It's not often I have the opportunity to connect computers, biomass and national forest protection.

Bryan Bird, National Forest Protection Alliance board member and blogger for BLOG IT, DON'T LOG IT, writes:

There’s a train leaving the station, and it may be hauling your chipped-up national forest away to a power plant. The biomass express is gaining steam from politicians, private industry, alternative fuel advocates and even some in the conservation community.

Someone had better pull the emergency brakes quickly before our shared forest heritage is sacrificed to the modern consumer lifestyle.

Biomass energy generally comes from three sources: wood, waste, and alcohol fuels. Wood energy may be produced from harvested wood as a fuel and from wood waste streams. What is at issue here is virgin woody materials produced from public forest lands for the sake of energy production.

Trees can fuel our energy needs, but what are the consequences for our forests, the wildlife they support and the clean water they produce?

We don’t know. Sure, we can make educated guesses, but will they bear out in the long run? Well intentioned foresters once called for total suppression of all fire in western forests (unfortunately some politicians still do) and that resulted in unnatural fuel buildup and big, nasty fires in recent times. Which brings us to an important question: Can a by-product of forest restoration and community wildfire protection be energy?

At what scale and for how long can we expect to remove biomass sustainably? No one really knows.

What is needed now:

* A frank discussion about private enrichment from public forests
* Scientifically rigorous availability/feasibility studies
* Regional precautionary principles

The first item is an ongoing dialogue and won’t be solved immediately. In the meantime, the second item has been tackled in Colorado. A feasibility study based on ecological limitations as well as social (e.g. roadless areas and big game units) is critical if society is to even consider biomass production from public forests. It may be that such use of our public forest lands is unjustifiable ethically, let alone ecologically. Should public forests even be considered for private profit?

In 1894, when the national forest system (then called forest preserves) was first established, no one could “cut, remove, or use any of the timber, grass or other natural products.” The preserves were established to protect water supplies. The forests were not open to logging until a rider was passed in 1897, the Organic Act. Still, the act recognized the importance of national forests as a perpetual source of clean water. Why encourage an entirely new market force on our commons?

An example of the third item, precautionary principles, was recently finalized in New Mexico.

Forest Guardians participated, upon invitation, in the New Mexico Biomass Evaluation Taskforce from which a set of Forest Restoration Principles arose. We believe if biomass is going to be a by-product of community fire protection or forest restoration projects, these principles will begin to assure protection for the wildlife and water that is so valuable to the State of New Mexico.

If wild forests are to survive, communities need to be fire-proofed and some low-elevation, dry forests will require restoration in order to withstand natural fire. The next step for this taskforce is to secure funding and support for a biomass feasibility study in the state. Land managers, businesses, and conservationists need to know with certainty that there will be a sustainable biomass by-product with the necessary environmental safeguards in place. That concern has not been adequately addressed; we are proceeding on a train with no conductor. At least we now we have the brakes in place.