ER-AF-NO1-4 3/99

FORM 1

Application for approval to

IMPORT FOR RELEASE OR RELEASE FROM CONTAINMENT ANY NEW ORGANISM

under Section 34 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996

Office use only

Fees $ Date received / / Verified date / / Job manager

ER-AF-NO1-4 3/99 Application for approval to import for release or FORM 1 release from containment any new organism under Section 34 of the Hazardous Substances Page 1 and New Organisms Act 1996

IMPORTANT Before you fill in this application form please talk to ERMA New Zealand. We can help you scope and prepare your application. The scale of information we need should match the potential significance of the application. For example, applications which may pose a significant risk to the environment or to human health need to be supported with more substantial information than applications which clearly pose a more minor risk. We need all relevant information early on in the application process. Quality information up front will speed up the process. Any extra material that does not fit in the application form must be clearly labelled and cross-referenced in the application form. Commercially sensitive information should be collated in a separate document. This form is in three parts. If you think your application may qualify for rapid assessment please check with us first and then complete only Parts A and B. Non rapid assessment applicants should complete Parts A and C only. All applicants must sign the form at the end of Part A and enclose the correct application fee. The standard notified application fee is $2,500 (excl GST). The fee for rapid assessment applications is $500. Please check with ERMA New Zealand staff. We are unable to process applications that do not contain the correct fee. All references to regulations in this form, unless otherwise noted, refer to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (New Organisms Forms and Information Requirements) Regulations 1998. Copies of all our application forms will soon also be available on our website: www.ermanz.govt.nz, and also in electronic form (MS Word format). If you have any suggestions for improvements to this form, please contact our operations staff at the address below. You can get more information at any time by telephoning, writing to, or calling in at our Wellington office. One of our staff members will be able to help you.

List of application forms for new organisms: These are all our application forms related to new organisms. Please check you have the right one. Form 1 Application for approval under section 34 of the Act to import for release, or release from containment, any new organism – including rapid assessment (this form). Form 2 application for approval under section (40)(1)(a) of the Act to import into containment any new organism. Form 3 application for approval under section 40(1)(b) of the Act to develop in containment any genetically modified organism – including rapid assessment. Form 4 application for approval under section 40(1)(c) to field test (including large scale fermentation) in containment new organism. Form 5 application for approval under section 47 to use a new organism in an emergency. Form 6 application for approval under section 62 for grounds for reassessment of a new organism in containment.

20 Customhouse Quay, Cnr Waring Taylor & Customhouse Quay PO Box 131, Wellington Phone: 04-473 8426 Fax: 04-473 8433 Email: [email protected] Website: www.ermanz.govt.nz

ER-AF-NO4-2 7/98 Application for approval to import for release or release from containment any new organism Page 2 under Section 34 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996

Applicant details

1. Name and address in New Zealand of the applicant: This should be the organisation or person formally responsible for this application. Name: Auckland Regional Council Address: Private Bag 92012, Auckland Phone: (09) 373 9962 Fax: (09) 373 9961 2. The applicant’s address for service in New Zealand (if different from above): Address: N/A

3. Name of the contact person for the application (if different from applicant): This person should have sufficient knowledge to respond to queries and have the authority to make decisions on behalf of the applicant that relate to processing the application. Name: Mr Lance Vervoort Position: Manager Biosecurity Phone: (09) 373 9962 or (025) 222 9073 Fax: (09) 373 9961 Email: [email protected]

This application has been prepared for the Auckland Regional Council by Landcare Research and Richard Hill & Associates.

20 Customhouse Quay, Cnr Waring Taylor & Customhouse Quay PO Box 131, Wellington Phone: 04-473 8426 Fax: 04-473 8433 Email: [email protected] Website: www.ermanz.govt.nz

ER-AF-NO4-2 7/98 Application for approval to import for release or release from containment any new organism Page 3 under Section 34 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996

4. Summary Provide a summary of the information contained in this application relating to the identification of the organism. The information should include summaries of: - the identity of the organism; - if it is a genetically modified organism, the source of the donor nucleic acid material and the purpose of the modification; - what the organism will be used for and why it has been selected. Provide a summary of the information contained in this application relating to the assessment of the effects of the organism. The information should include summaries of: - the risks, costs and benefits of releasing the organism and the assessment of these. This summary will be used to provide information for those people and agencies (eg, Minister for the Environment, Department of Conservation, Regional Councils, etc.), who shall be notified of the application, and for potential submittors who request information. This information will also be used to prepare the public notice of the application. For these reasons, applicants should ensure that this summary information does not contain any commercially sensitive material. [Yes] further information

Summary In 1994 the Auckland Regional Council, together with the Northland Regional Council, Environment Waikato, and the Department of Conservation, contracted Landcare Research to investigate the feasibility of establishing biological control agents of the weed mist flower in New Zealand. Landcare Research recommended that two agents, the fungus Entyloma ageratinae, and the mist flower gall alani, be considered for introduction. Introduction of a third agent, the leaf-feeding moth Oidaematophorus beneficus, was recommended only if the fungus did not establish well in dry sites, as both agents attack the leaves of mist flower.

The fungus Entyloma ageratinae was released into New Zealand in November 1998 following approval by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry under the Biosecurity Act 1993. The Auckland Regional Council now seeks approval through this application to release from containment the mist flower gall fly, Procecidochares alani Steyskal (Insecta: Diptera: ).

Mist flower (Ageratina riparia) is a serious plant pest of conservation areas, especially in Northland,

20 Customhouse Quay, Cnr Waring Taylor & Customhouse Quay PO Box 131, Wellington Phone: 04-473 8426 Fax: 04-473 8433 Email: [email protected] Website: www.ermanz.govt.nz

ER-AF-NO4-2 7/98 Application for approval to import for release or release from containment any new organism Page 4 under Section 34 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996

and is invading steadily in Auckland. It grows densely on stream margins, and in the semi-shade under healthy forest. There it forms dense, permanent mats of semi-woody twigs. It can suppress seedling growth, limiting forest regeneration, and is a real threat to the survival of the rare plant communities that live on stream banks in forests. Gall fly larvae feed within the plant, producing galls that slow stem growth and cause dieback. Galls reduce the ability of mist flower to compete with more desirable vegetation.

All of the potential risks associated with this proposal have been systematically identified and assessed, and are discussed in the application. The most important risk identified was the potential for the gall fly to damage non-target plants. However, the evidence presented in the application indicates that this risk is negligible or low. Extensive host specificity testing of the mist flower gall fly was carried out by the State Department of Agriculture (Hawai’i) and the Queensland Department of Lands () prior to the release of this in Hawai’i and Australia (Hapai 1977, Wild 1985,1986). These studies showed that the gall fly was highly specific to Ageratina riparia. There have been no adverse effects voiced or recorded in Hawaii or Queensland since these introductions were made.

The results of further tests are presented. Using standard techniques, the risk of attack on 25 more plant species was assessed experimentally. The species selected were New Zealand natives, or species with ornamental or economic importance in New Zealand. Sixteen of these plant species were tested in Hawai’i, the remainder in secure containment in New Zealand (ERMA application code NOC98002). As with previous studies, there was no evidence that the gall fly was capable of attacking any plant other than mist flower. Eighty one plant species have now been tested in Hawai’i, Australia and New Zealand.

20 Customhouse Quay, Cnr Waring Taylor & Customhouse Quay PO Box 131, Wellington Phone: 04-473 8426 Fax: 04-473 8433 Email: [email protected] Website: www.ermanz.govt.nz

ER-AF-NO4-2 7/98 Application for approval to import for release or release from containment any new organism Page 5 under Section 34 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996

Organism details

5. The identification of the organism: This should include all information necessary to identify the organism and should include: - the taxonomic classification and name of the organism; - the essential characteristics that identify the organism and its behaviour in the environment; - sufficient information to enable the Authority to uniquely identify the organism in the register as required by section 20(2)(b) of the Act. (This section may also include the name by which the organism is generally known.) The information in this section would include, for example, information on the habitat range and climatic sensitivity of the organism. References to the scientific literature supporting this information should be given here if appropriate. In the separate box below the applicant should provide the name of the organism suitable for inclusion in the Authority’s public register. Information that is commercially sensitive should be clearly identified. If supplied separately, a cross-reference to it should be included. Taxonomic Name: Procecidochares alani (Steyskal) (Insecta: Diptera: Tephritidae) Characteristics: [Yes] further information [NO] commercially sensitive information Name of the organism that may be used for the Authority’s public register: mist flower gall fly

Characteristics: The adult is a small fly ((8mm wingspan) with boldly patterned wings. It is very like Procecidochares utilis Stone, which was released in 1958 as a biological control agent against Mexican devil weed (Ageratina adenophora), and is now common in northern New Zealand. The two can be distinguished only by microscopic differences in the veins at the wing tip, and the external and internal sex organs (Steyskal 1974). The gall fly attacks mist flower, Ageratina riparia, and its introduction to New Zealand is proposed as a biological control agent for that plant pest. The gall fly damages the plant by inducing galls in the growing points of shoots (that is the same mode of action as the gall fly already established in New Zealand to attack Mexican devil). Three to five semi-woody galls can coalesce on a single growing point, distorting the shoot. This slows stem

20 Customhouse Quay, Cnr Waring Taylor & Customhouse Quay PO Box 131, Wellington Phone: 04-473 8426 Fax: 04-473 8433 Email: [email protected] Website: www.ermanz.govt.nz

ER-AF-NO4-2 7/98 Application for approval to import for release or release from containment any new organism Page 6 under Section 34 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996

growth and causes dieback at the tips. Galls in terminal growing points of seedlings halt growth altogether. The damage helps creates gaps in the mat of twigs, and so reduces competition with other plants.

The biology of the fly has been described in full by Hapai (1977). The adult fly inserts its eggs into the growing points of mist flower plants. The egg hatches after 3-5 days and the larva moves into the base of the leaves, penetrating the tender stem tissue. As the larva matures, a fleshy 1 cm diameter swelling forms, which matures into a tough gall. Larval development is completed in approximately 21 days. The larva pupates in the gall, after first gnawing a thin ‘window’ through which the adult fly will emerge from the gall after a further 14-21 days. Adults can mate and oviposit immediately, and can live for two weeks. Under suitable conditions the fly can have continuous generations, but in New Zealand the fly will pass through the winter period as a pupa.

Mist flower is invading the northern half of the North Island. The climate prevailing there was compared with those areas in Hawai’i where the gall fly is common and damaging on mist flower. The climates were similar, and there seems to be no climatic reason why the fly should not establish successfully in all parts of New Zealand where mist flower is a plant pest (Morin & Hill 1996, Morin et al.1997).

20 Customhouse Quay, Cnr Waring Taylor & Customhouse Quay PO Box 131, Wellington Phone: 04-473 8426 Fax: 04-473 8433 Email: [email protected] Website: www.ermanz.govt.nz

ER-AF-NO4-2 7/98 Application for approval to import for release or release from containment any new organism Page 7 under Section 34 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996

6. If the organism is a genetically modified organism, information on the details of the genetic modifications: This information shall include full details of the genetic constructs and modifications and the source and characteristics of the foreign nucleic acid. This information should clearly identify the source of the donor genetic material and the characteristics. The desired characteristic (eg, herbicide resistance) and any other significant characteristics that may be expressed by the donor genetic material in the organism should be described. Information on the stability and homogeneity of the construct should be given, if known. If this information is not known then this should be explicitly stated. References to the scientific literature supporting this information should be given here if appropriate. Information that is commercially sensitive should be clearly identified. If supplied separately a cross-reference to it should be included. [] further information [] commercially sensitive information

N/A

20 Customhouse Quay, Cnr Waring Taylor & Customhouse Quay PO Box 131, Wellington Phone: 04-473 8426 Fax: 04-473 8433 Email: [email protected] Website: www.ermanz.govt.nz

ER-AF-NO4-2 7/98 Application for approval to import for release or release from containment any new organism Page 8 under Section 34 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996

7. The reason why an application is necessary for the organism: Refer to the definitions set out in Section 2 of the Act, to the prohibited organisms in the Second Schedule of the Act, and for genetically modified organisms, to the exemptions in the HSNO (Organisms Not Genetically Modified) Regulations 1998.

Procecidochares alani is a new organism as defined under section 2 of the HSNO Act 1996 by way of it being:

1. A new species not present in New Zealand on the date of the enactment of the Act; and 2. Not an organism which has been approved for importation for release

Procecidochares alani is not a prohibited organism as listed in the Second Schedule of the HSNO Act 1996.

8. Information on the potential use of the organism: The information shall include all the potential uses of the organism and how well the organism performs these uses. The information should also provide sufficient details on the purpose of the application to enable the Authority to provide the information required in the register (under section 20(2)(c) of the Act). We suggest the information in this section be as expansive as possible. While the applicant may have only one potential use in mind, an approval may enable other uses as well. To enable the Authority to have access to all relevant information all the potential uses of the organism should be provided. The information on how well the organism performs these uses is necessary to enable the Authority to determine the performance characteristics of the organism. Information that is commercially sensitive should be clearly identified. If it is supplied separately a cross-reference to it should be included. [Yes] further information [No] commercially sensitive information

This is an application for approval to release the mist flower gall fly, Procecidochares alani, into New Zealand for the first time, for the biological control of mist flower, Ageratina riparia. This is the only foreseeable purpose for this species. P. alani is one of only three control agents currently available world-wide for this purpose. The others are the fungus Entyloma ageratinae, and the leaf-feeding moth Oidaematophorus beneficus. The modes of attack of P. alani and E. ageratinae are entirely

20 Customhouse Quay, Cnr Waring Taylor & Customhouse Quay PO Box 131, Wellington Phone: 04-473 8426 Fax: 04-473 8433 Email: [email protected] Website: www.ermanz.govt.nz

ER-AF-NO4-2 7/98 Application for approval to import for release or release from containment any new organism Page 9 under Section 34 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996

complementary, and their collective impact on mist flower will be greater than either alone. We believe that the introduction of at least these two agents will be necessary to attempt control. E. ageratinae was released in 1998. It has produced secondary infections in the field, and may have established (J. Fröhlich, Landcare Research, personal communication).

Biological control of mist flower in Hawai’i using these three agents is one of the world’s most successful biological control programmes. P. alani was released in Hawai’i in 1974, along with E. ageratinae and O. beneficus. Biological control was highly successful, and weed-infested grazing land was restored to productive use. This programme is fully reviewed by Morin et al. (1997), and is summarised in Appendix 1. Although successful, there has been little quantitative evaluation of this programme, and how much P. alani contributed to control is not entirely clear. Hapai (1977) demonstrated that P. alani alone could affect mist flower growth, but research was curtailed by incursion of the fungus into her research area. The fungus now occurs throughout the range of mist flower, and its massive adverse effect on mist flower masks the impact of the other agents. The impact of the closely-related gall fly P. utilis on Ageratina adenophorum has been assessed in the laboratory. Galls significantly reduce dry matter production and seed production (van Staden and Bennett, 1991; Erasmus et al. 1992)

P. alani was also released in Queensland, in 1986 (Julien & Griffith1998). It established almost immediately in the rainforests south of Brisbane (500—1000 m asl). It was immediately parasitised and never reached damaging levels, presumably because of parasitism. It reaches densities of one gall per 10—20 cm of stem in autumn, just prior to flowering. However, at this level of attack, there is no evidence of reduction in plant growth or flowering (R MacFadyen, Queensland Department of Natural Resources, personal comunication).

Provide in this box a statement describing the purpose for making the application. This statement may be included in the Authority’s public register (please use a maximum of 255 characters): Application for approval to release from containment a new organism, the mist flower gall fly, Procecidochares alani (Steyskal), under Section 34 of the HSNO Act 1996, for the purpose of biological control of mist flower (Ageratina riparia).

20 Customhouse Quay, Cnr Waring Taylor & Customhouse Quay PO Box 131, Wellington Phone: 04-473 8426 Fax: 04-473 8433 Email: [email protected] Website: www.ermanz.govt.nz

ER-AF-NO4-2 7/98 Application for approval to import for release or release from containment any new organism Page 10 under Section 34 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996

9. Information on any likely inseparable organisms: Information should be provided on any organism which is unable to be separated from any new organism at the time of making the application. Examples may include foot and mouth and scrapie causing organisms in and viruses in plants. [Yes] further information

Procecidochares alani is not known to host any inseparable organisms or any insect pathogenic organisms (CABI abstracts, 1984–1998).

Procecidochares alani will be imported into secure containment in New Zealand from Hawai’i as immature stages within field–collected mist flower galls. Hapai (1977) recorded five parasitoid species in galls at one site in Hawai’i, and it is likely that imported galls will contain parasitoids. There may be other species associated with the galls. Quarantine rearing will eliminate all accompanying separable species, including parasitoids, predators, and organisms capable of generating an epizootic in the released population (as required under the MAFRA Standard 154.02.08 The shipment of P. alani will be held in the HortResearch invertebrate quarantine and containment facility at the Mt Albert Research Centre, which operates under MAFRA Standard 154.02.08: Standard for Invertebrate Quarantine Facilities, and HortResearch’s own procedural document, ‘Procedures for the Importation and Quarantine of Live , Other , or Pathogens into the HortResearch Invertebrate Quarantine Facility’ (Charles & Allan 1993). Pursuant to section 40 of the Biosecurity Act 1993, Mr J.G. Charles is the registered operator of this facility. This facility also complies with the standards set out in the Third Schedule, Part II of the HSNO Act 1996. Operating under such regulations, this facility offers a very high level of security with very low levels of risk.

Risks associated with importation and containment of Procecidochares alani were assessed in ERMA application 98002.

20 Customhouse Quay, Cnr Waring Taylor & Customhouse Quay PO Box 131, Wellington Phone: 04-473 8426 Fax: 04-473 8433 Email: [email protected] Website: www.ermanz.govt.nz

ER-AF-NO4-2 7/98 Application for approval to import for release or release from containment any new organism Page 11 under Section 34 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996

10. Information on the affinities of the organism with other organisms in New Zealand: Information should be provided on taxonomically related organisms in New Zealand with which the new organism is likely to interact. The information should also include any positive or negative effects of this interaction, including other relationships (eg, predator/prey/parasites, etc.).

There are 21 species of the fly family Tephritidae present in New Zealand, of which 17 are native (Evenhuis 1989), and four have been introduced for biological control of weeds. Procecidochares utilis was introduced to New Zealand to attack Mexican devil weed (Ageratina adenophora), and three species of Urophora have been released to attack thistles. With one exception, the native species belong to the genus Tephritis and the genus Trupanea (Dirioxa pornia belongs to the Trypetinae, and is thought to attack already damaged fruit (Ferrar 1987)). Fifteen of the remaining species exclusively attack the seed bodies of asteraceous species. The only gall-forming tephritids in New Zealand are P. utilis, and the native species Tephritis fascigera Malloch. Dr N. Martin (Crop & Food Research, personal communication) recently reared this species from galls in stems of Brachiglottis kirkii. He recorded no parasitoids emerging from these galls, but the introduced P. utilis is attacked heavily by Megastigmus sp. (Torymidae). Little is known about this parasitoid, or how it might affect P. alani.

Go To Part C

Note: If this application is not for a rapid assessment, go to Part C.

20 Customhouse Quay, Cnr Waring Taylor & Customhouse Quay PO Box 131, Wellington Phone: 04-473 8426 Fax: 04-473 8433 Email: [email protected] Website: www.ermanz.govt.nz

ER-AF-NO4-2 7/98 Application for approval to import for release or release from containment any new organism Page 12 under Section 34 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996

PART B

Rapid Assessment – this does not apply to genetically modified organisms If the applicant believes that the application could qualify for a rapid assessment (under section 35 of the Act) the information included in these sections should address the following criteria: Is the organism an unwanted organism under the Biosecurity Act 1993? [ Yes/No? ] Please describe the extent to which the organism, after release: - is likely to form a self sustaining population; Response - is able to be easily eradicated if it does; Response - is able to displace or reduce a valued species; Response - is able to cause deterioration of natural habitats; Response - will be disease causing; Response - is, or is able to become, a parasite; Response - will have any adverse effects on human health and safety; Response - will have any adverse effects on the environment; Response If the applicant is aware that the organism has previously been considered by any OECD or APEC country, please supply information on the nature of that consideration, including the result, if known.

Response

If the applicant is aware of obligations such as the WTO Agreements, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), Trans Tasman Mutual Recognition Agreement and the like that may be relevant to the application, then information on these obligations should be provided, if known.

Response

20 Customhouse Quay, Cnr Waring Taylor & Customhouse Quay PO Box 131, Wellington Phone: 04-473 8426 Fax: 04-473 8433 Email: [email protected] Website: www.ermanz.govt.nz

ER-AF-NO4-2 7/98 Application for approval to import for release or release from containment any new organism Page 13 under Section 34 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996

If the organism has been previously considered by the Government of New Zealand (eg, under the HSNO Act, the Animals Act, the Plants Act) information on that consideration and its results should be provided. [ Yes/No? ] further information [ Yes/No? ] commercially sensitive information

Response

A glossary of the scientific and technical terms used in the application should be provided. This may be appended to the application on a separate form if desired. Note: Failure to provide sufficient supporting information may result in the rapid assessment being declined. In this case the applicant may fill out the next section (Part C) and request the Authority to conduct a full assessment of the application.

20 Customhouse Quay, Cnr Waring Taylor & Customhouse Quay PO Box 131, Wellington Phone: 04-473 8426 Fax: 04-473 8433 Email: [email protected] Website: www.ermanz.govt.nz

ER-AF-NO4-2 7/98 Application for approval to import for release or release from containment any new organism Page 14 under Section 34 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996

PART C Part C is not required if this is a rapid assessment application. Check with ERMA New Zealand staff first

Assessment of Effects The information to be provided in these sections should cover the assessment of effects (both adverse and positive) of the organism. Where appropriate these sections may be combined in section 14 below. Effects should be clearly assessed where relevant, including details as to how the risks will be controlled by the proposed containment system. Where these adverse effects are identified, in the first instance by the applicant, as being minor then these do not require in-depth assessment.

11. Information on all the possible adverse effects of the organism on the environment: This should include information on the effects of the organism on ecosystems, public health, and Maori culture and taonga. It should also include information relevant to the matters in sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 37 of the Act and any regulations made under section 41 of the Act. The assessment should identify and assess risks, costs and benefits. The information should give particular regard to: Environmental and ecosystem effects (section 6(a) and (b) of the Act) - assessment of the known and possible adverse effects throughout the life cycle of the organism on the sustainability of native and valued introduced flora and fauna and on the intrinsic value of ecosystems. [Include an assessment of the ability of the organism to establish an undesirable self-sustaining population and the ease with which the organism could be eradicated if it was established.] Public health effects (section 6(c) of the Act) - assessment of the known and possible adverse effects throughout the life cycle of the organism on public health. [Assessment should take account of aspects of public health and safety including, where appropriate, effects from occupational exposure and effects from environmental exposure to the organism.] Relationship of Maori with taonga (section 6(d) of the Act) - assessment of the known and possible adverse effects throughout the life cycle of the organism on the relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, wahi tapu, valued flora and fauna, and other taonga. [Include details of consultation (if any) carried out.]

20 Customhouse Quay, Cnr Waring Taylor & Customhouse Quay PO Box 131, Wellington Phone: 04-473 8426 Fax: 04-473 8433 Email: [email protected] Website: www.ermanz.govt.nz

ER-AF-NO4-2 7/98 Application for approval to import for release or release from containment any new organism Page 15 under Section 34 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996

The ability of the organism to escape from containment.

Appendix 2 presents a summary of the environmental and economic effects of mist flower in New Zealand and provides a background to Part C: Assessment of Effects.

Environmental and ecosystem effects Direct effects Procecidochares alani was selected as a potential control agent because it is host specific, and the risk to other biota in New Zealand is low. This high specificity was determined by testing 81 plant species in New Zealand, Hawai’i, and Australia. Results confirmed that the risk of P. alani attacking plants other than mist flower is low, and probably negligible (Appendix 3 & 4).

Indirect effects It is possible to construct a number of hypothetical scenarios in which the introduction of P. alani could have indirect effects on forest ecosystems in New Zealand. However, it is not possible to reliably define the likelihood of those scenarios, or to predict whether the outcomes of most of those scenarios will be adverse or beneficial. This is because knowledge of existing community interactions in New Zealand forests is incomplete, and there is no measure of the natural spatial and temporal variation in those interactions. Without that background information, reliable prediction of the secondary impacts of adding an introduced control agent is impossible. World- wide, this information is only fragmentary. Experimental studies are rare, and normally involve removing species from communities, not adding them. Dr. J. Memmott (Bristol University, personal communication) believes that the effect of an agent could be determined experimentally, but only after the agent was released. Such an experiment would compare communities in which the agent was released with agent-free communities. However, she observes that such a study would be major undertaking involving many staff, and would probably take ten years to complete. This is because community dynamics are variable, and because agents multiply only slowly. Without reliable data, her feeling is that the foreseeable risks of introducing a control agent as host-specific as this one are small.

Potential adverse indirect effects could result from successful control of mist flower, or from the addition of the fly to the invertebrate fauna. The scenarios that seem both reasonable and foreseeable, and that are likely to have a significant effect, are listed in Table 1.

1. Increased abundance of flies as prey could increase the abundance of predators such as spiders or wasps, which in turn could adversely affect populations of other prey invertebrates. However, the increased abundance of flies could equally enhance populations of rare

20 Customhouse Quay, Cnr Waring Taylor & Customhouse Quay PO Box 131, Wellington Phone: 04-473 8426 Fax: 04-473 8433 Email: [email protected] Website: www.ermanz.govt.nz

ER-AF-NO4-2 7/98 Application for approval to import for release or release from containment any new organism Page 16 under Section 34 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996

predators. It is likely that any affects would be minimal as P. alani would make up only a small proportion of the available prey.

2. Similarly, generalist larval or pupal parasitoids might become more abundant by attacking P. alani galls, resulting in increased parasitism of populations of other gall-forming insects. Only one parasitoid of gall-forming flies is known in New Zealand (Megastigmus sp.), and has only been recorded attacking Mexican devil weed gall fly, P. utilis. It has not been recorded from the only native stem-galling fly, Tephritis fascigera. However, if it attacked both T. fascigera and P. alani, and the introduced fly became abundant, parasitoid populations might rise, exerting increased predation pressure on the native fly.

3. The rapid and uniform destruction of mist flower infestations in riparian areas over a short period could lead to a small increase in seasonal low flows of streams. This would not have an adverse effect on water resources or stream habitats (L. Rowe, Landcare Research, personal communication). In fact, mist flower is a semi-woody perennial, and gall production, even at high density, is unlikely to lead to rapid, wholesale death of mature plants (within a single season for example). It is more likely that heavy galling would lead to reduced growth, ragged shoot dieback, and the death of a small proportion of mature plants annually, leading to a slow decline in plant density. Any effects on stream flows would last only until replacement vegetation became established. Reversion of managed land through scrub to young forest (mainly native species) is common in areas of Northland (Rowe 1996). Hence, the presence of decaying mistflower on streambank surfaces is likely to be followed by rapid regeneration or reversion, and it is unlikely that there will be adverse effects such as stream-bank erosion. Any effects would therefore be short-term.

4. Successful control would be achieved if the vigour of the infestation was reduced sufficiently to allow other vegetation to coexist or to become dominant. In riparian habitats in Northland forests, the most likely successors to mistflower species are native species, many of which are rare and vulnerable (see appendix 2). The risk of adverse effects on plant succession is therefore considered low. At present, there do not appear to be any other weeds capable of invading the semi-shaded areas where mist flower is most prevalent (L. Forrester, Department of Conservation, personal communication). Where mist flower grows in open areas, control might lead to invasion of other weeds if land was not managed.

5. Mist flower and other weeds provide cover for kiwi in some areas, and may help them escape predation by dogs. This issue is discussed in detail in Appendix 2.

6. The risk of P. alani significantly reducing the availability of nectar and pollen for bees is

20 Customhouse Quay, Cnr Waring Taylor & Customhouse Quay PO Box 131, Wellington Phone: 04-473 8426 Fax: 04-473 8433 Email: [email protected] Website: www.ermanz.govt.nz

ER-AF-NO4-2 7/98 Application for approval to import for release or release from containment any new organism Page 17 under Section 34 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996

considered negligible for two reasons. Firstly, it is uncertain whether the flies will feed on nectar and pollen in the wild, or on other food sources. Gall flies do not harvest food resources to feed brood. Secondly, it is unlikely that gall flies will add significantly to the biomass of insects (bees, syrphid flies, wasps, butterflies, bumblebees, etc.) that already utilise flower resources.

Procecidochares alani was introduced into Hawai’i from Mexico in 1974, and from there into Queensland in 1986. In both cases, the risks posed to native and economically important plant species in those countries was assessed by experimental determination of potential host-range (Wild 1985, 1986, Morin et al. 1998, Appendix 1). No adverse effects have since been reported in the literature (CABI abstracts 1984-1998), or to scientists working in this field (R. MacFadyen (Queensland Department of Natural Resources), E. Yoshioka (Hawaii Department of Agriculture), personal communications). Similarly, no adverse effects have been recorded since the introduction of the closely-related species P. utilis into New Zealand in 1958.

Since mist flower has an adverse effect on the riparian environment, and mist flower gall fly may have the ability to mitigate that effect, not introducing the gall fly could be seen as a significant adverse event.

Public health effects No effects on public health and safety are expected from immature stages (eggs, larvae, pupae) which are only found inside the host-plant. The fly is expected to establish desirable self-sustaining populations in the New Zealand environment wherever mist flower is common. If attack on mist flower is severe, adult flies may become abundant. Apart from a patch on Mt Eden, mist flower is common, but not yet abundant in urban areas. It is difficult to imagine the gall fly significantly increasing the overall number of dipterans (house flies, blowflies etc.) in the urban environment. Laboratory observations suggest that the gall fly is shy, and often hard to find. For these reasons, the risk of creating a public nuisance is not considered significant. There is no record in the medical literature (NCBI PubMed medLine database search) of tephritid flies being toxic, or posing a public health hazard. The closely-related species, Procecidochares utilis has not generated any known public health concerns since it was introduced to New Zealand in 1958.

Relationship of Mâori to their tâonga Many Mâori view the removal of natural habitat by weed invasion as a threat, not only to the native plant life but to the ecosystem in its entirety. If Procecidochares alani has the intended effect and reduces the vigour of mist flower then there will be a beneficial effect for Mâori and their relationship to their tâonga.

The groups listed below have been sent a draft of the application to release Procecidochares alani

20 Customhouse Quay, Cnr Waring Taylor & Customhouse Quay PO Box 131, Wellington Phone: 04-473 8426 Fax: 04-473 8433 Email: [email protected] Website: www.ermanz.govt.nz

ER-AF-NO4-2 7/98 Application for approval to import for release or release from containment any new organism Page 18 under Section 34 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996

from containment. To date four written responses have been received. Two groups have stated they do not support an introduction of any new species, one group has requested a meeting and another group has supported the release of the mist flower gall fly (See appendix 5). All other groups have been spoken to verbally with several currently considering a suitable response to the application.

Ngãti Wai Trust Board Aotea Ngãti Wai Trust Board Te Runãnga o Ngãti Whãtua Te Hão o Ngãti Whãtua Te Kãwerau a Maki Trust Board Huakina Development Trust Awaroa Ki Mãnuka Ngai Tai Ki Tãmaki Tribal Trust Hauraki Mãori Trust Board Ngãti Paoa Whãnau Trust

Ability of the organism to escape from containment The sole purpose of this introduction is to release the gall fly from containment so that it can establish viable populations that spread and attack mist flower wherever it occurs.

20 Customhouse Quay, Cnr Waring Taylor & Customhouse Quay PO Box 131, Wellington Phone: 04-473 8426 Fax: 04-473 8433 Email: [email protected] Website: www.ermanz.govt.nz

ER-AF-NO4-2 7/98 Application for approval to import for release or release from containment any new organism Page 19 under Section 34 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996

Table 1. Systematic identification and assessment of reasonable and foreseeable risks associated with this application

POTENTIAL ADVERSE SOURCE OF RISK ELEMENT OF RISK METHOD USED TO FULL ASSESSMENT RISK IDENTIFY RISK Life supporting capacity Sudden removal of mist Increased seasonal low water Brainstorming. Any effects would be of low of air/water flower from ecosystems flows, blockage, flooding Consultation with magnitude, and temporary; see soil/ecosystems ARC, NRC, Section 11. Environment Waikato & DoC, comments on draft application Ground bared, stream-bank " " Any effects would be of low erosion, water quality reduced magnitude, and temporary; see Section 11. Successional change " " Risk low, see Section 11

20 Customhouse Quay, Cnr Waring Taylor & Customhouse Quay PO Box 131, Wellington Phone: 04-473 8426 Fax: 04-473 8433 Email: [email protected] Website: www.ermanz.govt.nz

ER-AF-NO4-2 7/98 Application for approval to import for release or release from containment any new organism Page 20 under Section 34 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996

POTENTIAL ADVERSE SOURCE OF RISK ELEMENT OF RISK METHOD USED TO FULL ASSESSMENT RISK IDENTIFY RISK Capacity of people to Fly attacks non-target Economic damage to non- Brainstorming. The probability of attack is assessed provide economic, social plants target agricultural, forestry or Consultation with as negligible, magnitude of the effect & cultural well-being and horticultural crops, and ARC, NRC, is low; few crops in this family; see foreseeable needs of ornamentals Environment Waikato Appendix 3 future generations & DoC, comments on draft application Flies feed on nectar Loss to beekeepers from " " Magnitude of the effect low; fly and pollen sources competition for nectar and biomass relatively small, probability pollen medium; see Section11 Flies become abundant Nuisance to tourists and " " Negligible risk, flies are retiring and workers hard to find increased wasp population " " Risks considered low; magnitude from increase in prey pool low, gall flies likely to be a small proportion of potential prey biomass

20 Customhouse Quay, Cnr Waring Taylor & Customhouse Quay PO Box 131, Wellington Phone: 04-473 8426 Fax: 04-473 8433 Email: [email protected] Website: www.ermanz.govt.nz

ER-AF-NO4-2 7/98 Application for approval to import for release or release from containment any new organism Page 21 under Section 34 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996

POTENTIAL ADVERSE SOURCE OF RISK ELEMENT OF RISK METHOD USED TO FULL ASSESSMENT RISK IDENTIFY RISK Capacity of people to Replacement of mist Economic cost to farmers and Brainstorming. Current direct economic cost of the provide economic, social flower with more foresters Consultation with weed small because the current & cultural well-being and damaging weeds ARC, NRC, distribution in pastures and exotic foreseeable needs of Environment Waikato forests is limited; potential future future generations (cont) & DoC, comments on costs are significant draft application Sustainability of native & Fly attacks native Suppression of valued, rare " " Risk is negligible to low; size of the valued introduced flora plants or endangered native plant effect medium to high, probability of and fauna populations effect negligible to low. Risk has been determined by experimentation (see Appendix 3), and by consultation with DoC staff. Introduction of Predators, parasitoids or " " Risk is low; quarantine procedures associated organisms insect pathogens released outlined in sections 9&14

20 Customhouse Quay, Cnr Waring Taylor & Customhouse Quay PO Box 131, Wellington Phone: 04-473 8426 Fax: 04-473 8433 Email: [email protected] Website: www.ermanz.govt.nz

ER-AF-NO4-2 7/98 Application for approval to import for release or release from containment any new organism Page 22 under Section 34 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996

POTENTIAL ADVERSE SOURCE OF RISK ELEMENT OF RISK METHOD USED TO FULL ASSESSMENT RISK IDENTIFY RISK Sustainability of native & Species becomes a Increased prey pool for Brainstorming. Could produce environmental costs valued introduced flora new element in the predators of flies adversely Consultation with ARC, or benefits; risk uncertain, magnitude and fauna (cont) fauna affects food web NRC, Environment considered low, see Section 11 Waikato & DoC, comments on draft application Increased prey pool for " " Could produce environmental costs parasitoids of larvae or benefits; risk uncertain; risk to one adversely affects food webs species present; see Section 11 Mist flower removed Replacement with worse " " Risk low in forests; other weeds are from native habitats weeds not as shade tolerant Desirable cover for kiwi " " Risk is present; level uncertain; see removed Appendix 2.

20 Customhouse Quay, Cnr Waring Taylor & Customhouse Quay PO Box 131, Wellington Phone: 04-473 8426 Fax: 04-473 8433 Email: [email protected] Website: www.ermanz.govt.nz

ER-AF-NO4-2 7/98 Application for approval to import for release or release from containment any new organism Page 23 under Section 34 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996

POTENTIAL ADVERSE SOURCE OF RISK ELEMENT OF RISK METHOD USED TO FULL ASSESSMENT RISK IDENTIFY RISK Sustainability of native & Desirable food source Brainstorming. Risk is low; survey found few valued introduced flora removed Consultation with ARC, insects utilising mist flower and fauna (cont) NRC, Environment Waikato & DoC, comments on draft application Desirable cover for " " Risk is low; no evidence that mist growing plants removed flower enhances any plant species; mist flower fosters some weeds; see section 11 " " Intrinsic values of No additional adverse ecosystems risks identified

20 Customhouse Quay, Cnr Waring Taylor & Customhouse Quay PO Box 131, Wellington Phone: 04-473 8426 Fax: 04-473 8433 Email: [email protected] Website: www.ermanz.govt.nz

ER-AF-NO4-2 7/98 Application for approval to import for release or release from containment any new organism Page 24 under Section 34 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996

POTENTIAL ADVERSE SOURCE OF RISK ELEMENT OF RISK METHOD USED TO FULL ASSESSMENT RISK IDENTIFY RISK Public health Flies poisonous Children eating flies Brainstorming. Risk negligible; no record of Consultation with ARC, tephritid flies affecting public health NRC, Environment found in MedLine database Waikato & DoC, comments on draft application Flies carry disease Incidence of disease ― ― Risk negligible; no record of increased tephritid flies affecting public health found in MedLine database Relationship of Maori to Consultation with Maori re Benefits exist whenever an their Taonga, wahi tapu, drafts of the application are introduced species can be water etc. continuing. Responses prevented from invading natural received to date are ecosysytems. The level of benefit appended in Appendix 5 is uncertain

20 Customhouse Quay, Cnr Waring Taylor & Customhouse Quay PO Box 131, Wellington Phone: 04-473 8426 Fax: 04-473 8433 Email: [email protected] Website: www.ermanz.govt.nz

ER-AF-NO4-2 7/98 Application for approval to import for release or release from containment any new organism Page 25 under Section 34 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996

12. In the identification and assessment of risks, costs and benefits and other impacts which may occur as a result of the escape of the organism include those matters set out below. The information should comprise of the risks identified and include: - the nature of the adverse effects of the organism. - the probability of occurrence and the magnitude of each adverse effect. - the risk assessed as a combination of the magnitude of the adverse effect and the probability of its occurrence. - the options and proposals for managing the risks identified. - the uncertainty bounds on the information contained in the assessment, expressed quantitatively where possible but otherwise through narrative statements. The identification and assessment of costs and benefits required in each application must include. - the nature of the costs and benefits associated with the proposed new organism and whether they are monetary or non-monetary; - the magnitude or expected value of the costs and benefits and the uncertainty bounds on the expected value. Relevant costs and benefits will be those which pertain to the New Zealand economy, society and environment and which would not arise if the application was not approved (ie the opportunity cost to New Zealand). They shall include the long term as well as short term, and consequential as well as direct costs and benefits. The information on risks, costs and benefits shall include the distributional effects over time, space and groups in the community. It shall also include the uncertainty intervals associated with these estimates.

The probability and magnitude of the potential adverse effects outlined in section 11 are summarised in Table 1 (Begins Page 19). The nature and probability of benefits accruing from the introduction are summarised in Table 2 (Begins Page 28)

20 Customhouse Quay, Cnr Waring Taylor & Customhouse Quay PO Box 131, Wellington Phone: 04-473 8426 Fax: 04-473 8433 Email: [email protected] Website: www.ermanz.govt.nz

ER-AF-NO4-2 7/98 Application for approval to import for release or release from containment any new organism Page 26 under Section 34 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996

13. Information on the positive effects of the organism:

Any benefits of introducing P. alani will arise from reducing the adverse effects of mist flower in New Zealand. These are summarised in Appendix 2.

The gall fly is expected to establish in New Zealand, and to contribute towards the biological control of mist flower. The relative contribution of this species to any control is impossible to predict before establishment, but gall flies can seriously suppress growth and development of Ageratina species (Hapai 1977). Laboratory experiments indicate that the related gall fly Procecidochares utilis can depress growth and seed production of Mexican devil weed (Erasmus et al. 1992). The success of the same suite of control agents in Hawaii (Appendix 1), and the similarity of the climates in upland Hawai’i and New Zealand indicates a higher level of confidence than is possible for most biological control projects (Morin et al. 1997). Despite this, the likelihood of successful control cannot be reliably estimated.

Table 2 identifies the likely benefits that introduction of P. alani would bring if it contributes to the successful control of mist flower in New Zealand. Where possible, the probabilities of achieving benefits have been estimated in the table, but the value of these estimates is questionable. These benefits include:

Reduced competition with vulnerable riparian vegetation Improved biodiversity in threatened habitats Protection of the integrity of sites valued by Maori Reduced infestation of native habitats and reduce risk of future pasture invasion Reduced risk of stock poisoning Possible small temporary increase in seasonal low water flow in streams (L. Rowe, Landcare Research, personal communication) Reduced damage caused by current weed control techniques and reduced risk of waterway contamination by herbicides

Tangata whenua have been consulted on this issue (see Section 11 and Appendix 5 for details). Further responses are expected.

The applicant has identified the following ways in which successful biological control of mist flower could benefit te ao mâori: Maintaining the integrity of forest vegetation

20 Customhouse Quay, Cnr Waring Taylor & Customhouse Quay PO Box 131, Wellington Phone: 04-473 8426 Fax: 04-473 8433 Email: [email protected] Website: www.ermanz.govt.nz

ER-AF-NO4-2 7/98 Application for approval to import for release or release from containment any new organism Page 27 under Section 34 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996

Minimising the risk of extinction of native plants Restoring native vegetation on stream banks Protecting watercourses in a natural state Stopping weed invasion of Maungawhau

20 Customhouse Quay, Cnr Waring Taylor & Customhouse Quay PO Box 131, Wellington Phone: 04-473 8426 Fax: 04-473 8433 Email: [email protected] Website: www.ermanz.govt.nz

ER-AF-NO4-2 7/98 Application for approval to import for release or release from containment any new organism Page 28 under Section 34 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996

Table 2. Likelihood and consequences of beneficial effects resulting from this application. Likelihood is based on the probability of achieving control

POTENTIAL BENEFIT TO SOURCE OF BENEFIT ELEMENT PRODUCING METHOD USED TO ASSESSMENT OF SIZE BENEFIT IDENTIFY BENEFIT AND PROBABILITY OF BENEFIT Life supporting capacity Reduced herbicide Reduced contamination of Brainstorming. Consultation Current levels of control of application waterways with ARC, NRC, low, so benefits probably air/water/soil/ecosystems Environment Waikato & low; probability is medium DoC, responses to draft application Less accretion of stream Temporary improvement in ― ― Until vegetation replaces beds water flows mist flower

Reduced rate of spread Slower invasion of ― ― See Appendix 2: benefit vulnerable ecosystems high, probability medium

20 Customhouse Quay, Cnr Waring Taylor & Customhouse Quay PO Box 131, Wellington Phone: 04-473 8426 Fax: 04-473 8433 Email: [email protected] Website: www.ermanz.govt.nz

ER-AF-NO4-2 7/98 Application for approval to import for release or release from containment any new organism Page 29 under Section 34 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996

POTENTIAL BENEFIT TO SOURCE OF BENEFIT ELEMENT PRODUCING METHOD USED TO ASSESSMENT OF SIZE BENEFIT IDENTIFY BENEFIT AND PROBABILITY OF BENEFIT Capacity of people to Less mist flower Lower manual and Brainstorming. Consultation Annual control costs are provide economic, social chemical control costs with ARC, NRC, $80–90K per annum; & cultural well-being and Environment Waikato & probability is medium foreseeable needs of DoC, responses to draft future generations application Less risk of stock poisoning " ― Low benefit; little stock poisoning recorded Reduced vigour Reduced potential to invade Previous successful project Current benefit small; farmland and forest potential future benefit plantations significant; probability is medium

20 Customhouse Quay, Cnr Waring Taylor & Customhouse Quay PO Box 131, Wellington Phone: 04-473 8426 Fax: 04-473 8433 Email: [email protected] Website: www.ermanz.govt.nz

ER-AF-NO4-2 7/98 Application for approval to import for release or release from containment any new organism Page 30 under Section 34 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996

POTENTIAL BENEFIT TO SOURCE OF BENEFIT ELEMENT PRODUCING METHOD USED TO ASSESSMENT OF SIZE BENEFIT IDENTIFY BENEFIT AND PROBABILITY OF BENEFIT Sustainability of native & Gaps in infestations No plant extinctions caused Brainstorming. Consultation Benefits from successful valued introduced flora by mist flower with ARC, NRC, BC would be large; and fauna Environment Waikato & probability is medium; gall DoC, responses to draft fly should contribute to application control. Less mist flower Less invasion by other " ― Potential benefits present weeds but small. Re-establishment of plants; ― ― Benefits from successful Increased biodiversity of BC would be large; riparian plant communities probability is medium; gall fly should contribute; see Appendix 2.

20 Customhouse Quay, Cnr Waring Taylor & Customhouse Quay PO Box 131, Wellington Phone: 04-473 8426 Fax: 04-473 8433 Email: [email protected] Website: www.ermanz.govt.nz

ER-AF-NO4-2 7/98 Application for approval to import for release or release from containment any new organism Page 31 under Section 34 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996

POTENTIAL BENEFIT TO SOURCE OF BENEFIT ELEMENT PRODUCING METHOD USED TO ASSESSMENT OF SIZE BENEFIT IDENTIFY BENEFIT AND PROBABILITY OF BENEFIT Sustainability of native & Reduced vigour Reduced rate of spread in Brainstorming. Consultation " valued introduced flora native habitats with ARC, NRC, and fauna (cont) Environment Waikato & DoC, responses to draft application Intrinsic values of Removal of mist flower Continued enjoyment of ― ― Benefits exist, but level ecosystems threatened native riparian uncertain habitats Public health No benefits identified ― ―

20 Customhouse Quay, Cnr Waring Taylor & Customhouse Quay PO Box 131, Wellington Phone: 04-473 8426 Fax: 04-473 8433 Email: [email protected] Website: www.ermanz.govt.nz

ER-AF-NO4-2 7/98 Application for approval to import for release or release from containment any new organism Page 32 under Section 34 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996

POTENTIAL BENEFIT TO SOURCE OF BENEFIT ELEMENT PRODUCING METHOD USED TO ASSESSMENT OF SIZE BENEFIT IDENTIFY BENEFIT AND PROBABILITY OF BENEFIT Relationship of Maori to Removal of mist flower Less competition for native Consultation with Maori re a Benefits exist whenever an their Taonga, wahi tapu, species draft of the application is introduced species can be water, etc continuing. Four written prevented from invading responses have been natural ecosysytems. The received to date, these are level of benefit is uncertain appended in Appendix 5

20 Customhouse Quay, Cnr Waring Taylor & Customhouse Quay PO Box 131, Wellington Phone: 04-473 8426 Fax: 04-473 8433 Email: [email protected] Website: www.ermanz.govt.nz

ER-AF-NO1-4 3/99 Application for approval to import for release or release from FORM 1 containment any new organism under Section 34 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 Page 33

14. Assessment of effects If the assessment of effects is combined into this section, applicants should clearly indicate how the information requirements in sections 11, 12 and 13 of this form are addressed. [Yes] further information [No] commercially sensitive information

The environmental and economic risks, costs and benefits of the proposed introduction are presented in detail in Sections 11-13, and Table 1 & 2. Further information is available in Appendices 1 & 2. In summary, most of these costs and benefits would accrue only if mist flower was successfully controlled. If this occurred, the benefits would be large, and the possible adverse effects relatively small. If P. alani established in New Zealand, but did not contribute to control of mist flower, both costs and benefits are likely to be small (Tables 1 & 2). The exception to these generalisations is the potential damage by P. alani to non-target plants. The magnitude of this risk would increase as P. alani increased in density. However, experimental evidence suggests that the probability of this effect is negligible to low.

20 Customhouse Quay, Cnr Waring Taylor & Customhouse Quay PO Box 131, Wellington Phone: 04-473 8426 Fax: 04-473 8433 Email: [email protected] Website: www.ermanz.govt.nz

ER-AF-NO1-4 3/99 Application for approval to import for release or release from FORM 1 containment any new organism under Section 34 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 Page 34

International and related matters

15. Information on all occasions where the organism has been considered by the government of any prescribed State or country or by any prescribed organisation and the results of such consideration: Where no countries or organisations are prescribed by regulations made under section 140(1)9k) of the Act, this section can be omitted. If the applicant is aware that the organism has previously been considered by, for example, any OECD or APEC country, information on the nature of that consideration, including the result, should be provided if known. [Yes] further information

The fly has been released in Hawai’i and Queensland, and contributed to the biological control of the alien weed without any known detrimental effects on the environment (Julien & Griffiths 1998). No other matters are known to apply.

16. Information on New Zealand’s international obligations that may be relevant to the application: Where the applicant is aware that New Zealand’s international obligations may be relevant to the application, indicate the nature of the obligation and the effect this may have on the application. If the applicant is aware of obligations such as the WTO Agreements, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), Trans Tasman Mutual Recognition Agreement and the like that may be relevant to the application, then information on these obligations should be provided, if known. [ No ] further information

None known Previous considerations

17. If the application relates to an organism that has been previously considered by the Advisory Committee on Novel Genetic Techniques or the Minister for the Environment on the recommendation of the Interim Assessment Group, details of the consideration and its results: [ Yes ] further information

Risks associated with containment of Procecidochares alani during the quarantine period were assessed in ERMA application 98002

20 Customhouse Quay, Cnr Waring Taylor & Customhouse Quay PO Box 131, Wellington Phone: 04-473 8426 Fax: 04-473 8433 Email: [email protected] Website: www.ermanz.govt.nz

ER-AF-NO1-4 3/99 Application for approval to import for release or release from FORM 1 containment any new organism under Section 34 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 Page 35

Other relevant legislation

18. Information on other legislation relevant to the organism and its use throughout its life cycle. If the organism is also subject to other legislation (eg. an Import Health Standard under the Biosecurity Act 1993, or resource consent under the Resource Management Act 1991), details should be provided. [ Yes ] further information

Mist flower is a national surveillance plant pest in Regional Pest Management Strategies and is also included as a candidate for biological control in the Regional Pest Management Strategies of Northland Regional Council, Auckland Regional Council and Environment Waikato

Insects imported into containment are also bound by the Biosecurity Act 1993, currently overseen by MAF Quality Management, under which pathology and parasitoid screening is undertaken(see section 14).

Glossary

19. A glossary of scientific and technical terms used in the application. This may be appended to the application on a separate form if desired. [ Yes ] further information

Asteraceous: Belonging to the daisy family. Biological Control: The use of one living organism to control another, in this case, by introducing a new organism. Gall: A fleshy deformity induced on a plant by an insect to provide food for its young. Host-specific: Attacking only one, or very few host plants. Oviposition: The laying of eggs. Parasitoid: An insect that lays its eggs in or on its host. Hatching young kill the host. Pathogen: A disease-forming organism. Riparian: Areas adjacent to waterways, including stream banks.

20 Customhouse Quay, Cnr Waring Taylor & Customhouse Quay PO Box 131, Wellington Phone: 04-473 8426 Fax: 04-473 8433 Email: [email protected] Website: www.ermanz.govt.nz

ER-AF-NO1-4 3/99 Application for approval to import for release or release from FORM 1 containment any new organism under Section 34 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 Page 36

Other relevant information

20. Provide here any other information required by the Act or regulations not included under any other section of this form. [ Yes ] further information [ No ] commercially sensitive information

References Relevant portions of the references in bold are attached as Appendix 4.

Barreto, RW; Evans, HC. 1988. of a fungus introduced into Hawai’i for biological control of Ageratina riparia (Eupatorieae; Compositae), with observations on related weed pathogens. Transactions of the British Mycological Society 91:81-87. Best, HA; Bellingham, PJ. 1991. A detailed habitat study of North Island Kokako in Puketi Forest, Northland. Department of Conservation Science and Research Internal Report no. 103. p. 328. Charles, JG; Allen, D. 1993. Procedures for the Importation and Quarantine of live Insects, Other Arthropods, or Pathogens into the HortResearch Invertebrate Quarantine Facility, HortResearch, Mt Albert Research Centre, Auckland. Craw, J. 1994. Ageratina at Waipoua and Taranga/Marotene Islands. Conservation Advisory Science Notes No. 86. Erasmus, DJ; Bennett, PH; van Staden, J. 1992. The effect of galls induced by the gall fly Procecidochares utilis on vegetative growth and reproductive potential of crofton weed, Ageratina adnophora. Annals of Applied Biology 120: 173—181. Evenhuis, NL. 1989. Catalog of the Diptera of the Australasian and Oceanian Regions. Bishop Museum Special Publication 86. Ferrar, P. 1987. A guide to the breeding habits and immature stages of Diptera Cyclorrahapha (part 1 - text). Entomonograph volume 8. EJ Brill/Scandinavian Science Press,Leiden and Copenhagen. (Page 388). Hapai, MN. 1977. The biology and ecology of the Hamakua pamakani gall fly, Procecidochares alani (Steyskal). Unpublished MSc thesis, University of Hawai’i, Honolulu. Holm, LG; Pancho, JV; Herberger, JP; Plucknett, DL 1979. A Geographic Atlas of World Weeds. John Wiley & Son, New York. 373 p. Hoy, JM. 1960. Establishment of Procecidochares utilis Stone (Diptera:Trypetidae) on Eupatorium adenophorum Spreng. In New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Science 3: 356-365 Hill, RL. 1989. Ageratina adenophora (Sprengel) R.King & H. Robinson, Mexican devil weed (Asteraceae). Pp 317–320 in Cameron, PJ, Hill RL, Bain J, Thomas WP (eds), A review of biological control of insect pests and weeds in New Zealand 1874 to 1987. Technical communication, CAB International Institute of Biological Control 10, CAB International, Wallingford, UK. Julien, MH; Griffiths MW. 1998. Biological control of weeds. A world catalogue of agents and their target weeds, 4th edition. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. Morin, L., Hill, RL. 1996. Feasibility of establishing biological control of mist flower (Ageratina riparia) in New Zealand. Ladncare Research Contract report, 55 p. Morin, L; Hill, RL; Matayoshi, S. 1997. Hawai’i’s successful biological control strategy for mist flower (Ageratina riparia) - can it be transferred to New Zealand? Biocontrol News and Information 18: 77-88.

20 Customhouse Quay, Cnr Waring Taylor & Customhouse Quay PO Box 131, Wellington Phone: 04-473 8426 Fax: 04-473 8433 Email: [email protected] Website: www.ermanz.govt.nz

ER-AF-NO1-4 3/99 Application for approval to import for release or release from FORM 1 containment any new organism under Section 34 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 Page 37

Nakao, HK; Hin Au, S. 1974. Oviposition tests with Procecidochares n. sp. (family Tephritidae) a biological control candidate for Ageratina (Eupatorium) riparia (Regel) K & R Honolulu, USA; State Department of Agriculture, unpublished report. 3p. Owen, SJ. 1997. Ecological weeds on conservation land in New Zealand: a database. January1997 - working draft. Department of Conservation. Owen, SJ. 1998. Department of Conservation strategic plan for managing invasive weeds. Department of Conservation, Wellington. 86p. Owen, SJ. 1998. Invasive Weeds Threats. Weed-led and Site-led programmes identified by the Department of Conservation, June 1998. Department of Conservation. 66p. Parsons, WT; Cuthbertson, EG. 1992. Noxious Weeds of Australia. Inkata Press, Melbourne. Reid VA. 1998. The impact of weeds on threatened plants. Department of Conservation, Science and Research Internal Report 164. 67p. Rowe, L. 1996. Comment on water yield and other issues arising from the proposed establishment of a pine forest… Unpublished Landcare Research Contract Report LC9596/70. Small, A..; Maria, L.; Bevers, C.; Cross F. 1997. Options for managing mistflower (Ageratina riparia) in New Zealand. Student project, Diploma of Wildlife Management, University of Otago. Steyskal, GC. 1974. A new species of Procecidochares (Diptera:Tephritidae) causing galls of stems of Hamakua pamakani (Ageratina riparia:Asteraceae) in Hawai’i. U.S. Department of Agriculture Cooperative Economic Institute Report 24, 639-641. van Staden, J.; Bennett, PH. 1991. Effect of galling on assimilate partitioning in Croftom Weed (Ageratina adenophora). S.- Afr. Tydskr. Plantk. 57 (2): 128—130. Webb, CJ; Sykes, WR; Garnock-Jones, P. 1988. Flora of New Zealand volume 4. Botany Division DSIR. Wild, CH. 1985. Host specificity report on Procecidochares alani Steyskal (Diptera:Tephritidae), an agent for the biocontrol of mist flower (Ageratina riparia (Regel) King and Robinson: Asteraceae) in Australia. Unpublished report. The Alan Fletcher Research Station, Department of Lands, Brisbane. Wild, CH. 1986. Host specificity report on Procecidochares alani Steyskal (Diptera: Tephritidae),an agent for the biological control of mist flower (Ageratina riparia (Regel) King & Robinson: Asteraceae) in Australia - supplement. Brisbane, Australia; The Alan Fletcher Research Station, Department of Lands, Brisbane. Winks, C.J.; Fowler, S.V. 1999. Testing the host-specificity of mist flower gall fly (Procecidochares alani) in New Zealand. Unpublished Landcare Research Contract Report LC9899/82.

20 Customhouse Quay, Cnr Waring Taylor & Customhouse Quay PO Box 131, Wellington Phone: 04-473 8426 Fax: 04-473 8433 Email: [email protected] Website: www.ermanz.govt.nz

ER-AF-NO1-4 3/99 Application for approval to import for release or release from FORM 1 containment any new organism under Section 34 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 Page 38

Summary of Application Contents (Please check the application is complete and identify attachments)

[Yes] Fees enclosed [Yes] Assessment of effects included [No] Confidential information supplied [Yes] Signed and dated

[Yes] Appendices attached and cross-referenced (list below) Appendix 1 History of biological control of mist flower in Hawai’i and Australia Appendix 2 The environmental and economic effects of mist flower in New Zealand Appendix 3 Host-range determination Appendix 4 Selected references Appendix 5 Synopsis of Consultation Appendix 6 Photographs

Signature of applicant or person authorised on behalf of applicant Date:

20 Customhouse Quay, Cnr Waring Taylor & Customhouse Quay PO Box 131, Wellington Phone: 04-473 8426 Fax: 04-473 8433 Email: [email protected] Website: www.ermanz.govt.nz