BioEnergy Research

, Volume 9, Issue 2, pp 518–533 | Cite as

Forest Operations and Woody Biomass Logistics to Improve Efficiency, Value, and Sustainability

Article

Abstract

This paper reviews the most recent work conducted by scientists and engineers of the Forest Service of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) in the areas of forest operations and woody biomass logistics, with an emphasis on feedstock supply for emerging bioenergy, biofuels, and bioproducts applications. This work is presented in the context of previous research in this field by the agency and is measured against the goals and objectives provided by several important national-level initiatives, including the USDA Regional Biomass Research Centers. Research conducted over the past 5 years in cooperation with a diverse group of research partners is organized in four topic sections: innovative practices, innovative machines, sustainability, and integration. A wide range of studies in operations and logistics address advances in harvest and processing technology, transportation systems, scheduling and planning, feedstock quality, biomass conversion processes, and environmental impacts, including greenhouse gas emissions. We also discuss potential future research to address persistent knowledge gaps, especially those in fire and fuel management. Overall, the research reviewed here aligns well with broad national goals of providing the USA with sustainable and efficient forest biomass management and production systems, specifically including: (1) improved harvest, collection, handling, and transportation systems for woody biomass; (2) cost and equipment information and options for field processing biomass to improve efficiency and mitigate impacts; and (3) forest biomass management systems and technologies to offset impacts and enhance environmental outcomes. However, as needs evolve, professionals in this field must strive to adapt research, development, and dissemination to address relevant future challenges and strengthen capabilities to solve critical problems in the forest sector.

Keywords

Biomass Feedstocks Harvesting Logistics Operations Processing 

Abbreviations

ac

Acre

bf

Board feet

BMP

Best management practices

cf

Cubic feet

dbh

Diameter at breast height

ft

Feet

FIA

Forest Inventory and Analysis Program

in.

Inches

LCA

Life cycle assessment

MC

Moisture content

mbf

1000 board ft

mcf

1000 cubic ft

USA

United States

USFS

US Forest Service

USFS R&D

US Forest Service, Research and Development Unit

USDA

US Department of Agriculture

yd3

Cubic yards

References

  1. 1.
    Adams DM, Haynes RW, Daigneault AJ (2006) Estimated timber harvest by U.S. region and ownership, 1950–2002. General Technical Report. PNW-GTR-659. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 64 pGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Freeman DR, Loomis RM, Roussopoulos PJ (1982) Handbook for predicting slash weight of trees in the Northeast. General Technical Report NC-75. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment StationGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Snell JA, Brown JK (1980) Handbook for predicting residue weights of Pacific Northwest conifers. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-103. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 51 pGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Howard JO (1981) Ratios for estimating logging residue in the Pacific Northwest. Res. Pap. PNW-RP-288. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station p 26Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    McClure JP, Knight HA (1984) Empirical Yields of Timber and Forest Biomass in the Southeast. Res. Pap. SE-245. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, p 84Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stokes BJ, Watson WF, Savelle IW (1985) Alternate biomass harvesting systems using conventional equipment. In: Saucier, Joseph R., ed. Proceedings of the 1984 Southern Forest Biomass Workshop; 1984 June 5–7; Athens, GA. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. pp. 111–114Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ince PJ (1979) How to estimate recoverable heat energy in wood or bark fuels. General Technical Report. FPL-GTR-29. Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory: [7] p 27Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ellis TH (1978) Economic analysis of wood- or bark-fired systems. Gen. Tech. Rep. FPL-16. Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory, p 19Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Koch P, McKenzie DW (1976) Machine to harvest slash, brush, and thinnings for fuel and fiber- a concept. J For 74(12):809–812Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sirois DL (1981) Some engineering aspects of the Nicholson-Koch mobile chipper. ASAE Paper 81–1077. St. Joseph, MI: American Society of Agricultural Engineers. 11 pGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eza DA, McMinn JW, Dress PE (1984) Wood Residue Distribution Simulator (WORDS). General Technical Report. SE-28. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, p 6Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Laks PE, Hemingway RW, Conner A (1979) Forest biomass as an energy source. J For 77:495–502Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Seki A, Sirois DL, Kamen T (1982) Harvesting and utilization. Hydropyrolysis of biomass to produce liquid hydrocarbon fuels: Rept. on Energy Tree Farm Workshop, Hilo, HI. p. 71–78Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Simmons EA, Morgan TA, Berg EC, Zarnoch SJ, Hayes SW, Thompson MT (2014) Logging utilization in Idaho: current and past trends. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-318. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 15 pGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Grushecky ST, Wiedenbeck J, Hassler CC (2013) Examination of roundwood utilization rates in West Virginia. For Prod J 62(7/8):507–515Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mitchell D (2009a) Stump Harvesting. In: Proceedings of 2009 COFE: Environmentally Sound Forest Operations 32nd Annual Meeting of the Council on Forest Engineering, June 15–18, 2009. 6pGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rummer B, Mitchell D (2013) Harvesting systems and costs for short rotation poplar. SunGrant Initiative 2012 National Conference: Science for Biomass Feedstock Production and Utilization, October 2–5, 2012, New Orleans, LAGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cardoso W, Mitchell D, Gallagher T, and de Souza D (2014) Harvesting short rotation woody crops with a shear. In: Proceedings of the Global Harvesting Technology, 2014 Council on Forest Engineering Annual Meeting. June 22 – 25, 2014. Moline, IL, p 6Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rummer B, McAvoy D (2013) Pinyon juniper harvest study: matching the harvesting system to conditions. For Source 18(1):12–15Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rummer B (2009) New technology in forest operations. Forest Landowner January/February:22–24Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Klepac J (2013) Performance of a Tracked Feller-Buncher with a Shear Head Operating in Small-Diameter Pine. In: Proceedings of the 2013 Council on Forest Engineering Annual Meeting: Forest Operations for a Changing Landscape; July 7–10, 2013; Missoula, MT, p 9Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Klepac J, Rummer B, Thompson J (2011) Harvesting small trees for bio-energy. In: Proceedings of the 34th Council on Forest Engineering Annual Meeting, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada, June 2011, p 11Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jernigan P, Gallagher T, Mitchell D, Teeter L (2011) High tonnage forest biomass production systems from southern pine energy plantations. In: Proceedings of the 34th Council on Forest Engineering annual meeting, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada, June 2011, p 6Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sprinkle J, Mitchell D (2013) Characteristics of Comminuted Forest Biomass. In: Proceedings of the 67th International Convention of the Forest Products Society; June 9–11, 2013; Austin, TX. 7pGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Anderson N, Chung W, Loeffler D, Jones JG (2012) A productivity and cost comparison of two systems for producing biomass fuel from roadside forest treatment residues. For Prod J 62(3):223–233Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Thompson J, Sprinkle W (2013) Production, cost and chip characteristics of in-woods microchipping. In: Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting of the Council on Forest Engineering. July 8–10, 2013, Missoula, MT. 5 pGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Smidt M, Mitchell D (2014) Chipping and grinding production rate calculator. Technical Release 14-R-7. Forest Resources Association Inc. (May 2014): 1–2. 2 pGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    do Canto JL, Klepac J, Rummer B, Savoie P, Seixas F (2011) Evaluation of two round baling systems for harvesting understory biomass. Biomass Bioenergy 35:2163–2170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Klepac J, Rummer B, (2010) Harvesting understory biomass with a baler. In: Proceedings of 2010 COFE: 33rd Annual Meeting of the Council on Forest Engineering, June 6–9, 2010. Auburn, AL, pp 1–11Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mitchell D (2011b) Bundling Logging Residues with a Modified John Deere B-380 Slash Bundler. In: Shelly, John R., ed. Woody Biomass Utilization: Proceedings of the International Conference on Woody Biomass Utilization. Starkville, MS, August 4–5, 2009. Forest Products Society: Madison, WI, pp 58–63Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Meadows S, Gallagher T, Mitchell D (2010) Project summary: Application of a trailer-mounted slash bundler for southern logging. In: Proceedings of 2010 COFE: 33rd Annual Meeting of the Council on Forest Engineering, June 6–9, 2010, [CD-ROM]. Auburn, ALGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Meadows S, Gallagher T, Mitchell D (2011) A new slash bundling concept for use in a Southern U.S. logging system. For Prod J 61(3):210–215Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gottfried G, Overby S (2011) Assessing mechanical mastication and thinning-piling-burning treatments on the pinyon-juniper woodlands of southwestern Colorado. Fire Sci Brief 145:1–6Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Klepac J, Rummer B (2012) Off-road transport of pinyon/juniper. In: Proceedings of the 35th Council on Forest Engineering Annual Meeting, Engineering New Solutions for Energy Supply and Demand. New Bern, NC. September 9–12, 2012Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Thompson J, Mitchell Dana, Klepac J (2014) Advantages and disadvantages of untrimmed wood in the supply chain. 2014. In: Proceedings of the Global Harvesting Technology, 2014 Council on Forest Engineering Annual Meeting. June 22 – 25, 2014. Moline, IL. 8 pGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Thompson J, Klepac K. Mitchell D (2015) Loading productivity of untrimmed and trimmed pulpwood. In: Proceedings of the 38th Annual COFE Meeting—Engineering Solutions for Non-Industrial Private Forest Operations. July 19–22, 2015. Lexington, KY, p 6Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Thompson JD, Klepac J, Sprinkle W (2012) Trucking Characteristics for an In-woods Biomass Chipping Operation. In: Proceedings of the 2012 Council on Forest Engineering Annual Meeting: Engineering New Solutions for Energy Supply and Demand; September 9–12, 2012; New Bern, NC. 4pGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Chung W, Venn TJ, Loeffler D, Jones G, Han H, Calkin DE (2012) Assessing the potential for log sort yards to improve financial viability of forest restoration treatments. For Sci 58(6):641–651Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Han H, Bilek EM, Dramm J, Loeffler D, Calkin D (2011) Financial feasibility of a log sort yard handling small-diameter logs: A preliminary study. West J Appl For 26(4):174–182Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wang X (2012) Advanced sorting technologies for optimal wood products and woody biomass utilization. In: Proceedings of 2012 bio-based material science and engineering conference (IEEE cat. # CFP1240T-ART). Changsha, China, October 21–23, 2012; pp. 175–179Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Mitchell D (2009b) Logging deck organization with a bundler. In: Society of American Foresters National Convention, Orlando, Florida, September 30-October 4, 2009. 8pGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Cutshall J, Greene D, Baker S, Mitchell D, (2011) Transpirational drying effects on energy and ash content from whole-tree chipping operations in a southern pine plantation. In: Proceedings of the 34th Council on Forest Engineering annual meeting, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada, June 2011, pp 1–9Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Klepac J, Mitchell D, Thompson J (2014) The effect of pile size on moisture content of loblolly pine while field drying. In: Proceedings of the Global Harvesting Technology, 2014 Council on Forest Engineering Annual Meeting. June 22 – 25, 2014. Moline, IL, p 9Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Neary DG, (2015) Best practices guidelines for managing water in bioenergy feedstock production. Task 43. Report 2015:TR02. IEA Bioenergy, p 125Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Page-Dumroese D, Coleman M, Jones JG, Venn T, Dumroese RK, Anderson N, Chung W, Loeffler D, Archuleta J, Kimsey M, Badger P, Shaw T, McElligott K (2009) Portable in-woods pyrolysis: using forest biomass to reduce forest fuels, increase soil productivity and sequester carbon. Paper presented at the 2009 North American Biochar Conference, Boulder, COGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Mitchell D, Elder T (2010) Torrefaction? What’s that? In: Proceedings of 2010 COFE: 33rd Annual Meeting of the Council on Forest Engineering. Auburn, AL: June 6–9, 2010. [CD-ROM] 1–7Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Anderson N, Jones JG, Page-Dumroese D, McCollum D, Baker S, Loeffler D, Chung W (2013) A comparison of producer gas, biochar and activated carbon from two distributed scale thermochemical conversion systems used to process forest biomass. Energies 6:164–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Kim D, Anderson N, Chung W (2015) Financial performance of a mobile pyrolysis system used to produce biochar from sawmill residues. For Prod J 65(5/6):189–197Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Gu H, Bergman R (2015). Life-cycle GHG emissions of electricity from syngas produced by pyrolyzing woody biomass. In: Proceedings of the 58th International Convention of Society of Wood Science and Technology June 7–12, 2015 Jackson Lake Lodge, Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming, USA, pp 376–389Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Mitchell D, Gallagher T (2010) Extended working hours: impacts on workers. Forest Oper Rev Summer 2010 12(3):24–26Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Mitchell D (2012) Ups and Downs Associated with Implementing Shift Schedules on a Southern Harvesting Operation. In: Proceedings of the 2012 Council on Forest Engineering Annual Meeting: Engineering New Solutions for Energy Supply and Demand; September 9–12, 2012; New Bern, NC, p 5Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Perdue JH, Young TM, Rials TG (2011) The Biomass Site Assessment Model—BioSAT. Final Report for U.S. Forest Service, Southern Research Station submitted by The University of Tennessee, Knoxville. 282 pGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Wells L, Anderson N, Chung W (2013) A remote sensing approach to estimating forest treatment residue for alternative operational configurations on the Uncompahgre Plateau, Colorado, USA. In: Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting of the Council on Forest Engineering. July 8–10, 2013, Missoula, MTGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Hogland JS, Anderson NM, (2015) USFS Rocky Mountain Research Station Raster Utility. http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/raster-utility/
  55. 55.
    Hogland JS, Anderson NM, Chung W, Wells L (2014) Estimating forest characteristics using NAIP imagery and ArcObjects. In: Proceedings of the 2014 ESRI Users Conference; July 14–18, 2014, San Diego, CA. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research Institute. http://proceedings.esri.com/library/userconf/proc14/papers/155_181.pdf
  56. 56.
    Chung W, Anderson N (2012) Spatial modeling of potential woody biomass flow. In: Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Council on Forest Engineering: Engineering New Solutions for Energy Supply and Demand. Compiled by Joe Roise. September 9–12, 2012, New Bern, NCGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Keefe R, Anderson N, Hogland J, Muhlenfeld K (2014) Woody biomass logistics [Chapter 14]. In: Karlen D (ed) Cellulosic energy cropping systems. John Wiley, West Sussex, pp 251–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Rummer B (2010) Tools for fuel management. In: Elliot, William J.; Miller, Ina Sue; Audin, Lisa (eds) Cumulative watershed effects of fuel management in the western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-231. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. p. 69–78Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Anderson N, Bergman R, Page-Dumroese D. In press. A supply chain approach to biochar systems. In: Bruckman V (ed) Biochar: A Regional Supply Chain Approach in View of Climate Change Mitigation, Cambridge University Press, ppGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Southern Research Station (SRS) (2015) Southern Research Station Operations Research Unit Tools. http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/forestops/products/tools.html
  61. 61.
    Miller S, Essen M, Anderson N et al. (2014) Burgeoning biomass: Creating efficient and sustainable forest biomass supply chains in the Rockies. Science You Can Use Bulletin, Issue 13. Fort Collins, CO: Rocky Mountain Research Station, p 10Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    de Souza D, Gallagher T, Mitchell D, Smidt M, McDonald T, Wright J (2014) Determining the impact of felling method and season of year on coppice regeneration. In: Proceedings of the Global Harvesting Technology, 2014 Council on Forest Engineering Annual Meeting. June 22 – 25, 2014. Moline, IL, p 6Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    de Souza D, Gallagher T, Smidt M, Mitchell D, McDonald T (2015) Determining the Impact of Felling Method and Season of Year on Coppice Regeneration. In: Proceedings of the 38th Annual COFE Meeting – Engineering Solutions for Non-Industrial Private Forest Operations. July 19–22, 2015. Lexington, KY, p 13Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Wear LR, Aust WM, Bolding MC, Strahm BD, Dolloff AC (2015) Forestry best management practices and sediment control at skidder stream crossings. In: Proceedings of the 17th biennial southern silvicultural research conference. e-Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-203. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 91–96 6 pGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Curzon MT, D’Amato AW, Palik BJ (2014) Harvest residue removal and soil compaction impact forest productivity and recovery: potential implications for bioenergy harvests. For Ecol Manag 329:99–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Mitchell D, Klepac J (2014) Harvesting considerations for ecosystem restoration projects. In: Proceedings of the Global Harvesting Technology, 2014 Council on Forest Engineering Annual Meeting. June 22 – 25, 2014. Moline, IL, p 7Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Thompson JD, Rummer B, Schweitzer C (2011) Harvesting productivity and disturbance estimates of three silvicultural prescriptions on the Daniel Boone National Forest, Kentucky. Proceedings, 17th central hardwood forest conference; 2010 April 5–7; Lexington, KY; Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-P-78. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station: 398–408Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Stottlemyer AD, Waldrop TA, Wang GG (2015) Prescribed burning and mastication effects on surface fuels in southern pine beetle-killed loblolly pine plantations. Ecol Eng 81:514–524. doi:10.1016/j.ecoleng.2015.04.076, 11 pCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Lowell EC, Becker DR, Rummer R, Larson D, Wadleigh L (2008) An integrated approach to evaluating the economic costs of wildfire hazard reduction through wood utilization opportunities in the Southwestern United States. For Sci 54(3):273–283Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Jain T, Battaglia M, Han H-S, Graham R, Keyes C, Fried J, Sandquist J (2014) A comprehensive guide to fuel management practices for dry mixed conifer forests in the northwestern United States: inventory and model-based economic analysis of mechanical fuel treatments. Res. Note RMRS-RN-64, Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 2 pGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Thompson M, Anderson N (2015) Modeling fuel treatment impacts on suppression cost savings: State-of-the-art. Calif Agric 69(3):164–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Schweinle J, Rodl A, Borjesson P, et al. (2015) Assessing the environmental performance of biomass supply chains: methods, results, challenges and limitations. Task 43. Report 2015:TR01. IEA Bioenergy. 121 pGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Domke GM, Becker DR, D’Amato AW, Ek AR, Woodall CW (2012) Carbon emissions associated with the procurement and utilization of forest harvest residues for energy, northern Minnesota, USA. Biomass Bioenergy 36:141–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Rummer B, Klepac J, Thompson J (2012) Technology for biomass feedstock production in southern forests and GHG implications. In: Butnor, John R., ed. 2012. In: Proceedings of the 16th biennial southern silvicultural research conference. e-Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-156. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 278–282Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Loeffler D, Anderson N (2014) Emissions tradeoffs associated with cofiring forest biomass with coal: a case study in Colorado, USA. Appl Energy 113:67–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Mitchell D (2011a) Air quality on biomass harvesting operations. In: Proceedings of the 34th Council on Forest Engineering annual meeting, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada, June 2011, p 9Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service (2010) USFS R&D Bioenergy and Biobased Products Strategic Direction, 2009–2014. Paper FS-940. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Anderson WF, Steiner J, Raper R (2011) The Creation and Role of the USDA Biomass Research Centers. Asp Appl Biol 112:21–28Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Biomass Research and Development (BRD). (2015) Biomass Research and Development: Advancing Bioenergy Technologies. Website: http://www.biomassboard.gov/
  80. 80.
    Woodall CW, Ince PJ, Skog KE, Aguilar FX, Keegan CE, Sorenson CB, Hodges DG, Smith WB (2011) An overview of the forest products sector downturn in the United States. For Prod J 61(8):595–603Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Mitchell D, Ayala R [Compilers] (2005) Biomass publications of the forest operations research unit: a synthesis. [CD-ROM]. USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Auburn, AL. Accessed 23 December 2004Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Mitchell D, Klepac J (2008) Processing woody biomass with a modified horizontal grinder. In: Proceedings of the 31st Annual Meeting of the Council on Forest Engineering: Addressing Forest Engineering Challenges for the Future, p 7Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Mitchell D, Seixas F, Klepac J (2008) Modified precision-husky progrind H-3045 for chipping biomass. Forest Oper Rev 10(4):1–5Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Anderson N, Chung W, Keefe R (2015) BANR overview: feedstock logistics and processing. Colorado State University, Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory. http://banr.nrel.colostate.edu/teams/feedstock-logistics-processing/
  85. 85.
    Heinimann HR (2007) Forest operations engineering and management—the ways behind and ahead of a scientific discipline. Croat J Forest Eng 28(1):107–12Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York (outside the USA) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.US Forest ServiceMissoulaUSA
  2. 2.US Forest ServiceAuburnUSA

Personalised recommendations