Historic, Archive Document Do not assume content reflects current scientific knowledge, policies, or practices. CLO-^i /?yv/\7 United States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service ARS-99 December 1991 Coulson, Jack R., Richard S. Soper, and David W. Williams, Editors. 1991. Biological Control Quarantine: Needs and Procedures. Proceedings ofaWorkshop SponsoredbyUSDA-ARS. U.S. Department ofAgricul- ture,Agricultural Research Service, ARS-99, 336 pp. The papers in these proceedings are reproduced essen- tiallyas suppliedbythe authors, or drafted byWorkshop participantsbefore and subsequent to the Workshop, and do not necessarilyreflect the views ofthe U.S. Depart- ment ofAgriculture. While supplies last, single copies ofthis publication may be obtained, at no cost, on request from the USDA Biological Control Documentation Center, Bldg. 476, BARC-East, orARS National Program Staff, Bldg. 005, BARC-West, Beltsville, Maryland 20705. Copies ofthis publication may also be purchased from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161. Preface The ARS Workshop, Biological Control Quarantine: Workshop on Guidelines and Regulations: Critical Issues Needs and Procedures, held in January 1991 in Baltimore, in Biological Control, held in Vienna, Virginia, June 10-12, had the following five objectives: the Proceedings ofwhich are soon to be published. • To assess biological control quarantine capabilityin the These Proceedings have been preparedbyJ. R. Coulson, UnitedStates. R. S. Soper, and D. W. Williams. It is for the readers of • To determine strategic deployment ofnew quarantine these Proceedings to determine howwell the objectives of or containment facilities, ifneeded. the ARS Workshopwere met, much ofwhich will depend • To develop a communications network and coordina- on future actions resulting from recommendations made tion system for biological control quarantine activities. bythe Workshop. • To assess the adequacyoftaxonomic support (research and identification services) for biological control quarantine activities. • To review the adequacy ofquarantine facility design, quarantine operational procedures, and regulations affectingbiological control quarantine activities. The Workshop was developed under the leadership ofDr. Richard S. Soper, ARS National Program Leader for Biological Control, who chaired a Workshop Steering Committee consisting ofW. L. Bruckart, J. R. Coulson, and R. W. Fuester (ARS); F. D. Bennett (University of Florida); G. Gordh and T. W. Fisher (University of California, Riverside); J. R. Cate (USDA-CSRS); N. C. Leppla (USDA-APHIS); and W. W. Metterhouse (New Jersey Department ofAgriculture). Thanks for a success- ful Workshop must go to the invited speakers and to over 120 participants. Other keyARS personnel heavily involved in the Workshop were M. M. Athanas and S. D. Hight, Local Arrangement Chairs, who, with personnel from the Baltimore-Washington InternationalAirport Comfort Inn, made the Workshop an organizational success; R. W. Fuester andJ. R. Coulson, Publicity/ Communications Chair and Publication/Report Chair, respectively; and above all, the sixWorkingSession Chairs, R. W. Fuester, W. R. Nickle, P. C. Quimby, Jr., R. A. Humber, W. L. Bruckart, and G. C. Papavizas, whose participation prior to, during and subsequent to the Workshop was critical. Funds for travel ofsome ofthe Workshop participants were provided by the APHIS National Biological Control Institute (NBCI), which is hereby acknowledged with thanks. A critique ofthe ARS Workshop was published in April 1991 byAgriculture Canada (A. Schmidt and M. Sarazin, 1991. Report on U.S.D.A. Workshop on Biological Control Quarantine: Needs and Procedures, Agric. Canada, Res. Branch, Biocontrol News 4: 1-7). The ARS Workshop was followed by a closely-related USDA-CSRS Acronyms used in Text APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA) ARS Agricultural Research Service (USDA) BATS BiologicalAssessment and Taxonomic Support (PPQ) BBEP Biologies, Biotechnology, and Environmental Protection (APHIS) BCDC Biological Control Documentation Center (ARS) BL Biosafety Level CDC Centers for Disease Control CSRS Cooperative State Research Service (USDA) EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPA Environmental Protection Agency EUP Experimental Use Permit FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and RodenticideAct IOBC International Organization ofBiological Control MPCA Microbial Pest Control Agent NBCI National Biological Control Institute (APHIS) NEPA National Environmental PolicyAct PPQ Plant Protection and Quarantine (APHIS) ROBO Releases ofBeneficial Organisms Data base SEL Systematic EntomologyLaboratory (ARS) TAG TechnicalAdvisory Group for the Introduction ofBiological Control Agents ofWeeds USDA United States Department ofAgriculture VS VeterinaryServices (APHIS) ii Contents Executive Summary i Chapter Workshop Chapter Abstracts of Workshop I. II. Recommendations Papers and Discussions 2 4 General Resource Needs 2 Introductory Session 4 Facility Needs 2 RegulatoryAgencyViewpoints Coordination/Communication Needs 2 (Federal, State) 4 General Taxonomic Needs 2 Biological Control Research Viewpoints (Federal, University) 5 General Procedural Needs 2 Biological Control Action AgencyViewpoints Importation Considerations 2 (Federal, State) 6 Specific Facility Needs; levels of containment 2 Industry Viewpoint 8 Quarantine Officer: duties and training 2 Overview and Discussion 9 Quarantine receipt, handling, testing, and storage procedures 3 Session I: Quarantine Needs io Specific taxonomic research and service Existing and Planned Quarantine Facilities 10 needs 3 Foreign Exploration Considerations 18 Considerations for release from quarantine 3 Action Program Considerations 18 Documentation 3 Session II: Quarantine Procedures 19 Importation 19 Approval and Permits 19 Routing and Customs Problems 19 Quarantine Receipt and Handling 20 Levels of Containment Required 20 Quarantine Officer Duties 21 Quarantine Receipt and Handling 22 Quarantine Standard Operating Procedures 22 OtherAspects of Quarantine 22 Taxonomic Problems and Procedures 22 Storage of Microbials 23 Host RangeTesting 24 Moderator’s Summary 24 Release from Quarantine 25 Decision to Release from Quarantine 25 Interstate Shipment 25 Discussion 25 Documentation 27 Record Keeping 27 Vouchers 27 iii Chapter III. Present Status of Chapter IV. Reports of Working Biological Control Quarantine in Sessions 43 the United States 29 Overview 29 Biological Control Quarantine Needs Arthropod Parasites/Parasitoids and in the United States 43 Predators ofArthropods 29 Facility Needs 43 Arthropod-Parasitic Nematodes 29 Coordination/Communication Needs 45 Invertebrate Natural Enemies ofWeeds 29 Taxonomic Research and Service Needs 48 Pathogens ofArthropods 29 Pathogens of Weeds 29 General Biological Control Procedural Needs Natural Enemies and Antagonists of Plant 51 Pathogens and Nematodes 29 Reports of Existing and Planned Appendix 1 List of Workshop Quarantine Facilities 30 Participants. with Working Session affiliations 57 Appendix 2. Screening Classical Biocontrol Projects and Agents A Workshop Paper contributed by P. Harris 61 Appendix Proposed ARS 3. Guidelines for Introduction and Release of Exotic Organisms for Biological Control Final drafts resulting from reviews of early drafts by scientists at and subsequent to the Workshop 69 IV Executive Summary The demand forbiological control ofpests using then- before the workshop (q.v., Chapter III ofthe Proceed- natural enemies is increasing as agriculture in the United ings). Currently, there are 22 existingfacilities and nine States moves toward ecologicallybenign methods ofpest planned. They are primarily devoted to arthropod control. Classical biological control, which has enjoyed parasites and predators and weed-feeding arthropods. great success historically, involves the importation of Most facilities are at or near their full capacity. predators, parasitoids/parasites, pathogens, antagonists, A andweed-feeding organisms to control exotic pests that Several important resource needswere identified. have entered the countrywithout natural enemies. The general commitment to maintaining and upgrading application ofclassical biological control depends upon existing facilities is critical. In addition, several additional the movement ofbeneficial organisms into the U.S., and facilities are needed to meet regional demands. In the hence, upon the existence ofsafe and efficient quarantine realm oftaxonomy, needs include increased support for facilities and procedures. research on taxa relevant to biological control, an increase in taxonomic services, and a system ofrepositories for Containment or quarantine ofbeneficial organisms is voucher specimens. necessaryto assure both the continued success ofbiologi- cal control and the safetyofU.S. agriculture and environ- Manyprocedural needs surfaced duringthe workshop. ment. Effective quarantine screening assures that natural The clearance ofbeneficial organisms through ports of enemies released into the environment for pest control entrymust be expedited. Quarantine officers must be will be free oftheir own natural enemies and diseases. trained uniformly, and standard operatingprocedures Host range testing in quarantine is crucial to prevent the must be established for all facilities. The requirements of release ofcandidate beneficial species, such as weed- regulatory agencies, and the laws theyenforce, must be feeding insects, which might become pests themselves. clarified and should be open to input from the scientific community. Finally, documentation and communication The objective ofthis workshopwas to examine the current ofbiological control activities must receive greater status and needs ofbiological control quarantine. The support. participants (listed inAppendix 1) included representa- tives from federal and state regulatory agencies, quaran- In addition to the major Workshop recommendations tine facilities, the research community, and industry. listed in Chapter I, many other more specific problems Position paperswere presented during the first two days of and needs were identified and recommendations made. the workshop. Topics included viewpoints from regulatory These can be found in both the position papers (Chapter agencies, action agencies, researchers, and industry. They II) and WorkingSession reports (Chapter IV). presented current needs and reviews ofall aspects of quarantine procedure from importation ofan organism An important part ofthese Proceedings is the proposed through its field release. On the third day, the participants ARS procedural “guidelines” for the continued safe and were divided into sixgroups for intensive discussion of legal conduct ofclassical biological control research by needs and procedures. The groups were delineated by ARS. Separate guidelines were presented for six different natural enemy taxa: arthropod natural enemies ofarthro- groups ofbiological control organisms (Appendix3). As pod pests, arthropod-parasitic nematodes, invertebrate indicated inAppendix 3, questions and unresolved weed feeders, arthropod pathogens, weed pathogens, and problems were identified, many ofwhich require resolu- natural enemies and antagonists ofplant pathogens and tion by discussionswith pertinent regulatory agencies or nematodes. In addition to needs, the groups discussed the by additional scientific panels. Many proposals and proposed guidelines for importation, interstate movement, recommendations have been made to address these issues. and release ofexotic organisms, which are included as The guidelineswill remain in draft until these problems Appendix3 to these Proceedings. Appendix 2 is a paper are resolved. Additional comments on the Guidelines are that discusses issues important to the safe release ofexotic solicited. Even when “final” documents are prepared and natural enemies ofweeds in North America. accepted byARS administration, it is expected that the Guidelines will remain dynamic documents, to be updated The present status ofbiological control quarantine was as new research results become available and regulatory assessed by responses to a questionnaire mailed out procedures change. 1 Chapter Workshop I. Recommendations General Resource Needs1 Costs for taxonomicservices should be built into biological control projectbudgets. Systematists should be involved in a project from its start. In addition, there are needs for increased support personnel for Facility Needs diagnostic services covering allgroups ofpotential control agents. • Lists oftaxonomicspecialists to provide identification • Manyfacilities are aging. There needs tobe a commit- services for biological control targets and agents should ment to and support for maintaining and upgrading be accessible on an electronicbulletinboard. A • system oflong-term repositories for the suitable these facilities. • Additional regional quarantine facilities are needed for deposition ofbiological controlvoucher specimens shouldbe developed. invertebrate biological control agents in the northwest- ern and north central United States and in the Carib- bean region. A General Procedural Needs2 • facilityshould be established for exotic organisms for the control ofsubtropical weed species in central or southern Florida. • Development ofweed pathogens should be expedited Importation considerations by constructing additional containment facilities and staffing them with trained personnel (technical as well as scientific). Potential locations are Bozeman, Montana; Fayetteville, Arkansas; and Albany, Califor- • Means should be explored with quarantine and customs service personnel to expedite the clearance ofmaterials nia. • A facility is needed in Montpellier, France, to expedite through ports ofentry. the testing ofbiological control agents from Eurasian • An auxiliarylabel for shipments ofbiological control countries outside the European Economic Community. agents shouldbe developed to indicate the beneficial contents ofthe package. Coordination/Communication Needs Specific facility needs; levels of containment • The National Biological Control Institute (NBCI) recentlyestablished by theAnimal and Plant Health • APHIS certification ofbiological control microbiology Inspection Service (APHIS) shouldbe encouraged to facilities should allowblanket permits for defined develop an electronicbulletinboard for the exchange of groups ofmicrobes for importation and interstate information on biological control. movement between approved containment facilities. General Taxonomic Research and Service Needs Quarantine Officer: duties and training • Additional systematic capabilities are needed in several • Trainingprocedures for containment and quarantine significant groups ofinsects, plants, and phytopatho- officers should be developed. genic fungi. These needs are primarilyfor morphologi- « Periodicworkshops for officers should be held to reviewquarantine needs, coordination, and communi- cal taxonomy, as opposed to molecular biological cation. applications. 2