In response to: Golden State Natural Resources’ draft environmental impact report spells danger for forests, climate, communities

I’m disheartened with the inaccuracies that were shared in a recent opinion piece from the Natural Resources Defense Council regarding the proposed Golden State Natural Resources forest resiliency project, especially when it comes from a Los Angeles based author who has no familiarity with the challenges we face in rural Northern California. Being surrounded by forest, we face an ever-present danger of a large fire ripping through our community.

Despite what the opinion states, there is an extreme amount of scientific evidence that shows mitigation projects like these do decrease fire danger and increase forest resiliency, which is why they are not only embraced, but are currently taking place around the state. This is not the only inaccuracy in the article.

The article’s description of GSNR’s proposed wildfire fuel reduction projects as “logging operations” is simply untrue.

GSNR’s purpose is to remove and utilize high hazard fuels that could otherwise lead to catastrophic wildfire. The proposed treatment activities are designed with this sole focus, including 23 pages of detailed protocols in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) to ensure that GSNR’s forest work supports long-term forest health.

Each project must include a silvicultural treatment and vegetation less than 16 inches in diameter is the primary focus of most project types. Larger trees (over 30 inches) may only be removed in limited circumstances (e.g., fire-damaged trees unlikely to survive) and then only in consultation with qualified experts.

Clear cutting and conversion of forest land are explicitly prohibited, and sensitive areas are entirely excluded. Few “logging” projects would make such exhaustive commitments because GSNR is not a logging operation.

Moreover, the article’s scaremongering regarding air pollution and greenhouse gas impacts is equally misleading.

As the DEIR notes, the worst-case scenario cited in the article is just that. By selectively pulling figures from the DEIR, the project’s opponents ignore two obvious realities. Most importantly, wildfires themselves create massive air quality, climate change, and health impacts, not just in the immediate vicinity of the fire, but statewide and beyond. GSNR’s project reduces these impacts by reducing fire risk, which must be acknowledged for any realistic assessment of the project.

Similarly, considering the global drive to reduce dependence on coal, it is almost certain that some – or even all – of the pellets produced by GSNR will replace existing coal-burning power plants, thereby offsetting the harmful emissions of those facilities. The DEIR lays out all these alternatives, from the conservative worst-case scenario mentioned in the article to the more practical real-world scenarios that the article ignores.

While we appreciate the work advocates are doing to protect our environment, we would hope that they base their arguments on facts. We also encourage our neighbors who may have questions about the project to read the DEIR themselves and not just rely on an outside voice who does not have our local perspective.