Search for a command to run...
US forests and the forest products sector play an important role in mitigating climate change, sequestering enough carbon annually to offset nearly 20% of nationwide carbon emissions from fossil fuels. However, the quantity and durability of this climate benefit varies between ecosystems and becomes increasingly uncertain in the face of climate change and natural disturbances. Differences in forest management and wood utilization practices also influence the forestry sector’s net carbon balance. Without rigorous quantification informed by ecologically relevant data, acceptance of and investment in forests as a natural climate solution (NCS) through policy and market mechanisms may be limited at best or counterproductive at worst. In this report, we use a robust data-driven process to assess the carbon impacts of a range of forest management and wood utilization practices in Oregon. This approach includes: 1) consultation with state agency staff and forestry experts to understand forest management priorities and concerns, 2) development of business-as-usual (BAU) and climate-adjusted BAU scenarios, and alternative forest management and wood utilization scenarios that represent potential climate-smart forestry (CSF) practices, and 3) scenario modeling with i) a growth-and-yield based forest ecosystem model (CBM-CFS3) parameterized for Oregon, ii) a customized harvested wood products (HWP) dynamics model, iii) potential leakage factors applied to changing harvest rates, and iv) displacement factors to evaluate substitution benefits from using HWPs in place of more emissions-intensive materials. Results of our analysis show that from 2000-2021, the forest ecosystem in Oregon has fluctuated between being a net source and a net sink of carbon. However, in the future forests are projected to be a more consistent net source, with forecasted losses of carbon substantially increased due to climate change. Further, while the forest products sector provides consistent net carbon storage for the state, it is not strong enough to counteract ecosystem trends. Our results suggest that there are several opportunities to dampen future forest carbon losses, especially through practices focused on addressing loss of forest area to deforestation and post-fire regeneration failure, the latter of which is projected to increase substantially as climate change intensifies. Management practices which promote maintenance of existing forest carbon stocks, such as lengthened harvest rotations, can be effective at sequestering more carbon in the forest in the near term. However, intensifying disturbance losses and climate change related declines in productivity mean that in the long term, these practices may see diminishing or even negative returns. Further, wildfire resilience treatments reduce the risk of high-severity wildfire and associated direct emissions of carbon. Nevertheless, due to this major reduction in stand-replacing disturbance, wildfire resilience treatments cause a substantial increase in average forest age, with an associated decline in productivity and long-term carbon sequestration capacity. The climate mitigation potential of forests can be influenced by both carbon sequestration and carbon storage dynamics across the landscape, and climate-smart practices strive to balance both factors while supporting long-term forest health. Our results indicate that in Oregon focusing on landscape-level restoration and afforestation treatments, coupled with increased HWP efficiency, is a leading strategy for minimizing forest carbon losses now, while also maximizing forest carbon sequestration potential into the future.