GSNR’S FOREST RESILIENCY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
Involves all national forests in R5.
“GSNR’s proposed project would improve the resiliency of California’s forestlands from catastrophic wildfire by sustainably gathering and processing excess biomass into wood pellets for use in renewable energy generation, often as a replacement for fossil fuels such as coal. The proposed project would include the development of two wood pellet processing facilities, one in the foothills of the Central Sierra Nevada Mountain range, in Tuolumne County, and one in the Modoc Plateau of Northern California, in Lassen County. The finished pellets would then be transported by rail to the Port of Stockton for international shipping.”
Q9. Is GSNR’s project supported by the U.S. Forest Service?
Yes. GSNR’s forest resiliency project is supported through a 20-year Master Stewardship Agreement signed with the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) for all eighteen national forests in Region 5 (emphasis added) (covering much of California) to undertake forest management, restoration treatments, and fuel reduction activities. In this Agreement, USFS expressly acknowledged that this project will have significant benefits including, but not limited to, the following:
• Increase the number of acres of forest land treated substantially over the next twenty years.
• Decrease forest fuels, resulting in enhancing forest resiliency and reducing the risk of uncharacteristic catastrophic wildfires and benefitting air quality in both rural and urban California.
• Restore ecological/watershed functions through forest restoration activities resulting in improved watershed conditions resulting in cleaner and more plentiful water.
• Enhance wildlife habitat.
• Enhance public safety for residents, visitors, communities, and infrastructure.
• Provide an economical solution to the largescale removal of biomass from the state’s forests.
• Enhance carbon sequestration.
It was about ten years ago I asked a California Forestry Association rep why no one was pushing for a pellet facility in the Sierra. They told me that the material is difficult to process when there’s a diverse and unpredictable species mix such as is the one found in the Sierra. They said pellet mills work well in Oregon because of the dominance of D-fir, but each unit in the Sierra could have a drastically different mix of pine, cedar, D-fir and w-fir and that makes it economically inefficient to have a consistent product. Not sure if new technology has solved that problem or if there’s something I am not understanding.
Also, how in the heck does it make sense to use non-renewable energy to haul the material to Stockton and then use non-renewable energy to transport across the ocean to then use the material to generate energy (which I bet they are counting as a renewable source at the destination because shipping isn’t part of the equation)? Why wouldn’t one burn it in CA to generate power for CA? That part of the proposal is an unnecessary waste of energy. I am sure it pencils out, but it shouldn’t.
It does not pencil out. Manufacturing and shipping wood pellets to global energy markets is a loser on all fronts.
I hope someone in California will be willing to look into this. Apparently the organization is a “finance authority” which I guess explains why they had to do the 1312 page draft environmental report and are holding public meetings. It seems duplicative of any environmental analysis the FS would do..
And I’m with Anonymous that there should be uses for energy in California. It sounds, from here, as if government efforts are not as aligned and streamlined as they might be.
DEIR PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT PERIOD
The purpose of the public review period is to provide the public an opportunity to review and comment on the DEIR for GSNR’s proposed Forest Resiliency Demonstration Project.
The 60-day public review period for the DEIR begins October 22, 2024 and ends December 23, 2024. Golden State Finance Authority, as the lead agency for this process, must receive all written (including email) comments within this time period. Comments may be submitted to the attention of “GSNR DEIR Comment” at the following:
Via US Postal Service:
Golden State Finance Authority
1215 K Street, Suite 1650
Sacramento, CA 95814
Via Email:
[email protected]
Comments provided via email should include “GSNR DEIR Comment” in the subject line.
PUBLIC MEETINGS
Golden State Finance Authority is conducting three public meetings on the DEIR. While not required by CEQA, these meetings offer an important opportunity to introduce the public to the report and receive initial public comment. The meetings are intended to occur early in the 60-day review period to provide the public with key information on how to review the document and the various avenues for submitting public comment. The dates and locations of these meetings are as follows:
Lassen County Area Meeting: October 28, 2024 at 6:00 pm
Bieber Veterans Memorial Building
657-575 Bridge St., Bieber, CA 96009
Flyer
Stockton Area Meeting: October 30, 2024 at 6:30 pm
KIPP Stockton Elementary School
742 Dallas Ave, Stockton, CA 95206
A virtual participation option is available for this meeting by utilizing the following link: https://rcrcnet.zoom.us/j/88007664912 (Webinar ID: 880 0766 4912) or calling (833)548-0282. No registration required. Spanish and Tagalog translation will also be available for those attending on-site.
Flyer
Tuolumne County Area Meeting: November 4, 2024 at 6:00 pm
Chicken Ranch Casino, Event Hall
16929 Chicken Ranch Rd., Jamestown, CA 95327
Flyer
Thanks Steve! I’m leaving Calif and will miss these but hopefully someone there can attend and report back.
Many “thinning” projects are proposing the removal of up to 80% of stand BA. To then claim that such actions would “Enhance carbon sequestration” after removing that many trees is beyond absurd and full on gaslighting. What planet did these people come from? Implementing this on all the NF lands will emit huge amounts of carbon into the atmosphere, greatly elevating global temperature beyond what would occur otherwise, which will subsequently create greater climate havoc for a millennium and reduce the overall rate of carbon sequestration for multiple reasons. Harvesting all of these trees will produce at least ten times more CO2 than wildfires, exacerbating the root cause of increased area burned (https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/25/). The scientists have been really clear about what we need to do to arrest global warming: stop burning fossil fuels (which actually means stop emitting CO2, not switch to burning wood which emits more CO2 than coal per MWH), reduce CO2 emissions from cement, and stop deforestation. Did they not get the memo?
I’ve never seen that kind of marking prescription, in the Sierra Nevada National Forests. In drier places, (which is probably what you are referencing), I’m not a fan of such heavy-handed ‘management’. It wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world if they only took 2/3s of that amount, leaving the biggest and best trees.
I’m quite proud of the timber marking I did on my last assignment, before I retired. We cut trees averaging 15 inches in diameter, while leaving ALL of the old growth.
Hi Frank: I understand your passion and concern about the climate, and I am well aware that many people truly believe that the earth’s temperature is somehow regulated by people using fossil fuels, but when statements are made such as: “The scientists have been really clear about what we need to do,” I have to object.
I am a scientist and I regularly correspond with many other scientists who don’t accept your concerns as being either scientific or necessarily accurate. If you are going to blame “the” scientists for your beliefs and for their authority to tell the rest of us what to do, then you should name names. Otherwise it’s politics, not science.
Science is a game of challenges, not consensus. Scientists are, by definition, skeptics rather than lock-step authoritarians. Even if your claims regarding climate change can be scientifically demonstrated (hasn’t happened yet), why would we expect “scientists” to have any better answers than priests or elected officials as to what needs to be done to combat this claimed “existential threat?”
Since you refuse to concede that you deny an association between fossil fuels and climate change, I just have to keep pointing out when you do that: “Even if your claims regarding climate change can be scientifically demonstrated (hasn’t happened yet)…”
More background the implications of bringing Drax to establish the global wood pellet sector in California:
https://theintercept.com/2024/09/30/drax-wood-pellet-energy-air-pollution/
https://news.mongabay.com/2024/05/uks-drax-targets-california-forests-for-two-major-wood-pellet-plants/
https://stocktonia.org/news/environment/2024/09/11/proposed-wood-pellet-facility-at-port-of-stockton-faces-opposition-over-potential-environmental-impact/
Coverage of yesterday’s (incomplete) DEIR release:
https://www.courthousenews.com/california-biomass-plan-draws-scorn-of-environmentalists/
https://kmud.org/controversial-uk-biomass-company-drax-partners-with-california-rural-counties-to-expand-wood-pellet-production/
Golden State Natural Resources is a 501(c)(3) non-profit created by the California legislature. Its 2023 Form 990 is available on-line. I’ve read a lot of 990s, but never one like this.
1) GSNR reports $500,000 in revenue, all from a single source — a government grant.
2) GSNR reports expenses of $3 million.
3) After two years in operation, GSNR has net assets of -7,825,158. That’s right, it is almost $8 million in the hole.
4) For this superior financial performance, its highest-paid employee is awarded an annual compensation package of $642,547.
You ain’t seen nothing yet. Once GSNR actually starts processing wood chips, this red ink will turn into a flood.
Andy, I really appreciate your delving into 990s for us.
I concur, I love this kind of background research, thanks for putting it out there.
As far as I know, the main species available in the Sierras all would make good industrial pellets.
Does it make economic sense? It might not seem to pencil out, but the “costs” of leaving the material in the woods must be taken into account — high-intensity wildfires, degraded wildlife habitat, decreased flows from watersheds, etc.