the
Do 119 let/
fir
tussock
moth
in the
Pacific
florthwe/t
a seminar
sponsored by
the United States Environmental
Protection Pgency
Washington. D.C.
        FRIDAY. nOVEfflBER 16.1973
        wRsmnGTon PLAZR HOTEL
        SEATTLE. WflSHIflGTOn


-------
th0 Douglas fir tussock moth
    in the Pacific fior4hwe/t
                    A SEMINAR
                  SEMINAR CHAIRMAN

                     Henry J. Korp
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Pesticide Programs
               U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                 PROGRAM COMMITTEE

                 Roger Pierpont, Entomologist
         Ecological Effects Branch, Criteria and Evaluation Division
      Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                    Washington, D.C.

                  Douglas Hansen, Director
            Hazardous Materials Control Division, Region 10
               U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                    Seattle, Washington
        SPONSORED BY
      \ THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL
        PROTECTION AGENCY
        WASHINGTON, D.C.

-------
                                 Foreword
                          Henry J. Korp, Seminar Chairman
                 Deputy Assistant Administrator for Pesticide Programs
                        U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                              OBJECT OF SEMINAR

     The object of the seminar "is to bring experts from Federal, State, industrial, academic
and environmental agencies and organizations together in a single meeting to explore the
technical problems and research needs involved in tussock moth control."        .

     We realize that, due to time limitations, we have not been able to include all persons
with experience and expertise in Douglas fir tussock moth research and control on the pro-
gram, but we have tried to include those directly involved with the current situation.  We
apologize to those not included on the program and request they participate in the discus-
sion at the end of the formal  presentation period.

     I would like to point out at this time that this meeting is not designed to discuss the
pros and cons of DDT, and it is not a formal hearing for this purpose but, rather, it is a. sci-
entific seminar to deal with technical'problerns and research needs.  It is our intention to
limit it for this purpose.                 .        .

     We also feel that concerned persons should be informed of the complexities involved in
the current program and that this meeting will serve as a briefing session for this purpose.
                            PHILOSOPHY AND POLICY

     It is Administrator Russell E. Train's philosophy that—

     In the development of EPA proposals, it is considered vital that we involve the public in the process
     to the greatest extent possible. We are not committed to our 1973 decision and any decision to be
     made in 1974 will be based on a reevaluation of available information relating to the situation as it
     exists at that time.
             EPA INVOLVEMENT IN THE TUSSOCK MOTH PROBLEM

     The Environmental Protection Agency has been involved in the tussock moth problem
in Washington and Oregon since the summer of 1972, when representatives of the State of
Oregon Department of Agriculture asked our Region X office in Seattle for clarification of
                                        111

-------
 some of the statements in the EPA Order issued June 14,1972, canceling most uses of DDT
 effective December 31,1972. Since that time, personnel of the EPA Region X office and
 the Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, D.C., have maintained close contact with the
 U.S. Forest Service, Region 6, staff as well as representatives of the State of Oregon Forestry
 Department and the State of Washington Department of Natural Resources in order to be
 fully informed on all aspects of the tussock moth situation.

     In March of 1973, the U.S. Forest Service and the States of Washington and Oregon
 made a specific request to be allowed to use DDT under emergency conditions to suppress
 an infestation of the Douglas fir tussock moth in the States of Washington and Oregon.
 Subsequently, the city of Walla Walla, Washington, and the Boise Cascade Corporation of
 Boise, Idaho, made similar requests.

     A special investigational team was sent from EPA headquarters to the affected areas to
 make an on-site appraisal of the present and projected tussock moth damage to the fir stands
 in southeastern Washington and northeastern Oregon.

     In addition to receiving considerable data from the U.S. Forest Service, Region 6, along
 with their site visits, the EPA team met with members of industry, academic institutions,
 researchers, environmentalists, Federal, State, and local government agencies, and all other
 known interested parties.

     They found that considerable damage had already occurred in 1972 and, unless the
 tussock moth was controlled,  some additional damage would occur in 1973.

     The team found agreement among representatives from the U.S. Forest Service and the
 States of Oregon and Washington that, due to nuclear polyhedrosis virus, the tussock moth
 population would probably collapse in 1973 during the third and decline year of its cyclic
 occurrence. Reports of these  on-site investigations were submitted to the Administrator.

     After review of the report and due consideration to all factors involved, the Adminis-
 trator announced that, in his opinion, the benefits did not outweigh the risks of introducing
 200,000 pounds of DDT into the environment in the proposed DDT control program.  Sub-
 sequently, all requests for its use were denied.

     We have continued to keep abreast of developments with regard to control of the tus-
 sock moth and are aware that, as predicted, additional damage occurred in 1973. We have
 also been informed that new outbreaks have occurred in 1973  which may need to be con-
 trolled in 1974.

     In order to obtain up-to-date information concerning the current status and possible
 1974 implications of Douglas fir tussock moth activity, representatives of EPA, the U.S.
 Forest Service, and the States  of Oregon and Washington held an open controlled meeting
 on September 20 at the U.S. Forest Service Region 6 headquarters, Portland, Oregon.

     Prior to this meeting, EPA and U.S. Forest Service personnel met with Federal, State,
academic, environmental organizations, industrial personnel, and the general public in Walla
Walla, Washington, and La Grande, Pendleton, Corvallis, and Salem, Oregon.  On-site ground
inspection was made between Walla Walla and La Grande and an aerial inspection of the
Blue Mountains area was also conducted.
                                         IV

-------
     The situation revealed by those meetings is that the nuclear polyhedrosis virus that
appears to have been a major mortality factor causing dramatic population collapse in pre-
vious tussock moth outbreaks did not develop in epizootic proportions in the Blue Moun-
tains area in 1973, and the dramatic population collapse did not occur.

     We have been advised that some 690,000 acres of fir timber type in the States of
Oregon and Washington are now infested.  This includes about 36,000 acres on the Colville
Indian Reservation.  An additional 125,000 acres were defoliated in varying degrees in north-
ern Idaho, and a few small areas of 1973 defoliation are reported in southern Idaho, Mon-
tana, Nevada, New Mexico, and California.  About 197,000 acres were defoliated to some
degree in 1972. The U.S. Forest Service projected injury on 449,000 acres in the Blue
Mountains in 1973, making the actual infestation approximately 250,000 acres greater than
anticipated in Oregon and Washington.

     The U.S. Forest Service has indicated that whether direct control of the tussock moth
will be needed in 1974 cannot be determined until detailed biological evaluations are made
this fall and winter.  If the fall egg-mass survey indicates a need for insecticide in 1974, a
contingency or emergency use application for DDT will probably be made to EPA around
December 15. The U.S. Forest Service's opinion is that DDT is the only pesticide available
that will control the tussock moth.
                     EPA POSITION IF PETITIONED FOR DDT

     If petitioners apply to EPA for the use of DDT for Douglas fir tussock moth control,
formal hearings to solicit the views of all interested persons will be held in the Northwest as
I noted previously. Information obtained at these hearings and derived from other sources
will be evaluated in time to reach a decision well in advance of any spring outbreak in 1974<.

-------
                                Contents

                                                                           Page

Foreword.  Henry J. Korp	   iii

Morning Session:

     Douglas Fir Tussock Moth Situation.  David A. Graham	   3
     Control of Douglas Fir Tussock Moth.  Bill L. Stevenson	  17
     State of Knowledge, Work in Progress, and Research Needs for the Douglas Fir
         Tussock Moth.  Robert E. Buckman	  21
     Oregon's Concerns on the Douglas Fir Tussock Moth Infestation.  J. E. Schroeder.  29
     Forest Insect Control Through Research.  Donald R. Hopkins	  33
     Technical Problems and Research Needs:  What Are They?   Carl Stoltenberg	  39
     Developing Strategic Management Systems for the Douglas Fir Tussock Moth.
         Alan Berryman	  45
     Status  of Knowledge on the Douglas Fir Tussock Moth.  Ronald W. Stark	  51

Afternoon Session:

     The Technical Problems and Research Needs: What Are They to the Bureau  of
         Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, U.S. Department of the Interior?  Richard E.
         Pillmore	  57
     Douglas Fir Tussock Moth Research Needs: A Position Paper.   Steven G.Herman.  61
     Preventing Douglas Fir Tussock Moth Outbreaks:  A View From the Pesticide
         Industry.  R. P. Harrison	  65
     The Technical Problems and Research Needs: What Are They to Industry?
         Philip A. Grau	  71
     Tussock Moth Virus Production.  Edward B. Westall	  75
     Forest Industry's Views Regarding Tussock Moth.  William H. Lawrence	  79

Appendixes	  83
                                      vn

-------
Morning

-------
             DOUGLAS FIR TUSSOCK MOTH SITUATION
                                 David A. Graham
                     Branch Chief for Insect and Disease Control,
                  U.S, Forest Service,  U.S. Department of Agriculture,
                                 Portland, Oregon
                                INTRODUCTION

     MR. KORP: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.  My name is Henry Korp. I am the
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Pesticide Programs in Washington. We are going to try
and stay on schedule here today, and that is the reason for my prompt start. First in the
order of things is a welcoming address from Mr. James A. Agee, who is Regional Administra-
tor for the Agency in Region X in Seattle.

     MR. AGEE: Henry, thank you very much.  I am here to welcome you this morning.
This seminar is very important to our Agency. I am sure it is very important to you and that
is why you are here.  I would like to thank all of you for coming.  We are really looking for
your input—all of you from the private sector, from the academic sector, from the regula-
tory agencies, State and Federal. For a good  seminar, we need your data.

     I think many Federal agencies today have an innate capability to make mistakes. I am
not saying we h*>.ve made a bad judgment with the tussock moth, but the subject is up for
reassessment. Mr. Train announced a day or two ago that we will hold some formal public
hearings starting the week of January 14 in three of our Northwest cities—Boise, Portland,
and Seattle.  We also have a  hearing  in Washington, D.C., that week to consider a formal re-
quest for the use of DDT for the control of tussock moths in the Northwest. I want to bring
that message to you, and again I want to welcome you and thank you for your participation.

     MR. KORP: Thank you, Jim.  I am going right ahead to our first speaker on the pro-
gram. This is Dave Graham, Branch Chief for Insect and Disease Control Group, United
States Forest Service, Region 6, in Portland, Oregon.

     MR. GRAHAM:  Good morning, it is nice to be first. I hung up two maps back in the
back of the room, I think everybody has probably looked at them by now. They are more
or less broad-brush-type maps, but they depict the area we are talking about. They will be
available throughout the day.  In regard to my presentation, I have a few extra copies. If
you would be interested in having one, see me sometime during the day.

     Some of the material that I will present will repeat what Mr. Korp has just covered.
But it is important to indicate—in the proceedings—that this information comes from the
Forest Service. Therefore, I think it is well to cover some of it, particularly in regard to

-------
 acreage figures. Acreage figures necessarily have to change, particularly those relating to an
 insect outbreak. I think almost everyone here can realize the difficulty of precisely deter-
 mining acres involved in that vast area covered by the maps. It is a difficult and complex
 job, and as we begin to refine information—acreage information on the basis of our surveys—
 the acreage figures will change.
                                  PRESENTATION

 Introduction

     The Douglas fir tussock moth is usually endemic in western forests and most years not
 in evidence at all. However, serious outbreaks have occurred several times in the past, nota-
 bly 1947,1956, and 1965.  This current Pacific Northwest outbreak first developed in cen-
 tral Washington and the Okanogan Valley in 1971. Some 2,400 acres were affected but only
 about 250 acres seriously damaged.  One of the most obvious heavily damaged areas was
 located near the main highway just west of Cashmere.

     The outbreak literally exploded during 1972. About 197,000 acres in the States of
 Oregon and Washington were defoliated to  some degree. A total of about 15,000  acres were
 heavily damaged. Most of the defoliation and damage occurred in the La Grande, Oregon,
 and Walla Walla, Washington, areas.


 Hosts—Life Cycle

     Douglas fir, white fir, and grand fir are the preferred hosts for the Douglas fir tussock
 moth. However, the caterpillars (larvae) will feed on many other trees and shrubs after the
 preferred foliage has been eaten.  In some of our current outbreak areas, considerable dam-
 age to ponderosa pine, subalpine fir, and spruce has occurred. The newly hatched larvae
 feed on the new needles in the spring. Older needles are consumed as the larvae mature and
 increase in size. Infected trees begin to turn red from the top down in June. By mid-July,
 entire trees are often defoliated and killed in the same year, or by subsequent bark beetle
 attack because of the weakened condition in following years. Sometimes only tops of trees
 are seriously defoliated. Most of these eventually recover, although dead tops may develop.

     Tussock moth eggs hatch between mid-May and early June. Newly hatched larvae are
 about one-eighth inch long and covered with long hairs.  This hair and light weight allows
 them to be carried by the wind for quite long distances.  However, this air transport does
 not result in significant damage very far from the point of origin.  Full-grown larvae are
 about 1V4 inches long. They have two long, dark tufts of hair just back of the head and a
 similar single tuft on the other end. Pour dense, buff-colored tussocks of hair grow along
the middle of the back. Larvae feed through July and early August until they enter the
 cocoon  or "resting" stage.  This period lasts from 10 to  18 days depending on temperature
when the moths emerge. The female moth  is wingless and lays her eggs on the cocoon right
after she emerges and mates with the winged male. Each female lays 150-250 eggs.

Biological  Evaluation

     A very thorough evaluation of the current Oregon-Washington situation was made by
Forest Service and State forest entomologists during 1972 and early 1973. This indicated

-------
that the population was likely to increase within the areas partially defoliated in 1972 and
cause considerable damage in 1973.  This evaluation also showed that there would be about
449,000 acres defoliated in 1973 and a considerable increase in the area seriously damaged
by the tussock moth.
 Environmental Statement

     Because of the large area affected and the possible need to apply chemicals over large
 forest areas, an environmental statement in accordance with the 1969 National Environmen-
 tal Policy Act was prepared by the Forest Service (Region 6) with assistance from the two
 States and the Northwest Forest Pest Action Council. This was filed in final form with the
 Council on Environmental Quality on April 26,1973.

     During the preparation of the Environmental Statement it was determined that it might
 be necessary to use DDT in 1973 to control the outbreak.  No other chemical suitable for
 large-scale forest-land aerial application has been proven effective against the tussock moth.
 DDT was no longer registered for use.  Therefore, an emergency-use application for DDT on
 an "if needed" basis was made to the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
 Public response to the Environmental Statement was tremendous.  Over 2,000 letters, state-
 ments, and signatures were received, mostly from the affected areas. Over 95 percent were
 in favor of using DDT if it was necessary in order to prevent excessive tree loss during 1973.
Control Tests

     Four insecticides, Zectran, Dylox, Sevin 4 Oil, and Bioethanomethrin, and two biologi-
cal agents, Dipel (Bacillus thuringiensis) and the natural occurring tussock moth virus, were
extensively field tested during 1973. Because requests for the emergency use of DDT in
1973 were denied by the Federal Environmental Protection Agency on April 20,1973, the
Zectran test was expanded considerably, mostly on private lands in Oregon and the Walla
Walla watershed. This chemical had shown at least some promise in early tests and no other
alternatives were available. It was also recommended by the EPA as a suitable substitute for
DDT. About 70,000 acres were treated at a total cost of $7.50 per acre during June and
early July 1973 in Oregon and Washington with a double application of Zectran (0.15 pound
in 1 gallon of fuel oil per acre each application). Private landowners paid one-half of the
cost on their lands that were treated.

     A preliminary evaluation of these tests has been completed. Large numbers of insects
were killed on most of the plots, but none of the chemical treatments saved enough foliage
or trees to be able to consider them effective enough for operational use. The insect popula-
tion left after treatment  apparently was too high, and observations made so far indicate that
unacceptable damage occurred in most of the treated areas. The two other materials, the
natural virus and Bacillus thuringiensis, appear quite promising and will be pilot tested on a
large-scale basis during 1974. Both of these materials have only been tested on a small-scale
basis so far.  Further, the natural virus cannot be synthesized and is not available in large
quantities. The Bacillus  thuringiensis formulation used is not available commercially. There-
fore, none of these materials can be recommended for registration and/or operational use in
1974.

-------
Current Outbreak

     The outbreak continued as expected during 1973 in most areas. However, a number of
additional areas became defoliated that were not predicted. Also, in some areas where we
anticipated only light damage, very serious damage occurred.  Some 690,000 acres of fir tim-
ber type in the States of Oregon and Washington are now defoliated.  This includes about
36,000 acres on the Colville Indian Reservation.

     An additional 122,000 acres in northern Idaho and about 10,000 acres in southern
Idaho are reported to have been defoliated during 1973.  A few small areas of 1973 defolia-
tion are also reported in Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, and California. None of these small
areas are considered very serious or threatening except to scattered recreation, shade, and
ornamental trees.

     The following tables present this information in more detail. Tables 1 and 2 (from the
1973 Final Environmental Statement) are the projections that were made based on all of the
biological data available at that time.  Tables 3 and 4 reflect the actual situation at the end
of the 1973 season. The 355,000 acres shown as acres dead plus class I plus class II on tables
3 and 4 are comparable to the approximately 281,000 acres indicated in table 2. Insect
populations were higher than anticipated, and so caused more severe damage than expected,
especially in areas partially defoliated in 1972.

     Surveys to determine the amount of heavy damage and actual timber loss due to  the
1973 insect population are currently underway. As soon as this is completed, salvage timber
sales and plans for reforestation will be finalized.  Most of the accessible timber killed  by the
tussock moth during 1972 has been salvage logged, both on private and on national forest
land.

     Table 5 gives additional estimated volume information.  The figures reflect only the
loss in merchantable-size (12 inches or more diameter at breast height) trees. No estimates
have been made for the young growth tree loss.


Forest Fire Impact

     Tussock-moth-damaged trees are very flammable and create a very serious fire hazard.
Tree needles killed by the tussock moth are very dry and literally explode when exposed to
fire.  In anticipation of this, extra helicopters, retardant planes, and crews were stationed
this year in or near the outbreak areas. Two large fires that involved tussock-moth-killed
trees have occurred so far during 1973—one at Perry, near La Grande, Oregon, which was
controlled at 6,100 acres, and one called the Freezeout Fire east of Joseph, Oregon, which
was controlled at about 16,000 acres. About 200 acres of tussock-moth-damaged area was
burned in the La Grande fire, and about 3,000 acres in the Freezeout Fire.  Just how much
the tussock moth contributed to the size of these fires and control difficulties is not pre-
cisely known, but there is no question that it was a very significant  factor. The exceptional
1973 summer drought condition also contributed  significantly to the fire hazard.

Predictions for 1974—Survey Methods Used

     A natural virus disease and a number of insect parasites usually cause tussock moth
outbreaks to eventually collapse.  The virus disease did increase substantially during 1973,

-------
Table  1.-Acres  of  defoliation,  by  ownership,
                projected for 1973
               Area
                                          130,340
                                           55,810
                                          119,680
                                          305330
                                           93,770
                                           11,710
Oregon:

  Blua Mountain unit:

     Umatilla National Forest
     Wallowa-Whitman National Forest
     State and private

      Subtotal

Washington:

  Blue Mountain unit:

     Umatilla National Forest
     State and private -

      Subtotal

         Blue Mountain total

  Wenatchee unit:

     VVenatchee National Forest
     Private land

      Subtotal

  Okanogan unit:

     Okanogan National Forest
     Private land

      Subtotal

  Colville unit:

     Colville Indian Reservation
     Private land

      Subtotal

           Grand total
   Note.—Total projected areas of defoliation based on
result! of ground and aerial surveys. Includes all areas
which  are projected  to  have visible defoliation  during
1973. Includes all of areas defoliated to some degree in
1972.
                                          Acres of
                                         defoliation
                                            2,440
                                            2,560
                                            5,000
                                              280
                                           10,720
                                           11,000
                                           12.400
                                            9^40
                                                        Table 2.-Projected acres of substantial defoliation
                                                                    and tree loss, by ownership
                                                                         Area
Oregon:

   Blue Mountain unit:

      Umatilla National Forest
      Wallowa-Whitman National Forest
      State and private

        Subtotal

Washington:

   Blue Mountain unit:

      Umatilla National Forest
      State and private

        Subtotal

          Blue Mountain total

   Wenatchee unit:

      Wenatchee  National Forest
      Private land

        Subtotal

          National forest subtotal
          State and private subtotal

             Grand total
                                            Acres
121,890
 11,560
 66,650
                                                                                                   200,100
                                                                                                    54,400
                                                                                                     7,006
  2,440
  2,560
 ==SS
  5,000
190,290
 76,210
                                                                                                  266,500
   Note.—Total areas of infestation based on results of
ground  and aerial surveys.  These figures include  the
15,660 acres with substantial tree mortality that resulted
from 1972 defoliation. Approximately 14,500 additional
acres  of national  forest lands  that  will be  used  for
insecticide  tests  and  experimental  purposes are  not
included. Much of the anticipated tree loss will  result
from subsequent bark beetle attacks following the loss of
tree vigor caused by the tussock moth.

-------
          Table 3.—Douglas fir tussock moth defoliation acres, by ownership and damage class:
                                 Oregon and Washington, 1973
Area
Oregon:
National forest
Indian lands
State and private5
Subtotal
Washington:
National forest
Indian lands
State and private5
Subtotal
Total:
National forest
Indian lands
State and private5
Regional total
Acres
dead1
9,350
5,530
14,880
2,310
80
2,390
11,660
5,610
17,270
Acres of defoliation by damage class
Class I2
27,110
15,410
42,520
9,570
2,810
7,170
19,550
36,680
2,810
22,580
62,070
Class 1 13
121,070
30
51,020
172,120
78,340
12,200
13,000
103,540
199,410
12,230
64,020
275,660
Class II I4
139,860
30
69,040
208,930
76,630
21.160
28,040
125,830
216,490
21,190
97,080
334,760
Total
297,390
60
141,000
438,450
166,850
36,170
48,290
251,310
464,240
36,230
189,290
689,760
        'Areas of heavy mortality from defoliation in 1973. Includes areas that have been salvage logged.
        ^Fifty percent or more of the host type has been completely defoliated.
        3Fifty percent or more of the host type has at least the top quarter of the crown completely defoliated.
        Host type has defoliation visible from survey aircraft.  The current year's foliage has been removed on
     most trees but less than a quarter of the crown has been completely defoliated.
        "Includes Bureau of Land Management acres.
but not early enough to prevent serious damage.  Evidence of the disease can now be found
in most of the outbreak areas, which may indicate that insect populations may be quite low,
at least in some areas, in 1974.  The actual significance of this will be determined next March
from larvae hatched in the laboratory from egg masses collected this fall.

     Some of the areas defoliated for the first time in 1973, which are separated from the
1972 outbreak area by considerable distances, may be new outbreaks without much disease
or parasitism. If this conjecture is true, these areas have potential for being seriously dam-
aged in 1974 if not controlled.

     Our fall 1973 egg-mass survey and examination will permit determination of this prior
to the need for any control action. The survey has been completed except for some possible
additional data collection on private land.

-------
                   Table 4.—Acres of defoliation, by ownership and damage class, in 1973
                                    [Includes areas affected during 1972]
Area
Oregon:
Blue Mountain unit:
Umatilla National Forest
Wallowa-Whitman National Forest
BLM (Lookout Mountain)
Umatilla Indian Reservation
State and private
Oregon subtotal
Washington:
Blue Mountain unit:
Umatilla National Forest
State and private
Subtotal
Wenatchee unit:
Wenatchee National Forest
State and private
Subtotal
Okanogan unit: State and private
Subtotal
Colville unit:
Colville National Forest
Colville Indian Reservation
State and private
Subtotal
N.E. Washington unit: State and
private
Subtotal
Washington subtotal
Grand total
Acres
dead1
9,180
170
5,530
14,880
2,310
80
2,390








2,390
17,270
Acres of defoliation by damage class
Class I2
17,340
9,770
50
15,360
42,520
9,250
850
10,100
320
840
1,160
2,080
2,080
2,810
2,560
5,370
840
840
19,550
62,070
Class II3
86,150
34,920
1,350
30
49,670
172,120
78,300
10,770
89,070
40
200
240
750
750
12,200
1,080
13,280
200
200
103,540
275,660
Class III4
74,970
64,890
170
30
68,870
208,930
76,350
13,140
89,490
120
200
320
1,020
1,020
160
21,160
11,680
33,000
2,000
2,000
125,830
334,760
Total
187,640
109,750
1,570
60
139,430
438,450
166,210
24,840
191,050
480
1,240
1,720
3,850
3,850
160
36,170
15,320
51,650
3,040
3,040
251,310
689,760
   1 Areas of heavy mortality from defoliation in 1973. Includes areas that have been salvage logged.
   2c;
    Fifty percent or more of the host type has been completely defoliated.
   3Fifty percent or more of the host type has at least the top quarter of the crown completely defoliated.
    Host type has defoliation visible from survey  aircraft.  The current year's foliage has been removed on most trees but
less than a quarter of the crown has been completely defoliated.

-------
                             Table 5.-Merchantable volume losses
                                 [In thousands of board feet]

Year


1971
1972
1973
Salvaged or
to be salvaged

National
forest
400
49,000
324,000
State and
private
200
50,000
186,000
Not salvaged

National
forest
0
50,000
170,000
State and
private
0
5,000
20,000
                    Note.-The volumes "not salvaged" will deteriorate prior to the ability
                  to gain access to the affected stands.  Some of this volume is scattered
                  trees which would be uneconomical to salvage by themselves. Adding green
                  timber to the market at this time in order to salvage them is impractical.
     Survey Procedure.  Upon completion of egg laying by the tussock moth in late Septem-
ber, a survey was started in defoliated (as determined by aerial survey) and adjacent areas to
collect data to aid in preparation of a report on the trend of the outbreak for 1974.  This
survey will provide data on the most important but not all of the factors that must be con-
sidered and evaluated before a final decision can be made on the need for control in specific
areas.

     Data collected will indicate the capability of the current moth population in the egg
stage to continue or intensify the infestation. Prior to egg hatch in the spring of 1974, ob-
servations will be required to insure that abnormal numbers of egg parasites or adverse
weather conditions during the winter have not significantly reduced the viability of the eggs.

     Objectives. It is the objective of this survey to gather data on several factors which,
when combined with known information and the results of investigations currently under-
way, will aid to—

     1.   Delineate areas previously defoliated which contain the moth population in a den-
          sity capable of continuing this defoliation.

     2.    Delineate areas outside areas previously defoliated containing egg masses capable
          of producing tussock moth populations which could cause unacceptable defolia-
          tion in 1974.

     3.    Estimate the

          a.   Number of new egg masses

          b.   Ratio of old to new egg masses

         c.   Number of old egg masses

         d.   Incidence of virus present in overwintering eggs
                                          10

-------
     4.   Although not a primary objective, a determination as to whether there is a corre-
          lation between the measurements on the population density plots and the relative
          time plots will be made in order to possibly improve future surveys.

The survey will also include—
                                                                                     '
     1.   Recording observations on host type and condition

     2.   Collecting eggs for determining the incidence of virus

     Sampling Unit and Plot Density. The sampling unit consists* of 10 trees in the approxi-
mate center of each section of a township.  Theoretically, this unit will be 640 acres in size
and there will be 36 units in a township.  It is realized that sections are not uniform, but
sufficiently uniform to justify the assumption that we have a systematic sample of the area
infested.

     Sampling design will permit poststratification with double sampling. An attempt will
be made to establish one moth-population-intensity measure plot and five relative-population
time plots in each section.  When possible, within manpower and travel limitations, all sec-
tions mapped during the aerial survey as showing some degree of defoliation will be sur-
veyed. In addition, in areas where there is host type, a belt three sections wide surrounding
the infestation will be surveyed.

     If data collected within the belt indicate that it is infested, then the belt will be broad-
ened until a belt of uninfested host type one section wide has been surveyed on the perim-
eter of the defoliated area.

     Selection of Plot Locations.  Upon arrival at the section to be surveyed, the crew drives
the road system and selects the spot where the road comes closest to the center of the sec-
tion.  A branch on a tree at the edge of the road is tagged.  After pacing in 1 chain at right
angle to the road, the first host-type tree is selected as the first sample tree on the plot.

     At this location, both a population-intensity measure plot and a relative-population
time plot are established. In addition, in each section four more relative-population time
plots are established at 0.2-mile intervals on the road in either direction from the intensity
plot without leaving the section.

     In cases where host trees are not present at these locations, the plots are centered in the
first host-type stand encountered as one travels forward along the selected road.

     In cases where there are no roads within the section, the double plot is located on a
trail as close to the section  center as the trail and host-type trees permit. The remaining four
relative-population time plots are then spaced at 8-chain intervals along the trail.

     Population-Density Measure Plot Procedure.  The following procedure, using a two-man
crew, is used:

      1.   With a felt-tip pen, mark a 3-foot section of white ribbon with the section num-
          ber, date, and initials of the crew members.
                                          11

-------
      2.  Secure the ribbon to a branch tip on the edge of the road where it can readily be
          seen from a passing vehicle.

      3.  Pace off 1 chain (66 feet) at right angle from the road edge.

      4.  Select for the first tree to be sampled the nearest host-type tree with foliage that
          can be reached with the pruning saw.

      5.  Saw off one entire branch from the midcrown of the tree.

      6.  If there is no foliage on the midcrown branches, then lower the saw and cut the
          highest branch with foliage.

      7.  If you cannot reach the midcrown with the saw, cut off the highest branch you
          can reach.

      8.  Measure from the branch tip along the  branch stem to where the foliage stops.
          Record to the closest inch.

      9.  Measure the width of the foliage at the widest location. Record to the closest
          inch.

     10.  Count the old egg masses on the foliage. Record.

     11.  Count the new egg masses on the foliage. Record.

     12.  Repeat the procedure on the next nearest nine host trees that meet the specifica-
          tions for available foliage and size.

     Relative-Population Time Plot Procedure. The following procedure is used to collect
the data from five time plots in each section:

     1.    The center of the first time plot is the fifth tree of the population  intensity plot.

     2.    The area to be examined is limited to a 118-foot radius  of this tree.

     3.    Using a timer (darkroom, cooking, watch, etc.) one man searches for 10 minutes
          or two men for 5 minutes.

     4.    Host and nonhost trees, foliage, trunks, undergrowth, stumps, rocks, etc., are ex-
          amined for egg masses. The only limitation is that the observer must be able to
          get close enough to determine if the egg mass is  an old one or a new one.

     5.    Two counts are kept on tally records; one of old masses observed and the second
          of new egg masses observed.

     Virus Incidence Survey. As an aid in determining the incidence of virus in the out-
break, five new egg masses are collected in each section where eggs are found on the inten-
sity plot.  One egg mass will be collected from each of the  first five branches  containing eggs.
If five of the ten branches surveyed do not contain eggs, then five  masses are  collected
                                         12

-------
evenly from those that do. If less than five egg masses are found, the remainder is collected
from the time plots. The number collected is recorded.

     Egg masses collected are placed in a small paper bag that has been labeled with the
township, range, and section of the collection plot. The bags are stored in a cool, foam box
until deposited at survey headquarters.

     Rearing of eggs to determine the virus incidence will be done in the laboratory during
February and March 1974. Egg viability will also be determined at this time.
Treatment Criteria

     Treatment criteria that will be used in planning control strategy for 1974 have been
developed as follows:

     The following evaluation key will be used in a stepwise fashion as the sequence of spe-
cific biological data becomes available. Each plot (section) that has been surveyed will be
subjected to this analysis. If the minimum criteria are exceeded, the section will be rated
"+" to indicate that control is recommended. After these are plotted on a map along with
the sections that do not meet the criteria (rated "-"), a recommended treatment zone will
be drawn in. The minimum figures shown were developed from mixed (true fir, Douglas fir)
stand data. Pure Douglas fir stands that meet the minimum criteria at any one of the deci-
sion points can be considered a somewhat higher risk.  Host-type information and the judg-
ment of the entomologist in charge will also be used in plotting the final treatment bound-
ary. These criteria are considered to be thresholds above which unacceptable foliage loss
and top kill will occur if the area is not treated.

     An emergency request for the use of DDT, contingent  on the development of the sub-
sequent biological factors shown, will be made at step 4 or step 8 if the data indicate the
risk, of loss is high at that point.

     1.   No new egg masses—no further control consideration.
     la.   Some new egg masses—some risk (2).

          2.   For areas that are in defoliation class I and II.

              3.   Egg-mass ratio less than 1 old to 0.01 new1—low risk.
              3a.  Egg-mass ratio equal to  or more than 1  old to 0.01 new1—high risk de-
                   pendent on step 4.

              4.   Egg-mass density less than 0.1—low risk.
              4a.  Egg-mass density equal to or more than 0.1—high risk dependent on
                   step 5.

              5.   Virus level equal to or more than 50 percent—low risk.
              5a.  Virus level less than 50 percent—high risk dependent on step 6.
     •'•From egy-mass-intensity or time-plot data.
                                         13

-------
              6.   Viable egg density less than 20 per 1,000 square inches of foliage—low
                   risk.
              6a.  Viable egg density equal to or more than 20 per 1,000 square inches of
                   foliage—high risk dependent on spring egg viability verification.

          2a.  For areas that are in defoliation class 3 and 4.

              7.   Egg-mass ratio less than 1 old to 0.1 new1—low risk.
              7a.  Egg-mass ratio equal to or more than 1 old to 0.1 new1—high risk de-
                   pendent on step 8.

              8.   Egg-mass density less than 0.1—low risk.
              8a.  Egg-mass density equal to or more than 0.1—high risk dependent on
                   step 9.

              9.   Virus level equal to or more than 30 percent—low risk.
              9a.  Virus level less than 30 percent—high risk dependent on step 10.

             10.   Viable egg density less than 20 per 1,000 square inches of foliage—low
                   risk.
             lOa.  Viable egg density equal to or more than 20 per 1,000 square inches of
                   foliage—high risk dependent on spring egg viability verification.
What Is Being Done

     It is too late this year for any type of chemical control. The insects have now com-
pleted their feeding for this year and are in the egg stage.  All damage that will occur in 1973
has been done.  The eggs will not hatch until late in May or early June next year. These in-
sects can only be controlled with chemicals soon after they hatch and while they are in the
caterpillar (larvae) stage. To be effective, chemical controls must be used during June or
early July.

     Because of the very complex nature of the problem and the need to bring all of the
best expertise available in on the development of solutions, an Interagency Steering
Committee—composed of key members from the Washington State Department of  Natural
Resources,  Oregon State Department of Forestry, Idaho State Department of Lands, Forest
Service (both administration and research), Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Man-
agement, Oregon State University, and the Federal Environmental Protection Agency—was
formed early this year.

     The "doing jobs" will be accomplished by a technical working group composed of
members from the Federal and State agencies who have direct responsibility (by law) for
forest insect detection and control (Washington State Department of Natural Resources,
Oregon State Department of Forestry, Idaho State Department of Lands, and the Forest
Service). This working group will coordinate all policy actions with the Forest Pest Action
Councils and other concerned units and groups as needed.
     1From egg-mass-intensity or time-plot data.
                                         14

-------
     This Steering Committee has developed a four-point action plan as follows:

     1.   Accelerate through research and development the search for alternatives to per-
sistent pesticides.  Field experiments in 1973 indicate that the two microbial sprays (virus
and. Bacillus thuringiensis) were effective in reducing tussock moth populations.  The next
steps are to refine formulations of these materials and to evaluate their effectiveness and
safety when applied on a larger scale operational basis to several thousand acres in 1974.
Promising chemicals, particularly Dylox and  Sevin 4 Oil, should also be further evaluated in
a series of small-scale tests. When the present outbreak subsides, it may be several years be-
fore another arises.  Accordingly, an all-out effort should be made in 1974 to develop ac-
ceptable control measures for future use.

     2.   Seek contingency approval for use of DDT. Whether direct control of the tussock
moth will be needed in 1974 cannot be determined until detailed biological evaluations of
the populations are made this fall and winter. If the fall egg-mass survey indicates that there
may be a need for direct chemical control in  1974, a contingency or emergency-use applica-
tion  for DDT will be made to the Environmental Protection Agency about December 15,
1973. DDT will not be used unless the lack of virus and parasites indicates that it will be
necessary. In addition, provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act will be followed.

     3.   Improve systems for detecting the  presence and numbers of the tussock moth.
Work has been accelerated on methods for surveying and sampling tussock moth popula-
tions by government agencies and private organizations. For example, a study is in progress
to identify and synthesize the  sex attractant  of the female moth. Availability of the tussock
moth attractant would provide a quick, efficient survey tool for early detection of out-
breaks.

     4.   Continue  the Interagency Tussock Moth Steering Committee as the coordinating
body for handling policies and issues. The tussock moth poses many complex  problems
such as resource and environmental impacts,  intermingled land ownership, and control deci-
sions. Action programs require careful review of a broad array of biological, environmental,
and economic facts. The Steering Committee, comprised of Federal and State agency repre-
sentatives, will provide the necessary coordination with the Western Forest Pest Action
Councils and other concerned groups and individuals prior to decisionmaking.
                                   DISCUSSION

     MR. KORP:  Thank you, Dave.  Now we are about on schedule. If there are questions,
specific to the content of Dave's remarks—

     Wl L LI AM  HAZE LTIN E:  I thought I understood you to say that EPA—in connection
with their denial on April 20—recommended the use of Zectran.  I wonder if you would
clarify that, please?

     M R. G RAH AM: Would you repeat the question, please?

     MR. HAZELTINE: I thought that you stated that EPA had recommended the use of
Zectran and I wanted to know if you meant to say the word "recommend."
                                         15

-------
     MR. G RAH AM: Maybe I should get a direct quote from the letter of denial that was
written to Assistant Secretary Long. I have a copy with me; I am sure other members have
also. Possibly the word was "suggest." But it was very definitely pointed out, in that denial
of the request to use DDT, that we should seriously consider using Zectran as a possible sub-
stitute.

     JOHN THOMPSON: Dave, you mentioned that the Steering Committee had a four-
point program.  I only got three—research for new chemicals, application for the use of
DDT, and improved protection and evaluation.  Is there a fourth?

     MR. GRAHAM: Yes, the fourth is self-perpetuation. The fourth point was that the
Steering Committee was working well and it was consensus of the group that this method
provides a better united front on the subject. Now I want to make clear that this committee
is temporary, with a self-destruct device.  It has been formed for the tussock moth emer-
gency situation only.  These outbreaks are cyclic.  It is hoped that the cycle will be over be-
fore too long and the Steering Committee will disband.

     A VOICE: Dave, what does the committee feel will be the number one research need?

     MR. GRAHAM: Research needs have not yet been specifically identified by the Steer-
ing Committee.  I would defer that question—possibly to Dr. Buckman who will be on the
program.
                                        16

-------
           CONTROL OF  DOUGLAS FIR TUSSOCK MOTH
                              Bill L. Stevenson, Ph. D.
                        Assistant Director, Forest Pest Control
                        U.S. Forest Service, Washington, D.C.
                                 INTRODUCTION

     MR. KORP: We have two other speakers from the Forest Service.  For control, our
next speaker is Dr. Bill Stevenson, Assistant Director, Forest Pest Control, Forest Environ-
mental Protection, Environmental Quality Evaluation, U.S. Forest Service, Washington, D.C.

     MR. STEVENSON: Thank you, Mr. Korp.  It is indeed a pleasure to have the oppor-
tunity to participate with this group in the Northwest. I have enjoyed both professional and
nonprofessional working relationships with members of the Forest Service, Environmental
Protection Agency, university, and industry, so I really feel at home.

     Two questions came to my mind this morning, and I would like to  begin with them.
One is, What sort of problems are we going to face in all areas of pesticide application with
the energy crisis for carriers. I do not have the answer, I am just supplying the question.
Another thing—Mr. Korp, I am sure that you have investigated this—the  National Center for
Toxicological Research in Pine Bluff has excellent facilities and I think might be able to give
us some assistance when it comes to microbials.  Possibly that group has some ideas and
equipment to supply microbials if we reach a place where we need them.
                                 PRESENTATION

     The President's Science Advisory Committee, in its report entitled "Use of Pesticides,"
acknowledged the benefits of pesticides, but recognized the need to evaluate the risks to
man and his environment associated with their use.  This is certainly a broad assessment, but
one which the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Forest Service must consider
in great detail.  A coordinated program of evaluation, instruction, and technical assistance
encompassing the affected areas in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho can best be implemented
through joint efforts by these two agencies.

     The Forest Service, in keeping with U.S. Department of Agriculture policy on pest con-
trol, will practice and encourage the use of those means of practicable, effective pest control
which result in optimum protection against pests and the least potential hazard to man, his
animals, wildlife, and the other components of the natural environment.  Integrated control
systems utilizing both chemical and nonchemical techniques are used and recommended.
                                        17

-------
     The implementation of integrated pest-control systems are providing satisfactory re-
sults in some instances.  We recognize the importance of controlling pests of forest and agri-
cultural commodities generally. We have responsibilities to provide the technology to con-
trol such pests, to take action to control them on Federal lands under our jurisdiction, and
to cooperate with the States in control efforts on non-Federal lands.

     In all instances of pesticide use, there should be a careful balancing of benefits and risk
in such a way as to best serve the interest of society as a whole. Such evaluations are espe-
cially essential whenever consideration is given to the use of persistent pesticides such as
DDT, which have been proven effective and are needed for emergency use, on a case-by-case
basis until better methods are developed. Some groups consider the present tussock moth
outbreak an environmental disaster and a very serious economic impact on the forest re-
source. If final biological evaluations and an analysis of all available alternatives indicate
that direct control is necessary, it would seem irresponsible for forest managers and public
agencies to not take all feasible actions, on an emergency basis, to control the epidemic.

     Effective methods of control for several important forest insects are not known at this
time, and serious epidemics can develop quickly with very little warning. In keeping with
this concern, if proven persistent pesticides are essential to combat these pests, they should
be used in minimal effective amounts and applied only to the infested area at minimal effec-
tive frequencies. This can be achieved as demonstrated recently when permission for emer-
gency use of DDT was granted by the Environmental Protection Agency for control of the
pea leaf weevil.

     In the tussock moth situation the assessment of the Department of Agriculture and  the
Environmental Protection Agency was that control factors such as natural virus and parasites
would cause a collapse of the infestation. It was reasonable to believe on the basis of past
experience that the population collapse would occur.  Studies are underway to determine
the present trend of the infestation and to quantitatively forecast damage. If the forecast
predicts continuing substantial damage, we will again petition the Environmental Protection
Agency for the use of DDT.

     Procedures for authorizing the general, restricted, and emergency use of DDT or any
other pesticide are presently set forth in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA), as amended by the Act of October 21,1972  (16 U.S.C. 136 et seq.). Section
18 of the amendments vest the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency with
discretionary authority to exempt any Federal or State agency from any provisions of the
Act if he determines that emergency conditions exist which require such exemption.

     Legislation modifying the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act as
amended, for the use of DDT in controlling insect infestations on forest  or agricultural lands,
would establish a precedent for similar legislation involving other pesticides and uses. The
result would be an erosion of the authority and purposes of FIFRA as amended in October
1972.  Additionally, this kind of an exception would create public confusion about the pur-
poses and meaning of FIFRA regulations and other pesticide controls.

    The tide is changing; scientists, entomologists, and principal users of pesticides will
need to adapt to new techniques in pest control. In order to take this step forward, we need
to accelerate and support cooperative research with public and private organizations and  in-
dustry in the development of pest-control materials and methods. Increased Federal control
is evident, especially over pesticides with long residues.  Alternative pesticides, such as the
                                         18

-------
organophosphates, that break down more rapidly, will likewise need to be applied more fre-
quently, and in turn often raise the cost per acre for treatment.

     Pesticide treatment has been and can be expected to continue to be a major technique
in pest control, but the greatest opportunities for pest control in the future lie in developing
more integrated control systems.
Summary

     If the fall egg-mass survey indicates there may be a need for an insecticide in 1974, an
emergency-use request for DDT will be made to the EPA by mid-December.

     Precise criteria based on insect population levels, stand condition, and incidence of   ,
natural control agents will be established to determine the need for emergency use of DDT.

     Direct control methods will not be used unless the lack of virus and parasites indicates
that it will be necessary.

     If an emergency request is deemed necessary and submitted, officials will continue to
monitor the egg masses in laboratory conditions throughout the winter.

     If there is a substantial destruction of the moths from virus, the request for DDT could
be called off because it would mean the natural collapse of the infestation is ready to happen.

     Ultimately, we know it will happen (1974-75).

     Research is being conducted to try and develop effective alternatives to long-lasting
pesticides such as DDT.

     When the present outbreak subsides, it may be several years before another rises. Ac-
cordingly, an all-out effort should be made to develop acceptable control measures for
future use.
                                   DISCUSSION

     MR. KORP:  Thank you, Bill. Is there anything specific to Bill's—? John Thompson?

     MR. THOMPSON:  A point of clarification. Did I understand you to say that the
Department of Agriculture and EPA felt that there would be a collapse?

     MR. STEVENSON: That is my understanding. Is that correct, Mr. Korp? May I refer
this question to Mr. Korp?                                                          \

     MR. THOMPSON:  If you were in agreement with the collapse, why was the applica-
tion made for DDT?

     MR. STEVENSON: Well, I am a neophyte in the Department of Agriculture, so I really
could not comment officially. Dave, you may be able to help.
                                        19

-------
     MR. GRAHAM:  Certainly.  This is a very important and critical point.  The popula-
tion, as I mentioned, collapsed in a good part of the outbreak area.  But it is the timing of
the collapse that is important. When is the population going to collapse?  Before or after
serious damage occurs? The predictions were that, at the end of the 1973 growing season
and  caterpillar stage of the insect, the population (at least in those older outbreak areas)
would collapse. We think it has done that. Of course, during that collapse stage we suffered
a tremendous amount of damage  in some, not all, of the areas.

     MR. BERRYMAN: Perhaps the question should be why the population didn't collapse
in the areas where collapse was expected.  What reasons are there for failure to collapse?

     MR. GRAHAM:  Certainly that is a very important question, too, and it is part of the
additional looking that we are doing.  Can everyone hear the questions? This question was
in regard to the population collapse and whether it may be more important to look at why
the population did not collapse in some of the areas as predicted. Now, of course, there are
a number of variables involved. We are fairly certain that the population (as of this point,
we have not summarized all our data) has collapsed in the areas where the population has
been in existence for 3 years.  There probably are some exceptions, but I think our 1973 fall
egg-mass survey will show that the population has collapsed in a good part of that area. Now
let me be sure that I do not indicate that all of this area is in the same phase.  We have evi-
dence that  some of the collapse started in  1972 and some in 1973. And of course—I am
talking about the Blue Mountains now—we must have had a population in 1971.

     VERNON MARLL, Columbia County Commissioner (Dayton, Washington):  I would
like to ask Mr. Graham a question. In these areas where we have seen such a high population
of tussock moth (and we are in the heart of this thing in Columbia County), is there a possi-
bility that in place of a collapse part of this decline is actually from starvation? Isn't it a
matter of starvation as well as the virus?

     MR. GRAHAM:  The essential part of the question is whether the population has col-
lapsed  in those areas in its entirety and, if it has collapsed, did it collapse because of starva-
tion in some areas.  To answer the latter part of the question, yes, apparently the population
has collapsed from  starvation. It simply ran out of food.

     There are other factors involved; there are differences in the way the insects work on
different host trees. The effect is more severe on Douglas fir, for example, because the in-
sect  can go from the young larvae stage directly to the older needles. On the grand fir, true
fir, and white fir it doesn't work that way.

     Now to answer the first part of the question. Particularly in Columbia County, Wash-
ington, the population has not collapsed in all areas. Some of the evidence of our egg-mass
surveys shows that we apparently have some new, "satellite" outbreaks over that part of
Washington.
                                        20

-------
                 STATE OF  KNOWLEDGE, WORK IN
             PROGRESS,  AND  RESEARCH NEEDS FOR
                THE DOUGLAS FIR TUSSOCK MOTH
                               Robert E. Buckman
           Director, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station
                       U.S. Forest Service, Portland, Oregon
                                INTRODUCTION

     MR. KORP: Our third speaker from the Forest Service needs a little more time on the
program. I understand Dr. Robert Buckman will cover research. Dr. Buckman is the Direc-
tor of the Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, Oregon. Dr.
Buckman	

     DR. BUCKMAN: Thank you, Henry.  I will provide the reporter with a slightly edited
version of this talk, if it will ease his burden.

     I would like to introduce four of my associates who are present.  They are at the fore-
front of their respective fields in tussock moth research. Ken Wright is Assistant Director of
the Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, in entomological research. Dr.
C. G. (Hank) Thompson—Insect Pathologist, U.S. Forest Service—is the project leader of our
search for biological (microbial) controls for Douglas fir tussock moth. Richard Mason-
Research Entomologist, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station—is working
with Boyd Wickman in population dynamics and growth impact studies on Douglas fir tus-
sock moth. George Martin heads our aerial applications research project (he was very active
in tussock moth work last summer) and earlier was involved in Mirex research and the fire
ant problem in the Deep South. I hope you will consult these people, both formally and in-
formally, throughout the day's discussions.

     I represent the research arm of the Forest Service and, more particularly, the Pacific
Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station in Portland, Oregon. I am also represent-
ing the director of our sister station to the south, the Pacific Southwest Station  in Berkeley,
California.
                               PRESENTATION

    I appreciate this opportunity to talk to you about Forest Service research work in
progress and research needs for the Douglas fir tussock moth.  I obviously do not have to
underscore the importance of the pest or the damage it has caused the past several years in
                                      21

-------
the States of Oregon and Washington.  Fortunately, the organization I represent can present
a rather comprehensive summary of where I think we stand and what we need to do next in
terms of research.

     The Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station has been committed to
intensive studies on microbial controls for the tussock moth since 1964, and on population
behavior and impacts since 1966.  We have also started a cooperative research program to
identify the female sex attractant of the insect. The Pacific Southwest Station has been
screening chemical insecticides for use against the tussock moth since 1965. We are now
well along on several lines of work and are initiating cooperative studies with other organiza-
tions and universities.
What We Know About the Insect, Its Damage, and Control

     Biology.  The Douglas fir tussock moth is a defoliator of Douglas fir and many of the
true firs in western North America. Tree damage takes place over about a 60-day period in
the summer, when developing larvae feed on the foliage. Pupation usually occurs by mid-
August. In September, the adults emerge, mate, and lay their eggs in masses at the pupation
site. Hatch occurs in spring or early summer.

     Ability To Detect and Evaluate Populations and Predict Trends. The tussock moth is
native to western forests. Outbreaks have been recorded periodically since the beginning of
this century.  Its populations fluctuate widely. At low population densities it  is virtually un-
detectable, whereas at high densities it is capable of causing complete tree defoliation in a
single season.  Fortunately, populations do not erupt to outbreak status in 1 year, but re-
quire several seasons of buildup before defoliation becomes conspicuous. Incipient out-
breaks can usually be detected a year or two in advance of serious damage by sampling tree
foliage for larvae.

     The presence of tussock moth in a stand does not necessarily mean an outbreak is im-
minent. However,  reasonable predictions can be made by relating population levels to the
expected rate of population change for a given set of circumstances. Once a population
erupts to outbreak status, defoliation may be conspicuous for 2 more years. The total out-
break cycle from release to complete collapse appears to last from 2 to 4 years.

     Impacts.  The effects of tree damage from tussock moth defoliation is well known for
white fir, but less is known about the other principal hosts—grand fir and Douglas fir. Grand
fir is very  similar to white fir, and we may expect that damage will be similar.  However,
Douglas fir is another story. Data from last summer's studies indicate that this species suf-
fered more severe defoliation and tree killing than the true firs.  It is too early  to tell if top
kill and growth loss will also be more pronounced.

     Further, there were strong indications that the presence of Douglas fir in  a mixed stand
could influence population survival during the decline phase of an outbreak and, thus, in-
crease damage on other species like grand iir and even ponderosa pine, a nonpreferred host.
The larger the  component of Douglas fir in a stand, the more severe these effects seem to be.

     We know less about the long-term effects of tree damage on stand productivity, seed
production, fire hazard, watershed values, and, ultimately, stand recovery. However, we do
                                         22

-------
 have study plots in white fir dating back to 1937 that can be used for reference points in
 future research.

     Control. Prevention of tussock moth outbreaks can only come through an integrated
 program of pest management based on a comprehensive understanding of the tussock moth
 population system. Currently, there are no proven ways to prevent outbreaks either by
 silvicultural techniques or by biological methods. Once an outbreak has erupted, however,
 there are good opportunities for suppressing the population with chemical insecticides or
 microbial agents before serious tree damage occurs. At the present time, no insecticides
 are registered for tussock moth control. Four materials—Zectran, Dylox, Sevin, and
 Bioethanomethrin—have shown various degrees of success in field testing.  DDT is generally
 recognized as the most effective chemical control, although hard field data are scarce and
 the material is currently banned from use. A nucleopolyhedrosis virus disease and a bacte-
 rium, Bacillus thuringtensis, have both recently been field tested with considerable success.
 After further testing in 1974, these microbial materials may be ready for registration by
 1975.
What Is Being Done in Research and What Is Needed

     Population Dynamics and Impact. Most forest insect problems are essentially problems
in population dynamics, and this is true for the Douglas fir tussock moth. As a rule, tree
damage is directly related to the number of defoliating caterpillars. Thus, our research ob-
jectives have been to determine tussock moth population levels, to understand how they
change over time and in different places, and to relate the levels and changes to tree damage.
Because of the "feast or famine" characteristic of tussock moth population fluctuations,
entomologists have often been without natural local populations to study; thus, they have
had to conduct investigations in other regions.

     Tn early population studies, an effort was made to develop adequate field-sampling
methods in order to quantify and standardize population assessments. The next step was to
collect data from as many known tussock moth populations as possible. We now have data
from separate outbreaks in three different States which tell us a great deal about tussock
moth populations and tree damage. There are patterns of population change, infestation
distribution, and impact that are similar in all outbreaks. Entomologists are now working on
a preliminary empirical model to predict population trends and damage and simulate the
results of alternative control strategies.

     To strengthen our effort using this approach, information in the future will probably
need to be of a more fundamental nature than previously required. For example, recent
studies have shown that fir forests on the warm, dry end of the scale have higher population
densities of tussock moth and are more susceptible to severe defoliation than those on cool,
moist sites.  However, we know very little about temperature  and moisture effects on tus-
sock moth behavior, development, and survival, even though these could be factors that re-
strict or release an outbreak.

     Similarly, Douglas fir in the Northwest is a favored species for defoliation, and its pro-
portion in a stand could substantially affect the trend of an outbreak—yet our research is
just beginning to look at those relationships. Generation survival has been recorded numer-
ous times in different situations and appears to be fairly well understood, but entomologists
still have not been able to identify the cause of most of the population fluctuations.
                                         23

-------
Considerable data are still needed for    .-mprehensive understanding of tussock moth popu-
lation dynamics and impacts on the forest.  Much of the information must come from multi-
disciplinary studies in population and community ecology, population genetics and behavior,
bioclimatology, tree physiology, and c.-osystem analysis.

     Specifically, we plan to pursue the following lines of investigation this coming year:

     1.   Host phenology and tussock  moth development

     2.   Dynamics of population change and foliage loss

     3.   Tree damage and stand susceptibility

     4.   Analysis of climate and population trends

     Development of Microbial Insecticides. Formulations of two microbial agents, one a
nuclear polyhedrosis virus and the other the bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis, were tested
against the Douglas fir tussock moth last summer.  Various treatments were applied by heli-
copter to small, 20-acre field plots on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, about 24 miles
northeast of Enterprise, Oregon.

     Preliminary results showed virus applications were highly effective in reducing tussock
moth larval numbers. This, in turn, resulted in significant foliage protection; foliage loss in
treated areas was confined mainly to the new needles. The bacterium proved comparable in
effectiveness when applied in an experimental molasses formulation, but was considerably
less effective when applied in a commercial formulation.

     Final evaluation of the 1973 field  tests is not complete, but the results indicate that
both Bacillus thuringiensis and the virus have very good potential for control of the Douglas
fir tussock moth (table 1).  However, there  are still too many unsolved problems relating to
formulation and application techniques to consider either material for operational use in
1974.

            Table 1.—Preliminary results, aerial spray tests of microbial materials for control
                      of Douglas fir tussock moth: northeast Oregon: 1973
                                                            Average postspray
                        _         . .      .                 population reduction1
                        Spray material tested                      ,   _
                                                              after 35 days,
                                                                percent
            Low virus (100 billion polyhedra per acre)
            Low virus plus sunscreen
            High virus (1 trillion per acre plus sunscreen)
            Combination of low virus and Bacillus thuringiensis
            Bacillus thuringiensis in molasses formulation
            Bacillus thuringiensis in biofilm formulation
95.9
97.3
99.9
98.5
98.0
80.3
           Control                                      I          56.6

              'Each spray material was replicated on three pier; areas with 15 sample trees each; thus,
           each average figure shown is based on counts from a total of 45 sample trees.
                                           24

-------
     So far, the two materials have only been shown effective when applied to 20-acre plots.
We need to do considerable additional field testing before we can progress from these lim-
ited plots to an operational basis. Similarly, problems remain to be solved in developing
mixing and handling techniques and a suitable carrier formulation.

     We strongly recommend that an expanded research and development program be un-
dertaken with the goal of having both materials fully tested and registered by 1975. Work
should be undertaken to—

     1.   Develop a technique for bulk-mixed formulations which can be applied with con--
          ventional spray systems.

     2.   Conduct pilot-control tests, in various parts of the tussock moth range, to further
          test the virus and Bacillus thuringiensis formulations. Such tests would also help
          train field personnel in the handling and use of microbial materials.

     3.   Conduct additional field and laboratory experiments to develop improved formu-
          lations and methods of application.

     4.   Contract virus production for pilot-control tests and other future needs and to
          develop industrial virus production  capacity.  To produce and stockpile enough
          virus to treat 200,000 acres of future outbreaks would probably cost $1 million
          to $1.5 million.

     A matter of key importance to development of microbial insecticides is establishment
of protocols and procedures for safety testing against nontarget organisms, as required for
registration for operational use.  Several costly tests have been contracted, and complete
safety shown.  Establishment of all protocols needed to satisfy registration requirements is
urgently needed.

     Development of Chemical Insecticides. While microbial control agents look very prom-
ising and we plan to concentrate considerable effort on their development in 1974, we have
learned through past experience that it  is risky to depend on a single method of control.
The Forest Service is also working to develop  new chemical pesticides to replace DDT.

     The chemicals we are looking for must meet several criteria.  First, they should be
highly specific to the tussock moth and reasonably safe for use around other forest wildlife.
They should have little or no persistence, be safe to handle, easy to apply, reliable and, of
course, they must be acceptable for registration.

     The Forest Service's procedure for developing new chemical pesticides begins with our
Insecticide Evaluation Project at Berkeley, California. Here new materials are screened
against laboratory colonies of the desired insects and, if they look promising, safety tested
to obtain information which will ultimately be needed for registration. Those which suc-
cessfully complete the screening program are supplied to our Aerial Application Lab at
Corvallis, Oregon.  Here we develop and test the methodology and techniques for aerially
applying the candidate materials. Next, candidate materials are field tested on experimental
plots of 20 to several hundred acres.

     Finally, they are ready for pilot-control tests in which they are applied to much larger
areas, using the same aircraft and procedures which would be used under operational condi-
tions.

                                         25

-------
     In 1973, four chemicals had successfully completed the first three stages of testing and
 were ready for field experimentation. These were—

     Sevin—a pesticide commonly used in agriculture, which has also been successfully used
          against the gypsy moth in eastern United States

     Dylox—also widely used in agriculture

     Bioethanomethrin—a synthetic pyrethrin, a material which has been found to be ex-
          ceedingly toxic to the tussock moth, but which is still in the early stages of devel-
          opment

     Zectran—an insecticide that has been successfully used for control of other forest
          defoliators, such as the spruce budworm

     The results of the 1973 field experiments were encouraging in that the materials were
 effective in killing tussock moths. However, none of them prevented serious defoliation.
 The materials gave mortality ranging between 52 and 74 percent when applied once.  When
 two applications of Zectran and Dylox were used, population reduction increased to  86 to
 90 percent.  Despite  this degree of control, considerable defoliation still occurred on  all the
 plots.

     We feel that several of the materials showed considerable promise, and with some work
 we should be able to improve their effectiveness. However, none of the  materials is ready
 for operational use.  In 1974 Forest Service Research and Pest Control teams plan further
 field tests with at least two of the materials to test new methods of application and different
 control strategies.

     Sex Attractant Research. The current outbreak of Douglas fir tussock moth has forced
 us to focus attention on a more sensitive and reliable means to detect pest populations be-
 fore they are in outbreak phase. Adult female tussock moths emit a sex attractant or
 pheromone which attracts males.  Chemical identification and synthesis  of this attractant
 could provide the needed mechanism for a highly sensitive tussock moth monitoring system.
 Male-trapping systems, baited with the sex attractant and distributed over our forest lands,
 could provide early warning of tussock moth population buildups a year or more in advance
 of any major defoliation.

     Since July of this year a team of scientists from the Pacific Northwest Forest and
 Range Experiment Station and the Oregon Graduate Center at Beaverton, Oregon, have been
working on identification of the tussock moth attractant.  This  is the same research team
that successfully identified the sex attractant of another forest insect, the European pine
shoot moth.  The work is cooperatively funded by the Forest Service, the State of Washing-
ton, and the forest industry. Chemical analysis has begun on an initial batch of natural fe-
male attractant extracted from 7,000 female tussock moths.  Progress has been made  toward
chemical purification of this extract and chemical characterizati;;  of the attractant.  Plans
call for rapid acceleration of the search for this sex attractant. Potential use of the attractant
as a control strategy should also be investigated.

     Development of a Ptii Management System.  The ultimate r-.ur;:iose of research on the
Douglas fir tussock moth should include a plan to concurrently  manage the insect and the
forest system in which the tussock moth interacts. As our understanding of insects and
                                         26

-------
forest ecosystems expands, we should be able to do this. However, for the short term we
need a coordinated research and development effort similar to the gypsy moth program in
the East. The general objective of such a research and development program would be to
devise strategies to manage tussock moth populations at levels to prevent serious economic
loss and minimize environmental degradation.

     In 1974, the Pacific Northwest Experiment Station plans to devote 9 scientist man-
years to tussock moth research at a cost of over $315,000. In addition, we have requested
$239,000 in supplemental funding to prepare for and conduct field-oriented studies and
tests. Work would be done on improving spray formulations and application technology,
accelerating the pheromone research, and determining the factors influencing population
dynamics and management of the tussock moth.

     We have already spent more than $2 million on tussock moth research and can expect
to spend $4 million to $6 million more before we have a fully operational pest management
system for the tussock moth. This total cost of $7 million to $10 million is comparable to
5-year pest-management programs underway on other forest pests.
Summary

     In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that it takes a lot of time, manpower, and
money to do the kind of research that is needed. In this recent outbreak, we started with
several years' backlog of research and insecticide testing and we still did not have sufficient
knowledge to manage the situation.  We are gaining invaluable information on population
dynamics, impact, and control during this outbreak. Our research program is continuing
and, in many cases, is very close to providing the information needed for good pest manage-
ment.  Assistance is needed from other agencies and universities. But, long-term manage-
ment of the tussock moth will require a better understanding of causes of outbreaks and
development of comprehensive pest-management strategies.  We feel that with the proper
support, this can be achieved within 3 to 4 years by means of a cooperative and coordinated
research and development program, involving a broad spectrum of specialists and organiza-
tions.
                                   DISCUSSION

     MR. KORP:  Thank you very much, Dr. Buckman.  Any questions of Dr. Buckman?

     A VOICE: Dr. Buckman, in the experimental evaluation of the chemicals and biologi-
cal control materials of the past year, why was DDT not included in the check plots?

     DR. BUCKMAN: With the benefit of hindsight, we wish that DDT had been used as a
comparison. I think our attention was riveted to the environmental impact statement which
requested DDT for operational use. Next year we would like to include DDT.

     A VOICE: You mentioned that you were developing empirical models to predict pop-
ulation behavior. What independent variables are being considered?

     DR. BUCKMAN: I would like to call on one of my associates to answer that question,
either Ken Wright or Dick Mason.
                                        27

-------
     MR. MASON:  It is important to remember that we are in a state of development.
There are many independent variables that we do not understand.  We would like to relate
this problem to parasites, and I think climate is commonly used to drive a lot of them off. I
do not have these data. But we do have a lot of population data in relation to the impact of
the moth cycles over a period of time.  This is why we call our work empirical. I do not
think we can simulate fluctuation differences by weather variables yet. But this is exactly
the sort of thing Dr. Buckman mentioned.

     MR. CLEMENT:  My name is Roland Clement. I am the vice president of the National
Audubon Society.  I would like to ask Dr. Buckman—who made a very polite plea for more
support for research—whether there is an active group of people trying to convince the
Congress that research support is essential. I am on the National Advisory Committee for
Gypsy Moth Control, and I know whereof I speak.

     DR. BUCKMAN: Is there active interest in budget and support of research for pest
control? In the Pacific Northwest the Forest Pest Council is monitoring these kinds of
things and has been effective at strengthening research programs. There has been a great
deal more interest in accelerated research from groups such as the one you represent. The
Forest Pest Action Council has been effective in supporting such programs.

     MR. LAWRENCE:  Bob, are you relying on in-house expertise in your model building,
or are you seeking consultants?

     DR. BUCKMAN: Are we relying on in-house expertise to determine these models, or
are we seeking help elsewhere?  I want to clarify that a bit.  The Experiment Station has
been very active in tussock moth research for nearly a decade. We have developed some
cooperative working relationships for this particular forest pest, and our cooperative rela-
tionships are even stronger for other forest pests.  I would like to refer the question of de-
veloping a predicted model for this pest to Dick Mason.

     MR. MASON:  Again we are faced with a current problem. We have explored a number
of different possibilities. We have our own bionomics answer, but I have been told that
these consultants are not easy to come by. We are considering, for example, a closer associ-
ation with the International Biological Program (IBP) at Oregon State. We do have the ex-
pertise and we have considered not contracting outside expert services. Whatever happens,
there will probably be a group effort because we will be  working with the IBP or with our
own  people. It  is a very important effort. We have  a lot of data and we feel that the best
approach to get at these data is through models.

     MR. COX: My name is Royce G. Cox, Northern Rocky Forest Pest Action Council,
Lewiston, Idaho. I have something that I would like to put into the record with respect to
developing sex attractants for the tussock moth. Our council, with some financial and per-
sonnel help, is involved in a similar program to that  of the Pacific Northwest Station-
isolation of identifiers for the Douglas fir tussock moth.
                                        28

-------
            OREGON'S CONCERNS ON THE DOUGLAS
                  FIR TUSSOCK MOTH INFESTATION
                                 J. E. Schroeder
                    State Forester, Oregon Forestry Department
                                 Salem, Oregon
                                INTRODUCTION

     MR. KORP: Our next speaker will be J. E. Schroeder, who is a State Forester from the
Oregon Forestry Department, in Salem, Oregon.

     MR. SCHROEDER:  Thank you, Mr. Korp. Speaking as a State Forester of Oregon,
and anticipating, somewhat, the types of papers to be given before us, I have tried to ap-
proach some of the concerns and problems that we have here and in Oregon. First, I would'
like to thank the State of Washington and Don Hopkins for making this time available. Mr.
Hopkins changed some time that was originally assigned to the State of Washington.
                                PRESENTATION

     I am J. E. Schroeder, State Forester of Oregon's Department of Forestry, 2600 State
Street, Salem, C/regon 97310. I am here this morning on behalf of the State of Oregon, act-
ing through its Board of Forestry, concerned with all the tussock-moth-impacted lands in
Northeast Oregon, and with particular concern over the 558 private landowners in Northeast
Oregon on whose lands the Douglas fir tussock moth has brought destruction.

     In my time allotment, I will make my comments pertinent to Oregon and the Depart-
ment of Forestry's problems.  But I want to be on record as endorsing those needs for re-
search to control this infestation as well as to be prepared for future potential insect epi-
demics., as outlined by Dr. Robert Buckman, and which will again be referred to by Dr. Carl
Stoltenberg.

     Oregon law charges me with the responsibility of conducting insect surveys and apply-
ing control measures deemed necessary on local government and privately owned forest
lands. I am further charged with the responsibility of fire protection and of planning and
facilitating reforestation of these forest lands in Oregon. But as the result of the decision
last spring to deny use of DDT, I stand here today unable to carry out my legal and moral
responsibilities to the State and to these frustrated private landowners.

     As you know, we first became aware of a Douglas fir tussock moth outbreak of epi-
demic proportions in  1972. In that year, 196,810 acres of forested lands in the Blue


                                      29

-------
 Mountain area of Oregon and Washington were partially or totally defoliated by the tussock
 moth. In the spring of 1973, we came to you with all the facts at our command, asking for
 the use of DDT against the tussock moth. Our past record of the use of DDT was a clean,
 documented one. Carefully controlled applications of DDT had been used to control the
 spruce budworm in the 1950's and the hemlock looper in 1962.  The U.S. Forest Service
 had used DDT to control a smaller tussock moth infestation in Oregon in 1965. Our con-
 servative projected defoliation figure for 1973 was 450,000 acres. Beyond this immediate
 loss, we were concerned about the long-range environmental, economic, health, and fire-
 hazard impact this infestation would have on the State of Oregon.

     Despite our excellent past record and alarming projections from some of the better
 known forest entomologists in the country, EPA denied our request to use DDT.

     The result has been the visible defoliation in part or total of over 689,760 acres  of for-
 est land in Oregon and Washington. The result has been major damage on 109,000 acres of
 private land in Oregon and an economic impact to 558 Oregon landowners and the North-
 east Oregon timber-products industry. The result of the overall damage to public as well as
 private timberlands is a 20-30-year setback in the tree-growth cycle, increased fire danger for
 up to 20 years, a loss in forest esthetics, environmental damage, and an increased health
 hazard. This is going to have a substantial impact on a sizable portion of Oregon.

     It appears we may again need to ask the Environmental Protection Agency for condi-
 tional use of DDT in 1974 to curb further defoliation and tree loss.  Others here today  will
 testify that there is no evident alternative for DDT in 1974. In the words of Oregon's Gov-
 ernor Tom McCall,

     We've seen enough hemming, hawing and side-stepping. We definitely need an answer. ... It is man-
     datory that DDT be authorized for emergency use in this situation until it can be shown absolutely
     that another method of control is at hand. This gambling with this magnificent resource must be
     stopped.

     Last  year we made every effort to work in cooperation with EPA and others to the best
 of our ability. We were still unsuccessful. Was our request not well enough written or fac-
 tual enough? Was insufficient evidence presented? Looking forward to 1974, what must we
 present to receive favorable response from you?

     As we near our self-imposed deadline for a request to you for conditional approval of
 the use of DDT,  I still find myself with unanswered questions about your decisionmaking
 process. Should we again apply for authority to use DDT under section 18. Or should  we
 address ourselves to section 3 in response to our special considerations to the private land-
 owner, particularly those with small ownerships which, if not treated, are apt to be impacted
 in a degree inconsistent with broad area averages? What are your guidelines for measuring
the full impact of this infestation on the landowner, the environment, and the economy?
How do we relate and weigh -'-he esthetic, economic, environmental, and recreational values
against using or not using D.;./f ? What is  a reasonable cost-benefit ratio?  We thought the
cost-benefit  ratio of 13.4 to 1 presented in last year's statement was pretty impressive.  What
criteria were used in deciding if our cost-benefit ratio was valid?  We need to have answers
from EPA for these  considerations, particularly if our best evaluations are to be reevaluated
by some criterion or rule we have not been provided.

    And I look at this year's events with other trc abled questions on my mind. The Fed-
eral Government speaks of a policy to decentralize the Federal bureaucracy in favor of


                                         30

-------
increased local control. This has not been so in the tussock moth crisis.  A decision was
made by people in Washington, B.C., not local staff, that the moth population would col-
lapse, contrary to evidence provided by Oregon's best entomologists. These same people,
away from the local scene, underestimated the economic effect of the devastation of these
forested lands to Oregon. Because the decision was made away from the Pacific Northwest,
there was inadequate consideration given to the impact of this loss to the small landowner
managing his forest as an investment.  Finally, the decision at the national level did not rec-
ognize Oregon's responsible use of DDT in the past.  These actions clearly do not demon-
strate to us a decentralized Federal Government, more responsive to the needs of the people.
Is this going to continue to be the procedure followed by EPA on future issues of this kind?

     One final concern last spring was that no practical form of appeal to your decision was
available to us. We had no recourse except by way of the Federal courts to get a reconsider-
ation of the decision that was made. This process forecloses any change of decision that
would be within  the time frame for control action.

     Another question that I have which concerns the decisionmaking process is relative to
decisions which EPA has made authorizing the use of DDT with certain agricultural crops.
Inability of a farmer to use a needed control on his bean crop may mean 1 year of crop fail-
ure.  Inability of a forester to use an available tool (DDT) on this tussock moth infestation
means 20-30 successive years of crop failure, and from 1 to 30 years of economic reverbera-
tions on the economy of Oregon. Did you view the long-range consequences of this situa-
tion, or did you apply the criteria of a failure of a summer crop to this situation?

     There are many more questions troubling me and our department as we face the possi-
bility of again formulating a request for DDT.  We just do not know enough about your
decisionmaking process so that we can prepare the type of application or statement that will
meet the criteria or standards that you will use in judging the merits. Is it possible that we
can sit down together and talk about how we can improve our techniques to provide you
with the information you need to thoroughly and consciously carry out your evaluation and
respond to our needs as expressed in our application, supported by the best information we
know how to provide? We should not be two teams playing a different game; we are not
even worthy opponents. We are two public agencies, each with a vested interest in doing
what is best for Oregon and for the Nation. Why can we not sit down, define the rules, and
work toward a common  objective?

     But the impact statement, the decision, and the eventual fall of the tussock moth popu-
lation are only a  means to an enu. The real problem we face is the rehabilitation of the
devastated area.

     Oregon faces a massif rehabilitation, reforestation, and fire-control problem created
by the tussock moth.  Some 106,316 acres rf private lands in Oregon must have increased
fire protection for the next  20 years. Dete> ion, prevention, initial-attack, and mobilization
t.  ;grams must be stepped up. Construction of snag-free corridors, access roads, and fuel
breaks must begin.

     The Department of Forestry is responsible for fire protection on the private land. But
there are no asbestos walls around these lands.  The impact of fire on adjacent Federal lands
has an impact on the private land?  The possibility of a wildfire starting in the tussock moth
area and spreading to unaffected areas could create & even greater impact on good timber,
                                         31

-------
 towns, and forest dwellings. One need only consider the "what if s" of the Rooster Peak
 fire near La Grande this summer to understand the potential for disaster.

     In addition to fire control, some 32,900 acres of private land require rehabilitation in
 the form of hazard reduction, site preparation, and cutting. The costs of these projects are
 well beyond the means of the 558 landowners affected.  These people have watched their
 timber being damaged or destroyed by a decision over which they had absolutely no control.
 These people have seen their financial hopes for a college education for their children, a nest
 egg for their retirement, and a supplemental income, dashed in a summer by the uncontrolled
 tussock moth. Because they have no funds for rehabilitation of their lands, the lands may
 remain unproductive unless some source of revenue is discovered.  Should these Oregonians
 have to pay so dearly for a decision beyond their control or appeal?  We need to immediately
 find financial incentives to make this rehab work successful.

     But above all other considerations, let us be sure that this catastrophe never occurs
 again. Let us rethink our policies of banning effective chemicals before substitutes are de-
 veloped. Let us work toward the development of alternatives to persistent chemicals.  And
 let us come to the conclusion, if need be, that occasionally there may not be found effective
 alternatives, and that occasionally, there may be need for restrained and controlled use of
 these chemicals.

     I have appeared here today to present Oregon's concerns on the Douglas fir tussock
 moth infestation, to outline some of the seemingly unresolved issues and problem areas that
 need further definition or clarification, to review the long rehabilitation job ahead, and to
 offer our assistance to work with you.  Oregon and the Nation cannot afford the current
 situation to continue.  Together, we must search out the ways we can both meet our objec-
 tives of serving the citizens of this country.
                                    DISCUSSION

     MR. KORP: Mr. Schroeder, truly, thank you very much.  You did raise a lot of ques-
tions. Do you have a second copy, Mr. Schroeder? I would like to have it, not only for the
reporter, but to reply to you.

     A VOICE:  I have a question that I think is germane to this issue. Often we hear of a
20-30-year cycle. In 1933 we had a fire in Columbia County.  It took out a good portion of
a certain timbered area, and that area is still barren.  It has not been reestablished to date.
Second, a good part of the trees that are being killed would never have grown in 20-30 years
on that side of the State; they would over here.  Over there, we are talking about more than
a lifetime. Why don't we adjust to the facts and talk about 50 to 60 to 100 years, instead
of 20?

     MR. SCHROEDER: We are stating here that an average age of many of the trees that
were damaged in the private owners' class were of younger age. The big point that I would
reiterate is the difficulty in establishing any forest in many of these areas because, as a
whole, many of them are adverse sites. We do not now have the technology or the know-
how to discuss this problem in detail.

     MR. KORP: All the comments have been noted for the record.
                                         32

-------
         FOREST INSECT CONTROL THROUGH  RESEARCH
                                Donald R. Hopkins
               Chief Deputy Supervisor, Department of Natural Resources
                                State of Washington
                                 INTRODUCTION

     MR. KORP:  Our next speaker will be Mr. Donald R. Hopkins, Chief Deputy Super-
visor, Department of Natural Resources of the State of Washington.

     MR. HOPKINS:  Thank you, Mr. Korp. I believe most of you will agree that the time I
donated to Mr. Schroeder was well used.  We have the same concern; but, in discussing the
program, we decided that he would discuss these types of impact and that I would discuss
research.
                                 PRESENTATION

     At the risk of repetition, I will discuss research needs and their proposed accomplish-
ment as they relate to the control of forest insects. Our primary topic for the day has been
the tussock moth. I would like to expand the base of discussion to include research related
to general control of forest insects.  In doing so, I believe it is well to consider the impor-
tance of wood resources in light of our current energy crisis. Local reports indicate there is
an increasing demand for firewood, spurred by concern over oil-related fuel shortages. Wood
also provides additional electrical energy when waste products are used to fuel steam gener-
ators. For example, Simpson Timber Co., in Shelton, uses sawdust, bark, and edging to pro-
duce power surplus to their needs to help relieve the electrical shortage.

     Contrary to some comments, wood is not a vanishing resource. We will always have
trees. The question as to adequacy of supply, however, depends on our management effi-
ciency, including the effectiveness of our insect-control programs.

     U.S. Forest Service inventory surveys indicate that insects and diseases destroy more
wood each year than wildfires. Unfortunately, data are not available to show the amount of
wood that is destroyed by each agent, but it is estimated that 15 billion board feet of timber
are lost to fire, insects, and diseases each year. If we assume that 8 billion feet are affected
by insects and diseases, and that half of this loss results from insect attack, we are faced with
4-billion-board-foot loss annually from insects alone—enough fiber to construct 400,000
homes.
                                       33

-------
      Practical control methods have been developed for very few forest insects, particularly
 the exotic species.  As a result, those that are imported from other continents too frequently
 find native species ideally suited for their voracious appetites.  Unfortunately, on being
 transplanted to our forests, these timber destroyers do not bring their native predators with
 them. Two local examples are the balsam woolly aphid, which is destroying our silver and
 grand firs in western Washington, and the larch casebearer that is causing tremendous growth
 losses in our larch stands of eastern Washington.  Natural predators that control these in-
 sects in their home country have been introduced on a limited basis, but have not success-
 fully reduced populations of either species. More research is needed to carry on these types
 of biological-control programs.

      In addition to these foreign invaders, we have ample numbers of native insects that
 periodically overcome natural population-control mechanisms and explode into forest-
 devastating epidemics.  Some, such as the bark beetles, for which there are currently no
 effective biological or chemical controls, annually destroy millions of board feet of prime
 timber. In some instances, silvicultural management, such as thinning excess trees in over-
 stocked ponderosa  and  lodgepole pine stands, prevents the initial buildup of insect popula-
 tions. Prompt removal  of blowdown, fire-killed, and disease- and defoliator-damaged trees
 can also reduce bark beetle impacts. Obviously, we have a long struggle ahead to convert
 current research leads into effective beetle-control practices.

     The only group of forest insects for which economic controls have been developed are
 the defoliators. Until the manufacture of DDT and its subsequent application in the late
 forties and early fifties, there was no practical method of reducing the damage that these
 insects caused in our Pacific Northwest forests.  DDT is representative of the chemicals that
 have been  used to control forest insects, in that it was initially developed for agricultural  use
 and subsequently was found to be effective in solving forest insect problems. Here the moti-
 vating insecticide-development forces were the profits that the chemical companies antici-
 pated from sale of their products to farm users. To date there are no chemicals that were
 developed  specifically for control of the forest insects by the pesticide manufacturers.

     Several years ago, Weyerhaeuser Company explored the possibility of selective forest
 pesticide development with three of the larger chemical firms.  Each of these corporations,
 after investigating the situation, arrived at the same conclusion. The high cost of developing
 and registering such products eliminated possibilities of these firms producing them at their
 own expense. We are told that these development costs vary from $3 million to $8 million
 per usable  product; also, that it takes from 6 to 8 years to develop them to the point where
 they are registered and their use is permitted by the control agencies.

     When you review these costs and time factors in conjunction  with the spasmodic use of
 forest-insect-control materials, it is obvious that research development needs cannot be met
 by the commercial firms alone. Who, then, should share the responsibility for development
 of coordinated pest-control programs that include improved surveillance, better prediction
 of epidemic conditions, discovery of usable biological and chemical control agents, and de-
 velopment  of effective application procedures?  I propose that a greater portion of these
 costs be financed by the Federal Government, with the State and private sectors contributing
in ratios proportional to the benefits each expects to receive. When biological-control mate-
rials or chemical pesticides are involved, it is logical that the chemical companies who could
profit from their production would also participate.
                                         34

-------
     As you have heard, the U.S. Forest Service has been successful in developing a virus
that offers promise for tussock moth control. This has been a time-consuming and costly
program, but fortunately one that offers great promise for the future. In essence, the total
cost was borne by the Federal Government with limited contributions from State agencies.
The Forest Service should now accelerate its insect research programs, and State and private
contributions should be increased with prorated investments based on the anticipated
benefits.

     Looking at a formula approach to this problem, it seems reasonable that the Federal
Government, through the Forest Service, should contribute to this research in ratio to the
lands that are managed by the various Government agencies (including those properties man-
aged by the Indian Service) plus acreage in small private ownerships. In the latter case,  it is
impractical to expect individual owners to participate directly in financing such develop-
ment.  I recommend that the State agencies and the large industrial forest landowners pro-
vide development financing representative of the respective interest of each owner as meas-
ured by their potential returns from the research accomplishments. For example, research
of national significance might be prorated using commercial forest land ownership as a base.

     Commercial forest land ownership:                                   Acres
          Federal Government (including Indian lands)	107,108,000
          States, counties, cities	  21,422,000
          Industrial owners	  67,341,000
          Farmer and miscellaneous private	296,234,000

Based on these data, financing would be as follows:

     Federal, 22 percent
     State, 4 percent
     Industry, 14 percent
     Farmer and miscellaneous private, 60 percent

     As I mentioned previously, much of the high cost of developing insect controllants re-
sults from constantly increasing registration costs. Since the Environmental Protection
Agency administers the program, I recommend that costs attributed to these activities be
shared by that organization, particularly when uses of proven chemicals are canceled and
effective substitutes are not available.

     The director of the State of Washington Department of Ecology, Mr. John Biggs, at a
recent meeting of the Washington State Pesticide Control Board, recognized the need for
more government participation in these programs when he recommended that positive action
be initiated to find DDT substitutes and, if necessary, that the board and the State should
assist in obtaining their registration.

     As finances become  available for research projects, the question, Who shall do the re-
search? must be answered. The obvious response is that investigations should be conducted
by those best qualified to solve individual problems.  Resources, whether they are dollars,
manpower, or facilities, must be allocated with this principle in mind. Investigations could
be conducted by scientists currently employed by existing State, Federal, or private agencies
and public institutions. Or, the funds could be allocated on a contractual basis to acquire
the needed expertise and  facilities.
                                         35

-------
     An example of how this can be accomplished was provided recently.  The Pacific
Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, the States of Oregon and Washington, and
industry joined forces to finance development of the European pine shoot moth pheromone
that will be used for surveys this coming year. There are also some indications that this at-
tractant may have limited use for control purposes. At present, a similar effort is underway
to identify the pheromone of the tussock moth; if successful, its use might make it possible
to detect potential tussock moth outbreaks at an early stage.  This detection procedure,
coupled with future control materials such as the virus, offers a possibility for minimizing
damage these insects cause in our western forests. Identification of the pheromone, in both
cases, was contracted to the Oregon Graduate Center in Portland, Oregon. The center devel-
oped its expertise in identifying pheromones as a result of an interest on the part of the in-
stitution's administration and their dedicated scientists.

     It is paramount that decisions made by agencies delegated the responsibility of con-
trolling pesticide use are based on the best research data available. This necessitates constant
reexamination of legal requirements and procedures that are adopted ostensibly for the pro-
tection of people as well as the environment. Reviews must include examination of past
legislation such as the Delaney Act, which prohibits presence in food of additives declared
to be carcinogenic.  The problem inherent in this legislation is that, at the time of its enact-
ment, equipment available for detection of additives was much less precise than that ob-
tained with today's machines.  In addition, current carcinogenic testing procedures need
reevaluation to establish no-effect levels for such additives. Realistic evaluations will provide
needed protection without eliminating use of pesticides that in fact do not present a hazard
to health or the environment.  It is ironic that current procedures result in zero tolerances of
carcinogens in foods, but permit the continued use of vitamin A and aspirin, which have  a
much higher carcinogenic potential.

     It is equally  important that decisions affecting pesticides be based upon approved use
of materials and not their misuse. For example, an arbitrary decision in 1961, at the time
the cranberry crop was being harvested and  marketed, almost destroyed the cranberry indus-
try.  Subsequent examinations proved that very few of the cranberries were affected by
what proved to be a misuse of the chemical  Aminotriazol. Had the situation been managed
properly, necessary protection could have been achieved without causing chaotic conditions
for both producers and consumers.                                ""

     I feel personally that the same situation occurred in conjunction with DDT. The ban
was unwarranted. Improved regulations to control overuse, nonessential uses, aquatic uses,
and misuse could  have provided the desired  environmental protection and avoided unneces-
sary adverse impacts resulting from its nonuse.

     An example  of another agency action that has been  costly and disruptive to industry
and the public occurred in conjunction  with phosphates.  Recommendations that they be
replaced by a substitute have been revised, and phosphates are now accepted as an ingredient
in our detergent products.

     An outstanding example of results of public reaction to press repetition of false state-
ments, regarding use of herbicides, occurred in conjunction with a U.S. Forest Service brush-
spraying project near Globe, Arizona, in 1961.  Subsequent costly investigations proved the
original reports were completely unfounded, but public acceptance of the initial news re-
leases still affects reactions to continued herbicide use.
                                         36

-------
     My purpose in citing the above examples is to support my plea for a balanced, scien-
tific investigation and reporting of facts before decisions are made by program administra-
tors.

     In conclusion, I reemphasize first our need for more support of forest-insect-control
research by Federal and State agencies and private landowners, and, finally, that provisions
governing development and registration of biological and chemical control agents be con-
stantly evaluated and revised to assure achievement of effective forest insect control with
minimum adverse impacts on nontarget resources.
                                   DISCUSSION

     MR. KORP:  Thank you, Don. The reporter will appreciate a copy of your paper. I
know there are some questions.

     MR. KINGSTON:  My name is Charles Kingston and I represent the Oregon Times.
Now I want to check something right here.  In the 1973 paper that was published by Pacific
Northwest Experiment Station, why is it that the public has been told that DDT has not
worked in the Stanislaus National Forest where you have controls?  Your Administrator, Mr.
Train, says he wants the public to be involved.  For them to be involved, they have to know
what is on the tapes, and I would like to have the answers.  I did ask this question the day be-
fore you came, Mr. Korp.  I got this answer: that this was because the moths were in  their
third year; and yet DDT was asked for,  of your agency, in the third year in the La Grande
area.

     MR. KORP:  Are there any other comments?

     MR. HAZELTINE: My name is Bill Hazeltine. That question was asked yesterday at
Sacramento, and there was a discussion  about unpublished data. There are people in Cali-
fornia who can probably answer your question.

     A VOICE:  I was going to raise a similar question, because at the Forest Pest Control
Action Council meeting in Sacramento there really were no data on DDT application. The
studies presented yesterday by Carroll Williams showed—and this is a laboratory application
of field formulations—that  DDT was not the best insecticide in the field tests that were run.
I understand that there was a problem with the formulation and coverage,  but it is our feel-
ing that the concise data are not there.  That is why  we have been confused by the continual
statement that DDT is not the only insecticide we have. There is a real gap in the informa-
tion and the research coverage.

     MR. KORP:  I might point out that anybody whose remarks are not included in  this
oral discussion can send material to us; we will certainly include it. So don't hesitate to get
in touch with us after the meeting.
                                        37

-------
              TECHNICAL PROBLEMS  AND RESEARCH
                       NEEDS: WHAT ARE THEY?
                                 Carl Stoltenberg
                              Oregon State University
                                INTRODUCTION

     MR. KORP: Now I shall go on to our university people. The first is Dean Stoltenberg,
from Oregon State University.
                                PRESENTATION

     My name is Carl Stoltenberg.  I am Dean of the School of Forestry, Oregon State Uni-
versity, Corvallis.

     I have been asked to describe my university's involvement in the current tussock moth
program, to identify major research needs, and to outline our position relating to solving
current and future tussock moth problems. I have also been asked to explain the objectives,
organizational structure, and recommendations of the Inter-Agency Douglas-fir Tussock
Moth Steering Committee.
Oregon State University Involvement

     Oregon State University conducts research and educational programs designed to help
Oregon's people solve important resource problems. An example of these problems is the
complex created by the series of tussock moth outbreaks in the summer of 1972. My uni-
versity is not engaged in tussock moth research, although the major Federal research on the
insect is centered on the OSU campus, with the staff of the Forestry Sciences Laboratory,
Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, U.S. Forest Service. Our role in
this issue has thus been primarily educational.

     Surveys of defoliation caused by the tussock moth in Northeast Oregon in 1972 indi-
cated a problem of major proportion. Over 400,000 acres appeared to be infested. Public
and private lands were involved. Concern over the infestation spread even further when it
became apparent that a c -nt.-ol being considered was the chemical DDT, a chemical cur-
rently prohibited for use in forests.

     Immediately, questions were posed about the insect, control possibilities, the magni-
tude of probable forest and environmental losses with and without an insect-control


                                       39

-------
program, and other values at risk. These were highly controversial and complex questions;
available information was limited; and the facts appeared to be conflicting. Accordingly,
Professors Krygier, Streeby, Witt, and Capizzi of Oregon State University decided to prepare
an unbiased, factual report on the insect outbreak, the control alternatives available, the
hazards for wildlife populations should DDT be used, and the opposing economic, social,
and related environmental value losses if DDT were not used.

     The resulting 16-page question-and-answer bulletin, "The Douglas-fir Tussock Moth—
The Problem, Alternatives, and Impacts," OSU Extension Circular 821, was distributed in
February and updated in March of 1973. The bulletin was intended to be a brief, accurate,
and easily understood document that would enable all interested citizens to understand the
major facts of the situation. The bulletin did not take a position for or against DDT.  To-
gether with the extension specialists, 12 researchers were directly involved in developing the
information. Specialists consulted  were from the U.S. Forest Service, the Denver Wildlife
Laboratory, and the relevant departments at Oregon State University.

     In addition to the publication, the university cosponsored local meetings and other
educational programs to acquaint interested citizens with the problem and the facts related
to the alternatives available. Once again, the role of Oregon State University in this particu-
lar issue has thus been education rather than research, advocacy, or administration.
Research Needs

     We fully support the Forest Service research proposals described earlier this morning by
Dr. Buckman. Recent research on this particular insect, the tussock moth, has been con-
ducted almost entirely by the Forest Service—we believe their direct research on this insect
should be given the highest possible priority.

     Briefly, our view of research needs related to the present outbreaks includes the
following—some of which are included in the Forest Service research effort and others of
which are appropriate for universities and other research efforts:

     1.   Continued testing is needed by the Forest Service of the bacterium and the virus,
         which show such promise for future tussock-moth-control alternatives. Their for-
         mulations should be refined and their effectiveness and safety evaluated by larger
         scale, operational tests. Promising chemicals, particularly Dylox and Sevin should
         also be further evaluated in small-scale tests. (Forest Service)

     2.   If DDT is used, full research should be conducted to evaluate the consequences.
         We should discover how much such applications reduce tree damage under various
         insect population and forest conditions. And we should also quantify and evalu-
         ate the subsequent distribution of DDT in the environment, in food chains, and in
         animal populations.  (Universities and Forest Service)

     3.   Studies are needed to improve detection and control of secondary insect infesta-
         tions (bark beetles, scolytus, and others), which ' -veloo and cause further tree
         mortality and timber and environmental losses in moth-weakened stands. (Uni-
         versities and Forest Service)
                                         40

-------
     4.   Field testing is needed of alternative methods of regenerating stands destroyed by
          the tussock moth.  (Universities and Forest Service)

     And to provide improved solutions to future tussock moth outbreaks, we also need—

     1.   Research to develop improved detection methods to locate and identify develop-
          ing tussock moth populations at an earlier phase of their cycle. (Forest Service
          and universities cooperating)

     2.   Research to develop improved methods for predicting future tussock moth popu-
          lations from present estimates of moth populations, outbreak history, virus
          counts, etc.  (Forest Service)

     3.   Improved data on the relationship of tree defoliation to tree mortality.  (Forest
          Service and/or universities)

     4.   Research to discern stand conditions which enable tussock moth  outbreaks to
          develop, and those which appear resistant to such attacks, i.e., silvicultural control
          of the moth.  (Forest Service and universities)

     5.   Improved methods for establishing loss and value impacts. (Forest Service and
          universities)

     Our position regarding future outbreaks of the Douglas fir tussock moth and other de-
structive insects is that a much stronger information base is needed to avoid tragic losses
such as those which have been sustained this year. We cannot expect any agency,  corpora-
tion, or individual to make consistently wise and correct decisions on such critical problems
when the knowledge base is so limited.

     This will not be the last disaster.  And the next may be even more devastating.  We
must invest much more heavily in research to strengthen our knowledge base—prior to the
next emergencv. If, for whatever reason, insect-management tools are removed, either ex-
tensive research must be immediately undertaken to develop alternatives, or we must realis-
tically face the consequences.

     Solutions to the problems associated with the present tussock moth outbreak, of
course, involve much more research. To be useful, the ' est available information must be
made available to those who are affected by the moth, and particularly to all who make
decisions regarding insect control and subsequent forest rehabilitation efforts.  Related  com-
munication is thus as important as the research itself, and effective solutions to this and
future problems must include education and communication efforts.

     And, in addition to research and education, the major investment will  be in action to
control the insect and to rehabilitate the devastated forest areas, hopefully returning most
of them to some form of economic and environmental productivity. Such actions have al-
ready been described by others. They include accelerated construction of access roads to
enable timber salvage and to reduce the hazard potential for future fire and insect explo-
sions; increased fire prevention and control measures; tree planting with associated site prep-
aration, seedling production, and rodent control; and specific erosion control and watershed
protection measures.
                                         41

-------
 Inter-Agency Committee

     I should also like to respond to your request for information on the Inter-Agency
 Douglas-fir Tussock Moth Steering Committee.

     We have learned, as well as suffered, from the discussions and frustrations associated
 with the tussock moth during the past year.  We have learned that complex, fast-moving
 problems like this one require each responsible agency to respond promptly and in a very
 timely and closely coordinatec  manner with other agencies which have related responsibili-
 ties. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) has further complicated agency work-
 ing relationships, providing new time constraints and requirements for new data, projections,
 paperwork, and decision review. Briefly, NEPA requirements force closer coordination and
 mutual understanding of actions ar-d requirements of other agencies.

     The Northwest Forest Pest Action Council had for years provided a most useful forum
 for effective  exchanges of information between forestry researchers and practitioners, and
 between agencies, industries, and schools.  It is a satisfactory forum for coordination of
 many actions.  And it provides an effective forestry voice—in legislatures and elsewhere.

     But situations such as the tussock moth problem call for more finely tuned timing, un-
 derstanding,  and coordination of final decisions among the heads of the responsible agencies.
 Recognizing  this need, the heads of the agencies involved decided to meet together to ex-
 change information and tentative plans prior to making their final program decisions.

     This Inter-Agency Committee currently includes the heads of the State forestry agen-
 cies, men held responsible by their respective legislatures for decisions related to control of
 insect outbreaks and related problems on private and State land—Schroeder for Oregon,
 Eraser for Washington, and, more recently, Gillette for Idaho.  It includes the Regional
 Forester for the U.S. Forest Service, the man responsible for insect detection surveys and
 for decisions regarding insect-control programs on national forests and Federal contribu-
 tions to insect-control programs on other forests—Schlapfer for Region 6 (Oregon  and Wash-
 ington) and,  la'ar, Yurich for Region 1 (Idaho and Montana). It includes Washington office
 representatives of the Forest Service and, now, the EPA,  to help provide better understand-
 ing, both of local problems and  of the information needs for agency decisions in Washington,
 B.C. It includes Hadley, Area Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, responsible for for-
 ests in the Colville Indian Reservation where a heavy tussock moth infestation occurs. It in-
 cludes those responsible for relevant research—in this case, primarily the Pacific Northwest
 and Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Stations of the U.S. Forest Service,
 Buckman and Camp, respectively. It includes the universities involved in a related research
 or public education program—in this case, primarily Oregon State University, represented by
 myself.

     I served  as chairman of uie initial meeting; Mr. Schlapfer has served as chairman of
 subsequent meetings.  The initial ^Toup was small, fostering clear communication.  The com-
 mittee is ad hoc and not tightly  structured.  As others with related responsibilities  were
 identified they were invited to participate, so their decisions, too. could be made with the
 knowledge of what others are doing—when—and why.

     Perhaps  the term "steei ;:.g  committee" is inappropriate, because the committee itself
does not have a decisionmaking function. Rather, it is comprised of executives with
decisionmaking authority for their agencies, responsible executives who realize their
                                         42

-------
interdependence and want to make at least some of their individual decisions in concert with
the decisions of others.

     The group does not vote, nor does the group control the action of any individual within
it. No participant can delegate his authority or responsibility to the group.

     The committee is ad hoc, and will self-destruct with the end of the present emergency.
Another emergency would likely require a committee of somewhat different composition,
depending on the problem.

     Committee discussions do not in any way replace public input, nor the extremely im-
portant input of industrial, environmental, and other vitally interested groups. Such inputs
must continue to be obtained by the individual agencies, separately or in concert, through
the Pest Action Council, public hearings, formal and informal review of proposals, etc.  But
the agency heads involved believe their decisions will be sounder, more timely, and better
coordinated with those of other agencies, and thus their actions will be more effective as a
result of this forum—the Inter-Agency Steering Committee.

     Members of the Steering Committee agreed on several major points earlier this fall,
namely the desirability of—

     1.   Accelerating research to develop alternatives to persistent pesticides. Refining the
          formulations of the virus and Bacillus thuringiensis which were effective in the
          1973 tests.  Testing and evaluating their effectiveness on a larger-scale, operational
          basis.  Conducting further small-scale tests of Sevin and Dylox.

     2.   Seeking contingency approval from EPA for emergency use of DDT in 1974 if the
          fall egg-mass surveys indicate continuing dangerous population levels in any of the
          outbreak areas. Precise criteria for use would be specified in the application to
          EPA. All provisions of NEPA would be followed, and DDT would not be used
          unless the incidence of virus in the egg masses indicates a high population likely in
          the s'immer of 1974.

     3.   Improving the systems for detecting the presence and numbers of the tussock
          moth.

     4.   Continuing the Steering Committee to coordinate agency decisions.

In addition, the Committee agreed to cooperate in preparing an updated information book-
let on the tussock moth outbreak, areas and values affected and endangered, control alterna-
tives, and  insect levels as of the end of 1973. This educational tool is now being reviewed
and should be available next month.
                                    DISCUSSION

     MR. KORP:  Thank you very much, Dean Stoltenberg. Are there any questions of the
Dean?

     A VOICE:  Yes, I am criticizing the Inter-Agency Committee. I have criticized it in
too many articles which I have sent to the EPA in Oregon, on the grounds that the
                                         43

-------
Committee has not asked for any information; the Committee does not include any of the
environmental groups, unless policies have been changed.  Furthermore, I had to use jour-
nalistic devices to even get to visit the Committee that was meeting at the Forest Service.
Now I would like to have your response to this. Is the Committee really adequate? Why
have you and your Committee not said to the public, "we have some failures with DDT"?

     MR. STOLTENBERG: Number one, the Committee has not had any failures with
DDT. The Committee has not done anything with DDT.

     THE VOICE: You said you did not have any failures, but you knew about failures
and—

     MR. STOLTENBERG: Let me finish answering your question.  The purpose, as I have
just stated, is not to substitute as a public forum.  The purpose of this group—after the indi-
viduals involved in the different agencies have had exchanges with the public and all of the
different environmental, industrial, landowner groups, after they have had this kind of
input—is to come together as men and say, All right, this is what I feel we have to do.  My
decisions have  to be made in this sequence, at the time. What are you going to do?  My in-
put from Oregon, from Idaho, is as follows.  My readings are these. How are you going to
react? How can I coordinate my efforts with yours?  So that I feel that this particular group
holding public  hearings is not appropriate.

     MR. KORP: I would like to make a comment.  I would like to avoid debate of this
type.  I hope you can resolve this question, and I will accept information from any group—
from the Steering Committee, environmental groups, the newspapers, the public. But let's
not get into this type of discussion at this meeting. We will hold hearings here in the future,
when we can get some of that into the record.  Now I think we have one more question.

     MR. PALMENTEER:  My name is Eddie Palmenteer. I am the Chairman of the Colville
Business Council. I accepted your invitation to present material for the record.

    I have an impact statement concerning the Colville Reservation. It explains the losses
we have incurred as a result of the tussock moth infestation on the reservation.  Basically, it
describes our monetary losses, which have been estimated at $4 million since the infestation.
It represents, approximately, 50 million board feet of timber, and our past losses include
approximately  79,000 acres of reservation timberlands in which there was damage. Damage
also was done on an additional 80,000 acres, for a total of 159,000 acres. We estimate that
this will probably represent $500,000 a year, for many years to come, in losses to the tribe.
So, if it is permissible, I would like to present this statement for the record.

    MR. KORP: Thank you.  We will put it in the record.
                                        44

-------
       DEVELOPING STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
              FOR THE DOUGLAS FIR TUSSOCK MOTH
                                Dr. Alan Berryman
            Associate Professor of Entomology, Washington State University
                               Pullman, Washington
                                INTRODUCTION

     MR. KORP: Our next speaker is Dr. Alan Berryman, Associate Professor of Entomol-
ogy, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington.
                                PRESENTATION

     Dean Stoltenberg attempted, in the early phases, to try and coordinate the academic
constituents of this seminar, without much success, I am afraid, because of our inability to
schedule a meeting. Thus, some of the things that I wanted to say have already been said.
So what I am going to try and do is address myself to the question of how can we develop
strategic management systems for the Douglas fir tussock moth. This implies that we have
the knowledge of the design criteria that are necessary  to fulfill this kind of objective. I
would like to briefly run through some of the criteria that I feel are necessary to define a
pest management system of this magnitude.

     First, as people have said previously, we need an efficient and effective population
model which will allow us to predict when and where outbreaks of tussock moth will occur.
We need this model, as well, for simulating possible management prescriptions, singly or in
combination, as an alternative to costly and time-consuming field research. We need a model
in order to carry out systems analysis which enables us to investigate the stability character-
istics of this system and to test the sensitivity of the system to various control parameters or
functions.  Second, we need an impact model which relates various population levels to ac-
tual damage, that is loss in growth and mortality. Third, we  need control functions that
relate control tactics to short-  and long-term effectiveness of these tactics and their effect on
other ecosystem components.  Fourth, we need cost functions which relate damage caused
by the insect or the control to socioeconomic values.

    The first slide1 illustrates a possible sequence of population events that may be analo-
gous to the tussock moth problem. This is actually a bark beetle but I think the concept
holds. The functions relate the damage of the insect to socioeconomic values; that is, values
     Slides used by Dr. Berryman were not available for inclusion in the published proceedings.
                                       45

-------
 in terms of timber production, recreation, water, esthetics, etc.  We also have to know the
 cost functions that relate the costs of control to their benefits when applied to the system;
 that is, their cost in terms of application, buying materials, damage to other ecosystem com-
 ponents (fisheries, wildlife, human health, etc.) and also the benefits that they produce by
 reducing the insect population.

     A VOICE: A point of order. What is the crossway factor?

     MR. BER R YMAN:  It is just a relative estimate, conceptual estimate of damage. These
 are not actual figures, they  are just in my head.

     A VOICE: For what time?

     MR. BERR YMAN:  Time, in this case, is in a period of maybe 100 years.

     The next thing, I think, is to look at what is our status of knowledge on the tussock
 moth and what important questions have not been answered.  Many of these points have
 been made previously and probably will be reiterated again. First, What do we know about
 the population dynamics of the tussock moth? We know it is cyclic, occurring periodically
 in 7-10-year intervals. We know that the collapse of these populations are mainly brought
 about by virus diseases in about the third year. We know that occasionally tussock moth
 populations are reduced before they reach epidemic proportions by parasites and predators.
 But we don't know why these things are occurring.  For instance, we don't know the cause
 of these cyclic outbreaks of the tussock moth, and thus we cannot predict when they will
 occur nor where they will occur. Do these outbreaks result because  of basic instability in
 the population system, or are they the effects of a disruption of a relatively stable system?
                                        I
     There are other questions that have cropped up in this latest outbreak. The biologists,
 including myself, believed from  past experience that there was a high probability of the virus
 causing a general decline in  the tussock moth population last year. If this decline did not
 actually occur, and there is  some uncertainty on this point, the question is what caused this
 abnormal situation. These are questions that have to be answered before we can really con-
 struct a realistic population model.        !

     In addition to a population model, we require some kind of surveillance device which
 will act as insurance against the malfunction of our model. All models are oversimplifica-
 tions of the system and a device is needed to verify the predictions made by the model. Sur-
 veillance methods, particularly methods for surveying the tussock moth at very low popula-
 tion levels, are absolutely necessary.  Perhaps pheromones will be the answer to this question.

     In the area of impact, Wickman and his associates in the Forest Service have made sig-
 nificant contributions. We  have a fairly good estimate of the relationship between defolia-
 tion in growth lots and mortality. Even more important, we need to know the relationship
 between defoliation and stress on the tree because we are aware  that secondary insects, for
 example, bark beetles, can contribute up to 80 percent or more of the actual mortality. We
 need information on the long-term relationship between defoliation and these secondary
 insects.

     For example, the last tussock moth outbreak in northern Idaho collapsed  in 1965.
This slide shows the buildup ofScolytus ventralis, the bark beetle, following that outbreak,
and you can see they followed pretty closely after the outbreak.
                                         46

-------
     In the next slide I have analyzed a 40-year period of tussock moth-bark beetle interac-
tion. On top are four outbreaks of the tussock moth, one of which did not occur in the area
that I was working in, and below are three population cycles of bark beetles.  If the trends
shown in this graph hold true, then it appears that we are seeing cycles of bark beetles of in-
creasing amplitude, and the next one may be really catastrophic.

     We need to know the relationship between defoliation and direct mortality.  That is,
what levels of defoliation are going to result in permanent damage to the tree, that is, irrevers-
ible stress.  And then, of course, as other people have pointed out, we need to know the rela-
tionship between defoliation and other factors that are occurring as destructive agents in the
forests—for instance, fire.

     The next subject to consider is the control methods that can be used  in our manage-
ment prescriptions to deal with the tussock moth problem.  First we need  to know the long-
term and short-term effectiveness of the controls.  We have a certain amount of information
on chemicals that have been used in the past to control the tussock moth.  However, we do
not know the selectivity of some of these chemicals. What we need to develop are chemicals
that selectively kill tussc: k moth without harming the other agents that would naturally
control the moth (parasi'Ccs and predators). In the area of biological controls, there are
numerous unanswered questions on the effectiveness of various agents that can be used to
control tussock moth.  How can we speed up virus activity? What is the effectiveness of
various strains of the virus?  What is the effect of stress on tussock moth, in terms of its  •
susceptibility to viruses. Tests have been carried out using bacteria, but more work is needed
to define their control effectiveness. Insect parasites are  generally acknowledged as impor-
tant in stabilizing populations at low levels. What role do parasites have in controlling tus-
sock moth outbreaks?  How can we utilize these agents to stop or prevent  outbreaks from
occurring in the first place?  Very little is known about the predators that  attack tussock
moth.  In the area of silvicultural tactics we might consider the manipulation of species com-
position—age structure, density—to prevent outbreaks. A thought that comes to my mind is,
if bark beetles, moving in after tussock moth outbreaks, are responsible for at least 80 per-
cent of the mortality, then perhaps we can save most of this loss by selective logging bark-
beetle-infested trees, thereby removing these tree-killing insects until the forests have recov-
ered from the effects of defoliation.

     And lastly, and perhaps most difficult, what are the costs involved in this whole system.
And, by cost, I mean not monetary costs, necessarily, but the social values involved.  First,
what is the cost of doing nothing?  Certain costs are fairly easily defined, for instance, tim-
ber loss. But what is the cost in terms of recreational losses, watershed losses, fish and wild-
life losses?  We also have to put cost functions on our control elements, particularly in terms
of their long- and short-range cost effects.  What is the cost in materials, application, etc.?
What are the values saved by applying the control?  What are the costs incurred to other eco-
system components? If we can come up with these kinds of measurements, in terms of some
social or economic value, methods are available for analyzing complex combinations of vari-
ous strategies and optimizing these strategies to produce minimal costs.  I think it is worth
making a few comments on the problems of constraints.  For instance, we know of legisla-
tive constraints that have affected the tussock moth control problem (e.g., the restricted use
of DDT). However, in these situations the legislative branch has a responsibility to land-
owners who are faced with the disaster.  Maybe the tussock moth outbreak should be con-
sidered a disaster area, and those involved given compensation  or special tax relief. There
are also constraints on the feasibility of using some control measures (i.e.,  their effectiveness
is not known).  This means that we have to put money into scientific research in order to
                                         47

-------
quantify these methods. There are socioeconomic constraints due to the unacceptability of
using some control methods. There are ecological constraints that have to be considered;
that is, there are methods that can cause irreversible or permanent damage to ecosystems.

     In conclusion, it appears to me that what we need on the tussock moth is a tremendous
amount of applied and basic research—in comparison with other forest insects, there has
been very little research done on this insect—before we can develop viable management sys-
tems. I think systems analysis provides a powerful methodology in formulating these man-
agement programs. This is basically demonstrated by the success of the space program,
which relies heavily on systems analysis. The only way that these objectives can be achieved
is through massive infusion of money into research institutions, particularly for research on
endemic populations, because the efforts required to study them are enormous in terms of
manpower and time.  A lot of research also needs to be done on control and cost functions.

     There is one  thing that strikes me whenever I consider the tussock moth, and that is,
perhaps the withdrawal of DDT as a method of controlling it has been a tremendous boon
to this particular problem.  It is perhaps analogous to the Arab oil problem, in that it has
stimulated interest and discussion and an awareness of research needs. Perhaps the money
will be forthcoming to develop a solution before the next outbreak occurs.  Well, let's see if
the interest remains after the present outbreak subsides. This, after all, will be the crucial
test. Otherwise, we can only expect panic and confusion in early 1980. Thank you.
                                   DISCUSSION

     MR. KORP:  Thank you, Dr. Berryman. Are there any questions?

     A VOICE: I don't have a question of Dr. Berryman, but I have a question for you.

     MR. KORP:  All right.

     THE VOICE: What is the status of legislation aimed at removal of EPA prerogatives or
authority, for example, and what are the prospects of EPA becoming a grantor or coordina-
tor of research and findings?

     MR. KORP:  The answer to the first question is, the House Committee on Agriculture
has indicated that they would like to have a law that gives the U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture control of the use of DDT in forests. As for EPA being a grantor, we are trying to de-
velop a position on where we stand and where we are going.

     A VOICE: I have a question for Dr. Berryman. I was wondering if you could tell me
how many natural predators there are in the infestation?

     DR. BERRYMAN:  I think somebody else could answer that question better.

     A VOICE: I understand from Dr. Wickman that approximately 20 natural predators
have been found in the whole history of this situation. I am wondering how many of those
insects are now in this infestation.

     DR. BERRYMAN: The question was: There is a complex of natural predators in nat-
ural tussock moth populations, and the question is how many  of these predators are in the
present infestation. I don't think I can answer that; maybe you can, Dick.
                                  I
                                        48

-------
     MR. MASON: I don't think I can, either. There may be 20 or 30 different parasites,
and we have found that many of these occurred in the outbreak, but then we have many
new ones. When Dr. Wickman says 20 or 30, he is probably counting all of the parasites that
have been determined over many years, and could give you more accurate information on
the current outbreak. In this outbreak we are finding some parasites that have been discov-
ered before. We still have a very large amount of them, and we may have some new ones
here. Normal parasites are primarily of one or two species.

     A VOICE: That is what the research is primarily being done on now.

     MR. MASON: We are not looking at the parasites ourselves, but we are quantifying
them.

     A VOICE: Dr. Berry man,  in that same line, once you have a significant outbreak like
this, is it reasonable that it can come through parasites?

     DR. BERRYMAN: I have  not done as much work on tussock moth as some of the
people here, but I am an ecologist and I do understand some of the ecological indications.
It would be my personal opinion that with low population density—that is, during the en-
demic period—the parasites could be a very important regulatory force on population. How-
ever, once that tussock moth has broken out of this endemic state, the parasites would have
an increasingly difficult time overcoming the infestation.  I think this is borne out by the
evidence. In some instances, parasites have terminated an outbreak before true epidemic
conditions arose.  Again, I think there is documented evidence on this question. So the pos-
sible explanation of tussock moth dynamics is that at an endemic level, synchronized para-
sites can control the population. But something disrupts this, allowing the population to
explode from control by its parasites. And the parasites, under these circumstances, nor-
mally do not catch it up. Occasionally they do. This is my interpretation. Some others
might have different opinions.
                                        49

-------
                  STATUS OF KNOWLEDGE ON THE
                    DOUGLAS  FIR TUSSOCK MOTH
                                 Ronald W. Stark
      Graduate Dean, Coordinator of Research, and Professor of Forest Entomology
                         University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho
                                 INTRODUCTION

     MR. KORP:  Our next speaker is Mr. Ronald W. Stark, Coordinator of Research, Pro-
fessor of Forest Entomology, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho.
                                 PRESENTATION

Preamble

     Almost every report and published paper on the Douglas fir tussock moth begins with
some variant of the following statement:  "The Douglas-fir tussock moth is one of the most
destructive forest pests of western North America." From this, one would expect a corre-
sponding level of scientific activity and, from that activity, a correspondingly large number
of scientific published papers.  For example, there are in excess of 150 scientific published
papers on the western pine beetle, and some 10 or more in various stages of completion at
this date. (I am using the term "scientific published papers" to designate papers describing
the results of research as opposed to extension bulletins, pest leaflets, detection reports, and
the like.) However, a review of the holdings of two forest entomologists and the citations
contained in these yields but 26 published papers, not all on research.  Examination of these
yields some interesting information.  There were 1 each in 1921,1932, and 1949, 5  in the
period 1955-58, 6 in the period 1962-67, and 14 in the period 1969 to the present.  Allow-
ing suitable time for publication, these spurts of interest correspond closely to outbreaks of
the tussock moth.

     Looking at subject matter, the papers include seven in what I have termed "survey";
i.e., two detection reports, two on the use of aerial surveys, and three on sampling tech-
niques. There are three papers  on impact, including one on decay of top-killed trees and
two on growth loss and timber  mortality. All three are localized, i.e., for specific areas and
time. There are seven general papers summarizing known research which include no new
information, one on general biology, and three on "population" studies including histories
of outbreaks and reports on the course of current outbreaks. This leaves the grand total of
six published research papers on control of "one of the most destructive forest pests in
western North America"! These six break down to four on diseases and the disease  phe-
nomenon, one on biological control, and one on an insecticide-screening program.


                                       51

-------
     Since 1921, a total of 31 people were involved in authoring the 26 papers; 15 of these
 are forest entomologists. Of the 31, 26 authored or co-authored a single publication, 2 non-
 entomologists were involved with two publications, 2 forest entomologists were involved
 with two "survey" or extension publications, and only 3 forest entomologists were involved
 in multiple (more than two) publications—2 from the Forest Service and 1 from a university.

     The purpose of this rather lengthy preamble and the introduction of these rather trivial
 statistics is to make two points leading to a conclusion.

     First, interest in the Douglas fir tussock moth has waxed and waned as have the tussock
 moth populations.

     Second, with the exception of the disease program, minimal sustained effort and sup-
 port has been provided, and this has been restricted to very few individuals.

     From the above, we can conclude either that the Douglas fir tussock moth is not the
 destructive pest we are continually assured it is, or our resources have been inadequate to
 assign it the high level of priority in research planning the problem deserves.  Until proven
 otherwise, I am prepared to accept the latter conclusion. What then are our needs?

     For effective pest management we need extensive knowledge in four areas.
 Impact

     We need an accurate measure of the true damage done by the insect given a particular
 population level which is applicable throughout its range. This should include not only im-
 mediate economic measures of growth loss and timber mortality but a consideration of these
 in relation to what is left and the recovery rate of the damaged stands. Also included should
 be other measures of impact, such as the potential hazard from urticating hairs, the effect
 on values inherent in recreation areas, increased costs of fire protection or actual losses at-
 tributing to increased flammability, increased risk or loss from secondary insects, and the
 like. These should be realistic, not rhetorical, and should permit the decisionmakers to
 weigh these values against the cost and consequences of control.
Population Dynamics

     A thorough knowledge of the population dynamics of the insect is essential in pest
management. We must be able to estimate with considerable accuracy and assurance what
will happen from generation to generation in terms of insect numbers and the biological
damage which will result from those numbers. We should have an understanding of the basic
causes of fluctuations in the population—all the insecticides in the world will not prevent
outbreaks if the underlying factors causing outbreaks persist.  We must have a thorough
knowledge of the factors, physical and biological, which regulate tussock moth numbers.
Regulatory Tactics and Strategies

     Based upon population knowledge we must have knowledge of those regulatory
factors—parasites, predators, disease, forest-stand characters, biological, etc.—which can be
                                         52

-------
manipulated and used as tactics in an overall pest-management strategy. We must also de-
velop insecticides which cause minimal or tolerable harm to the insect ecosystem and the
general environment.
Pest Management

     Lastly, we must have an approach which integrates the knowledge gained from impact,
population dynamics, and regulatory strategies to provide sound information on conse-
quences of action (no action is included), alternatives, and, most important, continuity,
which permits reexamination of the consequences of decisions made leading to refinement
of the practices made and inclusion of new information as it occurs.
Present Status

     Impact. At a Forest Service workshop held at Marana Air Park, Arizona, in February
1972, the problem of impact of forest insects and diseases was studied in depth.  Two of the
working groups considered the Douglas fir coastal and Engelmann spruce-fir forest types.
The general conclusion agreed to
by all seven working groups was—
     The Forest Service does not have an adequate system for measuring, evaluating, and predicting insect-
     and disease-caused impacts on the forest resources of the Nation. Basically, we lack a clear under-
     standing of the concept and practical implications of pest impacts in the total space-time frame of the
     resource management process. The data base from past work and the present data inputs are incom-
     plete.  Specifications for the kind and quality of data needed, criteria for interpretation and evalua-
     tion, and bases for value judgments have not been established on a sufficiently broad scale. We have
     some, but not all the knowledge and methodology needed to fill these voids.
                               I
     Specifically, for the tussock1 moth, we have a few excellent, albeit limited, studies.  The
important conclusions for this group to consider are-

     Damage has been essentially the same in treated and untreated areas.

     Tree mortality has been restricted to relatively small areas of the outbreak.

     Recovery of damaged stands has been rapid.                      |
                               I                                     i
     The studies made represent a few areas and locales, and are largely restricted to growth
loss and gross mortality. The Marana Park conclusions hold. We do not have sufficient nor
accurate enough data on impact to provide the decisionmaker with conclusive enough evi-
dence for or against regulating action.

     Dynamics.  The historical aspects of Douglas fir tussock moth outbreaks—at least the
visible phase—are well documented. However, next to nothing is known about endemic  pop-
ulations nor the  stages leading to an outbreak. Considerably more is known about the de-
cline phase of outbreaks, to the extent that we apparently can predict with reasonable accu-
racy when a population will collapse from a measure of the incidence of disease within a
population. However,  well-documented cases are few and this conclusion may be premature—
our estimates are obviously not applicable in all situations.  We are reasonably sure that there
is little to no spread of outbreaks.  We know quite a bit about natural enemies, but very  little
                                          53

-------
of their role in the dynamics of the host. We know the life cycle, but very little of the de-
tailed biology and practically nothing of the population dynamics.
     Regulatory Tactics and Strategies.  We are in the process of developing a tactic using
natural diseases. Its use is inhibited by lack of mass culturing and delays in registration.  We
know there exists a communication system involving pheromones, and from other studies
we believe use of this knowledge can be a useful tactic in detection and possible control. We
know next to nothing about the possibility of manipulating parasites, predators, or forest
stands. Our detection methods are inadequate—we know that by the time an outbreak is
detected and the machinery of pest control is made operational all outbreaks are in a decline
phase. From other studies we have developed an approach to pest management using sys-
tems analysis techniques. There could be constructed a research plan which would clearly
identify those  areas of research in which additional work is needed and eventually yield a
control strategy. A simplistic one has been suggested, but it is inoperable at the present
time because of our lack of detection techniques.
Research Needs

     The above abstract of our present status of knowledge on the Douglas fir tussock moth
suggests the needed research areas. I will not dwell on specifics but emphasize that we need
research on all aspects of the tussock moth—impact, population dynamics, and regulatory
mechanisms—in order to formulate a pest-management system.

     The paramount need is to obtain a commitment—repeat, a commitment—from agencies
such as the Forest Service and the Environmental Protection Agency to mount a sustained
research program of sufficient size which will lead to an acceptable pest-management system
for the tussock moth. I emphasize sustained because it is apparent that our research efforts
on the tussock moth over the past four decades has been in reaction to outbreaks, interest
and support declining almost as rapidly as tussock moth outbreaks.
                                   DISCUSSION

     A VOICE:  I would like to ask one question of Mr. Stark.  Have you made an on-the-
spot investigation of the tussock-moth-infested areas?

     MR. STARK: No.

     A VOICE:  There is a need for different areas of research, and I would suggest that
there is a basic need for our so-called experts in the various fields to have an on-the-spot,
grassroots sighting. If you look out your window, if you come down into Columbia County,
I think you might change your mind.

     MR. STARK:  I thought I was very careful to avoid making a judgment on the current
situation. The comments I made about our present status of knowledge were from the pub-
lished literature.  I think I did qualify those remarks.

     MR. KORP: I would like to thank all of the speakers this morning for their excellent
presentations, and I would like to thank the audience.
                                         54

-------
Afternoon Session

-------
     The transcript of the afternoon proceedings was not available at
the time of publication. The manuscripts presented during that ses-
sion are included; however, there are no questions and answers from
the floor.

-------
         TECHNICAL PROBLEMS AND RESEARCH  NEEDS:
    WHAT ARE THEY TO THE BUREAU  OF SPORT FISHERIES
     AND WILDLIFE,  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR?
                                Richard E. Pillmore
                  Wildlife Biologist, Denver Wildlife Research Center
                                Denver, Colorado
     Today is a little late to step up research to solve immediate problems of timber losses
to the Douglas fir tussock moth, but it is a good time to consider steps to be taken to help
solve future problems.  A key requirement of the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control
Act (Sec. 3(5)) is the demonstration that the test material (insecticide), "will perform its in-
tended function [control pests] without unreasonable adverse effects on the environment"
(italics mine). Environment is defined as: "the water, air, land and all plants and man and
other animals living therein, and the interrelationships which exist among these." I do not
know the criteria for determining what is unreasonable, but the broad objectives of future
research should be both the protection of the environment and the prevention of pest
outbreaks—including, when needed, acceptable insecticide^ treatments for the tussock moth.
These objectives are in tune with the system of pest management for the tussock moth and
the concept of integrated pest control referred to by several speakers this morning.  Inte-
grated control, as I understand it, encompasses silvicultural methods, cultural methods, bio-
logical methods, and chemical methods. It depends on knowledge, not only of the popula-
tion dynamics of tussock moths throughout the endemic and outbreak phases of their cycles,
but also of the ecology of other component  species of the ecosystem, including fish and
wildlife, and their interrelationships with the tussock moth. For example, tussock moths,
like most insects, furnish food for vertebrates during some stages of their life cycle.  The
larvae are apparently not palatable to birds, but the adult moths are eaten by some birds
and probably by bats as well, and Dr. Dahlsten told me today that the eggs are eaten by
chickadees (it is interesting that the  only evidence of tussock moth occurring on our Pike
National Forest study area, which I will describe in a moment, was recovered from the beak
of a gray-headed junco).

     To the U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, the technical problems and research
needs are associated not so much with control measures for tussock moths as with the ef-
fects of those  control measures on the well-being of wildlife and the associated ecosystem.
Forest ecosystems are complex interacting associations of plants and animals in a dynamic
environment.  The characteristics of wildlife—their mobility, varied food and habitat re-
quirements, etc.—make it difficult to keep track of even the most basic parameters:  (1) the
species, (2) changes in levels of populations,  (3)  changes in their habitats, and (4) changes in
available food resources. And this ignores more subtle effects such as changes in reproduc-
tive success or in susceptibility to predation or disease.  How to assess the effects of tussock
                                       57

-------
moth control on wildlife—both the direct effects and the indirect ones resulting from
changes in other components of the ecosystem—is the major technical problem and corre-
sponding research need.  Furthermore, any solution must be economically realistic. The re-
sources available for detection and survey of the tussock moth and its control are several
times those available for assessing the environment for any unreasonable adverse effects.
The size of the problem may be appreciated if one considers that the environment we must
assess contains many complex biotic communities, including aquatic as well as coniferous
forest ecosystems. We cannot possibly monitor all elements simultaneously, but I do not
believe we can afford to restrict our assessments too narrowly to single species or single
communities.

     Instead of repeating what previous speakers have said about the needs for cooperative
research efforts and listing areas of needed research, I am going to speak further about the
Insecticide Evaluation Project (IEP), a functioning cooperative project between the U.S.
Forest Service and the U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, mentioned earlier by Dr.
Buckman. The IEP is presently headed by Dr. Robert Lyon, at the Forest Service's Pacific
Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station (PSW), and involves the Denver Wildlife
Research Center (DWRC) and some additional personnel of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries
and Wildlife.  This cooperative project, as I understand it, began as a means of implementing
the recommendations of the 1963 President's Science Advisory Committee Report.  At that
time, the late Mr. Lansing Parker of our Bureau and Dr. Warren Benedict of the Forest Serv-
ice represented the two agencies on the Federal Committee on Pest Control. I would like to
credit them with promoting the program and supporting it. With their help, cooperative re-
search was started in 1964 under the existing (October 1960) memorandum of understand-
ing between the Forest Service and the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. The agree-
ment was voluntary and rather an informal one based on areas of mutual interest and an
apparent need for cooperative research.

     From 1965 through 1967 the IEP was engaged in a crash program to find a replacement
for DDT in spruce budworm control, and mexacarbate (Zectran1) was the most promising
candidate. As a result, the DWRC developed an unusual amount of laboratory and field data
on the safety of this material for wildlife.  For example, laboratory toxicology tests were run
with a number of wildlife species.  Among other field tests, the Bureau contracted a grouse
study with the Montana Game and Fish Department and conducted short-term field apprais-
als during four pilot spraying operations in Montana and Idaho.  The DWRC studied popula-
tion trends in songbirds and small mammals on both treated and untreated areas before and
after spraying, and other Bureau personnel studied effects on fish and other stream orga-
nisms.

     In 1967, during the Big Smoky pilot test of mexacarbate, I discussed technical prob-
lems and the Government's responsibilities with former IEP project leader Dr. Arthur Moore
and Dr. William Upholt as representative of the Federal Committee on Pest Control, and as a
result our cooperative effort took a new direction.  Generally, operational or experimental
insect control programs impose certain restraints on attempts to assess the impact of the in-
secticide on nontarget organisms. When field tests depend on the presence of suitable target-
insect populations (which are not dependable from one year to the next), little time is avail-
able for collecting base information about resident species, the study design and application
rate are fixed, and the team's resources must be stretched to cover  simultaneous appraisals
      Reference to trade names does not imply endorsement of commercial products.
                                         58

-------
of the treatment's efficacy against the target species and its effects on nontarget species.
Eliminating the target insect as a criterion for studying effects of insecticide applications on
nontarget birds and mammals was an obvious solution.  From 1968 through 1972 we con-
ducted "nontarget only" tests on a study area on the Pike National Forest in Colorado.
Instead of several 20- to 40-acre plots within treatment areas of 500 acres or more, we se-
lected 160-acre treatment blocks, each with a single study plot, so that treatments could be
randomized and replicated. Instead of trend counts of all birds sighted on the plots, we
tried to improve the precision and sensitivity of our censuses by concentrating on the well-
being and nesting success of resident breeding pairs. By increasing application rates two to
four times the anticipated insect-control rate, we were able to increase the sensitivity of the
appraisal and study effects on beneficial insects and on insects as a food resource for birds.
We also considered small mammal populations and survival important, but a natural decline
in small mammals in the area and decreasing resources for the study caused us to abandon
small mammal studies. However, assessments of fish, not originally a part of the study, were
later included with the help of operational personnel of the Bureau.

     Some concessions had to be made to the weather, and some compromises were made in
design so that preliminary safety appraisals could be made of several candidate materials.
Nevertheless, we felt that this kind of testing greatly improved sensitivity and gave much
more useful results than previous studies. Trichlorfon (Dylox) and Bioethanomethrin were
two of the seven materials appraised during this period; after their preliminary safety ap-
praisal on the Pike study area, they were considered ready for further field testing, including
the tussock moth tests this past summer.

     The need for cooperative research has been stressed repeatedly this morning, and I be-
lieve the approach the IEP has taken in laboratory testing and field appraisals of candidate
forest insecticides for effects on nontarget  biota has shown what even modest cooperative
efforts can achieve. We do need the resources to replicate treatments and, because of turn-
over in personnel, more formal agreements and better coordination of cooperative efforts.
There is a clear need for better planning and stronger commitments if we are to have ade-
quate funding to continue doing the job.

     I strongly feel that fish and  wildlife must be considered in any program for developing
forest insect-control strategies. Some species are undoubtedly important predators of target
insects and therefore allies of the forester.  More important, wild vertebrates have value in
themselves and are certainly indicators of environmental quality.  Therefore, the well-being
of fish and wildlife should be a consideration in any integrated pest-control strategy and a
basic criterion for judging unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.
                                         59

-------
             DOUGLAS FIR TUSSOCK MOTH RESEARCH
                      NEEDS:   A POSITION PAPER
                              Steven G. Herman, Ph. D.
                             The Evergreen State College
                               Olympia, Washington
     Someone has remarked, with reference to the factors which have precipitated this semi-
nar today, that "It has never been a tussock moth issue; it has always been a DDT issue."
The accuracy of that statement is obvious, and it necessitates the conclusion that research
needs cannot be considered appropriately until the present atmosphere has been cleared by
recognizing national and agency policy. At the national level, that policy is that DDT will
be used only in the case of a national emergency; at the agency level the use of DDT was
phased out in the late 1960's.

     The fact that DDT has been allowed to dominate the issue has had a number of perni-
cious, oppressive results. It has stifled communication at the agency level and has restricted
agency-public interest group communication. It has led to distortions of the extent of the
existing and threatened damage.  It has obscured the reality of pest population collapse in
many areas.  It has reduced the probability that decisions will be made on the basis of scien-
tific evidence and increased the probability that policy will be determined primarily by emo-
tional and political means.

     But most importantly, the intrusion of DDT has had an adverse influence on research
and researchers. I am convinced that it has been responsible for the temporary suppression
or distortion of data; certainly it has resulted in the tardiness of data on several occasions.
There is evidence that it has threatened the security of some workers of both persuasions.
The free discussion and exchange of data have been discouraged, and the judgments of re-
searchers sometimes have been ignored. Unless these stigmata are removed—and I have sug-
gested a means of removal—we cannot hope to proceed with a research program in an at-
mosphere of academic freedom and scientific objectivity.

     With regard to the research needs themselves, I think we should temper our priorities
with the knowledge that the Douglas fir tussock moth is a native insect of transient and
irregular importance. While the extent of defoliation in the declining 1973 infestation may
have been historically important, there are certainly other insects which, in the long run, are
actually or potentially more important.

     I have attempted to arrange the list of research needs in such a way that it follows the
normal pattern of events in an infestation cycle:
                                        61

-------
 Endemic Populations

     Apparently there have been no extensive studies of endemic populations.  I am not sure
 that a truly endemic population has been identified. We speculate that endemic populations
 are controlled by parasites and predators; we know that epidemic populations are regularly
 terminated by the virus disease. It seems probable that a population dynamics approach at
 the endemic level would be most productive.

     What triggers the periodic release of endemic populations? We tend to speculate that
 climate somehow influences release, but climate can be only a proximate factor; we need to
 know the ultimate factor or factors governing release.
Detection of Incipient Outbreaks

     There has been much talk about and support for research designed to identify and
synthesize tussock moth pheromones, largely for the purpose of perfecting an "early warn-
ing system." While these efforts certainly should be encouraged, it should also be realized
that pheromones, for all their current popularity, are not alone likely to solve the problem
of detection. Research should also focus on improving other techniques of detection, includ-
ing the beating plots and the education of onsite personnel.

     A sampling system for predicting incipient outbreaks has been developed. Unfortu-
nately it was not widely applied in this infestation when elements of it were first detected in
1971, nor, apparently, was it employed in comparable areas in 1972.  Instead, it has been
used, essentially unchanged, in an attempt to estimate damage in 1974. The sampling pro-
cedure was not designed for that purpose; research should evaluate the system's utility in an
epidemic situation before it is actually employed to determine projected control strategy.
Released Populations

     Ideally, control should be directed at populations during the release phase of an out-
break before the majority of damage has been done.  Although it appears that most popula-
tions in the current outbreak are beyond that point, research with synthetic and microbial
insecticides should focus on the release phase. Furthermore, this research should consider
primarily the possibility of providing protection for the small, private owner, who always
suffers most from the effects of this pest.

     No artificial control, whether attempted with synthetic organic pesticides or microbials,
will be without disruptive ecosystemic effects.  Research should bear this in mind, especially
with regard to naturally occurring parasites and predators.

     The efficacy of any new material must be carefully and properly documented in the
field. This means that control plots and adequate sampling design must be employed.  It is
sad commentary that after over 20 years of DDT use against tussock moths, we were left
with no adequate data concerning the efficacy of the poison under field conditions.  In some
cases this deficiency was the product of oversight or poor planning, but in most cases it re-
sulted from the catastrophic influence of the natural virus which decimated populations on
both control and experimental plots.  By focusing our attention with regard to new mate-
rials on populations in the release phase, this interference might be minimized.
                                         62

-------
     Investigations of the roles of natural enemies should be accelerated during the release
 phase. What population characteristics during this phase can give new clues concerning the
 mechanisms of release? What can we predict for the following year?

     Within the pest population itself, it will be important in the release year to examine
 parameters of fecundity, dispersal, and possible genetic factors that may express themselves.

     The ecology and economics of defoliation and tree mortality must be examined in
 depth. Keying from the observation that Douglas fir and true firs coexisted with this pest
 aboriginally, we must consider the possibility that a symbiotic relationship prevailed prior to
 the advent of modern forest practices.  That relationship, if revealed, might be turned to
 modern advantage. The economics of tree mortality are especially  important in mixed
 stands where salvage logging is used as a management tool.
Declining Populations

     In the third year, which is most commonly the year of collapse for the pest population,
studies begun earlier should be continued, but special attention should be given to the epide-
miology of the virus disease to include interactions with other natural enemies. The precise
mechanisms of the decline, particularly at the periphery of a population, should be investi-
gated. This would also be an ideal time to refine our understanding of the timing of eclo-
sion. Secondary invaders, like bark beetles, would come under special scrutiny at this time.
The role of parasites and predators, which is characteristically most significant during this
phase, should be given particular emphasis.

     Viewing the research picture as a whole, two deficiencies are particularly obvious.  Para-
sites and predators have been investigated only superficially. While we have partial informa-
tion on the species involved in various infestations, we know virtually nothing about life
histories, including alternate hosts.  The possibility of classic or near-classic biological con-
trol seems as remote with this species as it does with any native forest insect, but variations
on that theme, involving environmental manipulations of understory or the introduction of
parasites absent in one area from another locality, remain possibilities. None of this work
can be attempted until the life histories of the natural enemies are understood. Second, sur-
vey and predictive techniques must be refined.  The techniques currently in use are simply
not adequate to the task and will not support a proposed spray program.

     The old-to-new egg-mass ratio system apparently dates from a 1947 infestation.  To my
knowledge its predictive power has never been tested quantitatively. It also suffers from
some inherent biological biases. It seems possible that existing data might support it, but
until the evaluation of the technique goes beyond the anecdotal phase, it cannot be consid-
ered useful.

     The system that relates density of egg masses to pest density after hatching is the most
sophisticated system, but it was designed for first instar larvae in incipient outbreaks, not
for egg masses in older infestations. Certainly an adaptation of it would be useful, but,
again, I am aware of no test  that has demonstrated its efficiency in this situation; as prac-
ticed by the agencies currently surveying egg masses, it is superficial in that it fails to accom-
modate, first, the irregular distribution of host trees and, second, the irregular distribution of
the pest within the host tree pattern. The "time plot" approach, also being used this
and apparently for the first time, seems inherently plagued with a large number of
                                          63

-------
unmanageable variables.  It may be useful for determining presence or absence, but it is not
a quantitative technique.

     These criticisms are offered constructively and with full and personal knowledge of the
logistic and economic barriers involved in mounting a comprehensive population survey.
The fact remains, however, that this area should be given very high research priority.

     As we discuss research needs today, we should bear in mind that a large volume of good
work has been completed and published; other work is in progress or planned. We should
urge that the work accomplished be recognized and respected, and we should thank the
small number of researchers who have produced the work, often on minuscule budgets and
with extreme effort.

     Finally, I would like to suggest that some potential research in the current situation is
research that need not be repeated or that we should consider of very low priority.

     Monitoring programs have often been used as partial justification of spray programs in-
volving DDT. There is an innuendo present in their planning to the effect that the monitor-
ing program will somehow prevent damage. This is, of course, not the case, especially with
DDT. The programs are always hastily arranged and underfunded, as in the case  of the
Burns Project in 1965 and the Willipa Bay Project in 1963. This is not to say that such pro-
grams should have been discouraged during the heyday of DDT, but monitoring programs
should not be bones thrown to conservationists.

     And we would benefit very little from additional information regarding the effects of
DDT and DDE on nontarget organisms.  The literature on that subject is voluminous, and
those effects are now known  to be largely deleterious. The association of eggshell thinning
in birds  with p,p' DDE is one of the best known of ecological phenomena.  It has been
shown so many times in both wild and captive species that at least one journal has com-
plained about receiving "Further verifications of phenomena already demonstrated."

     We have considerable information about the Douglas fir tussock moth now. If we are
to move forward with research, if this seminar is to bear fruit, we must all lock arms and
agree to clear the air of the poisons that  obscure objectivity and inhibit cooperation by im-
posing the constraints of politics and emotionalism.
                                        64

-------
               PREVENTING DOUGLAS FIR TUSSOCK
               MOTH OUTBREAKS:    A VIEW FROM
                        THE PESTICIDE INDUSTRY
                                  R. P. Harrison
                      Ag-Organics Research, Seattle Sales Office
                    Dow Chemical Company, Seattle, Washington
     I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this discussion of the current Douglas fir
tussock moth outbreak that has wreaked such havoc in the timberlands of eastern Oregon
and Washington. I hope the views presented here are representative of those generally held
by my industry.

     First, I want to assure you that the pesticide industry welcomes the opportunity to
work with any organization in finding solutions to problems such as this. I believe the major
body of knowledge on pesticidal chemicals, formulation technology, and perhaps applica-
tion techniques in the country resides within our industry. I do not believe I am being
overly egotistical in saying that so far as the insecticides themselves and the formulation
know-how to make them work, the best source of information is within our industry. We
have developed the technology base on application techniques in order to assure that our
chemicals are properly used to obtain  maximum effectiveness, and with the least hazard to
man and his environment.  In addition to our own engineering efforts, many of our member
companies give financial support to new engineering technology. We also have thousands of
scientists and technicians throughout the world who are in constant contact with work that
is underway wherever pesticides are being used and whose duty it is to report any new de-
velopments as they are taking place. Thus, there is a large body of knowledge and experi-
ence that could be brought to bear on problems such as this, provided we are given adequate
opportunity to participate.

     What I am suggesting  is that the pesticide industry be considered a member of the team
in forestry, as we have been in the agricultural and public health fields.  Despite some criti-
cisms, this teamwork has solved many, if not most, of the more serious agricultural and  pub-
lic health pest problems that have occurred in this country. Enough so, I might add, that
the rest of the world is trying desperately to emulate us in this area.

    I would like to make a couple of things clear in the beginning. Although I am repre-
senting the National Agricultural Chemical Association (NACA) at this seminar, the views I
express here are my own and have not been discussed with NACA or any of its member
companies. Second, I have always been a strong supporter of DDT.  I believe the discovery
of the insecticidal activity of this compound is probably the greatest discovery of the past
50 years.  I am certain it has done more good for more people with the least amount of
                                       65

-------
harm of any recent discovery. Having said that, however, I must also say that I am and have
always been opposed to the use of DDT for control of forest defoliators if there were selec-
tive insecticides that could be used in its place. Since the early 1950's, I have attempted to
find alternatives to its use in forestry. Not for any of the reasons generally given by the
opponents of DDT, but because it was too broad spectrum, too persistent, and as a result
has too severe an impact on beneficial insects.
The Current Outbreak as Seen from the Outside

     The extensive damage caused by the current tussock moth outbreak appears to be a
result of a number of things occurring more or less simultaneously which prevented the
Forest Service from taking decisive action in time to prevent some very substantial losses,
not only of timber but of wildlife and recreational values. As I understand, the outbreak
was first detected in 1971. However, it was not of sufficient magnitude at that time to jus-
tify corrective measures. I am sure had the Service gone through the laborious procedure of
filing an environmental impact statement to justify a control program, had it reviewed by
the Region and passed on to Washington for review and approval, it almost certainly would
have been turned down.  In addition, the only insecticide with which the Forest Service had
had any measure of success against the tussock moth was no longer available to them. In
1972, when it became obvious that they had a major outbreak on their hands, it was too late
to prepare the environmental impact statements, have them reviewed and approved, appeal
for release of DDT and obtain it if approved, arrange all of the transport and application
equipment, and apply the pesticide in time to have any impact on losses. When the magni-
tude of the outbreak was realized, the Forest Service began making contingency plans for a
large-scale control program for 1973. They drew up the necessary environmental impact
statements and made plans and arrangements for equipment and personnel to carry out the
control program.  I understand that several requests were made that EPA allow them to  use
DDT on an emergency basis.  When the initial request was turned down, it was appealed and
was again turned down.  All of this was done despite the fact that most previous tussock
moth outbreaks that have been studied have, in fact, collapsed during the second year of the
blowup. Thus, it appears to me that the Forest Service did all that it was possible for them
to do within the constraints that have been put around them.

     This would seem to make the Environmental Protection Agency the villain, and,  in
fact, that is what I read in some of the press reports that have come to my attention.  How-
ever, I  think we might examine that a bit.  We should all recognize that the function of EPA
is to administer the laws  as they have been passed by the Congress. While the law does allow
some flexibility, one of the primary reasons for its passage was to eliminate just such usage
as that proposed here. While I strongly question the validity or the scientific objectivity of
the data used to support the ban on DDT, I believe it would be equally poor policy to use
the same tactics to effect its return.  I have reviewed a number of the reports that have been
written on the control programs using DDT on past outbreaks. Since they  have been applied
almost without exception to outbreaks in the decline phase, the picture regarding efficacy of
DDT is rather clouded. In view of this and in view of the public fears—unjustified, I believe,
but nevertheless real—of  DDT, plus the fact that past outbreaks have almost invariably col-
lapsed  in the third year, I am afraid I would have been  equally reluctant to release it for this
use. Hindsight indicates  the decision was perhaps wrong. However, if we could all see for-
ward as well as backward, we would avoid practically all of our problems.
                                         66

-------
     Now, if the Forest Service is not to blame and EPA is not to blame, then where does
 the blame lie? I would like to suggest that this problem, and perhaps many more serious
 ones that we will face in the near future, is a result of a great deal of legislation passed on
 the basis of emotionalism rather than scientific judgment.  EPA, of course, has the unenvi-
 able task of administering this legislation.

     In any event, following the rejection of their appeal, the Forest Service attempted to
 salvage something from the outbreak. They used all of the Zectran that was permitted, and
 in addition, applied three other compounds—Dylox, Sevin, and Bioethanomethrin—that
 might have promise. The conclusions reached, as of the last report that I have, are that with
 the possible exception of Sevin, none of the materials performed satisfactorily.  However, as
 I analyze the reports, I interpret the results quite differently.  It appears to me that three—
 Sevin, Dylox, and Zectran—performed in an outstanding fashion in view of the amount of
 material that reached the insects. With  Zectran at 0.30 pound per acre, only 6 to 19 per-
 cent of the spray, or an average of 0.6 of an ounce, reached the ground. This provided a
 range of 76 to 93 percent control of the larvae. Dylox, at 2 pounds per acre and an average
 deposit of 9 ounces, gave 81 to 98 percent mortality. Sevin, at 1 pound per acre with an '
 average of 1.5 ounces deposited, gave 79 to 90 percent control.                        ,

     Now,  compare this with the proposed use of three-fourths of a pound of DDT per acre.
 I cannot help but doubt very seriously that DDT would have done any better, if as well, as
 others.  It is most unfortunate that DDT was not included in these tests.  As a scientist I
 cannot understand this. In any event, it seems very obvious that the failure was not a failure
 of the insecticides, but rather  a failure of application. From the data that I have seen, it
 would appear to me that there are at least three potential alternatives to the use of DDT for
 Douglas fir tussock moth control. The problem seems to be getting an adequate application,
 and this is not a function of the insecticide.  I am sure that any of our industries would be
 happy to give any assistance we could to help insure proper application of the insecticides. I
 hope you will not infer from this that I  feel any of these should be substituted for DDT at
 this point.  I do not, but I do feel a substitute should be found as rapidly as possible.
Zectran—an Example of One Effort
to Find a Suitable Alternative to DDT

     I indicated in my opening remarks that the pesticide industry welcomes the opportu-
nity to help solve any of the forestry problems where we feel we might be helpful.  Now, I
would like to give you a concrete example of how far we are sometimes willing to go to help
solve such problems.

     Throughout the history of this outbreak, there has been a lot of discussion about
Zectran insecticide.  Perhaps you may be interested in some of the history behind it. The
Dow Chemical Company discovered this compound and its insecticidal activity in 1952.
Very extensive research was conducted on it through the 1950's, pretty well delineating its
activity against various agricultural and horticultural pests. Zectran was found to be highly
active against many  lepidopterous insects and against slugs and snails but, with minor excep-
tions, not very active against other insect groups. It was also discovered that it was a very
expensive compound to make.  Despite this, Dow began marketing Zectran in the ornamen-
tal field, hoping that a less expensive process could be found.  Even with the expenditure of
several man-years of effort, we were unable to accomplish this and could see no  way that
Zectran could compete in price with the older compounds such as DDT even though it was
                                         67

-------
several times more active to many foliage-feeding insects.  In late 1963, a decision was made
not to invest more money in the product. However, shortly after this decision was made, a
delegation from the Forest Pest Control group of the Forest Service asked for a meeting in
Midland, Michigan, to discuss their findings on Zectran. They indicated at that meeting that
Zectran appeared to offer the most promise as an ecologically acceptable substitute for DDT
for control of forest tree defoliators. Their data were impressive, indicating toxicity ranges
from 2 times to 185 times that of DDT for most of the more serious defoliating insects. The
data I have from the Insecticide Evaluation Project (IEP) indicate Zectran is 2 to 3.2 times
as active against Douglas fir tussock moth as DDT. The toxicity picture on fish, mammals,
and birds appears to be very favorable. Subsequent studies have confirmed this.  Dow was
asked to hold Zectran for them at least until they had time to complete their studies. Our
management agreed to this. Various field studies were run from 1964 through 1968.  Results
were generally good to excellent at very low dosage rates, with the exception of a couple of
studies that were run to perfect some highly advanced application technology. Finally in
1968, after it appeared the program would probably never get off the ground, Dow's man-
agement decided to close the books on it once and for all. At that time Dow offered to
license the Government, at no cost, to make Zectran or have it made by anyone they could
find to make it. They would supply  all of their data to them or to any third party and even
loan them chemists, again at no cost, to help get it started. Dow was asked to help them
find a manufacturer. Many months were spent in discussions with, I believe, every company
in the United States and a number of foreign companies who had a knowledge of carbamate
chemistry in an effort to find someone to produce Zectran for the Forest Service. These
discussions continued through 1969, but no one else would undertake the project. When
this was unsuccessful, Dow finally agreed to make the compound for them. However, the
Forest Service was told that the cost would be highly volume dependent and would be some-
where between $10 and $64 per pound, depending on their requirements. At that time the
best estimates of the probable use rate of 70,000 to 100,000 pounds annually indicated a
cost of about $18 per pound. When  the Forest Service still did not back away, Dow assem-
bled a new team of synthesis chemists to take another look at possible alternate routes of
synthesis. As a result of this effort, a way was found to reduce the cost appreciably over the
initial estimates.  Finally, in 1970, the Forest Service signed a contract for 200,000 pounds.
A plant was built to produce the compound. The plant operated, I believe, a total of 8
months and has now been closed for 2  years.

     Currently, Dow has invested over $6 million in the project since their initial agreement
with the Forest Service, and total sales, including those for the ornamental trade, amount to
slightly over $2 million. Thus, there is a negative balance of over $4 million that has been
invested in an effort to provide a suitable substitute for DDT.  I point this out as an indica-
tion that the pesticide industry is dedicated to helping solve your problems and doing it in
an ecologically acceptable fashion.

     Up to this point, I have generally dwelt on the past when the reason for this meeting is
to discuss the future.  In this vein, I would like to briefly outline what I as an outsider, but
nevertheless one who has considerable experience in forest and general entomology, view as
major problems in controlling forest  tree defoliators and preventing the losses such as those
experienced here. Please note that I  have and will continue to confine my comments specif-
ically to defoliators.

     1.   Forest entomologists view  chemical control as the very last resort, to be used only
when there is a good likelihood that extremely high timber losses are going to occur. There
is considerable justification for this.  It is the way we  were all taught in school. Foresters in
                                         68

-------
 general and forest entomologists in particular are by training ecologists.  We believe the nat-
 ural control agents are the primary factors in keeping destructive pests under control and we
 try to manipulate the forest in such a way that we maximize the effectiveness of these
 agents.  In addition, the almost total reliance on DDT for control of defoliators has strength-
 ened the belief that when chemicals must be used, we can expect some serious, deleterious
 side effects. If I recall correctly, the last time DDT was used on the tussock moth there was
 a serious mite outbreak in the treated area.  In addition, the common belief among forest
 entomologists that once you start spraying you have to continue spraying is not without
 justification. I know of one operation that has been going on for 24 years with controls
 ranging from a low of 79 percent to a high of 99+ percent.  Yet today, that infestation is
 larger than it has ever been. I suggest that this does not have to be the case. When selective
 insecticides have been used, I know of no instance where a secondary problem has devel-
 oped.

     2.    As a result of the economics in forestry, forest entomologists continually look for
 the cheapest compounds available. However, due to the economics of producing pesticides,
 this invariably means the broad-spectrum insecticides that kill all types of insects—exactly
 opposite from what I believe should be used in forestry.  I would suggest the major concern
 should be to find the insecticide that does the job best with the fewest secondary problems.
 After all, the cost of the chemical is the smallest part of the total cost.

     3.    The constraints placed on forestry personnel in dealing with defoliator outbreaks
 prevent them from taking decisive action in time to prevent large losses and makes control
 efforts far more difficult and costly. By the time all of the paperwork is completed and
 approvals obtained, the chemicals, equipment, and personnel assembled, it is a slow-moving
 outbreak indeed that has not already done serious damage.  With some defoliators, such as
 spruce budworm, you can get away with that, but certainly, as demonstrated here, not with
 an explosive insect like Douglas fir tussock moth. I can see no more justification for environ-
 mental impact statements in dealing with explosive insect outbreaks than for making fire
 crews do the same thing.

     4.    The restrictions on the Forest Service against stockpiling materials makes it diffi-
 cult to respond quickly to emergency situations.  This is ridiculous and like saying that fire
 crews cannot stockpile materials for fighting fires. I can see no justification for such a rul-
 ing.  We have entrusted the care and management of hundreds of millions of acres of one of
 our most valuable natural resources to the Forest Service. Certainly, we can trust them to
 use the tools they need wisely.

     5.    Inadequate survey procedures.  With many forest insects incipient outbreaks to-
day are relatively easy to detect.  With insects such as the Douglas fir tussock moth, this is
not the case. Outbreaks occur sporadically, and during low periods the insect  is almost im-
possible to find. However, a similar system to that used in detecting gypsy moth should be
effective.  I understand this work is well underway. When incipient outbreaks are detected,
they should be held in check with chemical controls at least until such time as the  use of
disease organisms has been perfected. Again, I believe it is most important that selective
insecticides be used to prevent damage to the parasite and predator complex.

     6.    Develop alternative materials. With the current restraints on the pesticide indus-
try, I would like to see the forest entomologist develop alternate compounds which might be
used and used with confidence in the event their first choice is not available. There are quite
a number of potential choices of selective insecticides that might be used so long as the
                                         69

-------
forest entomologist or forest manager does not get hung up on trying to save a few pennies
per acre.

     7.   Develop application techniques that can be relied on to work—not so much from
the standpoint of saving money, but rather to get the job done and get it done efficiently
and effectively.

     8.   Make use of the knowledge and technology that is available from the pesticide
industry, equipment manufacturers, and other public and private organizations.

     I am convinced if we do these things, we can avoid catastrophes and near catastrophes
such as the current problem with Douglas fir tussock moth.
                                        70

-------
            THE TECHNICAL PROBLEMS AND RESEARCH
              NEEDS: WHAT ARE THEY TO  INDUSTRY?
                                 Dr. Philip A. Grau
                   Agricultural Chemicals Research and Development
                     Agricultural and Veterinary Products Division
                       Abbott Laboratories, Fresno, California
     Perhaps the best way for me to address the subject matter of this seminar from the
viewpoint of the industry in general, and Abbott Laboratories specifically, is to begin with a
brief sketch of our involvement in the control of forest insect pests.

     For the past several years Abbott has been involved in the research and development of
our biological insecticide Dipel, a preparation of Bacillus thuringiensis highly active against
several lepidopterous defoliators of forest trees. Much of the original work was in coopera-
tion with the U.S. Forest Service and several State forest agencies in the northeastern United
States against the gypsy moth. While there is a continuing effort to expand our knowledge
of gypsy moth control, ample data were generated from this research to enable Dipel to be
registered for use by ground or aerial application. Bacillus thuringiensis has also been regis-
tered on other defoliators of deciduous forest hosts in recent years, including elm spanworm,
spring and fall cankerworm, and tent caterpillar.

     Obviously, the control of defoliators infesting coniferous forests presents different con-
ditions from those associated with the broadleaf hosts. The current generation of Bacillus
thuringiensis preparations (that is, those produced since about 1970 from strains with greater
insecticidal activity than previous products) has only recently been investigated for efficacy
against lepidopterous defoliators  of conifers. Certain work in Canada has indicated real
promise for the control of defoliation by the spruce budworm. Here in the West, experi-
mental field trials employing aerial application of Dipel to fir forests in British Columbia
during the past summer resulted in encouragement that populations of false hemlock looper
can be effectively controlled and that foliage can be saved.  A field experiment conducted
by the U.S. Forest Service against the pine butterfly in the Bitterroot National Forest of
western Montana showed that, when Dipel was applied at 1.0 pound per acre by helicopter,
the population was reduced by 92 percent in 12 days when compared to untreated plots.

     Concerning our subject of interest today, the Douglas fir tussock moth, Abbott Labo-
ratories gained research data and a considerable amount of experience with our Bacillus
thuringiensis product from several cooperative studies which we conducted on private or
State forests in Oregon and Washington during 1973.  This work was conducted under an
experimental registration issued by the EPA for this use of Dipel. A most encouraging trial
was the thorough field experiment conducted in northeastern Oregon during the past
                                        71

-------
summer by the U.S. Forest Service research team from the Pacific Northwest Forest and
Range Experiment Station at Corvallis. As their numerical data have not yet been published,
I will not be specific, but I know many of you have read or heard that with one of the two
additives tested as a tank mix with Bacillus thuringiensis, the biological insecticide was
highly effective in reducing tussock moth larval numbers which resulted in significant foliage
protection.

     By prefacing the remainder of my comments with this description of the status of
Bacillus thuringiensis as a forest defoliator control agent, I have attempted to point out that
there just might be a biological (microbial) insecticide suitable for Douglas fir tussock moth
control in the not-too-distant future if the remaining necessary research can be supported to
the degree that has been seen with certain of the chemical candidates.

     Here we have a material that is in harmony with our environmental concerns, since it is
produced from a bacterium which occurs naturally at low levels in the environment; controls
only the larvae of certain butterflies and moths at standard use levels, leaving predacious and
parasitic insects, other beneficials, birds, fish, and mammals unaffected; and will not accu-
mulate in the food chain.  Additionally, it has properties we consider necessary for an ac-
ceptable insecticide including:

     1.  A mode of action, referred to as a stomach poison, which soon after it is ingested,
         causes a cessation of larval feeding resulting in the curtailment of further defolia-
         tion

     2.  Good residual activity, lasting from several days to approximately 2 weeks, de-
         pending upon weathering factors

     3.  No major mixing or handling problems in the field

     4.  Current availability, since it is a proven method of control for many  agricultural
         insect pests

     5.  The aforementioned safety to  nontarget species and exempt from the requirement
         of a tolerance for residues on 31 edible crops

     So, while I believe we could be close to knowing whether or not Bacillus thuringiensis
can be considered one of the choices for effective tussock moth control, we are not yet able
to make that decision.  Efficacy has been shown from carefully controlled experimental
field plots utilizing one rate, one set of tank-mix components, and one spray volume. It is
necessary to continue on a logical course of field development by testing these conditions in
a pilot study.

     In general, the technical problems that must be solved for the possibility of eventual
operational use of Bacillus thuringiensis as a forest insect control agent are not too unlike
those of any candidate insecticide. All parameters must be adequately researched to insure
that the required physical and biological conditions necessary to assure efficacy are main-
tained at each developmental level, up to the point of operational use. One problem area
that is not faced in a developmental program with Bacillus thuringiensis is the need for
lengthy studies documenting the environmental impact. The product has a  history of com-
mercial use and a track record that supports the claims of safety to the environment. An
area where Bacillus thuringiensis suffers a technical disadvantage, however, is that of the
                                         72

-------
apparent lack of awareness of this potentially valuable tool for forest insect control exhib-
ited by both the public and scientific community, except of course for those few individuals
intimately involved in its development or use. Many of those who are aware of it seem to
consider it an academic curiosity that is not available as a practical tool in large-scale control
programs. Naturally, this attitude is detrimental and makes it difficult for certain research
groups within governmental agencies—namely, the Federal and State forestry groups—to ob-
tain the necessary support for projects dealing with biological insecticides. I have even seen
statements in U.S. Forest Service documents and heard statements at meetings where Bacillus
thuringiensis and the insect viruses are discussed together as not being commercially available.
This is currently true of the tussock moth virus, but is certainly untrue for Bacillus thuringi-
ensis. I would like to set the record straight by making it clear that Abbott Laboratories'
preparation  of Bacillus thuringiensis used in the experimental programs against tussock moth
is the very same Dipel that is used domestically and internationally on agricultural crops.
Indeed, we have already seen commercial use against the  gypsy moth for 2 years in the
northeastern United States and against gypsy moth and several other defoliators of European
forests.

     The most pressing research need relating to Bacillus thuringiensis control of Douglas fir
tussock moth, as we view it, is to conduct a pilot control study in 1974, as I mentioned ear-
lier. Such a program should be conducted in nothing less than the most scientifically sound
manner known.  Of near  equal importance is the need for concurrent exploration of several
variables at the experimental plot level. Such research should be aimed at defining the opti-
mum volume of delivered spray; determining which, if any, spray additives are beneficial;
making an accurate assessment of residual effectiveness; and expanding our knowledge of
treatment timing and number of applications required. We need a better understanding of
the effect of Bacillus thuringiensis against populations at different stages of an outbreak
cycle. All Bacillus thuringiensis tests  in 1973 received only one application in contrast to
most of the  chemical insecticides which were applied twice. Can the level of effectiveness
shown with Bacillus thuringiensis in 1973 be achieved consistently with a single application?
We need to find out, and  1974 is the time to do it.

     In addition to my foregoing comments, our position relating to solving current and
future Douglas fir tussock moth problems is that it is imperative that adequate support be
available during this current outbreak to enable a thorough exploration of potential control
candidates so that a new set of recommendations will result for 1975 and beyond.  We must
remember that in future years the environmental impact  of pesticides may be of even greater
concern than it is today.  Whether or  not DDT will be used against tussock moth in 1974,
there exists no rational reason to neglect the research and development of alternatives.
There is a particular need for materials that can be used on forests receiving high recreational
use and on watershed lands. We feel that Bacillus thuringiensis should receive its fair share
of the monies allocated to pursue such alternatives, as it appears to be a viable candidate for
Douglas fir tussock moth control.
                                         73

-------
                TUSSOCK MOTH VIRUS PRODUCTION
                                 Edward B. We stall
                         Vice President, Lakeview Operations
                              Nutrilite Products, Inc.
                              BuenaPark, California
    Mr. Westell's presentation was not transcribed.  Chart materials used in the presentation
are included in the following pages.

            Table 1.-Tussock moth virus-production time from eggs to final preparation
Step
1
2
3
4
5
6
Description
Egg masses collected from the field
Egg masses stored in refrigerator, minimum storage period
Egg masses broken and sterilized, incubation period
Larval growth for virus infection (weight 250-350 mg), duration period
Incubation period after infection
Harvesting, freezedrying, and packaging duration
Total time required from step 3 through step 6
Time
Approximately 3 months
10-14 days
21 days
14 days
2 days
51 days
                 Table 2.—Problems involved in tussock moth virus production
                             [Percent larvae infected = 22.1]

                     Egg viability and larval death due to natural causes
Number of
eggs
received

80,000
93,000
65,000
88,000
328,000
Number of
eggs
hatched

48,802
64,155
59,208
—
172,165
Number of
larvae dead
by natural
virus
40,000
48,000
—
—
88,000
Miscellane-
ous death

4,252
3.530
3,601
—
11,383
Number of
larvae
survived to
infection
4,550
12,625
55,607
—
72,782
                                        75

-------
                   Table 3.-Tussock moth virus production: safety tests conducted
Test No.
                                   Test description
    2
    3
    4
Determination of the infectivity titer and detection of unwanted pathogens, by assay, in living
   larvae
Detection of free virions and toxic substances, by assay, in living larvae
Detection and enumeration of bacterial contaminants
Detection of toxic substances or pathogenic micro-organisms, by inoculation of warm-blooded
   vertebrates
Serological test
No.
                 Table 4.—Government contracts completed by Nutrilite Products, Inc.
                                  Description
         Investigations designed to develop new or improved methods to rear on semiartificial media the
           beet armyworm and the yellowstriped armyworm  for nuclear polyhedrosis virus production:
           1966-69
         Experiments to select virulent mutants from populations of the nuclear polyhedrosis virus disease
           of the corn earworm:  1966-1967
 3       Douglas fir tussock moth virus-production contract:  1966-1967
 4       Douglas fir tussock moth virus-production contract-10,000 acres: 1972-1973
                      Table 5.—Tussock moth virus-production time requirements
                            [Dosage application per acre = 1 X 1011 PIB]
Eggs
4.5 X106
11.25X106
22.5 X106
33.75 X106
45X106
90X106
135 X106
225 X 106
PIB
1.25 X1015
3.125 X1015
6.25 X1015
9.375 X 1015
12.5 X1015
25X1015
37.5 X1015
62.5 X1015
Time
6 months
1 year
2 years
2'/2 years
3 years
3Va years
4 years
41/a years
Acres
12,500
31,250
62,500
93,750
125,000
250,000
375,000
625,000
                                               76

-------
                   TUSSOCK MOTH VIRUS CONTROL REPORT
Lot No..
Sample Received.
PIB Count:
     Date
PIB/gm X 10s
Average.
Mouse Injection Test:

  Passed:	     Failed:



Mouse Feeding Test:

  Passed:	     Failed:
Serological Test:

   Hemagglutination Titer.

   Inmunodiffusion Test
                      Date of Report_

                        Bioassay	
                     LD
                                                                  50'
Bacterial Contaminants: -

a) Aerobic Plate Count

       Date
                                                                   Count
                                          b) Anaerobic & Microaerophilic
                                            (Brewer Agar)
                             Date
                         Count
                      c) Gram Negative Count (EMB Agar)

                             Date              Count



                        Typhoid Negative	
                        Paratyphoid Negative.

                        Dysentery Negative	
                                          d) Count MacConkey Agar

                                                 Date              Count
Reported by:_
Released by:.
                                          e) E. Coli Negative.

                                             Staph Negative _
                                             Pseudomonas A Negative.

                                             Shigella Negative	
                        Salmonella Negative_
                                       77

-------
                       FOREST INDUSTRY'S VIEWS
                     REGARDING TUSSOCK MOTH
                             William H. Lawrence, Ph. D.
                              Forestry Research Center
                               Weyerhaeuser Company
     Mr. Chairman, I want to express the appreciation of the National Forest Products Asso-
ciation (NFPA) for the invitation to participate in this important seminar and present the
forest industry's views regarding tussock moth research needs.

     Although EPA is correct in identifying me as a professionally trained forest wildlife
biologist with Weyerhaeuser Company, I am here today representing NFPA in my capacity
as chairman of the forest chemicals task group.

     Though it is tempting to present to this symposium an "official" industry assessment
of the impact of tussock moth and debate the statements of certain environmental extrem-
ists (and I have been urged by several colleagues to do so), I will abide by the seminar's
guidelines and confine my comments to technical considerations attendant to controlling
tussock moth and our perceptions as to research needs.

     I will deal with short-term or immediate considerations first, then will present several
recommendations regarding action steps with longer range objectives in mind.
Short-Term Options

     The current tussock moth outbreak warrants prompt, positive action to contain it.  Let
us not debate whether the tussock moth is or is not a forest insect pest of major importance
because of the periodicity of its outbreaks.  But rather, we should view the current outbreak
as having an adverse impact of major importance on our timber resources. We do, in fact,
have an a priori demonstration that the past course of action has failed. We have relied   <
heavily on the advent of a buildup in nature of a "virus" epidemic to control tussock moth.
This has not taken place as we complete the third year of this insect outbreak. From reading
the EPA news release announcing this seminar, it is evident that we lack, in an operational
sense, effective second-generation insecticide replacements for DDT. Here we are on the
threshold of a new year, the fourth year of tussock moth,  no better off than we were at the
start of 1973. We all have specific publics to serve, and public dissatisfaction is running high
in many quarters, as the Congress is rapidly learning.

     Before reviewing our short-term action steps, a brief review of certain characteristics of
the tussock moth is in order.  As I understand it, this particular tussock moth episode is


                                       79

-------
characterized by a series of local yet spontaneously occurring outbreaks, some of which have
coalesced into areas of many thousands of acres in extent. Other foci remain as "outliers"
of varying sizes, all with the potential of increasing in size during 1974. Some persons may
view this outbreak in its entirety as a single phenomenon, whereas, biologically speaking,
there is a series of concurrent outbreaks in progress not necessarily "in tune," if you will,
with one another. The spread of virus amongst caterpillars depends on direct contact with
infected individuals or on noninfected caterpillars traveling over or feeding on contaminated
foliage. In light of our understanding of virus epidemiology, the individual nature of local
outbreaks and lack of biological uniformity might well be the reasons for the failure of the
virus to develop as an effective natural control. I would hope that in the excitement sur-
rounding this forest insect epidemic, there are planned investigations underway of the me-
chanics of these local outbreaks to better understand the interactions between the virus and
caterpillar population dynamics.

     For the short term we have, I believe, three action step options.

     Option 1. Do nothing.  Let nature take its course.  The folly of such a course of action
must be apparent to all of us by now.  Positive action to totally contain this pest is in keep-
ing with our Nation's conservation ethic requiring the wise use of renewable natural re-
sources.  Acceptance of the conservation ethic requires us to reject out of hand option 1.

     Option 2. I  am distressed to  learn that at this late date there is significant disagreement
amongst the scientists gathered at this seminar as to the efficacy of DDT against tussock
moth. It would seem such important information would be at hand so that forest managers
could plan a course  of action to control this pest. For the second action step EPA is urged
to form a "blue ribbon" committee comprised of a majority of nonagency scientists to re-
view data on efficacy of DDT against tussock moth. A call for all pertinent data published
or unpublished should be made by EPA; then these data would be evaluated by the select
committee. Such action would clear air as to who  knows what.

     Option 3. Initiate planning, based on EPA's action step above, to utilize the most ef-
fective insecticide available, including DDT if necessary, to control this epidemic. Reliance
on  the virus is chancy.  The forest industry and public forestry agencies (State and Federal)
have had experience in tooling up  (including environmental impact assessments) for the  suc-
cessful control of forest insect pests using DDT—hemlock looper in 1963 and the tussock
moth outbreak in 1965—so this should not be a deterrent to this course of action in 1974.
Recommendations

     Now for four longer term recommendations that will, hopefully, help in eliminating the
need of a seminar such as this in 1973-plus years.

     Recommendation 1. Insure that the U.S. Forest Service is employing the most modern
of forest insect survey techniques. New technology suggests that insect pheromones—sex
attractants, to be specific—hold considerable promise as a means to assess population levels
of lepidopterous insects.  Also, remote-sensing technology—e.g., special photographic  emul-
sions, infrared scanning, and perhaps other techniques—can be used effectively to track and
assess the impact of forest insect outbreaks.  It is essential that the Forest Service keep on
the cutting edge  of technology that has application in forest pest detection and control. The
                                         80

-------
forest industry, by law and regulation, must look to the public forest land-managing agencies
(at both State and Federal levels) for leadership in forest pest control.

     Some of you will no doubt be surprised to learn there are no practicing industrial forest
entomologists in this region. Since we rely solely on public agency experts concerning sur-
vey and detection, insect ecology, and control methods research, we expect a high level of
technical competence to be maintained in these subject matter areas. Let us not find our-
selves trying to put out a full-blown forest insect epidemic when a lesser effort might have
controlled the attack if detected in its incipient stage.

     Efficiency in survey and detection, together with full knowledge of forest insect popu-
lation dynamics, does not equate to full effectiveness in controlling forest insect epidemics.
We need biologically effective control agents, be they "viruses" or chemicals, to complete
our control technology.

     Recommendation 2. Construct a model describing the interactions between the "virus"
and caterpillars at various population levels. Though this may seem like a theoretical exer-
cise, it would no doubt provide some insights into how best to use biological controls. If my
memory serves me correctly, I recall that one of the industrial forestry research representa-
tives participating in a program  review of the Pacific Northwest Forest and  Range Research
Station last year (1972) made such a recommendation. This recommendation is still viable,
and such an endeavor should be initiated promptly. Although this approach would contribute
little to the solving of the immediate problem to contain tussock moth, it is highly likely
that a strategy will develop to make more effective  use of artificial inocula of the virus in
future outbreaks.

     In the use of "virus," early instar caterpillars must continue to develop and move about
to become infected. Thus, some level of defoliation must occur before control takes place.
If a breakthrough increasing the effectiveness of the virus were to occur in 1974, it probably
would be 1975 before a general collapse would take place. So we can look forward (in a
negative sense) to another two seasons of defoliation.  But we should not reject the proposed
model-building effort for this reason. If the Pacific Northwest Station lacks in-house talent
to do the total job of model building (and this will require highly specialized skills), then
such talent should be acquired on a contract basis.  It may be desirable from a research
standpoint to reserve several of  the smaller outbreak foci for experimental purposes.  No
stigma should be attached to such a request by the U.S. Forest Service.

     Recommendation 3. We frequently hear discussed the virtues of an "integrated" ap-
proach to insect pest control. This approach calls for the blending of direct control (toxi-
cants) and biological controls (the enhancement of  natural controls); in the case of forest
insects, silvicultural controls on insect populations.  We have in the Pacific Northwest a his-
tory of tussock moth outbreaks in the mixed conifer type. It would seem appropriate to
initiate research to investigate the potential of silviculturally insectproofing this forest type
against tussock moth.  Forest entomologists have a  good understanding of the silvicultural
factors controlling spruce budworm epidemics in eastern coniferous forest types.  The pro-
portion of balsam fir in a stand  is the controlling factor—a high proportion of balsam fir re-
sults in increased hazard of a stand to attack by the spruce budworm. What silvicultural fac-
tor influences the occurrence of tussock moth?  This ecological or silvicultural approach to
controlling tussock moth is long range in scope with the practical payoff to such a research
effort some years off.  It would be a high order of forest management if we could learn to
                                         81

-------
insectproof the mixed conifer type to tussock moth.  It is our recommendation to this
group that the planning for such a research effort be initiated.

     Recommendations 1,2, and 3 pertain primarily to the Forest Service.

     Recommendation 4.  Our fourth recommendation is directed to EPA and it is in keep-
ing with EPA's philosophy of developing new how-to-do technology to protect environmen-
tal quality. EPA currently plays the role of an environmental policeman with regulations on
the do's and don'ts concerning the use of pesticides. And, shortly, EPA will be involved to
some degree with forest practice guidelines. Specifically, our fourth recommendation is this:
EPA join the U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife to initiate
a truly national effort to develop effective and environmentally safe pesticides for use on
forest lands.

     In the midsixties, the forest industry in the Pacific Northwest recognized the need to
seek a replacement for DDT. The industry, working through the Northwest Forest Pest
Action Council, was the catalyst bringing together experts from the Forest Service and U.S.
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife to discuss the possibility of developing—as they were
referred to in those days—"safe to wildlife pesticides." To this meeting in Denver in 1964
the forest-pesticide-pioneering research group at Berkeley owes its origin. (The forest indus-
try is not usually credited with such farsightedness by environmentalists.)

     By allocating some of EPA's resources in this ongoing cooperative program with the
chemical industry, an all-out effort to develop environmentally safe pesticides for forestry
could be developed.  EPA would have a positive role in forest-pest control.

     Since the maintenance of environmental quality is EPA's charge, I feel (and this is a
personal view) EPA should have some second thoughts regarding the degradation in environ-
mental quality that is attendant  to the current outbreak of tussock moth.
                                         82

-------
Appendixes

-------
     The appendixes include manuscripts submitted for the record
and supplemental material in support of author presentations.  Be-
cause the transcript of the afternoon session was not available at the
time of publication, however, appendix material cited during that
session is derived from manuscripts subsequently provided by the
authors.

-------
                                 STATEMENT
                                 Roland C. Clement
                       Vice President, National Audubon Society
     Mr. Chairman, I have been the National Audubon Society's chief scientist since 1960;
have devoted over 10 years to the analysis of DDT environment problems; have been a mem-
ber of the National Gypsy Moth Advisory Council (USFS) since its inception; am a member
of the Advisory Committee on Research/Northeast Region, USFS, a member of the Califor-
nia Condor Advisory Committee/USFS, Chairman of the Environmental Advisory Board to
the Chief of the Corps of Engineers, and Chairman of the U.S. Section, International Council
for Bird Preservation.

     I recite these affiliations to show that I believe in working from the inside—cooperatively—
instead of merely criticizing from the outside.

     The U.S. Forest Service has always been a favorite Government agency of mine, but I
recognize that the Forest Service is currently divided within itself on insect control. Through
no fault of their own, they have not invested enough in continuing ecological assessment of
insect pest populations. The result is internal vacillation and external buffeting. This con-
fuses the public, because it becomes difficult to decide who the experts are.

     My own expertise and experience is in the 25-year gypsy-moth/DDT controversy, much
of it applicable to the tussock moth problem.  The science of DDT's undesirable effects in
the environment is now clear to anyone willing to read the scientific literature and capable
of understanding it, notwithstanding the frenetic claims of half a dozen individuals who be-
labor the issue to the contrary.

     My comments are perhaps best organized under the headings of science, research needs,
and what may be termed the sociology of the tussock moth problem.
Science

     1.   Two unpublished studies I have had access to, by Florida and California scientists,
show declining body burdens of DDT in wild birds since about 1971. This reflects a gradual
cleansing of the environment by natural processes as a result of various constraints placed on
the use of DDT in recent years. It would be tragic to reverse this favorable trend by allow-
ing additional uses of DDT until the environment has had the opportunity to cleanse itself
more completely.  At present the best barometers of environmental health relative to DDT
poisoning are the reproductive health of birds at the ends of long food chains, such as the
peregrine falcon.  In Colorado last summer—for example—the last 13 pairs of these falcons
                                        85

-------
 in that State produced only three young because most of them sat on rotten eggs. This is a
 result of thin eggshells that crack; and the thin eggshells are a result of DDT poisoning in the
 mother bird.

     2.    Our long experience with the use of DDT in attempts to control the gypsy moth
 in the East show that such use actually magnifies the amplitude of the moth's population
 ups and downs. In short, though we may succeed in knocking down occasional outbreaks,
 we make future outbreaks worse and thus get locked into continuing chemical-control pro-
 grams. Practically speaking, there is no such thing as a one-shot use of DDT.

     3.    In the East, Federal and State governments have spent over $100 million in a vain
 attempt to control the gypsy moth.  The National Advisory Committee on Gypsy Moth
 Control has now recognized that the gypsy moth is not truly a forest problem, that the dam-
 age it does is minor, and that, in any event, we do not know how to control it. The commit-
 tee characterizes the gypsy moth problem as a "people problem," and recognizes that its
 solution, therefore, involves helping people cope with their individual problems. These
 problems are ecological, technical, economic, cultural, and psychological.

 Research Needs

     The Forest Service must be enabled, through congressional directive and support, to
 study forest pests ecologically. In the past the Congress has been shortsighted and impa-
 tient, and the Forest Service has had to do ad hoc research. This has not and will not pro-
 vide results.

     The forest is not  a bunch of trees, but an extremely complex ecological community
 that must be understood before we can help correct occasional imbalances that seem to us
 undesirable. Forest insects which are pests are the exception to the rule, which means that
 nonpest insects are much in the majority.  So far we do not even know enough about the
 few insects that are pests, let alone all the other insects that are members of the forest com-
 munity. Our use of chemicals is likely to upset the forest community's ecology, and may
 actually create new pests and make existing pests more troublesome, instead of helping
 moderate our problems. This has happened several times in agricultural pesticides use.

     The Forest Service must therefore—

     1.    Develop accurate outbreak prediction techniques. Present egg-mass counts are
          inadequate.

     2.   Develop uniform and/or comparable infestation-level and defoliation-level cate-
         gories. None exist at present, and much unnecessary alarm is aroused by the
         reports of entomologists.

     3.   Define in uniform and/or comparable language such terms as "acceptable defolia-
         tion," "acceptable damage," and "acceptable control."

Sociology

     The tussock-moth-control controversy, like the gypsy moth controversy, is typical of
all the human problems which arise from a short-term-benefit outlook and from naive or
exaggerated faith in the technological "fix."
                                         86

-------
     This popular misunderstanding of the long-term public interest in ecological issues is
not surprising. The public has been misled by sophisticated professionals who have been so
enamored of their specialist expertise that they have overlooked the forest for the trees.

     The benefit/cost analysis of the economist is typical of this overemphasis on specialized
rationality.  When such reasoning is applied to ecological problems it fails, because  ecosys-
tems are more complex than the methodology of economic science. What is overlooked is
that advantages are more easily quantified than disadvantages; the short term is also more
easily quantified than the long term.  Identifiable benefits seem more real than uncertain
future hazards.

     The benefit/cost analysis, therefore, provides a false sense of objectivity, and the pro-
fessional who is not also a philosopher may deceive more than he clarifies, because the pub-
lic tends to overlook his scientific caveats.

     DDT has obvious immediate effects.  It kills insects. It therefore seems both effective
and economic.  But such a conclusion ignores or disregards the long-term damage DDT does
to nonpest organisms. It imposes long-term costs that only patient and sophisticated analy-
sis can keep track of. Since these costs are both more distant and more difficult to assess
than the immediate benefits, it is difficult to include them in benefit/cost analyses.  What is
difficult is often neglected.

     Where it is difficult or impossible to be scientifically objective, we must make ethical
judgments. These are always less popular in our pseudoscientific culture.  This problem is
obvious to the irrelevant promise to do extensive monitoring of the requested spray pro-
grain. How extensive, when 50 percent of the DDT applied is carried for miles on air cur-
rents instead of falling where it is applied? Will the entire regional ecosystem be monitored,
since this is what is being affected? Who will pay for this long term monitoring program?
Has its cost been computed and  included in the program's benefit/cost analysis? How much
dispersed long-term damage will be accepted for the presumed, focused, short-term benefits?

     Given the professional and  public confusion about benefits and costs, it is not surpris-
ing that political leaders reflect this confusion.  If I may believe the press reports I have read,
both the principal advocates of recent legislation to do an end run around DDT constraints
imposed by the Congress and EPA—Congressman Mike McCormack of Washington and Con-
gressman Steve Symms of Idaho—only 2 years ago made badly informed and intemperate
public statements about the tussock moth problem. They have unfortunately compounded
the confusion and polarized contending views on this issue.

     Those who feel it necessary to opt for the  short-term solution (use DDT), at whatever
cost to others, resort to a common rationalization; their excuse is that "my little bit won't
hurt." This is why we continue  polluting. It also leads to juggling for advantage among user
groups.  For example, a spokesman for the American Plywood Association wrote to the Na-
tional Audubon Society  on October 8,1973, that foresters like him "could not be a party to
allowing farmers and housewives to continue promiscuous use of the chemical (DDT)"—but
he considered an "emergency application" of DDT necessary for tussock moth control.

     Mr. Chairman, these are all valid points—scientific, economic, and political—we trust
you will weigh carefully  in considering the request to resort once again to DDT.
                                         87

-------
     We believe the costs of DDT use would greatly outweigh its benefits. But we have
argued before the Congress that the decision is one EPA is competent to make, and should
be allowed to make, without political interference.  We will abide by your decision.
                                        88

-------
                                DDT EFFICACY
                                  David A. Graham
                      Branch Chief for Insect and Disease Control
                  U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
                                  Portland, Oregon
     Since 1945, there have been several insect-control projects in the Pacific Northwest
where DDT was used, including the Douglas fir tussock moth. Some of these spray projects
in Oregon and Washington are summarized in table 1 (Johannesen, 1970).  The rate of appli-
cation of the chemical varied from 0.5 to 1.5 pound per acre.  For the Douglas fir tussock
moth, the rate of application before 1964 was 1 pound of DDT per acre. After 1964, the
dosage rate was reduced to 0.75 pound of DDT per acre.

     DDT was first used against the Douglas fir tussock moth in 1947. A total of 413,469
acres was sprayed in northern Idaho, eastern Washington, and northeast Oregon (Evenden
and Jost, 1948).  One pound of DDT was applied per acre. Evenden and Jost report,

     the success of the spray program was far greater than had been anticipated.  Instead of the 75 percent
     of the tussock moth population which it was hoped would succumb to the effects of DDT, postspray
     checks found close to 100 percent mortality everywhere in the treated area. Procedures to check the
     degree of mortality based upon the assumption that there would be some caterpillar survival were
     abandoned. There simply were no living caterpillars apparent in the treated area.

They also reported the ground Was covered with thousands of small larvae which apparently
dropped from the trees during the first 24 hours following treatment.  The area was sprayed
when the first larvae began to hatch from the overwintering eggs.

     Evenden and Jost (1948) also reported the DDT spray had prevented continued defoli-
ation. They believe the success of this project was due to the rapid coverage of the infested
area by the spraying operations that permitted the spray to be directed against the early in-
stars of the larvae.

     During  the period June 24 to July 2,1947, some 14,000 acres on the Umatilla National
Forest near Troy, Oregon, were sprayed.  This was a part of the North Idaho project de-
scribed above. Buckhorn (1947) reported the results of the spray were phenomenal. He
stated "although considerable damage occurred to the timber before control was applied,
wholesale destruction of the stand was prevented."

     On the  nearby Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, a new infestation of 1,500 acres was
discovered near Promise, Oregon, in June 1947. About 320 acres of the most heavy defolia-
tion was treated on July 15,1947. Ground checks revealed the larvae ranged from third to
                                         89

-------
     Table 1.-Previous DDT aerial spray projects for forest insect control in Oregon and Washington
Year
1945
1947
1947
1948
1949
1950
1950
1951
1951
1952
1952
1953
1953
1954
1955
1958
1962
1962
1963
1965
State
Oregon
Oregon
Washington
Oregon
Oregon
Oregon
Washington
Oregon
Washington
Oregon
Washington
Oregon
Oregon
Oregon
Oregon
Oregon
Washington
Oregon
Washington
Oregon
Insect species controlled
Western hemlock looper
Douglas fir tussock moth
Douglas fir tussock moth
Spruce budworm
Spruce budworm
Spruce budworm
Spruce budworm
Spruce budworm
Spruce budworm
Spruce budworm
Spruce budworm
Spruce budworm
Sawfly
Spruce budworm
Spruce budworm
Spruce budworm
Spruce budworm
Western hemlock looper
Western hemlock looper
Douglas fir tussock moth
Total acreage
sprayed (X105)
2.3
14
4.4
4
267
907
25.9
791
125
522
135
369
1.2
67.7
621
818
46.2
32.5
14
66
Application rate,
pounds per acre
1
1
1
0.5-1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.5
.75-1.5
.75
   Source: From Johannesen, 1970.
fifth instars.  Buckhorn (1947) reports this area was treated with a dosage of DDT similar to
that applied on the Idahp and Troy areas. However, the results indicated very little larval
mortality occurred. Buckhorn stated, "apparently the large larvae were more resistant to
the small dosage of DDT which caused complete mortality of the smaller larvae on the other
two projects."

     The second Douglas fir tussock moth control project involving the use of DDT was in
1956 on the Stanislaus National Forest in Calaveras and Tuolumne Counties, California. A
total of 9,560 acres was sprayed with 1 pound of DDT, similar to the Idaho project in 1947
(Stevens, 1957). The area was not sprayed until July 31, and this was after a significant
amount of defoliation had already occurred. The larvae at the time of treatment were three-
fourths grown (about fifth and sixth instars). Stevens (1957) observed "dying larvae began
falling within a few hours after being sprayed. No living larvae could be found one day  after
spraying."  He also reported no additional foliar damage occurred after treatment.

    The effectiveness of DDT applied at a rate of 0.75 pound per acre for control of the
tussock moth was first observed in 1964. It occurred at Knox Mountain in northern
                                         90

-------
California, where the U.S. Forest Service was testing DDT and malathion to control an out-
break of the white fir sawfly, Neodiprion abietis complex (Harris)—(Pierce, 1964).  Ento-
mologists reported a population of the Douglas fir tussock moth was present in the sawfly
treatment area.  During the evaluation of the sawfly treatment, the effects of DDT and
malathion on the tussock moth population were determined. A total of 2,800 acres was
treated with DDT and 320 acres with malathion.  Both chemicals were applied at the time
the tussock moth larvae were hatching.

     During July and August 1964, 39 sample plots were established:  14 plots within the
DDT-treated area, 7 plots in the malathion-treated area, and 18 plots outside the treated
areas.  At each plot egg masses were collected and separated as to the year of hatch, egg
masses which hatched in 1963 or before (old masses), and those which just hatched in 1964
(new masses). The plots were resampled in October 1964 to collect and record egg masses
which  would hatch in 1965. The results of this survey showed the tussock moth infestation
in the  untreated area appeared to be rising sharply; this upward trend was also evident in the
malathion-treated area, but in the DDT-sprayed area, no new 1965 egg masses were found.
The results are presented in table 2.

     In addition to the  tussock moth outbreak that was rapidly developing in northern Cali-
fornia  in 1964, additional outbreaks were developing elsewhere in northern Idaho and cen-
tral Oregon. The entomological survey indicated heavy defoliation would occur in 1965 in
the three States; therefore, plans were made to control the moth. Originally it was planned
to use  1 pound of DDT per acre. However, after being informed of the 1964 results ob-
tained  in northern California, the recommended dosage was reduced to 0.75 pound per acre.
                         Table 2.—Average egg masses per sample tree
DDT-treated area
Hatch
1963
0.06
Hatch
1964
0.69
Hatch
1965
0
Malathion-treated area
Hatch
1963
0
Hatch
1964
0.44
Hatch
1965
2.9
Unsprayed area
Hatch
1963
0.006
Hatch
1964
0.07
Hatch
1965
7.19
  Note.-Table based on the following data:
                       DDT-treated area:
                         1963 hatch, 9 egg masses found on 140 sample trees.
                         1964 hatch, 97 egg masses found on 140 sample trees.
                         1965 hatch, 0 egg mass found on 140 sample trees.

                      Malathion-treated area:
                         1963 hatch, 0 egg mass found on 70 sample trees.
                        • 1964 hatch, 31 egg masses found on 70 sample trees.
                         1965 hatch, 43 egg masses found on 15 sample trees.

                      Unsprayed area:
                         1963 hatch, 1 egg mass found on 180 sample trees.
                         1964 hatch, 269 egg masses found on 990 sample trees.
                         1965 hatch, 7,119 egg masses found on 990 sample trees.
                                          91

-------
     In 1965, 69,945 tussock-moth-infested acres located on the Malheur National Forest,
 Ochoco National Forest, State of Oregon lands, and private properties were treated.  DDT
 was used at the rate of 0.75 pound dissolved in 1 gallon of fuel oil per acre when 70 percent
 of the egg masses hatched. Prespray and postspray tussock moth larval counts at 73 scat-
 tered plots were compared to determine larval mortality.  The results of these calculations
 indicated that the spray project was very successful (table 3).

     For the Douglas fir tussock moth infestation in northern California, a total of 47,796
 acres were treated in 1965 with 0.75 pound of DDT per acre (Anon., 1966b). The chemical
 was not applied until after 60 percent of the egg masses in the treatment area hatched.
 Tussock moth mortality counts on this project were made by establishing 10 mortality sta-
 tions (8 treated and 2 untreated) and caging an egg mass swarming with first instar larvae in
 a nylon-mesh sleeve cage. Ten days after spraying, the branches containing the nylon cages
 were clipped and taken to the laboratory for examination. The very excellent results are
 summarized in table 4.

     A third Douglas fir tussock moth control project in 1965 was carried out in the Pot-
 latch area of Idaho. This tussock moth project covered 119,872 acres of State, private tim-
 ber company, and Federal lands (Anon., 1965b). DDT was applied at the rate of 0.75 pound
 per acre by fixed-wing aircraft and helicopter when 70 percent of the larvae were in the sec-
 ond instar. Twenty-six insect mortality lines, each consisting of 5-10 plots, were established.
 Prespray and postspray mortality counts were made at each plot from a 15-inch branch col-
 lected  from each of two trees. Prespray fixed-wing mortality lines had a total of 2,416 lar-
 vae, and the helicopter lines had a total of 1,372.  Six days after spraying no live tussock
 larvae were found on any of the established plots.

     DDT was registered in 1966 for Douglas fir tussock moth control by the Allied Chemi-
 cal Corporation at the rate of 0.75 pound per acre, USDA Registration No. 218-3.  The 1965
 efficacy data collected from the Douglas fir tussock moth control  projects in Idaho, Oregon,
 and California were used to register DDT at the prescribed rate of 0.75 pound per acre.

     Studies by Wickman (1958 and  1963), Wert and Wickman (1968 and 1970), Wickman
 and Scharpf (1972), and Wickman, Mason, and Thompson (1973) have indicated that tree
 mortality on DDT-treated areas is essentially the same when compared to untreated areas.

     The efficacy of DDT to control  the Douglas fir tussock moth cannot be based on the
 number or volume of trees that ultimately died in treated and untreated areas of past epi-
 demics. It is not a true reflection on  the effectiveness of DDT against the tussock moth, be-
 cause the areas used may not be comparable.  Some of the major differences between un-
 treated and treated areas are the density of the tussock moth population, the incidence of
 the virus disease present in the population, the variability of other natural control agents,
 the timing of the treatment as related to size of larvae and age of the outbreak, and the sec-
 ondary effects other insects, primarily bark beetles, exert in defoliated stands.

     One of the examples used for comparing tree mortality between an untreated area and
 a DDT-treatment area has been the 1937 Mammoth Lakes outbreak  (untreated) and the
 1956 outbreak on the Stanislaus National Forest that was  treated with 1 pound of DDT per
acre.

     Tree mortality on the Mammoth Lake outbreak amounted to 29 percent of the saw-
timber volume 5 years after outbreak. Twenty percent of volume was killed in the 5 years
                                        92

-------
Table  3.-Summary of the tussock moth larval mortality on the 1965 Burns Douglas fir tussock moth
                                     control project
1 lni +
unit
King Mountain
Antelope Mountain
Gold Hill
Vance Creek
Silver Springs
Project total
Spray
blocks
14
9
5
1
1
30
Mortality
plots
42
15
8
2
3
70
Larval count
Prespray
4,379
1.854
877
200
182
7,492
Postspray1
70
77
0
0
0
147
Percent
mortality
98
96
100
100
100
98
  Source: Perkins and Dolph, 1967.
  1 Larval count 10 days after spraying.
             Table 4.-Knox Mountain-Cedar Pass project tussock moth larval mortality


Block


Hermit Butte
Tom's Creek
Hilton Creek
Canyon Creek
Knox Mountain
Manzanita
Middle Ridge
'Cedar Pass
Total, treated areas
Check area 1
Check area 2
Check area average
10 days after treatment



Live
larvae
0
0
0
0
0
6
4
3
13
271
184
455


Dead
larvae
372
538
535
378
228
227
388
340
3,006
221
153
374

Percent

mortality

100
100
100
100
100
97.4
99
99.1
99.6
44.9
45.4
45.1
       Source: Anonymous, 1966.


after the Stanislaus outbreak.  (Bark beetles accounted for 75 percent of the tree kill-
ing.)

     One of the reasons why tree mortality on the Stanislaus (treated) was similar to the
Mammoth Lakes (untreated) losses could be related to the fact that the tussock moth on the
Stanislaus area was allowed to damage trees for 2% moth generations (1954,1955,1956)
before it was terminated with DDT. The larvae at the time of treatment (July 31 and August
1-2) were already three-fourths grown, hence they had sufficient time to consume enough of
the foliage to cause additional tree mortality of top kill prior to treatment.
                                          93

-------
     Another example used in an attempt to show ineffective DDT results has been Roney
Flats (untreated) and Stowe Reservoir (treated) located in the 1965 outbreak in northern
California.  A year after treatment, tree mortality in the Roney Flats area amounted to 27
percent and 25 percent at Stowe Reservoir. In 1967, tree killing at Stowe Reservoir in-
creased to 32 percent; there was no similar measure taken at Roney Flats.

     Although tree mortality the  first year after treatment was similar, the areas are not
comparable due to population levels and incidence of virus.  Therefore, it is a moot question
as to how much additional damage DDT prevented after it was applied at Stowe Reservoir.
The trees at Stowe Reservoir had  already been severely damaged in 1964 and there was a
significant difference in the population levels found in the two areas. Results of the 1964
fall egg-mass survey in the two areas are shown in table 5. The results indicate 21.5 times
more egg masses were present in the Stowe Reservoir area than at Roney Flats.

     Although virus disease was reported to be present in each study area, the amount is un-
known. Because the virus data were vague and there was no assurance that the population
would collapse before additional damage occurred, the decision was made to treat the Stowe
Reservoir area with DDT. The outbreak at Roney Flats was not treated. It was set aside for
additional virus research.

     Research investigations by Wert and Wickman (1970) and Wickman et al. (1973) show
the tussock moth larvae did a considerable amount of damage before virus suppressed the
population on the untreated areas. At Roney Flats, the larvae removed all of the new foliage
and some older foliage before the virus disease caused the population to collapse. Based on
visual estimates on 107 trees in May (before feeding) and August (after feeding), defoliation
increased on 51 percent of the sample trees.  None of the trees showed foliage gains during
the summer. In the Stowe Reservoir area, most of the new foliage was gone before the area
was treated in late June.  Defoliation had increased on 11 percent of the 105 sample trees.
By August, after treatment, a total of 40 trees (38 percent) showed improvement with in-
creased foliage growth.  Wickman et al. (1973) suggest the DDT control program at Stowe
Reservoir did save foliage.
                         Table 5.—Fall egg-mass survey results, 1964

Unit


Stowe
Roney
Number
sample

trees
12
20
Total
egg masses

collected
2,268
139
New
egg

masses
2,221
96
Old
egg

masses
47
43
New-to-old



47.3:1
2.2:1
                                        94

-------
                                 STATEMENT
                                 Dr. Steve Herman
                     Environmental Defense Fund and Sierra Club
                               Evergreen State College
                                Olympia, Washington
     1 am here for several reasons.  One is that I have acted as a scientific advisor for a num-
ber of groups, which I prefer to call conservation groups, for possibly the last year. Another
is that my interest in forest entomology dates back to the late 1950's, when I worked with
Dr. Allen Telford on the lodgepole pineneedleminer and the early 1960's when I worked
with Dr. Dahlsten on the white fir sawfly and the Douglas fir tussock moth. My graduate
work was done on pesticide wildlife relationship, for some idea why I am interested in the
issue.

     I would like to apologize for the fact that I am going to be somewhat repetitious, as
well. I would hope, however, that my points of view would be slightly different, perhaps
different enough in some cases that the repetition will not be complete.

     Someone has remarked, with reference to the fact that precipitated this seminar today,
that it has never been a tussock moth issue; it has always been a DDT issue. The accuracy of
that statement is obvious, and it necessitates the conclusion that research needs cannot be
considered appropriately until the present atmosphere has been cleared by recognizing, and
perhaps accepting, national and agency policy.

     At the national level, that policy is that DDT  would be used only  in the case of a na-
tional emergency. At the agency level, DDT was by and large phased out toward the end of
the 1960's. The fact that DDT has been allowed to dominate the issue has had a number of
pernicious oppressive results. It has stifled communication at the agency level, and has re-
stricted agency/public-interest-group communication. It has obscured the reality of pest-
population collapse in many areas, and I would like to add, at this point, that I was extremely
pleased to hear Dave Graham this morning make the point rather emphatically that there has
been a very significant collapse in the pest population over much of the area. That is one of
the first clear statements of that reality that I have heard.

     Now another thing I think needs to be mentioned with regard to the collapse and the
damage is the fact that much of the tree mortality, which is the most significant aspect of
the damage the pest does, was probably accomplished in 1972 or was the result of defolia-
tion which took place in 1972; and 1972 is a year when no control was requested by an
agency.  So it is not a matter of, "we could have saved our forest."  It has reduced the prob-
ability that decisions will be made on the basic and scientific evidence, and  increased the
probability that policy will be determined primarily by emotional and political needs.
                                        95

-------
     But most importantly, in my view, the intrusion of DDT has had an adverse influence
 on research and researchers. I am convinced it has been responsible for the temporary sup-
 pression or distortion of data. Certainly it has resulted in the tardiness of data on several
 occasions.  There is evidence that it has threatened the security of some workers of both
 persuasions. The free discussion and exchange of data have been discouraged, and the judg-
 ments of researchers sometimes have been ignored.  Unless these stigmata are removed, and I
 have suggested a means of removal, we cannot hope to proceed with a research program in
 an atmosphere of academic freedom and scientific objectivity.

     With regard to the research needs themselves, I think we should temper our priorities
 with the knowledge that the Douglas fir tussock moth is a native insect of transient and ir-
 regular importance.  While the extent of defoliation in the declining 1973 infestation may
 have been historically important, there are certainly other insects which, in the long run, are
 actually or potentially more important.

     I have attempted to arrange the list of research needs in such a way that it follows the
 normal pattern of events in infestation cycle.


 Endemic Populations

     Apparently there have been no extensive studies of the endemic population. I am not
 sure that a truly endemic population has been identified. We  speculate that endemic popu-
 lations are controlled by parasites and predators. We know that epidemic populations are
 frequently terminated by the virus disease. It seems probable that a population-dynamics
 approach at the beginning of the endemic level would be most productive.  What triggers
 periodic release of these endemic populations? We tend to speculate that climate somehow
 influences release. But climate can only be a proximate factor. We need to know the ulti-
 mate factor or factors governing release.
On Detection of the Incipient Outbreak

     There has been much talk about and support for research designed to identify and sym-
pathize tussock moth pheromones, largely for the purpose of perfecting an early-warning
system. While these efforts certainly should be encouraged, it should also be realized that
pheromones, for all their current popularity, are not alone likely to solve the problem of de-
tection. Research should also focus on approving other techniques of detection, including
the beating plots and the education of onsite personnel. By that, I mean people who are in
the field—the rangers, for example, who are in the field constantly.

     A sampling system for predicting incipient outbreaks has been developed.  Unfortu-
nately, it was not widely applied in this infestation, when elements of the infestation were
first detected in 1971.  Nor apparently was it employed in comparable areas in 1972.  In-
stead, it has been used essentially unchanged in the attempt to estimate damage in 1974.
The sampling procedure was not designed for that purpose. Research should evaluate the
system's utility in an epidemic situation before  it is actually employed to determine pro-
jected control strategy.
                                         96

-------
 Release Population

     Ideally, controls should be directed at populations during the release phase of an out-
 break, before the majority of damage has been done. Although it appears that most popula-
 tions in the current outbreak are beyond that point, research with synthetic and microbial
 insecticides should focus on the release stage. Furthermore, this research should consider
 primarily the possibility of providing protection for the small private owner, who always
 suffers most in the effects of this pest.  No artificial control, whether attempted with syri-
 thetic  organic pesticides or microbials, will be without disruptive ecosystemic effect.  Re-
 search should bear this in mind, especially with regard to naturally occurring parasites and
 predators.  The efficacy of any new material must be carefully and properly documented in
 the field. This means that control plots and adequate sampling design must be employed.

     It is a sad commentary that, after over 20 years of DDT use against tussock moths, we
 are left with no adequate data concerning the efficacy of the poison, under field conditions.
 In some  cases this deficiency was the cause of oversight or poor planning; but in most and
 perhaps all cases it resulted from the catastrophic influence of the natural virus, which deci-
 mated populations on both control and experimental plots.  By focusing our attentions,
 with regard to new materials on population in the release phase, this interference might be
 minimized.  Investigations of the roles of natural enemies  should be accelerated during the
 release phase. What population characteristics during this phase can give clues concerning
 the mechanism of release?  What can we predict for the following year? Within the pest
 population itself, it will be important in the release year to examine parameters of fecundity
 dispersal and possible genetic factors that may express themselves. Ecology and economics
 of defoliation and tree mortality must be examined in depth.

     Keying from the observation that Douglas fir and true firs coexisted with this pest
 aboriginally,  we must consider the possibility that a symbiotic relationship prevailed prior to
 the advent of modern forest practice.  That relationship, if revealed, might be turned to
 some advantage.  The economics of tree mortality are especially important in mixed stands
 where  salvage logging is used as a management tool.
Declining Population

     In the third year, which is most commonly the year of collapse for the pest population,
studies begun earlier should be continued, with special attention given to the epidemiology
of the virus disease to include interactions with other natural enemies.  A precise mechanism
to the decline of the population, particularly at the periphery of the infestation, should be
investigated. This would also be an ideal time to refine our understanding of the timing of
exposure. Secondary invaders like bark beetles would come under special scrutiny at this
time. The role of parasites and predators, which is characteristically most significant during
this phase, should be given particular emphasis.

     Viewing the research picture as a whole, two  deficiencies are particularly obvious to
me.  Parasites and predators have been investigated only superficially. While we have partial
information on the species involved in various infestations, we know virtually nothing about
life history, including alternate hosts.  The possibility of classic  or near-classic biological
controls seems as remote with this species as it does with any native forest insect, but varia-
tions on that theme (one of which was described this morning), some of which involve en-
vironmental manipulations of understory or the introduction of parasites absent in one area
                                         97

-------
from another locality, remain possibilities.  None of this work should be attempted until the
life histories of the natural enemies are understood.

     Second, survey and predictive techniques must be refined. The techniques currently in
use are simply not adequate to the tasks, and will not support a proposed spray program.
The old-to-new egg-mass-ratio system apparently dates from 1947 infestation.  To my
knowledge, its predictive-power has never been tested  quantitatively. It also suffers from
some inherent biological bias, It seems probable that existing data might support it, but un-
til the evaluation of the technique goes beyond the anecdotal phase, it cannot be considered
useful.

     The system that relates density of egg masses to pest density after hatching is the most
sophisticated system, but it is my impression that it was designed for first instar larvae and
incipient outbreaks, not egg masses in older infestations. Certainly an adaptation of it would
be useful, but again I am aware of no test that has demonstrated sufficiency in this situation.
As practiced by the agencies currently surveying egg masses, it is superficial in that it fails to
accommodate, first, the irregular distribution of host trees and, second, the irregularity of
the pest within the host-tree pattern on both a vertical and horizontal front.

     The time-plot approach, also being misused this year, and apparently for the first time
with tussock moth, seems inherently plagued with a large number of unmanageable variables.
It may be useful for determining presence or absence,  but in its present form it is not a quan-
titative technique.

     These criticisms are offered constructively, and with full and personal  knowledge of the
logistic and economic barriers involved in mounting a comprehensive population serving.
                                                t

     I might insert at this point that, with my colleague Dr. Buge and 38 other persons in
the program that he and I are teaching at Evergreen State now, I attempted to sample part
of the Douglas fir tussock moth infestation in the area around La Grande. We were over
there for a week, the week of October 8, and we now have some of those data analyzed and
more coming in daily. We just started counting numbers of eggs per egg mass.

     The fact remains, however, that this area should be given very high research priority.
As we discuss research needs today, we should bear in  mind that a large volume of good
work has been completed and published. Other work  is in progress or planned. We should
urge that the work accomplished be recognized and respected. And we should thank the
small number of researchers who have produced the work, often on minuscule  budgets and
with extreme efforts.

     Finally, I would like to suggest that some potential research  in the current situation is
research that need not be repeated, or that we should consider a very low priority.  Monitor-
ing programs have often been used as partial justification for spray programs using DDT.
There is an innuendo present in their planning, to the effect that the monitoring program will
somehow prevent damage. This is, of course, not the case, especially with DDT.  The pro-
grams are always hastily arranged and underfunded, as in the  case of the Burns project in
1965, and the Willopa Bay project in 1963. This is not to say that such a program should
have been discouraged during the heyday of DDT, but monitoring programs should not be
bones thrown to conservationists.
                                         98

-------
     And we would benefit very little from additional information regarding the effects of
DDT and DDE on nontarget organisms. The literature on that subject is voluminous, and
those effects are now known to be largely deleterious. The association of eggshell thinning
in birds with p,p' DDE is one of the best known ecological phenomena. It has been shown
so many times, in both wild and captive species, that at least one journal has complained
about receiving "further verifications of phenomena already demonstrated."

     We have considerable information about the Douglas fir tussock moth now. If we are
to move forward with research, if this seminar is to bear fruit, we must all lock arms and
agree to clear the air of the poisons that obscure objectivity and inhibit cooperation by im-
posing the constraints of politics and emotionalism. Thank you.
                                         99

-------
                                  STATEMENT
                              William Hazeltine, Ph. D.
                 Butte County Mosquito Abatement District, California
     My name is Bill Hazeltine.  I would like to follow the theme that has been presented
about having data, and I see Dr. Herman is still here, for which I am glad. I have to agree
with his concept that there are things which have not come out. But what I wanted to spe-
cifically point out is some other ideas for the record, having to do with eggshell thinning.

     The mallard duck and the sparrow hawk are the two prize species that are usually cited
as proving that you can feed DDT to birds and get shell thinning. And sure enough, appar-
ently they got it.

     In the public hearing on DDT, Mr. Heath was a little reluctant, but he finally put in the
residue levels in the birds (mallards), that he fed 40 ppm of DDE for about a year.  He was
able to get on the average of 13.2 percent shell thinning. The residue in thoseteggs after a
year on feed gave an average of 146.6 ppm (wet weight). At a 5-percent lipid level, that cal-
culates to be as high as any of the brown pelican eggs on Anacapa Island, which were  50
percent thin.  In the case of the sparrow hawks, these birds were fed on 10-ppm DDE-spiked
feed.  At the end of the year, they had  a net thinning of 7.6 percent; the residue was 23.4
ppm (wet weight), and this translates to something like 650 ppm lipid basis of 5 percent. It
was also pointed out by Dr. Lucille  Stickel that some of the confined sparrow hawks, before
they even started feeding them DDE, were cracking and eating their own eggs. She attrib-
uted this to some kind of stress.

     Individual aerie records for peregrine falcons in the Arctic are available, and these show
that in one particular aerie the shells were 20 percent thin in 1954, and again in 1962 when
the birds were apparently reproducing successfully, until the collapse in 1969 when the
shells were 20 percent thin.

     There are some data on prairie falcons, and I think they are really interesting. They
are in a master's thesis by a fellow in Montana, available for $10.40 from the library there,
and they show that the shells are now about 25 percent thin, average, based upon the com-
parison with pre-DDT days. They also  show the individual egg data that happen to be in
there, and show that if there is a correlation, the line is vertical.  What this means is that    !
with residues essentially noncorrelated—well, they are correlated with the shell thickness—
but a change of only 1 to 2 ppm gave average shell thickness of about 25 percent.  What this
says to me very clearly is that the shells are thin with just the memory of DDE—it  is not
there and the shells are still thin. I would think that, to a prudent person, people would
start to say "wait a minute, let's look and  see what else is going on." If the DDE is not there,
it seems to me that the cause-and-effect hypothesis is dead.
                                        101

-------
     Another interesting paper that Dr. Herman cited in his EI8 comments is on prairie fal-
cons in the State of Washington. This starts out with something about the effect of pesti-
cides on the birds, but also in it is a calculated 17-percent shell thinning based upon the
other records of shells normal pre-1940 or pre-DDT. It also shows that with the take of
about 35 young for falconry, the birds that were surveyed were still producing an excess
number of young to keep that population at a stable level. Here we were supposed to have
problems with the birds, and yet the shells were thin and still they were producing an excess
to take care of the population.

     One other brief comment, if you will.

     In the EIS there were data for sharp-shinned and Cooper's hawks. The residues for
those eggs were in, but the shell thickness data were not. If you go to the Oregon State
progress report from the Experiment Station, you find out, in the case of the Cooper's hawk,
that there was a 14-percent difference in shell thinning.  However, the eggs that had 14-ppm
lipid-base DDE were the thinnest eggs. The eggs that had 65 ppm were the thickest. This is
the opposite of cause and effect. The low-residue egg was the thin one, the high-residue egg
was the thick one.

     And so you put that together and I come back to the comment, wait until the data are
in.  I think we have had a lot of stampeding—if that's the right word—on the eggshell busi-
ness in birds, and I would hope that people would keep an open mind and look at it. Thank
you.
                                        102

-------
                    DOUGLAS FIR TUSSOCK MOTH
                 DAMAGE  ON TRIBAL FORESTLAND:
                   COLVILLE INDIAN RESERVATION
                                Eddie Palmenteer
                       Chairman, Colville Indian Reservation
     During the summer of 1972, it was noted that the Douglas fir tussock moth was defoli-
ating and killing trees on approximately 1,800 acres of sawtimber on tribally owned forest-
land on the Colville Indian Reservation. The problem was discussed with forest entomolo-
gists, and the feeling was that the insect would be brought under control through natural
causes. However, by the summer of 1973, the insect had spread to epidemic proportions on
some 70,000 acres, and was causing visible damage on an additional 80,000 acres.

     Preliminary estimates indicate approximately 50 million board feet of merchantable
timber, with a stumpage value of better than $4 million, have been killed outright.  We also
estimate that the loss of growing stock will reduce stumpage income to the tribes by
$500,000 each year for many years to come.  This is a severe blow to the local economy
and, if further spread of the infestation is allowed to occur, the effect upon the Indian
people will be disastrous.   -
Potential Economic Loss to Tribes

     If the Douglas fir tussock moth is not controlled on the Colville Indian Reservation, the
economic loss to the Indian people will be felt drastically for many years to come by reduc-
ing their total income as much as 35 percent.  Douglas fir is second only to ponderosa pine
in importance as a sawtimber tree on the reservation, and it occurs in pure stands or mixed
in with other species on approximately half of the 763,000 acres that make up the tribally
owned forest property.

     For the past 2 years, the annual average income to the tribes from sawtimber sales was
$7.2 million, and Douglas fir  accounted for 35 percent of this amount, or $2.5 million. At
the present time, Douglas fir sawtimber is selling for a high of $128 per thousand board feet
on the stump. At this rate, the potential loss to the tribes each year could amount to $6
million!  It takes approximately 120 years to grow a Douglas fir tree to merchantable size
on the Colville Indian Reservation. If the Douglas fir tussock moth is allowed to reach epi-
demic stage next year, it could conceivably wipe out all the Douglas fir growing stock and
affect the tribal income for the next 120 years.
                                      103

-------
     The Colville Tribal Council has passed two resolutions during 1973 regarding the Doug-
las fir tussock moth. The more recent of these (1973-791) authorizes and requests the Sec-
retary of the Interior to allow the use of the insecticide DDT for control of the insect to
prevent further depredation.
Exhibits
                                        Exhibit 1

                             COLVILLE INDIAN RESERVATION
                                     [Tribal forestland]
          Area of reservation

          Area of tribal commercial forestland

          Total area of Douglas fir tussock moth infestation

               Heavy damage
               Medium damage
               Low damage

          Present volume of moth-killed Douglas fir sawtimber

          Present estimated value of dead  Douglas fir sawtimber

          Proportion of Douglas fir in sawtimber stand

          Annual allowable cut

          Present value of annual cut (stumpage)

          Annual loss of income (potential)

          Time required to grow new crop of Douglas fir
1,354,289 acres

761,380 acres

150,000 acres

40,000 acres
30.000 acres
80,000 acres

50 million board feet

$4.2 million

35 percent

120 million board feet

$10 million, estimated

$3.5 million, estimated

120 years
                                           104

-------
                                      Exhibit 2
1.   Area and value:
     a.    60,000 acres, gross
          40,000 acres, net
     b.    1,500 board feet per acre, average
          Total, 90,000,000 board feet
     Approximately 30,000 acres are accessible with merchantable volume which equals
     45,000,000 board feet at $70,000 =
     c.    $3,150,000
     d.    Immature and inaccessible area, 10,000 acres, $1,000,000
          Total value, $4,150,000
2.   Plans:
     a.    One sale presently under contract.
     b.    Another up for sale in October 1973.
     c.    Three more to be advertised this winter—specific areas and volumes presently
          being obtained.
     d.    Pole-logging operations by the tribe will follow regular logging.
     e.    Slash from both operations will be piled and burned.
     f.    Large extensive clearcut areas would have to be reforested; but for the most part
          ours is a mixed stand and natural regeneration will probably be adequate.
3.   Forecast:
     La Grande outbreak tripled in third year. Therefore ours could go to 200,000 acres, if:
     (a) no chemical control is used, and (b) the virus does not build up.
                                         105

-------
                                    Exhibit 3

                                 RESOLUTION                          1973-310

     WHEREAS, there is at present an abnormally high population of the Douglas-fir Tus-
sock Moth on the Colville Indian Reservation which has reached epidemic proportions; and

     WHEREAS, the Douglas-fir Tussock Moth has damaged Indian timber with a known
value of $77,770.00,* and an unknown quantity of additional timber; and

     WHEREAS, on the basis of studies undertaken by the United States Forest Service and
the Bureau of Indian Affairs, an increase in the population of the Douglas-fir Tussock Moth
and related damage will most likely occur in 1973.

     BE IT, THEREFORE, RESOLVED, that we, the Colville Business Council, meeting in
SPECIAL Session at the Colville Indian Agency, Nespelem, Wn., acting for and in behalf of
the Confederated Tribes of the Colville  Reservation this llth day of APRIL, 1973, do
hereby authorize and request that the Bureau of Indian Affairs take such action as is neces-
sary to combat the Douglas-fir Tussock Moth and thereby prevent further damage to the
natural and economic resources of the Colville Confederated Tribes.

     BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that if other methods are not available, the use of
ZECTRAN, DDT or other chemical agents determined to be safe and to cause a minimal
amount of environmental damage may be used in a reasonable and controlled manner.

     *Whitmore Salvage Sale               $38,334.20            Appraised Value
      Hungry Moth Salvage Sale            $39,439.75            Appraised Value

         TOTAL                        $77,773.95


     The foregoing was duly enacted by the Colville Business Council by a vote of 9 FOR;
0 AGAINST, under authority contained in Article V, Section  l(a) of the Constitution of the
Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, ratified by the Colville Indians on February
26,1938, and approved by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs on April 19,1938.

                                         ATTEST:
                                          (signed) Joseph A. Kohler, Acting Chairman
                                                 Colville Business Council
                                      106

-------
                                    Exhibit 4

                                  RESOLUTION                         1973-791

     WHEREAS, on April 11,1973, the Colville Business Council passed a resolution calling
for aid in combating an epidemic of Douglas-Fir Tussock Moth on the Colville Reservation;
and

     WHEREAS, this epidemic has increased tenfold so that there are now 60,000 to 70,000
acres of damage with 50,000,000 board feet of Douglas-Fir killed. The average stumpage
value on Reservation logging units is about $95.00 per M feet, B.M., for a total value of
approximately $4,750,000.00; and

     WHEREAS, unless this epidemic is stopped by June, 1974, there will be 200,000 acres
devastated with approximately 200,000,000 board feet of Douglas-Fir killed for a total
value of $19,000,000.00; and

     WHEREAS, the only proven control of the Douglas-Fir Tussock Moth is by the use of
DDT.

     BE IT, THEREFORE, RESOLVED, that we, the official members of the Colville
Business Council, assembled in Official meeting at the Colville Indian Agency, Nespelem,
Washington, acting for and  in behalf of the Colville Confederated Tribes this 29th day of
AUGUST, 1973,  do hereby authorize and request the Secretary of the  Interior to require
the release for DDT for use to combat this emergency on the Colville Indian Reservation
for the control of the Douglas-Fir Tussock Moth.

     Done and dated this 29th day of AUGUST, 1973, at the Colville Indian Agency,
Nespelem, Washington, by a unanimous vote of 11 FOR; 0 AGAINST, which will be offi-
cially confirmed during the next Colville Business Council meeting.

                                             ATTEST:
                                             (signed) Eddie Palmenteer, Jr., Chairman
                                                    Colville Business Council
                                      107

-------