Proposed New Category Q-37

ISSUE #1 - COLLECTING CONSISTENT DATA

QUESTION 1 - SOURCES FOR DATA

Most all importations of plants already list this information in the
form of an invoice.

It is reasonable to require that all imported plants are accompanied by
a detailed invoice listing the scientific name of all plants contained
within a shipment. APHIS should require a detailed invoice and colleting
and log the information.

This itemization should not be required on the import permit itself, but
should accompany the shipment as a separate invoice. Many firms import a
wide array of species. Unlike an importer of roses, or cut flowers, it
would be nearly impossible to deal with a separate import permit for
each species.

QUESTION 2 -- ACCURATELY REFLECTS FOR DATA

To get past data you should anyone who has, or who has had a plant
import permit to give you the give you this information. We all know
what we are importing.

QUESTION 3 -- WHAT ARE THE TAXA OR TYPES OF PLANTS FOR WHICH OBTAINING
DATA WOULD BE ESP. DIFFICULT?

If all plant shipments have a detailed, itemized invoice for each
species it should be equally easy to obtain information. It will be more
difficult to ascertain what species in the future will be imported.
Permit holders could give a list of potentials.

ISSUE #2 - ADD A NEW CATEGORY PLANTS PROHIBITED PENDING A PEST RISK
ASSESSMENT

QUESTION 1 - HOW WILL THESE TWO NEW OPTIONS IMPACT THE INDUSTRY?

I understand that there is a need to keep out pests, but I do not feel
that this is the solution. The U.S. already has one of the most
stringent set of plant importation rules especially compared to the EU.

I believe that adding this new category will be another step in adding
to cost of doing business in the United States, and will greatly slow
the development of new horticulture products. The Nursery Industry in
the United States is the fastest growing segment in Agriculture. New
plant varieties are the most profitable segment of nursery business.
This will greatly inhibit the ability to develop new horticulture crop
varieties.

New species, and species currently not listed in Q-37, represent a vast
amount of genetics that can be used improve the horticultural varieties
available. These plants represent the potential to develop plants that
are resistant to disease, pests and drought. They represent the
potential to develop new plants that require lower chemical inputs such
as pesticides and nitrates.

As an example Cornus florida is a small native flowering tree greatly
prized by gardeners and landscapers. Dogwood anthracnose, caused by the
fungus *Discula destructiva*, has severely threatened this tree
especially in the South. Dr. Elwin Orton of Rutgers University used the
genetics of Cornus kousa an Asian species to develop plants that were
resistant to this disease. Cornus Kousa would mostly be a species on a
PDA list. Another example would be Abelia mosenensis. This species is a
relatively new introduction into the US. It is not listed in Q-37.
Thankfully it was imported before any such PDA list was developed
because it represents the first Abelia that is cold hardy enough to grow
in Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio, Maine, North and South Dakota etc. All
other species of Abelia are only hardy to zone 6 and higher.

Restricting the importation of plants, bogging the process down even
further will put the US nursery industry at a disadvantage. It will hurt
the fasted segment of US agriculture.

OPTION 1 -- All plants Banned until proven innocent approach will hurt
the viability of the US nursery industry! Do not adopt.

If we have to wait for a plant move from the PRA list to the allowed
list ) I fear that it will take years to import a plant. Importing new
plants is not any easy process. This will make the process nearly
impossible. Plant breeders, Nurseries, Garden Centers, Landscaping firms
and gardeners will all pay the price. I strongly recommend that you do
not consider this option. If this is adopted it will most definitely put
some nurseries out of business and hinder many others.

What does commonly imported mean? The big importers would be fine with
this but many smaller nurseries would be the losers.

How is a PDA to be done and how long will it take. I fear it could take
years, especially if not properly funded.

OPTION 2 -- Only plants for which the literature indicates a problem
will go in category 4 ...

This option is better than option 1, however I fear that it will
adversely affect the US Nursery Industry.

What constitutes a problem and what constitutes scientific literature?
This language is leaves much up to the imagination. If there is
overwhelming evidence that a plant harbors a pest, or it is an economic
weed that this is OK. I would further propose that you reevaluate the
plants currently listed as prohibited or with specific restriction. I
suspect that they are some that should no longer be on the list because
the threat no long exists.

We are already finding this kind of regulation problematic. As an
example Illinois has recently banned Rhamnus frangula. Yes the species
is a weedy species and it should not be in the trade, however, we have
two cultivars that have less than 12% germination compared to the
species which germinates at 98%. These two cultivars are banned -- just
because the literature says Rhamnus is invasive. There are many
cultivars that are sterile or near sterile that are being banned across
the US, and no one is looking at the cultivar level. Some states are
banning plants at the genera level and not considering the non-invasive
potential of species.

If there is ever a PRA -- it needs to look at cultivars and subspecies
separately. If a species is going to be put on the prohibited list, the
cultivars should be looked at individually and not just prohibited.
There should also be a protocol to get new cultivars off the prohibited
list.

Within the Invasive plant Issue we see another problem with literature
produced outside of our geographic area. For example, The plant Lantana
is an invasive plant in Hawaii. In Michigan and most of the US it is
either a tender perennial or an annual. It has been grown in the US for
years. While it is invasive in Hawaii and perhaps Florida, it presents
no problem in the other 48 states. Should a species like this be banned
from the US? If it were we would loose an excellent plant. This is not
an isolated scenario. *Ficus benjamina* the commonly grown Ficus Tree is
ubiquitous in India where it is native. Does this make it a problem in
the US. Banning it would be a problem -- because millions of dollars a
year are generated by the sales of this plan in the US.

QUESTION 2 - WHAT SHOULD CONSTITUTE A "SIGNIFICANT" AMOUNT OF TAXA ...

This would effetely put smaller growers a disadvantage. I would think
there is greater risk in plants that are being imported at a significant
level. Plants imported at less than a significant amount are typically
those that are imported to be grown and propagated before distribution
and can be evaluated for risk more easily. This could be done under the
two year quarantine that we now have in place. Plants imported at a
significant level, are often those plants that are quickly resold and
distributed over a wide area and could never be evaluated for risk.

Also breeders are most likely the small quantity importers and this
would great limit the gene pool available to improve nursery stock.

Also -- if you restrict all small quantity importation you are going to
create black market for illegally imported plants. Those of use who play
by the rules are already hurt by people who send plant via the post or
Fedex.

Also- restricting small quantity will effectively hurt those of us who
are seeking plant patents on newly developed plants from outside the
U.S. Plant Patents have a bar on plants that have been sold for more
than a year any where in the world. If you ban small quantities or if
you put them in a PRA program for years, companies like ours will loose
the potential to patent any new overseas developments. These varieties
will also -- come in through the black market and again bar any plant
protection and make the law ineffective.

QUESTION 3 -- SOURCES OF INFORMATION AND WHAT MINIMUM CRITERIA SHOULD BE
USED...

Growers tend to know more about the plants in question that any other
group. They've seen the plants, they know the plants and they deal with
any potential problems. Grower input is essential.

Minimum Criteria should include irrefutable, scientific evidence that
the plant is a known host for an insect or disease that is not in the
U.S.

In the case of invasiveness, there should be scientific proof that each
specific species, subspecies, variety and cultivar is a risk for a
majority of the U.S. There are many sterile or near sterile cultivars
and there are many tame cultivars that behave differently than the
species. Cultivars should be evaluated for risk separately and
individually.

Nearly every plant is invasive somewhere. Care must be take not to use
this as the main criteria for determining invasiveness. Here in
Michigan, Trillium is invasive in woodlands. Would that make it invasive
in Europe. It's not been the case. Invasiveness is a regional issue and
much depends upon climate. Just because a plant is a weed in Florida or
a similar topical climate should not prohibit a plant.

QUESTION 4 IMPORTING FROM DIFFERENT REGIONS BE EXCLUDED ...?

Only if there is evidence that that region has a documented problem.

ISSUE #4 - PROGAMS TO REDUCE RISK ...

QUESTION 1 - IS IT FEASABLE ....

Clean stock -- Best Management practices programs are feasible for
plants that are herbaceous, quick to root and where a small amount of
stock plants can be grown in a concentrated area, and where unrooted
cuttings are sold to U.S. growers. Clean stock programs are a reality in
the floriculture industry and they do work. They are expensive to
maintain but there is value to the grower because diseases, particularly
viruses can travel quickly and the effects are pronounced in this soft
greenhouse material. The benefit here is that many soft cuttings i.e.
geraniums etc are being produced cheap overseas as unrooted cuttings.
Clean stock programs give US growers the assurance that the cutting they
stick are clean and that APHIS is not going to come in a destroy his/her
whole crop, as was the case with Raulstonia.

We have investigated the potential for maintaining a clean stock program
on site for woody plants. We thought there might some marketing value in
it, but it is not feasible. The plants are too large to be in screen
houses. Generally this is not going to be big an issue in woody plants.
The importation of large numbers of production cuttings from Costa Rica
does not work. The plants do not finish fast enough to sell on to
retailers -- like is commonly done with soft, fast finishing greenhouse
crops.

QUESTION 2 -- ... PROBLEMATIC ASPECTS ...

For woody plants, screen houses are not feasible.

For minor specialty crops it is not economical.

It works for large volume floriculture crops produced in countries
sophisticated enough to deal with the protocols.

QUESTION 3 -- HOW WOULD A CLEAN STOCK PROBRAM BE DIESIGNED ..

I don't know. It would only work with high volume, high value crop that
finish quickly.

QUESTION 4 -

Contact the Ohio Florist Association. They would know best.

QUESTIONS 1-5 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

Contact the Ohio Florist Association. They would know best. This is a
floriculture question.

ISSUE \# 5 REORGANIZATION

QUESTION 1 -- COMBINE SUB-PARTS ...

I am not sure - the distribution systems are so unique to each. I fear
that nursery stock not be mixed up with issues related to Coffee beans
or Cotton. The nursery industry is a fast growing segment of agriculture
but it is made up a many small growers. We are not P&G, Dole or Monsanto
and we do not have the resources to deal on their level. Tree, shrub and
perennial growers (breeders) are significantly smaller than Floriculture
greenhouse operations.

QUESTION 2 -- TIMING OF INTEGRATION ..

Don't know.

ISSUE \# 6 REEVALUATING TAXA CURRENLTY BANNED ..

QUESTION 1 - WHICH TAXA FIRST

-   Berberis thunbergii is has been shown to be resistant to black stem
    wheat rust. Yet it illegal to be imported unless the cultivar is on
    the federal list and only into a non wheat rust state. Because it
    has been shown to be a resistant species -- it should be allowed
    into the US. If not -- then give us the opportunity to import it and
    then send it to the Wheat Rust Lab to have it cleared. The whole
    wheat rust resistant list procedure moves like a flat rock. Even
    plants that we develop and send off for testing take over two --
    three years to be added to the list of approved -- that's even after
    being test resistant by the USDA.

> This is the kind of think that scares me about a PRA program. The
> Government moves SLOW.

QUESTION 2 - PLANT SIZE

No comments

FINAL COMMENTS

I have to wonder if these cost benefit of theses proposals are worth it.
The system we have in place is working fairly well. Would a clean list
prevent Raulstonia. I doubt it. Would it have kept Emerald Ash borer or
Asian Longhorn beetle out. No -- because these come in from other
avenues. If the Nursery industry is to pay the price of such changes we
will want to know that pallets and dunage from shipments of auto parts
from China are being sanitized, and that bilge water from
transcontinental freighters are being sterilized. We feel we are often
regulated when other more serious problems are ignored in the fight
against exotic pests.

Also - For any new species that is not on this list, that presents a
legitimate risk based on scientific data, I would propose not banning
it. Perhaps putting them in category 2 so that they are observed for two
growing seasons. If after a 6 year period no problems are discovered
that they can move to Category 1.