US Advisors Deliberate Permit Processes

The annual meeting of the Technical Advisory Group for Biological Control Agents of Weeds (TAG), which advises the US Department of Agriculture - Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA-APHIS) on the introduction of weed biological control agents, was held in Spokane, Washington State on 9-11 September 2003.

TAG is an independent voluntary committee, first formed in 1957. The mission of the group is to facilitate biological control of weeds in North America, namely by reviewing petitions for the release of biological control agents for weeds and giving recommendations to regulating agencies for or against their release. The group comprises 15 members of all relevant US state agencies (e.g. USDA-APHIS, USDA Agriculture Research Service (USDA-ARS), US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)), plus representatives from Canada (Doug Parker and Peter Mason, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC)) and Mexico (Jose Gustavo Torres, Comision Nacional de Sanidad Agropecuaria). Al Cofrancesco (Army Corps of Engineers), the current chair of TAG, calls annual meetings to discuss current petitions and controversial issues.

For more information on TAG, the permit process in general and submitted petitions see:

www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/permits/tag/

About 60 people attended, a larger number than usual, and more than 20 presentations were given on either specific petitions or more general issues of the permit process. The fact that more people than usual participated was in general felt to be advantageous, and the presentations were interspersed with lively discussions.

Jose Gustavo Torres gave an overview on classical biological weed control in Mexico, which targets water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), Salvinia, Convolvulus arvensis, and saltcedar (Tamarix spp.). In Mexico, petitioners use the NAPPO (North American Plant Protection Organisation) format to submit petitions for the release of agents. So far, Mexico has only released agents that have already been approved in other countries, i.e. Canada or the USA. It is now considering Eccritotarsis catarinensis, an agent for water hyacinth that has not yet been reviewed by TAG.

Seven presentations reported on petitions that were close to submission or had already been submitted or for which release had recently been granted. For example, John Goolsby (USDA-ARS, Australia) talked about work on potential agents for Melaleuca and Lygodium. Tim Collier (University of Wyoming) gave an update on a potential agent for Russian knapweed (Acroptilon repens) for which a petition will shortly be submitted. James Cuda (University of Florida) presented an interesting idea for overcoming a specific problem, but one that could have more widespread application. Larvae of a potential sawfly agent for control of Brazilian peppertree (Schinus terebinthifolius) in Florida are toxic to vertebrates if consumed in large amounts. He suggested releasing unmated sawfly females, which would subsequently only produce males. Judy Hough Goldstein (University of Delaware) gave an update on host range tests with the weevil Homorosoma chinensis for biological control of mile-a-minute weed (Polygonum perfoliatum), for which investigations are being conducted in collaboration with Ding Jianqing (Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS), Institute of Biological Control, Beijing). Bill Bruckart (ARS - Fort Detrick) described first releases of Puccinia jaceae , a rust recently approved for control of yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis); he took the opportunity to encourage the use of pathogens as potential biocontrol agents in general. Rose DeClerck-Floate (AAFC), reviewing biological control projects in Canada, cited the success of Mecinus janthinus against Dalmatian toadflax (Linaria dalmatica).

Two representatives from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Shawn Alam and John Fay, responsible for the compliance of petitions with the Endangered Species Act Section 7, also participated. This section of the Act requires all federal agencies to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. Shawn Alam gave a presentation on the general role of FWS within the permit process. Their attendance meant TAG could discuss with FWS representatives issues regarding the processing of petitions by FWS, and the solution to frustration. Conveniently, in this context, two relevant presentations were given: one on the famous (or infamous) `houndstongue-story' [see BNI 23(4), 84N (December 2002), Impasse dogs houndstongue control in the USA] by Mark Schwarzländer (University of Idaho), and the other on the development of test plant lists by Linda Wilson (also University of Idaho), which led to more discussion. The outcome of the exchanges suggest that researchers should: (1) contact the regional FWS office as early as possible when starting a new biocontrol initiative to be aware of any potential threatened or endangered species issues, (2) take the concerns and recommendations of FWS seriously and respond in a constructive manner, (3) try to have a close-to-final test plant list ready as early as possible, (4) be sure to consider threatened or endangered species and justify choices made, and (5) try to engage FWS in finding material of threatened or endangered species for testing. John Fay recommended contacting the Center for Plant Conservation, Missouri Botanical Garden for seeds of indigenous North American plants. Al Cofrancesco suggested a pragmatic view of test plant lists, agreeing that they need to stay flexible to account for the availability of test plants proposed, different agent biologies, and test results.

Bob Flanders (USDA-APHIS Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ), Riverdale, Maryland), responsible for signing release permits for biological control agents, gave a presentation on recently planned permit policy changes within his agency, in part triggered by the Agricultural Bioterrorism Protection Act of 2002 and the formation of the new Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Changes will, for instance, involve the development of `ePermits', which will allow electronic submission and tracking of petitions, development of new, more secure shipping labels, the cessation of the practice of hand-carrying biocontrol organisms, and in general increased oversight and enforcement activities. Details will be posted on their webpage soon. Most of theses planned changes were regarded as positive, since they should make the permit process more transparent and efficient.

Hariet Hinz (CABI Bioscience, Switzerland) gave an overview of what should ideally be included in pre-release studies in the area of origin of target weeds, which linked well with a presentation by Joe Balciunas (USDA-ARS, Albany, California) on the Code of Best Practices. He argued that host specificity does not always equal safety, and cited indirect effects of released agents on foodwebs, interference with other agents or the release of non-indigenous organisms that do not control the target. Currently, information on the potential efficiency of agents or their interaction with other agents is not required as part of the petition process.

The lively meeting ended with Al Cofrancesco, who has been the chair of TAG for the past 12 years, being re-elected unanimously for another 3-year term.

By: Hariet Hinz, CABI Bioscience Switzerland.

❑