20 



since 1938, there is at least as much standing forest volume today as there was 

 when the first inventories were completed in the 1940s. 



Recent news stories and testimony by the Inspector General (IG) for the Depart- 

 ment of the Interior have charged the BLM with mismanagement of these Itinds, 

 and claimed a large backlog in tree planting and other forest development practices. 

 These stories and testimony are based on a 1989 report by the IG that has not been 

 updated. We do not believe the lands are mismanaged and are emphatic that the 

 BLM does not have a tree planting backlog in western Oregon. Chir tree planting 

 is current and we have conducted more than enough forest growth enhancement 

 treatments to support the timber sale offerings under the 1980s timber management 

 plans. 



The IG found that the BLM, during the Fiscal Years (FY) 1987 to 1989, did not 

 perform the planned level of intensive forest practices and did not place proper em- 

 phasis on seeking access into timbered areas. The forest development program con- 

 cerns centered around the build-up of a treatment backlog of 108,000 acres of plan- 

 tation maintenance, 43,000 acres of precommercial thinning, 127,000 acres of fer- 

 tiUzation, and 3,200 acres of stand conversion. The BLM concurred, in general, with 

 the findings, although we did take some exceptions to parts of the report. 



Even before the 1989 IG audit of our western Oregon forestry program we recog- 

 nized that we had problems and concerns. 



These problems and concerns resulted fi:-om several factors that increased our pro- 

 gram needs beyond our budget and work force capability to respond. 



In 1987 and 1988 severe wildfu-es swept through southwest Oregon. These fires 

 created an immediate need to reforest thousands of acres which had not been pro- 

 grammed. Salvage logging to recover fire-killed timber over the next few years also 

 added imanticipated work to our planned reforestation efforts. The fires also in- 

 creased our workload in plantation maintenance — that is, practices to manage the 

 competing vegetation to maintain survival and growth of the seedlings — for the past 

 6 years and for the next few years to come. 



Also at that time, contracts that had been extended as part of the Contract Modi- 

 fication Act were near termination and the lands had to be logged. This, coupled 

 with high lumber prices supporting logging of newer timber sales, added acres in 

 need of treatment beyond our expectations. 



Additionally, in 1984 the BLM was eryoined fi-om using herbicides to manage 

 competing vegetation. This required us to use more expensive treatments, thereby 

 reducing the acreage that could be treated within existing budgets and causing us 

 to defer lower priority treatments. 



The IG stated that it would take a one time appropriation of $48.2 million and 

 2 to 8 years to eliminate the backlog. The BLM never received the $48 million ap- 



{>ropriation, but did receive some aia. Congress recognized the severity of the back- 

 og problem in the FY 1990 Appropriations Act by providing that 50 percent of the 

 Federal share of O&C receipts above the estimate of receipts in the President's 

 Budget would be returned to BLM to invest in forest management and forest devel- 

 opment work. This funding and the dedication of our people have enabled the BLM 

 to make significant progress since the publication of the IG's report. For example, 

 over 430,0(X) acres — an area equivalent to 20 percent of our land base — received on- 

 the-ground treatment over the three year period, including 99,000 acres of reforest- 

 ation, 49,000 acres of site preparation, 157,000 acres of plantation maintenance, 

 42,000 acres of precommercial thinning, and 85,000 acres of precommercial 

 thinning, and 85,000 acres of fertilization. Today there is no reforestation backlog 

 and the extent of the backlog in other treatments has been significantly reduced. 



We also beheve that the approximately $113 million invested in the Oregon pro- 

 gram over the past three years has been used in a prudent and effective manner. 

 Approximately 76 percent of these funds was used to carry out treatment of 430,000 

 acres. About 3 percent was used to conduct inventories and maintain the complex 

 records associated with this program. Approximately 16 percent was used for pro- 

 gram management and support activities such as training and procurement. About 

 5 percent was used for research and development, planning, and environmental as- 

 sessment. I will discuss research in more detail later in this statement. 



I point out that 45 percent of our expenditures, or nearly $51 million, was paid 

 to private contractors to accompUsh a major portion of the on-the-ground project. 

 Our forest development program is, and will continue to be, an important source of 

 jobs for the private sector. The IG recently announced a flow-up audit of this pro- 

 gram. We welcome this updated examination by the IG. 



The success of our projects is significant. We have been able to treat sufficient 

 acres to support the timber offered for sale over the past decade. However, I do not 

 want to inter that we are able to treat every acre prescribed for treatment by our 

 silviculturists. We are hmited to our annual budget capabilities and must prioritize 



