Field release of the European 

leaf sheath mining midge,

Lasioptera donacis Coutin 

(Diptera: Cecidomyiidae), for 

biological control of giant reed,

Arundo donax L. (Poales: 

Poaceae) in the Contiguous

United States. 

Environmental Assessment,

December 2016

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Marketing and 

Regulatory 

Programs

Animal and 

Plant Health 

Inspection 

Service 
Field release of the European leaf 

sheath mining midge, Lasioptera 

donacis Coutin (Diptera:

Cecidomyiidae), for biological control 

of giant reed, Arundo donax L. 

(Poales: Poaceae) in the Contiguous 

United States.

Environmental Assessment, 

December 2016

Agency Contact:

Colin Stewart

Acting Director

Permitting and Compliance Coordination

Plant Protection and Quarantine

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

U.S. Department of Agriculture

4700 River Road

Riverdale, MD 20737
Non-Discrimination Policy 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, employees, and 

applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, gender identity, 

religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital status, familial or parental status, sexual 

orientation, or all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program, or protected 

genetic information in employment or in any program or activity conducted or funded by the Department. (Not 

all prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or employment activities.) 

To File an Employment Complaint 

If you wish to file an employment complaint, you must contact your agency's EEO Counselor (PDF) within 45 

days of the date of the alleged discriminatory act, event, or in the case of a personnel action. Additional 

information can be found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_file.html. 

To File a Program Complaint 

If you wish to file a Civil Rights program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program 

Discrimination Complaint Form (PDF), found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html, 

or at any USDA office, or call (866) 632-9992 to request the form. You may also write a letter containing all of 

the information requested in the form. Send your completed complaint form or letter to us by mail at U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, 

D.C. 20250-9410, by fax (202) 690-7442 or email at program.intake@usda.gov. 

Persons With Disabilities 

Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, or have speech disabilities and you wish to file either an EEO or 

program complaint please contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339 or (800) 845-

6136 (in Spanish). 

Persons with disabilities who wish to file a program complaint, please see information above on how to contact 

us by mail directly or by email. If you require alternative means of communication for program information 

(e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) please contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and 

TDD). 

Mention of companies or commercial productsin this report does not imply recommendation or endorsement by

USDA over others not mentioned. USDA neither guarantees nor warrants the standard of any product mentioned. 

Product names are mentioned to report factually on available data and to provide specific information.

This publication reports research involving pesticides. All uses of pesticides must be registered by appropriate

State and/or Federal agencies before they can be recommended.

CAUTION: Pesticides can be injurious to humans, domestic animals, desirable plants, and fish and other

wildlife—if they are not handled or applied properly. Use all pesticides selectively and carefully. Follow

recommended label practices for the use and disposal of pesticides and pesticide containers.
Table of Contents

I. Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action...........................1

II. Alternatives ............................................. .............................2

III. Affected Environment............................. .............................7

IV. Environmental Consequences............... ...........................14

V. Other Issues ........................................... ...........................23

VI. Agencies, Organizations, and Individuals Consulted.........23

VII. References ........................................... ...........................25

 Appendix 1 ............................................... ...........................29

 Appendix 2 ............................................... ...........................32

 Appendix 3 ............................................... ...........................35

Appendix 4 ............................................... ...........................38

Appendix 5 ............................................... ...........................40
1

I. Purpose and Need for the Proposed 

Action

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service (APHIS), Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ), 

Pests, Pathogens, and Biocontrol Permits (PPBP) is proposing to issue 

permits for release of the European leaf sheath mining midge, Lasioptera 

donacis Coutin (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae). The agent would be used by 

the permit applicant for the biological control of giant reed, Arundo donax

L. (Poales: Poaceae), in the contiguous United States. 

This environmental assessment1 (EA) has been prepared, consistent with 

USDA, APHIS' National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) 

implementing procedures (Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR), part 372). It examines the potential effects on the quality of the 

human environment that may be associated with the release of L. donacis

to control infestations of A. donax within the contiguous United States. 

This EA considers the potential effects of the proposed action and its 

alternatives, including no action.

APHIS has the authority to regulate biological control organisms under the 

Plant Protection Act of 2000 (Title IV of Pub. L. 106–224). Applicants 

who wish to study and release biological control organisms into the United 

States must receive PPQ Form 526 permits for such activities. The PPBP

received a permit application requesting environmental release of a leafsheath mining midge, L. donacis, from Europe, and the PPBP is proposing 

to issue permits for this action. Before permits are issued, the PPBP must 

analyze the potential impacts of the release of this agent into the 

contiguous United States.

The applicant’s purpose for releasing L. donacis is to reduce the severity 

of infestations of A. donax in the United States. It is an extremely invasive 

weed of riparian habitats (wetlands adjacent to rivers and streams) and 

irrigation canals of the Rio Grande River Basin and the Southwestern 

United States. Arundo donax is native to the Old World from the Iberian 

Peninsula of Europe to south Asia, including North Africa and the Arabian 

Peninsula. It has been cultivated in the Old World for thousands of years 

and has been widely introduced around the world as an ornamental and for 

its fiber uses. It was introduced into North America in the early 1500s by 

the Spanish for its fiber uses and quickly became naturalized. It is now 

found throughout the southern half of the United States from Maryland to 

 1 Regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 United States Code 

4321 et seq.) provide that an environmental assessment “shall include brief discussions of the need 

for the proposal, of alternatives as required by section 102(2)(E), of the environmental impacts of the 

proposed action and alternatives, and a listing of agencies and persons consulted.” 40 CFR § 1508.9. 
2

California; however, it is most invasive along muddy banks of creeks and 

rivers in the southwestern United States.

Arundo donax infestations in riparian habitats lead to loss of biodiversity, 

stream bank erosion, altered channel morphology, damage to bridges, 

increased costs for chemical and mechanical control along transportation 

corridors, and impediment of law enforcement activities on the 

international border. Additionally, this invasive weed competes for water 

resources in an arid region where these resources are critical to the 

environment, agriculture, and municipal users. Arundo donax is a severe 

threat to riparian areas where it displaces native plants and animals by 

forming massive stands that pose a wildfire threat (Frandsen and Jackson, 

1994). It may reduce stream navigability (Dudley, 2000). It consumes 

excessive amounts of water and competes for water resources in an arid 

region prone to perennial droughts. Under optimum conditions, it can 

attain growth rates of 0.7 meters (m) per week or 10 centimeters (cm) per 

day, putting it among the fastest growing plants (Perdue, 1958; Bell, 

1997). Under ideal growth conditions, A. donax can produce more than 20 

metric tons of above-ground dry mass per hectare (Perdue, 1958). 

Existing chemical and mechanical management options for A. donax are 

expensive, temporary, ineffective, and can have nontarget impacts. In 

addition, there is a need to release an agent that will work in concert with 

biological control agents previously released for biological control of A. 

donax. For these reasons, the applicant has a need to release L. donacis, a 

host-specific, biological control organism for the control of A. donax, into 

the environment.

II. Alternatives

This section will explain the two alternatives available to the PPBP—no 

action and issuance of permits for environmental release of L. donacis. 

Although the PPBP’s alternatives are limited to a decision on whether to 

issue permits for release of L. donacis, other methods available for control 

of A. donax are also described. These control methods are not decisions to 

be made by the PPBP, and their use is likely to continue whether or not 

permits are issued for environmental release of L. donacis, depending on 

the efficacy of L. donacis to control A. donax. These are methods 

presently being used to control A. donacis by public and private concerns.

A third alternative was considered, but will not be analyzed further. 

Under this third alternative, the PPBP would have issued permits for the 

field release of L. donacis; however, the permits would contain special 

provisions or requirements concerning release procedures or mitigating 

measures. No issues have been raised that would indicate special 

provisions or requirements are necessary.
3

A. No Action 

Under the no action alternative, the PPBP would not issue permits for the 

field release of L. donacis for the control of A. donax. The release of this 

biological control agent would not take place. The following methods are 

presently being used to control A. donax; these methods will continue 

under the “No Action” alternative and will likely continue even if permits

are issued for release of L. donacis, depending on the efficacy of the 

organism to control A. donax.

Arundo donax may be controlled using herbicides. Glyphosate is a broadspectrum herbicide that is commonly used on a variety of wetland and 

aquatic plants, such as water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), giant 

salvinia (Salvinia molesta), saltcedar (Tamarix spp.), and others, including 

A. donax. Glyphosate has proven to be effective against A. donax (Finn 

and Minnesang, 1990; USDA-FS, 1993). One of the reasons for its 

effectiveness is that glyphosate is a systemic herbicide and, when used at 

appropriate times, it is translocated to the roots, killing the entire plant. A 

number of techniques were developed for its use, including 1) use as a 

foliar spray, 2) cutting plant stems and spraying, or painting the herbicide 

on the surface of the cut, and 3) cutting stems, letting plants re-sprout, and 

treating the re-sprouts with herbicide. 

Additionally, an herbicide (Habitat®) with another active ingredient, 

imazapyr, has been developed and registered for use on A. donax. In 

general, Habitat® requires one to two applications and control may be 

achieved for several years. Removal of dead canes may be necessary if 

stem densities are great enough to inhibit recovery of native vegetation 

after treatment.

Mechanical methods of A. donax control include use of prescribed fire, 

heavy machinery (e.g. bulldozer, Hydro-axe), hand-cutting, chipper, etc.). 

Removal of dead canes may be necessary if there is a possibility that cut 

vegetation might create a flood hazard during high water events or if 

biomass density is great enough to inhibit recovery of native vegetation. 

Burning is a cost-effective way of removing biomass if it does not threaten 

native vegetation. Another, but more costly, means of removal is 

chipping. Equipment and labor are expensive relative to other forms of 

removal; however, the small dry chips that are produced pose little threat 

in terms of regeneration, and they do not form debris dams. Biomass 

removal by vehicle is expensive and, generally, not preferred due to its 

lack of cost-effectiveness. The use of heavy machinery, such as the 

Hydro-axe, is extremely expensive and slow, cutting only about 3 to 4 

acres per day (Bell, 1997).

1. Chemical 

Control

2. Mechanical 

Control
4

Two biological control agents, the stem-galling wasp, Tetramesa

romana Walker (Hymenoptera: Eurytomidae) and the rhizome feeding 

armored scale, Rhizaspidiotus donacis (Leonardi) (Homoptera: Diaspidae) 

have been released against A. donax in Texas, California, and in Mexico. 

When both T. romana and R. donacis are present, A. donax plants become 

severely stressed with extreme stunting and virtually no leaf production. 

These agents are beginning to have an impact on the invasive populations 

of A. donax, but additional host specific and damaging agents that target 

different parts of the plant are needed to manage this highly invasive 

weed. 

B. Issue Permits for Environmental Release of 

L. donacis

Under this alternative, the PPBP would issue permits for the field release 

of the leaf sheath mining midge, L. donacis, for the control of A. donax. 

These permits would contain no special provisions or requirements 

concerning release procedures or mitigating measures.

Biological Control Agent Information

Common name: Arundo leafminer

Scientific name: Lasioptera donacis Coutin

Synonyms: None

Order: Diptera

Family: Cecidomyiidae

Tribe: Lasiopterini

Genus: Lasioptera

Species: L. donacis Coutin

The genus Lasioptera belongs to the tribe Lasiopterini, the so-called 

“short-horned gall midges” because of their foreshortened antennae. 

Lasioptera is also the type-genus for the subtribe Lasiopterina (Gagné, 

1976) which is distinguished by characteristics of the female ovipositor.

The setae (hairs) on the dorsal area of the cerci are enlarged and curved, 

and cluster to form a comb or rasp. Voucher specimens have been 

deposited in the USDA, Agricultural Research Service (ARS), Systematic 

Entomology Laboratory, Beltsville, Maryland.

a. Native Range

Based on the results of extensive foreign exploration, L. donacis has a

western Mediterranean distribution including Portugal, Spain, France, 

1. Taxonomy 

3. Geographical 

Range of L. 

donacis

2. Description

of L. donacis

3. Biological

Control
5

Italy, Bulgaria, and Greece. In Spain and Greece (Crete) it occurs on both 

A. donax and Arundo plinii. 

b. Expected Attainable Range of L. donacis in North America

Distribution of L. donacis does not appear to be limited by high or low 

temperatures. It is the most cold-hardy of the A. donax specialists and is 

able to overwinter as a third instar larva in dry A. donax leaf sheaths and 

emerge after winter to infest spring re-growth. Lasioptera donacis

populations are highest in the high rainfall areas of the Mediterranean such 

as Rome, Italy. It is not known whether L. donacis will be able to establish 

throughout the range of A. donax in the United States, but it is likely to be 

a large part of this range. It appears likely that L. donacis could establish 

as far north as Zone 7a including most of the southern United States. (Fig. 

1, Table 1).

Fig. 1. Map of USDA Cold hardiness zones in North America (USDAARS, 2012).
6

T

a

b

l

e

1

.

U

S

D

A

H

y

p

e

n

a

o

p

u

Table 1. USDA Cold Hardiness Zones and their associated average 

minimum temperatures.

Adult L. donacis males are considerably smaller than females and males 

emerge several days earlier than the females. Mating occurs shortly after 

female emergence and usually occurs on the underside of the leaf. 

Females begin searching for the saprophytic fungus Arthrinium arundinis

shortly after mating. A saprophytic fungus is one that derives its 

nourishment from dead or decaying organic matter. Females have 

specialized structures on their egg-laying organ (ovipositor) for detection, 

acquisition, and storage of A. arundinis spores/conidia. Arundo donax leaf 

sheaths can have a mix of fungal species yet the female chooses A. 

arundinis for egg laying (oviposition). Females slowly drag their

ovipositor over the blister-like fruiting bodies of the fungus to acquire 

conidia. After successful acquisition, the conidia are mixed with the eggs 

at oviposition. Lasioptera donacis females seek pre-existing holes or 

wounds in the leaf-sheath for oviposition. According to Coutin and FaivreZone Fahrenheit (F) Celsius (C) Example Cities

4b -25 to -20 F -28.9 to -31.6 C Northwood, Iowa; Nebraska

5a -20 to -15 F -26.2 to -28.8 C Des Moines, Iowa; Illinois

5b -15 to -10 F -23.4 to -26.1 C Columbia, Missouri; Mansfield,

Pennsylvania

6a -10 to -5 F -20.6 to -23.3 C St. Louis, Missouri; Lebanon,

Pennsylvania

6b -5 to 0 F -17.8 to -20.5 C McMinnville, Tennessee; Branson,

Missouri

7a 0 to 5 F -15.0 to -17.7 C Birmingham, Alabama; South Boston,

Virginia

7b 5 to 10 F -12.3 to -14.9 C Little Rock, Arkansas; Atlanta, Georgia

8a 10 to 15 F -9.5 to -12.2 C Tifton, Georgia; Dallas, Texas

8b 15 to 20 F -6.7 to -9.4 C Gainesville, Florida; Charleston, South

Carolina

9a 20 to 25 F -3.9 to -6.6 C Houston, Texas; St. Augustine, Florida

9b 25 to 30 F -1.2 to -3.8 C Brownsville, Texas; Fort Pierce, Florida

10a 30 to 35 F 1.6 to -1.1 C Naples, Florida; Victorville, California

10b 35 to 40 F 4.4 to 1.7 C Miami, Florida; Coral Gables, Florida

11 above 40 F above 4.5 C Honolulu, Hawaii; Mazatlán, Mexico

3. Life History of 

L. donacis
7

Amiot (1981) these are typically the emergence holes from a leaf-mining 

agromyzid fly of the genus Cerodontha. These holes may also be created 

by splits in the leaf sheath as the stem grows or from feeding by other 

insects.

Lasioptera donacis has three larval instars that are spent entirely within 

the inner (mesophyll) layer of the stem leaf sheaths of A. donax. The 

larvae are usually colonial, feeding in clusters of about the same stage of

development, and presumably from the same clutch of eggs, but at times

in larger aggregations that can include two instars likely from successive 

ovipositions. The first instars are free-living for at least several days after 

hatch because it typically requires about a week after inoculation for the 

dark mass of fungal mycelia (threads that are the vegetative form of the 

fungus) to accumulate. Invariably the second and third instar larvae were 

found feeding on the mycelial mass. The third instar has a feeding and 

then a pre-pupal, non-feeding stage. At the end of the feeding stage the 

third instar larva spins a silken cocoon in which it will eventually pupate, 

still occupying the fungus filled channels of the inner leaf sheath. Just 

prior to pupation the larva cuts an escape hatch in the leaf wall from which 

the adult will eventually emerge. When the adult emerges it leaves the 

remains of the pupal shell protruding from the exit hole in the leaf.

III. Affected Environment

Arundo donax is a bamboo-like perennial that grows to 8 meters (m) tall.

It reproduces vegetatively from rhizomes and stem fragments. A rhizome 

is a plant stem that grows horizontally under or along the ground and often 

sends out roots and shoots. Intact rhizomes buried under about 1 to 3 m of 

silt can develop new shoots. Stem fragments disperse with water, mud, 

and human activities. Under optimal conditions, plants grow and spread 

rapidly during the warm season. Viable seed has not been observed in 

North America or in the native range (DiTomaso and Healy, 2003).

A. Taxonomy of the Target Weed

Common name: Carrizo cane, giant reed, carrizo gigante, bamboo reed, 

donax reed, elephant grass, reed cane, reed grass, Spanish reed, giant cane, 

Georgia cane, wild cane.

Scientific name: Arundo donax L.

Synonyms: Arundo glauca Bubani, Arundo latifolia Salisb., Arundo sativa 

Lam., Donax arundinaceus P. Beauv., Scolochloa arundinacea (P. Beav.) 

Mert. & Koch, Scolochloa donax (L.) Gaudin, Cynodon donax (L.) 

Raspail. A cultivated variety with variegated leaves is often called Arundo 
8

donax L. var. versicolor (P. Mill.) Stokes, synonym: Arundo versicolor P.

Mill.

Class: Liliopsida 

 Subclass: Commelinidae

 Order: Cyperales

 Family: Poaceae

 Genus: Arundo

 Species: donax L.

A. Areas Affected by A. donax

Arundo donax is native to Europe from the central Atlantic coast of 

Portugal, inland along the major rivers of the Iberian Peninsula, along the

Mediterranean coast from Spain to Greece, including the warmer parts of 

the Adriatic coast. Figure 2 shows the areas within the native range which 

are most suitable to A. donax ecoclimatically using the climate matching 

program CLIMEX. Note that large areas of North Africa are suitable if 

there is sufficient water. In North Africa along the Mediterranean, 

populations are discontinuous from the Western Sahara, Morocco, and 

Algeria to the Arabian Peninsula. Remote populations are known far 

inland into the Sahara in stable oases. Populations in China are not

considered to be native. In addition to A. donax L., other Arundo species 

are native to the Mediterranean including Arundo plinii Turra, Arundo 

collina Tenore and Arundo mediterranea (Danin et al., 2002; Danin, 2004;

Danin et al., 2006). The only other known Arundo spp. outside of the 

Mediterranean is Arundo formosana in Taiwan.

Arundo donax has a nearly worldwide distribution in tropical to warmtemperate regions. In the United States, it is invasive from northern 

California across the Southwestern and Southeastern United States to 

Maryland. It is widely distributed in Mexico, and Central and South 

America. The most severe infestations in the United States are in Arizona, 

California, and Texas, especially the Santa Ana River Basin and Rio 

Grande Basin.

1. Native and 

Introduced 

Range of A. 

donax
9

Figure 2. Native and predicted range of Arundo donax based on 

CLIMEX. The areas shaded in red are suitable for Arundo donax given 

adequate soil moisture (from Goolsby, 2014).

Arundo donax is well established in North America, although it continues 

to spread into new areas. Figure 3 shows the areas that are climatically

suitable based on CLIMEX parameters from Europe. While the predicted 

CLIMEX distribution broadly agrees with the actual distribution, A. donax

has naturalized further north. It has been documented in South Bend, 

Indiana, and Coeur’d’alene, Idaho.

2. Present and 

Potential 

Distribution in 

North America 
10

Figure 3. Predicted range of Arundo donax in North America based on 

CLIMEX. The areas shaded in red are suitable for Arundo donax given 

adequate soil moisture. Darker red indicates a higher ecoclimatic 

suitability rating, based on climate parameters from the native range in 

Europe (from Goolsby, 2014).

Some of the most severely infested areas are in the Rio Grande Basin and 

in the coastal rivers of southern California. A continuous stand of A.

donax occurs from just south of Laredo to Del Rio, Texas. The swath of 

A. donax is nearly 0.5 miles wide along this stretch of the Rio Grande 

River. Further upriver, near Big Bend National Park, stands of A. donax

are increasing in size and density. Heavy rains during the summer of 2007 

stimulated new growth, and flood waters distributed propagules

downstream. Aerial surveys conducted by USDA researchers in the fall of 

2007 revealed much more A. donax than had been previously seen in the 

2002 surveys (Goolsby, 2014). Goolsby (2014) estimates that the size of 

the A. donax-infested area in the Texas and Mexican portions of the Rio 

Grande Basin is 11,135 hectares (27,515 acres).

The spread of A. donax into new areas appears to be from earthmoving 

equipment and roadway mowers (Goolsby, 2014). Once established in a 

watershed, rhizomes and canes move downstream during flood events to 

establish new stands. It appears to be increasing density over time below 

reservoirs in riparian habitats (Goolsby, 2014). Conveyance flows from 

dams stimulate year round production of A. donax, giving it a competitive 

edge over the native vegetation that is adapted to seasonal flows. Because 

many of the dams in the Rio Grande/Rio Bravo Basin are recent (1980s90s), the level of infestation may increase dramatically over the next 

decade.
11

Arundo donax typically grows on sites with a low slope in riparian areas, 

floodplains, ditches, and irrigation canals. In the eastern United States, 

with average rainfall above 30 inches, it can grow in upland sites, such as 

windbreaks or in ornamental settings. Arundo donax occurs in a wide 

range of soils types with variable fertility, but grows best in well-drained, 

moist soils, although it tolerates periodic flooding. Plants tolerate some 

salinity and extended periods of drought; however, they do not survive in 

areas with prolonged or regular periods of freezing temperatures 

(DiTomaso and Healy, 2003). 

C. Plants Related to A. donax and Their Distribution

Plants in North America are discussed below that meet the following 

criteria: Arundo species in North America, species in related genera in the 

subfamily Arundinoidae; species in related subfamilies that are either 

native to the introduced range of A. donax and/or similar in appearance to 

A. donax; species in related orders of monocots (plants having a single 

cotyledon in the seed); economically important grasses; and habitat

associates. Information regarding plants taxonomically related is included 

in this document because plant species that are related to A. donax have 

the most potential to be attacked by L. donacis. The plants listed below 

were used to test the host specificity of L. donacis to A. donax. These tests 

are discussed later in this document. 

Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex Steud. (common reed) is similar in 

appearance and habitat to A. donax but lacks the light colored wedge and 

auricles at the base of the leaf of A.donax. Phragmites australis is found 

nearly worldwide in temperate and tropical wet habitats.

Molinia caerulea (L.) Moench (purple moorgrass) is a perennial bunch 

grass native to temperate areas of Eurasia. It has been introduced as an 

ornamental to northeastern Canada and the United States where it has 

invaded damp areas.

Hakonechloa macra (Munro) Makino (Hakone grass) is endemic to Japan 

where it grows along rivers. It is grown as an ornamental in temperate 

areas of North America.

Aristida purpurea Nutt. var. longiseta (Steud.) Vasey (red threeawn) is 

native from western Canada to northern Mexico and grows in well-drained 

soils.

Chasmanthium latifolium (Michx.) Yates (inland sea oats) is native from 

the Middle Atlantic States of the United States west to Texas and grows 

along waterways and in moist woods.

3. Habitat 
12

Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. (Bermuda grass) is a pasture and turf grass 

native to Africa that now grows worldwide except in the coldest and driest 

areas.

Spartina alterniflora Loisel. (smooth cordgrass) is an obligate wetland 

species native to saltmarshes along the Atlantic Coast of Canada, the 

Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the United States, the Caribbean, and northern 

South America to Uruguay. It is an introduced invasive along the Pacific 

Coast of California, Oregon, and Washington as well as in western Europe 

and New Zealand.

Spartina spartinae (Trin.) Merr. ex Hitchc. (Gulf cordgrass) is a native 

bunch grass that grows mainly along the Atlantic Coast of Florida, the 

Gulf Coast of the United States and Mexico to Costa Rica. In South 

America it is native to Venezuela, Argentina, and Paraguay.

Uniola paniculata L. (sea oats) is a native that grows on sand dunes along 

the coast from Maryland to Veracruz, Mexico as well as in the Bahamas 

and Cuba.

Leptochloa fusca (L.) Kunth subsp. uninervia (J. Presl) N. Snow (=L. 

uninervia) (red sprangletop) is native to the southern half of the United 

States and much of Mexico, the Caribbean, and Central and South 

America. This species is now an invasive species in rice fields in Spain 

and Italy.

Bouteloua trifida Thurb. (red grama) is a bunchgrass native to the 

southwestern United States and into central Mexico.

Eragrostis intermedia Hitchc. (plains lovegrass) is a native grass ranging 

from the southern United States to Costa Rica.

Eragrostis spectablilis (Pursh) Steud. (purple lovegrass) is native to 

southeastern Canada, the eastern two-thirds of the United States and south 

to Belize.

Muhlenbergia capillaris (Lam.) Trim. (hairawn muhly) is a bunchgrass 

native to the southeastern United States and the Bahamas.

Cortaderia selloana (Schult. & Schult. f.) Asch. & Graebn. (pampas 

grass) is an ornamental grass native to Brazil and the southern part of 

South America. Pampas grass has been planted in the southeast and 

southwest of the United States and is invasive in some areas.

Panicum amarum Elliot. (bitter panicgrass) is native to coastal dunes 
13

along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the United States and the Gulf Coast 

of northern Mexico as well as in swamp edges and wet sandy soils in this 

range.

Panicum virgatum L. (switchgrass) is a native grass that grows mainly east 

of the Rocky Mountains from southern Canada through Central America 

and in Cuba.

Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench (sorghum) is a native of Africa that is 

grown through much of the world.

Megathrysus infestus (=Urochloa maxima, Panicum maximum) (Jacq.) 

B.K. Simon & S.W.L. Jacobs is an introduced grass from Africa. It is

invasive in the southern part of the United States and in Mexico.

Zea mays L. (corn) is native to Mexico but is grown through much of the 

world.

Alopecurus pratensis L. (meadow foxtail) is native to temperate Europe 

and Asia. It was introduced to North America as a pasture grass and hs 

become naturalized.

Saccharum officinarum L. (sugarcane) is grown in the southeastern United 

States as well as in other tropical/subtropical regions throughout the 

world. It is native to tropical Asia and Oceania.

Andropogon glomeratus (Walter) Britton et al. (bushy bluestem) is native 

to the southern United States and north to New York and south to northern 

South America.

Pennisetum ciliare (L.) Link (buffelgrass) is native to Africa, western 

Asia, and India. It has been introduced to and become highly invasive in 

the southern United States and Mexico and elsewhere as a forage crop.

Schizachyrium scoparium (Michx.) Nash (little bluestem) is native to most 

of Canada and the United States and northern Mexico.

Tripsacum dactyloides (L.) L. (eastern gamagrass) is native to the eastern 

and central United States and south through Mexico to northern South 

America.

Sporobolus wrightii Munro ex Scribn. (alkali sacaton) is a native growing 

in Texas and Oklahoma and west to California and south to central 

Mexico.

Elymus virginicus L. (Virginia wildrye) is native throughout most of 
14

Canada and the United States.

Arundinaria gigantea (Walter) Muhl. (giant cane) is native to the southeastern United States.

Typha latifolia L. (broadleaf cattail) is an obligate wetland plant native to 

the Americas, Europe, Asia, and Africa.

Sabal mexicana Mart. (Rio Grande palmetto) is native to Texas, Mexico, 

and Central America.

Carya illinoinensis (Wangenh.) K. Koch (pecan) is a native that grows in 

the southeastern United States and south into central Mexico.

Baccharis halimifolia L. (eastern baccharis) is native to the eastern and 

southeastern United States and eastern Mexico from Nuevo Leon to 

Veracruz. 

IV. Environmental Consequences

A. No Action

a. Native Plants

Non-target plants growing in riparian areas are severely impacted by A. 

donax throughout North America. Arundo donax grows in dense stands 

that restrict light thus preventing the establishment or growth of other 

plants. If A. donax stands are killed by herbicides or cutting they are not 

easily removed and will remain for long periods as thick mats preventing 

regrowth of native vegetation. In many areas, A. donax is burned yearly to 

keep standing vegetation to a minimum. In other areas, accidental 

wildfires enter riparian zones infested with A. donax damaging riparian 

plants (Goolsby, 2014.). In both cases native plants, especially trees that 

are not fire adapted, are killed by the hot fires. Arundo donax survives the 

wildfires due to its extensive below ground rhizomes. It regrows quickly 

after fires, shading out emerging seedlings, thus increasing its dominance 

over native riparian vegetation.

b. Effect on ecosystem function

Widespread effects of A. donax on ecosystems have been documented on 

several continents including, Australia, North America, Oceania, and 

Africa. Arundo donax can increase sediment deposition in natural and 

man-made channels resulting in reduced channel depth and greater 

flooding (Frandsen and Jackson, 1994). In addition, during flooding, 

debris dams of A. donax may collect adjacent to flood control structures, 

1. Impact of A. 

donax
15

bridges, and culverts exacerbating flooding (Frandsen and Jackson, 1994). 

Arundo donax produces profuse quantities of biomass (Perdue, 1958;

Sharma et al., 1998; Spencer et al., 2006) that are quite flammable at the 

end of the growing season. As a result, it has changed control of 

ecosystem processes in some Californian riparian zones from floodregulated to fire-regulated (Rieger and Kreager, 1989). Thus, it may be 

considered a transformer species in North America (Richardson et al.,

2000).

c. Beneficial uses

Arundo donax is grown for woodwind reeds, although there is currently no

commercial production in North America (Perdue, 1958; Obataya and

Norimoto, 1995). The highest quality reeds come from the native range in 

Europe. Currently, the most significant use of this plant is its proposed use 

as biofuel (Duke, 1984; Szabo et al., 1996). There are a few small-scale

research plantings of A. donax in Texas and Georgia. Social, recreational 

uses. Arundo donax has no social or recreational uses.

 

The continued use of chemical herbicides, and mechanical and biological 

controls at current levels would be a result if the “no action” alternative is 

chosen). 

a. Chemical Control

The most common herbicide used for A. donax is glyphosate which may 

require continued application for 3 to 5 years for local control (Newhouser 

et al., 1999; Dudley, 2000). The herbicide imazypyr is also used for 

control along ditches and canals. However, chemical control methods are 

not feasible for large-scale infestations covering hundreds of river miles, 

such as the infestation in the Rio Grande Basin. Broadcast applications of 

herbicides could have adverse impacts on nontarget vegetation if not 

carefully applied. 

b. Mechanical Control

Mechanical methods of A. donax control include use of prescribed fire, 

heavy machinery (e.g. bulldozer, Hydro-axe,), hand-cutting, chipper, etc. 

Biomass removal may be necessary if there is a possibility that cut 

vegetation might create a flood hazard during high water events. Chipping 

is a costly method of removal. Equipment and labor are expensive relative 

to other forms of removal; however, the small dry chips that are produced 

pose little threat in terms of regeneration, and they do not form debris 

dams. Biomass removal by vehicle is expensive and generally not 

preferred due to its lack of cost-effectiveness. The use of heavy 

2. Impact 

from Use of 

Other 

Control 

Methods
16

machinery, such as the Hydro-axe, is extremely expensive and slow, 

cutting only about 3 to 4 acres per day (Bell, 1997). Mechanical 

eradication with a backhoe has been ineffective because the rhizome 

fragments buried under the soil will readily re-sprout. Prescribed burning 

has not been successful because it cannot kill the rhizomes, and generally 

promotes A. donax regeneration over native riparian species. 

c. Biological Control

The Arundo wasp, Tetramesa romana Walker (Hymenoptera: 

Eurytomidae) was approved for release in April 2009. It currently occurs 

in Texas and California. It is not expected that Tetramesa romana

(T. romana) alone will completely control A. donax. However, the stem 

galling of A. donax caused by T. romana results in shortened internodes, 

stunted stems, and sometimes death of the stems. The Arundo scale, 

Rhizaspidiotus donacis (Leonnardi) (Hemiptera: Diaspididae), was 

approved for release in the United States in December 2010, and is one of 

the most damaging insects to A. donax in its native range. The scale 

attacks the rhizome and developing underground buds by feeding on 

plants cells that carry out photosynthesis and cellular respiration and can 

store food for the plant. Damage symptoms include side shoot distortion 

with thin, brittle, short canes. Crawler feeding often causes distortion and 

a witch’s broom effect (an abnormal brushlike growth of weak, closely 

clustered shoots). Other effects over time include gradual thinning, leaf 

reduction, and a sickly, yellowish-clouded appearance of canes. The 

overall effect is diminished vigor with A. donax stands characterized by 

thin, brittle, naked canes. These two agents are beginning to have an 

impact on the invasive populations of A. donax, but additional host 

specific and damaging agents that target different parts of the plant are 

needed to manage this highly invasive weed.

These environmental consequences may occur even with the 

implementation of the biological control alternative, depending on the 

efficacy of R. donacis to reduce A. donax in the continental United States. 

B. Issue Permits for Environmental Release of L. 

donacis. 

Host specificity of L. donacis to A. donax has been demonstrated through 

scientific literature, field observations, and host specificity testing. If an 

insect species only attacks one or a few closely related plant species, the

insect is considered to be very host-specific. Host specificity to the target 

weed is an essential trait for a biological control organism proposed for 

environmental release.

1. Impact of L. 

donacis on 

Nontarget 

Plants
17

a. Scientific Literature

Lasioptera donacis Coutin, is only found on A. donax in its native range in 

Europe (Coutin and Faivre-Amiot, 1981).

b. Field Observations 

Extensive surveys by Alan Kirk (USDA-ARS, EBCL, Montpelier, France) 

throughout the western Mediterranean, including Morocco, confirmed the

widespread presence of L. donacis on A. donax. Once, this insect was 

found on Arundo plinii in Spain. 

c. Host Specificity Testing

Host specificity tests are tests to determine how many plant species L. 

donacis attacks, and whether nontarget species in North America may be 

at risk. See appendix 3 for information regarding host specificity testing 

methods. 

(1) Site of Quarantine Studies

Host specificity testing was conducted at USDA-APHIS, Mission 

Biological Control Containment Facility (MBCL) in Edinburg, Texas.

(2) Test Plant List

The list of plant species used for host-specificity testing of L. donacis is 

shown in appendix 1. The strategy used for selecting plants for testing is 

based on the phylogenetic approach, where closely related species are 

theorized to be at greater risk of attack than are distantly related species

(Wapshere, 1974). 

(3) Discussion of Host Specificity Testing

No-choice tests were used in the host specificity testing of L. donacis to 

determine its fundamental host range (sensu Van Klinken and Edwards, 

2002). No-choice tests are those where the biological control agent 

selection is restricted to a single plant species. The U.S. accession of the

fungus, Arthrinium arundinis was manually applied to leaf sheaths on 

each test plant to demonstrate that the saprophytic fungus could not infect 

the host without the damage caused by L. donacis larval feeding. 

Arthrinium arundinis is a cosmopolitan, worldwide, saprophytic fungus. 

See Appendix 2 for full results of host specificity testing and Appendix 3 

for more information about host specificity test methods. 

In the no-choice testing, L. donacis only completed its life cycle on the 

target host A. donax. None of the non-target plants tested were utilized by 
18

the leafminer. Additional replicates of corn, Zea mays, were tested 

because this plant is an important food plant native to Mexico in areas 

where A. donax is invasive. A local variety of sugarcane, Saccharum 

officinarum, was also tested. No development of any kind was found on 

corn or any of the economic grasses. In addition to testing closely related 

grasses, grasses similar in appearance to A. donax, with large stems and 

leaf sheaths such as Cortaderia selloana (pampas grass), Panicum 

amarum (bitter panic grass), and Arundinaria gigantea (giant cane), were 

also tested. Several important ecologically important ‘riparian cornerstone 

species’ such as Typha latifolia (cattail), Sabal Mexicana (Texas 

palmetto), Carya illinoinensis (pecan), Baccharis halimifolia (eastern

baccharis/groundsel bush) were tested, but no feeding or development was 

observed. In all of the testing, minor larval development was noted on one 

single replicate of Phragmites australis. Eleven dead second and third

instar larvae were found in the leaf sheath when it was dissected. 

Additional P. australis testing was conducted on both the Gulf Coast and 

European ecotypes, but no larval development of any kind was observed. 

The insect fauna of P. australis has been extensively studied in Europe 

and North America, but no record exists of L. donacis developing on P. 

australis despite the presence of L. donacis in the same habitat in Europe

(Gagné and Jaschhof, 2014; Tscharntke, 1999; Tewksbury et al., 2002). It 

is likely that the limited larval development on one P. australis plant was a 

quarantine artifact. Lasioptera donacis is specific to A. donax.

The saprophytic fungus, Arthrinium arundinis only developed on A. donax

despite being systematically applied to wounds of leaf sheaths of all plants 

used in testing. Arthrinium arundinis requires active larval feeding to 

grow and develop. This confirms that A. arundinis is truly a saprophyte 

and not a primary pathogen.

Release strategy and post-release monitoring of L. donacis are decribed in 

Appendix 4.

In the area of its origin in the Mediterranean, L. donacis causes extensive 

defoliation of A. donax stands (Goolsby, 2014). In general, populations of 

L. donacis are highest in parts of the Mediterranean that receive summer 

rainfall, including France and Italy (Goolsby, 2014). The potential impact 

of L. donacis comes from comparison of plant demographics between A. 

donax plots in Rome (where L. donacis occurs) and Weslaco (where L. 

donacis is not present). In Rome, 27 percent of leaves per cane were dead 

and 11 percent of the nodes were infested with L. donacis. In comparison, 

the Weslaco plots had less than 8 percent dead leaves, none of the nodes 

were infested (as expected), and A. donax in Weslaco was denser than in 

Rome plots where L. donacis was present (Goolsby, 2014). 

2. Impact of L. 

donacis on A. 

donax
19

Lasioptera donacis is one the most widespread and damaging arthropods 

associated with A. donax. It has been collected throughout the native range 

of A. donax. Lasioptera donacis has the greatest impact on A. donax when 

it occurs with the Arundo wasp, Tetramesa romana, most notably in the 

western Mediterranean (Portugal, Spain, and southwestern France). 

Lasioptera donacis is only known from Arundo spp. in western Europe. In 

its native range, it is host specific and damaging to A. donax.

Because A. donax is being considered as a biofuel in some states, potential 

impacts of the three biological control agents (including the two 

previously released agents, Tetramesa romana and Rhizaspidiotus 

donacis) on A. donax where it is grown for harvest were investigated

(Goolsby, 2014). The biological control agents were highly affected by 

disturbance such as repeated cutting of the plant for a biofuel harvest 

(Goolsby et al., 2013). One of the most common disturbances in the native 

range is mowing. Mowing destroys the above ground developing insects,

including the proposed biological control agent L. donacis, and the two 

previously released agents, T. romana and R. donacis, effectively 

removing a large portion of the local population. Simultaneously, mowing 

stimulates new stem growth which is not likely to be infested by these 

specialist insect because the stems emerge out of synchrony with their 

normal life cycle. The new stems grow with little or no impacts from their 

specialist herbivore insects. Normally, these insects emerge in late spring 

just as the plant produces new stems in its natural Mediterranean habitat. 

Therefore, breaking the natural growth cycle of A. donax with mowing 

and/or supplemental irrigation leads to impacts to the lifecycle of the three 

insects. Intensive disturbance from repeated mowing and irrigation may 

even lead to localized elimination of R. donacis. This scenario explains 

why A. donax can appear to be very robust and even invasive in some 

settings, usually in heavily cropped areas. However, where A. donax is 

largely undisturbed, the biological control agents build to high densities

that cause causing extensive damage to A. donax. Along the Rio Grande in 

riparian settings, A. donax is typically not disturbed; therefore, the 

biological control agents can build to damaging populations and reduce 

the invasiveness of the plant. Periodic fires may be the exception and 

should be avoided to achieve the full impact of the biological control 

agents. 

In agricultural areas where A. donax is grown for biofuels, repeated

disturbance (harvesting) is expected to greatly reduce the impact of the 

agents even if they should colonize these areas. Arundo donax grown as 

biofuel in Italy, Spain, and Greece has no significant pests even though T. 

romana (and other potential biological control agents) occur throughout 

these production areas. Cultural practices used in growing of A. donax do

not appear to allow for populations of the specialist herbivore insects to 

reach levels that are damaging to the plant where it is grown as a biofuel.

3. Impact of 

biological 

control agents

on A. donax 

grown as a 

biofuel
20

Once a biological control agent such as L. donacis is released into the 

environment and becomes established, there is a slight possibility that it

could move from the target plant (A. donax) to attack nontarget plants. 

Host shifts by introduced weed biological control agents to unrelated 

plants are rare (Pemberton, 2000). Native species that are closely related 

to the target species are the most likely to be attacked (Louda et al., 2003).

If other plant species were to be attacked by L. donacis, the resulting 

effects could be environmental impacts that may not be easily reversed. 

Biological control agents such as L. donacis generally spread without 

intervention by man. In principle, therefore, release of this biological 

control agent at even one site must be considered equivalent to release 

over the entire area in which potential hosts occur, and in which the 

climate is suitable for reproduction and survival. However, significant 

non-target impacts on plant populations from previous releases of weed 

biological control agents are unusual (Suckling and Sforza, 2014).

In addition, this agent may not be successful in reducing A. donax

populations in the contiguous United States. Worldwide, biological weed 

control programs have had an overall success rate of 33 percent; success 

rates have been considerably higher for programs in individual countries 

(Culliney, 2005). Actual impacts on A. donax by L. donacis will not be 

known until after release occurs and post-release monitoring has been 

conducted. However, it is expected that L. donacis, in concert with the 

other previously released biological control agents T. romana, and R. 

donacis, will reduce invasive A. donax populations in the United States.

“Cumulative impacts are defined as the impact on the environment which 

results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, 

present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what 

agencies or person undertakes such other actions” (40 CFR 1508.7). Many 

Federal and State agencies, as well as private entities, conduct programs to 

manage A. donax, as well as other invasive weeds. Chemical, biological 

control, and mechanical methods, as described previously in this 

document, are used in a wide range of habitats. Some of these control 

programs are listed below. 

Dept. of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection: The Border 

Patrol is using mechanical and chemical methods to control A. donax

along the United States and Mexican border in Webb County, Texas, to 

assist in law enforcement activities associated with illegal border 

crossings.

4. Uncertainties 

Regarding the 

Environmental 

Release of L. 

donacis

5. Cumulative 

Impacts
21

Dept. of State, International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC), El 

Paso, Texas: The IBWC uses annual mowing along the sections of the 

Rio Grande to manage access to the River.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, International Services: Chemical control 

is used to stop the spread of A. donax at the Cuatro Cienegas nature 

preserve in Coahuila, Mexico.

U.S. Dept. of Interior, National Park Service, Big Bend National Park, 

Texas: Park staff use a combination of fire and herbicides to manage A. 

donax.

Texas Dept. of Parks and Wildlife, Bentsen State Park, Mission, Texas: 

Park staff use herbicides to control A. donax and Phragmites growing in 

the alternate river channels.

Lower Rio Grande Valley Irrigation and Drainage Districts, Brownsville, 

Harlingen, Mercedes, McAllen, and La Hoya, Texas: All of the irrigation 

districts report that they use mechanical control, shredders, and backhoes 

for control of A. donax along irrigation canals and drainage ditches.

Maverick Irrigation District, Eagle Pass, Texas: The district reports the 

use of mechanical and chemical control to manage A. donax along 

irrigation canals and drainage ditches.

Texas Dept. of Transportation (TXDot), Austin, Texas: The State 

vegetation coordinator reports that TXDot uses mechanical and chemical 

control to maintain populations of A. donax growing along roadsides. The 

problem is most severe in south-central Texas near College Station.

Team Arundo Del Norte, California: A consortium of homeowner 

associations, municipalities, and the State of California combine their 

resources to use chemical control, mechanical removal, and revegetation 

to restore ecologically sensitive rivers and creeks in northern California.

Team Arundo Del Sur, California: A consortium of homeowner 

associations, municipalities, and the State of California combine their 

resources to use chemical control, mechanical removal and revegetation to 

restore ecologically sensitive rivers and creeks in southern California.

California Dept. of Transportation (CalDOT), Sacramento, California: 

CalDOT uses mechanical and chemical control to manage A. donax along 

highways and bridges in the State.
22

Private landowners throughout the southern tier of the United States use a 

variety of methods to control A. donax where it has become invasive on 

private land.

Santa Ana Watershed Association (SAWA), California: SAWA has 

removed over 2,000 acres of A. donax from the Santa Ana watershed to 

restore habitat for native species, including the southwestern willow 

flycatcher.

USDA, Agriculture Research Service is conducting releases of the 

previously released biological control agents T. romana and R. donacis in 

the vicinity of Laredo, Texas.

Release of L. donacis is not expected to have any negative cumulative 

impacts in the continental United States because of its host specificity to 

A. donax. Effective biological control of A. donax is expected to have 

beneficial effects for weed management programs, and may result in a 

long-term, non-damaging method to assist in the control of A. donax, and 

prevent its spread into other areas potentially at risk from invasion.

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and ESA’s implementing 

regulations require Federal agencies to ensure that their actions are not 

likely to jeopardize the continued existence of federally listed threatened 

and endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse modification

of critical habitat. 

APHIS has determined that release of L. donacis may affect, but is not 

likely to adversely affect the ocelot, jaguarundi, southwestern willow 

flycatcher and its critical habitat, least Bell’s vireo and its critical habitat, 

yellow-billed cuckoo and its proposed critical habitat (beneficial), western 

snowy plover and its critical habitat (beneficial), Arroyo toad and its 

critical habitat (beneficial), and unarmored three-spine stickleback 

(beneficial). Release of L. donacis may affect, but is not likely to 

adversely affect the following listed grasses: Neostapfia colusana (Colusa 

grass), Orcuttia californica (California Orcutt grass), Orcuttia inaequalis

(San Joaquin Orcutt grass), Orcuttia pilosa (hairy Orcutt grass), Orcuttia 

tenuis (slender Orcutt grass), Orcuttia viscida (Sacramento Orcutt grass), 

Tuctoria greenei (Greene’s tuctoria), or Tuctoria mucronata (Solano 

grass), Swallenia alexandrae (Eureka dunegrass). There will be no effect 

on the critical habitat of these grasses. APHIS requested concurrence 

from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) on these determinations, 

and received a concurrence letter dated April 27, 2016, and is located in 

the administrative record for this action. The biological assessment 

submitted to FWS (prepared by T. Willard, USDA-APHIS, Dec. 16, 2015) 

is also in the administrative record. 

6. Endangered 

Species Act
23

V. Other Issues

Consistent with Executive Order (EO) 12898, “Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-income 

Populations,” APHIS considered the potential for disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or environmental effects on any minority 

populations and low-income populations. There are no adverse 

environmental or human health effects from the field release of L. donacis

and will not have disproportionate adverse effects to any minority or lowincome populations. 

Consistent with EO 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental 

Health Risks and Safety Risks,” APHIS considered the potential for 

disproportionately high and adverse environmental health and safety risks 

to children. No circumstances that would trigger the need for special 

environmental reviews are involved in implementing the preferred 

alternative. Therefore, it is expected that no disproportionate effects on 

children are anticipated as a consequence of the field release of L. donacis.

EO 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments,” was issued to ensure that there would be “meaningful 

consultation and collaboration with tribal officials in the development of 

Federal policies that have tribal implications....”

APHIS is consulting and collaborating with Indian tribal officials in 

Arizona, California, and Texas to ensure that they are well-informed and 

represented in policy and program decisions that may impact their 

agricultural interests in accordance with EO 13175. APHIS sent letters to 

all Tribes in the three States regarding this proposed action and received 

no comments from them. 

VI. Agencies, Organizations, and 

Individuals Consulted

The Technical Advisory Group for the Biological Control Agents of 

Weeds (TAG) recommended the release of L. donacis on April 2, 2015 

(Petition 14-03). TAG members that reviewed the release petition 

(Goolsby, 2014) included USDA representatives from the U.S. Forest 

Service, National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service; U.S. Department of Interior’s U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Land Management; Environmental 

Protection Agency; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and representatives 

from SAGARPA-SENASICA-DGSV (Mexico), Agriculture and AgriFood Canada, and the National Plant Board. The petition 14-03 (Goolsby, 

2014) is included in the administrative record for this action.
24

This EA was prepared by personnel at USDA, APHIS and USDA ARS. 

The addresses of participating APHIS units, cooperators, and consultants 

follow.

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Policy and Program Development 

Environmental and Risk Analysis Services

4700 River Road, Unit 149

Riverdale, MD 20737

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Plant Protection and Quarantine 

Regulations, Permits, and Manuals

4700 River Road, Unit 133

Riverdale, MD 20737

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Agricultural Research Service

22675 N. Moorefield Rd.

Moore Airbase, Building 6419

Edinburg, TX 78541
25

VII. References

Bell, G. 1997. Ecology and management of Arundo donax, and approaches 

to riparian habitat restoration in Southern California. pp. 103−113. In: J.H. 

Brock, M. Wade, P. Pysek, and D. Green (eds.): Plant Invasions: Studies 

from North America and Europe. Blackhuys

Publishers, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Coutin, R., and A. Faivre-Amiot. 1981. Interrelations ecologiques et 

symbiotiques complexes entre insects et vegetaux, Lasioptera donacis n. 

sp. (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) et Arundo donax L. (Ecological interactions 

of saprophytic fungi and the insect Lasioptera donacis on Arundo donax). 

Congrès National des Sociétés Savantes Perpignan Sc. II: 195−201.

Culliney, T.W., 2005. Benefits of classical biological control for 

managing invasive plants. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences. 24: 

131−150.

Danin, A., T. Raus, and H. Scholz. 2002. Contribution to the Flora of 

Greece: a new species of Arundo (Poaceae). Willdenowia. 32: 191−194.

Danin, A. 2004. Arundo (Gramineae) in the Mediterranean reconsidered. 

Willdenowia. 34: 361−369.

Danin, A., G. Domina, and F.M. Raimondo. 2006. Prime osservazioni 

ecologicodistributive su Arundo collina Ten. (Poaceae) in Italia. Inform. 

Bot. Ital. 37: 1167−1170.

DiTomaso, J.M., and E.A. Healy (eds.). 2003. Aquatic and riparian weeds 

of the west. University of California, Oakland, CA.

Dudley, T.L. 2000. Arundo donax. p. 53−58. In: C.C. Bossard, J.M. 

Randal, and M.C. Hosovsky (eds.) Invasive Plants of California 

Wildlands. Univ. of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

Duke, J.A. 1984. (updated 1993). Handbook of Energy Crops. New Crop 

Resource Online Program, Center for New crops and Plant products, Dept. 

Of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, Purdue University, West 

Lafayette, Indiana. [Online] 

https://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/duke_energy/Arundo_donax.html. 

Accessed: March 30, 2016.

Finn, M., and D. Minnesang. 1990. Control of giant reed grass in a 

southern California riparian habitat. Restoration & Management Notes. 8: 

53−54.
26

Frandsen, P., and N. Jackson. 1994. The impact of Arundo donax on flood 

control and endangered species, pp. 13−16. In: N.E. Jackson, P. Frandsen, 

and S. Duthoit (compilers), Arundo donax Workshop Proceedings, 19 

November 1993, Ontario, California. Team Arundo and California Exotic 

Pest Plant Council, Pismo Beach, California.

Gagné, R.J. 1976. New Nearctic records and taxonomic changes in the 

Cecidomyiidae (Diptera). Annals of the Entomological Society of 

America. 69: 26-28.

Gagné, R.J. and M. Jaschhof. 2014. A Catalog of the Cecidomyiidae

(Diptera) of the World. 3rd Edition. Digital version 2. [Online]. 

http://www.ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFiles/Place/80420580/Gagne_2014_Wor

ld_Cecidomyiidae_Catalog_3rd_Edition.pdf Accessed: March 30, 2016.

Goolsby, J.A, E. Cortés Mendoza, P.J. Moran, J.J. Adamczyk, M.A. 

Marcos Garcia, and A.A. Kirk. 2013. Evaluation of Spanish Arundo scale 

Rhizaspidiotus donacis (Leonardi) (Hemiptera; Diaspididae) survival and 

fecundity on three New World genotypes of Arundo donax (Poaceae; 

Arundinoideae). Biocontrol Science and

Technology. 23: 499–506.

Goolsby, J.A. 2014. Proposed field release of the European leaf sheath 

mining midge, Lasioptera donacis Coutin (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae), for 

biological control of giant reed, Arundo donax L. (Poales: Poaceae) in 

North America. Petition submitted to the Technical Advisory Group for 

Biological Control Agents of Weeds. September 26, 2014. 119 pp.

Louda, S.M., R.W. Pemberton, M.T. Johnson, and P.A. Follett. 2003. 

Nontarget effects−The Achilles’ heel of biological control? Retrospective 

analyses to reduce risk associated with biological control introductions. 

Annual Review of Entomology. 48: 365–396.

Newhouser, M., C. Cornwall, and R. Dale. 1999. Arundo: A Landowner 

Handbook. Sonoma Ecology Center and California State University, 

Sacramento, CA. 22.

Obataya, E., and M. Norimoto. 1995. Acoustic properties of cane (Arundo 

donax L.) used for reeds of woodwind instruments. 1. The relationships 

between vibrational properties and moisture contents of cane. Mokuzai 

Gakkaishi. 41: 289–292.

Pemberton, R.W. 2000. Predictable risk to native plants in weed 

biological control. Oecologia. 125: 489–494.
27

Perdue, R.E., Jr. 1958. Arundo donax -- Source of musical reeds and 

industrial cellulose. Economic Botany. 12: 368–404.

Racelis, A.E., and J.A. Goolsby. 2013. Rapid assessment of above-ground 

biomass of giant reed using visibility estimates. Subtropical Plant Science. 

64: 61–66.

Richardson, D.M., P. Pysek, M. Rejmanek, M.G. Barbour, F.D. Panetta

and C.J. West. 2000. Naturalization and Invasion of Alien Plants: 

Concepts and Definitions. Diversity and Distributions. 6: 93–107.

Rieger, J.P., and D.A. Kreager. 1989. Giant reed (Arundo donax): a climax 

community of the riparian zone. pp. 222–225. In: Protection, management, 

and restoration for the 1990’s: Proceedings of the California Riparian 

Systems Conference, 22–24 September, 1988, Davis, California. General 

Technical Report PSW-110. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Forest and Range Experiment Station Berkeley, California. 

Sharma, K.P., S.P.S. Kushwaha, and B. Gopal. 1998. A comparative study 

of stand structure and standing crops of two wetland species, Arundo 

donax and Phragmites karka, and primary production in Arundo donax 

with observations on the effect of clipping. Tropical Ecology. 39: 3–14.

Spencer, D.F., P.S. Liow, W.K. Chan, G.G. Ksander, and K.D. Getsinger. 

2006. Estimating Arundo donax shoot biomass. Aquatic Botany. 84: 272–

276. 

Suckling, D.M., and R.F.H. Sforza. 2014. What magnitude are observed 

non-target Impacts from weed biocontrol? PLoS ONE. 9(1): e84847. 

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0084847.

Szabo, P., G. Varhegyi, F. Till, and O. Faix. 1996. Thermogravimetric 

mass spectrometric characterization of two energy crops, Arundo donax 

and Miscanthus sinensis. Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis. 36: 

179–190.

Tewksbury, L., R. Casagrande, B. Blossey, P. Häfliger, and M. 

Schwarzländer. 2002. Potential for biological control of Phragmites 

australis in North America. Biological Control. 23: 191–212.

Tscharntke, T. 1999. Insects on common reed (Phragmites australis): 

community structure and the impact of herbivory on shoot growth, 

Aquatic Botany. 64: 399–410.

USDA-ARS—see U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research 

Service.
28

USDA-FS—see U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. 2012.

Plant Hardiness Zones map. 2012. [Online] 

http://planthardiness.ars.usda.gov/PHZMWeb/ . Accessed: March 30, 

2016.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1993. Eradication of 

Arundo donax, San Francisquito and Soledad Canyons. Environmental 

Assessment. USDA Forest Service, Angeles National Forest, CA.

Van Klinken, R.D., and O. Edwards. 2002. Is host specificity of weed 

biological control agents likely to evolve rapidly following establishment? 

Ecology Letters. 5: 590–596.

Wapshere, A.J. 1989. A testing sequence for reducing rejection of 

potential biological control agents for weeds. Ann. Appl. Biol. 114: 515–

526. 
Appendix 1. Host plant test list for Lasioptera donacis (Goolsby, 2014).

29
Appendix 1. Host plant test list for Lasioptera donacis (Goolsby, 2014).

30
Appendix 1. Host plant test list for Lasioptera donacis (Goolsby, 2014).

31
32

Appendix 2. Results of no-choice larval development testing for Lasioptera donacis on the 

target weeds and test plants (Goolsby, 2014).

Table 1. Results of no-choice host range tests for Lasioptera donacis. Values are

mean numbers of adults produced per test replicate.
33

Table 2. Results of no-choice host range tests for French Lasioptera donacis. Values are mean 

numbers of L. donacis adults produced per plant in which development occurred.

Table 3. Results of no-choice host range tests for Italian Lasioptera donacis.

Values are mean numbers of L. donacis adults produced per plant in which

development occurred.
34

Table 4. Results of no-choice host range tests for Greek Lasioptera donacis.

Values are mean numbers of L. donacis individuals produced per plant in which

development occurred.
35

Appendix 3. Host-specificity testing methods (Goolsby, 2014).

Stage of plants tested

Arundo donax rhizomes were field dug near Weslaco, Texas and planted in 23 centimeter (cm)

plastic pots. Pots are held in a warm greenhouse with overhead irrigation until stems were 2 feet tall. 

Plants were then moved to an open air shade house for 3-6 weeks to harden off and grow to height of 

4-6 feet. Plant selection for optimal Lasioptera donacis preference was based on node length, 

thickness, and sheath and stem quality. Plants were selected that had at least 2 fully extended 

internodes. The stems were at least 1 cm thick. The stems were tough, but the leaf sheaths were still 

green at the lower internodes. Once selected, plants were allowed to dry for 1-3 days inside the 

greenhouse in order to limit the amount of sap produced once the stem is pricked. Optimal pots were 

transferred to the quarantine laboratory for inoculation with L. donacis and Arthrinium arundinis and 

topped to fit inside cages.

Sources of plants tested

Arundo donax was collected from along the Rio Grande, near Weslaco, Texas. Genotyping of the A. 

donax in the Rio Grande Basin revealed one dominant genotype that matched with populations near 

Barcelona and Almuñécar, Spain. Other genotypes of A. donax from outside of Texas were not 

introduced due to legal constraints regarding movement of noxious weeds. However, DNA samples 

were obtained from California, Mexico, and Argentina for the genetics study. 

Non-target host plants were obtained and or grown from seed by Mike Heep of Heep’s Nursery in 

Harlingen, Texas. Mr. Heep is a botanist and a grass specialist. He supplies other Federal and State 

agencies with native plant material for revegetation programs. Grass and broadleaf species used in 

the testing were obtained locally. Panicum virgatum was supplied by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service because the population tested represented a local relict population near Kenedy, Texas. 

Some species such as Molinia and Hakonechloa, which are exotic to North America, but closely 

related to A. donax, were imported from ornamental nursery stock in California.

No-Choice host specificity testing

No-choice tests were used because they provided the clearest prediction of the fundamental host 

range (sensu van Klinken and Edwards, 2002) of L. donacis. The fungus, Arthrinium arundinis, was 

manually applied to leaf sheaths on each test plant to demonstrate that the saprophytic fungus could 

not infect the host without the damage caused by larval feeding.
36

Plants

Arundo donax plants were housed in a greenhouse for 3 to 6 weeks, regulated between 25-32  ̊C and 

70 to 90 percent Relative Humidity (RH) with ambient light for 12 to 14 hours per day. Plant 

selection for optimal L. donacis preference was based on internode length, thickness, and sheath and 

stem quality. Plants were selected that had at least two fully extended internodes. The stems were at 

least 1 cm thick. The stems were tough, but sheaths on the lower internodes were still green. Once 

selected, plants were allowed to dry for 1 to 3 days inside the greenhouse in order to reduce overhydration that interferes with larval development. Optimal plants were transferred to the quarantine 

laboratory for inoculation with L. donacis and A. arundinis.

Fungus

Arthrinium arundinis is a U.S. fungus obtained from a collection at the American Type

Culture Collection (ATCC) facility in Arlington, Virginia. A. arundinis was grown on oatmeal agar. 

After two days, A. arundinis spores were added to the plates and grown for 2 to 5 weeks. Plates were 

kept in an incubator on a 12 hours light/12 hours dark, cool white light cycle at 25  ̊C. Once the 

plates were covered with black sporulated hyphae, the hyphae and spores were scraped from the agar 

and added to 1.5 ml sterile water in a plastic centrifuge tube. The tube was vigorously shaken until 

spores mixed evenly into a homogenous solution. A concentration of approximately 1 million 

spores/ml H2O was used for all inoculations.

Infestation

Sheaths were smeared with a 1 million spores/ml of H2O suspension of ATCC A. arundinis. The 

suspension was allowed to dry for a few minutes. Then, each plant was pricked (10-12 times per 

sheath) with forceps to provide oviposition sites that in nature would be provided by damage by 

other insects, sheath breakage due to emerging side shoots, or sheath damage due to wind breakage. 

Plants were set up in one of four different types of cages: 1) a Plexiglas box (15.5 x 15.5 x 22 cm) 

with holes cut out of the sides and sealed with silk organza fabric to provide air ventilation; 2) 

aluminum framed cages with top, bottom, and 2 sides covered with mesh and 2 sides covered with 

plastic film; 3) Bugdorms (mesh and clear plastic sides); or 4) metal framed cages with 2 glass sides 

and mesh on the top, bottom, and 2 sides. The cages were housed in an environmental growth 

chamber maintained at 25 to 27  ̊C and 50 to 60 percent RH. Approximately 50 L. donacis adults 

that had emerged from European A. donax canes were released in each cage containing a test plant. 

After 7 days, plants were removed from the cage and placed in a greenhouse at 27 ̊C and 40 to 60 

percent RH. Sheaths were monitored for symptoms of L. donacis, blotchy black areas due to fungal 

growth inside the sheath.

Dissections

After about one month stems of A. donax were harvested and put in small plastic boxes with meshcovered lids until they could be dissected. Upon dissection, numbers of L. donacis adults, pupae, 

third and second instar larvae were counted. Stems of non-Arundo species were grown for up to two 
37

months before harvest and dissection.

Positive Controls

Arundo donax controls were used for every individual test conducted over time. Each test normally 

involved multiple test plant species. This method assured that both the L. donacis adults and fungus 

were viable at the time of testing. This more stringent method was necessary due to the tri-trophic 

interactions of the plant, insect, and fungus. Therefore, more than 50 replicates without 

corresponding positive controls were not included in the results section. Due to space limitations in 

quarantine, only 12 test plant species could be set up per week. 

 
38

Appendix 4. Release and Monitoring Strategy for Lasioptera donacis (Goolsby, 2014). 

Release protocol

Adults will be removed from quarantine populations for release. Lasioptera donacis colonies used 

for releases will be intensively sampled to determine they are free of parasitic nematodes and 

pathogens. Adults will be initially colonized in greenhouses and outdoor plots for mass rearing. 

Initial field releases will take place on the Rio Grande near Los Indios, Texas in Cameron, County.

Rearing or culturing facility: Rearing will be conducted at the USDA-APHIS Mission Biological 

Control Laboratory, Moore Airbase, Edinburg, Texas and/or the Texas A&M Kingsville Citrus 

Center facilities operated by USDA-ARS in Weslaco, Texas.

Release details: The leafminer will be released as soon as APHIS issues a permit. Initial field 

releases will take place on the Rio Grande near Los Indios, Texas in Cameron, County. Subsequent 

field releases will take place on the Rio Grande between Brownsville and Del Rio, Texas. Material 

will be provided to researchers at the Instituto Mexicano de Tecnología (IMTA), Jiutepec, Morelos, 

Mexico for field release in Morelos.

Post Release Monitoring

Monitoring Group: Researchers at USDA-ARS, Edinburg, Texas and researchers at IMTA, 

Jiutepec, Morelos, Mexico will conduct monitoring when the agent is released in Mexico. IMTA is a 

formal collaborator in the biological control program and they are also rearing and releasing the 

arundo wasp, T. romana and arundo scale, R. donacis.

Monitoring Establishment: Initial monitoring will be conducted at the study site in Los Indios, 

Texas. We will survey for the presence of leaf sheath infections of A. arundinis and infestations of L. 

donacis. Lasioptera donacis leaves behind the everted pupal case attached to the leaf sheath as the 

adults emerge. These visible tubes are an excellent indicator of reproduction and establishment.

Monitoring Techniques: Field sampling will be used to determine the impact of L. donacis on A. 

donax in the United States and Mexico. To collect sufficient data across time and space, 19 sites

approximately every 25 miles along the Rio Grande will be sampled from subtropical Brownsville 

(near mouth of river) to Del Rio which is 350 miles inland in the Chihuahuan Desert. The sites 

represent the full range of conditions where giant reed occurs in the riparian zone of the Rio Grande. 

Cut stems of A. donax will be collected and returned to the laboratory to determine numbers of L. 

donacis per stem and to check for the presence of parasitoids. Field sites will be established with 

multiple quadrats at each release location to measure the changes in stem length, side shoot 

production, leaf length, stem diameter, standing biomass and within stand visibility (Spencer et al., 

2006; Racelis and Goolsby, 2013). Some sites will receive only L. donacis to compare sites with 
39

both the R. donacis and T. romana. Quadrats will be surveyed for the presence, regrowth or 

colonization of native and exotic plants. Plant inventories will be conducted over time to assess 

changes in plant communities following the establishment of the arundo leafminer and interactions 

with the other agents. Selected locations may receive chemical and/or mechanical control. In these 

locations, we will make the same measurements as above and assess synergy between the control 

methods and the agents. In addition to ground sampling using standard techniques, we will use 

remote sensing to look for local and regional changes in A. donax density and health. Non-target 

plants will be regularly monitored for utilization by L. donacis. However, there are no closely related 

plant species in the riparian habitat where A. donax is invasive other than P. australis.
40

Appendix 5. Response to comments

One commenter raised concerns that Lasiotera donacis could spread the Zika virus.

Only mosquites are known to spread the Zika virus. L. donacis only feeds on plants and not humans, 

and thus would not come into contact with the Zika virus which is not found in plants.

One commenter indicated that L. donacis should not be released because of issues regarding the 

spread of another biocontrol agent, Diorhabda spp., for the biological control of saltcedar (Tamarix

spp.).

The commenter provided many incorrect facts regarding the release and spread of Diorhabda. 

However, in regards to the release of L. donacis, these organisms are completely different, and 

potential impacts are not comparable. In addition, APHIS consulted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (FWS) on the proposed release of L. donacis, and FWS concurred with the APHIS 

determination that the biocontrol agent is not likely to adversely affect federally listed species or 

crtical habitat. Finally, there are many examples of successful weed biocontrol in the United States, 

such as tansy ragwort, water hyacinth, salvinia, Hydrilla, and alligator weed. 
Decision and Finding of No Significant Impact

for

Field release of the European leaf sheath mining midge,

Lasioptera donacis Coutin (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae), for biological control of giant reed,

Arundo donax L. (Poales: Poaceae) in the Contiguous United States.

December 2016

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

(APHIS) is proposing to issue permits for release of an insect Lasioptera donacis Coutin 

(Diptera: Cecidomyiidae), in the contiguous United States. The agent would be used by the 

applicant for the biological control of giant reed, Arundo donax L. (Poales: Poaceae). Before 

permits are issued for release of L. donacis, APHIS must analyze the potential impacts of the 

release of this organism into the contiguous United States in accordance with USDA, APHIS 

National Environmental Policy Act implementing regulations (7 Code of Federal Regulations Part 

372). APHIS has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) that analyzes the potential 

environmental consequences of this action. The EA is available from:

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Animal and Plant Health inspection Service

Plant Protection and Quarantine, Plant Health Programs

Permitting and Compliance Coordination

4700 River Road, Unit 133

Riverdale, MD 20737

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/ea/index.shtml

The EA analyzed the following two alternatives in response to a request for permits authorizing 

environmental release of L. donacis: (1) no action, and (2) issue permits for the release of L. 

donacis for biological control of Arundo donax. A third alternative, to issue permits with special 

provisions or requirements concerning release procedures or mitigating measures, was 

considered. However, this alternative was dismissed because no issues were raised that indicated 

that special provisions or requirements were necessary. The No Action alternative, as described 

in the EA, would likely result in the continued use at the current level of chemical, mechanical, 

and biological control methods for the management of Arundo donax. These control methods 

described are not alternatives for decisions to be made by APHIS, but are presently being used to 

control Arundo donax in the United States and may continue regardless of permit issuance for 

field release of L. donacis. Notice of the EA was made available in the Federal Register on 

November 8, 2016 for a 30-day public comment period. Fourteen comments were received on 

the EA by the close of the comment period. Twelve commenters were in favor of the release of 

L. donacis. Two commenters were against the release of L. donacis, but did not raise any 

substantive issues. However, these comments are addressed in appendix 5 of the EA.