APPLICATION FORM Containment

To obtain approval for new organisms in containment

Send to Environmental Protection Authority preferably by email ([email protected]) or alternatively by post (Private Bag 63002, Wellington 6140) Payment must accompany final application; see our fees and charges schedule for details.

Application Number

APP203346

Date

05/07/2017

www.epa.govt.nz 2

Application Form Approval for new organism in containment

Completing this application form

1. This form has been approved under section 40 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act 1996. It only covers importing, development (production, fermentation or regeneration) or field test of any new organism (including genetically modified organisms (GMOs)) in containment. If you wish to make an application for another type of approval or for another use (such as an emergency, special emergency or release), a different form will have to be used. All forms are available on our website. 2. If your application is for a project approval for low-risk GMOs, please use the Containment – GMO Project application form. Low risk genetic modification is defined in the HSNO (Low Risk Genetic Modification) Regulations: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2003/0152/latest/DLM195215.html. 3. It is recommended that you contact an Advisor at the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) as early in the application process as possible. An Advisor can assist you with any questions you have during the preparation of your application including providing advice on any consultation requirements. 4. Unless otherwise indicated, all sections of this form must be completed for the application to be formally received and assessed. If a section is not relevant to your application, please provide a comprehensive explanation why this does not apply. If you choose not to provide the specific information, you will need to apply for a waiver under section 59(3)(a)(ii) of the HSNO Act. This can be done by completing the section on the last page of this form. 5. Any extra material that does not fit in the application form must be clearly labelled, cross- referenced, and included with the application form when it is submitted. 6. Please add extra rows/tables where needed. 7. You must sign the final form (the EPA will accept electronically signed forms) and pay the application fee (including GST) unless you are already an approved EPA customer. To be recognised by the EPA as an “approved customer”, you must have submitted more than one application per month over the preceding six months, and have no history of delay in making payments, at the time of presenting an application. 8. Information about application fees is available on the EPA website. 9. All application communications from the EPA will be provided electronically, unless you specifically request otherwise.

December 2013 EPA0324 3

Application Form Approval for new organism in containment

Commercially sensitive information

10. Commercially sensitive information must be included in an appendix to this form and be identified as confidential. If you consider any information to be commercially sensitive, please show this in the relevant section of this form and cross reference to where that information is located in the confidential appendix. 11. Any information you supply to the EPA prior to formal lodgement of your application will not be publicly released. Following formal lodgement of your application any information in the body of this application form and any non-confidential appendices will become publicly available. 12. Once you have formally lodged your application with the EPA, any information you have supplied to the EPA about your application is subject to the Official Information Act 1982 (OIA). If a request is made for the release of information that you consider to be confidential, your view will be considered in a manner consistent with the OIA and with section 57 of the HSNO Act. You may be required to provide further justification for your claim of confidentiality. Definitions

Restricting an organism or substance to a secure location or facility to prevent Containment escape. In respect to genetically modified organisms, this includes field testing and large scale fermentation

Any obligation or restrictions imposed on any new organism, or any person in relation to any new organism, by the HSNO Act or any other Act or any Controls regulations, rules, codes, or other documents made in accordance with the provisions of the HSNO Act or any other Act for the purposes of controlling the adverse effects of that organism on people or the environment

Any organism in which any of the genes or other genetic material:  Have been modified by in vitro techniques, or Genetically Modified  Are inherited or otherwise derived, through any number of replications, from Organism (GMO) any genes or other genetic material which has been modified by in vitro techniques

A new organism is an organism that is any of the following:  An organism belonging to a species that was not present in New Zealand immediately before 29 July 1998;  An organism belonging to a species, subspecies, infrasubspecies, variety, strain, or cultivar prescribed as a risk species, where that organism was not present in New Zealand at the time of promulgation of the relevant regulation;  An organism for which a containment approval has been given under the New Organism HSNO Act;  An organism for which a conditional release approval has been given under the HSNO Act;  A qualifying organism approved for release with controls under the HSNO Act;  A genetically modified organism;  An organism belonging to a species, subspecies, infrasubspecies, variety, strain, or cultivar that has been eradicated from New Zealand;

December 2013 EPA0324 4

Application Form Approval for new organism in containment

 An organism present in New Zealand before 29 July 1998 in contravention of the Act 1967 or the Plants Act 1970. This does not apply to the organism known as rabbit haemorrhagic disease virus, or rabbit calicivirus A new organism does not cease to be a new organism because:  It is subject to a conditional release approval; or  It is a qualifying organism approved for release with controls; or  It is an incidentally imported new organism

An individual or collaborative endeavour that is planned to achieve a particular Project aim or research goal

December 2013 EPA0324 5

Application Form Approval for new organism in containment

1. Applicant details

1.1. Applicant

Company Name: (if applicable) Landcare Research Manaaki Whenua

Contact Name: Bob Brown

Job Title: Researcher

Physical Address: Gerald Street, Lincoln 7608

Postal Address (provide only if not the same as the physical): PO Box 69040 Lincoln 7640

Phone (office and/or mobile): 03 321 9605, 021 241 4949

Fax:

Email: [email protected]

1.2. New Zealand agent or consultant (if applicable)

Company Name:

Contact Name:

Job Title:

Physical Address:

Postal Address (provide only if not the same as the physical):

Phone (office and/or mobile):

Fax:

Email:

December 2013 EPA0324 6

Application Form Approval for new organism in containment

2. Information about the application

2.1. Type of containment activity Tick the box(es) that best describe your application

Application type Type of new organism

☐ GMO Import into containment ☒ Non-GMO ☐ Develop in containment i.e. regeneration, fermentation GMO or genetic modification ☐ Non-GMO

☐ GMO Field test in containment ☐ Non-GMO

2.2. Brief application description Approximately 30 words about what you are applying to do

To import into containment (Diptera: Syrphidae, Conopidae; Coleoptera: ) to investigate their potential as biological control agents of invasive social (: subfamilies: & Vespinae).

2.3. Summary of application Provide a plain English, non-technical description of what you are applying to do and why you want to do it

New Zealand’s flora and fauna have evolved in the absence of social wasps. Since social wasps (often referred to as ) first established in the 1880s, beginning with the arrival of the Australian paper , native insects, birds and lizards have been struggling to compete for food against these efficient generalist foragers. Not only are yellowjackets efficient at collecting food, they also prey upon insects much larger than themselves, such as stick insects. New Zealand’s insects seem to have no defence against the wasps. Native , of moths and butterflies, weta and even spiders are all on the wasps’ menu. Since there are no native social wasps here, there are no native natural enemies (predators or parasites) that are adapted to keep wasp populations in check. When the wasps were introduced here, they were released from their natural enemies in their home range. This lack of natural enemies is a major reason that wasp populations can reach such high densities in New Zealand. We would like to

December 2013 EPA0324 7

Application Form Approval for new organism in containment

investigate three groups of natural enemies from the wasps’ home range for their potential as biological control agents to help reduce wasp populations.

In order to study these organisms we will need to import them into our containment facility at Landcare Research in Lincoln. All three groups of the potential biological control agents are parasites of at least the two worst species of invasive social wasps in New Zealand, commonly referred to as the German wasps and the common wasps. One group, the ‘thick-headed flies’ (THF), Leopoldius spp., are internal parasites of the adult wasps. After feeding on the adult wasp, for a week or so, the THFs eventually kill their host and begin to pupate inside the body of the wasp. In order to study THFs for their host specificity and basic biology we would need to import dead parasitized wasps into containment. The two other groups, the , spp., and the ‘wasp nest ’, paradoxus, are both parasites of the wasp larvae. Studying these species will require importing common and German wasp (V. vulgaris & V. germanica, respectively) nest comb containing wasp larvae and pupae. The two groups of wasp brood parasites will need to have nest comb containing larvae to feed on. All adult wasps that emerge from these contained nests will be quickly and humanely killed before transit to New Zealand, and while in containment for worker safety. We will also remove any wasp pupae that appear to be close to having an adult emerge before packaging for transport to NZ. Newly emerged adult wasps cannot for the first 24 to 36 hours after emerging from their pupa. This, coupled with our ‘3-levels of containment while transporting’ protocol, should vastly decrease the chance of any wasps escaping during the trip from the native range to Christchurch. Once the and have developed, the imported wasp nest material will be destroyed via autoclave.

2.4. Background and aims of application This section is intended to put the new organism(s) in perspective of the wider activities that they will be used in. You may use more technical language but all technical words must be included in a glossary

New Zealand has no native social wasps or . Since the arrival of Europeans to NZ there have so far been five species of social wasps (: Vespidae) accidentally introduced. The first social wasp to establish here (only the North Island) was the Australian , humilis (Fab.), in the 1880s (Clapperton et al. 1996). Although there were individuals of several different species found as far back as the 1880s, the first Vespula to establish here was the German wasp, (Fab.), in the 1940s which quickly colonized all of NZ (Thomas, 1960). The German wasps were followed by the Asian paper wasp, Polistes chinensis antennalis (Pérez) (Clapperton et al. 1996), and the common wasp, (L.), in the late 1970s (Donovan, 1984). The most recent social wasp to establish here is the European paper wasp, Polistes dominula (Christ), at the top of the South Island in or around 2013 (Haw,

December 2013 EPA0324 8

Application Form Approval for new organism in containment

2016). The common wasp may have arrived several times since early 20th century but only became abundant in the late 1970s (Donovan, 1984). German wasps and common wasps are native to Europe, Asia and northern Africa. Both species are now widespread throughout New Zealand where they negatively impact both native ecosystems (Beggs, 2001) and human health (Dymock et al, 1994; Low & Stables, 2006), and cause economic losses to primary industries of around $133M per year (MacIntyre & Hellstrom, 2015). In honeydew beech forests, nests densities have been recorded at up to 33 nests per ha (Barlow et al., 1996). The biomass of wasps is estimated to exceed that of birds and introduced rodents and mustelids combined in these areas (Thomas et al, 1990). Native species including several species of birds, like the endangered kaka, Nestor meridionalis meridionalis, lizards, and must now compete with wasps for their survival (Thomas et al., 1990; Beggs, 2001). Wasps can consume up to 70% of the available honeydew annually (Beggs, 2001). Such high densities of predatory wasps have decimated native populations so much, that there is virtually no chance of an orb web spider (Toft & Rees, 1998) surviving until the end of ‘wasp season’ or native caterpillars surviving to adulthood (Beggs & Rees, 1999) within honeydew beech forest.

We are interested in pursuing options for the biological control of these wasps. Recently on a trip to the UK to collect new genetic stock of the only introduced natural enemy of wasps, Sphecophaga vesparum, we took the opportunity to document new potential agents that we found in the excavated nests. During this trip, three groups of candidate agents were identified as highly promising but needing further investigation: Two genera of parasitic flies (Diptera), the hoverfly (Syrphidae) genus Volucella spp. and the thick- headed fly (Conopidae) genus Leopoldius spp., are likely to be joined by the wasp nest beetle, (Coleoptera: Ripiphoridae) Metoecus paradoxus (L.). The beetle was listed as a potential candidate in the 1980s wasp biocontrol programme (Donovan, 1989), but the two flies previously had not been identified as candidate agents until now. We intend to investigate the basic biology of these species and to test whether they could be safely used as biological control agents against invasive social wasps.

3. Information about the new organism(s)

3.1. Name of organism Identify the organism as fully as possible

Non-GMOs - Provide a taxonomic description of the new organism(s).

GMOs – Provide a taxonomic description of the host organism(s) and describe the genetic modification.

December 2013 EPA0324 9

Application Form Approval for new organism in containment

Both -  Describe the biology and main features of the organism including if it has inseparable organisms.  Describe if the organism has affinities (e.g. close taxonomic relationships) with other organisms in New Zealand.  Could the organism form an undesirable self-sustaining population? If not, why not?  How easily could the new organism be recovered or eradicated if it established an undesirable self- sustaining population?

Class: Insecta Order: Diptera Family: Syrphidae Genus: Volucella Species: inanis, pellucens & zonaria

Volucella inanis, V. pellucens and V. zonaria adults are medium to large hoverflies (10– 20 mm) that are active in the UK from May to November. Volucella inanis larvae are ectoparasites1/predators (Rupp, 1989) of wasp larvae and are dorsoventrally flattened so that they can squeeze into the space between the wasp larvae and the paper cell walls of the comb. From there, V. inanis larva feeds on the wasp brood from the bottom of the cell. The larvae appear to be able to consume several wasp larvae each (personal observation). Volucella pellucens and V. zonaria are thought to be scavengers and/or opportunistic predators in wasp and hornet nests, although we did not encounter any of their larvae on the previous survey. Adults feed on and to fuel egg production and oviposition, but there is no known list of preferred flower species.

Class: Insecta Order: Diptera Family: Conopidae Genus: Leopoldius Species: brevirostris, signatus, coronatus

Leopoldius spp. larvae are internal parasitoids of adult social wasps. The Leopoldius females use visual and behavioural mimicry in order to approach its target close enough to surprise attack it and oviposit on it. Much of the basic biology of the species of this genus is lacking such as how many generations there are per year, how long it takes for the larva inside the wasp to kill the host and how many wasps can a single female Leopoldius actually oviposit on. All members of the Conopidae family are parasites,

1 Ectoparasite: a parasite that feeds from outside the body of a host organism.

December 2013 EPA0324 10

Application Form Approval for new organism in containment

mostly of stinging Hymenoptera (Aculeata). Several genera of Conopidae are known parasites of bumblebees, such as Physocephala and Conops, which is where most of the knowledge of this group comes from. Leopoldius have never been found to parasitize bumblebees or honeybees, although this will be confirmed with host testing. Adults feed on nectar, but we could not find a list of preferred flower species.

Class: Insecta Order: Coleoptera Family: Ripiphoridae Genus: Metoecus Species: paradoxus

Metoecus paradoxus is another brood parasite of Vespula wasps. Their life cycle is complex (summarized in Heitmans & Peeters 1996). The female beetles apparently lay their eggs in crevices of decaying wood where worker wasps are likely to collect wood pulp for nest construction. The beetle eggs hatch to become phoretic2 triungulin3 larvae that will jump on to any worker wasps that come near. The tiny larva will cling on to the worker until it is brought into the wasp nest and presumably clambers off to find a suitable larva to infest. The beetle larva will burrow in to the wasp larva and feed internally until it becomes too large. It then chews its way out of the larva and begins feeding from the outside until the beetle larva reaches full size. This process kills the wasp larva. Development from egg to adult is approximately 3.5 weeks. The adult beetles are short-lived and thought to not to feed.

These three agents target different life stages of wasps and we anticipate their impacts to be complementary. Some of these candidate agents can attack other vespids, which is considered an advantage: the entire family Vespidae is absent from New Zealand’s indigenous fauna and any potential future invaders could therefore be targeted by these oligophagous agents.

Could the organism(s) form an undesirable self-sustaining population?

2 Phoretic (phoresy): an interspecies interaction where ones species transports individual(s) of a second species to the benefit of the second species.

3 Triungulin: a type of early larva of various hyper-metamorphic beetles (like Ripiphoridae), which actively seeks a host to deliver it to its nest. This first stage has legs with which it clasps on to its ‘ride’ but will lose the legs during the later parasitic development stages. These beetles are best- known for being parasitoids of bees, wasps, or locusts.

December 2013 EPA0324 11

Application Form Approval for new organism in containment

In order to form a self-sustaining population the organism(s) would first need to escape from containment. Given the measures in place, listed in the section below, we believe this is an extremely remote possibility. Our facility has a 30 year track record that can attest to our ability to successfully contain new organisms. However, if any were to escape containment due to some massive damage to the facility, etc., it is still unlikely that the organisms named in this application would form undesirable populations for a few reasons:

1) Since these organisms will be coming from the Northern Hemisphere it will likely take some time to synchronise their biology to Southern Hemisphere seasons.

2) All of these species are parasitic on social wasps, so depending on the time of year that a hypothetical escape was to happen, there may not be any wasps or wasp nests available for them to parasitize.

3) These insects are known parasites of social wasps and are to be brought into containment to be investigated for their potential as biocontrol agents against invasive social wasps; therefore we consider these organisms as beneficial.

These organisms are only being considered as prospective control agents because they are not known to attack social bees (honeybees & bumblebees). Honeybees and bumblebees are well-studied organisms in the native range of these Vespula-parasites (UK & Europe) so if attacks occurred in the field this is extremely unlikely to have been overlooked. Although this host specificity has yet to be quantified, we would not be investigating them if we thought that there was a possibility that bees would be harmed. Thus we consider the likelihood of the organisms escaping from quarantine and being able to set up a self-sustaining population to be extremely low. Furthermore we think the likelihood of a self-sustaining population being undesirable to be very low.

How easily could the new organism be recovered or eradicated if it established an undesirable self-sustaining population?

It is unlikely that an established population of escaped organisms would be immediately noticeable as it would be a very low number of individuals that may only be detected a year or more later when the population has increased to detectable levels and is likely to have dispersed over a wide area. Landcare Research will consult with MPI, EPA, and DOC, to determine if further control measures to limit and eradicate the establishment and spread of escaped insects are appropriate. Discussions with chemical control experts suggest that we would need to use an organophosphate insecticide to kill the escapee population of insects in the field. The blanket spraying of any area using such indiscriminating chemicals would pose a major environmental and health risk. Therefore, limiting or eradicating the establishment and spread of escaped insects may prove to be impractical without measures that would be prohibitively expensive, environmentally damaging and politically sensitive.

December 2013 EPA0324 12

Application Form Approval for new organism in containment

3.2. Regulatory status of the organism

Is the organism that is the subject of this application also the subject of:

An innovative medicine application as defined in section 23A of the Medicines Act 1981?

☐ Yes ☒ No

An innovative agricultural compound application as defined in Part 6 of the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act 1997?

☐ Yes ☒ No

December 2013 EPA0324 13

Application Form Approval for new organism in containment

4. Information about the containment

4.1. For field tests: The nature and method of the field test

Describe the nature and method of the field test and the experimental procedures to be used

N/A

4.2. Proposed containment of the new organism(s) (physical and operational) Describe how you propose to contain the new organism(s) after taking into account its ability to escape from containment (i.e. the possible pathways for escape)

To ensure containment we employ four levels of confinement at our containment facility. These are:

1. Organisms are kept inside a sealed, clear plastic cage.

2. The cage is held inside a sealed containment room.

3. The sealed room can only be entered through via the sealed corridor within containment confinement.

4. The double-door ‘air-lock’ system provides the only access to this corridor and is the final barrier to the containment facility, through which only authorised personnel are allowed access.

Containment is achieved through the identification of the pathways of escape and by the application of procedures to prevent escape via these pathways (see Appendix 1). Procedures follow best practice developed by Landcare Research and other handling institutes. These procedures are detailed in our containment manual (see Transitional and Containment Manual; October 2011; AH Gourlay).

Potential pathways of escape are:

Pathway Example of procedures to mitigate risk Escape of organisms during During transport all insects are housed in sealed containers transport to containment reducing the risk of escape. facilities These containers consist of three layers of sealed containment.

Accidental/unintentional Authorised persons permitted entry have received training in removal by authorised containment protocols reducing the risk of escape. personal All authorised staff is required to wear protective clothing while working in the containment facility which is to be removed before leaving. The four levels of confinement as described above along

December 2013 EPA0324 14

Application Form Approval for new organism in containment

with other measures such as sticky tape traps will further reduce the likelihood of escape via this pathway. Deliberate removal by Security measures in place mitigate the risk of unauthorised unauthorised personnel personnel gaining access to the facility. Only approved quarantine facility users are issued swipe card access to the facility. Escape from contaminated Sterilisation of waste reduces the risk of organisms escaping. laboratory equipment and All solid rubbish generated in the secure rooms is single-bagged waste and autoclaved. Liquid waste is heat treated and sterilised before being discharged into the waste water system. The facility is kept in a clean and tidy condition with no unnecessary rubbish. Floors are mopped regularly. All rearing containers are sterilised between uses. The room is disinfected, thoroughly cleaned, and sterilised between projects. Escape due to a failure of There is inbuilt redundancy in the containment design that containment barriers reduces the risk of escape. Multiple containment barriers would need to be breached before an organism is able to escape into the New Zealand environment. In addition to these layers, sticky yellow insect traps are used at strategic points so that in the low chance of an insect(s) escaping they are caught and trapped. Escape from containment A fire contingency plan has been lodged with the local fire brigade following natural disaster listing how to deal with a disaster so as to prevent or minimise the chance of insects escaping.

5. Māori engagement

Discuss any engagement or consultation with Māori undertaken and summarise the outcomes. Please refer to the EPA policy ‘Engaging with Māori for applications to the EPA’ on our website (www.epa.govt.nz) or contact the EPA for advice.

We have previously notified Ngati Moki (local iwi on whose rohe our facility sits) and Ngai Tahu if they have any objections to the importation of insects into our facility. Their last verbal response to our Containment Facility Manager (Hugh Gourlay) provided us with a longer term approval to continue with our work.

December 2013 EPA0324 15

Application Form Approval for new organism in containment

6. Risks, costs and benefits

Provide information of the risks, costs and benefits of the new organism(s).

These are the positive and adverse effects referred to in the HSNO Act. It is easier to regard risks and costs as being adverse (or negative) and benefits as being positive. In considering risks, cost and benefits, it is important to look at both the likelihood of occurrence (probability) and the potential magnitude of the consequences, and to look at distribution effects (who bears the costs, benefits and risks).

Consider the adverse or positive effects in the context of this application on the environment (e.g. could the organism cause any significant displacement of any native species within its natural habitat, cause any significant deterioration of natural habitats or cause significant adverse effect to New Zealand’s inherent genetic diversity, or is the organism likely to cause disease, be parasitic, or become a vector for or plant disease?), human health and safety, the relationship of Māori to the environment, the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, society and the community, the market economy and New Zealand’s international obligations.

You must fully complete this section referencing supporting material. You will need to provide a description of where the information in the application has been sourced from, e.g. from in-house research, independent research, technical literature, community or other consultation, and provide that information with this application.

This proposed work in this application is for contained basic biological research to investigate the potential of three groups of insects as biological control agents of invasive social wasps. The immediate benefits are in the development of new knowledge and expertise. The real benefits beyond obtaining a working knowledge of these insects will only occur if the research can demonstrate that any of these parasitoids will be safe and suitable biological control agents.

The risk of any of the organisms listed in this application displacing any native insects or causing any degradation of natural habitats is minimal because the proposed basic research will be conducted under a containment regime. This regime has been developed over thirty years and is based on the accumulated experience and best practice developed by the ‘biological control community’ in New Zealand. All of the insects on this application have adults larger than 8 mm (ranging from 8–20+ mm) and should be easily spotted if they were to manage to get out of their cage. The number of adults within each will be cage will be clearly written on the cages so we know how many are supposed to be inside after any cage when cleaning or other maintenance on the rearing media is done. With our employment of the four levels of confinement at our containment facility, we think it is highly unlikely that any invertebrates will escape from the containment facility. The larvae of Leopoldius and Metoecus are not mobile.

December 2013 EPA0324 16

Application Form Approval for new organism in containment

Leopoldius larvae live within the body cavity of their wasp hosts and we only plan to import into containment host wasps after they have died and the Leopoldius larvae have begun to pupate in the abdomens. Metoecus larvae are confined within individual larval cells once they have begun their parasitic life stage shortly after arriving at the wasp nest. Volucella inanis larvae are highly mobile, particularly the 3rd instar once it begins to hunt for a place to pupate in. However, the V. inanis larvae were unable to climb the smooth plastic sides of the acrylic aquaria the nests were kept in for laboratory observations in the UK in 2016 (personal observation). The larvae are also quite large at the L3 stage, 15mm long and 5mm wide, so should be easily spotted if they somehow manage to fall to the floor of the containment room. To prevent the escape of Volucella larvae, nest material will be kept in smooth sided nest boxes that have a positive confirmation of closure (something like Systema boxes, or ClickClack containers).

All of the biocontrol species that could be imported if this application is approved have very minimal potential to have any adverse effect on environment human health and safety, the relationship of Māori to the environment, the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, society and the community, the market economy, and New Zealand’s international obligations.

7. Alternative methods and potential effects from the transfer of genetic elements This section is for developments of GMOs that take place outdoors and field tests of GMOs only

 Discuss if there are alternative methods of achieving the research objective.  Discuss whether there could be effects resulting from the transfer of genetic elements to other organisms in or around the site of the development or field test.

N/A

8. Pathway determination and rapid assessment This section is for the imports of GMOs only

Under section 42B of the HSNO Act your application may be eligible for a rapid assessment. The pathway for your application will be determined after its formal receipt, based on the data provided in this application form. If you would like your application to be considered for rapid assessment (as per the criteria below), we require you to complete this section.

December 2013 EPA0324 17

Application Form Approval for new organism in containment

8.1. Discuss whether the GMO(s) to be imported fulfil the criteria The criteria are:  The host organism(s) are Category 1 or 2 host organisms as per the HSNO (Low Risk Genetic Modification) Regulations  The genetic modifications are Category A or B modifications as per the HSNO (Low Risk Genetic Modification) Regulations and the modifications are not listed in the Schedule of these Regulations  The minimum containment of the GMO(s) will be as per the HSNO (Low Risk Genetic Modification) Regulations (PC1 or PC2 as per AS/NZS2243.3:2002)

N/A

9. Other information

Add here any further information you wish to include in this application including if there are any ethical considerations that you are aware of in relation to your application.

10. Checklist This checklist is to be completed by the applicant

Application Comments/justifications

All sections of the application form completed ☒ Yes ☐ No or you have requested an information waiver (If No, please discuss with an under section 59 of the HSNO Act Advisor to enable your application to be further processed)

Confidential data as part of a separate, ☐ Yes ☒ No identified appendix

Supplementary optional information attached:

 Copies of additional references ☒ Yes ☐ No

 Relevant correspondence ☐ Yes ☒ No

Administration Are you an approved EPA customer? ☐ Yes ☒ No If Yes are you an: Applicant: ☐ Agent: ☐

December 2013 EPA0324 18

Application Form Approval for new organism in containment

If you are not an approved customer, payment of fee will be by:  Direct credit made to the EPA bank ☒ Yes ☐ No account (preferred method of payment) ☐ Payment to follow Date of direct credit:

 Cheque for application fee enclosed ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Payment to follow

Electronic, signed copy of application e- ☒ Yes mailed to the EPA

Signature of applicant or person authorised to sign on behalf of applicant

I am making this application, or am authorised to sign on behalf of the applicant or applicant ☒ organisation.

I have completed this application to the best of my ability and, as far as I am aware, the ☒ information I have provided in this application form is correct.

Bob Brown 6 July 2017

Signature Date

Request for information waiver under section 59 of the HSNO Act

I request for the Authority to waive any legislative information requirements (i.e. concerning ☐ the information that has been supplied in my application) that my application does not meet (tick if applicable).

Please list below which section(s) of this form are relevant to the information waiver request:

December 2013 EPA0324 19

Application Form Approval for new organism in containment

Appendices and referenced material (if any) and glossary (if required)

References Barlow ND, Moller H & Beggs JR (1996) A model for the impact of Sphecophaga vesparum vesparum as a biological control agent of the common wasp in New Zealand. Journal of Applied Ecology 33: 31–44. Beggs J (2001) The ecological consequences of social wasps (Vespula spp.) invading an ecosystem that has an abundant carbohydrate resource. Biological Conservation 99: 17-28. Beggs JR & Rees JS (1999) Restructuring of communities by introduced Vespula wasps in a New Zealand beech forest. Oecologia 119: 565-571. Clapperton BK, Tilley JAV & Pierce RJ (1996) Distribution and abundance of the Asian paper waspPolistes chinensis antennalisPerez and the Australian paper waspP. humilis(Fab.) (Hymenoptera: Vespidae) in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Zoology 23: 19-25. Donovan BJ (1984) Occurrence of the common wasp, Vespula vulgaris (L.) (Hymenoptera: Vespidae) in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Zoology 11: 417-427. doi:10.1080/03014223.1984.10428256. Donovan BJ (1989) Vespula germanica (F.), German wasp and Vespula vulgaris (L.), common wasp (Hymenoptera: Vespidae): A review of biological control of invertebrate pests and weeds in New Zealand 1874 to 1987. (ed. by P Cameron, R Hill, J Bain & W Thomas) CAB International, Wallingford UK, pp. 395-399. Dymock J, Forgie S & Ameratunga R (1994) A survey of wasp sting injuries in urban Auckland from December to April in 1991/92 and 1992/93. New Zealand Medical Journal 107: 32-33. Haw J (2016) Polistes dominula in Marlborough and Tasman: Plant Health & Environment Laboratory (PHEL) Diagnostics Report (ed. Ministry for Primary Industries, Christchurch, New Zealand, p. 16. Heitmans WRB, Peeters TMJ (1996) Metoecus paradoxus in The Netherlands (Coleoptera: Rhipiphoridae). Entomologische Berichten 56:109–117 Low I & Stables S (2006) Anaphylactic deaths in Auckland, New Zealand: a review of coronial autopsies from 1985 to 2005. Pathology 38: 328-332. doi:10.1080/00313020600820831. MacIntyre P & Hellstrom J (2015) An evaluation ofthe costs of pest wasps (Vespula species) in New Zealand: Department of Conservation and Ministry for Primary Industries, Wellington, NZ, p. 44. Rupp L (1989) The central European species of the genus Volucella (Diptera, Syrphidae) as commensals and parasitoids in the nests of bumblebees and social wasps: studies on host-finding, larval biology and mimicry: Albert-Ludwigs University, Freiburg-im-Breisgau, p. 207. Thomas CD, Moller H, Plunkett GM & Harris RJ (1990) The prevalence of introduced Vespula vulgaris wasps in a New Zealand beech forest community. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 13: 63-72. Thomas CR (1960) The European wasp (Vespula germanica Fab.) in New Zealand: New Zealand Department of Scientific and Industrial Research Information Series (ed., p. 74. Toft RJ & Rees JS (1998) Reducing predation of orb-web spiders by controlling common wasps (Vespula vulgaris) in a New Zealand beech forest. Ecological Entomology 23: 90-95.

December 2013 EPA0324 20

Application Form Approval for new organism in containment

Attached to application:

 Transitional and Containment Manual

A quality assurance programme for the Landcare Research (CASC) Transitional and Containment Facility for Invertebrates #644 as required by MAF Biosecurity New Zealand, Standard 154.02.08

A. H. Gourlay

Landcare Research Internal Report October 2011

 PDF copies of all literature cited above.

Appendix 1: Contingency Plan

This contingency plan focuses on detection of escaped insects at points through the four levels of confinement in which they will be held. These levels are:

1. Inside a sealed clear plastic cage.

2. The sealed containment room in which the cage is held.

3. The sealed corridor within containment confinement providing the only entry to the sealed room.

4. The double-door ‘air-lock’ system that provides the only access to this corridor and is the final barrier to the containment facility, through which only authorised personnel are allowed access.

All plant parts, soil, packaging and associated material leaving containment is sealed into autoclave bags and autoclaved to destroy the insects and any possible diseases. In practice, all insects will be handled at level 1. The individual insects will be counted into and out of cages designed to enable the testing required and to minimise escape. Any individuals that do escape will be detected very quickly when the insect counts are recorded and any that have escaped to level 2 or above will be identified immediately and recaptured.

A step-wise procedure will be put in place to detect an escape and monitor dispersal of any insects inside and outside the Landcare Research Transitional and Containment Facility 644, Lincoln.

If any of the imported insects are found to have escaped from the cages inside the room, all cages will be checked for breaches, repairs made, the room searched, and any insects found returned to the cage.

December 2013 EPA0324 21

Application Form Approval for new organism in containment

If any of the imported insects are found to have escaped from the room and out into the corridor, all cages will be checked for breaches, repairs made, the room and corridor searched and any insects found returned to the room and the cage.

Step-1 procedures will then be undertaken.

Step 1 All free insects found inside the containment room or in the corridor will be returned to their cages. The cages will then be sealed and removed to another containment room. The walls, ceiling and floor of the containment room and the corridor will be sterilised and disinfected with alcohol and bleach.

A light trap operates continually between the doors of the double-door ‘airlock’ system, the only entry/exit from the containment facility. This will be monitored regularly for any insects. If any of the imported insects are found on the sticky traps in the ‘air-lock’ or beyond the containment facility (immediately outside the double-door system), MAF BNZ must be notified and Step 2 procedures will be put in place.

Step 2 procedures will be undertaken.

Step 2 A selection of sites with nectar producing flowers within a 1-km radius of the building will be monitored. Appropriate flowering plants at five sites within a 1-km radius of the containment facility will be sampled regularly for 4 weeks immediately following the escape using various techniques to capture adults. Sugar water feeders will also be provided at these sites to lure any escapees. Any escaped adults would naturally gravitate to a large area of host plants and establish there before spreading further afield. For these reasons we have chosen to set up 5 monitoring sites within a 1-km radius of the facility if an escape from containment has been detected in the laboratory. By checking in detail, 50 randomly selected flowers within a randomly chosen area as well as sugar feeders at each of the 5 selected sites any insects present will be detected.

If any of the insects are detected outside the containment facility and on plants at any of the monitored sites, Landcare Research will notify ERMA NZ, the MAF BNZ Biosecurity Inspector, and the Department of Conservation. Landcare Research will consult with MAF, ERMA, and DoC, to determine if further control measures to limit and eradicate the establishment and spread of escaped insects are appropriate. The blanket spraying of any area using systemic insecticides would pose a major environmental and health risk. Therefore, limiting or eradicating the establishment and spread of escaped insects may prove to be impractical without measures that would be prohibitively expensive, environmentally damaging and politically sensitive.

Landcare Research, November 2002.

December 2013 EPA0324