United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest

Service

Northern

Research Station

General Technical

Report NRS-106

Evaluating Forest Biomass 

Utilization in the Appalachians: 

A Review of Potential Impacts 

and Guidelines for Management

Michael R. Vanderberg

Mary Beth Adams

Mark S. Wiseman
Visit our homepage at: http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/

Published by: For additional copies:

USDA FOREST SERVICE USDA Forest Service

11 CAMPUS BLVD., SUITE 200 Publications Distribution

NEWTOWN SQUARE, PA 19073-3294 359 Main Road

Delaware, OH 43015-8640

October 2012 Fax: 740-368-0152

Manuscript received for publication March 2012

Michael Vanderberg is environmental scientist at West Virginia University’s 

Appalachian Hardwood Center, Division of Forestry and Natural Resources, 

Morgantown, WV. 

Mary Beth Adams is research soil scientist with the USDA Forest Service, Northern 

Research Station in Parsons, WV. 

Mark Wiseman is regional resource manager at LP Corporation in Roaring River, NC.

Authors

Abstract

Forests are important economic and ecological resources for both the Appalachian 

hardwood forest region and the country. Increased demand for woody biomass can be 

met, at least in part, by improved utilization of these resources. However, concerns exist 

about the impacts of increased intensity of woody biomass removal on the sustainability of 

forest ecosystems. Relatively little research has evaluated the impacts of forest biomass 

harvesting on site productivity, biodiversity, water quality, or other measures of ecosystem 

productivity, and new information about these and other related topics is not readily 

available. This report discusses the implications for the sustainability of Appalachian 

hardwood forests if additional woody biomass is removed for the production of woody 

biomass-related energy. It includes a summary and synthesis of published literature 

and ongoing studies to evaluate the possible effects of increased biomass removal on 

several primary aspects of forest sustainability (i.e., site productivity, water quality, wildlife 

and biodiversity, wood supply). General management guidelines are proposed that can 

minimize the impacts of woody biomass utilization on the sustainability of Appalachian 

hardwood forests. Accompanying the report is an online bibliography, containing 

references for scientific literature related to woody biomass harvesting and utilization 

beyond the scope of the Appalachian forest region. 
Introduction 

Introduction

Renewable energy is projected to increase its share of 

total energy generation during the next two decades 

in many countries of the industrialized world (Roos et 

al. 2000), and woody biomass utilization from forests 

is expected to be a key element of the renewable 

portfolio. Many countries have already directed 

significant resources toward the development of forest 

biomass to energy conversion facilities, including 

Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Belgium, Canada, and 

the United States. For example, Finland utilizes the 

cogeneration of heat and power and biofuels more 

extensively than any other nation, and the target of 

that country’s National Action Plan for Renewable 

Energy Sources is to increase the annual use of woody 

biomass from forests (Malkki and Virtanen 2003). 

Sweden is experiencing a rapidly growing demand for 

commercially traded wood fuel for energy production. 

Forest biomass, consisting mostly of tops and branches 

from commercial harvesting operations, comprises 

80 percent of the domestic wood fuel resource in 

Sweden (Bohlin and Roos 2002). The U.S. pulp and 

paper industry utilizes woody biomass to generate 

thousands of megawatts of electricity for its own use 

and for sale to utility companies. China and Turkey 

have placed high importance on the development of 

such facilities to create job opportunities and revitalize 

rural communities in addition to providing alternative 

energy generation (Cuiping et al. 2004, Demirbas 

2004). Turkey, for example, generated 10 percent of its 

total energy from biomass in the year 1999 compared 

to 3 percent in the United States (Kaygusuz and 

Turker 2002, Perlack et al. 2005). Demand for forest 

biomass as an energy source is already widespread and 

promises to remain high in the future. 

There are two main forces driving the predicted 

increase in U.S. domestic woody biomass utilization: 

energy independence and global climate change 

(Janowiak and Webster 2010). Rising costs of 

fossil-based energy sources and a greater reliance 

on foreign oil are the two most frequently cited 

energy concerns (Aguilar and Garrett 2009), while 

increasing greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations from 

anthropogenic emissions are considered to be a major 

contributor to climate change (Apps and Price 1996). 

The United States has placed the U.S. Forest Service 

mission within the context of facilitated adaptation to 

reduce the impacts of climate change and has pursued 

the development of strategies to mitigate climate 

change (Barrett 2009). Increasing the utilization of 

woody biomass for energy production would expand 

the domestic renewable energy portfolio, which could 

address both issues of the United States’ reliance 

on foreign energy sources and the need to mitigate 

greenhouse gas emissions (Bjorhedan et al. 2003, 

Cuiping et al. 2004, Kumar et al. 2003, Malkki and 

Virtanen 2003).

Nationally, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the 

Energy Independence and Security Act call for the 

increased utilization of woody biomass for energy 

generation, with an emphasis on cellulosic biofuels 

(Janowiak and Webster 2010). Globally, woody 

biomass represents about 14 percent of the world’s 

total energy consumption and developing countries 

utilize three times as much woody biomass relative to 

industrialized nations (Parikka 2004). Woody biomass 

contributes to roughly 3 percent of total United States’ 

energy generation, making it the largest source of 

renewable energy at present (Perlack et al. 2005). 

However, this represents only a 1.5 percent increase in 

woody biomass-based energy production over the last 

three decades (Navickis 1978), and current domestic 

renewable energy initiatives target substantially greater 

production. The U.S. Department of Energy estimates 

that 1.18 billion Mg (1.3 billion tons) of biomass could 

be produced on an annual basis through relatively 

small changes in land use and forestry practices. These 

changes could cut current GHG emissions by up to 

10 percent and also replace an equal amount of the 

nation’s petroleum consumption by 2030 (Perlack et 

al. 2005). 
Evaluating Forest Biomass Utilization in the Appalachians:

A Review of Potential Impacts and Guidelines for Management

Figure 1 shows the U.S. energy sources, by percentage 

of consumption for 2010. Wood energy makes up 

about 25 percent of the renewable energy share, while 

biofuels (fuel ethanol and biodiesel consumption) and 

waste (municipal solid waste, landfill gas, sludge, 

agricultural byproducts, and other biomass) make up 

another 30 percent of the renewable energy share. 

Overall, the use of biomass for energy wood appears 

to be an integral part of addressing the United States’ 

reliance on foreign energy sources and emissions from 

domestic energy generation.

Figure 1.—Renewable energy as a share of total primary energy consumption, 2010 (adapted from EIA 2011).

Energy Wood in Appalachian Forests

The forests of the Appalachian region, from northern 

Georgia through southern New York, are already 

important economic and ecological resources for the 

region and the nation. Federal emission standards 

have necessitated the use of biomass for cogeneration 

with fossil fuel sources such as coal, and biomass 

will continue to be part of the Appalachian region 

energy portfolio (ARC 2006). Several bioenergy 

production facilities in the region already exist and 

the development of biofuels is a focus of many 
Introduction

Appalachian state energy plans (ARC 2006). 

Examples of policies to promote renewable energy in 

the Appalachian region include mandates to increase 

electricity derived from renewable sources to 12.5 

percent by 2020 in North Carolina, as well as the 

requirement for all gasoline to contain 10 percent 

cellulosic ethanol in Pennsylvania (Aguilar and 

Garrett 2009). These policies will require biomass as 

a feedstock and this increase in demand for wood fuel 

may be met by improved utilization of forest resources 

(Galik et al. 2009). For example, the utilization of 

post-harvest residues in the Appalachian forest region 

has the potential to provide biomass feedstock for 

energy wood. Average estimates for the dry mass of 

harvesting residues in West Virginia range from 18.8 

to 23.3 Mg ha-1 (Fajvan et al. 1998, Grushecky et 

al. 1998, Grushecky et al. 2006, Wang et al. 2007). 

However, concerns exist over potential impacts of 

the heightened intensity of forest biomass removal 

on the long-term sustainability of forest ecosystems 

within the Appalachian region. Figure 2 shows 

production facilities (both existing and planned) in 

the northeastern United States, which utilize woody 

biomass that could be used as energy wood. The figure 

includes wood consumption by energy production 

facilities as well as traditional forest product industries 

such as paper, oriented strand board (OSB), medium 

density fiberboard (MDF), and particleboard (PB). 

Figure 2.—Biomass use in the northern Appalachian region (from Wiedenbeck et al. 2011).
Evaluating Forest Biomass Utilization in the Appalachians:

A Review of Potential Impacts and Guidelines for Management

Aguilar and Garrett (2009) surveyed state foresters, 

state biomass energy contacts, and National Council 

of Forestry Association Executives to gain their 

perspective on defining woody biomass, different 

renewable energies, and the opportunities and 

challenges associated with the utilization of woody 

biomass as a sustainable energy feedstock. More 

than 90 percent of respondents from the Appalachian 

region thought woody biomass could encompass 

tree branches and small-diameter trees from both 

naturally regenerated and plantation forests on private 

and public lands, as well as residue from the wood 

products industry. There was less agreement on the 

inclusion of forest brush, tree needles, or leaves, and 

biomass from old growth or late successional forests. 

Respondents scored the combustion of woody biomass 

as having the most potential as a sustainable source 

of energy. However, there was also strong support for 

wood-based biofuels, gasification, and pyrolysis.

The Aguilar and Garrett (2009) study also measured 

the relative importance of utilizing woody biomass 

for energy generation. Within the region containing 

the Appalachians, the greatest perceived benefits 

revolved around locally produced energy, job and 

work opportunities, and improving forest health by 

increased management opportunities. Furthermore, the 

study gauged stakeholders’ opinions on the challenges 

facing energy generation from biomass. The single 

most significant challenge was the cost of harvesting 

and the transportation of energy wood from the forest 

to the production facility. Notably, respondents rated 

the potential negative impacts of forest biomass 

harvesting on watershed soil conditions, watersheds, 

and wildlife habitat as some of the least challenging 

concerns. 
Energy Wood Harvesting and Woody Biomass Retention

Energy Wood Harvesting

and Woody Biomass Retention

Biomass harvesting consists of the collection and 

removal of woody biomass from forested sites and 

may occur as part of a traditional roundwood harvest 

or as a separate operation following a traditional 

harvest. In addition to the removal of traditionally 

marketable products, such as saw logs and pulpwood, 

biomass harvesting may include the removal of tops 

and limbs remaining from a roundwood harvest, 

small diameter trees of both merchantable and nonmerchantable species, dead and downed material, and 

shrub species. Current forest management activities 

can respond to the increased demand for biomass in at 

least three general ways, including: 1) the management 

of forests that may have been previously unmanaged, 

mismanaged, or underutilized in the past; 2) increased 

harvest intensity in already managed stands; and 3) 

the expansion of short-rotation biomass plantations, 

which may lead to the conversion of some naturally 

regenerating forest land (Janowiak and Webster 2010). 

Thus, biomass utilization will likely affect more land 

area, remove a higher proportion of the vegetation 

compared to a traditional roundwood harvest only, 

and also have associated subsequent impacts on a 

range of factors that influence sustainability. Biomass 

plantations offer excellent opportunities to produce 

relatively large amounts of fiber using intensive 

management, but are outside the scope of this review 

due to their relative infrequency in the Appalachians 

and the greater likelihood that natural forests will 

be the predominant source of woody biomass in the 

immediate to short term. Therefore, we will limit 

our discussion to the use of naturally regenerated 

hardwood forests for energy wood and will only 

occasionally refer to short-rotation plantations (also 

known as purpose-grown wood).

Biomass utilization is defined in federal regulations 

as the harvest, sale, offer, trade, and/or utilization of 

woody biomass to produce the full range of wood 

products, including timber, engineered lumber, paper 

and pulp, furniture and value-added commodities, 

and bioenergy and/or bio-based products such as 

plastics, ethanol, and diesel [48 C.F.R. § 1437.7203; 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2010-title48-

vol5/pdf/CFR-2010-title48-vol5-chap14.pdf]. 

Biomass utilization includes biomass harvesting and 

encompasses not only the potential environmental 

impacts of biomass harvesting but also issues 

pertaining to wood supply and socioeconomics. 

A sustainable wood supply is dependent on the greater 

implementation of smallwood harvesting techniques 

and the economic feasibility of such techniques, 

which have been largely absent from the Appalachian 

hardwood region dominated by higher-valued timber 

resources, as well as the social acceptance of the 

process of biomass utilization. In this synthesis, we 

will evaluate sustainability from a biomass utilization 

perspective, to include environmental impacts as 

well as the competition among the markets that rely 

on the resource. Sustainability guidelines, or best 

management practices (BMPs), for the Appalachian 

hardwood region will also be offered for biomass 

utilization, as it has been found that management 

objectives, ecology, and economics are all central to 

forest biomass operations (Evans and Finkral 2009).

While there is a relative abundance of research on 

the effects of biomass harvesting on soil nutrients 

(e.g., Johnson et al. 1982, Mann et al. 1988, Powers 

et al. 2005), only a small portion of that research has 

been re-evaluated in terms of aboveground vegetative 

productivity. Furthermore, important factors such as 

water quality and biodiversity may be affected by 

heightened demand for biomass, which will necessitate 

the increased usage of smallwood harvesting 

practices (e.g., whole-tree removal of traditionally 

nonmerchantable species) and the improved utilization 

of traditional harvest residuals. In terms of biomass 

harvesting, these sustainability factors deserve 

attention to determine their relative importance beyond 

traditional saw log and pulpwood harvesting (Bohlin 

and Roos 2002, Evans and Perschel 2009). 
Evaluating Forest Biomass Utilization in the Appalachians:

A Review of Potential Impacts and Guidelines for Management

With increasing intensity of biomass removal, a 

main concern is the removal of woody material that 

otherwise would be left on site during a conventional 

harvest. This includes the nutrient-rich branches 

and tops, stumps, and larger stem pieces, which is 

a combination of coarse woody debris (small end 

diameter >7.6 cm, length >1 m), fine woody debris 

(small end diameter < 7.6 cm), and large woody debris 

(length >3.7 m) (Evans 2011, Forest Guild Biomass 

Working Group 2010, Mattson et al. 1987, Rubino 

and McCarthy 2003, Valett et al. 2002, Webster and 

Jenkins 2005). These categories of woody debris 

are commonly classified together as downed woody 

material (DWM) (Evans 2011). DWM accumulation 

in forests often follows a U-shaped temporal pattern 

post-harvest (Figure 3) (Evans 2011, Jones et al. 2009, 

Sturtevant et al. 1997). Conventional harvest activity 

causes an initial period of high wood input, followed 

by a longer period of diminishing input before DWM 

accumulation rates increase as trees start to mature and 

mortality occurs in larger trees. Biomass harvesting 

that targets DWM can nullify the initial enlargement in 

input and lead to changes in woody debris dynamics. 

Forest stands that undergo natural disturbance events 

will usually have more large snags (standing dead 

trees) compared to stands that are commercially 

harvested, but that could vary with the type of 

management activity (Jones et al. 2009). Generally, the 

abundance of snags is greater with older stands. 

Overall, DWM is an important, and often abundant, 

component that can impact nutrient availability, 

nitrogen fixation, wildlife habitat, seedling 

regeneration, and overland flow of water (Evans 2011). 

Adams et al. (2003) reported total volumes for DWM 

(69.7 m3 ha-1) and snags (41.4 m3 ha-1) in a mature 

second-growth central Appalachian hardwood stand. 

The authors found that the DWM was comprised of 22 

Figure 3.—Post-harvest woody debris dynamics with increasing stand age (adapted from Sturtevant et al. 1997).
Energy Wood Harvesting and Woody Biomass Retention

tree species, with 27.9, 40.8, and 31.2 percent of the 

material in decay classes 1, 2, and 3, respectively. (The 

stage of decay increased with the number of decay 

class.) A per-hectare average of 48 snags was found, 

representing 37 percent of the total DWM. The largest 

diameter of DWM was 96.5 cm, while the largest snag 

was 107 cm at breast height. Sixty-nine percent of 

snags had diameters less than 35.6 cm, and 50 percent 

had diameters less than 20.5 cm. The authors report 

that the DWM volumes for the stand appeared high 

compared to other second-growth forests, although 

other published values for DWM in the region range 

from 8 to 84 m3 ha-1 (Jenkins and Parker 1997, Shifley 

et al. 1998) and Evans (2011) reports a range of 6.7 

to 92 Mg ha-1 and an average of approximately 30 Mg 

ha-1 for four southern Appalachian states. The range 

of annual DWM accumulation was reported as 0.56 

to 15.9 Mg ha-1, with an average annual rate of 4 Mg 

ha-1 (Evans 2011). The range of DWM in oak-hickory 

forests has been reported as 13 to 40.4 Mg ha-1, while 

snags ranged from 47 to 108 per hectare or 5 to 15 

percent of the basal area. The forests of the southern 

Appalachians are reported as averaging 57 to 128 

snags per hectare greater than 10 cm in diameter at 

breast height (d.b.h.) and five large snags per hectare 

greater than 30 cm d.b.h., with an annual accumulation 

rate of 1.5 snags per hectare (Evans 2011).
Evaluating Forest Biomass Utilization in the Appalachians:

A Review of Potential Impacts and Guidelines for Management

Impacts of

Energy Wood Harvesting

on Forest Ecosystems

Ecosystem services include maintaining site 

productivity, providing clean and abundant water 

supply (i.e., meeting water quality standards), 

supporting wildlife and biodiversity, and sustaining 

regional wood supply (Benjamin et al. 2010). Each 

ecosystem service is affected by factors associated 

with woody biomass harvesting and utilization, such 

as the retention of downed woody material and the site 

impacts due to the harvesting method and silvicultural 

prescription. For example, the sustainability of forest 

site productivity is influenced directly by biomass 

utilization through its impact on nutrient availability 

and soil compaction. Soil can be compacted by the 

machinery used within the biomass harvesting system, 

and nutrient availability can be affected by the type 

and amount of woody debris and leaf litter, which are a 

product of post-harvest residual stand conditions. 

To a great extent, ecosystem services affected by 

woody biomass utilization depend on the condition 

of the residual stand and the harvest system used 

for management activity. Therefore, to effectively 

manage a forest for sustainable vegetation growth for 

future rotations, the planning process must determine 

a desired harvest system (i.e., type and intensity 

of silvicultural prescription, and method of forest 

operations) that will meet the residual stand condition 

objectives that are necessary for long-term site 

productivity. Furthermore, decisions that are made in 

regard to the harvest system to ensure site productivity 

will also directly affect the ecosystem services of 

water quality, biodiversity, and wood supply to varying 

degrees. A management strategy that takes into 

account the impacts to ecosystem services will help 

to ensure long-term woody biomass availability for 

energy wood production. 

The body of scientific literature that addresses the 

impacts of forest harvesting on ecosystem services is 

large, and some of the research is not specific to the 

Appalachian forest region. Although such research 

may be applicable to the Appalachian forest region, 

much of it is beyond the scope of this publication. 

However, the authors recognize the value of these 

publications, and accompanying this report is an online 

bibliography containing more than 200 references 

for scientific literature related to woody biomass 

harvesting, utilization and impacts on forest ecosystem 

services. The online bibliography can be accessed 

at the West Virginia University Division of Forestry 

and Natural Resources – Appalachian Hardwood 

Center website: http://ahc.caf.wvu.edu/joomla/index.

php?option=com_remository&Itemid=148&func=st

artdown&id=364. The bibliography is maintained as 

an Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF), and is 

searchable by keyword, author name, title, publisher, 

etc. Hyperlinks to publicly available publications are 

included where appropriate. 

In the following sections, the relative importance 

of woody biomass utilization impacts on ecosystem 

services in the Appalachian forest region is described 

in more detail.

Maintaining Site Productivity

The productivity of a site is a function of the local 

microclimate, organic matter (OM), and available 

nutrients, and the interactions among those. The Forest 

Guild Biomass Working Group (2010) suggests that 

biomass harvesting is unlikely to significantly impact 

site productivity if sensitive sites (low-nutrient sites) 

and clearcutting with whole-tree removal are avoided. 

However, an intensification of biomass harvesting 

can affect site productivity through several pathways. 

First, an expansion of the acreage that is harvested 

may affect site productivity by increasing the area 

susceptible to erosion and runoff, which results 
Impacts of Energy Wood Harvesting on Forest Ecosystems

in removal of important nutrients and OM from 

individual sites, over a collectively greater area. Also, 

more vehicle traffic (more passages across a site/area) 

to access additional biomass can result in greater soil 

disturbance and compaction which also may affect 

site productivity. Enlarging the area harvested within 

a region may result in a greater removal of nutrients 

and OM, via removal of aboveground biomass on 

more hectares. Finally, more intense utilization of 

woody residues may also result in increased nutrient 

removals as nutrients traditionally left in the woods are 

removed. Figure 4 depicts nutrient fluxes to and from 

the forest ecosystem. 

Soil disturbance disrupts an orderly process of litter 

accumulation and decomposition. Although high 

infiltration capacities of most undisturbed forest 

soils prevent overland flow (Hewlett and Hibbert 

1967), removal of the litter layer and forest floor 

can increase erosion and affect soil temperature and 

nutrient cycling. Soil compaction, resulting from 

multiple passages of heavy equipment and logs over 

an area, can increase soil bulk density, which results in 

decreased soil pore space, soil air, and water-holding 

capacity, and increased surface runoff. 

Figure 4.—Nutrient fluxes to and from the forest (adapted from Raulund-Rasmussen et al. 2008).
10

Evaluating Forest Biomass Utilization in the Appalachians:

A Review of Potential Impacts and Guidelines for Management

Water is responsible for most of erosion and sediment 

movement that occurs in the Appalachian region. 

Therefore, erosion and sediment impacts from 

intensified forest management are the result of how 

surface runoff of water is handled. The risk of erosion 

and movement of sediment to streams grows as litter 

and soil disturbance and soil compaction increase. The 

litter layer protects soil particles from direct impact 

and detachment by raindrops (Stuart and Edwards 

2006) and also plays a major role in maintaining 

high soil infiltration rates (Patric 1978). Therefore, 

by retaining litter on the surface and avoiding soil 

compaction, erosion and sediment transport to streams 

above natural climate-driven levels can be largely 

controlled. 

Not surprisingly, because of the degree of soil 

disturbance involved in their construction and use, 

forest roads and constructed skid trails, not the process 

of felling timber, are the major source of sediment 

potentially moving into streams (Megahan 1972, 

Patric 1976). If water is not controlled properly, it can 

build up sufficient energy to erode soils and transport 

soil particles off-site. Much research has shown that 

when haul roads, skid roads, and landings are properly 

located and appropriate mitigation measures, such 

as graveling, are employed, watershed exports of 

sediment are minimized (Kochenderfer 1970, Patric 

1978, Kochenderfer and Helvey 1987, Kochenderfer et 

al. 1997). As the area exploited for biomass harvesting 

increases, there may be a concomitant increase in 

road density, harvesting, and usage of existing roads. 

Therefore, careful planning and maintenance of roads 

may mitigate some of the impacts of increased area 

harvested under an energy wood scenario. 

An intensification of biomass harvesting can also lead 

to greater nutrient losses from an individual site, as 

well as cumulatively from a region. Timber harvesting 

removes nutrients from a site in the forest product, 

and numerous studies have evaluated the effects of 

harvesting on nutrient pools at the site or stand level 

(Johnson et al. 1982, Leaf 1979, Mann et al. 1988, 

Powers et al 2005). Generally, the amount of nutrient 

removed is proportional to the biomass removed 

(Adams 1999). The more intensive a harvest, the 

more aboveground biomass, and therefore nutrients, 

are removed from the site. For example, a pulpwood 

harvest, where all stems 4 inches in diameter and 

greater were utilized, removed more biomass than a 

saw log-only harvest, where stems smaller than 

8 inches diameter were left on the site (Adams 1999). 

The greatest removals of biomass and nutrients 

occur with whole-tree harvesting, where nearly all 

aboveground woody material is removed from the 

site, including tops and branches. Tritton et al. (1987) 

estimated whole-tree harvesting removed 91 percent 

of aboveground biomass, compared with about 

10 percent of the biomass in a commercial thinning 

operation in central hardwood stands in Connecticut 

and Tennessee. Estimated removals of nitrogen (N) 

in whole-tree harvesting in eastern hardwood forests 

ranged from 143 to 323 kg N ha-1 (Adams 1999, 

Tritton et al. 1987), compared to 58 to 162 kg N ha-1 in 

saw log only harvests. Yanai (1998) demonstrated that 

whole-tree harvesting in northern hardwood forests 

removed five times more phosphorus (P) than boleonly harvests. Removal of calcium (Ca) with wholetree harvesting was estimated from 300 to 1090 kg 

Ca ha-1 (Adams 1999), and also estimated that wholetree harvesting could result in a decrease of 30 to 50 

percent of the Ca pool, assuming no weathering inputs. 

Note, however, repeated light cuts can remove as much 

biomass and nutrients over the course of a rotation as 

one commercial clearcut (Adams et al. 2000, Patric 

and Smith 1975). Such high levels of removal raise 

concerns about the availability of these nutrients for 

the regrowing or remaining forest. 

In general, the aboveground nutrient content of 

the forest stand is relatively small compared to the 

total nutrient pool of the soil (Adams 1999, Patric 

and Smith 1975). However, there is a particular 

concern about nutrients such as Ca and magnesium 
Impacts of Energy Wood Harvesting on Forest Ecosystems 11

(Mg) for which input rates are normally considered 

low, and which could become limiting in nutrientpoor soils. Adams et al. (2004) reported that, while 

aboveground N represents 8 percent of the total site 

N capital, aboveground Ca and Mg represented 85 

percent and 60 percent of the estimated site capital, 

respectively. Using data from Jenkins et al. (1998), 

where exchangeable Ca levels in West Virginia 

soils ranged from less than 100 kg ha-1 to more than 

6000 kg ha-1, Adams et al. (2000) demonstrated that 

the lowest levels of harvest removals exceeded the 

available soil Ca in some of the soils, and the highest 

levels of removals exceeded available soil Ca levels 

in all but those soils derived from limestone or other 

calcium-rich parent materials. However, note that 

most estimates of soil pools are incomplete because 

they usually represent only extractable or available 

nutrients (Schoenholtz et al. 2000). Because mineral 

weathering rates are poorly quantified in most 

soils, we generally underestimate total soil levels 

of nutrients such as Ca and Mg. Also, we base our 

nutrient budgets on mass-balance models of nutrient 

supply that are based on static measures that overlook 

the dynamic nature of chemical equilibria within the 

soil (Powers, in press). 

Significant growth declines following whole-tree 

harvesting have been documented and attributed to 

nutrient limitations, but these have been reported 

mostly in second rotation conifer plantations, located 

on nutrient poor soils (Egnell and Leijon 1999, Proe et 

al. 1996, Scott and Dean 2006). These growth declines 

have often been related in particular to altered organicmatter cycling, and effects on soil N and P. Such 

problems are less commonly reported in hardwood 

forests. 

However, some hardwood tree species may be more 

susceptible to the effects of poor nutrition than others 

(Adams et al. 2000). For example, Johnson and Todd 

(1998) compared the effects of saw log harvesting 

and whole-tree harvesting on carbon and nutrient 

budgets in a mixed-oak forest near Oak Ridge, TN, 

immediately after harvesting and again 15 years later. 

While greater concentrations of Ca, potassium (K), and 

Mg were found in both foliage and soils of the saw log 

removal treatment relative to the whole-tree harvested 

treatment, there were no signs of deficiencies of these 

nutrients, and no differences in forest growth. 

Precipitation that contains high concentrations of N 

and sulfur (S) can alter nutrient cycling and lead to 

elevated leaching of base cations, particularly Ca and 

Mg (Adams et al. 2000, Norton et al. 1997). Annual 

Ca and Mg leaching losses may represent significant 

portions of exchangeable soil Ca and Mg pools, 

although there is wide variability and uncertainty 

around these estimates (Watmough et al. 2005). 

Thus, in the central Appalachians, significant losses 

of Ca and Mg are possible even under a no-harvest 

scenario due to mobilization of these nutrients by 

acidic deposition inputs. The Appalachian forest has 

historically seen high levels of some nutrients in 

atmospheric deposition, in particular N and S. Sulfur 

levels have declined significantly during the last 25 

years (National Atmospheric Deposition Program, 

n.d.), but N deposition generally has remained 

elevated. While often hypothesized, growth declines in 

hardwood forests related to acidic deposition-induced 

leaching have not been well documented in the 

scientific literature (but see Elias et al. 2009).

However there is certainly evidence that leaching of 

nutrients such as Ca and Mg can be accelerated as a 

result of elevated nitrogen deposition and availability 

(Adams et al. 1997, Adams et al. 2006). Nitrogen 

availability can be increased by atmospheric deposition 

to the point of N saturation (Adams 1999, Fenn et al. 

1998, Gilliam et al. 1996). Concerns associated with 

N saturation include increased nitrification leading to 

leaching of soil N, Ca, and Mg to waterways and the 

effect of the loss of these nutrients on soil productivity 

(Gilliam and Adams 1999). The effects of increased 

N levels have been studied extensively over the short 
12

Evaluating Forest Biomass Utilization in the Appalachians:

A Review of Potential Impacts and Guidelines for Management

term in Appalachian hardwood forests. Adams and 

Angradi (1996) found that after 3 years of N and S 

fertilization, leaf litter decomposition was slower in 

treated watersheds compared to the control. Adams 

et al. (1997) found that 5 years of annual N and S 

fertilization to a young stand increased concentrations 

and export of N, Ca, and Mg, and that the treated 

watershed was N-saturated. 

Biomass harvesting can further alter the nutrient 

dynamics in forests affected by acidic deposition 

(Adams et al. 2000). Gilliam and Adams (1999) 

studied the effects of harvesting on N dynamics in a 

N-saturated forest. They found that the already high 

rates of N mineralization were increased significantly 

by whole-tree harvest treatments, and the addition of 

N, Ca, and Mg fertilization with whole-tree harvesting 

resulted in the highest rates of nitrification. Coates 

et al. (2008) showed that mechanical thinningfrom-below treatments resulted in increases in 

extractable total inorganic N, net N mineralization, 

and nitrification during the first post-treatment year. 

Elevated leaching of Ca and Mg often occurs with 

increased nitrification. Finzi (2009), however, suggests 

that the atmospheric N deposition has not yet resulted 

in the saturation of tree demand for N, nor has it 

created a limitation of P in the forests of southern New 

England.

Of equal concern, but less supported by research 

data, are issues related to changes in nutrient cycling 

due to altered harvesting regimes in interaction with 

acidic deposition. Probable effects of proposed wood 

energy and biomass harvesting activities on nutrient 

cycling include: increased mineralization of organic 

material, resulting in increased available nutrients, 

particularly N; increased nitrification of soil N to 

nitrate (NO3), a more mobile form; increased leaching 

of soil nutrients (N, K, Ca, Mg) as uptake by plants 

decreases temporarily due to removal of the overstory; 

and increases in rates of cycling of some nutrients 

in the upper soil horizons. Increased soil moisture, 

surface soil temperatures, and increased OM, all of 

which have been observed after clearcutting, produce 

ideal conditions for rapid decomposition of the OM 

available on the site, resulting in accelerated rates 

of nutrient cycling. A meta-analysis by Johnson and 

Curtis (2001) reported that, on average, harvesting 

had little to no effect on soil nitrogen N and C storage. 

However, the authors concluded that whole-tree 

harvesting did cause a slight decrease in soil carbon 

(C) and N concentrations, while saw log-only harvests 

resulted in elevated soil nutrient concentrations. 

OM is comprised mostly of carbon and is an important 

contributor to site productivity. Carbon emissions and 

storage are related to climate change, and since forests 

play a critical role in mitigating climate change, the 

consideration of forest biomass harvesting impacts on 

C cycling in forests deserves attention. In general, we 

can expect an intensification of harvesting of forest 

biomass and energy wood to remove more OM from 

a site, proportional to the forest biomass removed, 

which can decrease the amount of soil C if OM 

inputs to the soil are reduced. Carbon can also be lost 

through the decomposition of OM, releasing carbon 

dioxide to the atmosphere. However, unless forest 

land is converted to another land use or degraded in 

some way, soil C has been mostly observed to not 

change over decades. Also, changes in soil carbon 

from biomass harvesting and reforestation may not be 

realized in the short term, whereas long-term changes 

in soil C may go undetected. Therefore, the protection 

of forests from conversion to other land uses is the 

single most important factor when considering the 

impacts of forest biomass harvesting on C cycling. The 

Forest Guild Biomass Working Group (2010) suggests 

that energy wood harvests may assist in preventing 

forests from undergoing land-use change by providing 

additional income to landowners and maintaining the 

forest industry and its markets. While the utilization 

of forest biomass for energy may have less of an 

impact on atmospheric C accumulation, the retention 

of all sizes of DWM may also be important for the 

maintenance of forest site productivity (Forest Guild 

Biomass Working Group 2010). 
Impacts of Energy Wood Harvesting on Forest Ecosystems 13

Providing Clean and Abundant 

Water Supply 

Potentially the most important impacts of intensified 

biomass harvesting may be those affecting water 

availability and particularly water quality. Forest 

hydrology research has been conducted for many years 

in the Appalachians (Hornbeck and Kochenderfer 

2001), and from multiple studies at Coweeta 

Hydrologic Laboratory, the Fernow Experimental 

Forest, Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest, and 

Robinson Forest in eastern Kentucky, we have learned 

a great deal about the effects of forest harvesting on 

water yield. Generally, a minimum removal of about 

25 percent of the basal area of a forest is necessary 

to detect a significant change in annual water yield. 

While clearcutting can result in increases in annual 

water yield, generally those changes are short-lived, 

and flows return to pre-cutting levels within a few 

years (Arthur et al. 1998, Hornbeck et al. 1993). 

Because biomass harvesting is likely to be manifested 

as an increased removal of biomass, annual flows 

may increase in the short-term in areas where more 

intensive biomass harvesting and utilization occur. 

Peak flows during the growing season may increase 

due to reduced transpiration after tree removal. 

However, some of these effects will be mitigated 

by keeping patch/stand size relatively small within 

a larger watershed, and through the use of BMPs 

designed to control water flow and protect the stream 

channels. 

The quality of water coming off forested lands is 

generally very high and maintaining that quality is 

the focus of national and state regulation. The Clean 

Water Act of 1972 addresses the need for states to 

assess damages caused by nonpoint source pollution 

(Wang and Goff 2008). Indeed, the potential for 

forest harvesting to impact water quality is the 

primary driver for most state forest protection laws 

and BMP guidelines. Most regulations require, or 

guidelines advise, the implementation of riparian 

management areas (RMAs) or buffer strips for 

perennial streams (McClure et al. 2004, Phillips et al. 

2000). It is generally acknowledged that water quality 

is adequately covered by state BMP guidelines (Aust 

and Blinn 2004, Forest Guild Biomass Working Group 

2010), although a review of the potential impacts of 

biomass harvesting on water quality may be necessary 

if greater biomass is to be removed during or after 

traditional timber harvests or if the area of biomass 

plantations were predicted to increase substantially. 

Of the many factors that influence water quality, three 

stand out as paramount: erosion, sedimentation, and 

stream temperature. Existing state BMPs, regulations, 

or guidelines may need to be adjusted and revised to 

encompass these factors.

Erosion is the source of sediment. Increased rates 

of erosion can be caused by disturbance. Traditional 

harvesting removes varying degrees of forest canopy 

and can remove leaf litter and woody debris, which 

can expose mineral soil on extraction trails and also 

around tree stems when mechanized felling practices 

are employed. Biomass harvesting could result in 

increased erosion due to elevated removal intensity of 

woody debris. Barrett et al. (2009) documented such 

increase, demonstrating that average erosion rates 

across a biomass harvesting site ranged from 7.2 to 

19.3 Mg ha-1 yr-1, while rates from a similar traditional 

harvest ranged from less than 2.2 to 11.2 Mg ha-1 yr-1. 

Regardless of biomass removal intensity, the main 

source of erosion and sedimentation related to forest 

harvesting is the transportation network of forest roads 

and skid trails and the control of water leading toward 

and around the road and trail network (Kochenderfer 

1970). Fox et al. (2007) found, over the long term, 

that treatments which retain some canopy did not 

reduce soil loss compared to clearcuts because most 

of the erosion originated from forest roads and skid 

trails. Erosion rates rapidly declined as vegetation 

growth increased following each harvest type, but 

over a 100-year rotation, clearcuts were projected to 

produce 70 percent less erosion compared to other less 

intensive treatments because fewer stand entries during 

a rotation resulted in less road use and disturbance. 
14

Evaluating Forest Biomass Utilization in the Appalachians:

A Review of Potential Impacts and Guidelines for Management

The control of precipitation runoff is crucial in the 

Appalachian hardwood region where steep slopes 

are not only commonplace, but the norm. However, 

surface runoff and sheet erosion is rare within 

forests, except on the exposed soils of skid trails and 

temporary haul roads. 

Increased erosion can increase nutrient removal 

from forest soils, as particles to which nutrients are 

absorbed are exported. Also, changes in nutrient 

cycling, particularly in leaching of nutrients from a 

site in streamwater, may result from forest harvesting. 

Bormann and Likens (1979), in an experiment at 

Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest, New Hampshire, 

reported that dissolved nutrient levels in streamwater 

from a clearcut watershed when regrowth of vegetation 

was prevented for 3 years by use of herbicides were 

13 times higher than in an uncut watershed. However, 

when clearcut watersheds were allowed to naturally 

regenerate, the export of nutrients was only slightly 

increased because of rapid uptake by new vegetation, 

and the effects were temporary (Aubertin and Patric 

1972, Galeone 1989, Kochenderfer and Aubertin 1975, 

Kochenderfer and Edwards 1991). Elevated nitrate 

in streamwater can be a health concern, but seldom 

do increases in streamwater N from forest harvesting 

alone reach such levels (Helvey et al. 1989).

Stream temperature can also be altered by biomass 

harvesting. Increases in stream temperatures have 

consequences for cold-water fish, such as trout. 

Optimum trout production occurs in streams which 

do not exceed 20 °C, even for short periods of time 

(Swift and Messer 1971). Swift and Messer (1971) 

studied the effects of riparian zone harvesting on 

stream temperatures in the Appalachian region. They 

found that complete removal of both overstory and 

understory vegetation increased maximum summer 

stream temperatures from 19 °C to 23 °C. Where 

riparian vegetation was left or had regrown along 

streambanks, summer maximum temperatures 

remained unchanged from controls of uncut mature 

hardwood forest. Other more recent research supports 

these findings: maintaining a greater basal area and 

tree heights in riparian zones minimize changes in 

stream water temperatures following harvesting 

(Groom et al. 2011).

Supporting Wildlife and Biodiversity

Biodiversity is a measure of the diversity of life in all 

its forms and at all levels of organization at a specified 

spatial and temporal scale (Miller et al. 2009), and 

this definition includes faunal populations as well 

as vegetation and other organisms such as bacteria. 

However, we restrict our discussion of biodiversity to 

plants and traditional terrestrial and aquatic wildlife. 

Biodiversity has become such a valued ecosystem 

service that some forest management certification 

programs such as the Sustainable Forestry Initiative 

and Forest Stewardship Council have created 

objectives and guidelines for conserving or increasing 

biodiversity. As harvesting for energy wood feedstock 

will likely remove more woody material than 

traditional harvesting or will do so at shortened time 

intervals, it follows that it is important to incorporate 

objectives for the conservation of biodiversity within 

guidelines for sustainable biomass utilization. 

The simplest measure of biodiversity is species 

richness (S'), which is defined as the number of 

different species within a specific spatial area. Two 

indices, Shannon Index (H') and Pielou’s Evenness 

Index (J') are also widely used metrics for biodiversity. 

Both of these indices relate the number of individual 

species within a forest system to the total number of 

all organisms within the same system. Generally, a 

higher index value represents greater diversity. While 

these metrics are useful, there is no consensus on what 

constitutes an appropriate methodology for assessing 

biodiversity (Guynn et al. 2004, Hagan and Whitman 

2006, Lindenmayer et al. 2000, Miller et al. 2009). 

It is unclear whether metrics concerning biodiversity 

should be based on forest structure, stakeholder 

objectives, or ecological objectives. Currently, Miller 

et al. (2009) suggest that biodiversity should be 

measured quantitatively by methods that are affordable 

and simple to understand. 
Impacts of Energy Wood Harvesting on Forest Ecosystems 15

Biomass harvesting may have both positive and 

negative effects on biodiversity because species 

respond differently to forest biomass harvesting, and 

due to differences in how one defines biodiversity 

and what plant and animal communities are natural 

or preferred. Wildlife habitat, food sources and 

browse (e.g., mast production), travel corridors, and 

population size and density can all be affected by 

increased harvesting for woody biomass. For example, 

DWM provides important habitat features for many 

species of wildlife, and also provides cover for other 

organisms. Therefore, operations that result in less 

DWM may affect overall biodiversity of a site because 

habitat has been affected.

The characteristics of timber harvesting, downed 

woody material, and snag dynamics have been studied 

in regard to the abundance and diversity of birds 

(Jones et al. 2009), small mammals (Bowman et al. 

2000, Carey and Johnson 1995, Ecke et al. 2002), large 

mammals (Brody and Stone 1987, Ford et al. 1997, 

Ford et al. 1994, Ford et al. 1993), herpetofauna (Butts 

and McComb 2000) and invertebrates (Gunnarsson et 

al. 2004). Snags and cull trees are especially important 

for sensitive and endangered species such as Indiana 

bats (Myotis sodalis) and northern long-eared bats 

(Myotis septentrionalis) (Carter and Feldhamer 2005, 

Menzel et al. 2002) and northern flying squirrels 

(Glaucomys sabrinus) (Menzel et al. 2004), which 

make use of tree cavities for nesting and roosting 

that DWM cannot provide alone. Although generally 

positively correlated with biodiversity, snags and 

DWM may not be critical habitat for many wildlife or 

vegetative species in terms of survival and abundance 

(Menzel et al. 1999). Further, snag development and 

enhancement for wildlife concerns must be weighed 

against safety risks for forest operators, particularly for 

manual harvesting systems to the region. Regardless, 

more specific information relating to wildlife and 

vegetative diversity is provided in the following 

sections.

Wildlife

Amphibians are highly abundant and very diverse in 

the Appalachian region and maintaining that diversity 

is an important consideration. Research results on the 

effects of harvesting on salamander populations are 

equivocal. Petranka et al. (1993) studied the effects of 

timber harvesting on the abundance and diversity of 

Appalachian salamander populations. They found that 

abundance of salamanders within recent clearcuts was 

five times lower than that of adjacent mature forest and 

almost all salamander species were adversely affected 

by timber harvesting. They also suggest that 50 to 

70 years would be required for populations to return 

to preharvest levels. Further research has shown that 

salamander populations decline initially post-harvest, 

although without significant differences in abundance 

between clearcutting and other harvest types (Fox 

et al. 2007, Knapp et al. 2003, Harpole and Haas 

1999). Verschuyl et al. (2011) reported short-term 

decreases in salamander populations, especially within 

clearcuts, due to reduced leaf litter, canopy cover, 

and soil moisture; this same research suggested that 

thinning treatments can maintain species abundance 

over time. Ford et al. (2000) suggest no difference 

in woodland salamander abundance between 

partial harvest treatments and control stands in the 

southern Appalachians. Brooks (1999) reported that 

intermediate thinning to 50-60 percent of residual 

stand densities to promote upland oak growth had no 

significant effect on salamander abundance, which 

was positively correlated with increasing DWM and 

density of woody stems greater than 1 meter in height. 

DWM amounts for the study ranged from 6.4 to 8.85 

pieces per 100 m2 (0.854 to 1.406 m2 per 100 m2). 

Despite relatively low impacts to salamanders from 

partial harvesting in some Appalachian forest types, 

woodland salamander species richness and diversity 

in Appalachian cove hardwood forests are highest in 

stands older than 85 years (Ford et al. 2002a). Some 

salamander populations in isolated cove hardwood 

stands may be more vulnerable to extirpation or 
16

Evaluating Forest Biomass Utilization in the Appalachians:

A Review of Potential Impacts and Guidelines for Management

require longer post-harvest recovery periods (i.e., >50 

years) than those in larger coves, and in such cases 

stand management should incorporate uncut patches, 

riparian management areas, and DWM retention with 

harvesting operations (Ford et al. 2002a). Homyack 

et al. (2011) noted that eastern red-backed salamander 

(Plethodon cinereus) caloric requirements were 33 

percent greater in recently harvested areas compared 

to uncut forest, but no treatment effect on energetic 

metrics were observed 8-14 years post-harvest. 

Moseley et al. (2009) found that capture proportion of 

salamanders in the central Appalachians was greater 

within 60 m of field edge compared to 60 to 100 m, 

suggesting that forest habitat adjacent to edge with 

sufficient DWM can provide suitable habitat. In the 

central Appalachians, woodland salamanders showed 

a neutral response to two prescribed fires over a 3-year 

period; however, post-fire conditions did not mimic 

repeated stand entry for timber harvesting (Ford et al. 

2010). Moseley et al. (2008) sampled Desmognathus

salamanders in West Virginia headwater streams and 

found that abundance was impacted negatively with 

increased timber volume removal, but abundance was 

positively associated with time since disturbance, 

with densities 30 percent higher in mature secondgrowth stands 90 years post-harvest. The authors 

also suggest that BMP buffer zones of 30.5 m for 

intermittent/perennial streams and 7.6 m for ephemeral 

streams are adequate for long-term persistence. Reptile 

populations can also decline in abundance with timber 

harvesting, but Verschuyl et al. (2011) reports that 

impacts vary due to harvest intensity and its effect on 

solar radiation and thermal cover, with clearcuts being 

generally detrimental and partial cuts providing a more 

moderate change in post-harvest conditions. 

Bird populations have been found to increase in 

abundance and diversity following thinning, due to 

greater vegetation regeneration and development 

of shrub and understory layers, greater variation in 

horizontal and vertical forest structure, and a more 

rapid return to conditions simulating older seral stages 

(DeGraff et al. 1991, Verschuyl et al. 2011). Greenberg 

and Lanham (2001) found that breeding birds in 

the southern Appalachians had higher densities and 

species richness in treefall gaps, indicating such gaps 

as bird activity “hotspots” during breeding season. 

Tirpak et al. (2006) studied the nest success of ruffed 

grouse (Bonasa umbellus) in Appalachian forests and 

found that odds of fledgling young improved with 

increases in stand density, DWM, and deciduous 

canopy cover, while increased ground cover and 

distance-to-road or gap lowered the odds. Roads 

showed no negative impacts on nest success, but to 

ensure adequate potential nesting sites, the authors 

suggest retaining at least 20 percent large DWM in 

residual stands with basal areas less than 25 m2 ha-1. 

Ford et al. (2006) found that northern long-eared 

bats preferred medium-to-large canopy dominant 

live trees (average d.b.h. = 53.4 cm, average height 

= 31.5 m), with exfoliating bark, broken limbs, and 

cavities. Snags used as roosts were smaller than live 

trees (average d.b.h. = 16.6 cm, average height = 10.3 

m). Northern bats also showed a strong preference 

for black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), both alive 

and dead. Similarly, northern bats have been found 

to exploit black locust trees in canopy gaps created 

by prescribed fires (Johnson et al. 2009). Owen et al. 

(2002) compared roost trees of northern long-eared 

bats with randomly selected trees with cavities and 

exfoliating bark and found that roost trees were taller, 

smaller in d.b.h., and surrounded by more overstory 

live trees and snags. These authors also suggest that 

roost availability is not a limiting factor in intensively 

managed Appalachian forests.

Verschuyl et al. (2011) reported a positive response 

to thinning for small mammal abundance, regardless 

of intensity. Brooks and Healy (1998) reported 

that intermediate thinnings are compatible with 

maintaining small mammal composition and relative 

abundance of dominant species. Kaminski et al. (2007) 

found that the distribution of terrestrial small mammals 
Impacts of Energy Wood Harvesting on Forest Ecosystems 17

was strongly influenced by leaf litter depth, with the 

majority of the species analyzed preferring shallow 

leaf litter (i.e., red-backed voles [Myodes gapperi], 

woodland jumping mice [Napaeozapus insignis], 

white-footed mice [Peromyscus leucopus], other 

deer mice [Peromyscus spp.], and eastern chipmunks 

[Tamias striatus]) and responding neutrally or 

favorably to harvesting activity in terms of abundance 

(i.e., red-backed vole) and weight (i.e., northern shorttailed shrews [Blarina brevicauda], white-footed and 

deer mice). Ford et al. (2000) reported no difference 

in the populations of 10 small mammal populations 

in response to either group selection and two-aged 

harvests in the southern Appalachians, with the 

exception of masked shrews (Sorex cinereus) whose 

relative abundance was greater in two-aged harvest 

treatments compared to group selection and control 

treatments. Ford et al. (2005) suggest that the complex 

topography and heterogeneity of forest types in the 

Appalachian region create a biodiversity “hotspot” for 

soricids in North America. In the central Appalachians, 

masked smokey (Sorex fumeus), and northern shorttailed shrews showed no difference in relative 

abundance in response to diameter limit and two-aged 

regeneration harvests (Ford and Rodrigue 2001). 

Shrew abundance has not been found to differ among 

stands representing mature (>60 years), sapling (6-15 

years), regeneration (2-5 years), and recent clearcut 

(<2 years) stages of harvested forest stands (Ford et 

al. 2002b). Habitat assessment for the endangered 

Virginia northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus 

fuscus) has suggested that occupancy may not be 

dependent on overstory tree species richness, DWM, 

tree and shrub density, or on the amount of herbaceous 

cover and soil OM (Ford et al. 2004). However, 

Menzel et al. (2004) suggest retaining snags and 

larger older trees for flying squirrel nesting, and 

promoting stand-level regeneration of certain species 

such as yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis) and 

black birch (Betula lenta) and American beech (Fagus 

grandifolia).

Larger animals appear to be impacted similarly to 

small mammals by forest harvesting. For example, 

Brody and Stone (1987) concluded that some 

traditional harvest regimes, depending on the timing 

and intensity, may actually improve habitat and 

carrying capacity for black bears (Ursus americanus) 

in Appalachian forests. Other research suggests that 

clearcut stands provide concentrated and abundant 

browse favored by white-tailed deer (Odocoileus 

virginianus) in spring and summer months, while 

increasing the ease of foraging (Ford et al. 1993, 

Ford et al. 1994). However, there has been no clear 

indication that clearcutting benefits white-tailed deer 

in terms of overall weight and antler size (Ford et 

al. 1997), although nutritional carrying capacity has 

been reported to be greater following regeneration and 

thinning treatments compared to uncut stands, and 

greatest with the addition of prescribed fire (Lashley 

et al. 2011).

Aquatic biodiversity can also be affected by forest 

harvesting. Lemly and Hilderbrand (2000) examined 

the effects of increased amounts of DWM to streams 

on aquatic insect communities. They reported possible 

large-scale influences on insect communities, because 

DWM increases detritus retention and the total area 

occupied by pools, but noted relatively little effect on 

insect abundance within pools. In similar research, 

it was found that the addition of large DWM to 

streams in the Appalachian region had no overall 

effect on stream habitat or brook trout (Salvelinus 

fontinalis) populations 6 years post-treatment (Sweka 

and Hartman 2006, Sweka et al. 2010). The authors 

reported that, in high-gradient streams, habitat 

complexity may be governed more by the abundance 

of boulders, and that large CWD may not be limiting 

stream habitat for brook trout at study sites.

Leaf litter is a primary nutrient source for aquatic 

consumers in forested catchments (Solada et al. 

1996), and can also affect the population dynamics 
18

Evaluating Forest Biomass Utilization in the Appalachians:

A Review of Potential Impacts and Guidelines for Management

of microarthropods (Knoepp et al. 2005). Because 

intensive biomass harvesting can remove and 

redistribute the leaf litter layer, there are concerns 

about effects on aquatic communities. Arthropods 

have been reported to show a significantly positive 

response to thinning (Verschuyl et al. 2011). Hollifield 

and Dimmick (1995) found that abundance and 

biomass for arthropods (Hymenoptera, Coleoptera, 

Lepidoptera, Homoptera, and Diptera) was highest 

on logging roads planted with clover (Trifolium spp.) 

and orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata) and in mature 

hardwoods with herbaceous ground cover, compared 

to roads not planted with vegetation.

Vegetation

Changes in harvesting regime or frequency can 

influence vegetative species composition as well 

as growth. Indeed, silviculture is designed to elicit 

certain changes in growth or species composition in 

response to management. In this discussion we limit 

our discussion to the vegetative response of hardwood 

forests to biomass harvesting. 

Soil disturbance can influence vegetative species 

composition, growth, and yield. For example, Ponder 

(2008) concluded that soil disturbance did affect 

understory development in northern hardwood stands, 

but resulted in only minor differences in foliar nutrient 

content concentrations and overall plant species 

richness after OM removal and soil compaction 

treatments. Similar findings were reported by Powers 

et al. (2005). Ponder (2008) also noted that, although 

treatments did affect stocking levels in some plant 

groups, the successional trend of forest regeneration 

was not changed significantly as a result of compaction 

and/or OM removal. 

The long-term soil productivity (LTSP) experiment 

(Adams et al. 2004, Powers et al. 2005) was designed 

to evaluate the effects of compaction and OM 

removal on soil physical properties (e.g., pore space), 

soil chemical properties (e.g., carbon and nutrient 

availability), and their influences on soil productivity. 

Results from these relatively young, and ongoing, 

LTSP studies have indicated that complete removal 

of surface OM can lead to significant declines in soil 

C and can reduce N availability. However, the effect 

is thought to be due to the removal of the forest floor, 

not harvesting residue, and there is little change in 

the absolute mass of soil C during complete removal 

of surface OM (Powers et al. 2005). Soil compaction 

treatments increased bulk density, but the response 

of forest productivity was dependent on soil texture 

and the presence of understory vegetation (Powers 

et al. 2005). Growth rates generally decreased on 

clayey soils and increased on sandy soils. On sites 

without an established understory, growth rates 

were unaffected by severe soil compaction, but the 

presence of an understory led to decreased production 

due to increased root competition for soil moisture 

resources (Powers et al. 2005). In general, compaction 

can improve productivity in coarse textured soils in 

drier forests by improving water-holding capacity. 

However, since much of the Appalachian region is 

mesic and not usually water-limited, positive impacts 

from compaction on productivity are limited. Also, 

since many soils in the Appalachians are coarse and 

rocky, and most forest traffic is relegated to road 

systems, compaction may not be a major problem in 

the region’s forests. 

Generally, plant species diversity will increase in 

response to harvesting activity, although duration 

of response varies with the forest type and thinning 

intensity. Elliott and Hewitt (1997) evaluated 

preharvest species diversity in overstory, shrub, and 

herb layers of a dry, high-elevation Appalachian 

hardwood forest. The authors found that the overstory 

layer had relatively high H' values ranging from 1.62 

to 2.50 based on tree density, and values of 0.94 to 

2.22 based on basal area. Shrub and herb layer H' 

values based on density ranged from 0.64 to 2.33 

and 1.72 to 3.02, respectively. J' was between 0.5 

and 0.6 on most sites, and S’ ranged from 51 to 73. 

Similarly, Adams et al. (2004) assessed preharvest 

species diversity in a highly productive second-
Impacts of Energy Wood Harvesting on Forest Ecosystems 19

growth Appalachian hardwood forest and reported 

tree diversity values of 3.95, 0.95, and 26 for H', J', 

and S', respectively. Herb layer diversity values were 

3.95, 0.91, and 76 for H', J', and S', respectively. Fox 

et al. (2007) reported that species richness of woody 

and herbaceous plants in an Appalachian forest 

was higher in plots that had experienced canopy 

disturbance within the past year, and that there was 

little to no loss of herbaceous plants species diversity 

in response to group selection, shelterwood, leave-tree, 

and commercial and silvicultural clearcut harvesting 

techniques. However, the authors found relatively 

large increases in exotic species richness on harvested 

sites, some introduced through skid trail revegetation. 

While the introduction of exotic species may increase 

the total number of species, exotic plants can also 

contribute to decreases in plant diversity, ultimately 

replacing native plant species. Composition and 

abundance of exotic species is likely to vary with 

thinning intensity (Verschuyl et al. 2011). Jenkins and 

Parker (1998) suggested that a mixture of selection 

harvests and larger clearcuts may be needed for the 

maintenance of woody species richness and diversity.

Increased energy wood production may have its 

largest effect on biodiversity under a monoculture or 

plantation management system (Jones et al. 2009), 

although any management activity within the forest 

ecosystem could potentially change the dynamic 

of biodiversity (Dale et al. 2010). Depending on 

the type of forest from which energy wood is being 

harvested (e.g., plantation or naturally regenerated) 

and the type of silvicultural prescription, increased 

biomass utilization could provide an opportunity for 

greater biodiversity of plants and animals. However, 

silvicultural decisions are many times dependent on 

ownership philosophy, and decisions related to the 

loss of natural forest, reduction in snags and DWM, 

stand structure, and tree characteristics, and economic 

pressure can result in a subsequent loss of biodiversity 

within and around associated forest stands (Miller et 

al. 2009). 

Sustaining Regional Wood Supply

Galik et al. (2009) concluded that biomass supply 

in Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina is a 

function of current harvest levels, current roundwood 

prices, and the price elasticity of roundwood supply. 

However, these will vary and are dependent on 

factors such as harvesting system and method, 

site characteristics, stand structure, and species 

composition (Benjamin et al. 2010). Galik et al. 

(2009) hypothesized that forest residues would not 

be sufficient to meet hypothetical national renewable 

portfolio standards within the region over the long 

term and that diversion of traditional roundwood 

resources would be needed to meet renewable demand. 

This trend would most likely displace those traditional 

end-users who were marginally profitable prior to 

the increased in demand for woody biomass. Further, 

Galik et al. (2009) suggested that to understand the 

impact of increased demand for wood biomass, further 

research should focus on: (1) accurate determination 

of the available resource base; (2) the price and 

supply implications of rising roundwood demands 

on traditional markets; and (3) exogenous factors 

affecting the forest land base (e.g., land use change, 

carbon offset markets, alternative fuels policy). 

A survey conducted by Enrich et al. (2010) found that 

60 percent of wood dealers, harvesting contractors, 

and procurement foresters, as well as 80 percent of 

forest managers, reported producing or selling energy 

wood. The breakdown of delivered forest biomass 

by type was: 38 percent dirty chips, 20 percent 

unscreened grindings, 18 percent roundwood, and 

8 percent clean chips, which suggests that at least 

some feedstock from traditional markets is already 

being utilized as energy wood. Fifty-nine percent of 

respondents made use of conventional harvesting 

systems (i.e., feller-buncher and rubber-tired skidder), 

and chipping was handled equally among drum and 

disk chippers, as well as horizontal grinders. Minimum 

energy wood harvest yields needed to economically 

justify operations were reported to be between 29 to 
20

Evaluating Forest Biomass Utilization in the Appalachians:

A Review of Potential Impacts and Guidelines for Management

45 Mg ha-1. The majority of transportation distances 

were less than 50 miles, with only 8 percent of 

respondents transporting biomass greater than 70 

miles. Survey participants were split regarding energy 

wood markets, with 40 percent responding that 

markets were growing and 38 percent responding that 

markets were inconsistent, which possibly suggests 

that much of the market growth is localized.

Increases in forest biomass harvesting will affect 

overall regional wood supply and those users that rely 

on forest resources for raw material. A main concern is 

the competition between the end-users and consumers 

of roundwood, as it can be used for wood product and 

paper production, as well as for energy wood feedstock 

(Benjamin et al. 2010, Galik et al. 2009). If an increase 

in biomass utilization rate leads to the conversion of 

small roundwood to energy wood, traditional small 

roundwood product markets (e.g., pulp, paper, oriented 

strand board) could face new competition from energy 

wood feedstock producers. In the end, this increased 

demand on the forest resource can affect the cost of 

wood-based products and wood-based energy to the 

consumer. This would likely be the case when there 

is a relatively large gap between the cost of fossilbased fuels and energy wood feedstock. Much of the 

remainder of this section focuses on the challenges 

of forest biomass harvesting and transportation and a 

review of innovative techniques and technology used 

to meet these challenges in an economically feasible 

fashion. 

Biomass harvesting can adversely affect the condition 

of the residual trees in the stand. Generally, residual 

stand damage is expected to increase with production 

intensity (Halbrook and Han 2005, Smith and Miller 

1987). This is due to both the size of the extraction 

equipment needed and operator care and awareness 

relative to production intensity (Lanford et al. 1991). 

McIver et al. (2003) showed that woody biomass and 

stem density reduction treatments of forested stands 

resulted in a significant visual impact, with about 

50 to 75 percent of the residual trees in their study 

sustaining some level of damage. Similarly, Fajvan et 

al. (2002) reported that diameter limit and shelterwood 

treatments in hardwood stands resulted in significant 

damage to approximately 50 to 70 percent of residual 

trees. Although not purposely, the harvesting impacts 

to the residual standing trees could increase the 

availability of lower quality wood.

Camp (2002) analyzed four different harvesting 

systems working in small-diameter forests: (1) cutto-length (CTL) felling and processing with downhill 

yarding; (2) feller-buncher and downhill yarding; 

(3) mechanical felling and uphill yarding; and (4) 

CTL and downhill forwarding. The results showed 

that the CTL felling and downhill yarding system 

yielded the least amount of residual stand damage. 

The mechanical felling and uphill yarding system and 

CTL/downhill forwarding system caused more damage 

to residual trees, and the feller-buncher and downhill 

yarding system resulted in most residual damage. The 

study also stressed the importance of silvicultural 

prescriptions, harvesting technologies, and harvest 

season in reducing residual stand damage in smalldiameter forests.

There are many options for harvesting forest biomass, 

but challenges remain in establishing efficient 

harvest systems and processes, transportation and 

transportation networks, and optimal locations of 

biomass energy conversion facilities (Moller 2003) 

to determine the economic feasibility of energy 

wood harvesting. As with any harvesting system, 

energy wood harvesting has many associated costs. 

The economic feasibility of operations is highly 

dependent on transportation distance, the availability 

of markets, and the current market prices of harvested 

material. These factors must be considered as key 

parts of the cost component toward generating 

positive net revenue, as small fluctuations in any of 

these factors could lead to negative revenue streams. 

Biomass harvesting costs include three factors: felling 

costs, extraction costs, and the cost of comminution 

(Mitchell 2005); costs depend on available equipment, 

piece size, distance to landings, and removal volumes 

per acre (Kellogg et al. 2006). Comminution is the 
Impacts of Energy Wood Harvesting on Forest Ecosystems 21

process of converting forest materials into consumable 

products (Pottie and Guimier 1985), and within this 

synthesis is used as an inclusive phrase for chipping, 

hogging, tub-grinding, and shredding (Kellogg et al. 

2006).

As energy wood harvesting operations become more 

prevalent in forest management, more economically 

efficient means for harvesting smaller diameter stems 

should be developed. Those with a stake in biomass 

harvesting operations should explore innovative 

methods by combining technologies and approaching 

biomass extraction techniques with a more creative 

outlook than commonly required in traditional forest 

harvesting. The challenge is to match optimal harvest 

systems and processes with specific forest conditions 

to develop biomass harvesting methods that are 

feasible in terms of both economics and desired 

silvicultural regimes.

Energy wood production will many times require 

the harvesting of small roundwood and the costs 

of harvesting small roundwood with conventional 

equipment have been shown to increase as tree 

diameter decreases (Bolding and Lanford 2005, Brown 

and Kellogg 1996, Kluender et al. 1998, Rummer and 

Klepac 2002). The harvesting practices associated 

with the small wood constraints of biomass harvesting 

are varied and are many times determined based on 

stand and site characteristics or silvicultural objectives 

(Hartsough et al. 1995). Furthermore, harvesting 

forest biomass specifically as feedstock for energy 

production is a commercial venture and necessitates 

the generation of positive net revenues. Where energy 

wood harvesting is conducted concurrently with 

commercial harvest removals, revenue generated 

from saw logs has been used to cover expenses of 

extracting and hauling biomass, resulting in sharing of 

harvesting costs (Richardson et al. 2002). Therefore, 

the fusion of traditional forest roundwood removal 

and energy wood production could be an important 

step in both protecting forest health and providing an 

alternative domestic energy source. Until recently, the 

utilization of forest biomass has rarely been viewed 

as an economic opportunity, but under the right 

circumstances can yield a profit. The following studies 

provide examples of profitable and non-profitable 

biomass utilization operations, and provide insight on 

potential methods to successfully cover the costs of 

felling, extraction, and comminution.

Li et al. (2006) studied energy wood harvesting 

economics in Appalachia, and determined that the 

most productive and cost effective harvesting system 

was a ground-based feller-buncher/grapple skidder 

system. The authors also found that small-wood 

harvesting was about 15 percent less productive and 13 

to 29 percent more expensive compared to harvesting 

mature stands. Fiedler et al. (1999) and McIver et al. 

(2003) studied both cable yarding and ground-based 

harvesting systems for forest restoration and fuel 

reduction in the western United States. Fiedler et al. 

(1999) reported that in mature stands, favoring larger 

trees, the ground-based system outperformed the 

cable yarding system, although both showed positive 

net revenues. When thinning from below, only the 

ground-based system resulted in positive net revenue. 

The McIver et al. (2003) study utilized a single-grip 

harvester for felling and processing, and logs were 

extracted for comminution and transportation in 

chip vans. The authors showed that ground-based 

harvesting performed better than the yarding system 

in this study and also realized a net profit. Keegan et 

al. (2004) also reported promising results in terms of 

net revenues for fuel reduction activities in Montana. 

Note that all of these studies made use of mechanized 

harvesting systems. However, Larson and Mirth (2004) 

presented a case study on the economics of manually 

thinning in Arizona. Only logs were merchandized, 

with limbs and tops being piled for burning, and the 

system failed to produce positive net revenue. 

Research on whole-tree harvesting was conducted by 

Han et al. (2004), who constructed a case study model 

of a mechanical harvesting system consisting of a 

feller-buncher, grapple skidder, processor and loader, 

and a chain-flail delimbing/debarking chipper. Four 

product cases were studied: (1) saw log only, (2) saw 
22

Evaluating Forest Biomass Utilization in the Appalachians:

A Review of Potential Impacts and Guidelines for Management

log and clean chip, (3) saw log and biomass fuel, and 

(4) saw log, biomass fuel, and clean chip. Positive net 

returns were gained through the saw log only option, 

but all other option showed negative net returns. 

Unlike the Appalachian hardwood region to date, in 

other countries, utilizing forest biomass as a source 

of energy is a viable business opportunity. The most 

common system for harvesting forest fuels in Denmark 

is composed of: (1) the felling and bunching of whole 

trees; (2) summer drying; (3) on-site comminution 

with all-terrain chip harvester; (4) extraction of a 

chipper bin with a forwarder to the landing; (5) 

transportation to an energy or storage facility; and 

(6) combustion for energy generation (Talbot and 

Suadicani 2005). The limiting factor for this type of 

system has been found to be comminution, based 

on poor productivity (Suadicani 2003, Talbot and 

Suadicani 2005). 

In Sweden, the productivity of the popular energy 

wood harvesting system, comprised of manual felling, 

bunching, and in-woods comminution, has been 

greatly increased with mechanization (Bjorhedan et 

al. 2003). Also, innovative machines have provided 

for better control over fuel consumption and 

operations have improved through the increased use 

of information technologies (Berg 2003). Another 

innovation has allowed for forest biomass to be 

compressed into composite residue logs (CRL) that 

can be handled as roundwood for transportation 

purposes (Berg 2003). It should be noted, however, 

that innovation in energy wood harvesting may be 

burgeoning in European and Scandinavian countries 

due to greater incentives in government subsidies and 

wood fuel prices in those countries compared to the 

United States.

Many different harvesting methods can be used 

for biomass production, and harvest layout options 

are generally dependent on the terrain and type of 

system being utilized. Bjorhedan et al. (2003) notes 

two effective layouts for energy wood harvesting: 

the herringbone method and the strip road/secondary 

passage method. The herringbone method employs 

strip roads and inserts in a herringbone pattern. The 

strip roads are harvested by machine, and are later 

utilized to harvest the inserts. In the second method, 

strip roads are harvested and then the stands between 

strips are harvested from the new roads. In Sweden, 

where these two methods are prominent, the two most 

promising harvesting systems have been a chipper 

and forwarder system, and a feller/bundler system 

(Bjorhedan et al. 2003). The size of the operation is 

also important to consider in choosing the harvesting 

system. Van Belle et al. (2003) found that the best 

harvesting system for large-scale operations was a 

crane-fed drum chipper mounted on a forwarder, 

whereas smaller-scale operations may make better 

use of the same chipper mounted on a tractor, to save 

equipment investment costs. 

Based on the review of current literature on biomass 

harvesting for energy wood supply, it can be suggested 

that to create a profit from small-diameter harvesting, 

it is beneficial to: (1) identify the stand in most need 

of treatment; (2) refrain from using recovered timber 

volumes as a driver for restoration treatments; and (3) 

identify trees usable as products to generate revenue 

that may aid in supporting the restoration treatment. 

Four major factors affecting the economic feasibility 

were discussed: (1) forest harvesting systems must 

be selected carefully to suit conditions; (2) road 

accessibility may limit chip vans; (3) hauling distance 

to manufacturing facilities must be kept as low as 

possible with a low-value product; and (4) an increase 

in market prices of thinning materials will make smalldiameter harvesting more feasible. Finally, Keegan et 

al. (2004) noted that the positive impacts of biomass 

harvesting include the generation of forest product 

industry jobs and labor income, and that energy wood 

harvesting for fuels reduction purposes can generate 

income, but is dependent on market prices. 
Existing Best Management Practices 23

Existing Best Management

Practices

All states in the United States have developed BMPs 

to minimize the potential adverse effects of forest 

management or timber harvesting (Wang and Goff 

2008). Some states, including several from Appalachia 

(Maryland, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania), as 

well as Canadian provinces, have created BMPs, 

sustainability guidelines, or initiatives for ensuring 

the sustainability of increased biomass utilization 

(Table 1). Currently, the biomass harvesting guidelines 

for Maryland seem to be the most applicable to the 

Appalachian forest region as a whole. However, the 

Maryland guidelines do not consider the impacts of 

an intensification of biomass harvesting on wood 

supply or traditional markets that may also use woody 

biomass as raw material, which may become more 

important as biomass harvesting develops.

Evans and Perschel (2009) developed a summary 

crosswalk table to compare and contrast components 

of some existing state biomass harvesting guidelines 

with those from the Forest Stewardship Council. 

The forest management guidelines (see next 

section, “Guidelines for sustainable woody biomass 

management in the Appalachians”) were derived 

from components of the latest versions of existing 

state biomass harvesting and utilization standards 

and guidelines, as well as from the comprehensive 

review of biomass harvesting and utilization literature 

and synthesis of information presented in this report. 

Certainly, there are tradeoffs and many times it may 

be necessary to balance competing goals.

State, Province, 

Organization URL

Maine http://www.maine.gov/doc/mfs/pubs/biomass_retention/report/biomass_report_lr.pdf

Maryland http://www.alleghenysaf.org/docs/MD/MD_Biomass_Harv_Guidelines_Final.pdf

Massachusetts http://www.manomet.org/sites/manomet.org/files/Manomet_Biomass_Report_Full_LoRez.pdf

Minnesota http://www.frc.state.mn.us/documents/council/site-level/MFRC_forest_BHG_2001-12-01.pdf

Missouri http://mdc4.mdc.mo.gov/Documents/19813.pdf

North Carolina http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/forestry/biomass/pubs/WB005.pdf

Pennsylvania http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/PA_Biomass_guidance_final.pdf

Vermont http://www.leg.state.vt.us/workgroups/biomass/BioE_draft_interim_2011_report_for_public_review.pdf

Wisconsin http://council.wisconsinforestry.org/biomass/pdf/BHG-FieldManual-lowres090807.pdf

New Brunswick http://www2.gnb.ca/content/dam/gnb/Departments/nr-rn/pdf/en/Publications/FMB0192008.pdf

Nova Scotia http://www.ecologyaction.ca/files/images/file/Wilderness/

EACpercent20Forestpercent20Biofuelpercent20Reportpercent20Decpercent2008.pdf

Council on 

Sustainable 

Biomass 

Production

http://www.csbp.org/files/survey/CSBP_Provisional_Standard.pdf

Forest Stewardship 

Council http://www.fscus.org/standards_criteria/

Table 1.—Existing biomass utilization and harvesting guidelines
24

Evaluating Forest Biomass Utilization in the Appalachians:

A Review of Potential Impacts and Guidelines for Management

Guidelines for Sustainable

Woody Biomass Management

in the Appalachians

Maintaining Site Productivity

• Use caution to avoid unnecessary disturbance 

to the leaf litter and organic matter layers. 

Dedicated skid trails minimize the area of the 

forest floor subject to extraction traffic and limit 

compaction and the exposure of mineral soil.

• Keep preharvest DWM in-forest to ensure the 

presence of DWM in all stages of decay.

• Leave a percentage of tree tops in-forest for 

additional contributions to the DWM pool.

• Consider harvesting during leaf-off conditions to 

allow those nutrients to stay in-forest (applicable 

where winter weather creates frozen soil 

conditions or deep snowpack).

Providing Clean and Abundant 

Water Supply

• Follow existing/established BMPs for traditional 

harvesting operations.

• Consider a single intense harvest rather than 

multiple entries at lower intensities.

• Evaluate riparian management area 

specifications for adequate width and canopy 

retention levels.

Supporting Wildlife & Biodiversity

• Follow all current regulations concerning 

threatened and endangered species of flora and 

fauna.

• Avoid introducing nonnative vegetation of any 

species. Seed skid trails with grasses native to 

the region and forest type.

• Leave existing snags and DWM.

• Consider creating additional snags with 

appropriate attention to safety concerns of forest 

workers or leaving a proportion of cull trees for 

cavity nesting species.

Sustaining Regional Wood Supply

• Assess the productivity of the site preharvest in 

order to plan an operation that keeps the site at 

or above the level of preharvest productivity. 

• Assess the impact of harvesting the site 

primarily for biomass on local traditional wood 

markets. 

• Develop a long-term (e.g., 100-year) 

management plan for the site that involves all 

stakeholders.

• Ensure that the site can sufficiently regenerate 

naturally or replant with native vegetation if 

necessary. 

• Employ low-impact harvesting techniques and 

use well trained operators to avoid damage to 

the residual stand.

• Assess the economics of the proposed operation 

and alternative utilization opportunities and 

scenarios.

• Develop a harvesting plan that maximizes the 

efficiency of the equipment based on the site 

characteristics and existing infrastructure.
Conclusions 25

Conclusions

Forest biomass and energy wood harvesting are a 

method of utilizing forest resources as a source of 

biomass for alternative energy production and many 

countries are successfully implementing forest biomass 

harvesting at a commercial scale. The long-term 

sustainability of forest biomass utilization is subject the 

environmental impacts to ecosystem services, as well 

as the competition among the markets that rely on the 

forest resource. Based on this review, intensification 

in the removal of forest biomass from Appalachian 

forests can be balanced with the maintenance of 

these other services the forest provides. In general, 

adopting state Best Management Practices for forest 

harvesting and retaining appropriate amounts of down 

woody material, organic matter, live wildlife trees, 

and snags will adequately address the maintenance of 

ecosystem services. Adopting technology from our 

international partners, as well as constructing new 

bioenergy production facilities, and/or adapting existing 

facilities for converting biomass to energy could foster 

a successful energy wood program in the United States. 

The development of new markets that utilize the small 

roundwood and woody forest biomass being harvested 

as a source of energy wood feedstock would create 

demand and the resulting economic activity that is 

needed in the Appalachian region. An additional market 

for small roundwood could potentially create a niche 

for precommercial and commercial thinning operations 

in forests that are in need of improvement. The new 

market could create thousands of jobs (Keegan et al. 

2004), revitalize local communities, and turn the timber 

industry into the largest producer of renewable energy 

wood. This, in turn, could make the timber industry a 

supplier of a source of alternative energy that can help 

reduce U.S. dependence on foreign fossil fuels and 

assist in the mitigation of climate change. 

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank those who assisted in 

the completion of this manuscript. Early discussions 

with Curt Hassler, Shawn Grushecky, and Jan 

Wiedenbeck were helpful in developing this project. 

Funding for the Agenda 2020 Technology Alliance 

project was provided by the National Council for Air 

and Stream Improvement (NCASI), the U.S. Forest 

Service, and additional resources were provided by 

the West Virginia University Appalachian Hardwood 

Center (AHC). Michael Aust, Curt Hassler, and Jeff 

Stringer graciously provided reviews of an earlier 

draft of the manuscript, and their comments greatly 

improved the overall project. Sheldon Owen also 

provided valuable insight on wildlife and biodiversity 

literature pertinent to the Appalachian forest region.
26

Evaluating Forest Biomass Utilization in the Appalachians:

A Review of Potential Impacts and Guidelines for Management

Literature Cited

Adams, M.B. 1999. Acidic deposition and 

sustainable forest management in the central 

Appalachians, USA. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 122: 17-28.

Adams, M.B.; Angradi, T.R. 1996. Decomposition 

and nutrient dynamics of hardwood leaf litter 

in the Fernow whole-watershed acidification 

experiment. Forest Ecology and Management. 

83: 61-69.

Adams, M.B.; Angradi, T.R.; Kochenderfer, J.N. 1997. 

Stream water and soil solution responses to 5 

years of nitrogen and sulfur additions at the 

Fernow Experimental Forest, West Virginia.

Forest Ecology and Management. 95: 79-91.

Adams, M.B.; Burger, J.A.; Jenkins, A.B.; Zelazny, 

L. 2000. Impacts of harvesting and atmospheric 

pollution on nutrient depletion of eastern 

US hardwood forests. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 138: 301-319.

Adams, M.B.; Burger, J.; Zelazny, L.; Baumgras, 

J. 2004. Description of the Fork Mountain 

long-term soil productivity study: site 

characterization. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-323. 

Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research 

Station. 42 p.

Adams, M.B.; DeWalle, D.R.; Hom, J.L. 2006. The 

Fernow watershed acidification study. New York, 

NY: Springer. 279 p.

Adams, M.B.; Schuler, T.M.; Ford, W.M.; 

Kochenderfer, J.N. 2003. Large woody debris in 

a second-growth central Appalachian hardwood 

stand: volume, composition, and dynamics. In: 

Van Sambeek, J.W.; Dawson, J.O.; Ponder, F., Jr.; 

Lowenstein, E.F.; Fralish, J.S., eds. Proceedings of 

the 13th central hardwood forest conference. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. NC-234. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central 

Research Station: 237-245.

Aguilar, F.; Garrett, H.E. 2009. Perspectives of woody 

biomass for energy: Survey of state foresters, 

state energy biomass contacts, and National 

Council of Forestry Association executives.

Journal of Forestry. 107(6): 297-306.

Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC). 2006. 

Energizing Appalachia: A regional blueprint for 

economic and energy development. Washington, 

DC: Appalachian Regional Commission. 27 p.

Apps, M.J.; Price, D.T. 1996. Introduction. In: Apps, 

M.J.; Price, D.T., eds. Forest ecosystems, forest 

management, and the global carbon cycle. NATO 

ASI Series 1: Global Environmental Changes, Vol. 

40. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag: 1-15.

Arthur, M.A.; Coltharp, G.B.; Brown, D.L. 1998. 

Effects of best management practices on forest 

streamwater quality in eastern Kentucky. Journal 

of the American Water Resources Association. 34: 

481-495.

Aubertin, G.M.; Patric, J.H. 1972. Quality water 

from clearcut forest land? Northern Logger. 

20(8): 14-25.

Aust, W.M.; Blinn, C.R. 2004. Forestry best 

management practices for timber harvesting and 

site preparation in the eastern United States—an 

overview of water quality and productivity 

research during the past 20 years. Water, Air, 

and Soil Pollution Focus. 4: 5-36.

Barrett, G., ed. 2009. Forest Service top concern 

now climate change: What it means for forest 

management and research agendas. Hardwood 

Review. 26(13): 1, 18-19. 

Barrett, S.M.; Aust, W.M.; Bolding, M.C. 2009. 

Potential impacts of biomass harvesting on 

forest resource sustainability. In: Proceedings of 

the 32nd annual meeting of the Council on Forest 

Engineering; 2009 June 16-18; Kings Beach, CA. 

Corvallis, OR: Council on Forest Engineering: 

[inclusive pages unknown].
Literature Cited 27

Benjamin, J.G.; Lilieholm, R.L.; Coup, C.E. 2010. 

Forest biomass harvesting in the northeast: a 

special needs operation? Northern Journal of 

Applied Forestry. 27(2): 45-49.

Berg, S. 2003. Harvesting technology and market 

forces affecting the production of forest fuels 

from Swedish forestry. Biomass & Bioenergy. 

24(4/5): 381-388.

Bjorhedan, R.; Gullberg, T.; Johansson, J. 2003. 

Systems analyses for harvesting small trees 

for forest fuel in urban forestry. Biomass & 

Bioenergy. 24(4/5): 389-400. 

Bohlin, F.; Roos, A. 2002. Wood fuel supply as 

a function of forest owner preferences and 

management styles. Biomass & Bioenergy. 22(4): 

237-249.

Bolding, M.C.; Lanford, B.L. 2005. Wildfire fuel 

harvesting and resultant biomass utilization 

using a cut-to-length/small chipper system.

Forest Products Journal. 55(12): 181-188.

Bormann, F.H.; Likens, G.E. 1979. Pattern and 

process in a forested ecosystem. New York, NY: 

Springer-Verlag. 272 p. 

Bowman, J.C.; Sleep, D.; Forbes, G.J.; Edwards, M. 

2000. The association of small mammals with 

coarse woody debris at log and stand scales.

Forest Ecology and Management. 129: 199-124.

Brody, A.J.; Stone, J.N. 1987. Timber harvest and 

black bear population dynamics in a southern 

Appalachian forest. In: Bears: Their biology and 

management, Vol. 7. A selection of papers from the 

seventh international conference on bear research 

and management: 243-250.

Brooks, R.T. 1999. Residual effects of thinning and 

high white-tailed deer densities on northern 

redback salamanders in southern New England 

oak forests. Journal of Wildlife Management. 

63(4): 1172-1180.

Brooks, R.T.; Healy, W.M. 1988. Response of small 

mammal communities to silvicultural treatments 

in eastern hardwood forests of West Virginia 

and Massachusetts. In: Proceedings of the 

symposium on management of amphibians, reptiles, 

and small mammals in North America. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. RM-166. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station: 313-318.

Brown, C.; Kellogg, L. 1996. Harvesting economics 

and wood fiber utilization in a fuels reduction 

project: A case study in eastern Oregon. Forest 

Products Journal. 46(9): 45-52.

Butts, S.R.; McComb, W.C. 2000. Associations of 

forest floor vertebrates with coarse woody debris 

in managed forests of W. Oregon. Journal of 

Wildlife Management. 64(1): 95-104.

Camp, A. 2002. Damage to residual trees by four 

mechanized harvest systems operating in smalldiameter, mixed-conifer forests on steep slopes in 

northeastern Washington: A case study. Western 

Journal of Applied Forestry. 17(1): 14-22.

Carey, A.B.; Johnson, M.L. 1995. Small mammals 

in managed, naturally young, and old-growth 

forests. Ecological Applications. 5(2): 336-352.

Carter, T.C.; Feldhamer, G.A. 2005. Roost tree use by 

maternity colonies of Indiana bats and northern 

long-eared bats in southern Illinois. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 219: 259-268.

Coates, T.M.; Boerner, R.E.J.; Waldrop, T.A.; Yaussy, 

D.A. 2008. Soil nitrogen transformations 

under alternative management strategies in 

Appalachian forests. Soil Science Society of 

America Journal. 72(2): 558-565.

Cuiping, L.; Yanyongjie; Chuangzhi, W.; Haitao, H. 

2004. Study on the distribution and quantity of 

biomass residues resources in China. Biomass & 

Bioenergy. 27(2): 111-117.
28

Evaluating Forest Biomass Utilization in the Appalachians:

A Review of Potential Impacts and Guidelines for Management

Dale, V.H.; Kline, K.L.; Wiens, J.; Fargione, J. 

2010. Biofuels: Implications for land use and 

biodiversity. Biofuels and Sustainability Reports. 

Washington, DC: Ecological Society of America. 

13 p.

DeGraaf, R.M.; Healy, W.M.; Brooks, R.T. 1991. 

Effects of thinning and deer browsing on 

breeding birds in New England oak woodlands.

Forest Ecology and Management. 41: 179-191.

Demirbas, A. 2004. The importance of biomass.

Energy Sources. 26: 361-366.

Ecke, F.; Löfgren, O.; Sörlin, D. 2002. Population 

dynamics of small mammals in relation to forest 

age and structural habitat factors in northern 

Sweden. Journal of Applied Ecology. 39: 781-792.

Egnell, G.; Leijon, B. 1999. Survival and growth of 

planted sedlings of Pinus sylvestris and Picea 

abies after different levels of biomass removal 

in clear-felling. Scandinavian Journal of Forest 

Research. 14: 303-311.

Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2011. 

Annual energy review 2010. Washington, DC: 

Energy Information Administration. Available: 

http://www.eia.gov/aer. (Accessed May 25, 2012).

Elias, P.E.; Burger, J.A.; Adams, M.B. 2009. Acidic 

deposition effects on forest composition and 

growth on the Monongahela National Forest.

Forest Ecology and Management. 258: 2175-2182.

Elliott, K.J.; Hewitt, D. 1997. Forest species diversity 

in upper elevation hardwood forests in the 

southern Appalachian mountains. Castanea. 

62(1): 32-42.

Enrich, A.; Greene, D.; Baker, S. 2010. Status 

of harvesting and transportation for forest 

biomass – preliminary results of a National 

survey of logging contractors, procurement 

foresters, wood dealers and forest managers.

In: Proceedings of the 33rd annual meeting of the 

Council on Forest Engineering, 2010 June 6-9. 

Corvallis, OR: Council on Forest Engineering. 11 p.

Evans, A.M. 2011. Ecology of dead wood in the 

southeast. Santa Fe, NM: The Forest Guild. 37 p.

Evans, A.M.; Finkral, A.J. 2009. From renewable 

energy to fire risk reduction: a synthesis of 

biomass harvesting and utilization case studies 

in US forests. Global Change Biology Bioenergy. 

9 p. doi: 10.1111/j.1757-1707.2009.01013.x

Evans, A.M.; Perschel, R.T. 2009. An assessment of 

biomass harvesting guidelines. Santa Fe, NM: The 

Forest Guild. 20 p.

Fajvan, M.A.; Grushecky, S.T.; Hassler, C.C. 1998. 

The effects of harvesting practices on West 

Virginia’s wood supply. Journal of Forestry. 96(5): 

33-39.

Fajvan, M.A.; Knipling, K.E.; Tift, B.D. 2002. 

Damage to Appalachian hardwoods from 

diameter-limit harvesting and shelterwood 

establishment cutting. Northern Journal of 

Applied Forestry. 19(2): 80-87.

Fenn, M.E.; Poth, M.A.; Aber, J.D.; Baron, J.S.; 

Bormann, B.T.; Johnson, D.W.; Lemly, A.D.; 

McNulty, S.G.; Ryan, D.F.; Stottlemyer, R. 1998. 

Nitrogen excess in North American ecosystems: 

predisposing factors, ecosystems, responses, and 

management strategies. Ecological Applications. 

8(3): 706-733. 

Fiedler, C.E.; Keegan, C.E., III; Wichman, D.P.; Arno, 

S.F. 1999. Product and economic implications of 

ecological restoration. Forest Products Journal. 

49(2): 19-23.

Finzi, A.C. 2009. Decades of atmospheric 

deposition have not resulted in widespread 

phosphorus limitation or saturation of tree 

demand for nitrogen in southern New England.

Biogeochemistry. 92: 217-229.

Ford, W.M.; Chapman, B.R.; Menzel, M.A; Odom, 

R.H. 2002a. Stand age and habitat influences 

on salamanders in Appalachian cove hardwood 

forests. Forest Ecology and Management. 155: 

131-141. 
Literature Cited 29

Ford, W.M.; Dobony, C.A.; Edwards, J.W. 2002b. 

Shrews in managed northern hardwood stands 

in the Allegheny Mountains of West Virginia.

Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the 

Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife 

Agencies. 56: 374-384.

Ford, W.M.; Johnson, A.S.; Hale, P.E. 1994. 

Nutritional quality of deer browse in southern 

Appalachian clearcuts and mature forests. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 67: 149-157.

Ford, W.M.; Johnson, A.S.; Hale, P.E.; Wentworth, 

J.M. 1993. Availability of and use of spring and 

summer woody browse by deer in clearcut and 

uncut forests of the southern Appalachians.

Southern Journal of Applied Forestry. 17: 116-119.

Ford, W.M.; Johnson, A.S.; Hale, P.E.; Wentworth. 

J.M. 1997. Influences of forest type, stand age, 

and weather on deer weights and antler size in 

the southern Appalachians. Southern Journal of 

Applied Forestry. 21(1): 11-18.

Ford, W.M.; McCay, T.S.; Menzel, M.A.; Webster, 

W.D.; Greenberg, C.H.; Pagels, J.F.; Merritt, J.F. 

2005. Influence of elevation and forest type on 

community assemblage and species distribution 

of shrews in the central and southern 

Appalachian Mountains. Special Publication of 

the International Society of Shrew Biologists. (1): 

303-315.

Ford, W.M.; Menzel, M.A.; McCay, T.S.; Gassett, 

J.W.; Laerm, J. 2000. Woodland salamander 

and small mammal responses to alternative 

silvicultural practices in the southern 

Appalachians of North Carolina. Proceedings 

of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern 

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 54: 

241-250.

Ford, W.M.; Owen, S.F.; Edwards, J.W.; Rodrigue, J.L. 

2006. Robinia pseudoacacia (black locust) as dayroosts of male Myotis septentrionalis (northern 

bats) on the Fernow Experimental Forest, West 

Virginia. Northeastern Naturalist. 13(1): 15-24.

Ford, W.M.; Rodrigue, J.L. 2001. Soricid abundance 

in partial overstory removal harvests and 

riparian areas in an industrial forest landscape 

of the central Appalachians. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 152: 159-168.

Ford, W.M.; Rodrigue, J.L.; Rowan, E.L.; Castleberry, 

S.B.; Schuler, T.M. 2010. Woodland salamander 

response to two prescribed fires in the central 

Appalachians. Forest Ecology and Management. 

260: 1003-1009.

Ford, W.M.; Stephenson, S.L.; Menzel, J.M.; Black, 

D.R.; Edwards, J.W. 2004. Habitat characteristics 

of the endangered Virginia northern flying 

squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus fuscus) in the 

central Appalachian Mountains. American 

Midland Naturalist. 152: 430-438.

Forest Guild Biomass Working Group. 2010. Forest 

biomass retention and harvesting guidelines for 

the northeast. Santa Fe, NM: The Forest Guild. 

17 p.

Fox, T.R.; Haas, C.A.; Smith, D.W.; Loftis, D.L.; 

Zedaker, S.M.; Jones, R.H.; Hammett, A.L. 

2007. Alternative silvicultural practices in 

Appalachian forest ecosystems: implications 

for species diversity, ecosystem resilience, and 

commercial timber production. In: Buckley, D.S.; 

Clatterbuck, W.K., eds. Proceedings of the 15th 

central hardwood forest conference. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. SRS-101. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research 

Station: 276-280.

Galeone, D.G. 1989. Temporal trends in water 

quality, determined by time series and regression 

analysis for streams on undisturbed, cut and 

herbicide-treated watersheds in the Appalachian 

Mountains. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania 

State University. 265 p. M.S. thesis. 
30

Evaluating Forest Biomass Utilization in the Appalachians:

A Review of Potential Impacts and Guidelines for Management

Galik, C.S.; Abt, R.; Wu, Y. 2009. Forest biomass 

supply in the southeastern United States 

– Implications for industrial roundwood and 

bioenergy production. Journal of Forestry. 107(2): 

69-77.

Gilliam, F.S.; Adams, M.B. 1999. Effects of 

harvesting on soil nitrogen (N) dynamics in 

a N-saturated hardwood forest. In: Stringer, 

J.W.; Loftis, D.L., eds. Proceedings of the 12th 

Central Hardwood Forest Conference. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. SRS-24. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research 

Station: 29-36.

Gilliam, F.S.; Adams, M.B.; Yurish, B.M. 1996. 

Ecosystem nutrient response to chronic nitrogen 

inputs at Fernow Experimental Forest, West 

Virginia. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 

26: 196-205.

Greenberg, C.H.; Lanham, J.D. 2001. Breeding bird 

assemblages of hurricane-created gaps and 

adjacent closed canopy forest in the southern 

Appalachians. Forest Ecology and Management. 

154: 251-260.

Groom, J.D.; Dent, L.; Madsen, L.J.; Fleuret, J. 

2011. Response of western Oregon (USA) 

stream temperatures to contemporary forest 

management. Forest Ecology and Management. 

262(8): 1618-1629.

Grushecky, S.T.; Hassler, C.C.; Fajvan, M.A. 1998. 

Logging residue yield equations from West 

Virginia timber harvests. Northern Journal of 

Applied Forestry. 15(1): 14-16.

Grushecky, S.T.; McGill, D.W.; Anderson, R.B. 2006. 

Inventory of wood residues in southern West 

Virginia. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry. 

23(1): 47-52.

Gunnarsson, B.; Nitterus, K.; Wirdenas, P. 2004. 

Effects of logging residue removal on groundactive beetles in temperate forests. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 201: 229-239.

Guynn, D.C.; Guynn, S.T.; Layton, P.A.; Wigley, T.B. 

2004. Biodiversity metrics in sustainable forestry 

certification programs. Journal of Forestry. 102: 

46-52.

Hagan, J.M.; Whitman, A.A. 2006. Biodiversity 

indicators for sustainable forestry: simplifying 

complexity. Journal of Forestry. 104: 203-210.

Halbrook, J.; Han, H. 2005. Costs and constraints 

of fuels reduction treatments in a recreational 

area. In: Soil, Water & Timber Management: 

Forest Engineering Solutions in Response to Forest 

Regulation; Proceedings of the annual meeting of 

the Council On Forest Engineering; 2005 July 

11-14; Fortuna, CA. Corvallis, OR: Council on 

Forest Engineering: [inclusive pages unknown.]

Han, H.; Lee, H.W.; Johnson, L.R. 2004. Economic 

feasibility of an integrated harvesting system for 

small-diameter trees in southwest Idaho. Forest 

Products Journal. 54(2): 21-27.

Harpole, D.N.; Haas, C.A. 1999. Effects of 

seven silvicultural treatments on terrestrial 

salamanders. Forest Ecology and Management. 

114: 349-356.

Hartsough, B.; Stokes, B.; McNeel, J.; Watson, W. 

1995. Harvesting systems for western stand 

health improvements cuttings. In: Proceedings 

of the annual meeting of ASAE; 1996 June 18-23; 

Chicago, IL. Paper 95-7746. St. Joseph, MI: ASAE: 

[inclusive pages unknown.]

Helvey, J.D.; Kochenderfer, J.N.; Edwards, P.J. 1989. 

Effects of forest fertilization on selected ion 

concentrations in central Appalachian streams.

In: Rink, G.; Budelsky, C. Proceedings of the 7th 

central hardwood conference; 1989 March 5-8; 

Carbondale, IL. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-132. St. 

Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station: 

278-282.
Literature Cited 31

Hewlett, J.D.; Hibbert, A.R. 1967: Factors affecting 

the response of small watersheds to precipitation 

in humid areas. In: Sopper, W.E.; Lull, H.W., eds. 

Forest hydrology. New York, NY: Pergamon Press: 

275-290.

Hollifield, B.K.; Dimmick, R.W. 1995. Arthropod 

abundance relative to forest management 

practices benefitting ruffed grouse in the 

southern Appalachians. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 

23(4): 756-764.

Homyack, J.A.; Haas, C.A.; Hopkins, W.A. 2011. 

Energetics of surface-active terrestrial 

salamanders in experimentally harvested 

forests. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 

75(6): 1267-1278.

Hornbeck, J.W.; Adams, M.B.; Corbett, E.S.; Verry, 

E.S.; Lynch, J.A. 1993. Long-term impacts of 

forest treatments on water yield: a summary 

for northeastern USA. Journal of Hydrology. 

150(2-4): 323-344. 

Hornbeck, J.W.; Kochenderfer, J.N. 2001. A century 

of lessons about water resources in northeastern 

forests. In: A monumental event: proceedings of 

the Society of American Foresters 2000 national 

convention; 2000 November 16-20; Washington, 

DC. Bethesda, MD: Society of American Foresters: 

31-37.

Janowiak, M.K.; Webster, C.R. 2010. Promoting 

ecological sustainability in woody biomass 

harvesting. Journal of Forestry. 108(1): 16-23.

Jenkins, A.B.; Sencindiver, J.C.; Bhumbla, D.K. 1998. 

Biogeochemical relationships of calcium and 

magnesium in high elevation forest soil of West 

Virginia. Agronomy Abstracts.

Jenkins, M.A.; Parker, G.R. 1997. Changes in down 

dead wood volume across a chronosequence 

of silvicultural openings in southern Indiana 

forests. In: Pallardy, S.G.; Cecich, R.A.; Garrett, 

H.G.; Johnson, P.S., eds. Proceedings of the 11th 

central hardwood forest conference. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. NC-188. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research 

Station: 162-169.

Jenkins, M.A.; Parker, G.R. 1998. Composition and 

diversity of woody vegetation in silvicultural 

openings of southern Indiana forests. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 109: 57-74.

Johnson, D.W.; Curtis, P.S. 2001. Effects of forest 

management on soil C and N storage: metaanalysis. Forest Ecology and Management. 140: 

227-238.

Johnson, D.W.; Todd, D.E. 1998. Harvesting effects 

on long-term changes in nutrient pools of mixed 

oak forest. Soil Science Society of America 

Journal. 62: 1725-1735.

Johnson, D.W.; West, D.C.; Todd, D.E.; Mann, L.K. 

1982. Effects of sawlog vs. whole-tree harvesting 

on the nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and 

calcium budgets of an upland mixed oak forest.

Soil Science Society of America Journal. 46: 

1304-1309.

Johnson, J.B.; Edwards, J.W.; Ford, W.M.; Gates, 

J.E. 2009. Roost tree selection by northern 

myotis (Myotis septentrionalis) maternity 

colonies following prescribed fire in a central 

Appalachian Mountains hardwood forest. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 258: 233-242.

Jones, P.D.; Hanberry, B.; Demaris, S. 2009. Standlevel wildlife habitat features and biodiversity 

in southern pine forests: A review. Journal of 

Forestry. 107(8): 398-404.
32

Evaluating Forest Biomass Utilization in the Appalachians:

A Review of Potential Impacts and Guidelines for Management

Kaminski, J.A.; Davis, M.L.; Kelly, M.; Keyser, P.D. 

2007. Disturbance effects on small mammal 

species in a managed Appalachian forest.

The American Midland Naturalist Journal. 157: 

385-397.

Kaygusuz, K.; Turker, M.F. 2002. Review of biomass 

energy in Turkey. Energy Sources. 24: 383-401.

Keegan C.E., III; Fieldler, C.E.; Morgan, T.A. 2004. 

Wildfire in Montana: Potential hazard reduction 

and economic effects of a strategic treatment 

program. Forest Products Journal. 54(7/8): 21-25.

Kellogg, L.; Davis, C.; Vanderberg, M.; Bolding, C. 

2006. Identifying and developing innovation 

in harvesting and transporting forest biomass.

In: Proceedings of the Forest Products Society 

60th international convention; 2006 June 25-28; 

Newport Beach, CA. Madison, WI: Forest Products 

Society. 17 p.

Kluender, R.; Lortz, D.; McCoy, W.; Stokes, B.; 

Klepac, J. 1998. Removal intensity and tree size 

effects on harvesting cost and profitability. Forest 

Products Journal. 54(7): 54-59.

Knapp, S.M.; Haas, C.A.; Harpole, D.N.; Kirkpatrick, 

R.L. 2003. Initial effects of clearcutting and 

alternative silvicultural practices on terrestrial 

salamander abundance. Conservation Biology. 

17(3): 752-762.

Knoepp, J.D.; Reynolds, B.C.; Crossley, D.A.; Swank, 

W.T. 2005. Long-term changes in forest floor 

processes in southern Appalachian forests. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 220: 300-312.

Kochenderfer, J.N. 1970. Erosion control on logging 

roads in the Appalachians. Res. Pap. NE-158, 

Upper Darby, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment 

Station. 28 p.

Kochenderfer, J.N.; Aubertin, G.M. 1975. Effects of 

management practices on water quality and 

quantity: Fernow Experimental Forest, West 

Virginia. In: West Virginia municipal watershed 

management symposium proceedings. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. NE-13. Upper Darby, PA: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest 

Experiment Station: 14-24. 

Kochenderfer, J.N.; Edwards, P.J. 1991. Effectiveness 

of three streamside management practices in the 

central Appalachians. In: Coleman, S.S.; Neary, 

D.G., eds. Proceedings of the 6th biennial southern 

silvicultural research conference. Volume 2. 1990 

October 30-November 1; Memphis, TN. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. SE-70. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest 

Experiment Station: 688-700. 

Kochenderfer, J.N.; Edwards, P.J.; Wood, F. 1997. 

Hydrologic impacts of logging an Appalachian 

watershed using West Virginia’s best 

management practices. Northern Journal of 

Applied Forestry. 14: 207-218.

Kochenderfer, J.N.; Helvey, J.D. 1987. Using 

gravel to reduce soil losses from minimumstandard forest roads. Journal of Soil and Water 

Conservation. 42(1): 46-50.

Kumar, A.; Cameron, J.B.; Flynn, P.C. 2003. Biomass 

power cost and optimum plant size in western 

Canada. Biomass & Bioenergy. 24(6): 445-464.

Lanford, B.; Wilhoit, J.; Curtin, D. 1991. Forwarder 

system development for non-industrial private 

forest (NIPF) applications. ASAE Paper 91-7509. 

St. Joseph, MI: American Society of Agricultural 

Engineers. 19 p.

Larson, D.S.; Mirth, R. 2004. A case study on the 

economics of thinning in the wildland-urban 

interface. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 

19(1): 60-65.
Literature Cited 33

Lashley, M.A.; Harper, C.A.; Bates, G.E.; Keyser, P.D. 

2011. Forage availability for white-tailed deer 

following silvicultural treatments in hardwood 

forests. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 

75(6): 1467-1476.

Leaf, A.F., ed. 1979. Proceedings, impact of intensive 

harvesting on forest nutrient cycling. Syracuse, 

NY : College of Environmental Science, State 

University of New York. 421 p. 

Lemly, A.D.; Hilderbrand, R.H. 2000. Influence 

of large woody debris on stream insect 

communities can benthic detritus. Hydrobiologia. 

421: 179-185.

Li, Y.; Wang, J.; Miller, G.; McNeel, J. 2006. 

Production economics of harvesting smalldiameter hardwood stands in central 

Appalachia. Forest Products Journal. 56(3): 81-86.

Lindenmayer, D.B.; Margules, C.R.; Botkin, D.B. 

2000. Indicators of biodiversity for ecologically 

sustainable forest management. Conservation 

Biology. 14: 941-950.

Malkki, H.; Virtanen, Y. 2003. Selected emissions and 

efficiencies of energy systems based on logging 

and sawmill residues. Biomass & Bioenergy. 

24(4/5): 321-327.

Mann, L.K.; Johnson, D.W.; West, D.C.; Cole, D.W.; 

Hornbeck, J.W.; Martin, C.W.; Riekerk, H.; Smith, 

C.T.; Swank, W.T.; Tritton, L.M.; VanLear, D.H. 

1988. Effects of whole-tree and stem-only 

clearcutting on postharvest hydrologic losses, 

nutrient capital and regrowth. Forest Science. 

34(2): 412-428.

Mattson, K.G.; Swank, W.T.; Wade, J.B. 1987. 

Decomposition of woody debris in a 

regenerating, clear-cut forest in the Southern 

Appalachians. Canadian Journal of Forest 

Research. 17: 712-721.

McIver, J.D.; Adams, P.W.; Doyal, J.A.; Drews, E.S.; 

Hartsough, B.R.; Kellogg, L.D.; Niwa, C.G.; 

Ottmar, R.; Peck, R.; Taratoot, M.; Torgersen, T.; 

Youngblood, A. 2003. Environmental effects 

and economics of mechanized logging for fuel 

reduction in northeastern Oregon mixed-conifer 

stands. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 18(4): 

238-249.

McClure, J.M.; Kolka, R.K.; White, A. 2004. Effect of 

forest harvesting best management practices on 

coarse woody debris distribution in streams and 

riparian zones in three Appalachian watersheds.

Water, Air, and Soil Pollution Focus. 4: 245-261.

Megahan, W.L. 1972. Effects of logging and logging 

roads on erosion and sediment deposition from 

steep terrain. Journal of Forestry. 70(3): 136-141. 

Menzel, J.M.; Ford, W.M.; Edwards, J.W.; Menzel, 

M.A. 2004. Nest tree use by the endangered 

Virginia northern flying squirrel in the central 

Appalachian Mountains. The American Midland 

Naturalist. 151(2): 355-368.

Menzel, M.A.; Ford, W.M.; Laerm, J.; Krishon, D. 

1999. Forest to wildlife opening: habitat gradient 

analysis among small mammals in the southern 

Appalachians. Forest Ecology and Management. 

114: 227-232.

Menzel, M.A.; Owen, S.F.; Ford, W.M.; Edwards, 

J.W.; Wood, P.B.; Chapman, B.R.; Miller, K.V. 

2002. Roost tree selection by northern longeared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) maternity 

colonies in an industrial forest of the central 

Appalachian Mountains. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 144: 107-114.

Miller, D.A.; Wigley, T.B.; Miller, K.V. 2009. 

Managed forests and conservation of terrestrial 

biodiversity in the southern United States.

Journal of Forestry. 107(4): 197-203.
34

Evaluating Forest Biomass Utilization in the Appalachians:

A Review of Potential Impacts and Guidelines for Management

Mitchell, D. 2005. Assessment of current 

technologies for comminution of forest residues.

In: Proceedings of the ASAE annual meeting; 2005 

July 17-20; Tampa, FL. Paper 058024. St. Joseph, 

MI: ASAE: [inclusive pages unknown.]

Moller, B. 2003. Least-cost allocations for wood fuel 

supply for distributed generation in Denmark 

– A geographical study. International Journal of 

Sustainable Energy. 23(4): 187-197.

Moseley, K.R.; Ford, W.M.; Edwards, J.W. 2009. 

Local and landscape scale factors influencing 

edge effects on woodland salamanders.

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 

151: 425-435.

Moseley, K.R.; Ford, W.M.; Edwards, J.W.; Schuler, 

T.M. 2008. Long-term partial cutting impacts on 

Desmognathus salamander abundance in West 

Virginia headwater streams. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 254: 300-307.

National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP). 

n.d. NADP/NTM monitoring location WV18.

Champaign, IL: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

National Atmospheric Deposition Program. 

Available at http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/sites/siteinfo.

asp?id=WV18. (Accessed June 14, 2012).

Navickis, R. 1978. Biomass. Science News. 113(16): 

258-259.

Norton, S.A.; Kahl, J.S.; Fernandez, I.J. 1997. Stream 

chemistry indicators of acidification at the Bear 

Brook Watershed Manipulation, Maine. Journal 

of Conference Abstracts. 2: 260.

Owen, S.F.; Menzel, M.A.; Ford, W.M.; Edwards, 

J.W.; Chapman, B.R.; Miller, K.V.; Wood, P.B. 

2002. Roost tree selection by maternal 

colonies of northern long-eared myotis in an 

intensely managed forest. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

NE-292. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest 

Experiment Station. 6 p.

Parikka, M. 2004. Global biomass fuel resources.

Biomass & Bioenergy. 27(6): 613-620.

Patric, J.H. 1978. Harvesting effects on soil and 

water in the eastern hardwood forest. Southern 

Journal of Applied Forestry. 2: 66-73.

Patric, J.H. 1976. Soil erosion in the eastern forest.

Journal of Forestry. 74(10): 671-677.

Patric, J.H.; Smith, D.W. 1975. Forest management 

and nutrient cycling in eastern hardwoods. Res. 

Pap. NE-324. Upper Darby, PA: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest 

Experiment Station. 12 p.

Perlack, R.D.; Wright, L.L.; Turhollow, A.F.; Graham, 

R.L.; Stokes, B.J.; Erbach, D.C. 2005. Biomass 

as a feedstock for a bioenergy and bioproducts 

industry: The technical feasibility of a billion-ton 

annual supply. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Energy and U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

78 p.

Petranka, J.W.; Eldridge, M.E.; Haley, K.E. 1993. 

Effects of timber harvesting on southern 

Appalachian salamanders. Conservation Biology. 

7(2): 363-370.

Phillips, M.J.; Swift, L.W.; Blinn, C.R. 2000. Best 

management practices for riparian areas. In: 

Verry, E.S.; Hornbeck, J.W.; Dolloff, C.A., eds. 

Riparian management in forests of the continental 

Eastern United States. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis 

Publishers, CRC Press LLC: 273-286.

Ponder, F. 2008. Nine-year response of hardwood 

understory to organic matter removal and soil 

compaction. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry. 

25(1): 25-31.

Pottie, M.; Guimier, D. 1985. Preparation of forest 

biomass for optimal conversion. Special Report 

SR-32. Pointe-Claire, Quebec: Forest Research 

Institute of Canada (FERIC). 112 p.
Literature Cited 35

Powers, R.F. In press. Forests for bioenergy: Can 

productivity be sustained? An overview and 

personal perspective. International Journal of 

Forest Engineering. 

Powers, R.F.; Scott, D.A.; Sanchez, F.G.; Voldseth, 

R.A.; Page-Dumroese, D.; Elioff, J.D.; Stone, 

D.M. 2005. The North American long-term 

soil productivity experiment: Findings from 

the first decade of research. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 220: 31-50.

Proe, M.F.; Cameron, A.D.; Dutch, J.; Christodoulou, 

X.C. 1996. The effect of whole-tree harvesting 

on the growth of second rotation Sitka spruce.

Forestry. 69: 389-401.

Rauland-Rasmussen, K.; Stupak, I.; Clarke, 

N.; Callesen, I.; Helmisaari, H.; Karltun, E.; 

Varnagiryte-Kabasinskiene, I. 2008. Effects of 

very intensive forest biomass harvesting on 

short and long term site productivity. In: Röser, 

D.; Asikainen, I.; Stupak, A.; Pasanen, K., eds. 

Sustainable Use of Forest Biomass for Energy: 

A Synthesis with Focus on the Baltic and Nordic 

Region. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer: 

29-78. 

Richardson, J.; Björheden, R.; Hakkila, P.; Lowe, A.; 

Smith, C., eds. 2002. Bioenergy from sustainable 

forestry: Guiding principles and practice.

Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic 

Publishers. 344 p.

Roos, A.; Bohlin, F.; Hecktor, B.; Hillring, B.; Parikka, 

M. 2000. A geographical analysis of the Swedish 

woodfuel market. Scandinavian Journal of Forest 

Research. 15: 112-118.

Rubino, D.L.; McCarthy, B.C. 2003. Evaluation of 

coarse woody debris and forest vegetation across 

topographic gradients in a southern Ohio forest.

Forest Ecology and Management. 183: 221-238.

Rummer, R.; Klepac, J. 2002. Mechanized or hand 

operations: which is less expensive for small 

timber? In: Proceedings of Small Diameter 

Timber: Resource Management, Manufacturing, 

and Markets. Spokane, WA: Washington State 

University Cooperative Extension. 7 p.

Schoenholtz, S.H.; Van Miegroet, H.; Burger, J.A. 

2000. A review of chemical and physical 

properties as indicators of forest soil quality: 

challenges and opportunities. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 138: 335-356.

Scott, D.A.; Dean, T.J. 2006. Energy trade-offs 

between intensive biomass utilization, site 

productivity loss, and ameliorative treatments in 

loblolly pine plantations. Biomass & Bioenergy. 

30: 1001-1010.

Shifley, S.R.; Brookshire, B.L.; Larsen, D.R.; Herbeck, 

L.A.; Jensen, R.G. 1998. Snags and down wood 

on upland oak sites in Missouri Ozark Forest 

Ecosystem Project. In: Brookshire, B.; Shifley, 

S.R., eds. Proceedings of the Missouri Ozark 

forest ecosystem project symposium. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. NC-193. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research 

Station: 246-256.

Smith, H.C.; Miller, G.W. 1986. Economic 

considerations of uneven-age hardwood 

management. In: Economics of Eastern Hardwood 

Management, Penn State Forest Resource Issues 

Conference; 1986 March 9-11. University Park, PA: 

The Pennsylvania State University: 97-110.

Solada, S.W.; Perry, S.A.; Perry, W.B. 1996. Leaf 

litter decomposition and elemental change in 

three Appalachian mountain streams of different 

pH. In: Hom, J.; Birdsey, R.; O’Brian, K., eds. 

Proceedings of the 1995 meeting of the Northern 

Global Change Program. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-214. 

Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Northeastern Research Station: 161-164.
36

Evaluating Forest Biomass Utilization in the Appalachians:

A Review of Potential Impacts and Guidelines for Management

Stuart, G.W.; Edwards, P.J. 2006. Concepts about 

forests and water. Northern Journal of Applied 

Forestry. 23(1): 11-19.

Sturtevant, B.R.; Bissonette, J.A.; Long, J.N.; Roberts, 

D.W. 1997. Coarse woody debris as a function of 

age, stand structure, and disturbance in boreal 

Newfoundland. Ecological Applications. 7(2): 

702-712.

Suadicani, K. 2003. Production of fuel chips in a 

50-year old Norway spruce stand. Biomass & 

Bioenergy. 25: 35-43.

Sweka, J.A.; Hartman, K.J. 2006. Effects of large 

woody debris addition on stream habitat and 

brook trout populations in Appalachian streams.

Hydrobiologia. 559: 363-378.

Sweka, J.A.; Hartman, K.J.; Niles, J.M. 2010. Longterm effects of large woody debris addition on 

stream habitat and brook trout populations.

Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management. 1(2): 

146-151.

Swift, L.W., Jr.; Messer, J.B. 1971. Forest cuttings 

raise temperatures of small streams in the 

southern Appalachians. Journal of Soil and Water 

Conservation. 26(3): 111-116.

Talbot, B.; Suadicani, K. 2005. Analysis of two 

simulated in-field chipping and extraction 

systems in spruce thinning. Biosystems 

Engineering. 91(3): 283-292.

Tirpak, J.M.; Giuliano, W.M.; Miller, C.A.; Allen, 

T.J.; Bittner, S.; Edwards, J.W.; Friedhof, S.; Igo, 

W.K.; Stauffer, D.F.; Norman, G.W. 2006. Ruffed 

grouse nest success and habitat selection in the 

central and southern Appalachians. The Journal 

of Wildlife Management. 70(1): 138-144.

Tritton, L.M.; Martin, C.W.; Hornbeck, J.W.; Pierce, 

R.S. 1987. Biomass and nutrient removals 

from commercial thinning and whole-tree 

clearcutting of central hardwoods. Environmental 

Management. 11: 659-666.

Valett, H.M.; Crenshaw, C.L.; Wagner, P.F. 2002. 

Stream nutrient uptake, forest succession, 

and biogeochemical theory. Ecology. 83(10): 

2888-2901. 

Van Belle, J-F.; Temmerman, M.; Schenkel, Y. 2003. 

Three level procurement of forest residues for 

power plant. Biomass & Bioenergy. 24: 401-409.

Verschuyl, J.; Riffell, S.; Miller, D.; Wigley, T.B. 

2011. Biodiversity response to intensive biomass 

production from forest thinning in North 

American forests – a meta-analysis. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 261: 221-232.

Wang, J.; Goff, W.A. 2008. Application and 

effectiveness of forestry best management 

practices in West Virginia. Northern Journal of 

Applied Forestry. 25(1): 32-37.

Wang, J.; Grushecky, S.T.; McNeel, J. 2007. Biomass 

resources, uses and opportunities in West 

Virginia. WVU Biomaterials and Wood Utilization 

Research Center, Division of Forestry and Natural 

Resources. http://www.wdscapps.caf.wvu.edu/

biomatwurctr/files/wvbiomass09102007.pdf. 

(Accessed June 14, 2012).

Watmough, S.A.; Aherne, J.; Alewell, C.; Arp, P.; 

Bailey, S.; Clair, T.; Dillons, P.;. Dushesne, L.; 

Eimers, C.; Fernandez, I.; Foster, N.; Larssen, T.; 

Miller, E.; Mitchell, M.; Page, S. 2005. Sulphate, 

nitrogen and base cation budgets at 21 forested 

catchments in Canada, the United States 

and Europe. Environmental Monitoring and 

Assessment. 109: 1-36.

Webster, C.R.; Jenkins, M.A. 2005. Coarse woody 

debris dynamics in the southern Appalachians 

as affected by topographic position and 

anthropogenic disturbance history. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 217: 319-330.
Literature Cited 37

Wiedenbeck, J.; Ray, C.D.; Ma, L. 2011. A synopsis 

of the wood-based energy and heating industries 

in the northeastern United States with 

consideration of potential impacts on future 

demand for roundwood. In: Proceedings of the 

17th central hardwood forest conference. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. NRS-P-78. Newtown Square, PA: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Northern Research Station: 555-569. CD-ROM.

Yanai, R.D. 1998. The effect of whole-tree harvest 

on phosphorus cycling in a northern hardwood 

forest. Forest Ecology and Management. 104: 

281-295.
38

Evaluating Forest Biomass Utilization in the Appalachians:

A Review of Potential Impacts and Guidelines for Management

Glossary

Biodiversity: A measure of the diversity of life in all 

its forms and at all levels of organization at a specified 

spatial and temporal scale 

Bioenergy: Renewable energy made from materials 

derived from biological sources or biomass

Biofuel: Liquid fuel derived from biomass

Biomass: Any organic material which has stored 

sunlight in the form of chemical energy, including 

wood, wood waste, straw, manure, sugarcane, and 

many other byproducts from a variety of agricultural 

sources

Cogeneration: The simultaneous generation of both 

electricity and useful heat

Comminution: The process of converting forest 

materials into consumable products by chipping, 

hogging, tub-grinding, and shredding

Downed woody material: Both coarse and fine 

woody material within a forest derived from fallen 

dead trees, branches, bark, and snags

Ecosystem services: Sustainable benefits derived 

from forested ecosystems, including site productivity, 

reliable and clean water supply, wildlife habitat, 

biodiversity, and wood and wood fiber supply

Energy wood: Feedstock for bioenergy and 

bioproduct industries derived from forest harvesting 

and processing residues, along with previously 

nonmerchantable stems due to poor form, species, or 

size

Energy wood harvest: Extraction of forest biomass 

for the purpose of energy production

Feedstock: Raw material to supply or fuel energy 

production

Forest biomass: Forest harvesting and processing 

residues, along with previously nonmerchantable 

stems due to poor form, species, or size

Forest biomass harvesting: The collection and 

removal of woody biomass from forested sites; this 

may occur as part of a traditional roundwood harvest 

or as a separate operation following a traditional 

harvest

Forest biomass utilization: The harvest, sale, offer, 

trade, and/or utilization of woody biomass to produce 

the full range of wood products, including timber, 

engineered lumber, paper and pulp, furniture and 

value-added commodities, and bio-energy and/or biobased products such as plastics, ethanol and diesel

Renewable energy: Energy derived from natural 

resources such as biomass, sunlight, wind, rain, tides, 

and geothermal, which are naturally replenished

Roundwood: All industrial wood in the rough (saw 

logs and veneer logs, pulpwood and other industrial 

roundwood) and, in the case of trade, chips and 

particles and wood residues

Snag: A dead standing tree

Wood fuel: Any woody material can be used in the 

bioenergy or bioproduct industries
Units

Centimeter (cm) Unit equivalent to 0.01 meters 

(.394 inches)

Hectare (Ha) Unit equivalent to 10,000 square 

meters (2.47 acres) 

Kilogram (kg) Unit equivalent to 1000 grams 

(2.2046 pounds)

Megagram (Mg) Unit equivalent to 1 metric ton 

(1.1023 short tons)

Meter (m) Unit equivalent to 100 centimeters 

(3.2808 feet)

Abbreviations

BMP Best Management Practice

C Carbon

Ca Calcium

CRL Composite residue log

DWM Downed woody material

FSC Forest Stewardship Council

GHG Greenhouse gas

H' Shannon Diversity Index

J' Pielou’s Evenness Index

K Potassium

LTSP Long-term soil productivity 

Mg Magnesium

N Nitrogen

NO3 Nitrate

OM Organic matter

P Phosphorus

RMA Riparian management area

S Sulfur

S' Species richness

SFI Sustainable Forestry Initiative

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

Units and Abbreviations 39
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities 

on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, 

familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, 

reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance 

program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 

alternate means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) 

should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of 

discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., 

Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an 

equal opportunity provider and employer.

Printed on recycled paper

Vanderberg, Michael R.; Adams, Mary Beth; Wiseman, Mark S. 2012. Evaluating 

Forest Biomass Utilization in the Appalachians: A Review of Potential 

Impacts and Guidelines for Management. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-106. Newtown 

Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research 

Station. 39 p.

Forests are important economic and ecological resources for both the Appalachian 

hardwood forest region and the country. Increased demand for woody biomass 

can be met, at least in part, by improved utilization of these resources. However, 

concerns exist about the impacts of increased intensity of woody biomass removal 

on the sustainability of forest ecosystems. Relatively little research has evaluated 

the impacts of forest biomass harvesting on site productivity, biodiversity, water 

quality, or other measures of ecosystem productivity, and new information about 

these and other related topics is not readily available. This report discusses the 

implications for the sustainability of Appalachian hardwood forests if additional 

woody biomass is removed for the production of woody biomass-related energy. 

It includes a summary and synthesis of published literature and ongoing studies 

to evaluate the possible effects of increased biomass removal on several primary 

aspects of forest sustainability (i.e., site productivity, water quality, wildlife and 

biodiversity, wood supply). General management guidelines are proposed that 

can minimize the impacts of woody biomass utilization on the sustainability of 

Appalachian hardwood forests. Accompanying the report is an online bibliography, 

containing references for scientific literature related to woody biomass harvesting 

and utilization beyond the scope of the Appalachian forest region. 

KEY WORDS: woody biomass, bioenergy, biomass harvesting, sustainability,

 biodiversity
Northern Research Station

www.nrs.fs.fed.us