475 1,010,400 1,622,804 2,884,753 3,011,815 3,002,103 2,846,315

Yellow-Poplar 2,213,547,086 2,205,394,233 2,155,052,329 2,181,036,104 2,229,036,799 2,210,200,315 2,300,433,024

GA Total 18,781,686,671 18,835,333,886 19,090,057,022 19,177,580,040 19,724,215,107 20,216,702,205 20,579,149,007
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

B11

Georgia Net Tree Volume on Forest Land By Species or Species Grouping (in Cubic Feet) (Continued) 

Species 2007 2008 2009 2010 Grand Total

Birch spp. 144,300,489

Black Locust 20,270,945 20,477,572 19,117,967 18,689,727 223,172,890

Black Willow 38,439,353 49,120,748 58,118,753 58,739,840 311,527,313

Cottonwood and Poplar spp. 467,819 16,000,258

Eastern Cottonwood 7,462,130 6,885,791 6,395,762 7,045,709 61,731,162

Eastern White Pine 371,690,966 390,670,542 416,492,555 420,959,583 4,099,238,141

Loblolly Pine 11,257,676,691 11,571,503,164 11,811,503,339 12,020,096,655 115,340,696,357

Longleaf Pine 688,786,297 651,174,647 633,586,500 652,022,654 7,936,408,960

Pitch Pine 33,557,948 34,297,571 34,529,488 33,535,818 368,881,582

Pond Pine 109,250,906 113,390,940 122,930,030 116,790,369 1,297,206,519

Sand Pine 25,332,014 25,956,839 19,037,232 4,878,675 312,553,208

Shortleaf Pine 867,633,512 861,002,094 833,818,267 820,405,305 9,947,918,941

Slash Pine 4,305,190,043 4,434,819,377 4,440,998,003 4,436,762,236 47,203,176,495

Spruce Pine 68,128,950 72,093,870 71,184,165 72,724,388 698,155,830

Table Mountain Pine 833,645 1,039,405 1,046,904 1,048,727 67,628,814

Virginia Pine 552,033,037 541,404,497 557,377,337 565,692,373 6,437,903,666

Willow spp. 4,062,735 1,695,886 124,873,598

Yellow Birch 3,358,334 3,348,659 3,210,687 3,291,496 28,308,841

Yellow-Poplar 2,366,033,573 2,413,906,594 2,449,054,631 2,506,409,487 25,230,104,175

GA Total 20,978,526,749 21,452,673,254 21,746,954,239 22,010,371,687 222,593,249,867
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

B12

Iowa Net Tree Volume on Forest Land By Species or Species Grouping (in Cubic Feet) 

Species 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Grand Total

Bigtooth Aspen 16,255,015 16,175,166 14,976,263 15,069,680 9,080,747 7,454,537 6,027,914 85,039,322

Black Willow 51,703,573 41,912,892 50,928,776 50,840,550 51,585,927 55,113,617 46,889,432 348,974,767

Eastern Cottonwood 338,751,290 337,432,286 338,954,914 364,823,523 372,190,163 367,076,522 355,215,052 2,474,443,750

Eastern White Pine 236,457 251,388 261,453 241,391 278,430 1,269,119

Larch spp. 477,678 462,348 460,363 380,465 1,780,854

Peachleaf Willow 318,667 241,106 242,840 267,894 346,033 601,226 601,226 2,618,992

Ponderosa Pine 3,428,815 3,509,361 3,461,412 4,231,629 399,633 214,986 377,671 15,623,507

Quaking Aspen 2,790,727 3,534,230 3,714,974 4,236,345 4,361,763 4,765,110 4,998,779 28,401,928

Red Pine 884,627 845,612 848,865 1,246,220 1,634,295 965,716 1,398,745 7,824,080

Scotch Pine 50,808 50,445 149,771 231,245 213,416 164,164 222,369 1,082,218

White Willow 459,130 481,343 475,244 115,948 1,531,665

Willow spp. 406,116 390,479 239,098 207,955 1,243,648

IA Total 452,114,373 443,674,877 457,362,366 487,821,726 482,339,498 482,844,064 458,532,252 3,264,689,156
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

B13

Illinois Net Tree Volume on Forest Land By Species or Species Grouping (in Cubic Feet) 

Species 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Grand Total

Bigtooth Aspen 5,118,526 3,698,908 3,759,369 4,635,673 5,256,828 6,266,026 5,443,173 34,178,503

Black Willow 66,549,318 62,431,596 78,908,734 85,169,243 77,124,952 75,193,786 94,306,927 539,684,556

Cucumbertree 71,631 659,843 472,563 1,191,298 939,710 858,558 890,568 5,084,171

Eastern Cottonwood 312,246,384 316,787,150 327,610,987 347,165,579 350,654,857 339,127,866 350,286,515 2,343,879,338

Eastern White Pine 89,993,181 90,484,448 84,525,404 80,987,863 70,758,904 83,766,007 75,843,089 576,358,896

Loblolly Pine 2,401,272 1,979,497 4,272,467 3,903,503 3,954,509 16,511,248

Peachleaf Willow 58,326 45,612 52,524 48,138 42,084 246,684

Quaking Aspen 1,777,573 1,335,435 1,107,365 1,066,936 781,490 1,895,767 3,717,516 11,682,082

Red Pine 24,360,899 19,021,567 20,064,112 15,883,010 13,635,491 12,568,484 18,840,685 124,374,248

Scotch Pine 6,785,093 6,939,427 6,051,965 6,508,260 5,638,892 5,200,706 4,300,495 41,424,838

Shortleaf Pine 90,724,384 74,826,428 68,453,034 79,167,456 95,235,654 92,112,197 86,533,404 587,052,557

Swamp Cottonwood 635,637 457,659 423,645 519,359 245,800 274,173 711,144 3,267,417

Willow Oak 187,514 198,902 195,680 188,294 204,822 975,212

Yellow Birch 1,613,483 1,158,398 874,108 3,645,989

Yellow-Poplar 75,969,426 113,578,705 126,959,445 134,586,889 155,601,605 157,806,740 159,140,407 923,643,217

IL Total 735,148,026 775,362,635 800,384,462 843,214,929 865,921,064 864,348,457 893,787,431 5,778,167,004
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

B14

Indiana Net Tree Volume on Forest Land By Species or Species Grouping (in Cubic Feet) 

Species 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Grand Total

Austrian Pine 69,664 69,664

Bigtooth Aspen 32,817,040 31,844,491 36,059,076 33,485,128 34,130,066 28,105,315 32,110,808 228,551,924

Black Willow 17,932,020 25,290,762 25,428,051 26,219,709 21,709,238 24,313,081 26,173,388 167,066,249

Eastern Cottonwood 237,391,874 246,237,418 250,017,758 269,068,830 258,700,671 276,883,686 263,118,459 1,801,418,696

Eastern White Pine 79,925,455 86,924,056 88,389,022 82,650,054 78,969,724 80,306,360 85,084,278 582,248,949

Quaking Aspen 4,190,869 3,824,137 2,348,004 2,088,759 4,558,030 4,633,750 4,383,859 26,027,408

Red Pine 29,801,547 28,428,983 28,406,649 28,542,492 30,599,283 35,405,829 31,773,069 212,957,852

Scotch Pine 4,085,624 4,280,770 2,783,541 2,255,566 3,470,453 4,003,507 4,382,025 25,261,486

Shortleaf Pine 39,606,533 36,168,074 35,961,820 37,057,107 36,880,793 33,405,652 35,854,495 254,934,474

Swamp Cottonwood 201,333 195,412 189,622 196,758 247,807 178,461 174,644 1,384,037

Virginia Pine 44,158,867 43,602,481 48,675,153 45,605,763 59,113,170 56,682,176 63,585,216 361,422,826

Weeping Willow 209,333 178,771 126,646 150,134 83,401 748,285

Willow spp. 337,750 3,940,605 2,756,097 7,034,452

Yellow Birch 57,028 45,652 40,300 24,227 28,877 196,084

Yellow-Poplar 944,981,817 984,799,980 1,023,639,198 1,035,688,223 1,126,093,326 1,091,996,674 1,080,383,285 7,287,582,503

IN Total 1,497,127,082 1,554,856,893 1,607,941,670 1,622,304,446 1,725,288,332 1,713,954,700 1,698,589,474 11,420,062,597
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

B15

Kansas Net Tree Volume on Forest Land By Species or Species Grouping (in Cubic Feet) 

Species 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Grand Total

Austrian Pine 55,157 55,302 55,266 55,426 55,320 276,471

Black Willow 49,654,049 44,554,202 35,836,480 35,202,477 30,300,715 33,243,951 33,020,331 261,812,205

Eastern Cottonwood 331,753,436 278,547,725 239,793,171 234,265,145 221,225,431 219,224,999 170,234,054 1,695,043,961

Eastern White Pine 2,703,171 2,038,646 1,623,713 2,213,481 2,115,434 2,483,722 2,605,760 15,783,927

Peachleaf Willow 4,449,705 8,471,804 6,962,420 9,265,813 9,004,819 7,809,892 2,940,616 48,905,069

Plains Cottonwood 16,163,217 48,916,227 113,560,505 98,587,415 116,823,711 175,843,511 174,367,965 744,262,551

Ponderosa Pine 10,449,824 7,675,546 6,172,453 5,462,182 4,907,769 6,123,113 6,513,681 47,304,568

Red Pine 4,822,228 3,636,771 2,896,566 3,948,663 3,773,755 19,077,983

Shortleaf Pine 2,861,875 2,158,335 1,719,041 2,343,435 2,239,631 448,034 470,048 12,240,399

White Willow 182,251 137,448 110,602 430,301

KS Total 447,673,744 423,964,121 432,943,009 411,930,376 410,149,028 464,856,056 410,002,194 3,001,518,528
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

B16

Kentucky Net Tree Volume on Forest Land By Species or Species Grouping (in Cubic Feet) 

Species 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Grand Total

Bigtooth Aspen 533,224 523,382 617,488 1,990,240 1,988,551 2,542,017 8,194,902

Birch spp. 143,356 143,356

Black Willow 42,296,211 42,516,113 49,236,868 53,144,614 64,710,624 69,680,800 321,585,230

Cottonwood and Poplar spp. 113,448 112,975 113,924 112,502 112,502 565,351

Eastern Cottonwood 81,220,020 85,337,574 86,453,274 87,676,351 79,796,420 51,404,248 471,887,887

Eastern White Pine 91,974,217 87,886,080 91,558,359 109,116,509 123,970,252 127,850,704 632,356,121

Loblolly Pine 56,885,259 71,543,774 74,442,368 83,245,225 86,492,602 88,028,687 460,637,915

Pitch Pine 86,435,766 83,834,050 79,344,266 83,588,584 87,816,750 87,227,132 508,246,548

Shortleaf Pine 169,509,204 164,391,436 153,190,321 141,196,824 129,664,973 114,960,683 872,913,441

Swamp Cottonwood 2,079,093 2,041,994 2,051,581 2,162,869 2,165,458 2,162,869 12,663,864

Virginia Pine 456,468,247 432,244,887 436,833,899 427,437,504 419,399,734 402,882,799 2,575,267,070

Willow spp. 20,945,389 20,361,559 14,438,155 14,113,675 9,753,286 79,612,064

Yellow Birch 515,601 463,328 346,032 382,776 300,693 352,486 2,360,916

Yellow-Poplar 2,652,594,692 2,631,491,218 2,666,859,643 2,746,685,317 2,800,079,941 2,832,400,038 16,330,110,849

KY Total 3,900,961,656 3,874,186,152 3,912,416,536 4,004,066,251 4,056,146,373 4,029,678,779 23,777,455,747
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

B17

Massachusetts Net Tree Volume on Forest Land By Species or Species Grouping (in Cubic Feet) 

Species 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Grand Total

Bigtooth Aspen 77,709,774 55,641,460 64,031,025 61,923,292 72,743,817 75,276,059 407,325,427

Black Willow 4,807,452 3,205,535 1,986,739 1,839,414 1,148,889 1,182,456 14,170,485

Eastern Cottonwood 7,970,442 7,306,581 5,630,508 3,609,019 4,342,365 4,373,705 33,232,620

Eastern White Pine 2,040,278,681 2,012,373,539 1,878,660,662 1,860,009,777 1,855,212,546 1,926,078,638 11,572,613,843

Pitch Pine 141,200,518 114,221,151 114,712,184 100,143,828 110,379,981 117,728,807 698,386,469

Quaking Aspen 58,932,455 52,407,349 50,335,200 48,621,489 47,934,812 48,031,814 306,263,119

Red Pine 6,576,307 7,640,061 5,704,638 5,587,962 6,157,017 6,475,353 38,141,338

Red Cedar/Juniper spp. 161,690 118,443 84,982 29,192 394,307

White Willow 195,016 176,993 176,993 549,002

Willow spp. 1,721,205 2,742,877 2,212,679 2,287,273 1,455,193 1,460,874 11,880,101

Yellow Birch 198,378,444 191,396,937 160,437,571 157,447,891 161,921,623 162,487,041 1,032,069,507

Yellow-Poplar 9,863,610 5,391,821 5,614,199 5,908,419 9,107,067 9,028,522 44,913,638

MA Total 2,553,825,983 2,477,678,152 2,310,773,503 2,270,886,390 2,292,466,771 2,361,057,976 14,266,688,775
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

B18

Maryland Net Tree Volume on Forest Land By Species or Species Grouping (in Cubic Feet) 

Species 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Grand Total

Bigtooth Aspen 3,232,997 2,022,053 2,745,407 7,627,903 6,674,281 22,302,641

Black Willow 6,634,377 6,266,872 3,747,502 2,487,533 2,728,878 21,865,162

Eastern Cottonwood 13,038,163 19,965,340 33,003,503

Eastern White Pine 26,642,789 27,925,912 44,607,609 35,533,134 32,951,383 167,660,827

Loblolly Pine 712,317,228 560,395,430 569,640,111 600,569,595 684,210,083 3,127,132,447

Pitch Pine 4,735,875 3,381,781 3,266,264 3,329,245 4,140,502 18,853,667

Quaking Aspen 611,766 367,244 308,553 1,050,886 2,338,449

Red Pine 26,252,018 16,817,136 47,631,444 38,333,068 25,861,743 154,895,409

Scotch Pine 802,531 319,542 508,625 3,169,286 2,156,438 6,956,422

Shortleaf Pine 5,335,223 1,971,659 3,561,070 4,338,586 4,455,847 19,662,385

Table Mountain Pine 1,814,566 3,469,134 2,141,038 7,424,738

Virginia Pine 148,302,942 139,352,872 137,681,254 138,865,812 148,129,606 712,332,486

Yellow Birch 1,217,757 1,025,752 7,671,816 7,750,240 5,129,905 22,795,470

Yellow-Poplar 1,561,314,282 1,339,814,668 1,222,097,179 1,207,500,892 1,247,024,223 6,577,751,244

MD Total 2,596,447,851 2,188,446,136 2,161,606,847 2,225,074,956 2,332,781,780 11,504,357,570
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

B19

Maine Net Tree Volume on Forest Land By Species or Species Grouping (in Cubic Feet) 

Species 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Grand Total

Balsam Poplar 113,690,198 116,880,721 108,826,434 109,946,439 112,327,888 106,078,445 107,091,023 774,841,148

Bigtooth Aspen 472,698,958 428,531,736 429,420,843 417,152,970 410,384,933 401,399,057 408,686,498 2,968,274,995

Black Willow 211,030 257,755 161,631 159,568 161,113 951,097

Eastern Cottonwood 3,583,167 2,067,957 1,367,989 1,250,814 1,219,715 9,489,642

Eastern White Pine 2,581,353,493 2,628,831,708 2,646,167,436 2,679,860,173 2,680,500,901 2,718,651,911 2,768,937,561 18,704,303,183

Larch spp. 3,315,213 6,901,676 4,087,340 5,652,261 5,579,187 6,397,739 10,675,450 42,608,866

Pitch Pine 23,166,664 22,379,342 20,553,016 22,610,627 18,448,436 14,882,755 15,191,815 137,232,655

Quaking Aspen 757,594,751 785,217,155 785,757,739 758,160,435 752,844,664 743,303,756 765,943,479 5,348,821,979

Red Pine 140,737,775 162,173,654 170,456,938 178,622,701 186,980,913 183,435,170 193,931,869 1,216,339,020

Scotch Pine 120,472 127,766 181,064 145,485 283,543 804,120 831,545 2,493,995

Swamp Cottonwood 122,808 122,857 116,948 115,291 477,904

Willow spp. 1,283,565 983,267 712,208 678,224 314,583 370,084 475,192 4,817,123

Yellow Birch 1,622,926,102 1,612,394,907 1,638,477,766 1,605,549,141 1,619,148,945 1,595,959,556 1,594,315,062 11,288,771,479

Yellow-Poplar 90,588 96,642 95,076 93,315 375,621

ME Total 5,727,490,717 5,775,497,037 5,814,420,395 5,788,494,128 5,804,304,767 5,787,972,305 5,884,538,316 40,582,717,665
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

B20

Michigan Net Tree Volume on Forest Land By Species or Species Grouping (in Cubic Feet) 

Species 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Austrian Pine 16,874,591 19,606,047 22,887,204 25,120,817 35,149,033

Balsam Poplar 229,261,700 228,589,834 224,083,731 220,420,454 223,368,104

Bebb Willow 107,353 240,798 293,247 524,653

Bigtooth Aspen 1,216,846,119 1,233,889,665 1,239,163,350 1,243,992,395 1,206,940,260

Black Willow 54,725,027 54,442,976 59,711,419 64,124,278 69,827,992

Cottonwood and Poplar spp. 

Douglas-Fir 10,712,963 8,628,954 8,021,873 11,829,726 14,192,635

Eastern Cottonwood 139,656,447 147,044,687 184,260,372 211,910,224 164,795,692

Eastern White Pine 1,325,172,635 1,291,170,661 1,296,973,535 1,310,300,351 1,390,576,065

Larch spp. 739,485 626,314 638,713 1,002,236 123,994

Loblolly Pine 536,011

Peachleaf Willow 2,429,581 1,945,201 1,835,144 1,948,860 1,257,919

Pitch Pine 

Quaking Aspen 1,639,445,527 1,632,285,000 1,607,369,265 1,595,497,594 1,600,101,535

Red Pine 2,042,002,481 1,985,305,447 1,951,834,823 1,962,992,913 2,055,776,630

Scotch Pine 160,586,443 155,914,516 152,502,037 158,181,957 172,300,470

Weeping Willow 

White Willow 1,965,697 1,580,980 1,852,489 1,334,805

Willow spp. 791,449 656,419 764,485 496,408 2,918,514

Yellow Birch 674,109,430 664,070,422 659,855,685 647,524,950 648,312,733

Yellow-Poplar 45,937,084 56,595,956 39,789,717 49,576,805 72,993,240

MI Total 7,621,535,439 7,540,154,146 7,510,556,018 7,561,451,074 7,717,303,780
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

B21

Michigan Net Tree Volume on Forest Land By Species or Species Grouping (in Cubic Feet) (Continued) 

Species 2008 2009 2010 Grand Total

Austrian Pine 31,974,001 20,576,792 25,726,991 197,915,476

Balsam Poplar 216,289,359 213,109,313 212,901,261 1,768,023,756

Bebb Willow 487,796 408,030 458,364 2,520,241

Bigtooth Aspen 1,273,767,485 1,238,168,322 1,271,358,206 9,924,125,802

Black Willow 60,290,188 50,259,480 48,363,196 461,744,556

Cottonwood and Poplar spp. 185,000 231,326 283,564 699,890

Douglas-Fir 4,563,914 6,678,331 4,274,680 68,903,076

Eastern Cottonwood 191,964,326 203,813,074 259,547,168 1,502,991,990

Eastern White Pine 1,386,463,793 1,429,454,213 1,439,504,901 10,869,616,154

Larch spp. 107,862 87,019 109,389 3,435,012

Loblolly Pine 467,392 539,658 663,039 2,206,100

Peachleaf Willow 1,139,750 1,707,907 2,043,425 14,307,787

Pitch Pine 613,077 850,708 966,947 2,430,732

Quaking Aspen 1,648,225,068 1,670,838,292 1,657,857,705 13,051,619,986

Red Pine 2,084,346,706 2,211,012,260 2,174,248,807 16,467,520,067

Scotch Pine 142,913,592 146,049,966 155,808,097 1,244,257,078

Weeping Willow 546,163 611,338 755,234 1,912,735

White Willow 6,733,971

Willow spp. 4,075,603 4,220,535 5,164,968 19,088,381

Yellow Birch 644,885,701 662,135,048 636,881,057 5,237,775,026

Yellow-Poplar 66,419,544 62,116,792 37,302,679 430,731,817

MI Total 7,823,161,557 7,997,162,696 8,003,489,321 61,774,814,031
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

B22

Minnesota Net Tree Volume on Forest Land By Species or Species Grouping (in Cubic Feet) 

Species 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Austrian Pine 1,248,853 1,478,570 1,639,815 1,645,741 1,639,433

Balsam Poplar 472,924,014 446,234,455 425,470,916 399,517,637 379,662,114

Bebb Willow 662,430 653,017 653,085 753,642

Bigtooth Aspen 368,886,359 368,521,753 373,144,422 381,501,220 388,183,396

Black Locust 4,460,399 3,687,774 3,791,992 3,718,069 2,582,312

Black Willow 38,237,871 32,231,163 30,546,375 32,091,040 29,079,913

Cottonwood and Poplar spp. 493,108 619,707 623,808 670,032 1,410,953

Eastern Cottonwood 126,552,205 126,839,973 129,056,910 139,181,928 152,071,246

Eastern White Pine 450,273,576 473,090,642 482,250,521 504,327,198 519,381,528

Larch spp. 298,428 265,241 266,132 95,182 89,700

Lombardy Poplar 257,302

Peachleaf Willow 3,603,541 3,026,301 3,029,620 3,571,770 4,756,782

Quaking Aspen 3,737,773,313 3,688,880,248 3,661,645,308 3,583,043,924 3,476,481,729

Red Pine 837,149,665 868,291,590 910,738,933 925,400,893 969,459,632

Red Cedar/Juniper spp. 100,438 112,321 106,375 127,784

Scotch Pine 3,945,145 6,004,135 6,338,268 6,591,970 6,430,433

White Willow 186,422 212,775 173,622 124,858 124,750

Willow spp. 5,226,948 4,576,296 4,469,544 4,004,625 9,240,819

Yellow Birch 53,542,312 54,832,177 56,472,438 57,459,795 58,408,864

MN Total 6,104,802,159 6,079,555,668 6,090,423,962 6,043,705,342 6,000,142,332
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

B23

Minnesota Net Tree Volume on Forest Land By Species or Species Grouping (in Cubic Feet) (Continued) 

Species 2008 2009 2010 Grand Total

Austrian Pine 1,641,663 848,761 1,047,471 11,190,307

Balsam Poplar 359,875,253 358,583,157 350,415,972 3,192,683,518

Bebb Willow 669,789 108,567 107,841 3,608,371

Bigtooth Aspen 388,535,096 382,183,779 367,853,500 3,018,809,525

Black Locust 3,539,541 4,249,538 4,525,193 30,554,818

Black Willow 33,245,060 36,963,521 37,706,454 270,101,397

Cottonwood and Poplar spp. 1,320,618 8,141,217 12,479,264 25,758,707

Eastern Cottonwood 155,717,233 156,405,718 158,620,877 1,144,446,090

Eastern White Pine 557,461,302 537,040,231 549,207,110 4,073,032,108

Larch spp. 1,014,683

Lombardy Poplar 1,855,429 1,849,048 1,848,477 5,810,256

Peachleaf Willow 1,901,177 1,674,675 2,500,385 24,064,251

Quaking Aspen 3,464,011,432 3,461,929,029 3,462,912,579 28,536,677,562

Red Pine 1,022,938,947 1,078,488,664 1,118,209,971 7,730,678,295

Red Cedar/Juniper spp. 127,767 574,685

Scotch Pine 6,770,535 9,084,436 10,976,119 56,141,041

White Willow 822,427

Willow spp. 8,885,095 9,237,373 9,461,584 55,102,284

Yellow Birch 58,623,227 57,396,377 57,154,633 453,889,823

MN Total 6,067,119,164 6,104,184,091 6,145,027,430 48,634,960,148
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

B24

Missouri Net Tree Volume on Forest Land By Species or Species Grouping (in Cubic Feet) 

Species 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Black Willow 39,956,153 46,686,703 46,698,415 50,045,364 56,140,538

Eastern Cottonwood 154,194,006 145,758,737 148,369,201 182,069,163 182,770,842

Eastern White Pine 6,111,054 6,303,318 7,888,294 10,376,975 9,066,602

Peachleaf Willow 1,130,430 1,143,677 1,163,874 1,467,386 1,815,711

Scotch Pine 953,050 927,487 954,369 533,229 171,218

Shortleaf Pine 806,875,526 833,986,819 837,008,098 858,708,740 882,863,959

Swamp Cottonwood 31,573 31,573 36,625 43,763 81,058

Virginia Pine 318,353 290,327

Willow Oak 4,542,691 4,591,289 5,401,870 6,987,859 4,868,737

Yellow-Poplar 21,121,467 22,150,644 22,583,544 23,323,851 13,090,031

MO Total 1,308,569,791 1,347,597,075 1,349,532,384 1,408,969,570 1,428,577,003

Species 2008 2009 2010 Grand Total

Black Willow 51,161,131 78,084,603 88,043,319 456,816,226

Eastern Cottonwood 221,895,145 247,174,464 253,327,212 1,535,558,770

Eastern White Pine 9,991,691 9,471,056 10,507,143 69,716,133

Peachleaf Willow 653,558 573,846 478,948 8,427,430

Scotch Pine 5,101,109 2,677,533 2,770,703 14,088,698

Shortleaf Pine 900,639,952 922,957,571 928,086,060 6,971,126,725

Swamp Cottonwood 224,592

Virginia Pine 290,244 441,852 435,585 1,776,361

Willow Oak 4,202,414 6,459,723 6,762,491 43,817,074

Yellow-Poplar 17,507,379 16,140,612 18,029,798 153,947,326

MO Total 1,480,313,886 1,536,090,175 1,560,540,932 11,420,190,816
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

B25

North Carolina Net Tree Volume on Forest Land By Species or Species Grouping (in Cubic Feet) 

Species 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Bigtooth Aspen 1,553,793 1,548,635 1,549,408

Birch spp. 0 0 0

Black Locust 213,840,830 212,695,983 212,985,075 212,890,063 206,720,835 216,171,395

Black Willow 3,994,658 7,016,876 10,680,503 20,000,401 22,357,005

Coastal Plain Willow 209,280 204,471 202,616 205,431

Eastern Cottonwood 10,569,757 8,561,801 6,324,025 8,079,160 10,559,626 19,426,511

Eastern White Pine 931,895,884 954,665,079 971,159,830 1,002,933,023 997,686,762 1,031,919,384

Loblolly Pine 7,072,632,232 7,162,493,148 7,236,680,147 7,395,806,699 7,382,101,744 7,638,640,354

Longleaf Pine 426,202,812 432,804,894 415,497,918 443,874,962 455,276,230 460,539,546

Pitch Pine 135,181,542 135,170,293 136,864,420 137,821,229 116,747,049 103,416,317

Pond Pine 516,367,129 538,363,864 531,545,051 505,176,917 497,819,636 511,109,247

Red Cedar/Juniper spp. 0 0 0 0

Shortleaf Pine 730,741,291 722,624,788 702,746,948 689,302,854 695,217,748 694,076,158

Slash Pine 88,280,300 73,982,331 69,172,823 99,663,968 90,325,774 112,687,787

Swamp Cottonwood 10,980,168 12,329,554 15,046,631 14,051,892 12,587,717 6,892,958

Table Mountain Pine 19,278,443 15,395,414 12,022,955 14,593,102 14,518,830 13,770,922

Virginia Pine 1,201,921,156 1,186,984,452 1,141,095,922 1,092,585,179 1,042,598,953 992,794,916

Willow Oak 266,341,652 255,225,583 244,703,293 239,731,198 246,460,898 245,133,991

Willow spp. 23,947,753 17,988,730 13,617,600 9,159,507 3,443,188 287,927

Yellow Birch 133,805,167 134,042,459 136,151,973 142,229,101 142,550,698 134,595,465

Yellow-Poplar 4,371,646,906 4,484,754,840 4,529,783,557 4,644,824,180 4,730,431,811 5,005,213,745

NC Total 16,340,081,173 16,540,290,145 16,576,212,517 16,845,680,691 16,857,456,989 17,404,014,764
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

B26

North Carolina Net Tree Volume on Forest Land By Species or Species Grouping (in Cubic Feet) (Continued) 

Species 2008 2009 2010 Grand Total

Bigtooth Aspen 1,513,385 1,510,502 7,675,723

Birch spp. 0

Black Locust 212,979,243 212,896,838 1,701,180,262

Black Willow 22,041,085 23,451,412 109,541,940

Coastal Plain Willow 204,471 204,471 1,230,740

Eastern Cottonwood 21,131,697 23,679,121 108,331,698

Eastern White Pine 1,038,747,908 1,069,276,464 7,998,284,334

Loblolly Pine 7,774,875,517 7,872,893,929 59,536,123,770

Longleaf Pine 468,031,552 481,154,651 3,583,382,565

Pitch Pine 104,933,626 106,079,681 976,214,157

Pond Pine 503,179,553 509,872,575 4,113,433,972

Red Cedar/Juniper spp. 0

Shortleaf Pine 694,984,512 667,760,314 5,597,454,613

Slash Pine 112,916,888 109,581,709 756,611,580

Swamp Cottonwood 7,257,861 4,528,712 83,675,493

Table Mountain Pine 13,691,706 13,513,842 116,785,214

Virginia Pine 1,017,247,272 992,935,934 8,668,163,784

Willow Oak 243,471,535 246,561,632 1,987,629,782

Willow spp. 288,000 287,900 69,020,605

Yellow Birch 146,768,693 138,933,907 1,109,077,463

Yellow-Poplar 5,063,815,480 5,101,330,245 37,931,800,764

NC Total 17,644,543,208 17,778,371,359 135,986,650,846
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

B27

North Dakota Net Tree Volume on Forest Land By Species or Species Grouping (in Cubic Feet) 

Species 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Balsam Poplar 10,764,359 8,927,366 11,858,392 8,539,972 7,367,143

Black Willow 281,503 212,585 168,935 3,622,872 4,340,302

Eastern Cottonwood 138,698,986 170,904,106 161,157,526 149,041,653 145,190,737

Peachleaf Willow 1,524,238 1,223,403 1,047,011 1,013,189 1,018,126

Plains Cottonwood 

Ponderosa Pine 3,395,343

Quaking Aspen 100,079,211 94,634,839 100,685,247 90,439,395 72,512,346

Rocky Mountain Juniper 30,032,945 33,016,709 32,344,406 33,635,140 42,170,318

White Willow 4,305,630 3,251,517 2,583,888

Willow spp. 4,493,391 3,897,723 3,497,043 3,496,176

ND Total 285,686,872 316,663,916 313,743,128 289,789,264 279,490,491

Species 2008 2009 2010 Grand Total

Balsam Poplar 7,755,264 7,279,880 5,351,613 67,843,989

Black Willow 3,751,897 3,772,931 3,772,931 19,923,956

Eastern Cottonwood 110,524,501 62,604,561 40,710,344 978,832,414

Peachleaf Willow 1,262,144 1,295,092 1,254,216 9,637,419

Plains Cottonwood 49,357,314 89,316,295 127,130,255 265,803,864

Ponderosa Pine 3,383,593 3,397,895 3,397,393 13,574,224

Quaking Aspen 74,677,724 69,010,613 76,085,324 678,124,699

Rocky Mountain Juniper 37,456,112 38,700,684 41,238,751 288,595,065

White Willow 10,141,035

Willow spp. 3,509,130 18,893,463

ND Total 291,677,679 275,377,951 298,940,827 2,351,370,128
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

B28

Nebraska Net Tree Volume on Forest Land By Species or Species Grouping (in Cubic Feet) 

Species 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Austrian Pine 

Black Willow 32,424,139 26,362,918 27,841,099 38,845,592 32,286,173

Eastern Cottonwood 610,886,666 513,452,069 519,344,104 548,489,382 530,813,533

Eastern White Pine 

Norway Spruce 200,706 143,716 106,072 114,107 113,981

Peachleaf Willow 1,967,355 1,459,547 1,173,549 1,205,662 904,116

Plains Cottonwood 8,281,800 6,190,436 50,449,885 58,672,437 64,161,541

Ponderosa Pine 238,995,846 301,037,551 321,085,066 304,533,694 313,781,384

Rocky Mountain Juniper 18,635,092 20,052,563 19,224,700 22,975,716 27,371,103

Scotch Pine 967,829 798,239 641,989 381,839

NE Total 921,473,793 876,329,234 945,422,590 980,667,213 974,731,341

Species 2008 2009 2010 Grand Total

Austrian Pine 1,722,513 1,677,509 1,690,122 5,090,144

Black Willow 29,513,154 36,488,766 30,981,019 254,742,860

Eastern Cottonwood 402,770,144 415,775,628 310,947,097 3,852,478,623

Eastern White Pine 192,380 187,353 188,762 568,495

Norway Spruce 117,720 114,060 114,114 1,024,476

Peachleaf Willow 312,065 550,259 554,396 8,126,949

Plains Cottonwood 122,623,939 208,358,017 309,102,350 827,840,405

Ponderosa Pine 290,128,605 326,671,976 318,513,513 2,414,747,635

Rocky Mountain Juniper 14,051,914 15,988,876 14,319,485 152,619,449

Scotch Pine 192,885 187,846 189,258 3,359,885

NE Total 869,305,169 1,011,857,867 992,428,029 7,572,215,236
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

B29

New Hampshire Net Tree Volume on Forest Land By Species or Species Grouping (in Cubic Feet) 

Species 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Grand Total

Balsam Poplar 6,653,865 5,497,067 6,505,349 6,300,740 6,250,879 6,335,763 37,543,663

Bigtooth Aspen 86,030,632 68,499,637 69,473,840 76,061,616 72,371,869 67,514,763 439,952,357

Black Locust 215,889 215,193 236,698 236,698 904,478

Eastern Cottonwood 764,121 532,756 210,681 1,021,637 989,389 1,003,324 4,521,908

Eastern White Pine 2,172,357,811 2,100,468,530 2,033,184,829 2,077,810,089 2,112,625,925 2,136,149,389 12,632,596,573

Pitch Pine 36,213,156 25,865,574 21,499,376 23,006,760 23,220,252 24,879,049 154,684,167

Quaking Aspen 146,900,466 122,346,560 137,845,178 140,016,643 139,262,190 127,151,157 813,522,194

Red Pine 27,241,226 36,544,174 42,793,310 41,058,687 42,325,543 42,402,682 232,365,622

Scotch Pine 2,903,874 2,054,192 1,642,501 6,600,567

Willow spp. 298,323 371,963 228,078 522,186 551,900 577,020 2,549,470

Yellow Birch 602,327,626 606,081,222 609,597,528 617,422,396 613,797,775 612,837,827 3,662,064,374

NH Total 3,081,691,100 2,968,261,675 2,923,565,852 2,983,809,901 3,012,009,555 3,019,452,506 17,988,790,589
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

B30

New York Net Tree Volume on Forest Land By Species or Species Grouping (in Cubic Feet) 

Species 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Grand Total

Austrian Pine 1,568,052 1,151,001 847,234 876,138 303,309 4,745,734

Balsam Poplar 9,799,371 18,030,136 11,594,792 12,043,344 10,750,722 62,218,365

Bebb Willow 140,811 140,811

Bigtooth Aspen 357,486,521 361,300,380 384,142,040 380,337,762 357,067,760 1,840,334,463

Black Willow 263,730,858 226,150,766 204,262,351 220,401,652 205,658,796 1,120,204,423

Douglas-Fir 370,901 2,815,297 4,224,324 2,602,241 3,187,031 13,199,794

Eastern Cottonwood 84,405,475 128,763,091 143,574,578 159,786,385 168,151,590 684,681,119

Eastern White Pine 2,884,903,922 2,902,825,594 3,041,860,893 3,026,858,772 3,011,984,230 14,868,433,411

Larch spp. 47,418,802 55,511,052 67,687,641 70,176,196 74,263,818 315,057,509

Mountain-Ash spp. 375,898 375,898

Norway spruce 383,904,984 341,519,245 307,186,312 293,944,273 307,605,296 1,634,160,110

Pitch Pine 85,977,581 88,063,767 106,962,064 103,380,242 119,313,128 503,696,782

Quaking Aspen 857,028,318 828,807,098 812,257,107 839,970,196 796,400,232 4,134,462,951

Red Pine 497,054,368 511,347,549 496,902,416 462,779,405 496,966,979 2,465,050,717

Red Cedar/Juniper spp. 105,160 62,924 69,047 49,736 138,052 424,919

Scotch Pine 117,525,079 157,702,045 180,631,780 189,716,245 185,233,155 830,808,304

Table Mountain Pine 1,287,191 658,774 670,616 672,486 3,289,067

Virginia Pine 5,151,418 2,636,454 2,683,848 2,691,330 13,163,050

Weeping Willow 12,129,594 12,129,594

White Willow 12,565,488 11,095,903 9,042,794 8,686,365 12,022,937 53,413,487

Willow spp. 3,773,389 3,742,039 3,375,570 4,028,816 989,219 15,909,033

Yellow Birch 1,952,944,771 2,025,445,582 1,969,581,267 1,962,194,014 1,979,236,134 9,889,401,768

Yellow-Poplar 113,095,191 97,799,902 100,565,546 93,476,806 107,438,253 512,375,698

NY Total 7,774,646,642 7,856,103,602 7,968,020,613 7,953,344,550 7,984,031,914 39,536,147,321
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

B31

Ohio Net Tree Volume on Forest Land By Species or Species Grouping (in Cubic Feet) 

Species 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Grand Total

Austrian Pine 5,537,849 6,186,858 3,948,928 4,193,111 7,793,654 9,784,882 37,445,282

Bigtooth Aspen 311,266,543 278,881,728 306,397,862 325,682,468 337,016,903 338,138,514 1,897,384,018

Black Willow 52,394,807 56,004,091 54,847,297 57,895,282 56,256,042 58,591,091 335,988,610

Eastern Cottonwood 178,284,389 133,789,197 169,069,816 176,204,770 158,384,910 165,586,140 981,319,222

Eastern White Pine 275,276,509 280,951,403 277,925,378 258,809,904 247,980,546 258,805,563 1,599,749,303

Loblolly Pine 282,561 4,291,076 3,795,647 5,079,753 5,221,634 6,360,407 25,031,078

Peachleaf Willow 64,271 44,408 53,367 44,675 29,022 235,743

Pitch Pine 48,608,913 38,833,703 31,723,157 32,620,359 24,163,499 25,206,759 201,156,390

Quaking Aspen 47,138,204 40,261,329 36,764,829 37,176,049 37,866,642 33,761,060 232,968,113

Red Pine 50,560,964 43,172,835 38,111,940 34,770,014 26,420,602 36,333,866 229,370,221

Red Cedar/Juniper spp. 1,229,211 904,670 1,032,416 907,867 907,866 4,982,030

Scotch Pine 14,534,260 21,686,619 27,177,926 26,449,315 25,232,592 26,548,796 141,629,508

Shortleaf Pine 2,880,740 1,791,976 1,430,282 401,379 311,734 6,816,111

Swamp Cottonwood 939,651 663,023 402,805 461,937 2,467,416

Virginia Pine 125,833,283 117,954,579 108,569,785 103,012,831 100,378,397 98,771,490 654,520,365

White Willow 61,870 50,507 36,439 36,343 36,506 221,665

Willow spp. 1,528,169 1,172,204 844,763 524,445 4,069,581

Yellow Birch 5,715,146 5,324,062 3,843,783 3,894,190 3,512,298 2,786,450 25,075,929

Yellow-Poplar 1,551,057,353 1,451,668,258 1,468,215,108 1,517,173,660 1,550,811,241 1,565,023,203 9,103,948,823

OH Total 2,974,479,363 2,768,542,301 2,786,600,285 2,840,182,372 2,838,409,974 2,876,707,414 17,084,921,709
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

B32

Pennsylvania Net Tree Volume on Forest Land By Species or Species Grouping (in Cubic Feet) 

Species 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Grand Total

Austrian Pine 922,059 916,556 1,354,814 1,459,217 977,150 976,260 6,606,056

Balsam Poplar 5,777,232 5,781,531 3,993,250 7,345,845 5,495,281 408,836 28,801,975

Bigtooth Aspen 411,062,559 400,097,546 386,399,405 394,902,115 380,230,600 392,697,922 2,365,390,147

Black Willow 37,527,853 46,123,656 43,594,834 45,466,047 34,663,100 42,991,897 250,367,387

Douglas-Fir 3,421,479 3,438,683 6,509,049 5,896,063 5,058,071 3,174,099 27,497,444

Eastern Cottonwood 40,414,229 41,256,079 41,977,315 44,916,982 48,348,969 46,965,907 263,879,481

Eastern White Pine 784,205,923 805,380,607 867,082,012 872,166,675 930,497,458 948,708,686 5,208,041,361

Larch spp. 33,084,622 34,501,565 39,819,428 35,170,531 28,502,299 32,208,677 203,287,122

Loblolly pine 177,199 177,199 354,398

Peachleaf Willow 466,844 466,844 363,697 363,697 124,622 110,926 1,896,630

Pitch Pine 104,500,200 104,837,010 106,008,840 102,074,745 101,102,940 104,945,530 623,469,265

Quaking Aspen 207,417,716 223,711,569 235,807,999 236,899,928 235,448,958 238,857,652 1,378,143,822

Red Pine 156,029,377 148,617,071 145,803,109 138,133,158 134,098,244 132,864,628 855,545,587

Red Cedar/Juniper spp. 662,706 662,706 757,998 95,197 143,007 2,321,614

Scotch Pine 69,657,304 79,456,167 79,191,381 77,429,673 61,310,103 70,803,903 437,848,531

Shortleaf Pine 878,864 2,752,243 4,070,392 3,087,052 3,009,841 1,210,123 15,008,515

Table Mountain Pine 6,768,002 6,846,446 3,437,238 4,606,597 4,938,610 5,581,998 32,178,891

Virginia Pine 142,262,900 138,009,534 143,694,059 143,794,766 150,420,430 157,747,615 875,929,304

Willow spp. 7,507,652 6,997,035 3,306,772 11,131,724 7,848,785 8,574,410 45,366,378

Yellow Birch 328,153,544 328,577,061 328,286,745 319,100,627 318,219,180 314,157,753 1,936,494,910

Yellow-Poplar 1,426,252,111 1,456,823,569 1,531,875,928 1,527,866,813 1,598,018,231 1,674,713,975 9,215,550,627

PA Total 4,247,267,980 4,323,432,093 4,455,687,100 4,444,553,743 4,508,972,601 4,645,114,975 26,625,028,492
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

B33

Rhode Island Net Tree Volume on Forest Land By Species or Species Grouping (in Cubic Feet) 

Species 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Grand Total

Balsam Poplar 218,857 139,446 85,271 138,966 142,167 143,584 868,291

Bigtooth Aspen 4,141,001 9,650,589 8,043,916 8,439,268 7,495,821 6,386,096 44,156,691

Eastern White Pine 101,034,929 132,595,872 134,827,756 143,816,293 135,800,364 130,935,275 779,010,489

Pitch Pine 30,920,532 26,326,069 21,845,554 20,668,549 18,891,837 18,802,475 137,455,016

Quaking Aspen 48,129 19,134 27,530 20,314 18,436 133,543

Scotch Pine 27,400 27,726 55,126

Willow spp. 27,404 17,486 17,156 17,368 318,815 398,229

Yellow Birch 12,651,553 9,172,531 8,786,640 10,690,540 8,448,719 12,091,446 61,841,429

Yellow-Poplar 1,925,765 1,259,582 909,857 1,276,389 1,138,604 3,162,120 9,672,317

RI Total 152,696,828 180,383,889 175,278,515 185,803,548 171,982,594 171,885,973 1,038,031,347
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

B34

South Carolina Net Tree Volume on Forest Land By Species or Species Grouping (in Cubic Feet) 

Species 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Black Willow 189,261 3,767,360 5,945,868 17,514,467 21,096,062

Eastern Cottonwood 48,039,971 48,153,926 48,607,876 45,716,284 33,904,503 36,003,271

Eastern White Pine 66,683,022 72,070,515 75,783,319 77,727,629 75,717,355 76,560,379

Loblolly Pine 7,553,457,601 7,570,647,257 7,771,870,695 8,066,252,687 8,251,553,461 8,549,530,258

Longleaf Pine 491,647,436 506,949,772 498,474,931 514,085,523 518,604,255 529,960,634

Pitch Pine 4,329,942 4,289,569 4,291,029 9,378,139 8,914,924 8,967,624

Pond Pine 182,792,149 192,953,207 180,863,951 171,140,249 157,926,602 143,234,795

Shortleaf Pine 436,135,356 410,203,272 406,885,565 384,136,065 368,079,542 375,673,948

Slash Pine 227,279,454 195,702,779 184,654,890 188,427,440 194,660,452 196,499,189

Spruce Pine 14,330,246 14,431,502 14,443,442 10,538,840 6,290,462 6,712,032

Swamp Cottonwood 11,933,724 13,010,057 14,382,961 13,432,561 23,623,194 23,937,254

Virginia Pine 286,157,256 293,501,318 301,082,936 292,331,326 281,205,609 263,891,279

Weeping Willow 66,535 65,819

Willow Oak 340,800,429 357,029,461 358,415,599 380,009,750 366,287,314 368,530,994

Willow spp. 23,016,146 20,820,047 13,831,680 11,076,031 4,862,234 2,314,033

Yellow Birch 1,641,383 2,194,793 2,199,562 1,108,937 764,059 762,373

Yellow-Poplar 923,325,143 945,348,439 913,541,065 964,584,884 962,482,379 947,397,861

SC Total 10,659,352,127 10,695,340,189 10,840,114,299 11,184,767,015 11,322,116,213 11,597,611,714
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

B35

South Carolina Net Tree Volume on Forest Land By Species or Species Grouping (in Cubic Feet) (Continued) 

Species 2007 2008 2009 2010 Grand Total

Black Willow 25,238,552 26,016,108 25,966,991 24,738,552 150,473,221

Eastern Cottonwood 37,376,401 37,330,822 38,415,883 38,368,078 411,917,015

Eastern White Pine 79,122,939 80,089,448 81,856,232 83,225,654 768,836,492

Loblolly Pine 8,822,361,346 9,043,100,616 9,241,218,208 9,563,814,843 84,433,806,972

Longleaf Pine 540,713,674 550,153,010 563,188,549 570,501,934 5,284,279,718

Pitch Pine 8,967,624 8,196,270 9,824,300 9,903,697 77,063,118

Pond Pine 149,713,727 152,129,478 155,527,203 154,240,069 1,640,521,430

Shortleaf Pine 379,074,165 377,691,032 366,650,218 365,103,740 3,869,632,903

Slash Pine 204,940,339 204,152,433 188,110,925 186,202,250 1,970,630,151

Spruce Pine 9,684,023 9,752,992 10,284,163 13,891,715 110,359,417

Swamp Cottonwood 25,993,243 29,318,974 30,748,762 33,659,850 220,040,580

Virginia Pine 259,351,088 260,680,272 266,969,898 253,039,963 2,758,210,945

Weeping Willow 65,819 65,467 64,096 104,453 432,189

Willow Oak 387,516,573 384,572,735 388,915,904 392,456,149 3,724,534,908

Willow spp. 75,920,171

Yellow Birch 833,488 1,034,704 1,034,199 840,922 12,414,420

Yellow-Poplar 951,963,725 973,799,189 1,003,919,925 1,020,673,361 9,607,035,971

SC Total 11,924,746,426 12,179,692,769 12,415,277,663 12,755,130,007 115,574,148,422
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

B36

South Dakota Net Tree Volume on Forest Land By Species or Species Grouping (in Cubic Feet) 

Species 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Eastern Cottonwood 85,882,262 70,971,830 68,075,253 84,814,471 87,456,280

Plains Cottonwood 770,604

Ponderosa Pine 1,895,762,984 1,791,529,896 1,706,468,017 1,701,376,926 1,732,419,513

Quaking Aspen 22,142,481 28,554,110 25,569,966 23,671,776 21,404,019

Red Pine 

Rocky Mountain Juniper 6,087,059 6,345,760 16,195,979 17,057,925 25,681,573

White Willow 3,900,365 4,550,952 4,769,760

Willow spp. 1,232,177 1,012,373 780,365 908,349 48,706

SD Total 2,011,106,963 1,898,413,969 1,820,989,945 1,832,380,399 1,872,550,455

Species 2008 2009 2010 Grand Total

Eastern Cottonwood 70,604,538 69,125,295 52,729,527 589,659,456

Plains Cottonwood 21,137,743 17,770,976 46,308,497 85,987,820

Ponderosa Pine 1,737,044,415 1,727,121,906 1,738,965,028 14,030,688,685

Quaking Aspen 20,272,264 19,380,404 18,956,433 179,951,453

Red Pine 5,483,090 5,483,090

Rocky Mountain Juniper 33,606,563 34,675,299 25,602,630 165,252,788

White Willow 4,138,219 4,506,734 4,741,128 26,607,158

Willow spp. 39,105 47,479 47,479 4,116,033

SD Total 1,886,842,847 1,872,628,093 1,892,833,812 15,087,746,483
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

B37

Tennessee Net Tree Volume on Forest Land By Species or Species Grouping (in Cubic Feet) 

Species 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Bigtooth Aspen 401,609 1,111,425 1,108,673 1,101,168 1,115,814 792,770

Birch spp. 782,142 245,827 245,998 244,756

Black Willow 1,059,430 6,698,021 16,921,591 27,311,089 62,074,592

Cottonwood and Poplar spp. 1,751,534 2,127,523 2,106,575 2,128,836 2,124,505

Eastern Cottonwood 31,972,353 22,712,779 18,177,567 19,169,963 14,484,250 15,575,741

Eastern White Pine 483,571,412 479,554,220 484,812,237 501,250,834 483,631,567 458,395,283

Loblolly Pine 842,102,144 788,468,235 715,468,726 689,153,276 696,416,427 654,965,319

Pitch Pine 69,436,249 66,179,628 62,346,441 53,898,624 48,120,587 36,794,745

Shortleaf Pine 704,772,498 653,870,371 586,976,610 543,946,434 488,515,458 427,213,475

Swamp Cottonwood 0 0 0 0

Table Mountain Pine 21,984,589 19,971,551 10,730,846 8,738,732 5,848,021 5,427,831

Virginia Pine 1,079,735,638 1,016,130,897 942,964,166 849,291,835 768,205,021 668,417,663

Willow spp. 80,323,517 76,803,033 75,108,442 68,866,123 55,469,667 16,522,244

Yellow Birch 86,389,431 83,101,613 88,958,186 90,543,379 85,484,354 107,477,307

Yellow-Poplar 2,531,041,279 2,597,604,372 2,687,429,087 2,755,000,709 2,859,691,334 2,891,333,308

TN Total 6,302,289,649 6,180,976,546 6,055,719,860 5,975,879,087 5,912,710,139 5,738,800,562

Species 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Grand Total

Bigtooth Aspen 954,773 948,429 948,429 952,396 958,810 10,394,296

Birch spp. 1,518,723

Black Willow 68,134,791 100,800,306 94,479,082 100,560,103 95,469,477 573,508,482

Cottonwood and Poplar spp. 367,057 10,606,030

Eastern Cottonwood 19,353,413 20,214,001 20,751,589 29,837,713 33,025,410 245,274,779

Eastern White Pine 453,623,067 454,209,544 467,464,688 472,946,791 515,315,556 5,254,775,199

Loblolly Pine 680,014,173 718,685,843 771,868,447 803,880,601 843,480,490 8,204,503,681

Pitch Pine 29,018,947 38,480,422 38,479,432 37,923,199 29,627,259 510,305,533

Shortleaf Pine 419,689,503 421,932,919 409,058,605 400,756,802 420,065,157 5,476,797,832

Swamp Cottonwood 0

Table Mountain Pine 4,152,972 5,904,059 5,896,858 6,096,794 6,631,794 101,384,047

Virginia Pine 616,184,007 623,599,478 632,386,112 629,959,390 618,746,301 8,445,620,508

Willow spp. 11,218,095 384,311,121

Yellow Birch 98,416,229 100,621,728 104,506,348 98,002,377 82,226,036 1,025,726,988

Yellow-Poplar 2,995,114,940 3,029,659,050 3,075,691,242 3,128,118,377 3,218,941,010 31,769,624,708

TN Total 5,773,993,211 5,880,843,845 5,991,195,902 6,075,555,814 6,234,412,502 66,122,377,117
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

B38

Virginia Net Tree Volume on Forest Land By Species or Species Grouping (in Cubic Feet) 

Species 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Bigtooth Aspen 15,989,687 14,083,276 14,467,618 18,695,502

Birch spp. 125,038 124,798 123,557 121,740

Black Willow 49,581 522,155 3,540,513

Eastern Cottonwood 2,377,552 2,415,014 2,370,138 3,775,430

Eastern White Pine 707,841,365 670,026,763 667,886,878 703,370,176

Loblolly Pine 3,653,146,394 3,704,186,016 3,801,929,213 3,979,047,559

Pitch Pine 211,644,442 202,970,529 208,937,434 193,935,864

Pond Pine 9,351,023 7,415,684 8,515,795 8,633,130

Shortleaf Pine 376,053,047 355,192,553 349,338,704 327,968,040

Southern Magnolia 0 0 0 0

Table Mountain Pine 82,274,307 84,454,391 81,786,447 76,802,126

Umbrella Magnolia 63,585

Virginia Pine 1,534,149,406 1,524,110,531 1,547,854,743 1,561,284,342

Weeping Willow 

White Willow 

Willow Oak 142,816,902 143,541,790 143,729,713 147,285,348

Willow spp. 3,456,782 3,374,236 2,399,802 2,553,833

Yellow Birch 28,088,873 28,343,410 27,288,881 29,815,859

Yellow-Poplar 4,581,275,164 4,598,170,614 4,653,901,255 4,802,949,134

VA Total 11,769,218,124 11,756,343,673 11,924,004,593 12,261,997,845
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

B39

Virginia Net Tree Volume on Forest Land By Species or Species Grouping (in Cubic Feet) (Continued) 

Species 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Grand Total

Bigtooth Aspen 18,845,716 26,165,984 26,036,410 25,602,892 25,113,750 185,000,835

Birch spp. 495,133

Black Willow 3,623,289 4,002,819 4,636,823 6,555,863 6,721,814 29,652,857

Eastern Cottonwood 3,645,083 1,809,465 1,809,465 1,882,956 1,795,730 21,880,833

Eastern White Pine 737,026,260 774,928,258 791,416,934 839,964,239 875,201,706 6,767,662,579

Loblolly Pine 3,992,124,600 4,261,296,526 4,271,643,619 4,448,902,906 4,595,310,628 36,707,587,461

Pitch Pine 193,468,058 209,112,357 212,609,505 204,930,493 214,545,807 1,852,154,489

Pond Pine 8,154,563 6,177,047 6,352,735 2,117,478 2,111,743 58,829,198

Shortleaf Pine 323,856,846 307,967,734 303,198,205 278,182,729 268,940,571 2,890,698,429

Southern Magnolia 0 50,380 50,257 50,135 50,257 201,029

Table Mountain Pine 83,169,900 84,889,502 87,031,455 91,376,746 93,134,540 764,919,414

Umbrella Magnolia 721,702 736,477 1,311,199 1,322,411 1,473,596 5,628,970

Virginia Pine 1,513,620,241 1,488,220,708 1,466,285,063 1,363,906,018 1,346,723,749 13,346,154,801

Weeping Willow 131,509 125,417 256,926

White Willow 623,614 623,614 1,732,873 2,108,040 5,088,141

Willow Oak 147,622,621 155,595,824 160,295,307 161,262,822 168,264,527 1,370,414,854

Willow spp. 1,901,308 1,037,387 1,036,595 15,759,943

Yellow Birch 37,802,249 36,316,274 34,726,413 36,230,126 33,933,783 292,545,868

Yellow-Poplar 4,957,608,115 5,045,692,647 5,132,036,669 5,364,026,319 5,473,080,437 44,608,740,354

VA Total 12,411,907,772 12,787,868,878 12,898,291,836 13,218,076,955 13,499,584,777 112,527,294,453
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

B40

Texas Net Tree Volume on Forest Land By Species or Species Grouping (in Cubic Feet) 

Species 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Ashe Juniper 3,076,773,959

Birch spp. 86,589 86,990 86,757

Black Willow 34,960,198 40,638,189 39,655,477 44,248,662 92,932,168

Cottonwood and Poplar spp. 3,347,948 3,384,533 3,379,349 3,323,328 3,313,166

Douglas-Fir 

Eastern Cottonwood 47,417,343 48,055,901 50,878,561 54,606,204 126,279,584

Loblolly Pine 7,242,908,283 7,345,519,190 7,372,439,056 7,408,310,173 7,661,966,748

Longleaf Pine 103,050,230 96,436,339 95,070,837 87,453,168 85,526,100

Peachleaf Willow 498,732 432,198 468,729 36,839 36,814

Plains Cottonwood 142,425,161

Ponderosa Pine 

Rocky Mountain Juniper 5,012,564

Shortleaf Pine 1,465,199,161 1,469,062,180 1,494,398,052 1,433,452,801 1,384,086,883

Slash Pine 247,759,984 253,219,395 237,113,394 278,594,341 263,770,710

Virginia Pine 6,531,722 6,192,792 5,500,215 468,542 467,780

Weeping Willow 749,942

White Willow 1,190,608 1,198,572 1,190,608 749,511 762,129

Willow spp. 9,610,012 5,346,327 5,310,539 4,620,713 976,272

Pinchot Juniper 183,249,617

Redberry Juniper 327,131,241

Drooping Juniper 275,814

Alligator Juniper 21,139,490

Oneseed Juniper 10,982,343

Common or Two-Needle Pinyon 1,091,476

Mexican Pinyon Pine 24,306,701

Papershell Pinyon Pine 14,462,267

TX Total 9,668,976,951 9,787,070,241 9,838,255,594 9,863,867,175 14,172,449,437
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

B41

Texas Net Tree Volume on Forest Land By Species or Species Grouping (in Cubic Feet) (Continued) 

Species 2008 2009 2010 Grand Total

Ashe Juniper 3,015,117,231 3,093,519,867 9,185,411,057

Birch spp. 260,336

Black Willow 88,392,048 85,334,959 41,455,738 467,617,439

Cottonwood and Poplar spp. 16,748,324

Douglas-Fir 1,217,983 1,030,673 2,248,656

Eastern Cottonwood 125,780,143 118,817,863 34,454,043 606,289,642

Loblolly Pine 7,713,722,899 7,856,862,200 7,811,279,688 60,413,008,237

Longleaf Pine 70,872,595 64,915,169 65,233,908 668,558,346

Peachleaf Willow 36,757 36,870 371,309 1,918,248

Plains Cottonwood 115,309,951 96,813,651 354,548,763

Ponderosa Pine 183,264 155,081 338,345

Rocky Mountain Juniper 4,054,396 3,405,480 12,472,440

Shortleaf Pine 1,353,766,632 1,368,210,895 1,327,870,819 11,296,047,423

Slash Pine 241,928,831 245,409,462 208,598,101 1,976,394,218

Virginia Pine 246,190 246,528 124,420 19,778,189

Weeping Willow 603,582 505,829 1,859,353

White Willow 777,843 772,533 775,179 7,416,983

Willow spp. 25,863,863

Pinchot Juniper 225,588,197 249,896,766 658,734,580

Redberry Juniper 269,948,473 240,650,790 837,730,504

Drooping Juniper 201,751 170,724 648,289

Alligator Juniper 17,776,887 15,654,736 54,571,113

Oneseed Juniper 8,910,941 18,521,237 38,414,521

Common or Two-Needle Pinyon 2,799,686 2,546,899 6,438,061

Mexican Pinyon Pine 20,021,826 21,267,371 65,595,898

Papershell Pinyon Pine 12,552,905 19,699,268 46,714,440

TX Total 14,045,893,596 14,228,393,176 10,021,749,246 91,626,655,416
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

B42

Vermont Net Tree Volume on Forest Land By Species or Species Grouping (in Cubic Feet) 

Species 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Grand Total

Balsam Poplar 7,560,602 6,543,246 11,676,921 12,035,333 12,844,149 13,056,037 63,716,288

Bigtooth Aspen 26,922,039 50,312,895 61,895,062 62,111,580 60,270,433 64,212,393 325,724,402

Black Willow 3,758,833 4,204,773 4,154,350 3,453,650 15,571,606

Eastern Cottonwood 1,850,614 6,879,314 11,694,681 11,123,349 13,248,643 13,799,945 58,596,546

Eastern White Pine 844,038,790 967,401,883 955,558,745 937,225,725 961,936,640 954,097,109 5,620,258,892

Larch spp. 2,116,806 1,312,580 916,535 4,345,921

Quaking Aspen 173,586,671 148,768,488 150,070,116 150,097,115 153,153,514 144,409,584 920,085,488

Red Pine 26,961,717 21,147,777 15,617,308 15,655,446 18,426,028 19,121,459 116,929,735

Scotch Pine 13,833,939 9,632,345 9,998,876 10,091,165 11,045,194 11,060,134 65,661,653

Willow spp. 40,519 22,030 123,404 154,816 242,995 235,084 818,848

Yellow Birch 703,750,157 656,818,945 728,382,090 726,844,148 750,417,911 747,658,800 4,313,872,051

VT Total 1,879,085,077 1,919,726,580 1,983,476,966 1,957,913,687 2,021,918,376 2,005,401,748 11,767,522,434
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

B43

West Virginia Net Tree Volume on Forest Land By Species or Species Grouping (in Cubic Feet) 

Species 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Grand Total

Bigtooth Aspen 31,226,734 50,131,030 62,131,428 76,654,309 98,002,444 90,672,048 408,817,993

Black Willow 393,599 195,099 332,656 235,147 256,612 1,413,113

Cucumbertree 238,452,063 260,154,056 286,976,587 269,639,411 289,657,737 283,887,666 1,628,767,520

Eastern White Pine 405,960,200 371,691,436 348,417,812 339,193,023 361,251,709 362,613,333 2,189,127,513

Loblolly Pine 25,011,483 18,331,035 20,977,985 18,974,546 19,334,412 23,962,531 126,591,992

Pitch Pine 44,656,219 70,880,949 70,527,740 74,705,122 84,312,324 86,974,935 432,057,289

Quaking Aspen 5,284,559 4,518,568 3,426,071 13,229,198

Red Pine 1,234,158 1,823,920 3,168,271 3,772,340 9,998,689

Scotch Pine 4,135,475 3,934,300 2,833,126 2,386,621 1,966,870 1,199,197 16,455,589

Shortleaf Pine 34,031,495 20,096,887 15,473,042 10,411,721 9,695,685 7,636,554 97,345,384

Table Mountain Pine 30,724,948 37,406,697 59,592,034 37,384,859 31,157,802 32,931,527 229,197,867

Virginia Pine 468,986,448 353,433,255 299,721,181 356,017,192 336,468,370 352,187,656 2,166,814,102

Yellow Birch 310,210,062 308,889,638 271,527,715 268,991,526 289,672,462 292,752,018 1,742,043,421

Yellow-Poplar 3,786,465,740 3,829,447,741 3,999,757,533 3,843,666,656 3,895,704,092 3,930,390,164 23,285,431,926

WV Total 5,698,051,655 5,711,093,815 5,826,057,403 5,703,795,374 5,830,568,753 5,876,275,770 34,645,842,770
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

B44

Wisconsin Net Tree Volume on Forest Land By Species or Species Grouping (in Cubic Feet) 

Species 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Austrian Pine 68,415 56,187 56,822

Balsam Poplar 46,823,700 43,885,591 42,400,947 38,714,589 33,943,325

Bebb Willow 67,780 89,934 192,756

Bigtooth Aspen 737,497,013 723,029,721 713,825,729 719,759,831 721,147,446

Black Willow 29,638,059 33,849,589 39,608,246 41,060,904 41,333,757

Douglas-Fir 131,175 110,474 111,823 103,507 106,179

Eastern Cottonwood 60,207,599 62,455,930 69,415,782 66,487,097 70,337,129

Eastern White Pine 1,281,475,107 1,306,956,291 1,325,195,646 1,355,602,658 1,388,909,345

Larch spp. 1,178,913 941,406 109,125 106,114 183,464

Norway Spruce 14,081,822 11,650,823 13,039,037 13,555,499 12,418,589

Peachleaf Willow 801,644 701,695 632,925 587,215 451,818

Quaking Aspen 1,865,795,942 1,831,450,056 1,805,738,497 1,791,131,405 1,776,607,289

Red Pine 1,394,114,905 1,401,564,197 1,431,709,935 1,472,174,963 1,485,835,022

Red Cedar/Juniper spp. 19,905 20,074 19,785 17,469

Scotch Pine 14,896,957 15,657,678 17,089,387 18,564,896 19,412,833

White Willow 1,522,061 1,211,988 1,217,943 1,266,664 1,876,021

Willow spp. 1,492,995 1,221,623 1,218,049 147,490 305,165

Yellow Birch 330,364,642 335,506,140 337,358,107 335,306,175 338,140,199

Silver Poplar 146,590 154,734 278,291 168,467

WI Total 5,796,943,385 5,793,914,956 5,822,305,997 5,879,710,335 5,915,117,063
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

B45

Wisconsin Net Tree Volume on Forest Land By Species or Species Grouping (in Cubic Feet) (Continued) 

Species 2008 2009 2010 Grand Total

Austrian Pine 181,424

Balsam Poplar 31,598,236 30,827,069 31,678,873 299,872,330

Bebb Willow 553,900 535,227 672,537 2,112,134

Bigtooth Aspen 719,505,705 693,620,965 682,283,724 5,710,670,134

Black Willow 40,543,073 41,057,966 39,924,834 307,016,428

Douglas-Fir 181,719 175,721 175,925 1,096,523

Eastern Cottonwood 84,823,499 90,269,721 79,223,177 583,219,934

Eastern White Pine 1,471,096,049 1,527,145,080 1,608,896,680 11,265,276,856

Larch spp. 127,192 123,583 123,726 2,893,523

Norway Spruce 14,395,963 15,635,439 16,730,097 111,507,269

Peachleaf Willow 330,481 413,585 354,564 4,273,927

Quaking Aspen 1,783,731,065 1,788,681,485 1,778,379,054 14,421,514,793

Red Pine 1,507,605,841 1,535,730,604 1,596,567,135 11,825,302,602

Red Cedar/Juniper spp. 24,240 101,473

Scotch Pine 19,511,549 19,862,697 22,182,814 147,178,811

White Willow 7,094,677

Willow spp. 327,756 368,312 4,127,970 9,209,360

Yellow Birch 348,654,776 353,377,748 346,182,677 2,724,890,464

Silver Poplar 151,493 899,575

WI Total 6,048,851,574 6,134,559,208 6,245,277,251 47,636,679,769
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

B46

Exhibit 3.

Sample FS Species Groupings 

Cottonwoods/Poplars 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

B47

Group ID 37 Eastern Cottonwood and Poplar 

Scientific Name Common Name

Populus alba silver poplar

P. angustifolia narrowleaf cottonwood

P. balsamifera balsam poplar

P. balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa black cottonwood

P. deltoides eastern cottonwood

P. deltoides ssp. monilifera plains cottonwood

P. fremontii Fremont cottonwood

P. grandidentata bigtooth aspen

P. heterophylla swamp cottonwood

P. nigra Lombardy poplar

P. tremuloides quaking aspen

Other miscellaneous Populus spp. cottonwood and poplar

Group ID 44 Western Cottonwood and Poplar 

Scientific Name Common Name

P. angustifolia narrowleaf cottonwood

P. balsamifera balsam poplar

P. balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa black cottonwood

P. deltoides eastern cottonwood

P. deltoides ssp. monilifera plains cottonwood

P. fremontii Fremont cottonwood

P. nigra Lombardy poplar

P. tremuloides quaking aspen

Other miscellaneous Populus spp. cottonwood and poplar
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

Appendix C 

FSA Information Service Centers Contacted 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C1

Sue Ellen Sloca 1400 Independence Ave SW 202-720-1598 (w) 

 Rm 3617 

 Mailstop 0506 

 Washington, DC 20250 

John Underwood Beacon Facility 816-926-6992 (w) 

 STOP 8368 

 9240 Troost Ave john.underwood@kcc.usda.gov 

 Kansas City, MO 64131 

Vickie Lane 4121 Carmichael Rd 334-279-3508 (w) 

 Ste 600 

 Montgomery, AL 36106 vickie.lane@al.usda.gov 

Donna Kramer 800 W Evergreen 907-761-7753 (w) 

 Ste 216 

 Palmer, AK 99645 donna.kramer@ak.usda.gov 

Mark Grubbs 230 N 1st Ave 602-285-6320 (w) 

 Ste 506 

 Phoenix, AZ 85012 mark.grubbs@az.usda.gov 

Anita Wilson Federal Bldg 501-301-3058 

 700 W Capitol Ave 

 Rm #3416 anita.wilson@ar.usda.gov 

 Little Rock, AR 72201 

David Schaad 430 G Street #4161 530-792-6629 

 Davis, CA 95616 

 David.schaad@ca.usda.gov 

Scott Miller Denver Federal Ctr 720-544-2897 

 Bldg 56 Room 2760 

 Denver, CO 80225 scott.miller@co.usda.gov 

Doris Ostrowski 344 Merrow Rd 860-871-4090 

 Ste B 

 Tolland, CT 06084 doris.ostrowski@ct.usda.gov 

Robin Talley 1221 College Park Dr 302-678-4252 

 Ste 201 

 Dover, DE 19904 robin.talley@de.usda.gov 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C2

Tim Manning 4440 NW 25th Pl 352-379-4511 

 Ste 1 

 Gainesville, FL 32614 tim.manning@fl.usda.gov 

Neal Leonard 355 E Hancock Ave 706-546-2207 

 STOP 108 

 Athens, GA 30601 Neal.leonard@ga.usda.gov 

Steve Peterson 737 Bishop 808-441-2704 

 Ste 2340 

 Honolulu, HI 96813 steve.peterson@hi.usda.gov 

Jeremy Nalder 9173 W Barnes St 208-378-5667 

 Ste B 

 Boise, ID 83709 jeremy.nalder@id.usda.gov 

Carl Burt 3500 Wabash Ave 217-241-6600 

 Springfield, IL 62711 

 carl.burt@il.usda.gov 

Rick Kelley 5981 Lakeside Blvd 317-290-3030 

 Indianapolis, IN 46278 Rick.kelley@in.usda.gov

Dennis Olson 10500 Buena Vista Ct 515-331-8420 

 Des Moines, IA 50322 Dennis.olson@ia.usda.gov 

Dawna Ford 3600 Anderson Ave 785-564-4743 

 Manhattan, KS 66503 

 Dawna.ford@ks.usda.gov 

Marcinda Kester 771 Corporate Dr 859-224-7637 

 Ste 100 

 Lexington, KY 40503 Marcinda.kester@usda.gov 

DeWanna Pitman 3737 Government St 318-473-7902 

 Alexandria, LA 71302 

 Dewanna.pitman@la.usda.gov 

Scott Speck 967 Illinois Ave 207-990-9136 

 Bangor, ME 04401 Scott.speck@me.usda.gov 

Linda Slacum 339 Busch‘s Frontage Rd 443-482-2764 

 Ste 104 

 Annapolis, MD 21409 linda.slacum@md.usda.gov 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C3

John Devine 445 West Street 413-253-4502 

 Amherst, MA 01002 

 John.devine@ma.usda.gov 

Julie Prine 3001 Coolidge Rd 517-324-5111 

 Ste 100 

 East Lansing, MI 48823 julie.prine@mi.usda.gov 

Lisa MacDonald 375 Jackson St 651-602-7707 

 Ste 400 

 St Paul, MN 55101 lisa.macdonald@mn.usda.gov 

Latrice Hill 6311 Ridgewood Rd 601-965-4300 #108 

 Ste W100 

 Jackson, MS 39211 latrice.hill@ms.usada.gov 

Amy Blattner 601 Bus Loop 573-876-0926 

 70 W Parkade Ctr 

 Ste 225 amy.blattner@mo.usda.gov 

 Colombia, MO 65203 

Dick Deschamps PO Box 670 406-587-6875 

 Bozeman, MT 59771 Richard.deschamps@mt.usda.gov 

Robin Wieland 1400 Independence Ave SW 202-690-2814 

 Mail Stop 0570 

 Washington, DC 20250 robin.wieland@wdc.usda.gov 

Mike Sander 7131 A Street 402-437-5286 

 Lincoln, NE 68510 Mike.sander@ne.usda.gov 

Daniel Rybicki 1755 E Plumb Ln 775-784-5411 

 Ste 202 

 Reno, NV 89502 daniel.rybicki@nv.usda.gov 

Linda Grames James C. Cleveland Federal Bldg 603-224-7941 

 53 Pleasant Street, Room 1601 

 Concord, NH 03301 linda.grames@nh.usda.gov 

Jerry Hlubik Mastoris Professional Plaza 609-298-3446 #208 

 163 Rte 130 

 Bldg 2, Suite E jerry.hlubik@nj.usda.gov 

 Bordentown, NJ 08505 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C4

Brenda Archuleta 6200 Jefferson St NE 505-761-4921 

 Rm 211 

 Albuquerque, NM 87109 brenda.archuleta@nm.usda.gov 

Ginny Green 441 S Salina Street 315-477-6354 

 #536 

 Syracuse, NY 13202 virginia.green@ny.usda.gov 

Mike Eaves 4407 Bland Rd #175 919-875-4810 

 Raleigh, NC 27609 Mike.eaves@nc.usda.gov 

Russell Bubach 1025 28th St SW 701-893-2204 

 Fargo, ND 58103 Russell.bubach@nd.usda.gov 

Cheryl Hinton 200 N High St 614-255-2454 

 Rm 540 

 Columbus, OH 43215 cheryl.hinton@oh.usda.gov 

Krey Heimer 100 USDA, Ste 102 405-742-1140 

 Stillwater, OK 74074 krey.reimer@ok.usda.gov 

Kent Willet 7620 SW Mohawk 503-692-1973 

 Tualatin, OR 97062 Kent.willet@or.usda.gov 

Adam Lipton One Credit Union Pl 717-237-2121 

 Ste 320 

 Harrisburg, PA 17110 adam.lipton@pa.usda.gov 

Wanda Perez USDA, FSA 787-294-1613 

 654 Plaza Building, Ste 829 

 654 Munoz Rivera wanda.perez@pr.usda.gov 

 San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918 

Alison Rose 60 Quaker Ln 401-828-8232 

 Ste 40 

 Warwick, RI 02886 alison.rose@ri.usda.gov 

Riley Odum 1927 Thurmond Mall 803-806-3851 

 Ste 100 

 Columbia, SC 29201 riley.odum@sc.usda.gov 

Thomas Kostel 200 4th St SW 605-352-1170 

 Rm 308 

 Huron, SD 57350 tom.kostel@sd.usda.gov 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

C5

Regan Soloman 801 Broadway, Room 579 615-277-2615 

 US Courthouse 

 Nashville, TN 37203 regan.soloman@tn.usda.gov 

David Sullivan 2405 Texas Ave S 979-680-5154 

 PO Box 2900 

 College Station, TX 77840 david.sullivan@tx.usda.gov 

Tom Miyagishima 125 S State St 801-524-4539 

 Rm 3202 

 Salt Lake City, UT 84138 tom.miyagishima@ut.usda.gov 

Kimberly Peck 356 Mountain View Dr 802-658-2803 

 Ste 104 

 Colchester, VT 05446 

Linda Cronin Culpeper Bldg 804-287-1537 

 1606 Santa Rosa Rd 

 Ste 138 linda.cronin@va.usda.gov 

 Richmond, VA 23229 

Dwaine Schettler 316 W Boone Ave 509-323-3009 

 Ste 568 

 Spokane, WA 99201 dwaine.schettler@wa.usda.gov 

Kevin Hinkle 1550 Earl Core Rd 304-284-4800 

 Morgantown, WV 26505 

 Kevin.hinkle@wv.usda.gov 

Cally Ehle 8030 Excelsior Dr 608-662-4422 

 Ste 101 

 Madison, WI 53717 cally.ehle@wi.usda.gov 

Steve Swieter 951 Werner Ct 307-261-5232 

 Ste 130 

 Casper, WY 89601 steve.swieter@wy.usda.gov 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

Appendix D 

Pulpwood Producers and Processors 
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

D1

Name Address Phone Number

Alabama Wood Products, Inc. 1001 Avenue C

Opelika, AL 36801-5847 

(334) 745-6201

Ala-miss, Inc. 467 Street Peter Street 

State Line, MS 39362-9625 

(601) 848-7811

Balfour Poles Company 8479 US Highway 19 

Baconton, GA 31716-7510 

(229) 787-0555

Balfour Timber Company 1101 W Clay Street 

Thomasville, GA 31792 

(229) 228-1991

B & B Woodyard 3922 State Route 56 

Tracy City, TN 37387 

(931) 592-5556

Beasley Forest Products 712 Uvalda Highway 

Hazlehurst, GA 31539-4808 

(912) 375-5174

Becker Forest Products, Inc. W 6684 17th Street

Necedah, WI 54646-7519 

(608) 565-2454

B & M Pulpwood 11 Green Acre Road NE

Rome, GA 30165-8954 

(706) 232-5089

Bowater, Inc. 

Southern Division

12406 Armstrong Road 

Sequatchie, TN 37379-5926 

(423) 332-2476

Bowen & Assocociates 13014 Espinheira Drive 

Cerritos, CA 90703-7328 

(562) 860-5613

Branham Woodland Products, Inc. 606 W 1st Street 

Merrill, WI 54452-2230 

(715) 722-0343

Braswell Wood Company, Inc. 1508 Peachburg Road 

Union Springs, AL 36089-6588 

(334) 738-4899

B & S Timber Company, Inc. 22312 Poleyard Road 

Saucier, MS 39574 

(228) 832-3121

Cade Wood, Inc. 258 Cade Woodyard Road 

Many, LA 71449 

(318) 256-2192

Callahan Timber Company, Inc. 450038 State Road 200 

Callahan, FL 32011 

(904) 879-3702

Canal Holdings, LLC 1249 Highway 1 N 

Cassatt, SC 29032 

(803) 432-8370

Carroll County Pulpwood & Timber Company, Inc. 385 Clem Lowell Rd 

Carrollton, GA 30116-6213 

(770) 834-3311
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

D2

Name Address Phone Number

Cellmark, Inc. 16390 Pacific Coast Highway # 200C 

Huntington Beach, CA 92649-1851 

200 Tamal Plaza # 200 

Corte Madera, CA 94925-1196 

2800 Ponce DE Leon Boulevard # 1460, 

Coral Gables, FL 33134

(562) 592-1200

(415) 927-1700

(305) 461-2211

Cellmark Paper, Inc. 300 Atlantic Street # 500 

Stamford, CT 06907

(203) 363-7800

Cellmark Pulp & Paper, Inc. 80 Washington Street # 1 

Norwalk, CT 06850

200 Tamal Plaza # 200

Corte Madera, CA 94925

80 Washington Street 

Norwalk, CT 06850

(203) 299-5000

(415) 927-1700

(203) 299-5057

Cenla Timber, Inc. 3708 Old Marksville Highway

Pineville, LA 71360

(318) 445-8637

Coastal Pulp & Paper, LLC 1980 Willamette Falls Drive

West Linn, OR 97068

(503) 722-4457

Coastal Timber Company 3236 Highway 701 N

Conway, SC 29526

(843) 365-2149

Connecticut Fibers, Inc. 410 Kingstown Road # 2

West Kingston, RI 02852

(401) 783-8800

CO-OP Pulpwood Company 385 W Houston Street

Dadeville, AL 36853

(256) 825-6411

Crown Shavings 3544 County Road

Chino, CA 91710

(909) 591-3808

Custom Mulch 9140 Warren H Abernathy Highway

Spartanburg, SC 29301

(864) 804-6253

D & D Pulpwood, Inc. 1024 Noble Road

Port Gibson, MS 39150

(601) 437-4012

Dearmon Timber Company 14314 Copeland Road

Millry, AL 14314

(251) 846-2601

DE Berry Land & Timber 112 Leslie Street

Troy, NC 27371

(910) 572-2698

Decatur, Inc. 954 Maple Lane # 100

Jacksonville, FL 33433

(904) 398-2110
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

D3

Name Address Phone Number

Dobson Pu Lpwood, Inc. 4537 Highway 480

Campti, LA 71411

(318) 476-3348

Domtar Industries, Inc. 214 W Grand Avenue # 32

Wisconsin Rapids, WI 54495

(715) 712-1190

Donald Charles Timber Company 12809 Highway 84 W

Roxie, MS 39661

(601) 322-7878

Dotson & Sons, Inc. 4975 Nettlesboro Road

Lower Peach Tree, AL 35005

(334) 636-5600

E D Bessey & Son 80 Greenwood Street

West Paris, ME 04289

(207) 674-2624

E & H Pulpwood, Inc. 10577 Alabama Highway 17

York, AL 36925

(205) 392-5391

Ekman & Company, Inc. 8750 NW 36th Street # 400

Doral, FL 33166

(305) 579-1200

Escambia Timber 1910 South Boulevard

Brewton, AL 36426

(251) 867-5514

Eubanks, J Leonard 2915 Mayfield Lane

Meigs, GA 31765

(229) 294-8324

Euc, Inc. 18021 Sky Park Circle # N

Irvine, CA 92614

(949) 756-9901

Eufaula Pulpwood Company, Inc. 488 Montgomery Highway 82 W

Eufaula, AL 36027

(334) 687-2784

Ewing Timber, LLC 6027 Quitman Highway

Jonesboro, LA 71268

(318) 259-2204

Federated Fibers 1801 SW 68th Avenue

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33317

(954) 691-0738

Fiber Resource Group 114 Lothrop Street

Beverly, MA 01915

(978) 524-0550

Fiber Sources, Inc. 237 W 35th Street # 17

New York, NY 10001

(212) 867-3990

Flint River Wood 251 Riverview Drive

Oglethorpe, GA 63137

(478) 472-7846

Forest Beasley Products, Inc. 712 Uvalda Highway

Hazlehurst, GA 31539

(912) 375-5174

Forest Lowcountry Products, Inc. 1426 Hawkins Street

Georgetown, SC 29440

(843) 546-1136

Frisco Pulpwood & Timber Company, Inc. 340 Pecan Street

Uriah, AL 36480

(251) 862-2193
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

D4

Name Address Phone Number

Future Fibres, Inc. 2000 NW 89th Place

Doral, FL 33122

(305) 888-8520

George G. Tyler & Sons, Inc. Middle Road

Skowhegan, ME 04976

(207) 474-8163

Georgia Carolina, Inc. 516 N College Street

Youngsville, NC 27596

(919) 556-4414

Georgia Resource Management 3000 Corporate Center Drive

Morrow, GA 30260

(770) 968-4186

Glatfelter Pulp Wood Company 29809 Connelly Mill Road

Delmar, MD 21875

2601 Princess Anne Street 

Fredericksburg, VA 22401

(410) 742-3163

(540) 373-9431

Goodman Lumber Company, Inc. 5001 Grumby Road 

Wilsons, VA 23894 

(804) 265-9030

Gowen Timber Company, Inc. 108 S Okefenokee Drive

Folkston, GA 23894

(912) 496-2571

Hansson, Elof Pulp, Inc. 565 Taxter Road # 595 

Elmsford, NY 10523-2327 

(914) 345-8380

Horry County Development Corp. 2431 E Highway 501

Conway, SC 29526

(843) 347-4604

I E Moore Timber Company, Inc. 216 N Main Street

Malvern, AR 72104

(870) 325-6666

Ingram Woodyards 2895 US Highway 1 N

Vass, NC 28394

(910) 245-2177

International Paper Company 5533 County Road 82 NW

Alexandria, MN 56308-8212

(320) 834-3350

International Paper Company Chester 9 Lancaster Highway 

Chester, SC 29706 

(803) 581-5732

James A Moore Pulpwood 100 Newton Circle

Griffin, GA 30223

(770) 229-1708

J F Rainer & Son Timberlands 107 1st Street S

Reform, AL 35481

(205) 375-6393

J L Eubanks Timber Company, Inc. 132 E Railroad Street NE

Pelham, GA 31779

(229) 294-4972

Jones Timber Corp. 136 Government Fleet Road 

Natchez, MS 39120-8105 

(601) 445-9807

K C Wood Industries, Inc. Highway 27 

Monticello, MS 39654 

(601) 587-7944
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

D5

Name Address Phone Number

Korab International 500 Broadway Street # 340

Vancouver, WA 98663

(360) 693-0373

L A Penn And Sons, Inc. 304 Yandell Avenue 

Canton, MS 39046-3842 

(601) 859-1861

L C Saunders Timber, Inc. 721 Juniper Cliff Road

Brookneal, VA 24528

(434) 376-5132

Lewis Timber Company 1522 S Captain Gloster Drive

Gloster, MS 01930

(601) 225-4892

Light Logging Company, Inc. 220 W 8th Street

Hope, AR 71801

(870) 777-8997

Livingston Timber, Inc. 14521 Florida Boulevard

Livingston, LA 70754

(225) 686-2134

Low Country Forest Products, Inc. 2413 Topsaw Road 

Georgetown, SC 29440-9381 

(843) 546-1136

Magnolia Pulpwood Company 1920 Dawson Drive

Haynesville, LA 71038

(318) 624-1155

Marubeni America Corporation 4321 W College Avenue # 380

Appleton, WI 54911

(920) 832-0465

Marubeni Pulp & Paper 3460 Torrance Boulevard # 170

Torrance, CA 90503

(310) 316-7737

Marubeni Pulp & Paper North America, Inc. 450 Lexington Avenue Front 

New York, NY 10017-3904 

(212) 450-0190

Mastin's Enterprises, Inc. 11430 Post Oak Road 

Spotsylvania, VA 22551-5050 

(540) 895-9081

Middle Georgia Timber, LLC 923 Oak Street

Eatonton, GA 31024

(706) 485-6513

M & M Timber Enterprises, Inc. 16 N Rountree Street

Metter, GA 30439

(912) 685-6415

M M Wright, Inc. 2415 Old Indian Road

Brodnax, VA 23920

(434) 949-6181

Morgan Timber & Paving Company 8100 Washington Street SW

Covington, GA 30014

(770) 786-3608

Morris Timber Company 457 Old Griffin Road 

Mcdonough, GA 30253-6710 

(770) 957-1236

Mullins Pulpwood, Inc. 333 Lower Woodville Road 

Natchez, MS 39120-4439 

(601) 442-3604
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

D6

Name Address Phone Number

Omnisphere Corporation 15 Glen Street # 204

Glen Cove, NY 11542

1 Perimeter Park S # 123 

Birmingham, AL 35243

8701 SW 137th Avenue # 205 

Miami, FL 33183

505 N Riverfront Boulevard 

Dallas, TX 75207-4307 

(305) 388-4075

(205) 969-1127

(305) 388-4075

(214) 689-2422

Parham Pulpwood, Inc. 217 W 2nd Street

Fordyce, AR 71742

(870) 352-2338

Peebles Timber, Inc. 190 Woodyard Lane

Pitts, GA 31072

(229) 648-6621

P H Glatfelter Company 228 S Main Street

Spring Grove, PA 17362

(717) 225-4711

Phillips Trucking 177 Avecor Drive

Vonore, TN 37885

(423) 884-2394

Piedmont Woodyards, Inc. 121 Deep Creek Road

Fayetteville, NC 28312

802 Woodland Avenue

Sanford, NC 27330

(910) 483-4507

(919) 776-3622

Porter Pulpwood & Logging Company 441 S Broad Street Extension

Commerce, GA 30530

(706) 335-3998

Price & Pierce International, Inc. 12851 Banyan Creek Drive # 111

Fort Myers, FL 33919

11 Madison Avenue Floor 14l

New York, NY 10010

(212) 301-0004

(212) 301-0000

Pulpwood Producers, Inc. 138 Woodland Drive

Simsboro, LA 71275

(318) 247-3958

Quality Hardwood, Inc. 2900 Attala Road 1010

Kosciusko, MS 39090

(662) 289-7098

Reid Timber, Inc. 731 N Central Avenue

Winona, MS 38967

(662) 283-2635

Richton Tie & Timber Pulpwood Deweese Road

Philadelphia, MS 39350

(601) 656-4441

Robert B Wolter, Inc. 9 Wild Cherry Drive

Little Compton, RI 02837

(401) 635-4067
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

D7

Name Address Phone Number

Rollins Pulpwood & Timber Company 1911 US Highway 61 S

Woodville, MS 39669

(601) 888-3000

R & R Sales 430 Oak Street

Eastman, GA 31023

(478) 374-7168

Saco Wood, Inc. 867 N Memorial Drive

Prattville, AL 36066

(334) 365-0694

Sam Whitfield Timber Company, Inc. 16202 W River Drive

Kiln, MS 39556

(228) 255-1870

Sawyer-Stoll Timber Company 2113 1st Avenue N

Escanaba, MI 49829

(906) 786-5025

Scott T Langley 5306 County Road 54

Camp Hill, AL 36850

(334) 864-9361

Scruggs Logging, Inc. 2665 Wards Fork Mill Road

Cullen, VA 23934

(434) 542-5097

Sfk Pulp US, Inc. 580 Lincoln Park Boulevard # 344

Kettering, OH 45409

(937) 293-4660

Shaddix Pulpwood Company 166 County Road 512

Woodland, AL 36278

(256) 449-2332

Shaddix Pulpwood Trucking 24 Shaddix Road

Lineville, AL 36266

(256) 396-2111

Shepherd Brothers Timber Company 6860 GA Highway 96

Irwinton, GA 31042

(478) 945-3137

Sheth, Ashish 430 Lewis Lane

Pacifica, CA 94044

(650) 355-1383

Shoptaw & Sons Pulpwood, Inc. 3501 Genoa Road

Texarkana, AR 71854

(870) 774-2766

Shull Timber Corp. 1501 Tollgate Road

Concord, VA 24538

(434) 993-3343

Silvicraft, Inc. 295 Airport Road

Monticello, AR 71656

(870) 367-8564

Southland Timber Company N Highway 47

Fort White, FL 32038

(386) 497-1221

Stannard Pulpwood Sales, Inc. 1535 Route 9

Keeseville, NY 12944

(518) 834-7165

Steed & Hollis Pulpwood & Timber Company, Inc. 20 Monroe Street

Brantley, AL 36009

(334) 527-8809

Steve Crawford Forest Products 861 Shadrack Street

Waynesboro, GA 30830

(706) 554-5131
Data Collection Report for Woody Biomass Products 

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency 

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18878

restrictions on the title page of this report. 

D8

Name Address Phone Number

S & T Timber Company 112 Etheridge Road

Auburn, GA 30011

(770) 962-3453

The Fiber Resource Group, Inc. 114 Lothrop Street Apartment 1

Beverly, MA 01915

(978) 524-0550

Thomaston Timber Company, Inc. 160 Water Street

Camden, AL 36726

(334) 627-3850

Thompson Bros Pulpwood & Lumber Company, Inc. Charboneau Road

Ticonderoga, NY 12883

(518) 585-7020

Three Rivers Corp. 3004 Puryear Road

Knightdale, NC 27545

(919) 266-6200

Tillman's Wood Yard 9081 Smith Station Road

Edwards, MS 39066

(601) 852-4576

Tokyo Pulp & Paper International Company, Ltd. 400 Continental Boulevard Floor 6

El Segundo, CA 90245

(310) 426-2132

Treeland Products, Inc. 55 E 8th Avenue

Bay Springs, MS 39422

(601) 764-2694

Valley Wood, Inc. 3119 University Avenue

Columbus, GA 30101

5757 Alabama Highway SW

Rome, GA 30161

107 E Lafayette Square

La Fayette, GA 30728

(706) 565-9624

(706) 234-1989

(706) 639-9241

Van Dusen Forest Products 940 Ford Street

Iron Mountain, MI 49801

(906) 774-3679

Watson Wood Company 1506 US Highway 59 S

Linden, TX 75563

(903) 756-7381

Webb-Taylor Timber, Inc. 522 W Front Street

Evergreen, AL 36401

(251) 578-1840

William Carey Meigs 1033 Highway 77 S

Wadley, AL 36276

(256) 395-2358

W K Brown Timber Corp. 6717 Highway 25 N

Hodges, SC 29653

(864) 374-3352

W S Richardson Pulpwood Buyers 301 E Cedar Street

Warren, AR 71671

(870) 226-3661