15 



state-of-the-art in terms of what is currently known about the pa- 

 thology and entomological situation of tree pests in that country. 

 We went to great lengths to accumulate in one place all of that in- 

 formation. 



However, Mr. DeFazio, it is also true that there are things in the 

 forest that we do not know about, things that have not been stud- 

 ied, and this is a recognized difficulty with risk assessments, that 

 you cannot put a risk on something you do not know about. 



Mr. DeFazio. Okay. 



Mr. Rains, in your statement you say the highest probability of 

 foreign pest establishment is from countries with a climate and 

 host trees similar to the United States. I live in the Northwest. You 

 do not. Maybe you are not familiar with our topography, climate, 

 et cetera, but I think we are quite similar to New Zealand. 



Mr. Rains. There are risks not only for climates that are similar, 

 but let me add also, dissimilar. 



Mr. DeFazio. But you say the highest probability. So we are 

 dealing with a high probability country here. 



Mr. Rains. That is correct. 



Mr. DeFazio. Okay. I guess — I mean here is the — I mean. Dr. 

 Lattin, and we are a little hampered by the order here, but I will 

 put his questions to you because he will not get a chance to ask 

 them. His statement here is, I find it curious the revised test ship- 

 ment protocol produced and released in March 1992 and presented 

 to the Forest Service has not only been ignored by APHIS but 

 modified in ways not explained. He talks about the treatments 

 being represented to be done at points of origin, not after arrival 

 in the U.S., and that more thorough heat treatment applied at 

 point of origin was recommended. 



And his question is, why were those recommendations altered? I 

 guess I would like to know why did we alter those recommenda- 

 tions? Why do we not require thorough heat treatment in line with 

 those recommendations at the point of origin, and would that not 

 further reduce any possible risks? 



Ms. Lorimer. The test shipment protocol meeting Dr. Lattin re- 

 fers to was in relation to shipments from Siberia. 



Mr. DeFazio. I am aware of that, but the question is, if it is nec- 

 essary for known pathogens in Siberia and desirable, why is it not 

 necessary and desirable for unknown pathogens in New Zealand? 

 Why not require that? Why would we not require that? 



Give me a scientific reason why we would not require heat treat- 

 ment at point of origin. Does it somehow encourage or increase risk 

 or would it decrease the risk? 



Ms. Lorimer. The other mitigation procedures would be required 

 at the point of origin . . . the methyl bromide and debarking. 



Mr. DeFazio. What is the penetration of methyl bromide? 



Ms. Lorimer. As has already been stated, about 4 inches into the 

 wood. 



Mr. DeFazio. Is there nothing below 4 inches that we are wor- 

 ried about? 



Ms. Lorimer. The pest risk assessments did not turn up biologi- 

 cal organisms that would be in the wood, given the particular pro- 

 tocol that the trees would be raised 



