Save Our Sequoias: Senate and House versions compared

As always, the devil is in the details

Volume 1, Number 9 - Monday, Oct. 3, 2022

The House version of the Save Our Sequoias Bill, introduced June 22, 2022 — and the Senate’s Save Our Sequoias Bill, introduced Sept. 13, 2022. What’s the same — and what’s different? — GiantSequoiaNews.com

Perspective

IN A LETTER DATED FIVE DAYS BEFORE the introduction of H.R.8168, a coalition of more than 80 environmental groups sent a letter to Congress in opposition to the Save Our Sequoias Act by Reps. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) and Scott Peters (D-CA).

The House version of the Save Our Sequoias Act was introduced June 22 and since then it has gained additional bipartisan support with 25 Democrats and 25 Republicans signing on as co-sponsors, in addition to McCarthy.

Among groups opposing the bill were Earthjustice, the League of Conservation Voters, Natural Resources Defense Council, Center for Biological Diversity, Sierra Forest Legacy, John Muir Project of Earth Island and — how can I resist including this group — Great Old Broads for Wilderness.

Not signatories to the June 17 letter, but also critical of the bill, were Sequoia ForestKeeper and the Sierra Club. An article in Sierra Magazine Aug. 2 outlined concerns: 

“Dozens of conservation groups—including the Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Center for Biodiversity—warn that the bill overreaches and could set a dangerous precedent by allowing land managers to evade federal laws to fast-track fire abatement measures. The draft legislation waives a raft of federal environmental laws to speed up thinning and fuel reduction efforts. In doing so, environmental groups say, the law removes the guardrails meant to ensure fire-prevention projects are completed in a way that doesn’t threaten the environment.”

Around the same time, the Washburn Fire was burning and the New York Times reported with a headline “Wildfire in Yosemite National Park Imperils Century-Old Trees.” Which was true and also added to a flurry of articles about California’s giant sequoias that were published all around the world. 

Much was made of the McCarthy bill in op-eds, and it was referred to the House Natural Resources Committee, the House Agriculture Committee and its Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry.

Then, on July 22, Forest Service Chief Randy Moore announced an emergency action to protect giant sequoia groves. Just weeks later, on Aug. 16, Sequoia National Forest announced that it was initiating work in the Giant Sequoia National Monument within Fresno and Tulare counties. 

It was easy to confuse McCarthy’s Save Our Sequoias bill with the emergency fuel reduction work but the two are unrelated (except for the obvious relationship of a concern for giant sequoia groves). 

On Sept. 13, California’s Senators Dianne Feinstein and Alex Padilla (both Democrats), introduced S.4833  — a Senate version of the Save Our Sequoias Act. The bill was referred to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee the same day and barely two weeks later it was heard by the full committee on Sept. 29.

I should mention that the hearing included 11 other bills addressing issues related to forest management and wildfire and there was no line-by-line scrutiny of S.4833. But many comments about giant sequoias were made by the senators participating and I’ll write further about the hearing soon.

In the meantime, I reviewed the two bills to see what is the same — and what is different — and it’s clear to me that whoever put the Senate version together was paying attention to the issues raised by the environmental groups.

I could — and will eventually — write more, but this is getting long so I’m going to loosely summarize items that stood out during my review of the two versions:

• The House bill’s notation that the assessments (of need for work in the groves) “shall not be subject to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969” does not appear in the Senate bill. 

• Also not in the Senate version is the language that the House bill included that would allow responsible officials to carry out protection projects before initiating NEPA analysis and before consultation required by the Endangered Species Act and National Historic Preservation Act.

• And, the House version would amend the Wilderness Act to allow the Secretary of the Interior or Secretary of Agriculture to conduct reforestation activities to reestablish giant sequoias following a wildfire (presumably in a Wilderness area). This language does not appear in the Senate version.

• The Senate version is longer and includes a statement requiring options and best practices for conducting protection projects to not cause incidental taking of threatened or endangered species.

• Also in the Senate version — long sections about emergency determinations and fire regimes. An example: “It is the sense of Congress that — fire regimes in giant sequoia groves are dominated by fire regime I and fire regime III (as defined by the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003.)”

I’m sure some fire and planning folks know what this last part means (and I’m glad). But seriously, “it is the sense of Congress.” Oh, sure. Who writes this stuff?

Lots of the language in the bills is the same, or close with formatting and numbering changes. But perhaps most important — in the event some version of these bills is eventually made law — is the authorization of appropriations — $10 million in FY2024, $25 million in FY2025, $30 million each in years 2026 through 2028 and $40 million each in years 2029 through 2033.

I haven’t seen any comment from environmental groups about the Senate version and with so many somewhat related bills it’s hard to say whether any version of a Save Our Sequoias bill will survive. But I’ll do my best to keep you informed here.

The week in wildfires

Since last week’s report the acreage of the Mosquito Fire only grew by about 7 acres — to 76,788 acres with 90 percent containment and still some distance from the Placer Big Trees giant sequoia grove. As I’ve reported previously, Tahoe National Forest did work in the grove to help protect the small and genetically distinct trees there.

In Yosemite, the lightning-caused Red and Rodgers fires have been managed together, with no growth in size reported. The Red remains at 8,410 acres and Rodgers at 2,825 acres. Neither have had much growth. The fires are being watched, but not suppressed.

Containment of the lightning-caused Summit Fire that began Aug. 3 in southern Sequoia National Park was 90 percent with 1,394 acres with 75 percent containment as of the latest report Sept. 29. 

• The Caldor Fire was burning a year ago, but it’s in the news again with a 60 Minutes report claiming that evidence shows that Forest Service mismanagement contributed to the fire. The small community of Grizzly Flats — about two-thirds destroyed in the fire — is about halfway between the most northern giant sequoia grove (Placer Big Trees) and the North Calaveras Grove (Calaveras Big Trees State Park), believe to be the first place the monarch trees were seen by Europeans. Neither of these groves were directly threatened by the Caldor Fire, but the issues relating to fire management are relevant throughout the region and part of the challenge facing communities and land management agencies.

Giant sequoias in the news

• Here’s a report from Democrats on the Sept. 29 hearing on forestry and wildfire legislation held before the Senate’s Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

• Here’s a report from Republicans on the same hearing.

• And here’s Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s submitted statement to the Senate’s Energy and Natural Resources Committee urging protections for California’s giant sequoias.

• Senators Manchin and Barasso on Sept. 22 introduced a bipartisan bill to reduce wildfire risk and improve forest health. Here’s a report on the bill.

• On Sept. 30, Sequoia National Forest provided an update on the emergency response work underway in Sequoia and Sierra national forests.

• It was published two months ago, but I’ve just come across an impressive article from Reuters that employs innovative graphics to demonstrate some of the ways firefighters have protected large giant sequoias from advancing wildfire. The piece also provides chronology of the Washburn and Oak fires from earlier this year. This is worth a click-through just to see the creative presentation.

Giant sequoias around the world

If you know California history at all, you’re undoubtedly aware that olive and citrus trees were among imports from Spain (via Mexico) during the time that Franciscan missions were established on the coast. So it may not surprise you to learn that giant sequoias, the marvel of California, made their way to Spain.

Secoya gigante, they are called, and according to many sources two very special trees — called El Rey and La Reina (I’ll trust that Californians don’t need to have these names translated) — grow in front of the Palace of La Granja de San Ildefonso near Madrid. The trees may have been planted around 1870 from seeds that were collected at Calaveras Grove by William Lobb, an agent for Veitch’s Nursery.

Want more?

GIANTSEQUOIANEWS.COM is also a website where you can find more information about giant sequoia trees, wildfire, the public land management conundrum and more.

Thanks for reading!