Bohn at Odds with Other Supervisors over Support of Biomass Project
Supervisor Rex Bohn speaking at the Board of Supervisors meeting in November of 2022.
Humboldt County Board of Supervisors Chair Rex Bohn’s support of a controversial Northern California biomass project is being challenged as other supervisors are against it.
The division was readily apparent at the close of an Oct. 29 hearing on a wood pellet manufacturing and export project slated for Tuolume and Lassen counties.
The project’s environmental review is led by the Golden State Finance Authority, which is affiliated with the Rural Counties Representatives of California (RCRC).
Bohn is the board’s RCRC representative and is also a board member of Golden State Natural Resources, which was formed by RCRC and is the biomass project’s manager.
Before the Board of Supervisors was a proposed letter requesting an extension of the project’s Draft Environmental Impact Report public comment period.
With Supervisor Michelle Bushnell absent, the letter was unanimously approved.
But the proceedings went off-road a bit when Supervisor Steve Madrone proposed going further.
He moved to have the county write a letter in opposition to the project and the motion was seconded by Supervisor Natalie Arroyo.
Bohn questioned the action and suggested it’s an affront to the collective will of the rest of the rural counties that make up RCRC.
“This project has been going on for eights years and I think it’s a pretty good project because this is what 40 rural counties have agreed upon to help the forest fire situation,” he said.
Referring to a term used earlier by Madrone, Bohn said to him, “We keep talking about the big picture but we’re only looking at your big picture.”
Although he has concerns about the project, Supervisor Mike Wilson had said he’s “uncomfortable” with sending an opposition letter at this stage of environmental review.
Further discussion led Madrone to withdraw his motion.
But the opposition talk irked Bohn, who asked County Administrative Officer Elishia Hayes for clarification on whether it’s “opening the door” for complaints about the actions of board members appointed to represent the county.
Hayes said supervisors appointed to other boards do represent the county but there is indeed an open door for other supervisors to weigh in.
“Obviously there are times – case in point, right now – where the board is not always in lock step on an issue,” she continued.
She said if a supervisor believes a fellow board member appointed to represent the county “has not done that appropriately or disagrees with a vote” then agendizing a discussion on it is an option.
“Great, thank you – fun stuff,” Bohn said, noting the tension.
Madrone then talked about how the Board of Supervisors majority has shifted politically and also recalled a recent trespass of his county representation on the Great Redwood Trail Agency’s board of directors.
He said Bohn and Bushnell – the board’s conservative minority – were invited to be on a panel at a recent Buckeye Conservancy forum on the Great Redwood Trail “when I’m the duly-appointed and unanimously supported boardmember representing the board on the Great Redwood Trail.”
Madrone attended the forum and said he asked Bohn and Bushnell if one of them was willing to “step down so I could participate but because you both chose not to, I couldn’t participate because of the Brown Act and I had to sit there and just be quiet.”
Saying supervisors needed to “pull it back in a little bit,” Hayes advised them to stay on topic.
Bohn quickly called for the next agenda item, a closed session on legal matters.
During the hearing, representatives of environmental groups said the biomass project will be polluting and rich in greenhouse gas emissions.
RCRC’s president and lead attorney had described the project as a benefit to forest health and rural economies, and a replacement to overseas coal use.
Supervisors will continue to comment as the project proceeds and Madrone said he intends to agendize a proposed letter expressing the board majority’s concerns about it.
Join the discussion! For rules visit: https://kymkemp.com/commenting-rules
Comments system how-to: https://wpdiscuz.com/community/postid/10599/
Bohn is right. We are wasting huge amounts of biomass in our forest industry currently and if we want to effectively manage our forests this is an easy win win. Of course the left is against any reasonable answer. Windmills and solar farms for them while our forests burn.
I’ve been a logger, and I have and still do run a forestry crew, largely focused on reducing wildfire hazard and restoring and enhancing ecosystem health. I say, as with most forestry issues, the devil is in the details. Over simplifying the matter, what needs to happen on a landscape scale is to remove the surface brush and the smaller suppressed trees in the understory, and leave behind the dominant and co-dominant (taller) trees in the overstory. Personally, I can’t imagine how the former can be harvested efficiently enough to supply an industry on the proposed scale. I know they’re talking about East of here, but for a local analogy, who’s going to set chokers on a bunch of tanoak sprouts, whitethorn, and manzanita, skid them out of the woods, get them to town, and process them, especially without breaking the bank on the labor?
Without having read the plans, my instinct is this is just another thinly veiled effort at increasing high grading logging shows. I also agree with the argument that shipping the product overseas is bonkers in the context of climate change. If the project does proceed, use the product locally. Europe has plenty of forests to make pellets out of.
I agree with some of the hurdles but do not see exporting products to Europe a big problem. THey actually don’t have the forests we have in the US. A similar thing was done in 2010 when the Obama administration subsidized renewable power projects (wood chips – cogen) when we last had a viable chip industry in Humboldt. It was ended by the no carbon allowed crowd. The subsidies jump start the industry and can be lowered over time as the industry scales up. Pair this with COGEN and rehab siviculture forestry will be an economically viable option to improve our forests.
Thank you for this, I was wondering how much damage could be done to the forest hauling all the downer trees out. Not well thought out plans, AS USUAL with our BOS. I observe forest health daily and can imagine this as very destructive.
I guess the representatives don’t understand that more greenhouse gases will be emitted if the biomass Burns as a result of forest fires. If it’s process through a biomass generator then it has to meet California’s environmental standards.
They only govern based in their false virtue.
Maybe they’re getting kick backs from the coal(ition) peeps 🙃
That’s not the real point the leftists can’t have rural communities being prosperous they want us broke and easy to control
Love those trumpish thought processes.
If every job at the plant pays at least $25 plus good medical vision and dental, then I could support it.
The one biomass plant in operation is owned by PG&E. You’ll need to become one of their employees first.
Biomass Power in Humboldt County: A Sustainable Choice or a False Dilemma?
Humboldt County, CA – A proposed biomass plant in Humboldt County has stirred debate over the environmental impact of biomass energy and its potential to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires. Advocates argue that burning organic material in a controlled setting, such as a biomass plant, is a more sustainable choice than letting these materials fuel forest fires, which can release large amounts of carbon dioxide and other pollutants into the atmosphere. However, some environmentalists and community members question whether this framing presents a false choice.
The claim at the heart of this issue is that a biomass plant is inherently better for the environment than forest fires. Supporters of biomass energy contend that harvesting forest fuels like wood waste and dead plant material for energy could prevent this combustible biomass from igniting in a wildfire, which often produces more carbon emissions and harmful pollutants. “Controlled burning in a biomass plant is a way to put this organic material to use, turning a fire hazard into a renewable energy source,” said a spokesperson for Humboldt Redwood Company, which operates the Scotia biomass plant that converts wood waste into electricity.
According to the Redwood Coast Energy Authority (RCEA), approximately 33% of Humboldt’s energy comes from biomass, making it a significant part of the local power supply. The region’s biomass facilities, such as the Scotia plant, source fuel from sawmill residues and forest thinning operations, potentially reducing the fuel load that could otherwise contribute to wildfire risk.
A Controversial Trade-Off
Critics, however, argue that this framing oversimplifies the environmental impacts of biomass energy and could mask other consequences of biomass combustion. Groups like the Humboldt Coalition for Clean Energy have voiced concerns about greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants, including particulates that can affect local air quality. Additionally, while the argument that biomass is carbon-neutral hinges on the idea that new vegetation will absorb the same amount of carbon released by burning, this balance is only achievable through sustainable forest management practices—a process that takes decades.
“This isn’t just about choosing biomass over forest fires; it’s about ensuring sustainable energy practices that don’t add to the carbon footprint or degrade air quality,” says local environmental advocate Marla Franklin. Critics like Franklin contend that presenting biomass energy as a direct alternative to wildfire risk reduction is a false choice. They argue that without proper oversight and sustainable practices, biomass harvesting can disrupt ecosystems, contribute to habitat loss, and undermine efforts to reduce greenhouse gases.
Alternative Approaches and Questions of Sustainability
The debate has also raised questions about alternative forest management practices. Some advocates suggest that reducing wildfire risk could be better achieved through targeted forest thinning, prescribed burns, and investments in non-combustion-based renewable energy, such as wind and solar, which do not involve emissions from combustion.
Dr. Jane Milgram, an environmental scientist at Humboldt State University, explains, “While biomass energy is renewable, it’s not as clean as wind or solar, and it’s only carbon-neutral under very strict conditions. For many, this is not about choosing biomass over wildfire but finding a more sustainable balance between energy needs and forest management.”
The RCEA and local agencies continue to support biomass as part of a broader strategy to mitigate wildfire risks and provide renewable energy. However, as more community members and environmental groups call for transparency and stricter environmental safeguards, the question remains: Is biomass energy truly the lesser of two environmental risks, or does it present a false choice that limits more sustainable solutions?
Balancing Benefits with Environmental Risks
As Humboldt County weighs the pros and cons, it faces a complex decision on the future of biomass energy. Supporters see it as a practical solution for reducing wildfire risk and using otherwise wasted materials. Skeptics warn that biomass energy needs stronger oversight to prevent the environmental impact from becoming worse than the problems it aims to solve.
For now, Humboldt’s biomass industry continues to play a vital role in the local energy landscape. But as the debate intensifies, the county’s residents and policymakers will need to consider whether biomass truly offers a cleaner choice—or if focusing on other sustainable energy solutions could better serve the region’s long-term goals.
Thank you for this.
I’m beginning to understand that putting a man in office like Bohn, is actually remarkable, especially when he does something like put the environment out front of the special interests who are probably paying off the entire Board, in one way or another…
Of course, Bushnell was absent during controversial times, as she usually is…
In this country, this is what we do with persons we can’t exactly incarcerate for their many crimes:
We elect them to Office!
Think of serving in the Oval Office or the Board of Supervisor’s Chambers as a form of imprisonment for a period of time…
Thanks for your service, Mr Bohn, and Mr Trump…
I particularly enjoyed discovering that Humboldt is full of Republicans masquerading as Hippies…
Shipping wood chips literally around the world to burn them in the name of ecology is obviously not ecological, whatever else it may be.
Rex’s latest controversy reminds me of Roger Rodoni’s time on a Joint Powers board, representing the Supes, when he opposed seating tribes along with existing cities. A majority of the Supes disagreed with him, and he blew them off, saying they’d appointed him and were stuck with him. They disagreed, and replaced him. Just sayin’.
Funny how transporting bio mass around the world doesnt seen like a good idea but destroying third world countries for rare minerals to create solar panels that require components and raw materials be shipped several times around the world for a 20 to 25 year life span before being shipped yet again to third world countries to become toxic waste further destroying and impoverishing these small countries so that we can have “clean” people think that increasing demand on the grid by forcing people into most costly and less dependable autos or how about the massive amounts of energy used by sever farms crypto and data centers , ai search requires 10 times the amount of power to complete than a normal none ai search result but hey lets shut down anything someone might try to do to reduce the fire risks and perhaps get fire insurance rates to become something that people can afford again while making some power while they are at it ? Yep no body wants any body to do anything until there is a problem , then every body wants some body to do something and demands every body pays for something no body was supposed to do
Rex Bohn, who said a successful local business woman should serve men in wet t-shirts – has a financial stake in this matter.
Off course he is for it. Wise up. Bohn is for Bohn making $$.
Here is more coverage of Drax, the UK company that is the largest GHG emitter in the UK and the biggest biomass burner in the world. Drax is the company that Rex has been working with GSNR to bring to California.
https://www.landclimate.org/appalling-drax-owned-facilities-broke-environmental-laws-more-than-11000-times-in-the-us/
I consider myself truly fortunate to have never had occassion to have anything whatsoever to do with Rex Bohn. With any luck, that streak will continue until he or I is dead.
You are fortunate.
Wish I could say the same.
You ever in your whole life ever stop and wonder if the opinions you have formed are wrong
Papa knows best
Good to see a lively discussion on the pros and cons of biomass.
The Pacific Northwest is an incredibly productive timber/wood products producer. However, I’m surprised not to see a discussion regarding converting sawmill/logging residuals (chips/sawdust/hog fuel) into construction materials, such as chipboard, as an alternative to biomass.
I stopped using my fireplace years ago for my health and safety as well as my neighbors.
I was very interested in reading this article. The Scotts Valley Band of Pomo tribe has proposed building a biomass productuon facility in Upper Lake here in Lake County. It has been up for discussion here locally and thank you for this report.