Search

The connections between forest products operations and water resources in the United States is considered and, where possible, quantified. Manufacture of wood, pulp, and paper products and the influences of forest management and forest products manufacture on water quality are discussed. Most fresh water in the US originates in forested areas. Responsible harvesting strategies, best management practices, and forest re-growth combine to minimize or eliminate changes in water availability and degradation of water quality due to harvesting. Relative to alternative land uses and large-scale disturbance events, forested areas produce the highest quality of fresh water. Water inputs for the manufacture of forest products total about 5.8 billion m3 per year, an amount equal about 0.4% of the surface and groundwater yield from timberland. Approximately 88% of water used in manufacturing is treated and returned directly to surface waters, about 11% is converted to water vapor and released during the manufacturing process, and 1% is imparted to products or solid residuals. Extensive study and continued monitoring of treated effluents suggest few or no concerns regarding the compatibility of current effluents with healthy aquatic systems.

Climate change mitigation benefits from the land sector are not being fully realised because of uncertainty and controversy about the role of native forest management. The dominant policy view, as stated in the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report, is that sustainable forest harvesting yielding wood products, generates the largest mitigation benefit. We demonstrate that changing native forest management from commercial harvesting to conservation can make an important contribution to mitigation. Conservation of native forests results in an immediate and substantial reduction in net emissions relative to a reference case of commercial harvesting. We calibrated models to simulate scenarios of native forest management for two Australian case studies: mixed-eucalypt in New South Wales and Mountain Ash in Victoria. Carbon stocks in the harvested forest included forest biomass, wood and paper products, waste in landfill, and bioenergy that substituted for fossil fuel energy. The conservation forest included forest biomass, and subtracted stocks for the foregone products that were substituted by non-wood products or plantation products. Total carbon stocks were lower in harvested forest than in conservation forest in both case studies over the 100-year simulation period. We tested a range of potential parameter values reported in the literature: none could increase the combined carbon stock in products, slash, landfill and substitution sufficiently to exceed the increase in carbon stock due to changing management of native forest to conservation. The key parameters determining carbon stock change under different forest management scenarios are those affecting accumulation of carbon in forest biomass, rather than parameters affecting transfers among wood products. This analysis helps prioritise mitigation activities to focus on maximising forest biomass. International forest-related policies, including negotiations under the UNFCCC, have failed to recognize fully the mitigation value of native forest conservation. Our analyses provide evidence for decision-making about the circumstances under which forest management provides mitigation benefits.