Volume 1, Number 50 - Thursday, May 18, 2023
Now twice a week — Monday and Thursday!
Perspective
THE DEVIL IS ALWAYS IN THE DETAILS, as I noted last October I compared the House and Senate versions HERE.
There currently is no Senate version of the bill, but I took some time this morning to compare the latest version of the Save Our Sequoias Act — H.R. 2989 – with last year’s House bill with the same name H.R. 8168.
I’m not an attorney, so it’s possible that I’ve missed some legal nuances. But I picked up on some possibly important differences in this year’s House version compared to last year’s.
Some environmental organizations expressed opposition to last year’s bill, and at least one article HERE suggests they remain opposed. An analysis published by the Washington Post’s “The Climate 202,” says “the legislation is sparking internal divisions within the Democratic Party and the environmental movement.” You can read that HERE (gift link).
As I’ve reported here previously, H.R. 2989 is a bipartisan bill introduced by Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), who is Speaker of the House and also represents the 20th Congressional District — where any giant sequoia lands are found.
In a statement yesterday, McCarthy commended the House Committee on Natural Resources for favorably reporting H.R. 2989 the bill out of committee by voice vote. The SOS Act currently has more than 50 co-sponsors.
“Today is an important day,” McCarthy said yesterday. “Not only is the Save Our Sequoias Act one step closer to becoming law, but today’s approval further showcases the broad bipartisan support this bill has received since its introduction. I am grateful to Chairman Westerman and Congressman McClintock, both primary cosponsors of this legislation, for shepherding the SOS Act through committee. I am also thankful to the bill's co-sponsors, including Congressman Scott Peters who is the co-lead on this bill, for their continued support. I look forward to working with them and my colleagues to move the SOS Act through the House and ultimately enact it into law so that our giant sequoias are protected for generations to come.”
I’ve reported on the hearing in previous editions of this newsletter — and will continue those reports.
But back to changes in the House bill since last year.
Here’s what I found:
Last year’s bill “established” the Giant Sequoia Lands Coalition, but the new bill would “certify” the coalition. That’s because (I’ve just learned), last year the coalition that began in 2021 was formalized by a charter. Sequoia National Forest Supervisor Teresa Benson sent me a copy of the charter this morning, just minutes after I asked for it. And you can read it here:
Some of the details that last year’s bill included about the governance of the coalition are in the charter, and it’s clear to me that understanding the new bill requires also understanding the charter. I’ll report more on this in the future.
I noted these differences (between this year’s and last year’s SOS Act House bills):
• The new bill limits the emergency determination (upon which many actions related to giant sequoia lands management rest) to seven years after the date of the enactment of the Act. Last year’s bill had a longer period — 10 years after the date the emergency was declared.
• Last year’s bill called for the coalition to make information from its assessments of giant sequoia groves available for integration into the state of California’s Wildfire and Forest Resilience Action Plan and the Forest Service’s 10-year Wildfire Crisis Strategy (or successor plan). The new bill also requires information to be made available for the Department of Interior’s Wildfire Risk Five-Year Monitoring, Maintenance and Treatment Plan (or successor plan). I’m guessing (always bad!) the omission of the DOI plan in last year’s bill might have been an oversight.
• Another major difference between this year’s bill and last year’s will is that in addition to accelerating planned work, it accelerates funding. The total funding is less and would end three years earlier — a total of $205 million with $10 million in fiscal year 2024, $25 million in fiscal year 2025, $30 million each in fiscal years 2026, 2027 and 2028 and $40 million each in fiscal years 2029 through 2030.
You may have read that environmentalists object to the House version of the Act because it allows work to be done in the groves (when certain criteria is met) without NEPA review. That is true. I’m getting a little into the weeds here because you can’t summarize NEPA (the National Environmental Policy Act) in a bullet point, but NEPA allows land managers to make environmental evaluations and then determine that a given project is CE — “categorically excluded.” The proposed law would provide a CE umbrella of sorts over all of the “protection projects” covered by the act. In other words, if the bill is passed, Congress will be making the determination that certain activities will not require further review.
Among other concerns expressed by some environmental organizations is that the bill (current version and last year’s version) would make a change to the Wilderness Act that would essentially allow both federal land managers to conduct reforestation activities after a wildfire. As I reported HERE, NPS officials received a lot of pushback when they determined the Board Camp reforestation project was categorically excluded, in part because it was activity in the John Krebs Wilderness.
I was disappointed, but not surprised, to learn that my husband and I would not be able to visit Giant Forest on May 25. But we’re looking for other options to go visit some Big Trees soon — and will take the Sequoia Shuttle later in the season. You’ll find information about Sequoia Shuttle HERE (although I see they haven’t fully updated their website yet).
Wildfire, water & weather update
California’s weather hasn’t settled quite yet. The Big Melt continues and there is more indication that El Nino is returning. Here’s a gift link from the Mercury-News, and an excerpt:
El Niño conditions — the warming of ocean waters off South America that can alter weather across the globe, including California’s summer temperatures and the amount of rain it might receive next winter — are emerging in the Pacific Ocean for the first time in 4 years.
While El Niños do not automatically guarantee wet weather for California, historically, the stronger they are, the more likely it is that the state will have a rainy winter season. And after the dramatic series of storms this past winter that ended the drought and filled nearly empty reservoirs, another one back-to-back could increase flood risks.
The best Sierra Nevada weather forecasts can be found at NWS Hanford, HERE, and NWS Sacramento, HERE.
Did you know you can comment here?
It’s easy to comment on items in this newsletter. Just scroll down, and you’ll find a comment box. You’re invited to join the conversation!
Giant Sequoia News is now on Facebook
Consider following (or liking) Giant Sequoia News on Facebook for occasional updates in between newsletters. CLICK HERE to find us.
Giant sequoias in the news
• A news website known for its right-wing slant put together this article, largely from the Washington Post piece I referenced above: “Dems, Environmentalists Oppose Bill Aimed At Saving Iconic California Trees From Wildfires.” You can read it HERE.
• Here’s an article in the SJV Sun about the recent hearing in the House National Resources Committee about H.R. 2989 — the Save Our Sequoias Act.
• Utah’s KSL TV has a nice video story about Sequoia National Park and threats to giant sequoias HERE.
• On May 12, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development announced it had joined the chairman of the California Catholic Conference’s Environmental Stewardship Committee in lending support to H.R. 2989 - the Save Our Sequoias Act. Read their statement HERE.
• Travel & Leisure magazine’s website has an article about why the National Park Service has delayed opening of Giant Forest, HERE.
• The news website Roseville Today has an article about visiting the Placer County Big Trees Grove HERE. It’s not clear to me whether this area has reopened since its closure during the Mosquito Fire last year. Here’s what the Tahoe National Forest website says about the grove: “The grove within the American River Ranger District is extra exceptional for the mystery it contains — it is both the northernmost grove of this special species and also the most distant from all the other groves in the state.”
Giant sequoia around the world
People do grow giant sequoia in Colorado and you can see some of them HERE. You can also find petrified redwoods — perhaps ancestors of the giant sequoia and coast redwoods of California — at Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument.
From The Coloradoan, “Thirty-four million years ago, in a valley that is now central Colorado, the Guffey Volcano towered over the landscape. This valley was lush and rich with plants and trees, including redwood forests similar to those found today in Yosemite, Kings Canyon and Sequoia National Parks in California.”
And from Wikipedia: “The majority of the stumps have been identified as belonging to Sequoia affinis, a close relative of the modern coast redwood (S. sempervirens).” And, “Tree-ring analysis indicates that the environment that the redwoods grew in during the time of sediment deposition would have been even more favorable than the current climate that the redwoods in California grow in. The average ring width, one year of growth, is larger than the width of redwoods in central California.”
Thanks for reading!