85 



118 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species In the United States 



Box 4-B— Siberian Timber Imports: A Potentially High-Risk Pathway 



Siberia has almost half of the world's softwood timtwr supply. Since the late 1 980s a few U.S. tmixr lookers 

 and lumlwr companies, short on domestic supplies, have tseen negotiating tor the importation o< raw logs from 

 Far East ports to West Coast sawmills. This may create a pathway for rwn-indlgenous forest pests that are adapted 

 to many North Anwrican dimate zones and tree types. In the past 100 years raw wood or nursery stock imports 

 have provided entry tor a number of devastating pathogens, such as chestnut blight {Cryphonectha parasitica). 

 Dutch elm disease (Cerafocyst/s ulml), and wtiite pine blister rust {Cronartium ribicola). 



In earty 1990, the private Importers votuntarily notified APHIS and the California Department of Agriculture 

 that they would be shipping two containers of logs representing four Siberian tree species into the northern 

 Calitornia port of Eureka. The logs were fumigated, handled, sawn, and disposed of pursuant to agreed upon 

 guidelines. The California ofticials had sought more time to develop the guidelines before shipment but were 

 unable to obtain a voluntary delay and lacked regulatory authority to require a delay. According to the program 

 supervisor of the Pest Exclusion Branch, APHIS'S California approach to the State's biological concerns was to 

 stress the Importers' rights to proceed. 



Dead insects were recovered off three of the tree species; the fourth carried a nematode. The agencies 

 concluded that no Kirther shipments should come In until personnel could identify the species and do a pest risk 

 analysis. APHIS arranged a voluntary embargo with the importers. Two of the speaes were later Identified as 

 potentially harmhjl new pests. 



Partidpafion by APHIS in the eariy phases (April through September 1 990) was criticized as "chaotic" by the 

 California official in charge. The agency's Preliminary Pest Risk Analysis was completed in September; it was 

 generally regarded as inadequate, failing to list many known Siberian pests and lacking investigation into the many 

 unresearched potential pest species. Worried California and Oregon officials sought independent scientific advice. 

 Several State university professors warned of potentially disastrous consequences from the organisms that were 

 likely to be introduced, even If the logs were fumigated. 



Communication among these academics and the State officials in fall 1990 eventually led to congressional 

 pressure in the form of a letter from three members of the Oregon delegation to the Secretary of Agriculture 

 Inquiring about APHIS'S handling of the matter and requesting a delay pending resolution of the pest issues. At 

 the same time, the importers were negotiating with APHIS to alk)w large-scale shipments to mills In Humboldt Bay, 

 California However, "to honor the congressional request" the agency suspended the discussions on December 

 13. APHIS announced It had Imposed a temporary prohibition" on future imports. Without the congressional 

 pressure. It appears the shipments would have gone ahead without comprehensive analysis. 



A joint U.S. Forest Service/APHIS Task Force was convened and woriced for almost a year on a detailed risk 

 assessment tocusing on larch {Larix spp.) from Siberia. The project cost of approximately $500,000 was paid out 

 of a Forest Service contingency fund. APHIS lacked a flexible fund to pay for the unanticipated, unbudgeted wori^ 



The assessment found serious risks posed by several pests. A worst-case scenario examined the economic 

 impacts should they successfully Invade Northwest forests. It produced astoundingly high figures for the 

 cumjiative potential losses from the Asian gypsy moth {LymnUiadlspai) and the nun moth (Lymantria monacha) 

 between 1 990 and 2040— in the range of $35 billion to $5B billion (net present value in 1 991 dollars). Still, the 

 assessment did not resolve all the issues atx)ut mitigating the risks. Ultimately, APHIS put the burden back on the 

 Importers to propose new pest treatmert methods and protocols with "evidence of complete effectiveness". Some 

 experts said the k>gs would need sawing and kiln-drying to exterminate all risky species, which would probatily 

 be prohibitively expensive. The assessment concluded: "If technical efficacy issues can be resohred, APHIS will 

 work with the timtwr industry to develop operationally feasible Import procedures." To date the Industry has 

 identiried no feasible procedures that APHIS has deemed completely effective. 



(oonlinutd an nut ptg*) 



87-432 0-95-4 



