Decision October 2018 Date 29 October 2018 Application code APP203313 Application type To import for release and/or release from containment any new organism under section 34 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 Applicant Horizons Regional Council Date application received 4 July 2018 Date of Hearing 9 October 2018 Date of Consideration 9 October 2018 Considered by A decision-making committee of the Environmental Protection Authority (the Committee)1: Dr Kerry Laing (Chair) Dr Ngaire Phillips Dr Derek Belton Purpose of the application To release a leaf-galling mite, Aceria vitalbae, as a biological control agent for old man’s beard (Clematis vitalba) The new organisms approved Aceria vitalbae Canestrini 1892 1 The Committee referred to in this decision is the subcommittee that has made the decision on the application under delegated authority in accordance with section 18A of the Act. Summary of decision 1. Application APP203313 to import for release the leaf-galling mite, Aceria vitalbae, was lodged under section 34 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act 1996 (the Act). The aim of the application is to enable the release of the mite as a biocontrol agent for the plant old man’s beard, Clematis vitalba. 2. The application was considered in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act and of the HSNO (Methodology) Order 1998 (the Methodology). 3. The Committee has approved the application in accordance with section 38 of the Act. Application process Application receipt 4. The application was formally received for processing on 4 July 2018. Purpose of the application 5. The applicant, Horizons Regional Council, applied to the Environmental Protection Authority to import for release the leaf-galling mite, Aceria vitalbae as a biological control agent for the plant old man’s beard (Clematis vitalba). Public notification 6. Section 53(1)(ab) of the Act requires that an application under section 38 of the Act must be publicly notified by the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) if the application has not been approved under section 35. 7. The application was publicly notified by placing a notice on the EPA website on 18 July 2018. 8. In accordance with section 53(4) of the Act, letters or emails were sent notifying the Minister for the Environment, the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), the Department of Conservation (DOC), and other government departments, crown entities, and local authorities who have expressed an interest in being notified about applications for non-genetically modified new organisms. Māori organisations, non-government organisations and stakeholders who have expressed an interest in being notified about applications for non-genetically modified new organisms were also directly notified. All these parties had an opportunity to comment on the application in accordance with section 58(1)(c) of the Act and clause 5 of the Methodology. 9. Section 59(1)(c) of the Act requires an application to be open for the receipt of submissions for 30 working days from the date of public notification. The submission period closed on 29 August 2018. Submissions from members of the public 10. The EPA received seven submissions during the public notification period. 11. Five submitters supported the application. Two submitters opposed the application. Comments from MPI and DOC 12. In accordance with section 58(1)(c) of the Act, the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) and the Department of Conservation (DOC) were advised of, and provided with the opportunity to comment on, the application. 13. MPI did not make any comment or submission on the application. 2 14. DOC supported the application to release Aceria vitalbae to complement existing management methods. DOC noted that old man’s beard is a serious environmental pest for which there are limited control options especially where it is widespread. DOC acknowledged that there are some risks with the release of Aceria vitalbae from short term impacts discovered when testing the mite with native Clematis species. These impacts were relatively minor with limited mite reproduction on some native Clematis species. DOC stated a preference for greater testing on all native Clematis species to ascertain if Aceria vitalbae has high host specificity. DOC concluded that given the information available, they believed that the potential benefits outweigh possible impacts. 15. The Committee is satisfied that the submission from DOC has been considered in making this decision. Reports providing advice to the Committee 16. The EPA Staff Assessment Report was provided under section 58(1)(a) of the Act. It was published on the EPA website and the applicant and submitters were informed of its availability on 25 September 2018. 17. Ngā Kaihautū Tikanga Taiao (NKTT) elected not to prepare a report on the application. Hearing 18. Section 60(c) of the Act requires that a hearing be held if a person who has made a submission stated in that submission that he or she wishes to be heard. Two submitters indicated they wished to be heard. 19. Section 59(1)(d) of the Act requires that the hearing commence not more than 30 working days after the closing date for submissions. The hearing was held on 9 October 2018 at the Willeston Conference Centre, 15 Willeston Street, Wellington. 20. Mr Gerry Te Kapa Coates (Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu) and Dr Cliff Mason appeared at the hearing to speak to their individual submissions. 21. The applicant was represented by Mr Craig Davey (Horizons Regional Council), Mr Richard Hill, Mr Lindsay Smith and Dr Simon Fowler from Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research. Information available for the consideration 22. The information available for the consideration comprised: the application the EPA Staff Assessment Report submissions comments received from DOC information obtained during the hearing. 23. The Committee considered that it had sufficient information to assess the application, and waived any further legislative information requirements. 3 Matters for consideration 24. The Committee considered the application in accordance with section 38 of the Act, taking into account the matters specified in sections 36 and 37, relevant matters in Part 2 of the Act, and the Methodology. 25. Each point is addressed in the following sections of this decision. 26. Specific points raised by submitters (either in their submission or during the hearing) are addressed where appropriate throughout this decision. Summary of appearances and information discussed at the hearing Presentations from the applicant party at the hearing Craig Davey, Horizons Regional Council 27. Craig Davey stated that old man’s beard as a pest is not at its infancy but also not at its maximum extent with the distribution continuing to expand across New Zealand. The current management and mitigation strategies are ineffective and the proposal to introduce the gall-forming mite, Aceria vitalbae is one method New Zealand needs to suppress and bring back into balance a plant within an ecosystem rather than a plant that transforms the ecosystem. 28. Mr Davey elaborated on the historical background for the spread of old man’s beard within native landscapes of the central North Island. Native plant species around Taihape such as Sophora godleyi, Olearia gardneri and Clematis paniculata are heavily impacted by old man’s beard. Mr Davey stated that there are reasons to be seriously concerned for some native plants, especially in the case of the divaricating shrub, Olearia gardneri, which, according to a 2001 study, had only 159 individual plants left in the wild. 29. Mr Davey next discussed the transformation of the local landscape as old man’s beard has dispersed by wind down the Rangitikei River and subsequently established on the cliffs. This establishment has led to this invasive species climbing the cliff face, cloaking vegetation and ultimately killing other plant species. This adverse environmental impact has had a direct negative impact on the local economy, in particular, tourism. Tourists are unable to enjoy the native vegetation and instead observe old man’s beard smother and transform the environment. 30. Mr Davey made reference to a 2000 scientific paper by New Zealand researchers (Ogle et al; Austral Ecology 25:539) who concluded that in areas where old man’s beard was present, the diversity of native plant species and the number of individual plants sharply declined as a direct result of the presence of old man’s beard. In such areas, very few individual trees remained and these individuals only persisted if they were mature, tall trees that old man’s beard could not climb and smother. In areas where old man’s beard was not present, the direct opposite results occurred with a greater diversity of native plant species and a greater distribution of individuals. 31. Mr Davey elaborated on the financial costs of attempting to manage and eradicate old man’s beard. The annual costs associated with old man’s beard are variable and difficult to quantify. Current estimates show that Horizons Regional Council spends upwards of $500,000, Tasman District Council spends $300,000 and other councils individually spend $50,000 to $100,000. He stated that the monetary figures are a combined representation of the costs associated with control programmes, time and effort of staff, supporting community groups, investing in biological control agents and eradication efforts. Mr Davey emphasised that these financial figures are not the true cost as many councils have given up on eradicating old man’s beard due to the difficulty 4 in locating the plant, the collateral damage involved when using broad-spectrum herbicides and minimal success in eradicating old man’s beard. 32. Helicopter spraying with the most suitable broadleaf weed specific herbicide, Versatill, costs $1,500 per hectare. Versatill also causes collateral adverse effects on native plant species as it can kill kahikatea and kowhai.