Life-Cycle Impacts of Forest Resource Activities in the Pacific Northwest and Southeast United States
Keywords:
Life-cycle inventory, forest management impacts, CORRIM, timber harvesting costs, timber harvesting fuel consumptionAbstract
A more intensive management alternative was created for each region by reallocating acres to higher management intensity classes. Harvesting activities were segmented into five stages to allow development of all inputs and outputs: (1) felling, (2) processing (bucking, limbing, cutting to length), (3) secondary transportation (skidding and yarding), (4) loading, and (5) hauling to a process point. The costs and consumption rates of energy and materials for these activities drove the log outputs, emissions, and carbon pools. Logs are allocated to wood product facilities, the primary product of the analysis, or pulp and paper mills as a co-product from the forest. Non-merchantable slash is generally left on site and is disposed of through site preparation activities. Transportation-related activities and the required diesel fuel produce by far the largest contribution to emission outputs. However, fertilizer use contributes to much of the change in emissions as acreage shifts to higher intensity management alternatives.References
Aber, J., and Melillo. 1991. Terrestrial Ecosystems. Saunders College Publishing, Philadelphia, PA.nAllen, H. L. 2001. Stand treatment options and distribution of acreage by management intensity. Personal Communication.nAllen, H. L. 2001. Silvicultural treatments to enhance productivity. Chap. 6, in J. Evans ed. The forests handbook. Volume II. Blackwell Science Ltd., Oxford, UK. 382 pp.nBiltonen, T. 2002. Bennett Lumber, Field Forester, Princeton, Idaho. Personal Interview.nBuford, M. A. 1991. Performance of four yield models for predicting stand dynamics of a 30-year-old loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) spacing study. For. Ecol. Mgmt. 46:23-38.nFrazier, J. R., H. E. Burkhart, and J. W. McMinn. 1981. Energy input/output relationships for loblolly pine stands. J. Forestry 79(10):670-673.nGholz, H. L., C. C. Grier, A. G. Campbell, and A. T. Brown. 1979. Equations for estimating biomass and leaf area of plants in the Pacific Northwest. Res. Pap. 41, Forest Research Lab, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.nGoedkoop, M., and C. De Gelder. 2001. SimaPro 5.0 Reference Manual. Pré Consultants.nGoedkoop, M., and M. Oele. 2001. SimaPro 5.0 User Manual: Introduction to LCA methodology and practice with SimaPro 5.0. Pré Consultants.nHafley, W. L., W. D. Smith, and M. A. Buford. 1982. A new yield prediction model of unthinned loblolly pine plantations. School of Forest Resources, North Carolina State University. Raleigh, NC.nHochrein, P., and L. D. Kellogg. 1988. Production and cost comparison for three skyline thinning systems, Western J. Appl. For. 3(4):120-123.nJorgenson, G. 2002. Horizon Helicopters, Pilot, Laclede, Idaho. Personal Interview.nKeegan, Ch., C. Fiedler, and F. Stewart. 1995. Cost of timber harvest under traditional and "new forestry" silvicultural prescriptions, Western J. Appl. For. 10(1):36-41.nKellogg, L. D., and P. Bettinger. 1995. Thinning productivity and cost for a mechanized cut-to-length system in the Pacific Coast Region of the USA, J. Forest Eng., pp. 43-54.nKellogg, L. D., P. Bettinger., and R. Edwards. 1996. A comparison of logging planning, felling and skyline yarding costs between clearcutting and five group-selection harvesting methods, Western J. Appl. For. 11(3):90-96.nLawson, R. 2002. Lawson Logging, Owner, Deary, Idaho. Personal Interview.nLedoux, C. 1984. Production rates and costs of cable yarding wood residue from clearcut units, Forest Prod. J. 34(4):55-60.nLippke, B., and J. Comnick. 2002. Stand management scenarios for the Pacific Northwest. Personal Communication.nMarshall, J. D., and R. H. Waring. 1986. Comparative methods of estimating leaf area in old-growth Douglasfir. Ecology 67:975-979.nMills, J. 2001. Matching of database on management intensity classes by owner and site index with projected acreage allocations for PNW and SE from the 2000 Resources Planning Act Assessment of Forest and Rangelands. Personal Communications.nMonserud, R. A., and J. D. Marshall. 1999. Allometric crown relations in three North Idaho conifers. Can. J. For. Res. 29:521-535.nNcsfnc. 2000. Nutrem2: A Model for Soil Nutrient Uptake and Harvest Removals in Loblolly Pine-users Guide. NCSFNC Research Note 17. Dept. of Forestry, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC.nPanshin, A. J., and C. De Zeeuw. 1970. Textbook of wood technology, 3rd ed. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York. NY.nReynolds, M. 2002. Mike Reynolds Logging, Owner, Priest River, Idaho. Personal Interview.nSchlosser, W. E., J. H. Bassman, P. R. Wandschneider, and R. L. Everett. 2002. A carbon balance assessment for containerized Larix gmelinii seedlings in the Russian Far East. For. Ecol. Mgmt.nSouth, D. B., and Zwolinski, J. B. 1996. Chemicals used in southern forest nurseries. South J. Appl. For. 20(3):127-135.nStevens, P., and E. Clarke. 1974. Helicopters for logging; Characteristics, operation, and safety considerations, USDA Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. General Technical Report PNW-20. Portland, OR. 16 pp.nUnited States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2000. Assessment of forest and range lands. USDA Forest Service. FS-687. Washington, DC. 78 pp.nVertregt, N., and F. W. T. Penning De Vries. 1987. A rapid method for determining the efficiency of biosynthesis of plant biomass. J. Theor. Biol. 128:109-119.nWenny, D. 2003. Fertilizer treatments of seedlings at the University of Idaho Forest Nursery. Personal Communication.nWykoff, W. R. July 1986. Supplement to the User's Guide for the Stand Prognosis Model—Version 5.0. Gen. Tech. Report-INT-281. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 40 pp.n
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
The copyright of an article published in Wood and Fiber Science is transferred to the Society of Wood Science and Technology (for U. S. Government employees: to the extent transferable), effective if and when the article is accepted for publication. This transfer grants the Society of Wood Science and Technology permission to republish all or any part of the article in any form, e.g., reprints for sale, microfiche, proceedings, etc. However, the authors reserve the following as set forth in the Copyright Law:
1. All proprietary rights other than copyright, such as patent rights.
2. The right to grant or refuse permission to third parties to republish all or part of the article or translations thereof. In the case of whole articles, such third parties must obtain Society of Wood Science and Technology written permission as well. However, the Society may grant rights with respect to Journal issues as a whole.
3. The right to use all or part of this article in future works of their own, such as lectures, press releases, reviews, text books, or reprint books.
