176 



be conducted by existing institutions under existing legal authorities. However, these 

 agencies must act out of a new appreciation for forest ecosystems, not Just concern for 

 timber production. Cooperation and coordination among the various agencies must 

 improve. Fmally, funding for APHIS, the Forest Service, and cooperating state agen- 

 cies will have to be increased substantially. 



We envision that APHIS will retain its emphasis on exclusion; expand quarantines to 

 prevent spread of incipient infestations; where possible, eradicate incipient infestar 

 tions; continue funding some research; and conduct research on pests and control 

 measures in countries from which raw wood products and nursery stock would be 

 imported. 



The Forest Service would continue to lead research and application of control mea- 

 sures in the United Sutes. The work should be in active collaboration witii state for- 

 estry divisions and universities. Other interest groups which are affected by the de- 

 cline of America's forests or contribute to the threat by importing items which could 

 carry pest organisms should contribute knowledge, funds, public education efforts, 

 and other resources to improving our understanding of and efforts to contain exotic 

 pests of trees. These interest groups would include the forest industry, nursery indus- 

 try, recreation industry, ecologists, and wildlife management and conservation organ- 

 izations. Wider involvement of the conservation movement would augment efforts by 

 citizen organizations such as the American Chestnut Foundation. 



In testing and adopting control methods, all parties must recognize the environmental 

 impacts of those methods. It is important to emphasize that environmental and finan- 

 cial costs are associated with both courses of action — applying pest control measures 

 and allowing the exotic pest to damage tree species and their associated ecosystems. 

 A difficult, careful balancing of these countervailing environmental costs is inheren 

 in adopting our recommendations. 



As we noted earlier, funds must be considerably increased over current levels. As the 

 continuing damage to native forests by exotic pests and new dangers posed by poten- 

 tial importation of raw wood products prompted this paper, it is tempting to con- 

 clude that expanded pest management programs should be funded by timber and 

 paper industries' revenue. Yet if forests are to be truly managed as ecosystems, i.e., for 

 multiple use, the burden of costs must be shared by all users, including timber pro- 

 ducers and consumers, conservationists, recreationists, and preservationists. Because 

 the identification, testing, and application of mitigation and control measures for 

 introduced pests require years of dedicated effort, it is essential that funds also be st* 

 ble, to prevent interruptions of long-term projects. 



We support the Forest Service's recent initiative to create an emergency fund of up to 

 $3 million to enable rapid start-up of research on newly introduced pests which 

 threaten native forests. In just the past two years, the Asian gypsy moth, European 

 pine becde, Melampsara fungus, and European spruce beede have been discovered at 

 our ports or in our forests. A prompt response is necessi,-y to minimize damage from 

 the pest, but, since the occurrence and size of such introductions cannot be anticipat- 

 ed years in advance, the amount of funding needed cannot be determined during 

 the normal, lengthy, budget-development process. 



Another Forest Service initiative, the National Center of Forest Health Management, 

 is an encouraging step toward comprehensive pest managcmcnL The Center's goals 

 are: 1) "with partners, promote and facilitate development and use of technologies to 



32 



