Proceedings of the Invitational Workshop on USDA Activities in Biological Control : Riverdale, Maryland, and Washington, D.C., October 8-11, 1996

134 Pages·1997·12.9 MB·English

by  Invitational Workshop on USDA Activities in Biological Control (1996 : Riverdale, Prince George's County, Md. and Washington, D.C.)

Historic, Archive Document
Do not assume content reflects current
scientific knowledge, policies, or practices.

. aSB975
tes Proceedings of the
: Invitational Workshop
S
=e on USDA Activities in
ane Biological Control
Service
June 1997
Riverdale, Maryland, and
Washington, D.C.
United States
Department of
Agriculture
A o
—Na—t—io—n—al— —A—gr—i—cu—l—tu ral Library
On the cover —
Centaurea solstitialis L. Yellow starthistle.
A, Habit—X 0.5;
B, involucre—X 1.5;
C, flower— X 3;
D, achenes—X 6.
Proceedings of the
United States
Department of
Agriculture
Invitational Workshop
Agricultural
Research on USDA Activities in
Service
1997—01 Biological Control
June 1997
Riverdale, Maryland, and
Washington, D.C.
October 8 — 11, 1996
R.I. Carruthers and
J.K. Petroff, Editors
In cooperation with USDA/Agricultural Research Service,
USDA/Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service,
USDA/Cooperative State Research, Education and
Extension Service, USDA/Forest Service, and U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
Carruthers, R.I. and J.K. Petroff, eds. 1997. Pro- Acknowledgments
ceedings of the Invitational Workshop on USDA
Activities in Biological Control—Riverdale, Mary-
land, and Washington, D.C., October 8-11, 1996. Workshop and Steering Committee Co-Chairs: Dr.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1997-01, 128 pp. Raymond I. Carruthers, USDA/ Agricultural Re-
search Service, and Dr. Sally L.M cCammon,
This report is reproduced essentially as supplied by
USDA/Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
the authors. It received minimal publications editing
The Steering Committee members were: Ernest S.
and design. The authors’ views are their own and do
Delfosse, USDA—APHIS-NBCI; Allan Bullard,
not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Department
USDA/Forest Service; Robert Bridges, USDA/
of Agriculture.
Forest Service; and Sally Rockey, USDA/Coopera-
tive State Research, Education and Extension
Mention of trade names, commercial products, or
Service. Special assistance was provided to the
companies in this publication is solely for the
Committee by Stan Barras, USDA/Forest Service.
purpose of providing specific information and does
not imply recommendation or endorsement by the
The White Paper providing background summaries
U.S. Department of Agriculture over others not
and information for the workshop was prepared by
mentioned.
the Steering Committee co-chairs, as well as: E.
Delfosse, USDA—APHIS—NBCTI; H. Browning,
This publication reports research involving pesti-
USDA-CSREES; A. Bullard, USDA—Forest Ser-
cides. It does not contain recommendations for their
vice; D. Herron, USDA—APHIS; S. Rockey,
use nor does it imply that uses discussed here have
USDA-CSREES; and L. Wendel, USDA-—APHIS.
been registered. All uses of pesticides must be
registered by appropriate State or Federal agencies
' Special thanks for making workshop arrangements
or both before they can be recommended.
and for providing office assistance during the
workshop goes to the staff of the USDA—APHIS
While supplies last, single copies of this publication
National Biological Control Institute: E.S. Delfosse,
may be obtained at no cost from Raymond
Director; Daphne Miller, Administrative Support;
Carruthers, NPL, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
and Joe Boone, Computer Specialist. And special
Agricultural Research Service, Biological Control,
thanks to both Jane Berkow (USDA-—APHIS) who
BARC-West, Bldg. 005, Room 220, Beltsville, MD
worked long and tedious hours as the group facilita-
20705:
tor during the meeting, and to Janet Petroff, who not
Copies of this publication may be purchased from only took detailed notes throughout the workshop,
but continued her efforts through the completion of
the National Technical Information Service, 5285
Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161; (703) these Proceedings.
487-4650.
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
prohibits discrimination in its programs on the basis of
race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability,
political beliefs, and marital or familial status. (Not all
prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with
disabilities who require alternative means for
communication of program information (Braille, large
print, audiotape, etc.) should contact the USDA's
TARGET Center at [phone] (voice and TDD).
To file a complaint, write the Secretary of Agriculture,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC
20250, or call 1-800-245-6340 (voice) or (202) 720-
1127 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity employer.
June 1997
Contents
SE AUS) TINO oc Spenurs WAM Seok De Nee gn oe
EID SSI Re TAOATAR TINS 9 hots Cals Bee ae LS Be
VA KOOSULETe SETIETORT ES 3 kg Lym tieehthcowty de OURS ak
Invitational Workshop on USDA Activities in Biological Control
aM algS oe OTOP PANGS 2 eo ae ate oS Sota den gee a ee
Welcome, Raymond Carruthers and Sally McCammon ...............00000 0e0e e e
Sater One auCipalltS at allV al WON) ee tens oe ec lyn ele Keble eee nt
Session |: Biological Control Coordination in USDA
APHIS Roles, Responsibilities and Primary Needs in Biological Control,
Ol Br eater ed ee kd, Leth Atcds, Qieksish hieedees yh +P avee «oh
Biological Control Coordination: One State’s Perspective, Cindie Fugere .......
Biological Control Coordination: A State’s Perspective, Tim Butler ............
Biological Control: A Forest Service Perspective on Roles, Responsibilities
AO EialyINGCOSs ANalliDUNald ren 2.5. eee pe nae ee eke es
Perspectives of the USDA-ARS National Program Staff, Judy St. John .......
Perspectives of USDA-CSREES, Sally Rockey ................000000000 s
Roles, Responsibilities, and Needs for Biological Control Coordination in
the USDA: A Land Grant University Perspective, DanielL. Mahr ...........
BOWST e oo ae SA RR Gs oanee nea Se ere
EWP MOTE: sen cette tlic py eae aR
Session Il: Biological Control Regulation in USDA
Strategic Regulations and the Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking goahVuIMCGAMinOnNs miata... + Mees Me UGS Oe as 2S
EPA Regulatory Responsibility for Biological Control, Bill Schneider ..........
Consolidated Statutes: Provisions Concerning Biological
COMOnOnmianiSiisuSalVaVCCaNnunon .o2 coe. ck tra whe wie clyde ek ge nee es
Overview of NEPA Requirements, Carl Bausch and Nancy Sweeney .........
USDA-APHIS-PPQ Plant Pest Regulations, Robert V. Flanders .............
Voluntary Certification; Andrew Rohrer)... 2... 05 freee Sec we ee ne
DISCUSSIONS Haematol ttt eR Che oy. oR eet A GE AE al a ops
Customer-Identified Needs for Biological Control Regulation:
‘The. NBCI-Facilitated -strawman, E.S. Delfossey cie=. aire: .- 2.04. .n6 oe
Balancing Risks and Regulation, R. James Cook .................2-5045-
BUTTONS CUS SUS am meee cee ee race etn eras a yeB eli lalan e aie ale va aad on
SPRITESB i os oldw e peg ecairw eck OR echo era ae nr
Session Ill: Biological Control Accountability in USDA
DISCUSSIONSH Ee ay earner oe eee oo. ee PRA ee ee
SVNODSIs meee ee ee th eee yyy... sks, = A eeere tials sls 4 nish oe <2
Session IV: Development of a Draft Plan for Coordination, Regulation,
and Accountability of Biological Control in USDA
ISCUSSIGI EMT ENT ce ke eee ae eee miilne Soe ce ee ged
SUIMMAUVROMAC VAO IN Satie AMI a sus hd Me teestE Beare a plete es cote woe
Session V: Presentation of Workshop Results
OULIN GOLAN VOIKSHOD:FRESUITS miata ce. a eo 3 eee ee dade >l et ee Pe Shed
SUM ary DISCUSSO M atari etnies Noe aes < pba qecctihad realO le wpeya) ga) ie Wiens
Appendices
1. White Paper. Biological Control inthe USDA ....................+5.-.
Painvited Workshop ranicipantS ne... 05. .!- 4. ste are ee ee es
SAV OLKSHODIAC CNC aAminae ree CISL DRE 505 oc arc Ss hectebaleigen @ eral meee. Al lek tom
4. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ................e-ee- e-ee-e :
5. Breakout-Groups’ Participants and Flipchart Notes ...................--
iil
in
} v
14 : i}
' i
ry 7
\ AS i Ain
, ‘ Site Iolo”, Cas
: : af eS y a :
; “ ; rsa ‘@ Jett cee mye , ais
> ; ; may, ¢{™® IAN 2
. a ei ie spceeduaetah eines rtta ? HiwE AEna rene.a a 1 ae ¢ ar aa
® fy dee pesleeris at, ye TRTH Tis wl? we Nye
i ‘ ae . 21a :
oR | A |o e i) av? ‘te - 4 hh. het
q ate, OVI ere) eres? & tpi ‘ire edhe pide .
ONeNiaioan 2t9 no wih oho Sen? oO os 5 evel of
; im a, woe Whe ude
: ; (tas oe SOHC CUAG enh ER AL ie } > sit -
sy ‘ ; ‘vena, wt leo ge GIADA ee. ys :
pit Ge. TeTertay?) Mie Tao va? oto ck) beet et es ey 7 ‘wy
m4 he Stier) evil Pano yredieys ay (fe Ces aie .)
sj 406 7 -¢@4 j Nai? ; ; 1 <fithm ra Sed
; : he nae
he ip ray ae
\ ' o. : ti i AVS af i Pathe yj Aint? ee publ
oo earn si te is) aan ony | Or br wegen! 6?
nia ot. Deweepeh RAe yar Spey om
of Seamer we net See ee tht obs dea
| ' ont ot Otley ne 1 MOR, = ee
ra fh oy line ; : Pe be , ae, a hghM piies T
i] pad. ery rn coal eWri ie "oy ay a?
: Fer V yedelt i5 glivrss, piglet, eh |
sa Hote « tut sa ah,© hatte Lipide. ood ey
all
a) oi re > 7 wa t cor Laos ow rm aia Chie LU
q iz weg Sa miahage’ iriure chase trai te. neneleat ;
x | eeuNin® 2.4 °c ntremts” betaliling4toeafyf
om a oy og somal. 5 nenAR bre ale ovina
- aah . 7 : ennenmelie bine :
* : a | ae rug Dh ee Rai) 74) ‘ phigh
ce) Sap-po=' Gp jae Se ee
os (Seow 49q al” gf We -» ’ tae
7 ‘tir t hiadei a etrmeiel oCme a)( - 2 :e Le e7 a a 5 O>s sMaagte e UaeBD Y 6o 8 os tueunes nanny
he e apis + see | ae AO nt tor stirs etme| tw ; i‘ ' ir
ip» a
mt ; 7 ; (ian aces omen, 3
pnt vee eu in epi. wt my a Raden i ae
” a(R ect: Te ( }
| Ti-c s VABNi ays ao aa ty
LE pee
hae Sai
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
At the request of Deputy Secretary of Agriculture Workshop participants agreed that USDA needs to
Richard Rominger, a USDA inter-agency increase coordination of its biological control
workshop was held on October 8-11, 1996, to activities, significantly improve internal regulatory
provide guidance to the Department on processes, and establish a documentable process of
coordination, regulation and accountability for the Agency accountability with respect to biological
program area of biological control. Approximately control research and action programs. A systematic
80 individuals from four USDA Agencies (Animal approach for the selection, investigation,
and Plant Health Inspection Service [APHIS], regulation, and implementation of biological
Agricultural Research Service [ARS], Cooperative control programs was seen as necessary for
State Research, Education & Extension Service coordination. Identified areas for coordination in
[CSREES], and Forest Service), and certain the Department included those for priority-setting
representatives and partners from State in both research and action programs, field
Departments of Agriculture and Land Grant implementation and assessment, regulation and
Universities participated in the workshop and were implementing procedures, technology transfer, and
responsible for developing the information in the funding for grants and fund solicitation. Linkage
attached report. across Federal Departments also needs increased
coordination.
The workshop was held to meet the following
objectives: 1) To identify roles and responsibilities The group recommended that a Departmental-level
of USDA in the research, development, regulation, “Center” be established to aid in inter-agency
and implementation of biological control for the coordination of biological control activities and to
effective management of pests; 2) To recommend provide guidance and oversight on regulatory
a way to coordinate work within and among matters within USDA and between other
USDA agencies to facilitate the use of biological Departments and non-USDA Agencies. Such a
control for the effective management of pests; 3) Center would interface with the existing IPM
To make recommendations for a system that will Subcommittee, but needs to be operational and
increase accountability in USDA from regulations functional with dedicated staff positions appointed
and research through delivery of biological control primarily from existing Agency positions. It was
programs; and 4) To consolidate key ideas from suggested that the Center be coordinated by a
the workshop into a form that can be used by Director who would answer to the Deputy
USDA to develop biological control with a Secretary’s Office as does the current IPM
minimum of economic and environmental risk. Coordinator. The Directorship could rotate among
key Agencies involved in biological control
The findings of this group substantiate findings programs. Additional Agency representatives, with
published by the Congressional Office of appropriate authority to affect internal Agency
Technology Assessment in late 1995 and the activities, could be appointed to an oversight board
National Academy of Sciences in early 1996; the that would also include influential customer
following recommendations strongly reiterate representatives. This board would provide policy,
statements made in those reports. program, and other guidance to the USDA through
the proposed Center. USDA supports both the
Consensus was reached by participants on all National Pesticide Impact Assessment and IR-4
recommendations. programs in a somewhat similar manner.
In the area of regulations, the group recommended Performance and Results Act-based customer
that USDA address the goals of protection, service plan and a model to better develop and
ensuring confidence in biological control deliver biological control efforts in a systematic
regulation, and facilitation of the navigation of manner across Agency lines. It was felt that a
Federal and State regulatory requirements, and customer-driven process should be used to set
reassess the processes that are currently used to goals, objectives, and specific program outcomes
regulate beneficial organisms such as biological which could be accounted for at both national and
control agents and pollinators. These organisms local levels. Such a process would help to allocate
are currently regulated under the Federal Plant Pest resources, assess completion of project
Act which many participants felt was not well- components, and provide feedback on projects
suited or appropriate for regulating beneficial from inception to completion through a Customer
organisms. The group felt that a regulatory system Advisory Board. Specifically, the group felt that
that focused on and dealt with the variety of the Customer Advisory Board would represent a
organisms used for biological control was needed. very positive step in achieving input and providing
Many of the workshop participants agreed that a customer accountability. The group strongly
new process needed to be designed as a advised USDA to incorporate such an approach
“Facilitative Regulatory System” that encapsulates into any Departmental-level coordinating program
the customer-defined issues summarized in the or Center that might be developed.
National Biological Control Institute-facilitated
“Strawman.” In the summary session of the workshop, the
participants outlined their needs to the USDA
Embodied in the “Strawman” document and other Administration, as well as their expectations, as
cited publications are the elements that the group follows:
felt new regulations must contain: 1) consistency - Ensure USDA commitment to follow through
between regulatory requirements and the actual risk with workshop recommendations;
to non-target organisms and the environment; 2) - Establish a USDA Biological Control Center
assessment of benefits associated with any action, and assign FTEs and funds to the Center to
not just potential risks; 3) processes and enable its operation;
assessments that are science-based and not - Provide authority (from each Agency and the
founded on ungrounded speculation; 4) processes Department) to the Center; and
that are streamlined and efficient; 5) processes that - Empower a multi-Agency team to develop
are predictable, consistent, and avoid ad hoc program specifics and implement the plan.
decision-making; and 6) “one-stop shopping” for
regulatory compliance to every degree possible Within 90 days of this final report the workshop
within USDA authority. At the very minimum a participants expect that the USDA will:
one-stop shopping information system needs to be - Develop a plan to form the operational and
developed to guide USDA Agencies and customers functional Biological Control Center at the
through complex regulatory processes including Departmental level;
the National Environmental Policy Act and the - Have Deputy Secretary and Agency
Endangered Species Act. The group also Administrators review and endorse the
recommended that enabling legislation be pursued recommendations of this group; and
either through a separate Biological Control Act, - Begin implementation and operation of all
the Research Title of the Farm Bill, or the APHIS possible components of this reinvention, and
Consolidated Statutes. The group strongly felt, support its continued operation.
however, that no matter which tack is taken, new
laws, regulations, and implementing procedures
must be enabling and must work to speed the
introduction and use of safe and effective
biological control agents.
To address accountability, the workshop
participants felt that obtainable measures needed to
be set and evaluated. These measures should
assure that planning, investigation, and
implementation of biological control programs
occur across agency lines. The group
recommended the use of a Government
Vi