Charles Taylor: “Mr. Chairman, rise in opposition to this amendment. This funding limitation would stop changes to the National Forest…”

“Mr. Chairman, rise in opposition to this amendment. This funding limitation would stop changes to the National Forest Management Act planning regulations. This is a bad amendment, and that is the best thing I can say about it. National forest planning has become an endless gridlock which needs to be fixed. This administration is trying to make appropriate changes. If this amendment were adopted, the Forest Service would either continue to operate under the outdated 1982 planning regulations or begin to implement highly prescriptive and expensive 2000 planning regulations. The 1982 planning regulations require the Forest Service to use unnecessary analytical processes and implement outdated science requirements. Under the old forest planning regulations, it takes an average of 5 to 6 years to complete a forest plan at a cost of 5 to $6 million each. Now, this is much too long. And, in fact, it is not a plan effort. It is not a scientific move. It is an effort to stop all harvesting in the forest, and we know that this amendment would delay forest projects which are now needed to clean up our forests and reduce the danger of fire, the real problems with fire that has been exaggerated in many ways by the lack of scientific forest management throughout the country, especially in the West.”