FROM:  Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies Appropriations for 2007, Hearings Before A Subcommittee of the
Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, One Hundred Ninth
Congress, Second Session, Subcommittee on Interior Environment, and Related
Agencies, Part 6, U.S. GPO, Washington : 2006.   (Questions
and Answers submitted in writing after the hearing.)

QUESTIONS: REPRESENTATIVE MAURICE
HINCHEY

ANSWERS: FOREST
SERVICE CHIEF DALE BOSWORTH

NOTES
AND COMMENTS ADDED BY

Ara Marderosian, Director, Sequoia
ForestKeeper

Carl Ross, Director, Save
America’s Forests

Hinchey, Maurice D.

Question 1.  During the hearing before the Interior
Subcommittee on March 9, we briefly discussed the fuel hazard reduction sale
that was advertised on November 17, 2004 and which took place in the spring of
2005 in the Giant Sequoia National Monument, specifically in the Long Meadow
Grove, along the Trail of a Hundred Giants.

I asked at the time for you
to provide for the record all of the details of that sale.  I also asked whether or not an EIS was
performed.  You assured me that in
fact, an EIS or an EA was conducted and said you would get that to me.  I would appreciate very much, in
addition to your providing that EIS or EA for the record, if you would submit
the actual documents to my office and to the committee as quickly as possible.

Answer:  Attached
is the Decision Notice dated August 20, 2004 for this project[UU1] .

[NOTE:  The document attached is
not a Decision Notice; a Decision Notice is a specific document defined by NEPA
as one that is pursuant to an Environmental Assessment (EA).  There were no NEPA documents on this
project and no EA.  The document
attached was an internal Memo to file that merely stated what the acting
District Ranger had decided to do. He decided to categorically exempt the
project from NEPA analysis.

Certain
projects, such as those to remedy an immediate threat to public safety or
certain repairs or routine maintenance, are exempted from NEPA requirements
by Forest Service policy and certain clauses in NEPA.  Sequoia Forest
determined that this project was exempt from any NEPA documentation
because they said it fell into this category.  Please note that, unlike hazard tree
removal, fuel treatment projects do NOT fall into this category.

Regardless,
Forest Service had an obligation to follow their own Hazard Tree Removal Guidelines in determining that the trees
they proposed for removal were indeed hazard trees.  The Hazard Tree Policy requires
documentation of the size, species, risk of failure rating, potential to hit a
target, and a rating of the target (i.e. is the exposure high, moderate or
intermittent such as on a trail in a remote area).  They did not do this. They also had an
obligation to follow the Giant Sequoia
National Monument Plan which requires that a ‘no tree
removal’ alternative be studied and documented prior to determining that
tree removal was the only feasible option.
They did not follow their own Monument
Plan.

Additionally,
the Forest Service had an obligation to plan any project in this Trail, a high
profile showcase for their Giant Sequoias, with sensitivity and include input
from the Forest landscape architect and the
public.  This input was not
solicited nor considered. The Forest Service closed the Trail area to the
public for a year; careful planning and documentation could and should have
taken place.

Lastly,
the protective measures of the 1990 Mediated Settlement Agreement (MSA) should
have been honored; the MSA set forth required inventories and scientific
studies that were to precede any significant entry into a sequoia grove.  The Forest Service has recently taken
the position that the Proclamation ‘set aside’ or ‘superseded’
the MSA, however they have not provided any legal arguments to back up this
position.  Regardless, the studies
required by the MSA are simply good planning and good land stewardship.]

Question 2.  Was the
cutting originally a hazard reduction cut?

Answer:  Yes.  The Purpose and Need identified in the
Project Initiation Letter[UU2]  states
"The purpose and need for this project is to remove trees considered
hazardous or potentially hazardous along the Trail of 100 Giants.  The Sequoia National Forest
has responsibility and direction to minimize hazards and maintain reasonably safe
conditions normally anticipated along public trails.  In addition, there is a need to reduce
surface fuels within the trail system."[UU3]

[NOTE:  Mr. Bosworth has switched
from discussing the Decision Memo to the Project Initiation memo.  A Project Initiation memo is merely the
first memo to a file that indicates what a particular manager sees as a
need.  It might mention many things
and could lead to one project or many, to an EA or to a full scale EIS.  In this case, the Initiation Memo led to
a categorical exemption from any NEPA documentation.

An
on-the-ground inspection discloses that at least 2 different types of projects
involving tree removal took place in the area of the Trail of 100 Giants.  One of these was supposed to be a hazard
tree removal project.  Another
project that was carried out, based on an on-site inspection, was a fuels
reduction project that removed hundreds, perhaps thousands of small trees from
2-12” in diameter  --almost
every small tree or brush in the entire area --none of which posed any hazard
threat to the visiting public.

“Reducing
surface fuels” does not fall under the same category as “removal of
hazard trees.”  The former is
to remove an imminent threat to public safety and the latter is an ecological
restoration project that must be pursuant to careful scientific planning and
compliance with Monument Management Plan. Simply mentioning in a memo that
fuels should be removed is not a legal basis for removal of non hazard trees,
—some of which may have been so-called ‘ladder’ trees-- and
hundreds more small trees.]

Question 3.  Did
Forest Service cut more than the original 138 trees?

Answer:  Yes.  The initial map of hazards only
identified dead hazard trees.
Following a review of the area by a forest pathologist and an
entomologist in May 2004, and after the Sequoia National Forest Hazard Tree
Procedures for Forest Plan Compliance were approved in August 2004[UU4] ,
additional live hazard trees were identified and cut[UU5] .

[NOTE:  The record shows no
documentation on these additional trees consistent with the Forest’s
Hazard Tree Policy disclosing how those trees posed a hazard.  A forest pathologist can determine
diseases in trees; an entomologist can examine a forest or a tree for insect
infestations:  neither
examination resulted in any data regarding the likelihood of failure
(falling down) or hitting a target (person on a trail) of the specific trees
that were removed; that was not their task and that was not evidenced in
their reports.]

Question 4.  How many trees were cut?  How many were sugar pines?  How many were "commercial
grade"?  How old were the
oldest pines cut?

Answer:  In 2004, 138 dead trees and 76 live
trees were cut.  Six live trees were
monitored for future concern.  In
2005, an additional 10 trees were cut following damage from a wind storm.  The species of each dead tree was not
identified.  Of the 76 live hazard
trees, 16 were sugar pine.  Of the
trees removed from the Trail of 100 Giants, some of the largest pieces were
removed with a helicopter.  The
trees removed with a helicopter contained 118 thousand board feet of timber
volume.  We did not determine the
age of the trees cut, but the oldest trees were 200 years and older.

[NOTE:   In a National
Monument that requires protection of its unique objects, trees 200 years and
older are of high value.  According
to "Hazard Tree Procedures for
Forest Plan Compliance, Sequoia National Forest and Giant Sequoia National
Monument," a document mentioned by Mr. Bosworth as being followed, all
hazard trees are supposed to be identified by species, diameter, height, fault
(why the tree might fail) a rating of failure risk, the target and its value
(is it a person, a structure, is the target’s exposure high or low) and
possible options for reducing the risk besides merely cutting down the tree.
Such options could include moving the target (for example, relocating a section
of the trail or moving a bench) topping or limbing the tree, otherwise
stabilizing the tree.)  Then trees
are prioritized for treatment. These guidelines were not followed by the Forest
Service in their logging operation of these trees.

Further,
while not documented, it is believed that the trees damaged in the windstorm
were already down and thus could pose no falling hazard to any persons or
objects.]

Question 5.  What
percentage of trees that were removed from the Giant Sequoia NM were hazard
trees?

Answer:  100 percent.  Note: A few small trees were damaged as
a result of felling the hazard trees and were also removed.  These small, damaged trees were not
initially identified as hazards, but became hazardous and therefore were
removed.

[NOTE: As Mr. Bosworth notes, they don’t know much about these trees so
his assurance that 100% of the logged trees were hazard trees is unsubstantiated.]

Question 6.  How many
people have been killed by trees falling in the Giant Sequoia National
Monument?

Answer:  In 1993, a tree fell on a private cabin
located on private land within the monument, but before it was proclaimed a
monument, killing the occupant.
Otherwise, fortunately, no one has been killed by a falling tree in the
monument.  However, injuries, death
and damage to property from falling trees are not uncommon.  There has been one fatality on an
adjacent national forest.  A forest
worker was killed by a falling tree in 2002, while sleeping in a tent in the Inyo National
Forest.
Also, in 2004, a forest worker was seriously injured by a falling tree
within the monument.[UU6]

Question 7.  How does
Forest Service determine when a tree constitutes a hazard?

Answer:  We follow direction in "Hazard Tree
Procedures for Forest Plan Compliance, Sequoia
National Forest and Giant Sequoia
National Monument."  Trees identified as potential hazards at
Trail of 100 Giants were evaluated by a certified silviculturist using the
criteria and direction contained in these procedures.

[NOTE:  These Guidelines were not
followed.  If they had been
followed, Mr. Bosworth would know the species and hazard rating and the reasons
for the hazard rating of each and every tree.  Also, at least some of the trees would
have been left in place after consideration of all the risk factors.]

Question 8.  Are the
guidelines uniform across the nation or are they Forest
specific?

Answer:  The
guidelines are forest/monument-specific.

Question 9.  Given
that a hazard is a hazard, why shouldn't they be uniform across the country?

Answer:  Given that every national forest has
unique combinations of tree species, climate, soil, insects and diseases, and
public use patterns, it would not be prudent or possible to have one set of
standards applicable to all National Forest System lands.

[NOTE:  Actually, the guidelines
for identifying hazard trees are remarkably similar for most forests:  potential for failure, the lean of the
tree, and the value and exposure of the ‘target’ are
evaluated.  These factors can easily
take into consideration differing tree species and weather conditions. The
problem seems to be to get the agency to follow their guidelines.]

Question 10.  When the Monument was designated in
2000, President Clinton's Proclamation designating the Giant Sequoia
National Monument said
the following:

No portion of the monument
shall be considered to be suited for timber production, and no part of the
monument shall be used in a calculation or provision of a sustained yield of
timber from the Sequoia
National Forest.

However, I understand that
subsequently, you informed the public that the piled up trees from the hazard
and fuel reduction treatments would be advertised for sale.  Isn't that a direct violation of the
presidential proclamation designating the Giant Sequoia National Monument?

Answer:  It is not a violation.[UU7]   The Proclamation goes on to say in that
same paragraph:  "Removal of
trees, except for personal use fuel wood, from within the monument area may
take place only if clearly needed for ecological restoration and maintenance or
public safety."

These trees were removed for public safety[UU8] .  The
means of removal was sale as opposed to burning, which was infeasible.

[NOTE: First, the Forest Service failed to consider any alternative to tree
removal as is required by Sequoia’s Hazard Tree guidelines.

Second,
if this project were purely for public safety, the Forest
would have documented the project as required by its own Hazard Tree
Policy.  The Monument Plan and the
Hazard Tree policy require documentation of any finding that burning to
accomplish project goals is not feasible. It is not sufficient for the Forest
Service to simply make a bald unsubstantiated statement.  Mr. Bosworth admits that this was also a
project to remove surface fuels. (Surface fuels are not so called “ladder”
fuels:  surface fuels are the
smaller trees and fuels on the forest floor; so-called “ladder trees”
are larger trees growing into the forest canopy. If this was a fuels reduction
project for removal of either surface fuels or “ladder fuels”, it
would fall into the category of ‘grove restoration and have full NEPA
disclosure.

No
memo in the Forest Service file indicates that the cut trees were to be sold as
a “means of removal.”
Indeed, the Decision memo to the internal file states that the wood
would be used for camp fires and/or chipped and mulched.]

Question 11.  Isn't it a requirement of the mediated
settlement agreement (MSA) amendment to the National Forest Management Plan
that every separate grove under consideration for fuels treatment requires an
Environmental Impact Statement?

Answer:  Within
the boundaries of the Giant Sequoia National Monument the Presidential proclamation
and its subsequent management plan (GSNMMP) replaced the interim direction of
the Mediated Settlement Agreement (MSA) by force of law.  Thus the MSA does not apply within the
Monument.[UU9]   The MSA was originally interim direction
pending amendment of the Sequoia's Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP); it
was not itself a plan amendment.
The GSNMMP amends the LRMP in accordance with the Proclamation, not the
MSA.

[NOTE: In the 8/22/2006 court ruling of People of the State of California, ex rel. BILL
LOCKYER, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, etc al., Defendants, Judge Charles R. Breyer, United
States District Judge ruled that the MSA does apply within the Monument,
and that “the Forest Service failed to comply with NEPA”.  The judge pointed out that the Forest
Service acknowledged in 2002 that the MSA applied to the Monument in a letter
of March 8, 2002, after the Monument was established. For the Forest Service to
assert in these answers, written in 2006, that the MSA does not apply was not
only legally wrong,
but knowingly telling
falsehoods to Congress.

The
Forest Service restated this falsehood to Congress after the February 13, 2007
hearing, that the MSA does not apply to the Monument in written answers, in
response to written questions from members of the House Interior Appropriations
Committee “The Record of Decision (ROD) for the GSNMMP) recognized that
the Presidential
Proclamation supersedes the MSA provisions by force of law (GSNMMP ROD,
p. 4).” (Quote from INTERIOR,
ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2008 Hearings before a subcommittee of
the committee on appropriations house of representatives one hundred tenth
congress FIRST SESSION SUBCOMMITTEE ON
INTERIOR, ENVIRONMNET, AND RELATED AGENCIES PART 6, Page 520.)
This statement was
made AFTER Judge Breyer’s ruling of 8//22/2006 quoted above that the MSA does
apply to the Monument.  The
Forest Service never appealed Judge Breyer’s ruling, therefore, his
ruling has the force of law, and the Forest Service written testimony to Congress just quoted was another
falsehood.

Question 12.  Was there
a ruling from the 9th Circuit court on July 11, 2005?

Answer:  No[CR10] , but there
was a decision in litigation pending in the District Court for the Northern
District of California.  The Judge
issued an order on July 11, 2005, concerning alleged violations relating to the
Fire Management Plan for the Sequoia
National Forest. Please
see the attached decision.

Question 13.  Did it state that the "fire
plan in its current iteration is not in compliance with NEPA"?[UU11]

Answer:  Please
see the attached decision for the findings of the Court.

Question 14.  Did the Forest Service even have a legal
fire and fuels management plan for this grove or the forest?

Answer:  The Sequoia
National Forest has had a
Fire Plan since 2004 which will remain in effect forest-wide until replaced.[UU12]   The Fire Plan is currently being
challenged in court in the case referenced in question #13.  For further information concerning this
ongoing litigation, please contact the Department of Justice.

Question 15.  If not, how could the public possibly
comment on Forest Service's fuels management plan, as clearly required by
Sequoia's Forest Management Plan?

Answer:  The public had an opportunity to comment
on fuels treatment issues in the LRMP for the Sequoia National Forest,
the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, and the GSNMMP.

[NOTE:  Mr. Bosworth seems unaware
of the facts:

The
Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP)
for Sequoia National Forest was approved in 1988 and
included only a few obsolete provisions for fire management:  the LRMP did not include guidelines for
Fire and Fuels Management because it deliberately omitted them, mandating that
in the near future a Fire and Fuels Management Plan was to be written as an
amendment.  This document was never
written.

The
Sierra Nevada Framework (which Mr. Bosworth calls the Sierra Nevada Forest
Plan) is a broad Regional level
guideline that is not intended to be applied unmodified at the Forest/site specific
level;  it is general in nature and
must be adjusted for local forest conditions; further, the Framework was
written for application on lands where logging is the norm, where there is no
stricture on tree removal, where there are no unique objectives for management
prescribed by a Presidential Proclamation in a National Monument- and the
Monument, not the Forest Service usual policy, is the ‘dominant
reservation.’

During
planning of the Giant Sequoia National Monument Management Plan (GSNMMP) the public was not allowed to
comment on fire and fuel issues.
When the public attempted to comment on these issues, they were cut off
by the Forest Service and told that the 2004 Fire Plan determined those
policies.  (See public Response to
Public Comments, Appendix, GSNMMP) The public did not have an opportunity to
comment on the 2004 Fire Management Plan because it was published with no notice, no scoping, and no
NEPA analysis or public participation.  The California State Attorney General
filed a lawsuit against this Fire Plan. A Federal Judge recently found that the
2004 Fire Plan was not in
compliance with NEPA.  In
response, the Forest Service has issued a new 2006 Fire Plan.  It too is an in-house document, prepared
with no public input whatsoever.  We
anticipate that the California Attorney General will be taking this new version
of the Fire Plan back to the judge.

The bottom line:  the public has had no opportunity to
comment on Sequoia Forest and Sequoia
Monument’s Fire and
Fuel Management policies.]

See
#14 above.

Question 16.  Finally, Chief Bosworth, what assurances
can you give this committee that this practice is not happening in other
sequoia groves on the western slopes of the Sierra Nevada?

Answer:  All giant
sequoia groves are managed according to their respective Forest Plans[AM13] .

Question 17.  Why is the Forest Service asking for
more money to continuing building new logging roads when the agency cannot
properly manage the existing road system?

Answer:  The Forest Service's primary mission is
to manage National Forests in order to move them towards the desired future
conditions identified in Forest Plans.

The increase in road
improvement is a shift of funds from maintenance to improvement for engineering
support costs of timber sales, stewardship contracts, and hazardous fuels
reduction projects. Some projects that are necessary to do this cannot be
completed without constructing new roads to provide access to project areas[AM14] .

Concerns about ability to
maintain proposed roads should be addressed in project specific NEPA.  It is common practice to design roads to
be (re)stored (Forest Service maintenance level 1) after the management
activity is complete at project expense thus averting the need for ongoing
expenditures of appropriated road maintenance funds.  When roads cannot be (re)stored, the
most common form of mitigation is to construct low maintenance roads using out
slope and dip design standards as opposed to maintenance intensive ditch and
culvert designs which have resource consequences when not properly maintained.

Question 18.  Under this budget, the backlog of road
maintenance will grow larger, not smaller.
How does the agency plan to address this problem?

Answer:  The FY 2007 President's Budget directs
agency resources toward meeting long term strategic goals and maintaining
critical National Forest System infrastructure.  The Forest Service uses a six step,
broad scale travel analysis process to identify the minimum road system
required.  Maintenance plans are
guided by the results of travel analyses, and direct limited funds to the
highest priority roads.

Annual road maintenance plans
are made for each national forest so that available funding can be optimized to
best meet the objectives of the travel analyses.   When practicable, less used roads
are closed so that funding can be directed to higher priority roads.  The level of road closures has increased
over time thereby saving annual maintenance costs.  Operational road standards of the
national forest road system have decreased over time.  Roads that can be safely operated at a
lower standard are often allowed to deteriorate to a lower standard, thereby
saving both short term and long term maintenance costs.  One example of lowering road standards
to save short and long term maintenance costs is to allow a low standard
passenger car road to convert over time to a road passable only by high
clearance vehicles.

Question 19.  Some members of Congress are claiming
there is a "reforestation crisis" in the National Forests in order to
justify legislation that would expedite logging and replanting after
fires.  If this is true, then why is
the Forest Service diverting money from the Knutson-Vandenberg reforestation
trust fund (KV fund) that is currently used to pay for reforestation?  Please explain exactly how much of the
KV fund is diverted for uses other than what was intended in the law
authorizing them.

Answer:  The Forest Service does not feel that
there is a "reforestation crisis" but is concerned about the increase
in reforestation needs over the past several years caused by natural catastrophic events such
as wildfires and insect and disease epidemics. [UU15]
Also adding to the
reforestation needs are reforestation failures and acquisition of cutover
lands.[UU16]   Between the start of fiscal year 2005
and 2006, reforestation needs increased by about 7 percent, primarily due to
the above reasons.  While sufficient
K-V funds are collected to perform necessary reforestation work on timber sale
areas, we rely primarily on appropriated funds to reforest areas impacted by
natural disturbances.  The expanded use of K-V
authority in the FY 2006 Interior & Related Agencies Appropriations Act
allows the agency to work outside of timber sale areas to perform much needed
resource improvement work, including reforestation.[UU17]

The agency does not believe
that K-V funds are being diverted from reforestation to other uses.  The agency is taking full advantage of
the provisions of the K-V Act, as amended by the 1976 National Forest Management
Act, that allow us to perform a wide variety of much needed resource
improvement work.  While the primary
purpose of the K-V Act is to facilitate reforestation of harvested areas, this
is not the exclusive purpose of the Act.
The K-V Act also allows the Forest Service to perform other, much
needed, resource improvement work such as reforestation of areas impacted by
natural disturbances, treating hazardous fuels, eliminating noxious weeds,
improving wildlife and fish habitat, maintaining and improving watershed
conditions, protecting communities, addressing some of our road maintenance
backlog needs, and performing timber stand improvement work such as thinning
and pruning.  Our line officers have
to make difficult decisions regarding how to best meet local resource
improvement needs with the limited K-V and appropriated funding that is
available.

The following table shows the
combined FY 2006 K-V funded activities within sale areas and with the expanded
authorities:

Activity
FY
2006 K-V Allocation

Reforestation
$51,081,321

Hazardous fuels
reduction
$16,000,000

Noxious weed control
$10,542,237

Road maintenance
$8,000,000

Timber stand improvement
$19,996,444

Maintenance and improvement
of wildlife and fish habitat
$17,358,418

Maintain and improve
watershed condition
$4,251,571

Other activities (insects
& disease, range, recreation,

visuals, watershed
restoration)
$47,148,970

Total
$174,378,961

Question 20.  You have identified conversion of
private forestlands as one of the top challenges facing our nation's forests.  The recent USFS report, Forests on the
edge, projected that over 40 million acres of private forestlands could
experience significant development by 2030, negatively impacting water and
other ecological resources.  Can you
comment on the Administration's proposed cuts to forest conservation programs
such as the Land & Water Conservation Fund in this context?  Shouldn't funding levels to these
programs be increased in response to the development pressures and challenges
the USFS has identified?

Answer:   The FY 2007 President's budget for
the Forest Legacy Program, which is funded through the Land and Water
Conservation Fund, is $61,515,000, $4,979,000 above the FY 2006 enacted.  An increase in funding for the FLP
reflects the importance placed on protecting private forests.  Many other programs in the Departments
of Agriculture and Interior help to conserve working forests, farms, and
ranches. Due to the immensity of the issue and the fact that it centers on
private (non-Federal) land, the issue of Loss of Open Space must be, and is
being, addressed by a broad spectrum of non-federal players, including State
and local governments, land trusts, and other private entities.  The Forests on the Edge project is intended
as a tool to assist all concerned in making strategic decisions about where to
focus our limited resources.

[UU1]The Decision Notice is not an EIS or an EA. Since no
EIS or EA was provided can we assume that there was no EIS or EA produced that
analyzed science-based alternatives? This project was Categorically Excluded
from documentation in an EIS or EA.

[UU2]The public received no written scoping for the project.
The public was told that there would be no written documents for this project
when the public discovered this project was being initiated.

[UU3]The public was informed that this was a hazard tree
project not a fuels reduction project. A fuels reduction project requires a
Forest-wide Fire and Fuels Management Plan that has been through the NEPA
public review process and a grove specific inventory and EIS on how fuels would
be treated in each grove prior to implementing any fuels treatment in a grove
per the Mediated Settlement Agreement which is an amendment of the Sequoia NF
LRMP.

[UU4]The public was
not provided with any written documents on
the project until July 2005 after
the project was completed.

[UU5]The public was never informed about these additional
live trees until after the
project was completed.

[UU6]Many loggers are injured and killed because of these logging
projects done in the name of public safety, which is a reason to curtail them.  Another reason to stop most of them is
because the threat to the public is minute, and there is usually an alternative
to logging, which protects the public, such as moving a bench away from a
suspect tree or branch.

[UU7]It is a
violation.  The project was
illegally “segmented” by the Forest Service in order to evade the
Proclamation’s restrictions on timber production.  Had the Forest Service followed the law
and first analyzed the ENTIRE project and all of its impacts in an EIS, they
would not have able to cut most or any of the trees, and therefore would not
have been able to sell them.

[UU8]The Forest Service created a safety hazard by piling up
after cutting those trees which were not ladder fuels to begin with. The FS caused the safety problem
and then sold the logs to
solve the safety problem they created.

[UU9]Forest Service testimony in 2006 (and 2007 see NOTE in
pink

[CR10]This is not correct.  The plan in place was ruled illegal on
July 11, 2005.

[UU11]Yes.

[UU12]The plan in place was ruled illegal on July 11, 2005.

[AM13]This
is another falsehood.  The Forest
Service illegally entered the Freeman Creek Giant Sequoia grove in the GSNM, in
June and July 2006, bulldozed a road through the grove, and cut down several
dozen trees without the grove-specific EIS required by the Mediated Settlement
Agreement amendment to the Sequoia LRMP.

[AM14]The
Presidential Proclamation of April 15, 2000, which created the Giant Sequoia
National Monument was intended to end construction of virtually all new roads.

“No new roads or trails will be authorized within
the monument except to

further the purposes of the monument.”

The primary purpose of the Monument is protection, not
logging and construction of new roads.
Yet the Forest Service has just constructed 17 miles of new roads in
previously unroaded, natural areas, for the apparent purpose of removing more
timber for the local mill.

[UU15]Many of the recent wildfires, insect outbreaks, and
disease epidemics are not natural catastrophic events; they are caused or
exacerbated by over a century of fire suppression and logging by the Forest
Service.

[UU16]Why does the Forest Service continue to log lands in
the Monument that are incapable and unsuitable for plantations, in the same
areas where plantation failures have previously occurred?

[UU17]Why is logging required prior to replanting especially
when tree seedlings are already growing in burned forest areas?