Save Our Sequoias Act divides environmental groups
The Save Our Sequoias Act is sponsored by Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and has support from both sides of the aisle. But it is dividing environmental groups, some who think it would do more harm than good.
Giant sequoias, which can live for more than three thousand years and grow only on the western slopes of the Sierra Nevada mountain range in central California, are facing an unprecedented threat from wildfire.
In the past couple years, nearly one-fifth of the oldest and largest giant sequoias have been destroyed by wildfire, Joanna Nelson, director of science and conservation planning for the Save the Redwoods League, told the House Natural Resources Committee at a hearing on Wednesday.
The Save Our Sequoias Act would enable emergency action to be taken to protect giant sequoias from wildfire and other threats.
“We are short on time in this emergency,” Nelson said. “We also know what to do to meet this emergency; there is substantial evidence that active forest management reduces the risk of giant sequoia mortality in wildfire.”
But some environmental groups, who were not present at Wednesday’s hearing, say a provision in the bill that waives environmental reviews normally required under federal law for such activities undercuts important environmental laws.
Last year, more than 80 environmental groups, including Earthjustice, the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council, signed onto a letter to lawmakers objecting to the bill.
“There’s no review of the actual projects that communities, scientists and stakeholders have the right to,” Blaine Miller-McFeeley, a senior legislative representative for Earthjustice, said in an interview. “So it could very feasibly put forth projects that we regret doing in the future.”
The groups argue that without proper environmental reviews, activities like forest thinning and controlled burns, meant to protect giant sequoias, could lead to unintended environmental harm.
Earthjustice worries the bill could also be used to expedite logging operations not necessary for wildfire mitigation.
“The real goal of this is just to advance the timber industry’s interest,” he said.
In a statement last year, Miller-McFeeley said the bill sets a bad precedent.
“It’s nothing more than a Trojan horse to diminish important environmental reviews and cut science and communities out of the decision-making process,” he said.
Still, Chair Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.) said Wednesday the bill was something everyone should be able to get behind.
“It’s not everyday that you see 50 bipartisan co-sponsors on a bill and more than 100 organizations supporting it,” Westerman said.
The bill would provide over $300 million in funding over the next 10 years for giant sequoia protection and reforestation projects.
Athan Manuel, the director of the Lands Protection Program for the Sierra Club, said in an interview the best way to protect giant sequoias from forest fires is to combat climate change, which this bill doesn’t address.
Forest Service Chief Randy Moore testified that the agency is already taking emergency action under existing federal law to protect giant sequoias using funding from the Infrastructure and Jobs Act. He said National Environmental Policy Act reviews are already underway for most of the planned treatments.
“With the emergency action, giant sequoias could receive accelerated protection by as much as 9 to 12 months earlier in most groves and years earlier in other groves,” Moore said in his written testimony.
Some of the Democrats at the hearing argued in support of an alternative version of the bill introduced last year by California Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Alex Padilla, which didn’t create new exemptions from environmental review requirements.
“Saving our sequoias doesn’t have to mean selling out our environmental laws,” said Ranking Member Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.).
Updated: 10:26 a.m.
For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to The Hill.
