Residents and experts warn of health and climate risks from proposed Golden State Natural Resources pellet plant

Residents, local experts and business owners used the Board of Supervisors' public-comment period to press the board on a proposed Golden State Natural Resources (GSNR) wood-pellet project, raising health, forest-management and climate concerns.

Several speakers cited the projectdraft environmental impact report and warned of significant air-quality and climate impacts. Elaine Hagan, a registered nurse, told the board she reviewed the DEIR and its air-pollution analysis and said operations at the proposed facilities "are expected to exceed the [cancer] threshold by approximately 3 to 6 times" even after proposed mitigation. "This project is all risk and no reward," Hagan said, arguing the county should not accept the health tradeoffs she described.

Another public commenter (recorded without a name) said the industrial pellet market requires non-rotting, solid wood rather than the brush and slash piles the project is said to address; on that basis the speaker warned the plant would encourage cutting whole trees rather than reduce slash. The commenter pointed to the experience in Smithers, British Columbia, where a large pellet plantthey saiddid not solve slash-pile burning and, the speaker said, led to whole-tree harvests instead.

Karen Johnson, a Twain Harte resident, said she and fellow advocates have documented a "carbon loophole" in the global pellet market and read a figure from the DEIR that she described as 1,900,000 metric tons of CO2-equivalent over a 20-year lifetime. Johnson urged the board to consider the risk that countries trimming biofuel subsidies could leave Tuolumne County with an unusable plant and cleanup liability.

Not all public comment opposed biomass. A local timber faller and firefighter said biomass projects that pay for removal of fuels can aid forest health, create local jobs and reduce fire risk; he asked supervisors to support projects that demonstrably remove ladder fuels and standing hazards.

Business owner Jonathan asked whether the Board would ultimately decide land-use entitlements for the project and urged supervisors to "lead" by taking a clear position rather than remaining neutral while the planning process proceeds.

What happened next: the board did not take action on the project during this session. Staff clarified that the Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC)/GSNR environmental review and future land-use entitlements will proceed through the planning process; any land-use permits will come before the Board at the appropriate time.

Why it matters: The comments raise three recurring issues the county will need to consider if and when land-use permits and CEQA findings return to the board: whether the proposed feedstock sourcing would incentivize whole-tree harvests, whether air-quality impacts can be reduced to acceptable levels for nearby residents, and whether contractual or regulatory guarantees and third-party verification will be enforceable and sufficient to prevent the plant from operating if promises are broken.

The record: Public speakers identified in the transcript include Elaine Hagan (registered nurse), Karen Johnson (Twain Harte resident), and Jonathan (local business owner). Several commenters referenced the DEIR and experience with Drax and other operators; the transcript shows no formal board vote on the pellet project at this meeting. The planning process remains ongoing and county staff advised that future land-use entitlements would come before the Board for decision.