USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Response to Petitions to Reclassify Light Brown Apple Moth and Announcement of Shift in Approach to Responding to the Light Brown Apple Moth Infestation in California January 2010

In March 2007, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) confirmed the presence of the Light Brown Apple Moth (LBAM), Epiphyas postvittana , in Alameda County, California. LBAM is native to Australia and has become established in New Zealand, Hawaii, and the United Kingdom.

In response to the LBAM detection in California, APHIS established a New Pest Advisory Group (NPAG) composed of an international panel of scientific experts

. The Agency requested
tha t the group provide a preliminary science

- based assessment of the significance of the LBAM detection in the continental United States to help inform Federal and State regulatory decision making about the pest. The NPAG experts evaluated the biology and ep idemiology of LBAM, as well as the feasibility, reliability, and practicality of potential mitigation approaches. APHIS officials carefully considered the assessments provided by the group during the development of its regulatory framework and response st rategies. As a result of this process, APHIS determined
that LBAM is a quarantine pest that poses a considerable risk to American agriculture, horticulture, U.S. producers’ access to foreign markets, and certain natural ecosystems as well.

Based on the NPAG findings and discussions with California state and county agricultural officials, the National Plant Board, and California and national agricultural producers, APHIS coordinated efforts with the California Department of Agriculture (CDFA) to implement a regulatory framework to prevent further spread of LBAM. As a result, quarantines were established in eight San Francisco Bay area counties under the authorities provided to APHIS
under the Plant Protection Act.

APHIS subsequently established a Techn ical Working Group (TWG) composed of scientists and regulatory personnel to assess potential mitigations for LBAM and to evaluate program response strategies, with the goal of providing the greatest level of protection to uninfested areas of California, th e remaining continental United States, and our trading partners. The LBAM response strategy that was implemented by APHIS and CDFA was based upon scientific assessments by the TWG and by a similar group of scientists concurrently convened by CDFA.
CDFA l aunched an eradication program that centered on the aerial release of an insect pheromone intended to disrupt LBAM mating throughout infested areas. However, in the spring of 2008, a State Court ruling in response to lawsuits brought by several activist g roups required CDFA to curtail pheromone applications.

When aerial pheromone applications were stopped, CDFA focused their revised response program on (1) eradicating LBAM using ground

- based pheromone treatments and (2) reducing the risk of long

- distanc e spread of LBAM, while facilitating the movement of agricultural commodities through inspection and treatment of LBAM

- host crops shipped out of the regulated areas. Additionally, APHIS and CDFA evaluated sterile insect technique and potential biological control agents as additional methods for reducing LBAM population levels.In September 2008 and February 2009, respectively, the Secretary of Agriculture was petitioned by three public citizens and by representatives of the Pesticide Action Network North America to reclassify LBAM as a nonactionable/nonreportable pest status. APHIS considered the positions articulated in the two petitions; we reviewed the science and economic implications of such a shift in policy based upon experience with LBAM in Calif ornia and discussions with the States and foreign trading partners. We concluded that the regulatory status of LBAM was warranted and that LBAM should remain as an actionable quarantine pest.

APHIS subsequently submitted its analysis/findings to the Na tional Academy of Sciences, National Research Council (NRC) for an independent third

- party review. The NRC acknowledged that APHIS had “met the minimum standard within its broad regulatory powers to declare that the moth is of potential economic importanc e and is actionable.” NRC also indicated that APHIS could have done a better job in providing the scientific justification addressing the question of reclassification, and suggested that the Agency would be well

- served to address questions that were not d irectly related to the question of reclassification but that were included in the petition.

In drafting the response to the petitions and related appendices, APHIS took NRC’s comments into consideration and provided more scientific detail and additional information to address the concerns of NRC. Information on genetic analyses of LBAM was redacted since they are not yet available in a refereed journal. We have further articulated the assessment of the potential impact of LBAM that we believe justifies the regulatory classification. In line with the NRC’s recommendation, we have also provided additional information on the LBAM response program in general.

At this time, LBAM will remain a quarantine pest . However, given the increases in LBAM populati on densities and the extent of contiguous spread of LBAM that has occurred over the past two years. APHIS ha s concluded that eradication is no longer feasible in California. Hence, the LBAM program has shifted its goal from eradication to management/contr ol. We will continue to pursue a multi

- layered response strategy for LBAM that includes mating disruption, pesticide application, SIT, biological control, continued survey, and regulatory controls on the movement of agricultural commodities out of the qua rantine area. APHIS will maintain a regulatory program to prevent long

- distance spread of LBAM through the enforcement of phytosanitary measures to ensure that other States and our international trading partners are protected. Further, we will continue t o work with affected industries, farmers, and stakeholders to suppress populations to the fullest extent and, where possible, to eradicate outlying small and
discrete infestations.

APHIS’ revised draft response to the petitions requesting reclassification of LBAM, along with a series of associated questions and answers, will be posted to the APHIS LBAM Web site, http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/l ba_moth/index.shtml . On March 15

, 2010, APHIS published a notice of availability in the Federal Register announcing the availability of the revised draft response and informing the public and all interested parties of their opportunity to formally prov ide comments and feedback during a 60

- day comment period. The link to submit comments on the draft response may be found at www.regulations.gov.Following the 60

- day comment period, APHIS will review and consider all comments. APHIS’ final response to the petitions will be made available to the public on the Agency’s Web site.United States Department of Agriculture

Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service

Plant Protection and Quarantine

January 14, 2010 

# APHIS Draft Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of Light Brown Apple Moth [ Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)] as a Non

- Quarantine Pest

Revision 2

Male and female adult light brown apple moths **Epiphyas postvittana** Photo used with the permission of HortResearch, New Zealand

Agency Contact: Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory
Center for Plant Health Science and Technology Plant Protection and Quarantine Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service United States Department of Agriculture 1730 Varsity Drive, Suite 300 Raleigh, NC 27606DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of Light Brown Apple Moth [ Epiphyas postvittana ( Walker)] as a Non

- Quarantine Pest

1 

### Table of Contents

E XECUTIVE S UMMARY

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 2

I. B ACKGROUND

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 3

II. LBAM AS AN I NVASIVE S PECIES

................................ ................................ .............................. 4

II I. I MPORTANT E CONOMIC F ACTORS C ONSIDERED IN THE D ECISION

- M AKING P ROCESS TO
R EGULATE LBAM

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 8

I MPACTS ON A GRICULTURAL P RODUCTION

................................ ................................ ............... 10 Nursery Products, Flowers, and Foliage

................................ ................................ ............... 12 Organic Crops

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 15
S PREAD P OTENTIAL

................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 16

T RADE

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 17
C ROP D AMAGE

................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 20

E NVIRONMENTAL D AMAGE

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 21

A DDITIONAL C OSTS TO F ARMERS P RODUCING N URSERY S TOCK

, C UT F LOWER

, AND F OLIAGE 24

IV. S UMMARY

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 25

V. C ONCLUSION

................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 25

V I

. L ITERATURE C ITED

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 26

VI I

. L ITERATURE C ONSULTED

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 31

VI II

. A PPENDICES

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 69

A PPENDIX 1 : E XPLANATION OF KEY RE GULATORY TERMINOLOGY

................................ ........... 69

A PPENDIX 2: LBAM D EGREE D AY M ODEL V ALIDATION M AP

................................ .................. 70

A PPENDIX 3: T ECHNICAL W ORKING G ROUP M EMBERS

................................ ............................. 71DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of Light Brown Apple Moth [ Epiphyas postvittana ( Walker)] as a Non

- Quarantine Pest

2 Executive Summary

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has developed this response to petitions submitted on September 12, 2008 and February 4, 2009 to the USDA Secretary of Agriculture, requesting the Light Brown Apple Moth (LBAM), Epiphyas postvittana (Walke r) be reclassified from an actionable to a non

- actionable pest and lessen its federal regulatory status.

APHIS considered the petitions’ requests to reclassify LBAM. To this end, we outlined the key
criteria that APHIS uses to determine a pest’s regulato ry status in accordance with the standard established by the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) and the authorities of the USDA. The discussion herein addresses petition elements relevant to our criteria, the nature of invasive species genera lly, and LBAM specifically.

The petitions also question APHIS ’ ability to eradicate LBAM ; the appropriateness of technologies
used to support an eradication program; the potential impacts of these technologies on the
environment and to human health and safety; and effectiveness of the communication strategies used to inform the public about the LBAM program

. APHIS recognizes the importance of all of these
issues ; however, for the sake of clarity, we have focused the discussion in this response to the cen tral purpose of the petitions which was to request the reclassification of LBAM . Questions raised by the petitions regarding regulatory and other actions are different discussions that are addressed separately by APHIS in a frequently asked questions forma t available on the APHIS web site

.

APHIS ’ analysis of LBAM’s regulatory status was based on available scientific, expert, and empirical evidence. APHIS worked with State and county agriculture officials, industry representatives, and academicians to asc ertain the potential impact of this pest in California and throughout the continental United States. The study conclude d that LBAM is an invasive pest of economic importance because it poses a significant threat to America’s agriculture and natural

resour ces. Its findings indicate that LBAM should be classified as a regulated pest because it meets the internationally established criteria for a quarantine pest . Following consideration of public comments received in the Federal Register, APHIS will conside r comments and finalize the petition

response.

Key findings of the analysis include: 1) significant potential crop production and market losses, ranging from $0.5 to $1.0 billion across 33 States that have a climate and hosts predicted to be suitable for LBAM establishment and survival; 2) potential impacts associated with threatened and endangered species that are LBAM hosts as well as negative impacts linked to potential increases in pesticide use; 3) phytosanitary trad e barriers and restrictions for US commodities that are hosts of LBAM among U.S. trading partners (as high $9 billion annually); and 4) increased costs due to restrictions on the interstate and intrastate movement of nursery plants.

Next Steps: APHIS ackn owledges concerns of the petitioners and has carefully analyzed the factors brought to the attention of the Secretary. A step in the process was that APHIS commissioned the National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council (NRC) to provide a third

- p arty technical and scientific review of the petition response. This draft document follows that review and reflects adjustments made by APHIS in response to comments from NRC.DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of Light Brown Apple Moth [ Epiphyas postvittana ( Walker)] as a Non

- Quarantine Pest

3 I. Background

The first detection in the continental United States of the L ight Brown Apple Moth (LBAM), Epiphyas postvittana (Walker), was in California (Berkeley area) in 2006 (Brown, 2007)

, although the specimens collected were not determined to species at the time. Presence of the
moth in the State was confirmed in March 2007 (Varela et al., 2008) . As of April 22, 2009, the
moth had been found in 17 California counties

, but its current distribution is limited to 1 6
counties as a result of current control activities (USDA

- CDFA, 20 10 ; NAPIS, 2009b; USDA

APHIS , 2009a ) . The introduction of LBAM into California has resulted in the imposition of interstate quarantines on several California counties (USDA, 2007) , as well as interior California quarantines (CDFA, 2009) , restricting the domestic movement of various commodities known to
be E

. postvittana hosts.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ( APHIS ) classifies the moth as a quarantine pest that requires phytosanitary measures ( designating it as an “ actionable pest” ) when detected in imported commodities. Actions taken to contain or eradicate the pest in response to its introduction co nstitute an official control program. Such a program is required in order for the United States to take action and prevent LBAM from entering the US when associated with imported products. Th e implementation of an official control program and maintaining the regulatory status protects America’s farmers who export

crops (nursery plants, flowers, fruits and vegetables) from embargoes imposed by trading
partners due to concerns that they will harbor LBAM and therefore serve as a pathway for the
introduction o f LBAM to their countries (see Appendix 1 for an explanation of key regulatory terms). Several States have expressed similar concern regarding the presence of LBAM in California and thus the implementation of an official control program maintains markets.

A petition was submitted on September 12, 2008, to then

- Secretary of Agriculture Edward Schafer to formally request the reclassification of LBAM from an actionable to a non

- actionable
pest. Another petition submitted to Secretary Tom Vilsack on February 4, 2009, includes the
same request. Both petitions assert that LBAM is a minor pest similar to other superficial leaf rollers and that “post 2000 data and experience show that LBAM should be handled as a crop quality issue, not as a quarantine pest” (Harder et al., 2008; PANNA, 2009).

Under the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. §7701 et seq .), APHIS is charged with protecting the plant resources of the United States against the introduction and spread of harmful exotic plant pests. In this capacity, the A gency is responsible for taking specific actions to exclude, eradicate, or control such pests. APHIS has historically considered LBAM to be a quarantine pest for the United States. LBAM is spec ifically addressed in Federal import regulations for fruits and vegetables (7 CFR 319.56

- 13, 2008 and 7 CFR 319.56

- 20, 2008) and requires quarantine action when detected in imported products.

The criteria used by APHIS to de termine the regulatory status o f pests are consistent with U.S. obligations under the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) (IPPC, 2006). The IPPC defines a quarantine pest as:DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of Light Brown Apple Moth [ Epiphyas postvittana ( Walker)] as a Non

- Quarantine Pest

4 - a pest of potential economic importance to the area endangered thereby and not yet present there, or present but not widely distributed and being officially
controlled. (Article II)

Multiple, independent multi

- pest surveys in the United States had not detected LBAM until it

was found in California in July 2006 and confirmed in February 2007. LBAM is therefore considered by APHIS to be newly introduced. The current distribution of the pest in the continental United States covers approximately 1% of the area in which it could potentially become established (based on the area proportion of counties infes ted and predicted to be at risk from Fowler et al., 2009). As an invasive pest of considerable economic importance (e.g., Buchanan, 1977; Bailey et al., 1996; Bailey, 1997; Lo & Murrell, 2000; Sutherst, 2000) , LBAM meets the defining criteria for designation as a quarantine pest under the IPPC if maintained

un der official control in a program designed for containment or eradication (IPPC, 2006. Supplement No. 1 to ISPM No. 5).

APHIS assembled a technical working group containing representatives from federal, state, universities, and industry (Appendix 3). Ad ditionally APHIS worked closely with State and County agricultural officials; the California Invasive Species Council, a broad

- based group of agriculturally

- related organizations formed to address the issue of invasive pests; academic
researchers from the University of California (UC) at Riverside and UC Davis; as well as international organizations such as HortResearch.

This report considers the positions of the petitioners and addresses concerns regarding the basis of APHIS’ position on the regulatory st atus of LBAM as a quarantine pest. The report includes a bibliography of the references cited and also a listing of references consulted by APHIS in preparing this analysis and in the decision

- making process that led to regulatory actions for

LBAM. This report will be posted on the APHIS website for comment and thereafter, APHIS will review its position on the regulatory status of LBAM.

II. LBAM as an Invasive Species

LBAM is indigenous to Australia, and has long been established in New Zealand, N ew Caledonia, Hawaii, and the United Kingdom (Whittle, 1984). In Hawaii, LBAM has been reported from a number of locations and hosts at elevations above 1394 ft. since the early 1900s (e.g., 1912 from Lihue, Kauai

, on cassia), apparently without causing d ocumented damage to agricultural crops and forest vegetation (Kumashiro, 2007), except on protea “sugarbushes” (Fukada, 2008; see also Zimmerman, 1978). The isolation of the pest to higher altitudes has putatively prevented it from becoming a pest in agric ultural crops in Hawaii.

LBAM’s status as an economic pest of fruit crops and managed forest plantation trees is well
documented (e.g., Hassan, 1977; Hely et al., 1982; Kay, 1991; Wearing et al., 1991) . Thus, as “an alien species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm

... ” (Clinton, 1999, p. 6183) , the moth clearly fits the definition . F urther , LBAM exhibits the qualities of an invasive species in California and in many locations throughout the world.

LBAM has shown a tendency to surmount geographical and environmental barriers (e.g.

, oceans), establish itself, and then expand its population in size and range in new habitats, all hallmarks of invasive species (Ehrlich, 1986; Mack et al., 2000; Richardson et al., 2000)

.DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of Light Brown Apple Moth [ Epiphyas postvittana ( Walker)] as a Non

- Quarantine Pest

5 Observations of the sp ecies’ dynamics in Europe are illustrative. Long restricted to southwestern England (Bak er, 1968)

, in recent times, LBAM has undergone a rapid range expansion in the

U

. K

. (Porter, 2001) , and has sinc e been detected in Ireland (Bond, 1998) . Recent reports from
the U

. K

. indicate that LBAM populations were causing significant c rop damage warranting additional control measures by farmers that specifically targeted LBAM (Fountain & Cross, 2007)

.

Although natural dispersal of LBAM is limited, with most individual LBAM tending to move no greater than 100 m (Suckling et al., 1994)

, LBAM has been introduced into new regions by human activity, a pattern shared by most successful invaders (e.g., Baker, 1986; Ehrlich, 1986;
Mack et al., 2000; Ruiz et al., 2000; Mack & Lonsdale, 2001; Naylor et al., 2001; Reichard & White, 2001; Fuller, 2003; Kraus, 2003) . For example, LBAM is believed to have been introduced into England with apples imported from New Zealand (Carter, 1984) . Introduction of
th e moth into Ireland via passenger ferry from Wales is suspected (Bond, 1998) . It is also thought to have been introduced accide ntally into New Zealand (Wearing et al., 1991)

.

Invasion of new regions by LBAM has apparently been associated with LBAM encountering new plant species and cultivars and feeding, reproducing, and in some instances damaging them
which raise concern about the extent of LBAM’s host range. In Australia, the moth is believed to have originally utilized native evergreens, such as acacias (Clark, 1970) . Its present host range
has become much broader

, and includes a wide variety of cultivated fruit, vegetable, and fodder

crops, ornamentals, and broad

- leaf weeds (Danthanarayana, 1975) . Recent surveys in California have resulted in the addition of new species to its known host list (USDA, 2008a)

. Similar behavior of insects that in some scenarios were considered relatively innocuous species restricted to insignifican t impact o n minor hosts have become major pests when introduced to new regions with plant species not previously encountered by the insects (e.g., Tabashnik, 1983; Burke et al., 1986)

.

The petitions to reclassify the pest, submitted by Harder et al. (2008) and by PANNA (2009) contend that the moth is, at worst, a pest of minor economic significance. However, the evidence regarding its known host range, and its apparent capacity to attack a wide range of plant spec ies as its geographic range expands, suggest that LBAM is capable of inflicting considerable
economic harm to U.S. farmers. LBAM has a demonstrated ability to establish and spread outside of its native range. Like other invasive plant insect pests, LBAM ar e r

- strategists, with high reproductive capacity, small body size, adaptability, short generation time, and ability to disperse offspring widely; these characteristics, and its polyphagous nature, lend to its invasive capability.

In assessing the potentia l of LBAM to impact farms throughout the United States, APHIS used the North Carolina State University (NCSU)

- APHIS Plant Pest Forecasting System (NAPPFAST) (Magarey et al. 2007) to model LBAM’s potential establishment range as a pest in
the United States . NAPPFAST is an internet

- based climate mapping system ( www.nappfast.org ). NAPPFAST has been used to model a large number of exotic pests including plant pathogens (Magarey et al. 2007) and Scirtothrips dorsalis (Niets chke et al. 2006). In addition, NAPPFAST has been used to create pest risk maps for the top 50 pest targets for national surveillance ( www.nappfast.org ). NAPPFAST model predictions of potential generation numbers have beenDRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of Light Brown Apple Moth [ Epiphyas postvittana ( Walker)] as a Non

- Quarantine Pest

6 validated with reports from the literature for 21 exotic arthropod pests. The North American climate database for NAPPFAST draws from nearly 2,000 weather stations with 30 years of

hi storical daily weather data for each station. The NAPPFAST databases are linked to a generic day

- degree template which was used to create the model. After a model has been saved, NAPPFAST can create probability or average history maps based on the most rec ent 10 years (e.g., 1999 to 2008). Station data are interpolated to a 10 km 2 resolution using a 3

- D m ultivariate linear regression (Splitt and Horrel, 1998).

Borchert’s (2007) degree

- day (DD) model, which was generated using parameters from
Danthanara yana (1975), was used to identify U.S. areas where LBAM would likely become established based on climatic conditions (Fowler et al., 2009). Using this model, APHIS considered geographic regions where LBAM could complete at least three generations ( ≥ 2,221 DD at a base temperature of 7.5°C and maximum temperature of 32 o C) to be at risk for establishment. APHIS selected three generations as the requirement for establishment based on LBAM’s behavior in Australia where the moth completes three to four generati ons and is an agricultural pest (Borchert, 2007; CABI, 2006; Danthanarayana, 1975; Wearing et al ., 1991). This degree

- day model exhibited good validation with regard to predicted LBAM generations in areas where it is known to occur in Australia and other p arts of the world (Appendix 2).

The research of Gutierrez et al . (unpublished) was cited by the petitioners. Those research findings suggested that areas where the minimum air temperature was ≤

- 16°C for at least one day during the year were too cold for LBAM and would prevent its establishment. Although not accepted by a refereed journal, the APHIS study used this information (as a lethal cold temperature) in modeling the potential distribution of LBAM in the United States. To date,
information is not ava ilable on upper limit temperatures that would impact LBAM survival. However, LBAM is known to occur in inland semi

- arid irrigation districts in Australia such as Mildura where high summer temperatures are common. High summer temperatures can reduce
but do not completely eliminate LBAM populations from completing the third and fourth generations (Madge and Stirrat 2001).

We subtracted the lethal cold 10

- year frequency of climate suitability output from the three

generation 10

- year frequency of climate su itability output. The resulting map estimates areas where LBAM could complete three

- generations taking into account non

- lethal cold temperatures (Figure 1). Our analysis indicates that LBAM should survive in a significant portion of the
United States where it is capable of becoming a serious pest and threaten farm production, horticultural producers and gardeners.

Models for predicting the potential distribution of exotic pests can be subdivided into deductive or inductive modeling approaches (Baker, 200 2). Deductive approaches have appeal because the information used to develop the forecast is completely independent of observed occurrences of the invasive alien species (Venette et al. 2009). Thus, presence and absence information can be used to rigorous ly validate the model. Inductive models for exotic species must also deal with extrapolation issues, projecting potential distribution for novel environments well beyond locations used for model development. However, deductive approaches may predict a much broader geographic range than will actually be observed if other limiting factors are ignored or unknown, or if density

- dependent factors are significant. Most important, for regulatory decisionDRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of Light Brown Apple Moth [ Epiphyas postvittana ( Walker)] as a Non

- Quarantine Pest

7 making, deductive approaches are unlikely to predict a small er geographic range than will be
observed.

The NAPPFAST model is one of a few deductive modeling tools available. Another common modeling tool which was identified in the NRC review is CLIMEX (Sutherst et al. 2007). In contrast to NAPPFAST, CLIMEX has a large number of parameters which increase the complexity of model development. Trial and error are needed to fit these parameters and it is often not clear as to which parameter needs modification (Baker, 2002). Conversely, the advantage of the NAPPFAST modeling approach is that it has few parameters, each with a clear biological definition. There is a need to validate and compare pest risk models (Venette et al. 2009). Although there have been extensive model comparisons and validations for niche
modeli ng systems for native species, there have been few such studies for exotic pests. A comparison of multiple modeling approaches for Phytophthora ramorum found good general agreement between the different modeling systems examined (Magarey, 2005).

Figu re 1: Predicted establishment map for LBAM based on the frequency of climate suitability during a 10

- yr period. Establishment was defined as the number of years between 1999

- 2008 with climatic conditions favoring completion of ≥ three generations by LBAM p er year and with

non

- lethal minimum daily temperatures of **>**

- 16°C.DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of Light Brown Apple Moth [ Epiphyas postvittana ( Walker)] as a Non

- Quarantine Pest

8 The petitioners also contend that LBAM should be reclassified because it is not recently introduced to California. They state that “Experts in entomology and invasive species suggest that LBAM has likely been present in California for decades with no notable damage resulting. ”
APHIS and the California Department of Food and Agriculture ( CDFA ) have made repeated requests to entomologists in California to substantiate this claim by provid ing APHIS with data in support of this claim; however , no data have been provided t hat would substantiate this position. In contrast, APHIS has determined that it is unlikely that LBAM has been present in California for decades given routine surveys performed at ports of entry and nurseries by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Customs and Border Protection ( CBP ) and

CDFA to intercept LBAM and to prevent its introduction. Further, results of the survey by the Cooperative Agriculture Pest Survey (CAPS) conducted in 2005 indicated that there were no detections of LBAM in the area of California that is presently infested with LBAM (NAPIS, 2009a). Finally, program trapping and routine multi

- pest surveys conducted by industry in the currently infested areas were never here

- to

- fore detected/reported whereas since the initial
detection in California average trap catches have stead ily increased from 0.1 moth/trap/month in June 2007 to 0.2 moth/trap in April 2008 to 0.4 moth/trap in April 2009 ( APHIS , 2009a).

III. Important Economic Factors Considered in the Decision

- Making Process to Regulate
LBAM

The burden of mitigating the im pacts of an invasive pest falls heavily on the exporting region in the form of higher pest management and administrative costs to comply with phytosanitary requirements for commodities in trade (Hoddle et al., 2003). In the United States, APHIS works
in co njunction with States to identify and contain invasive species harmful to any segment of the agricultural sector and to natural resources in order to protect the integrity of “at

- risk” industries and resources. These measures indirectly protect consumers a nd producers from unexpected shifts in quality, price, and supply and may also preserve the environment.

LBAM is presently considered a quarantine pest because it does not occur in the United States except in limited areas where it is being contained and targeted with official control. Not all invasive pests are considered to be quarantine pests, and for quaranti ne pests, not all are considered to be actionable. There are several reasons for this, including in particular the economic importance of the pest, the degree of pest distribution, and the potential for regulatory actions to diminish the impact or slow/sto p the spread of the pest. A key reason for classifying LBAM as a reportable/actionable pest is the potential economic impact associated with the detection and spread of the pest to all areas in the United States where it could become
established or where i t might be introduced seasonally (Figure 1 and Table 1). Without mitigation, LBAM can spread to other regions of the United States from the existing quarantine
areas in California.

As for any invasive species, damage or impact on ecosystems is dependent upon a number of
variables

, e.g. niche breadth, reproductive rate, and competitive ability (Simberloff, 1981, 1989; Vitousek, 1986; Crooks, 2002) . LBAM is predicted to have moderate to significant impacts on agricultural, horticultural, and

, in certain instances

, it may adversely impact naturally occurring host species including threatened or endangered plant species (Fowler et al., 2009). Thus, in addition to agricultural crops, LBAM has a host ran ge that includes trees and ornamental species, giving it the potential to also cause damage to certain ecosystems and to urban and suburbanDRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of Light Brown Apple Moth [ Epiphyas postvittana ( Walker)] as a Non

- Quarantine Pest

9 communities. Current regulations for LBAM are designed to curb these potential economic and environmental impacts to agricultural and natural resources by isolating and preventing the spread of the pest beyond the counties currently quarantined. The response programs for LBAM

were established to fortify regulations designed to mitigate pest spread associated with interstate
and international trade.

The goal of the presentation of economic data and analysis for LBAM is to determine whether the potential costs of the pest are expec ted to produce economically unacceptable impact. This would include both impacts on domestic values and trade values of commodity hosts. This analysis is not intended to provide exact estimates of the economic impact of LBAM’s costs

, but to provide decisi on makers with some perspective with regard to the pest’s potential to cause economically unacceptable impacts.

California and Hawaii, along with 32 other states, are major producers of LBAM host commodities. Potential hosts in the existing quarantine a rea in California and the entire state of Hawaii include nursery products, flowers, foliage, grapes, almonds, strawberries, oranges, tomatoes, lemons, avocadoes, and several others. If LBAM were to be reclassified, t he spread of LBAM in California to neig hboring counties, and subsequently to other States would likely have broad economic implications for host commodities in terms of trade embargos and higher production costs. The integrity of these industries would be compromised without sufficient regulat ions to demonstrate to trading partners that regulatory efforts minimize LBAM’s impacts.

Table 1 : Percent of counties at risk of LBAM establishment by State, as determined by Geographic Information System analysis of county locations and the climate match area for
LBAM establishment

Percent of Counties at Risk from LBAM

Western States: California, Arizona 100 Washington 44 Oregon 61
Nevada 65
Utah 17
New Mexico 85
Colorado 3

Central & Southern States: Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Delaware 100

Maryland 96 West Virginia 93

Kansas 59
Missouri 64
Ohio 55
Indiana 63
Illinois 62

Eastern States: New Jersey 95 Pennsylvania 49DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of Light Brown Apple Moth [ Epiphyas postvittana ( Walker)] as a Non

- Quarantine Pest

10 New York 19
Connecticut 25

Source: Fowler et al., 2009 “Economic Analysis: Risk to US Apple, Grape, Orange, and Pear Production from Light Brown Apple Moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)”, PPQ

- CPHST

- PERAL, Raleigh, North Carolina. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/lba_moth/downloads/lbameconomicanalysis.pdf

The current regulatory framework and response program is outlined in the Federal Domestic Quarantine Order DA

- 2008

- 17 that was des igned to prevent the further spread of LBAM from
infested to non

- infested areas (USDA, 2008b). The regulations established restrictions on the interstate movement of a list of regulated articles in areas where LBAM infestations are known
to exist. As of J anuary 13, 2010, 16 counties in California and all counties in Hawaii are under
the Federal Order.

Impacts on Agricultural Production
Geier and Briese (1980) classified LBAM as an “intermediate pest” with respect to its economic status, one that is neither consistently endemic nor characterized by sporadic population

e ruptions and not generally injurious, but capable of causing damaging infestat ions in intensive, high

- value crops. While the petitioners maintain that LBAM does not cause significant damage under production systems that are not heavily dependent upon insecticide inputs (particularly organophosphates) ; it is apparent that LBAM has be en a serious pest of various fruit crops in Australia and New Zealand. According to early reports (e.g., Ward, 1931; Fletcher, 1933; Nicholls, 1934; Evans, 1937b; Dumbleton, 1940) , LBAM was considered particularly damaging to pome fruit crops in Tasmania. Evans (1936) reported that apple orchards in the state were occasionally “severely attacked .” The moth also severely damaged stored fruit (Evans, 1937a)

. Its significance as a pest of pome fruit, particularly app le, is said to rank second only to that of the codling moth, Cydia pomonella (L.) . D amage to fruit in some crops may reach as high as 85% during severe outbreaks (Danthanarayana, 1975) . While many of these reports would appear dated , they are highly relevant to the issue at hand and they are highly significant because
the se losses preceded the use of organophosphates ; organophosphates came into popular use in
the 1940s (Ware, 1978). The economic impact of the pest in four fruit crops in Australia (apple, pear, grape, and orange), in terms of lost production and control costs, is estimated to exceed

A $21 million annually (Sutherst, 2000) . In vineyards, a single larva, feeding on developing fruit, can destroy the equivalent of 30 g of mature grapes (Bailey, 1997) . The loss and scarring of berries render bunches unsuitable for the fresh fruit market and reduce yields in crops grown for
dried fruit; feeding injury to berries contributes to fungal attack, resulting in further loss of yield (Buchanan, 1977) . Losses amounting to A $2000 per ha have been reported in some vineyards (Bailey et al., 1996) . In Australia, the moth is a defoliator of plantations of Eucalyptus globulus
Labill. (Collett & McBeath, 2007) which is a tree of value that is use d as windbreaks and sight and sound barriers in California (Burns & Honkala, 1990).

Eighty

- two percent of the co unties in the 33 contiguous States are considered at risk from LBAM establishment and spread based on the reported biology of the pest (Fowler et al., 2009). State Agriculture Officials, through the National Plant Board

, ha ve requested that APHIS provide federal protection against LBAM

. The value of sales of potential LBAM hosts among these at

risk states in calendar year 2007 totaled $69.4 billion representing 52% of the reported total

value of sales (US Census Bureau, 2007) . Table 2 provides the crop ca tegories and respectiveDRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of Light Brown Apple Moth [ Epiphyas postvittana ( Walker)] as a Non

- Quarantine Pest

11 farm operation sales for the at

- risk LBAM host commodity groups largely composed of individual LBAM host commodities. As of August 2007, only 25 commodities are listed as being exempt from the conditions required in the LBAM Federa l Domestic Quarantine Order for interstate movement of regulated articles ( APHIS , 2007a

, b). The exemption is applicable only

to commodities th at are produced using routine production, harvesting, and packaging practices that mitigate the pest. Table 2 pr ovides the crop categories and respective sales for the at

- risk
LBAM hosts.

Table 2 : 2007 U.S. Agricultural Census farm operation sales adjusted by risk for LBAM by commodity groups (billion dollars).

Number of States at risk from LBAM 33 states
Total Counties in States (33 States) 2,376 total counties
Number of Counties at risk from LBAM in 33 States 1,950 LBAM risk counties

Row Crops (Oilseeds, Dried Beans and Peas) $29.039

Fruit and Tree Nuts $15.709 Vegetables Fresh Cut Herbs $11.076 Floriculture, (ornamental plant excluding woody stems, cut flowers, foliage) $4.371

Nursery stock, (ornamental plants and trees with woody stems) $5.305

Alfalfa Hay $3.268 Forest Products, (excluding Christmas trees) $0.235 Agri

- Tourism & Recreational Services $0.447

Total $69.449

Source: 2007 U.S. Agricultural Census

This analysis utilizes (Fowler et al., 2009) the high and low ranges for the most likely crop value losses ( grapes, apples, pears and oranges) and applies these to the LBAM host crop U.S. Census commodity categories in each LBAM risk area state. The purpose of this effort was to give some perspective of the range of crop values at risk should LBAM expand its ran ge to its ecological limits. For the purposes of this analysis, it was considered unnecessary to address uncertainties as to demand and supply changes and their impact on crop sales losses. As more data are collected from the LBAM quarantine area, a more i n

- depth economic impact analysis could be developed to include additional information on host commodity price changes and producer costs over multiple crop years.

An initial estimate of the potential economic impact from LBAM was made for all hosts usin g the most likely high

- and low

- range proportional crop value loss estimates (Fowler et al, 2009) ranging from 0.023 to 0.010 from the uniform spread and establishment of LBAM in all the
States at risk

. T he resulting national production loss in the LBAM risk areas is estimated to range
between $0.694 to $1.597 billion dollars in value annually. California would experience the largest annual production loss among the 33 states ranging between $ 219 and $ 503 million in
value. California’s LBAM risk area alon e could be judged as being a minimal justifiable geographic distribution and host range that would represent the lowest range of expected annual economic impact in the near term because of LBAM’s existing presence

.DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of Light Brown Apple Moth [ Epiphyas postvittana ( Walker)] as a Non

- Quarantine Pest

12 California is a leading producer of seve ral singular commodities known to host LBAM. According to Table 3, at least 35 of the top 70 crops produced on California farms are known hosts to LBAM and are of significant economic importance both domestically and internationally (USDA

- NASS, 2007) . Tab le 3 reports the leading host crops in California along with their State ranking and value in thousands of dollars. California farms are major producer s of the five highest

- value fruit and tree nut crops (grapes , almonds, apples, oranges, and strawberries) in the
United States.

Grapes are the second

- largest commodity in California with a value of more than $3.7 billion in 2006. California grape production accounts for 99% of all grapes produced in the United States. While the largest proportion of Califo rnia grape production is utilized on the processed market for wine, juice, dried, and canned products, fresh grape utilization does account for roughly 13% of total production (USDA

- ERS, 2007). The five leading counties for grape production are Fresno (15. 2% of production), Kern (13.3% of production), Napa (12.7% of production), Sonoma (11.6% of production), and Tulare (9.4% of production) (USDA

- NASS California Field Office, 2007). Sonoma and Napa counties are currently quarantined due to the presence of

LB AM. More notably, Fresno, Kern, and Tulare counties not only represented approximately 80% of all table grape production in 2005 (USDA

- ERS, 2007), but also share a border with counties currently under quarantine for LBAM.

Almonds, a potential LBAM host, a re the fifth

- largest commodity in California with a value of more than $2.5 billion in 2006. The leading counties in the production of almonds are Fresno (19.6% of production), Kern (19.6% of production), Stanislaus (19.6% of production), Merced (19.6% of production), and Madera (19.6% of production). These counties represent three

quarters of almond production and also share a border with counties known to host LBAM.

Strawberries are the seventh

- largest commodity in California with a value of more than $1 .3 billion in 2006. Monterey, Santa Barbara, and Santa Cruz produced 50.1% of California strawberries in 2006. Ventura and Orange counties are also major producers of strawberries and are located near quarantined counties.

California is also a major produ cer of fresh oranges. In 2006, total orange production was valued at nearly $1.1 billion in counties that neighbor areas under quarantine (Table 3) . Even apple production, valued at nearly $114 million in 2006, can be found in the San Joaquin Valley near

c ounties quarantined for LBAM

.

A leading pathway for the spread of LBAM may be through the movement of nursery products and flowers and foliage (Whittle, 1984; Takahashi, 2002). This would include all floriculture and nursery stock plants, including shrubs, trees, and grasses for outdoor and indoor use. Table 4 provides the 2007 floriculture and nursery stock sales adjusted according to those counties at risk for LBAM by State

. Nursery Products, Flowers, and FoliageDRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of Light Brown Apple Moth [ Epiphyas postvittana ( Walker)] as a Non

- Quarantine Pest

13 Table 3 : Reported California state ranking and value of top LBAM host commodities, 2006.

COMMODITY State Ranking Value ( $1,000 ) Grapes, All 2 3,706,859 Nursery Products 3 3,095,717

Almonds 5 2,522,886

Lettuce (exempt host, APHIS, 2007 a

- b) 6 1,813,261

Strawberries 7 1,340,101 Oranges 8 1,055,666 Hay, Alfalfa 9 1,038,935 Flowers and Foliage 11 792,807

Broccoli (exempt host APHIS, 2007 a

- b) 16 545,689
Peaches, All 19 482,042
Tomatoes, Fresh Market (exempt host APHIS, 2007 a

- b) 21 428,807

Lemons 23 356,040

Avocados 24 341,492 Celery (exempt host APHIS, 2007 a

- b)) 25 323,928

Nectarines 27 272,880
Plums, Fresh 28 265,729 Bell Peppers (exempt host APHIS, 2007 a

- b) 30 226,598

Cherries 31 221,405 Raspberries 34 188,685 Spinach (exempt host APHIS, 2007 a

- b) 35 186,779

Misc Salad Greens (exempt host APHIS, 2007 a

- b) 36 183,871

Cauliflower (exempt host APHIS, 2007 a

- b) 38 173,251

Cantaloupe 40 162,026 Tangerines 43 124,928 Apples 46 113,933

Pears 48 95,305 Asparagus (exempt host APHIS, 2007 a

- b) 49 93,657

Sweet Corn 50 84,779

Artichokes (exempt host APHIS, 2007 a

- b) 51 84,661 Cabbage (exempt host APHIS, 2007 a

- b) 53 76,601 Beans, Dry 54 75,175 Grapefruit 55 66,825 Apricots 66 34,489

Green Peas 68 24,647

TOTAL VALUE OF HOST CROPS
Total Value Excluding Exempt Host Crops: $ 20,600,454 $ 16,463,351

Other exempt hosts ((exempt host APHIS, 2007 a

- b): Brussel sprouts, Kale, Bok choy, Kohlrabi, Mustard, Collards, Parsley, Squash, Pumpkin, Carrot, Radish, Potato, Beet, Olive, and Walnut. Source: California Field Office, “Summary of County Agricultural Commissioners’ Reports 2005

- 2006” (USDA

NASS California Field Office, 2007).DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of Light Brown Apple Moth [ Epiphyas postvittana ( Walker)] as a Non

- Quarantine Pest

14 Table 4 : 2007 U.S. Agricultural Census sales adjusted by risk for LBAM for floriculture 1 and nursery stock 2 (in billions of dollars).

LBAM risk states Floriculture Nursery Stock Total

California 1.222 1.682 2.904
Florida 0.909 0.844 1.753

Texas 0.326 0.292 0.618 Oregon 0.097 0.507 0.604
North Carolina 0.260 0.252 0.512 New Jersey 0.187 0.176 0.363
Arizona 0.071 0.199 0.270

Tennessee 0.075 0.177 0.252 Washington 0.062 0.103 0.165
Illinois 0.116 0.101 0.217 Virginia 0.115 0.097 0.212 Other States (AL, GA, MD, SC, OH, LA, PA, CT, IN, KY, NY, MS, MO, KS, NM, DL, CO) 0.931 0.875 1.806

Census Disclosure Policy (NV, UT, OK, AR, WV) No report No report No report

Total 4.371 5.305 9.676

1 Floriculture crops includes ornamental plants without woody stems, including annual and perennial bedding and garden plants, cut flowers, cut cultivated greens, potted flowering plants, indoor foliage plants, and unfinished propagative material.

2 Nursery stock includes finished ornamental plants and trees with woody stem s, including broadleaf evergreens, coniferous evergreens, deciduous shade trees, deciduous flowering trees, deciduous shrubs and other ornamentals, fruit and nut plants intended for outdoor and landscape use, cut and live Christmas trees, and propagation m aterial or lining

- out stock. Also includes ornamental vines, and turfgrass sod and other groundcovers. Crops are sold as “balled in burlap,” bare root, or container grown. Source: USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Census Quick Stats, http: //151.121.3.59/.

Eleven of the 33 contiguous states that have counties at risk from the establishment and spread of LBAM reported floriculture and nursery stock sales in the 2007 Agricultural Census greater than $200 million. Among these 1 1 states, Oregon and Florida had the highest portion of their 2007 gross domestic product derived from sales of floriculture and nursery stock

, over one

- third and nearly one

- quarter of one percent , respectively (U.S. Department of Commerce

- BEA, 2009).

The production of nursery products is California’s third

- largest commodity market, valued at nearly $3.1 billion in 2006 (USDA, 2006)

. Many farms produc e nursery stock for
interstate/international markets. Flowers and foliage ranked as the eleventh

- larg est commodity market in the State with a value of nearly $793 million produced. The combined 13 quarantined counties, as evidenced in Table 5, represent ed approximately one

- quarter of all nursery stock, cut flowers, and foliage production in the State duri ng 2006. Monterey County produced 8.7% of nursery products in the State making it second only to San Diego County for production of nursery products. Although San Diego produces 51% of flowers and foliage in the State, Santa Barbara and Monterey Counties produce a combined 20.2% and rank second and third

, respectively.DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of Light Brown Apple Moth [ Epiphyas postvittana ( Walker)] as a Non

- Quarantine Pest

15 Table 5 : 2006 Value of nursery, flower, and foliage production in California counties (LBAM quarantined as of June 1, 2009)

COUNTY Value ($1,000)
Monterey $339,225

Santa Barbara 178,616

San Mateo 136,021

Santa Clara 94,087

Santa Cruz 80,143

Solano 47,856

San Benito 33,428

Sonoma 27,167

Alameda 20,451

Contra Costa 18,497 Napa 3,557

San Francisco 627

Marin 445

TOTAL $980,120 Source: USDA, NASS, California Field Office, County Agricultural Commissioners’ Data 2006.

APHIS is concerned about forthcoming impacts on organic farms and gardens. S ignificant economic impacts are anticipated to become common should populations of LBAM continue to
inc re ase. In 2009, two organic caneberry fields in Santa Cruz County, California were found to
be heavily infested with LBAM . The moth populati on increased rapidly. Organic

- certified pest management practices were insufficient to control LBAM

. Over $1 million in losses were

incurred by the growers.

The economic impact of reclassification of LBAM would be particularly burdensome to producers of organically grown host commodities located within areas known to be infested with

LBAM. Without federal regulations, LBAM population densities will increase as eradication or control efforts are lessened. Furthermore, LBAM spread will continue unabated un til all organic production areas become infested. Individual States will establish quarantines or strict requirements for movement of LBAM host commodities into their States. The cost of alternative treatments for organic farm production to meet these re quirements on a State

- by

- State basis would be especially excessive leading to a rise in the price of organic goods that may not
compete on market price. Sales of organic host crops grown in California were estimated at more than $420 million in 2005 (Unive rsity of California, 2007)

. Table 6 reports the sales of organically grown crops by type and region. While the largest producing areas are located in the Central Coast and the San Joaquin Valley, the South Coast and Sacramento Valley regions are also larg e producers of organic crops and border most counties quarantined for LBAM. Organically grown hosts of LBAM are potentially at risk of field damage if the pest cannot be controlled with a compound or agent that meets the organic labeling requirement. Based on the climate match analysis, approximately two

- thirds of organic products are grown on farms in susceptible counties in California. This translates to an at

- risk value of about $276 million (University of California, 2007). Furthermore, the increased u se of insecticides targeting LBAM Organic CropsDRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of Light Brown Apple Moth [ Epiphyas postvittana ( Walker)] as a Non

- Quarantine Pest

16 in agricultural settings and urban areas may threaten the integrity of organic production systems and gardens, respectively

.

Ta ble 6 : California sales of organic crops by type and r egion, 2005

Figure 2 : Regional depiction of the value of LBAM host commodities based on 2007 data. (USDA

- NASS California Field Office, 2007)

Spread Potential The spread of LBAM in California from four counties in March 2007 to 12 counties in December 2008 highlights the underlying economic relevance of the current LBAM regulations. The invasive potential of LBAM, illustrated by the history of its range expansion (e.g., Common, 1990; Bond, 1998; Porter, 2001)

, argues for maintainin g its current regulatory status in
California. APHIS and CDFA have monitored LBAM populations in California since 2007 and Region Field Fruit & Nut Nursery, Greenhouse Vegetable Total Crops Crops & Floriculture Crops

Dollars Bay Area /1 1,268,254 1,564,865 251,136 1,871,361 4,955,616 Cascade-Sierra 5,407,044 1,215,911 7,651 828,413 7,459,019

Central Coast /2 852,395 30,656,241 3,353,677 114,896,227 149,758,540

North Coast /3 897,138 16,680,669 971,740 5,307,130 23,856,677 Sacramento Valley /4 12,453,321 14,820,705 924,572 14,184,721 42,383,319 San Joaquin Valley 2,164,098 62,069,962 448,763 44,412,776 109,095,599 South Coast 1,160,953 27,032,945 372,312 26,751,148 55,317,358 Southeast Interior 346,406 12,770,965

- 12,551,518 25,668,889 Total Sales 24,549,609 166,812,263 8,071,675 220,803,294 420,236,841

1/ Infested counties in Bay Area - Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo

2/ Infested counties Central Coast - Monterey,San Benito, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz

3/ Infested counties in North Coast - Napa, Sonoma

4/ Infested counties in Sacramento Valley - Solano
" - " Data not reported to protect confidentiality Source: "Statistical Review of California's Organic Agriculture 2000-2005", Agricultural Issues Center, University of California, May 2007

$0.0 $5.0 $10.0 $15.0 $20.0 $25.0

Quarantined Areas, 13 counties Central Valley Counties Other Counties

QUARANTINE TIMELINE FOR LBAM IN CALIFORNIA $ 14.5 $20.8

$4.7BillionsDRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of Light Brown Apple Moth [ Epiphyas postvittana ( Walker)] as a Non

- Quarantine Pest

17 have documented the continual expansion of LBAM within regulated areas and into new areas in California (CDFA website). As illustrate d in Figure 2, the current value of production of host commodities in quarantined counties is roughly $4.7 billion. If LBAM was reclassified, its eventual spread to C entral Valley counties would adversely impact farm production with an
estimated value of $14.5 billion. When all counties in California producing susceptible commodities are included (Imperial, San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, Ventura, and San Luis Obispo) an industry valued at approximately $20.8 billion becomes subject to the

ad verse economic effects associated with LBAM infestation (USDA

- NASS California Field Office, 2007).

Trade The greatest economic threat posed by LBAM is losses associated with trade restrictions on host plants and commodities in both international and inter state trade.

LBAM is a quarantine pest for several countries that are important trading partners for the United States, including Canada, Chile, Ecuador, India, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Peru, South Africa, Taiwan, and Thailand (Baker, 2005; EPPO, 2007; PRF, 2008) . After detection of the moth in California, th e government of Canada outlined new regulatory controls restricting the importation into Canada of fresh fruits and vegetables and cut flowers from 13 counties in
California (CFIA, 2008) . Similar restrictions have been imposed by Mexico, and may be adopted soon by other countries, such as China (Varela et al., 2008)

.

A significant portion of the economic impact is estimated by considering the annual value of U.S. exports from the 33 States at risk for LBAM establis hment and the existing phytosanitary restrictions for LBAM among U.S. trading partner s, which is currently at least 11 countries. The
2005

- 2007 average value of exports of host commodities from at

- risk States to countries that regulate for LBAM was $9 bil lion (Table 7). A data extract was made for each of the three Harmonized Scheduled (HS) chapters for the 33 LBAM at

- risk states. This provides the maximum magnitude of export trade value at risk for the three

- year period ( US Bureau of the Census: Foreign T rade Division USA Trade Online

, 2009). Canada, Mexico, and Chile have LBAM regulations that require specific treatment or additional declarations (AD) for the importation of LBAM host materials.

State plant regulatory officials in 22 of the 50 states and Puerto Rico indicated that they would consider taking state regulatory action if LBAM were reclassified from actionable to non

actionable by USDA. Only 10 state regulatory officials responded tha t they would take no regulatory action for LBAM should it be deregulated because they are not located in geographic regions where LBAM would become established ( APHIS , 2009b).

The majority of the products exported to Canada and Mexico from New Zealand and Australia

, where LBAM is endemic, require an import permit to ship. The import permit would have the import requirements (which could include specifications of a treatment and/or Additional Declarations for the pests of concern) for each commodity lis ted on the permit. A permit would probably be the first new requirement for LBAM host material exported to Canada and Mexico,

if LBAM was deregulated in California (Wells, 2009) and would impose additional regulatory and treatment requirements on farmers t o complete the permit process

.DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of Light Brown Apple Moth [ Epiphyas postvittana ( Walker)] as a Non

- Quarantine Pest

18 APHIS plans to continue to refine the analysis using trade scenarios as additional data are acquired. This initial analysis provides some perspective as to the range of values among geographically diverse trading partners having phytosanitary concerns for LBAM.

Ta ble 7 : V alue of exports from LBAM at

- risk states of selected commodities by HS

- Codes*, to countries that currently regulate for LBAM, avg. 2005

- 2007

HS 06

- Live Trees
And Plants HS 07

- Vegetables HS 08

- Frui ts &

Nuts Total Percent of
Total U.S. Exports From

States with
LBAM Risk

Country

------------------ Export value ($ billion)

----------------

Canada 0.161 1.277 2.016 3.454 74.1%

Mexico 0.026 0.157 0.390 0.573 81.2%

Korean Republic 0.001 0.011 0.211 0.223 96.9%

Thailand 0.000 0.001 0.032 0.033 97.0%

Chile 0.000 0.002 0.011 0.013 86.6%

South Africa 0.000 0.002 0.009 0.011 91.6%

Peru 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.005 55.5%

Ecuador 0.001 0.001 0.007 0.009 100%

India 0.000 0.032 0.188 0.220 94.1%

Japan 0.008 0.121 0.588 0.717 81.8%

Taiwan 0.000 0.033 0.169 0.202 86.3%

Value of U.S. Exports

To 11 Countries 0.317 2.085 6.645 9.047 90.5%

U.S. Exports to the World 0.384 2.711 6.894 9.989 Share of 11 Countries in U.S. World Exports 82% 77% 96% 90%

Note: the total values for all products under the two

- digit HS chapter include the aggregate trade
value. Source: US Bureau of the Census: Foreign Trade Division USA Trade Online. * HS refers to Harmonized Schedule Codes used by U.S. Customs to classify similar imported products for tariff purposes

.

Separate analysis of export trade values specific to California for selected LBAM host crops considered in Fowler et al. (2009) is provided in Table 8. These commodities include fresh

ora nges (HS080510), fresh grapes (HS080610), fresh apples (HS080810), and fresh pears (HS080820). These values are associated with the same 11 partner countries, as shown in Table 7, that have LBAM phytosanitary import trade concerns. Maximum pest spread in C alifornia accompanied by phytosanitary trade restrictions by major trading partners for U.S. fresh apples, grapes, pears, oranges, and nursery stock could bring up to one

- half billion dollars in potential negative economic impact. The aggregate values of C alifornia’s export trade for each of the fourDRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of Light Brown Apple Moth [ Epiphyas postvittana ( Walker)] as a Non

- Quarantine Pest

19 LBAM at

- risk fresh fruits is over half of the entire U.S. export value to the 11 countries. Should LBAM spread or become established in California’s agricultural areas, increased risk may prompt trading partner s to restrict the flow of LBAM host commodities. Any interruption in trade flows to these export markets is likely to result in negative impact.

Table 8: V alue of California LBAM at

- risk select fresh fruit exports , to countries that currently regulate for LBAM, avg. 2005

- 2007

Fresh Apples
HS 080810 Fresh Grapes
HS080610 Fresh Oranges
HS080510 Fresh Pears
HS080820 Total
Value

Country

---------- -------- Export value ($ millions )

----------------

Canada 8.376 197.922 82.739 8.320 297.357

Mexico 18.603 33.176 4.864 10.044 66.687

Korean Republic 0.029 5.435 81.208 0.000 86.672

Thailand 0.187 10.404 0.172 0.000 10.763

Chile 0.000 0.171 0.110 0.043 0.324

South Africa 0.000 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.012

Peru 0.097 0.031 0.016 0.040 0.184

Ecuador 0. 143 2.234 0.114 0.038 2.529

India 1.857 4.824 0.179 0.044 6.904

Japan 0.059 6.103 46.038 0.015 52.215

Taiwan 2.517 20.761 3.633 0.031 26.942

Value of U.S. Exports

To 11 Countries 31.688 281.073 219.073 18.575 550.589

Share 11 Country Total of U.S. World Exports 54.32% 54.21 % 69.54 % 86.28 %

Figure 3 highlights the value of exports to Canada, Mexico, and Chile of specific commodities produced in California that are also susceptible to LBAM. Canada and Mexico are the leading importers of California agricultural products. These two countries als o place restrictions on imports of LBAM host commodities. Trade restrictions between these two countries and the United States would likely serve as a guide for other countries producing host commodities. Although exports to Chile from California represent less than 1% of the value depicted in Figure 2, it is important to note that Chile places a strict prohibition on LBAM host articles.

The largest and third largest importers of California table grapes are Canada and Mexico

, respectively . Under specifie d conditions, host articles may enter Canada (B.C.) and Mexico from regulated areas. Grapes from a production site with a positive find are prohibited. These restrictions lead to higher costs for producers, and in cases of positive finds, loss of market

ac cess. Considering t he magnitude of the value of host commodity export trade from states at
risk of LBAM introduction ($9 billion), economic impact may include significant job and
business losses

, particularly in states that experience high and expansive i nfestations. Currently, major table grape

- producing counties are not infested; however, if LBAM spread to other hostDRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of Light Brown Apple Moth [ Epiphyas postvittana ( Walker)] as a Non

- Quarantine Pest

20 crop areas, exports to Canada (B.C.) and Mexico would be prohibited unless post

- harvest

treatments were applied or the production site met the requirement of International Standard for Phytosanitary Measures No. 10 (IPPC, 2006) for a pest

- free place of production, including a buffer zone. The requirement of a buffer zone would be problematic for growers to implement given the horticultural la ndscape and wide host distribution in the production areas. Additionally, while methyl bromide is approved as a fumigant for surface pests, eff icacy data specifically for

LBAM does not currently exist for its application on grapes.

Figure 3 : Value of C alifornia exports to Canada, Mexico, and Chile, 2007. Source: Global Trade Atlas State Export Data.

Crop Damage The key reason for instituting quarantine regulations is first and foremost to prevent the crop damage that a new pest could cause in areas previously not known to be affected. Predicting the potential damage of LBAM in the United States is the subject of much controversy. The petitioners have suggested that LBAM is a quarantine pest in New Zealand and Australia primarily because of the restrictions imposed by U.S. import regulations, and because heavy use of organophosphate pesticides in early years was implemented (to comply with the U.S. requirements) which resulted in the eliminat ion of natur al enemies that would have limited LBAM damage. The petitions contend that naturally occurring T richogramma or other beneficial insects and organisms can limit damage caused by LBAM to one percent or less of crops ( petition submitted by Harder et al. (2008) ). The literature also suggests that natural control can be sporadic, and incapable of preventing economic losses (Nicholls, 1934; Lloyd et al. , 1970; Collyer & van Geldermalsen, 1975; Buchanan, 1977). The implication that a pest is considered

min or because of a small percentage loss is misleading. For a pest with as broad a host range as LBAM, the economic losses would be considered significant when damages are summed across the numerous susceptible crops. An assumed proportion of crop damage of 0.010 to 0.023 249.7

131.9 223.7

193.6

75.4

2.1 34.3 70.9

0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 250.00 300.00

Grapes Almonds Lettuce Strawberries Oranges Flowers and Foliage Broccoli Peaches$ MillionsDRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of Light Brown Apple Moth [ Epiphyas postvittana ( Walker)] as a Non

- Quarantine Pest

21 (Fowler et al., 2009) applied to the aggregate estimated LBAM 2007 commodity safeguarding market value derived from data in the 2007 U.S. Agricultural Census would mean that American farmers would experience losses that would amount to a $0. 694 to $1. 597 billion in crop damage losses per year of the major host crops produced in the 33 LBAM at

- risk states. This amount is assumed to be a range within the most likely representative lower and upper bounds that would depend on the availabil ity and effectiveness of LBAM’s natural enemies to thrive in areas with
suitable climate and hosts. This does not include impacts on other States that may be subject to
seasonal infestations

.

Based on recent experience in Tasmania, the costs of pestic ides on a major LBAM host crop such as grapes is anticipated to cost the farmer $7 to $10.50 per acre (2009 US$) excluding application costs (Lo and Murrell, 2000). For example, in the current LBAM quarantine area in California the estimated annual pestici de cost applied to the 2007 agricultural census grape

bearing acreage in the 10 counties would in aggregate range from over $850,000 to $1.275 million. If LBAM were to spread to grape

- bearing acreage in all other 33 at

- risk states and
insecticides were us ed on 10 percent of the acreage, the pesticide costs could range from over $670,000 to over $1 million annually.

In 2007, APHIS conducted a geospatial analysis of areas at risk in the United States based on climate and hosts (Fowler et al., 2009). The study focused on four major host commodities that included apple, grape, pear, and orange. The result showed that 58% to 100% of the four crops
would be at risk for LBAM (appl e 58%, grape 97%, orange 100%, pear 73%)

. Fowler et al. (2009) estimated the mean total annual crop value loss if LBAM were introduced into the at

- risk areas to be $104 million. The 5 th and 95 th percentile values were: $77 million and $132 million, i.e.

95 percent of the time total crop value loss exceeded $76 million. It should be noted that this estimate would likely be much higher were it to consider more hosts. Crop damages could be reduced by pre

- harvest treatments but these would add to the cost of pr oduction.

Environmental Damage
Silviculture Of the eight species of Tortricidae causing moderate

- to

- severe damage to Monterey pine ( Pinus
radiata D. Don) in Australia, LBAM is the most common (Kay, 1991). Neumann & Marks (1976, p. 89) deemed LBAM an imp ortant defoliator “sometimes associated with significant damage to seedlings and trees of...conifers” in New South Wales, South Australia, and Victoria. They reported larvae to damage needles and terminal buds of P

. radiata in nurseries and young plantations . The moth also is among the most important tortricid pests of conifers in New Zealand, and also is found on plantation eucalyptus there (Kay, 1991). In New Zealand, LBAM
is found on P

. radiata and other Pinus spp., Douglas fir, and Picea spp. (Nuttall, 19 83). Larvae use the stems and apical buds of the leading shoots of conifers as winter

- feeding and refuge sites. The bud is destroyed and the apical few centimeters of the leader hollowed out; damage results in a malformed stem or multiple leaders (Kay, 199 1). On pines, larvae web needles together to form tubular shelters; feeding damages needles, flowers, and green cones (Nutt all, 1983)

. Brockerhoff et al. (2002) found LBAM to be about as abundant in P

. radiata plantation forests as
it was in fruit orchards.DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of Light Brown Apple Moth [ Epiphyas postvittana ( Walker)] as a Non

- Quarantine Pest

22 Insecticide Pollution
Buchanan (1977) reported that parasitoids caused about 30% mortality in larvae and pupae of
LBAM in both the overwintering and spring generations in Australian vineyards. However, this was insufficient to prevent the pest from causing economic damage. Natural enemies also were reported not to provide satisfactory control of the moth in Tasmanian apple orchar ds in the absence of insecticidal applications (Lloyd et al., 197 0) . The petition submitted by Harder et al. (2008) suggested that LBAM infestation, and the damage they cause, resulted from the overuse of insecticides killing off natural enemies, which would tend to keep populations of the pest in check. However, LBA M was known to be a troublesome pest in Australia before the advent of modern synthetic insecticides in horticulture, and capable of causing severe crop losses (Geier & Briese, 1981) . Production of high

- quality pome fruits is possible only with application of a full schedule of preventive insecticidal sprays (MacQuillan, 1976; Terauds, 1977) . Spread of LBAM throughout the United States thus could lead to an increase in the use of insectides to control the
pest on America’s farms and residential areas

.

Potential Threats to Native Plant Spec ies As indicated by the number of its disparate host plants, which includes species in numerous
families (Whittle, 1984; Brown et al., 2008; USDA, 2008a)

, USDA is concerned about the potential to impact ecosystems under certain conditions due to LBAM’s wide host range . The
moth ’s introduction into the continental United States puts at risk not only economically important crops and nursery stock, but also populations of native American plant taxa determined by the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service to be in danger of extinction (50 CFR §17.12, 2005). At least 70 of these species, subspecies, or varieties were identified as potential or actual hosts of LBAM (Table 8), based on the moth’s known host range. The list includes 26 species, subspecies, or varieti es, on which the moth has been recorded since its introduction into California, and which therefore are under increased threat of extinction.

Table 9: Threatened or endangered plant species 1 in the United States potentially at risk of attack by LBAM
Speci es Status Distribution 2 LBAM Host Reference

Adiantum vivesii Endangered PR USDA (2008a) ; Whittle (1984)
Amaranth us pumilus Threatened DE, MA, MD, NC, NJ, NY, RI, SC, VA USDA (2008a) ; Whittle (1984)

Arctosta phylos confertiflora 3 Endangered CA USDA (2008a) Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp. crassifolia 3 Endangered CA USDA (2008a)

Arctostaphylos hookeri var. ravenii 3 Endangered CA USDA (2008a)

Arctostaphylos morroensis 3 Threatened CA USDA (2008a) Arctostaphylos myrtifolia 3 Threatened CA USDA (2008a) Arctostaphylos pallida 3 Threatened CA USDA (2008a)
Baccharis vanessae 3 Threatened CA Brown et al. (2008) ; USDA (2008a) ; Whittle (1984)
Berberis nevinii 3 Endangered CA USDA (2008a) Berberis pinnata ssp. insularis Endangered CA USDA (2008a)
Betula uber Threatened VA USDA (2008a) Ceanothus ferrisae 3 Endangered CA USDA (2008a) ; Whittle (1 984) Ceanothus ophiochilus 3 Threatened CA USDA (2008a) ; Whittle (1984)
Ceanothu s roderickii 3 Endangered CA USDA (2008a) ; Whi ttle (1984) Cirsium fontinale var

. fontinale 3 Endangered CA USDA (2008a)DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of Light Brown Apple Moth [ Epiphyas postvittana ( Walker)] as a Non

- Quarantine Pest

23 Cirsium fontinale var. obispoense 3 Endangered CA USDA (2008a)

Cirsium hydrophilum var. hydrophilum 3 Endangered CA USDA (2008a)

Cirsium loncholep is 3 Endangered CA USDA (2008a)

Cirsium pitcher Threatened IL, IN, MI, WI USDA (2008a)

Cirsium vinaceum Threatened NM USDA (2008a) Clematis morefieldii Endangered AL USDA (2008 a) ; Whittle (1984)
Clematis socialis Endangered AL USDA (2008a) ; Whittle (1984)
Cucurbita okeechobeensis ssp. Okeechobeensis Endangered FL USDA (2008a) ; Whittle (1984)

Cupressus abramsiana 3 Endangered CA USDA (2008a) Cupressus goveniana ssp. goveniana 3 Threatened CA USDA (2008a)

Eugenia haematocarpa Endangered PR USDA (2008a) Eugenia woodburyana Endangered PR USDA (2008a) Euphorbia telephioides Threatened FL USDA (2008a) ; Whittle (1984) Helianthus paradoxus Threatened NM, TX USDA (2008a) Helianthus schweinitzii Endangered NC, SC USDA (2008a) Hypericum cumulicola Endangered FL USDA (2008a) ; Whittle (198 4)
Ilex cookie Endangered PR USDA (2008a)
Ilex sintenisii Endangered PR USDA (2008a)
Iris lacustris Threatened MI, WI USDA (2008a) Juglans jamaicensis Endangered PR USDA (200 8a) ; Whittle (1984)
Lilium occidentale 3 Endangered CA, OR USDA (2008a) Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense 3 Endangered CA USDA (2008a)

Lotus dendroideus ssp. traskiae Enda ngered CA USDA (2008a) Lupinus aridorum Enda ngered FL USDA (2008a) ; Whittle (1984) Lupinus nipomensis 3 Endangered CA USDA (2008a) ; Whittle (1984) Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii Threatened OR, WA USDA (2008a) ; Whittle (1984) Lupinus tidestromii 3 Endangered CA USDA (2008a) ; Whittle (1984) Opuntia treleasei Endangere d CA USDA (2008a) Penstemon haydenii Endange red NE USDA (2008a) Penstemon penlandii Endangered CO USDA (2008a)
Phlox hirsuta 3 Endangered CA USDA (2008a)
Phlox nivalis ssp

. Texensis Endangered TX USDA (2008a) Polyga la lewtonii Endangered FL USDA (2008a) ; Whitt le (1984) Polygala smallii Endangered FL USDA (2008a) ; Whittle (1984) Polygonum hickmanii 3 Endangered CA USDA (2008a) ; Whittle (1984) Primula maguirei Threatened UT USDA (2008a) Prunus geniculata Endangered FL Brown et al. (2008) ; USDA (2008a) ; Whittle (1984) Pteris lidgatei Endangered PR USDA (2008a) ; Whittle (1984) Quercus hinckleyi Threatened TX USDA (2008a) ; Whittle (1984) Ranunculus acriformis var. Aestivalis Endangered UT USDA (2008a) ; Whittle (1984)

Rhododendron chapmanii Endangered FL Meijerman & Ulenberg (2000) ; USDA (2008a)
Ribes echinellum Threatened FL, SC Brown et al. (2008) ; USDA (2008 a) ; Whittle (1984) Senecio franciscanus Threatened AZ USDA (2008a) ; Whittle (1984) Senecio layneae Threatened CA USDA (2008a) ; Whittle (1984) Solanum drymophilum Endangered PR USDA (2008a) ; Whittle (1984) Solidago albopilosa Threatened KY USDA (2008a)
Solid ago houghtonii Threatened MI USDA (2008a)DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of Light Brown Apple Moth [ Epiphyas postvittana ( Walker)] as a Non

- Quarantine Pest

24 So lidago shortii Endangered KY USDA (2008a)

So lidago spithamaea Threatened NC, TN USDA (2008 a) Spiraea virginiana Threatened GA, KY, NC, OH, PA, TN, VA, WV USDA (2008a)

Trifolium amoenum 3 Endangered CA Brown et al. (2008) ; USDA (2008a) ; Whittle (1984) Trifolium stoloniferum Endangered A R, IL, IN, KS, KY, MO, OH, WV Brown et al. (2008) ; USDA (2008a) ; Wh ittle (1984) Trifolium trichocalyx 3 Endangered CA Brown et al. (2008) ; USDA (2008a) ; Whittle (1984) Verbena californica 3 Threatened CA USDA (2008a)

1 Listed in 50 CFR §17.12

2 Distribution: AL = Alabama, AR = Arkansas, AZ = Arizona, CA = California, CO = Colorado, DE = Delaware, FL

= Florida, GA = Georgia, IL = Illinois, IN = Indiana, KS = Kansas, KY = Kentucky, MA = Massachusetts, MD = Maryland, MI = Michigan, MO = Missouri, NC = North Carolina, NE = Nebraska, NJ = New Jersey, NM = New Mexico, NY = New York, OH = Ohio, OR = Oregon, PA = Pennsylvania, PR = Puerto Rico, RI = Rhode Island, SC = South Carolina, TN = Tennessee, TX = Texas, UT = Utah, VA = Virginia, WA = Washington, WI = Wisconsin, WV = West Virginia

3 Listed in USDA (2008a) as a confirmed host.

Additional Costs to Farmers Producing Nursery Stock, Cut Flower, and Folia ge A likely pathway for LBAM to spread from California to uninfested areas is through the nursery trade. This risk is reflected in the import requirements of Canada, Mexico, and Chile for U.S. nursery products, which are more stringent than for fresh frui ts and vegetables. Based on one industry estimate, approximately 50% of the volume of nursery products and cut flowers and foliage produced in California are destined for markets outside the State (O’Brien, 2004). Should LBAM be allowed to spread unchecked , the implications for U.S. trade (export and interstate) of nursery products and cut flowers would be additional restrictions ranging from certification for
pest freedom, to quarantine treatment, to prohibition.

In order to maintain interstate commerc e, nursery stock, cut flowers, and greenery produced in quarantined areas must be inspected and found free of the pest as a condition for movement. The
California Nursery Growers Commission/ Nursery Growers Association estimated that the procedures to mee t compliance could increase producer costs by $2,250 to $4,570 per acre annually (O’Brien, 2009). These additional costs above current non

- LBAM pest management costs are associated with the use of chemical applications, pheromone twist ties, and monitoring of premises.

Due to the impracticality of segregating intrastate and interstate markets, it is likely that all nursery products grown in LBAM quarantine areas would need to be treated in the event that LBAM were deregulated in the federal domestic quarantine regulations . According to the 2007 Census of Agriculture, 436,511 acres of nursery and floriculture crops in the 33 LBAM at

- risk states were grown in open areas as opposed to under glass or other protection. The nursery and floriculture crops included in this category are vegetable and flower seed crops, and sod harvested, etc. grown in the open. Floriculture crops are defined as bedding/garden plants, cut flowers and cut florist greens, foliage plants, and potted floweri ng plants. Based upon this estimate, under deregulation the additional cost to producers with open

- air production could range between $982 million and $1.9 billion annually.DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of Light Brown Apple Moth [ Epiphyas postvittana ( Walker)] as a Non

- Quarantine Pest

25 IV. Summary
If LBAM were to be reclassified as a non

- actionable pest, APHIS estim ates that the lowest range of annual sales losses from LBAM damages would be $694 million (a 1% loss). Under official control, the amount of avoided losses in annual sales compares with the federal funding available in the LBAM emergency response effort of almost $100 million (USDA, 2008c News Release)

over a two

- year period, indicating a potential, positive benefit

- to

- cost ratio of at least 6.9 to 1. This does not include potential environmental losses due to factors such as increased pesticide
use and ot her costs associated with widespread establishment of the pest. Additionally, deregulation of LBAM domestically is likely to trigger increased restrictions for LBAM by trading partners, which are expected to have a much greater impact on American farms if LBAM were allowed to spread beyond the current containment area.

V. Conclusion
APHIS considered the positions articulated in the two petitions received by the Secretary of Agriculture that requested a change in the regulatory status of LBAM from an action able quarantine pest to non

- quarantine pest. In reviewing the science, economics, and situational awareness surrounding such a shift in policy which was based upon experience with LBAM in California and discussions with the States and foreign trading partn ers, APHIS determined that the regulatory status of LBAM should remain as an actionable quarantine pest. APHIS subsequently subjected its analysis/findings to the National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council (NRC) for an independent third party review. Aside from acknowledging that APHIS had the regulatory authority to take such action, NRC determined that through a review of a draft response to the petition that APHIS had provided sufficient evidence to lead NRC to
conclude that this decision was justified. NRC went on to elaborate that APHIS could have done a better job in providing the scientific justification addressing the question of reclassification and
that APHIS would be well

- served to address questions that were not directly related t o the question of reclassification but that were included in the petition. In drafting this document and related appendices, APHIS considered those comments and therefore articulated the science in more detail and provided additional information to addres s the concerns of NRC. Herein we have enhanced our knowledge of the situation that we believe justifies the regulatory classification of LBAM and we have provided additional information on the LBAM response program in general. Of significant note is a sh ift in the goals of the LBAM program from eradication to management/control; this means that LBAM will remain a quarantine pest , but that given the increases in LBAM population densities and the extent of contiguous spread of LBAM observed over the past tw o years, coupled with a lack of area

- wide management tools (aerial application), eradication is no longer feasible in California. Thus, APHIS will maintain a regulatory program to prevent long

- distance spread of LBAM through the enforcement of

treatments and inspection of exports to assure that trading partners and other States are protected. Further, APHIS will continue to work with the CDFA and affected industries, farmers and stakeholders to suppress populations to the fullest extent possible.

We are sharing our position publically via Federal Register Notification to ensure that all interested parties have an opportunity to review this document and for the purpose of providing them with an opportunity to provide comments to APHIS during a 60

- day comme nt period. Thereafter, APHIS will review all comments and will finalize this document. It will be posted on APHIS’ website thereafter for public display.DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of Light Brown Apple Moth [ Epiphyas postvittana ( Walker)] as a Non

- Quarantine Pest

26 V I . Literature Cited

[N.B. This section includes all references cited in the document. A muc h larger number of references were consulted but not cited above because they were redundant or did not otherwise provide additional information; that more complete list of all articles consulted is presented in the “Literature Consulted” section which fol lows.]

7 U.S.C. § 7701

- 7786. 2000. Plant Protection Act, Title 7 United States Code § 7701

- 7786. 7 CFR § 319.56

- 13. 2008. Code of Federal Regulations. Agriculture. Title 7 Part 319 (7 CFR §
319.56

- 13 Fruits and vegetables allowed importation subject to specified conditions). Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, DC, USA. 7 CFR § 319.56

- 20. 2008. Code of Federal Regulations. Agriculture. Title 7 Part 319 (7 CFR §
319.56

- 20 Apples and pears from Australia (including Tasmania) and New Zealand). Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, DC, USA. 50 CFR § 17.12. 2005. Code of Federal Regulations. Wildlife and Fisheries. Title 50 Part 17 (50 CFR § 17.12 Endangere d and threatened plants). Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, DC, USA. Bailey, P. 1997. Lightbrown apple moth control options for the 1997/8 season. Australian &
New Zealand Wine Indus try Journal 12(3): 267

- 268, 270. Bailey, P., G. Baker, and G. Caon. 1996. Field efficacy and persistence of Bacillus thuringiensis

var. kurstaki against Epiphyas postvittana (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in relation to larval behaviour on grapevine l eaves. Australian Journal of Entomology 35(4): 297

- 302. Baker, C.R.B. 1968. Notes on Epiphyas (= Austrotortrix ) postvittana (Walker), (Lep. Tortricidae). Entomologist’s Gazette 19(3): 167

- 172. Baker, G. 2005. Lightbrown apple moth. Government of South Aust ralia Primary Industries and
Resources SA Fact Sheet No. 07/04. Baker, H.G. 1986. Patterns of plant invasion in North America, pp. 44

- 57. In H.A. Mooney and J.A. Drake (eds.). Ecology of Biological Invasions of North America and Hawaii. New York: Springer

- Verlag. Bond, K.G.M. 1998. Epiphyas postvittana (Walker) (Lep.: Tortricidae) new to Ireland. Entomologist’s Record 110(9/10): 250. Brockerhoff, E.G., H. Jactel, A.C. Leckie, and D.M. Suckling. 2002. Species composition and
abundance of leafrollers in a Canterbury pine plantation. New Zealand Plant Protection
55: 85

- 89. Brown, J.W. 2007. Discovery of light brown apple moth in North America. Torts 8(2): 2. Brown, J.W., G. Robinson, and J.A. Powell. 2008. Food Plant Database of the Leafrollers of the
World (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) (Version 1.0.0); http://www.tortricidae.com/foodplants.asp

. Buchanan, G.A. 1977. The seasonal abundance and control of light brown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae), on grapevines in Victoria. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 28(1): 125

- 132. Burke, H.R., W.E. Clark, J.R. Cate, and P.A. Fryxell. 1986. Origin and dispersal of the boll weevil. Bulletin of the Entomological Society of America 32(4): 228

- 238.DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of Light Brown Apple Moth [ Epiphyas postvittana ( Walker)] as a Non

- Quarantine Pest

27 Burns, R.M. and B.H. Honkala (tech. coords.). 1990. Silvics of North America. Vol. 2. Hardwoods. USDA Agriculture Handbook No. 654. Bush, G.L. 1969. Sympatric host race formation and speciation in frugivorous flies of the genus
Rha goletis (Diptera, Tephritidae) Evolution 23(2): 237

- 251. Carter, D.J. 1984. Pest Lepidoptera of Europe with Special Reference to the British Isles. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Dr W. Junk Publishers. CDFA. 2009. Plant Quarantine Manual: Light Brown Apple Moth. State Interior Quarantine No. 3434. California Department of Food and Agriculture. CFIA. 2008. Plant Protection (Phytosanitary) Import Requirements to Prevent the Entry of Epiphyas postvittana (Walker) (light brown apple moth). Plant Protection Policy
Dire ctive No. D

- 07

- 03 (3rd Revision). Ottawa: Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Plant Products Directorate, Plant Health Division. Clark, L.R. 1970. Analysis of pest situations through the life systems approach, pp. 45

- 58. In R.L. Rabb and F.E. Guthrie (eds.). Concepts of Pest Management. Raleigh: North Carolina State University. Clinton, W.J. 1999. Executive Order 13112 of February 3, 1999: invasive species. Federal Register 64(25): 6183

- 6186. Collett, N.G. and J. McBeath. 2007. Managing insect pests in Eucalyp tus globulus (Labill.) plantations in Victoria using insecticide tablets at establishment. Australian Forestry 70(1): 53

- 60. Collyer, E. and M. van Geldermalsen. 1975. Integrated control of apple pests in New Zealand. 1. Outline of experiment and general results. New Zealand Journal of Zoology 2(1): 101

- 134. Common, I. F. B. 1990. Moths of Australia. Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, Australia. 535 pp. Crooks, J.A. 2002. Characterizing ecosystem

- level consequences of biological invasions: the role
of ecosystem engineers. Oikos 97(2): 153

- 166. Danthanarayana, W. 1975. The bionomics, distribution and host range of the light brown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walk.) (Tortricidae). Australian Journal of Zoology 23(3):
419

- 437.
Dumble ton, L.J. 1940. Tortrix postvittana Walk. and its parasites in Australia. New Zealand Journal of Science and Technology A 21(6): 322

- 336. Ehrlich, P.R. 1986. Which animal will invade?, pp. 79

- 95. In H.A. Mooney and J.A. Drake (eds.). Ecology of Biological Invasions of North America and Hawaii. New York: Springer

- Verlag. EPPO. 2007. EPPO Plant Quarantine Information Retrieval System (PQR), Ver. 4.6. Paris: European & Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. Evans, J.W. 1936. The overwintering of the larv ae of Tortrix postvittana Walk, in apple orchards. Journal of the Australian Institute of Agricultural Science 2(4): 169

- 170. [CAB Abstracts Archive] Evans, J.W. 1937a. The light

- brown apple moth ( Tortrix postvittana Walker). Tasmanian Journal of Agricult ure 8(3 Suppl.): 1

- 18. [CAB Abstracts Archive] Evans, J.W. 1937b. The light

- brown apple moth ( Tortrix postvittana , Walk). Tasmanian Journal of Agriculture 8(3): 125

- 128.DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of Light Brown Apple Moth [ Epiphyas postvittana ( Walker)] as a Non

- Quarantine Pest

28 Fletcher, T.B. 1933. An Australian tortricid ( Tortrix postvittana , Walker) in England

. Entomologist’s Record and Journal of Variation 45(12): 165

- 166. [CAB Abstracts Archive] Fountain, M. T., and J. V. Cross. 2007. The light brown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae), in UK pome and stone fruit orchards. Bu lletin OILB/SROP 30(4):51

- 60. Fowler, G., Garrett, L., Neeley, A., Magarey, R., Borchert, D., Spears, B. 2009. Economic analysis: risk to U.S. apple, grape, orange and pear production from the light brown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walker) (Rev. 03 050809). United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Center for Plant Health Science and Technology, Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory, Raleigh, NC. 29 pp. http://www.a phis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/lba_moth/downloads/lbamecono micanalysis.pdf Fukada, M. 2008. Reports and Hosts of Epiphyas postvittana (Walker), Light Brown Apple Moth (LBAM), in Hawaii. July 2008 personal communication. Hawaii Department of

A griculture, Maui, HI. Fuller, P. 2003. Freshwater aquatic vertebrate introductions in the United States: patterns and pathways, pp. 123

- 151. In G.M. Ruiz and J.T. Carlton (eds.). Invasive Species: Vectors and Management Strategies. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Geier, P.W. and D.T. Briese. 1980. The light

- brown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walker): 4. Studies on population dynamics and injuriousness to apples in the Australian Capital Territory. Australian Journal of Ecology 5(1): 63

- 93. Geier, P.W. and D.T. Briese. 1981. The light

- brown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walker): a native leafroller fostered by European settlement, pp. 131

- 155. In R.L. Kitching and R.E. Jones (eds.). The Ecology of Pests: Some Australian Case Histories. Melbourne:

CSI RO. Harder, D., K. Kimes, R. Upton, and L. Casper. 2008. Light Brown Apple Moth (LBAM) Eradication Program: Formal Petition to Reclassify LBAM As a Non

- actionable Pest. Submission to the California Department of Agriculture (CDFA) and United States Departm ent of Agriculture (USDA). Soquel, CA: Citizens For Health. Hassan, E. 1977. Major Insect and Mite Pest of Australian Crops. Gatton, Qld.: Ento Press. Hely, P.C., G. Pasfield, and J.G. Gellatley. 1982. Insect Pests of Fruit and Vegetables in NSW.
Melbourne : Inkata Press. Hoddle, M. S., K. M. Jetter, and J. Morse. 2003. Introduction and Establishment of Exotic Insect and Mite Pests of Avocados in California, Changes in Sanitary and Phytosanitary Policies, and Their Economic and Social Impact. Pages 185

- 202 i n D. A. Summer, (ed.). Exotic Pests and Diseases Biology and Economics for Biosecurity. Iowa Press. IPPC. 2006. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures, 1 to 29 (2006 edition). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Secretaria t of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), Rome, Italy. Kay, M.K. 1991. Australian and New Zealand species in forestry, pp. 765

- 773. In L.P.S. van der Geest and H.H. Evenhuis (eds.). Tortricid Pests: Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control (World Crop Pests, Vol. 5). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of Light Brown Apple Moth [ Epiphyas postvittana ( Walker)] as a Non

- Quarantine Pest

29 Kraus, F. 2003. Invasion pathways for terrestrial vertebrates, pp. 68

- 92. In G.M. Ruiz and J.T. Carlton (eds.). Invasive Species: Vectors and Management Strategies. Washington, D.C.:
Island Press. Kumashiro, B. 2007. Personal communication "Distribution of Hosts of Epiphyas postvittana (Walker), Light Brown Apple Moth (LBAM), in Hawaii", Update No. 4, July 2, 2007. Hawaii Dept. of Agriculturue, Honolulu, Hawaii. Lloyd, N.C., E.L. Jones, D.S. Morris, W.J. Webster, W.B. Harris, H.F. Lower, N.M. Hudson, and P.W. Geier. 1970. Managing apple pests: a new perspective. Journal of the Aus tralian Institute of Agricultural Science 36(4): 251

- 258. [CAB Abstracts Archive] Lo, P.L., V.C. Murrell. 2000. Time of Leafroller Infestation and Effect on Yield in Grapes. Horticultural Insects, New Zealand Plant Protection 53:173

- 178. Mack, R.N. and W.M. Lonsdale. 2001. Humans as global plant dispersers: getting more than we bargained for. BioScience 51(2): 95

- 102. Mack, R.N., D. Simberloff, W.M. Lonsdale, H. Evans, M. Clout, and F.A. Bazzaz. 2000. Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global conseq uences, and control. Ecological Applications 10(3): 689

- 710. MacQuillan, M.J. 1976. Insecticides for control of light brown apple moth and codling moth in Australia. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry 16:
135

- 139. Meijerman , L. and S.A. Ulenberg. 2000. “ Epiphyas postvittana .” Arthropods of Economic Importance: Eurasian Tortricidae. Amsterdam: Zoological Museum Amsterdam (University of Amsterdam). Retrieved January 2009, from http://ip30.eti.uva.nl/bis/tortricidae.php?selected=beschrijving&menuentry=soorten&id=
197

. NAPIS. 2009a. Historical negative trap data for Light Brown Apple Moth. Purdue University,
Center for Environme ntal and Regulatory Information Systems, National Agriculture Pest Information System (NAPIS). Last accessed May 2009, http://napis.ceris.purdue.edu/. NAPIS. 2009b. Map of light brown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana : Pest Tracker. National Agricultural Pe st Information System. http://pest.ceris.purdue.edu/searchmap.php?selectName=ITBUBPA Naylor, R.L., S.L. Williams, and D.R. Strong. 2001. Aquaculture

— a gateway for exotic species.
Science 294: 1655

- 1656. Neumann, F.G. and G.C. Marks. 1976. A synopsis of imp ortant pests and diseases in Australian forests and forest nurseries. Australian Forestry 39(2): 83

- 102. Nicholls, H.M. 1934. The light brown apple moth. Tasmanian Journal of Agriculture 5(2): 68

- 72. [CAB Abstracts Archive] We have the entire paper in pdf. Nuttall, M.J. 1983. Planotortrix excessana (Walker), Planotortrix notophaea (Turner), Epiphyas postvittana (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae): greenheaded leafroller, blacklegged leafroller, light brown apple moth. Forest and Timber Insects in New Zealan d No. 58. O'Brien, T. 2004. The Associated Press State and Local Wire, March 27, 2004, Saturday, BC cycle Spread of sudden oak death prompts inspections of Calif. nurseries. Byline: By Michael R. Blood, Associated Press Writer. Section: State and Regional . Dateline: Los Angeles. O'Brien, T. 2009. Nursery Association estimate of cost of procedures to meet compliance with LBAM phytosanitary requirements as a condition for movement. PersonalDRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of Light Brown Apple Moth [ Epiphyas postvittana ( Walker)] as a Non

- Quarantine Pest

30 communication to Trang Vo on 07/29/2008, from Email T. O'Brien, Nat ional Advocate for California Nursery Growers Commission/Nursery Growers Association.
PANNA. 2009. LBAM Reclassification Petition. Personal communication to T. Vilsack on February 4, 2009, from Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA). Archived at

t he PERAL library, Raleigh, NC. Porter, J. 2001. Range expansion in the light brown apple

- moth Epiphyas postvittana (Walk.). Atropos (14): 42

- 46. PRF. 2008. Export Certification Project (EXCERPT) Database. Purdue Research Foundation. Reichard, S.E. and P. W hite. 2001. Horticulture as a pathway of invasive plant introductions in the United States. BioScience 51(2): 103

- 113. Richardson, D.M., P. Pyšek, M. Rejmánek, M.G. Barbour, F.D. Panetta, and C.J. West. 2000. Naturalization and invasion of alien plants: co ncepts and definitions. Diversity and Distributions 6(2): 93

- 107. Rubinoff, D. and J.A. Powell. 2009. Moth surveys conducted in California 1961

- 2008 [Unpublished manuscript], 13 pp. Ruiz, G.M., T.K. Rawlings, F.C. Dobbs, L.A. Drake, T. Mullady, A. Huq, and R.R. Colwell. 2000. Global spread of microorganisms by ships. Nature 408: 49

- 50. Simberloff, D. 1981. Community effects of introduced species, pp. 53

- 81. In M.H. Nitecki (ed.). Biotic Crises in Ecological and Evolutionary Time. New York: Academic Press. Simberloff, D. 1989. Which insect introductions succeed and which fail?, pp. 61

- 75. In J.A. Drake, H.A. Mooney, F. di Castri, R.H. Groves, F.J. Kruger, M. Rejmánek, and M. Williamson (eds.). Biological Invasions: A Global Perspective. Chichester, U.K.: Joh n Wiley & Sons. Suckling, D.M., J.F. Brunner, G.M. Burnip, and J.T.S. Walker. 1994. Dispersal of Epiphyas postvittana (Walker) and Planotortrix octo Dugdale (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) at a Canterbury, New Zealand orchard. New Zealand Journal of Crop and Ho rticultural Science 22(3): 225

- 234. Sutherst, R.W. 2000. Pests and pest management

– impact of climate change. RIRDC Publication No. 00/16. Barton, A.C.T. Australia: Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation. Tabashnik, B.E. 1983. Host range ev olution: the shift from native legume hosts to alfalfa by the butterfly, Colias philodice eriphyle . Evolution 37(1): 150

- 162. Takahashi, G. 2002. Notes on the light brown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walker) intercepted at import plant quarantine of N arita Airport in Japan. Research Bulletin of the Plant Protection Service Japan 38: 99

- 103. Terauds, A. 1977. Two methods of assessing damage to apples caused by light brown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walker). Journal of the Australian Entomological Society 16(4): 367

- 369. University of California. 2007. Statistical Review of California's Organic Agriculture, 2000

- 2005. Agricultural Issues Center, University of California, May 2007.

APHIS . 2009a. LBAM confirmations: 2007 to April, 22, 2009. United S tates Department of Agriculture. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Data courtesy of Roxanne Broadway. APHIS

- PPQ.
APHIS . 2009b. Survey of State Plant Regulatory Officers Positions on Light Brown Apple Moth; survey initiated December 19, 2008 with results complied January, 2009. Internal APHIS document, Emergency and Domestic Programs, Riverdale, MD.DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of Light Brown Apple Moth [ Epiphyas postvittana ( Walker)] as a Non

- Quarantine Pest

31 USDA. 2007. Federal Domestic Quarantine Order: Epiphyas postvittana (Light Brown Apple Moth) (LBAM) No. DA

- 2007

- 42. USDA. 2008a. Treatment Program for Light Brown Apple Moth in California: Environmental Assessment. United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Heal th Inspection Service. USDA. 2008b. Federal Domestic Quarantine Order, DA

- 2008

- 17. http://www.aphis.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/lba_moth/downloads/federalorder4

- 28

- 08.pdf USDA. 2008c. "Conner Announces Nearly $75 Million in Additional Funding For Ligh t Brown Apple Moth Eradication". USDA News Release, January 24, 2008.

USDA

- CDFA. 2009. Weekly situation report: Light Brown Apple Moth (LBAM). May 21, 2009. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Heath Inspection Service, and Cali fornia Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA). 5 pp.

USDA

- ERS. 2007. March, FTS

- 326, Fruit and Tree Nuts Outlook. United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service.
USDA

- NASS California Field Office. 2007. Summary of County Agricultural Commissioners' Reports 2005

- 2006. U.S. Department of Commerce

- BEA. 2009. Bureau of Economic Accounts, http://www.bea.gov/regional/gsp/ Varela, L.G., M.W. Johnson, L. Strand, C.A. Wilen, and C. Pickel. 2008. Light brown apple
moth’s arrival in California wo rries commodity groups. California Agriculture 62(2): 57

- 61. Vitousek, P.M. 1986. Biological invasions and ecosystem properties: can species make a difference, pp. 163

- 176. In H.A. Mooney and J.A. Drake (eds.). Ecology of Biological Invasions of North America and Hawaii. New York: Springer

- Verlag. Ward, F.E. 1931. Notes on insect pests. Annual Report, Agricultural Department, Tasmania, pp.

41

- 44. [CAB Abstracts Archive] Ware, G. W. 1978. The Pesticide Book. W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco. Wearing, C.H., W.P. Thomas, J.S. Dugdale, and W. Danthanarayana. 1991. Tortricid pests of pome and stone fruits, Australian and New Zealand species, pp. 453

- 472. In L.P.S. van
der Gee st and H.H. Evenhuis (eds.). Tortricid Pests: Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control (World Crop Pests, Vol. 5). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. Wells, Terence. 2009. Import permit regulation for LBAM host material exported to Canada and

Me xico if California were deregulated for LBAM. Personal communication to Trang Vo on 01/14/2009, from Terence Wells, Export Specialist, Plant Protection and Quarantine

Animal Plant Health Inspection Service. Whittle, K. 1984. Light

- brown apple moth: Epiphy as postvittana (Walker). Pests Not Known to
Occur in the United States or of Limited Distribution No. 50. APHIS , PPQ. Zimmerman, E. C. 1978. Insects of Hawaii, Volume 9, Microlepidoptera, Part 1. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, Hawaii, 881 pp

VI I . Literature Consulted

Albrecht, C. 2007. Updated list of nursery hosts for light brown apple moth in California. Personal communication to J. Floyd on June 21, 2007, from Email sent from Courtney Albrecht to Joel Floyd.DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of Light Brown Apple Moth [ Epiphyas postvittana ( Walker)] as a Non

- Quarantine Pest

32 Alexandra, J. (no date). Contro lling codling moth using ecological principles and innovative technology (granulosis virus): The case for efficiency, substitution and design. Alexandra and Associates, Eltham, Victoria, Australia. 7 pp Allen, A. A. 1990. A note on two Tortricinae (Lep.) a t Charlton, S.E. London. Entomologist's Record 102(1

- 2):9

- 10. Anderson, D. T., and E. C. Wood. 1968. The Morphological Basis of Embryonic Movements in the Light Brown Apple Moth Epiphyas

- Postvittana Lepidoptera Tortricidae. Australian Journal of Zoology 16 (5):763

- 793. Anon. 2006. Grape Omnivorous Leafroller. UC Davis. Last accessed 7/2/08, Anon. 2007a. Recommendations of the Technical Working Group for the Light Brown Apple Moth Infestation in California, San Jose. 5 pp.
Anon. 2007b. Recommendations of the Technical Working Group for the Light Brown Apple Moth Program, San Diego. 5 pp. Anonymous. 2007 a . Not a new pest? American/Western Fruit Grower 127(8):12. Anonymous, 2007 b . Lightbrown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walker). (n.d.). Insects and

mites of stonefruit . HortNET: BugKEY. Retrieved June 28, 2007, from http://www.hortnet.co.nz/key/stone/info/lba

- info.htm Aquino, T., D. Harder, K. Kimes, J. Rosendale, and R. Upton. 2008. LBAM Implications for California Agriculture. Blue Bamboo, University of C alifomia, Greensward Nurseries, Horticulture Consultant, Citizens For Health. 12 pp. Armstrong, K. F., C. M. Cameron, E. R. Frampton, and D. M. Suckling. 1997. Aliens at the border and cadavers in the field: a molecular technique for species identification. Pages

316

- 321 Proceedings of the 50th New Zealand Plant Protection Conference: Genetics. New Zealand Plant Protection Society, Rotorua, New Zealand. Armstrong, K. F., and D. M. Suckling. 1988. Investigations into the Biochemical Basis of

A zinphosmethyl Resistance in the Light Brown Apple Moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology 32(1):62

- 73. Armstrong, K. F., and D. M. Suckling. 1990. Correlation of Azinphosmethyl Resistance with
Detoxicati on Enzyme Activity in the Light Brown Apple Moth Epiphyas postvittana (Lepidoptrea: Tortricidae). Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology 36(3):281

- 289. Auclair, A. N. D., Fowler, G., Hennessey, M.K., Hogue, A.T., Keena, M., Lance, D.R., McDowell, R.M., Orya ng, D.O.,Sawyer, A.J. . 2005. Assessment of the risk of introduction of Anoplophora glabripennis (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) in municipal solid waste from the quarantine area of New York City to landfills outside of the quarantine area: a pathway analysis o f the risk of spread and establishment. Journal of Economic Entomology 98(1):47

- 60. Bailey, P. 1997. Lightbrown apple moth control options for the 1997

- 8 season. Australian & New Zealand Wine Industry Journal 12(3):267

- 270. Bailey, P., G. Baker, and G. Cao n. 1996. Field efficacy and persistence of Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki against Epiphyas postvittana (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in relation to larval behaviour on grapevine leaves. Australian Journal of Entomology 35:297

- 302.
Last accessed July 5, 2007, http://www.blackwell

- synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1440

- 6055.1996.tb01407.x?cookieSet=1. Bailey, P., A. Catsipordas, G. Baker, and B. Lynn. 1995. Traps in monitoring lightbrown apple moth. The Australian Grapegrower and Winemaker:130

- 132.DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of Light Brown Apple Moth [ Epiphyas postvittana ( Walker)] as a Non

- Quarantine Pest

33 Ba iley, P. T., K. L. Ferguson, R. McMahon, and T. J. Wicks. 1997. Transmission of Botrytis cinerea by lightbrownapple moth larvae on grapes. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine
Research 3:90

- 94. Bailey, P. T., G. O. Furness, and J. G. Charlea. 1994. Overvie w. Pages 45

- 46 in P. Nicholas, P. A. Magarey, and M. F. Wachtel, (eds.). Diseases and Pests. Winetitles, Adelaide,
Australia. Baker, C. R. B. 1968. Notes on Epiphyas (= Austrotortrix) postvittana (Walker), (Lep. Tortricidae). Entomologist’s Gazette 19(3):1 67

- 172. Baker, G. 2005. Light Brown Apple Moth Fact Sheet. Government of South Australia, Primary Industries and Resources SA (PIRSA) (No. 07/04):1

- 6. Baker, G. J., P. T. Bailey, and J. G. CHarles. 1994. Lightbrown apple moth. Pages 47

- 50 in P. Nicholas, P . A. Magarey, and M. F. Wachtel, (eds.). Diseases and Pests. Winetitles, Adelaide, Australia. Baker, R. T., and H. B. Dick. 1981. Leafrollers (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in a strawberry crop in Horowhenua: abundance and control. New Zealand Journal of Exper imental Agriculture
9:377

- 381. Barclay, H. J. 1987. Models of sterile insect releases for populations under attack by parasitoids. Ecological Modeling 36:155

- 159. Bari, M. A., W. E. Chaney, and E. T. Natwick. 2007. Artichoke Plume Moth. UC IPM. Last

access ed 11/9/2007, http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/r6300111.html. Bari, M. A., and F. V. Sances. 1999. Crop Profile for Artichokes in California: General

P r oduction Information. Alliance for Alernative Agriculture; USDA. Last accessed 11/9/2007, http://www.ipmce nters.org/cropprofiles/docs/caartichokes.html. Barnett, R. J. 1991. Epiphyas postvittana Walk. (Lep.: Tortricidae) and Anomoia purmunda (Harris) (Dipt. Tephritidae) in Bristol. Entomologist's Record 103(1

- 2):42

- 43. Barrass, I., and D. Brown. 1993. Integrat ed control and cost reduction in pear orchards of the Goulburn Valley, Australia. Acta Horticulturae 347:307

- 313. Bartell, R. J. 1985. Pheromone

- mediated behaviour of male lightbrown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana, correlated with adaptation of pheromone receptors. Physiological Entomology 10(2):121

- 126. Bartell, R. J., and L. A. Lawrence. 1973. Reduction in Responsiveness of Males of Epiphyas postvittana (Lepidoptera) to Sex Pheromone Following Previous Brief Pheromonal Exposure. J. Insect Physiol. 19(4) :845

- 855. Bartell, R. J., and L. A. Lawrence. 1976. Reduction in Sexual Responsiveness of Male Light

brown Apple Moth Following Previous Brief Pheromonal Exposure is Concentration Dependent. Journal of the Australian Entomological Society 15(2):236.
Bartel l, R. J., and L. A. Lawrence. 1977a. Reduction in responsiveness of male apple moths, Epiphyas postvittana, to sex pheromone following pulsed pheromonal exposure. Physiological Entomology 2(1):1

- 6. Bartell, R. J., and L. A. Lawrence. 1977b. Reduction in re sponsiveness of male light

- brown apple moths, Epiphyas postvittana, to sex pheromone following pulsed pre

- exposure to pheromone components. Physiological Entomology 2:89

- 95. Bartell, R. J., and H. H. Shorey. 1969a. A Quantitative Bioassay for the Sex Phero mone of Epiphyas postvittana (Lepidoptera) and Factors Limiting Male Responsiveness. J. Insect Physiol. 15(1):33

- 40.DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of Light Brown Apple Moth [ Epiphyas postvittana ( Walker)] as a Non

- Quarantine Pest

34 Bartell, R. J., and H. H. Shorey. 1969b. Pheromone Concentrations Required to Elicit Successive Steps in the Mating Sequence of Males of th e Light

- Brown Apple Moth, Epiphyas postvittana. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 62(5):1206

- 1207. Bates, V. I. 1993. Broadening the range of pest management tools

- Integrated Pest Management in the apple and pear industry. Plant Protection Quarterly 8(4):141

- 143.

Be ckett, S. J., and D. E. Evans. 1997. The effect of thermal acclimation on immature mortality in the Queensland fruit fly Bactrocera tryoni and the light brown apple moth Epiphyas postvittana at a lethal temperature. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 82(1):45

- 51. Begum, M. 2004. Habitat manipulation to enhance biological control of lightbrown apple moth (Epiphyas postvittana), The University of Sydney. Begum, M., G. M. Gurr, S. D. Wratten, P. Hedberg, and H. I. Nicol. 2004a. The influence of groundcover plant species on Epiphyas postvittana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) and its parasitoid Trichogramma carverae (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae). Pages 15

- 21 in XXII International Congress of Entomology, Brisbane. Begum, M., G. M. Gurr, S. D. Wratten , P. R. Hedberg, and H. I. Nicol. 2006. Using selective food plants to maximize biological control of vineyard pests. Journal of Applied Ecology 43(3):547

- 554. Begum, M., G. M. Gurr, S. D. Wratten, and H. I. Nicol. 2004b. Flower color affects tri

- trophic

l evel biocontrol interactions. Biological Control 30:584

- 590. Bell, V. A., R. J. Brightwell, and P. J. Lester. 2006. Increasing vineyard floral resources may not enhance localised biological control of the leafroller Epiphyas postvittana (Lepidoptera:

Tortr icidae) by Dolichogenidea spp. (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) parasitoids. Biocontrol Science and Technology 16(10):1031

- 1042. Bellas, T. E., and R. J. Bartell. 1983. Dose

- response relationship for two components of the sex pheromone of lightbrown apple moth, E piphyas postvittana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Journal of Chemical Ecology, Vol. 9, No. 6, 1983 9(6):715

- 725. Bellas, T. E., R. J. Bartell, and A. Hill. 1983. Identification of two components of the sex pheromone of the moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Lepido ptera, Tortricidae). Journal of Chemical Ecology 9(4):503

- 512. Bennett, D. M., and A. A. Hoffmann. 1998. Effects of Size and Fluctuating Asymmetry on Field Fitness of the Parasitoid Trichogramma carverae (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae).
The Journal of Ani mal Ecology 67(4):580

- 591. Bennett, F. D., and S. M. Crellin. 2003. Xanthandrus comtus (Harris) (Dip.: Syrphidae) new to the isle of man and with new prey records. Entomologist's Record and Journal of Variation 115(3):105

- 108. Bernard, M., P. A. Horne, D. Papacek, M. A. Jacometti, S. D. Wratten, K. J. Evans, K. S. Herbert, K. S. Powell, A. Rakimov, R. Weppler, T. Kourmouzis, and A. L. Yem. 2007. Guidelines for environmentally sustainable winegrape production in Australia: IPM adoption self

- assessment guide for growers. The Australian & New Zealand Grapegrower & Winemaker (www.winebiz.com.au). 24

- 35 pp. Berndt, L. A., and S. D. Wratten. 2005. Effects of alyssum flowers on the longevity, fecundity, and sex ration of the leafroller parasitoid Dolichogenidea tas manica. Biological Control 32(1):65

- 69. Berndt, L. A., S. D. Wratten, and P. G. Hassan. 2002. Effects of buckweat flowers on leafroller (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) parasitoids in a New Zealand vineyard. Agricultural and Forest Entomology 4:39

- 45.DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of Light Brown Apple Moth [ Epiphyas postvittana ( Walker)] as a Non

- Quarantine Pest

35 Berry, J. A. 1997. Meterorus pulchricornis (Wesmael) (Hymenoptera: Braconidae: Euphorinae), a new record for New Zealand. New Zealand Entomologist 20:45

- 48. Berry, J. A. 1998. The bethyline species (Hymenoptera: Bethylidae: Bethylinae) imported into
New Zealand for biological control of pest leafrollers. New Zealand Journal of Zoology
25:329

- 333. Birtles, D. B., B. C. Waddell, and J. H. Maindonald. 1991. High Temperature Disinfestation of Nectarines: Lightbrown Apple Moth Larvae. Pages 61

- 65 Forty Fourth New Zealnd

W eed and Pest Control Conference. New Zealand Plant Protection Society Inc. Bogenschütz, H. 1991. Eurasian Species in Forestry. Pages 673

- 709 in L. P. S. van Der Geest and H. H. Evenhuis, (eds.). Tortricid Pests Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control.

E lseivier, Amsterdam. Bond, K. G. M. 1998. Epiphyas postvittana (Walker) (Lep.: Tortricidae) new to Ireland. Entomologist's Record 110(9

- 10):250. Bonizzoni, M., L. Zheng, C. R. Guglielmino, D. S. Haymer, G. Gasperi, L. M. Gomulski, and A.
R. Malacrida. 2001 . Microsatellite analysis of medfly bioinfestations in California. Molecular Ecology 10:2515

- 2524. Bower, C. C. 1980. An Evaluatoin of the Potential of Diflubenzuron for Integrated Pest Control in Apples. General and Applied Entomology 12:41

- 48. Brader, L. 1977. Resistance in Mites and Insects Affecting Orchard Crops. Pages 353

- 376 in D. L. Watson and a. W. a. Brown, (eds.). Pesticide Management and Insecticide Resistance. Bradley, J. D. 1990. Lepidoptera new to Buckingham Palace Garden in 1989. Entomologis t's Record and Journal of Variation 102(5

- 6):118

- 119. Bradley, S. J. 1973. Epiphyas postvittana (Walker). pp 126

- 127 in British Tortricid Moths. The Ray Society, London. Bradley, S. J., J. T. S. Walker, C. H. Wearing, P. W. Shaw, and A. J. Hodson. 1998. Th e use of pheromone traps for leafroller action thresholds in pipfruit.Proceedings of the 51st New Zealand Plant Protection Conference. New Zealand Plant Protection Society, Rotorua,
New Zealand. Braybrook, D. 2001. Managing lightbrown apple moth without br oad

- spectrum insecticides. The Australian Grapegrower and Winemaker 453:15

- 17. Brennan, P. 2008. Medflies wiped out in California. The Orange County Register. Last accessed August 15, 2008, www.ocregister.com/articles/state

- orange

- county

- 2125102

- fly

popula tions. Briese, D. T., H. A. Mende, T. D. C. Grace, and P. W. Geier. 1980. Resistance to a Nuclear Polyhedrosis Virus in the Light

- Brown Apple Moth Epiphya postvittana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 36(2):211

- 215. Brockerhoff, E. G., H. Jactel, A. C. Leckie, and D. M. Suckling. 2002. Species composition and abundance of leafrollers in a canterbury pine plantation. New Zealand Plant Protection
55:85

- 89. Brockerhoff, E. G., and D. M. Suckling. 1999. Development of an Attracticide Against Light Brown Apple Moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 92(4):853

- 859. Brown, D. J., and A. L. Il'ichev. 2000. The potential for the removal of organo

- phosphate
insecticides from stone

- fruit production in the Goulburn valley, Australi a. Pages 85

- 91 Proceedings of the 1st Conference on International Fruit Production. Brown, J. W. 2007. Discovery of light brown apple moth in North America. Torts 8(2):2. Browne, F. G. 1968. Pests and Diseases of Forest Plantation Trees. Clarendon Press, Oxford.DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of Light Brown Apple Moth [ Epiphyas postvittana ( Walker)] as a Non

- Quarantine Pest

36 Buchanan, G. A. 1977. The seasonal abundance and control of light brown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) on grapevines in Victoria. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 28:125

- 132. Buchanan, G. A., S. C. S tirrat, and D. G. Madge. 1991. Integrated control of light brown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walker), in vineyards. Wine Industry Journal 6:220

- 222. Burnip, G. M., and D. M. Suckling. 1997. Evaluation of legumes for development of leafroller

free orc hard understoreys. Pages 420

- 424 Proceedings of the 50th NZ Plant Protection Conference. The New Zealand Plant Protection Society (Incorporated). Burnip, G. M., and D. M. Suckling. 2001. Leafroller larval and adult phenology at two Canterbury, New Zealand, organic apple orchards. New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science, 2001, Vol. 29: 15

- 22 29:15

- 22. CABI. 2006. Epiphyas postvittana. Last accessed November 20, 2007, www.cabicompendium.org/cpc. CACSA. 2007. California Agricultural Commissioners and Sealers Association Praise Forethought of Legislators [Press Release]. Fresno, California. California Agricultural
Commissioners and Sealers Association. Last accessed January 14, 2010, http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps/PDEP/lbam/pdfs/CACASAPressReleaseBro wnAppleMoth 070322.pdf Cameron, R. J., P. J. Alma, and I. A. Hood. 1978. The Pathology of Douglas Fir. New Zealand Forest Service Forest Reserach Institute F R I Symposium (15):126

- 134. Caprio, M. A., and D. M. Suckling. 1995. Mating disruption reduces the ris k of resistance development to transgenic apple orchards: simulations of the lightbrown apple moth. Pages 52

- 58The Forty Eighth New Zealand Plant Protection Conference. Caprio, M. A., and D. M. Suckling. 1997. Resistance management in the 21st century: An entomologist's point of view. Pages 207

- 315 50th New Zealand Plant Protection

C o nference. New Zealand Plant Protection Society, Rotorua, New Zealand. Caprio, M. A., and D. M. Suckling. 2000. Simulating the impact of cross resistance between Bt
toxins in transformed clover and apples in New Zealand. J. Econ. Entomol. 93(2):173

- 179.
Caradoc

- Davies, K. M. B., S. Graves, D. R. O’Reilly, O. P. Evans, and V. K. Ward. 2001. Identification and in vivo characterization of the Epiphyas postvittana Nucleopolyhedrov irus Ecdysteroid UDP

- Glucosyltransferase. Virus Genes 22(3):255

- 264. Carey, G. P., and J. F. Longworth. 1992. Comparative Studies on Some Baculoviruses (6). DSIR (Department of Scientific and Industrial Research) Plant Protection Report No. 6. 1

- 36

pp. Car ey, J. R. 1996. The future of the Mediterranean fruit fly Ceratitis capitata Invasion of California: A predictive framework. Biological Conservation 78:35

- 50. Carey, J. R. 2008. Invasion biology of the light brown apple moth. Testimony to the Assembly
Cali fornia Legislature, Committee on Agriculture, State Capital, Sacramento, California. 3 pp. Carey, J. R., F. G. Zalom, and B. D. Hammock. 2008. Concerns with the eradication program against the light brown apple moth in California. Personal communication to E. Schafer on May 28, 2008, from J. Carey (University of California), F. G. Zalom (University of California), B. D. Hammock (University of California). Carpenter, G. 2009. Re: NAPIS LBAM map. Personal communication to G. Fowler on fromDRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of Light Brown Apple Moth [ Epiphyas postvittana ( Walker)] as a Non

- Quarantine Pest

37 Carter, D. J. 1984 . Pest Lepidoptera of Europe with Special Reference to the British Isles. Dr W. Junk Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands. Carver, M. 1978. A new Subgenus and Species of Trichogramma Westwood (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea) from Australia. J. Aust. E nt. Soc. 17( 1):109

- 112. CDFA. 2005. CDFA Procedural and Training Manual, Section III: Inspection Procedures and Policies. California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA). 5 pp. CDFA. 2007a. Aerial release of light brown apple moth pheromone scheduled in effort to eradicate infestation in northern Monterey county. California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA). CDFA. 2007b. Light brown apple moth eradication program: Key questions and issues. California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA). 13 pp.

CDFA. 2007a. 3434. Light Brown Apple Moth. Pages 419.411

- 419

- 424 California Department of Food and Agriculture Plant Quarantine Manual.

CDFA. 2007 b . Canadian Phytosanitary Certification Requirements for Light Brown Apple Moth Listed Host Material (Plants for Pla nting, Cut Flowers, Fresh Fruits and Vegetables for Consumption) (No. 21

- 2007). Phytosanitary Advisory. California Department of Food and Agriculture. Last accessed January 14, 2010, http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps/pdep/lbam/pdfs/PSA21_2007.pdf

. CDFA. 2007 c . CDFA Sets Interim Regulatory Action for Light Brown Apple Moth Infestation in East Bay: Rules to halt spread of pest to stay in place until quarantine is set [News
Release #07

- 028]. Sacramento, CA. California Department of Food and Agriculture. Last

acce ssed January 14, 2010, http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/egov/Press_Releases/Press_Release.asp?PRnum=07

- 028

. CDFA. 2007 d . Light Brown Apple Moth Detected in East Bay: Detections in Alameda and Contra Costa counties [News Release #07

- 024]. Sacramento, CA. California D epartment of Food and Agriculture Last accessed January 14, 2010, http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/egov/Press_Releases/Press_Release.asp?PRnum=07

- 024

. CDFA. 2007 e . Light Brown Apple Moth Detected in Napa: Single moth trapped in residential area; expanded trapping is underway [News Release #07

- 044]. Sacramento, CA. California Department of Food and Agriculture. Last accessed January 14, 2010, http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/egov/Press_Releases/Press_Release.asp?PRnum=07

- 044

. CDFA. 2007 f . Light Brown Apple Moth (LBAM): Have you seen this Pest? California Department of Food & Agriculture. Last accessed June 28, 2007, http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps/pdep/LBAM_brochure.pdf

. CDFA. 2007 g . Light Brown Apple Moth Pest Profile. California Departmen t of Food and Agriculture. Last accessed January 14, 2010

, http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps/PDEP/target_pest_disease_profiles/LBAM_PestProfile.ht

ml

. CDFA. 2007 h . Light Brown Apple Moth Quarantine Covers at Least 182 Square Miles in Five
California Counties: Re cent detections in Monterey, Santa Cruz and San Mateo counties will add new areas for regulations [News Release #07

- 040]. California Department of Food and Agriculture. Last accessed January 14, 2010, http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/egov/Press_Releases/Press_Releas e.asp?PRnum=07

- 040

. CDFA. 2007 i . Light Brown Apple Moth Treatments Scheduled for Napa: Organic compound Bt to be utilized [News Release #07

- 049]. Sacramento, CA. California Department of FoodDRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of Light Brown Apple Moth [ Epiphyas postvittana ( Walker)] as a Non

- Quarantine Pest

38 and Agriculture. Last accessed January 14, 2010, http://www.cdfa .ca.gov/egov/Press_Releases/Press_Release.asp?PRnum=07

- 049

. CDFA. 2007 j . Light Brown Apple Moth Treatments Scheduled for Oakley: Organic compound Bt to be utilized [News Release #07

- 050]. Sacramento, CA. California Department of Food and Agriculture. Last accessed January 14, 2010, http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/egov/Press_Releases/Press_Release.asp?PRnum=07

- 050
CDFA. 2007 k . New Restrictions on the Shipment of Hosts of Light Brown Apple Moth to Mexico (No. 12

- 2007). Phytosanitary Advisory. California Department of Food and Agriculture. Last accessed June 28, 2007, http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps/pdep/PSA12_2007.pdf.

CDFA. 2007 l . San Francisco, Marin County Join List of Communities Infested with Light Brown Apple Moth [News Release #07

- 029]. Sacramento, CA. California Department of Food and Agriculture Last accessed January 14, 2010, http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/egov/Press_Releases/Press_Release.asp?PRnum=07

- 029

. CDFA. 2007 m . Santa Clara County Infested with Light Brown Apple Moth: Detections in Palo Alto, Los Altos [News Rel ease #07

- 033]. Sacramento, CA. California Department of Food and Agriculture. Last accessed January 14, 2010, http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/egov/Press_Releases/Press_Release.asp?PRnum=07

- 033

. CDFA. 2007 n . State Interior Quarantine Regulation for Light Brown Apple Moth. Plant Quarantine Manual. California Department of Food and Agriculture, Plant Health and Pest Prevention Services, Pest Exclusion Branch. Last accessed January 14, 2010, http://pi.cdfa.ca.gov/pqm/manual/htm/419.htm

CDFA. 2007 o . Summary of light br own apple moth Federal domestic quarantine order requirements (No. 13

- 2007). Phytosanitary advisory. California Department of Food and Agriculture. Last accessed January 14, 2010, http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps/PDEP/lbam/pdfs/PSA12_2007.pdf
CEIR. 1957. Inse cts not known to occur in the United States: Light brown apple moth (Austrotortrix postvittana (Wlk.)). United States Depa r tment of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, CEIR 7(10):187. CFIA. 2007a. Canadian Food Inspection Agency Introduces New Regu latory Controls to Prevent the Introduction of Light Brown Apple Moth [News Release]. Ottawa, Ontario. Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Last accessed January 14, 2010, http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/corpaffr/newcom/2007/20070615ce.shtml
CFIA. 2007b. Plant Protection (Phytosanitary) Import Requirements to Prevent the Entry of Epiphyas postvittana (Walker) (light brown apple moth) (D

- 07

- 03). 1

- 14. Ottawa, Ontario. Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Plant Products Directorate, Plant Health
Division. Last a ccessed January 14, 2010, http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/plaveg/protect/dir/d

- 07

- 03e.pdf CFIA. 2007c. Questions and Answers: Regulatory Controls to Prevent the Entry of Light Brown Apple Moth (LBAM). Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Last accessed Jan uary 14, 2010, http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/plaveg/pestrava/lbampbpp/queste.shtml
Chalmers

- Hunt, J. M. 1975. Note on the Larva of Epiphyas postvittana (Walker) in Cornwall, England. Entomologist's Record and Journal of Variation 87(2):58. Chambers, D. L. 2008. Testimony to Senate Environmental Quality Committee, re: Bill Number

SCR 87

- "Relative to the Light Brown Apple Moth:. 2 pp.DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of Light Brown Apple Moth [ Epiphyas postvittana ( Walker)] as a Non

- Quarantine Pest

39 Charles, J. G., J. T. S. Walker, and V. White. 1996. Leafroller phenology and parasitism in Hawkes Bay, New Zealand, canefruit gardens. New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science, 1996, Vol. 24: 123

— 131 24:123

- 131. Charles, J. G., V. White, and M. A. Cornwell. 1987. Leafroller (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) damage to buds of raspberry canes in New Zealand. New Zea land Journal of Experimental Agriculture 15:491

- 496. Chervin, C. 1999. Evalu a tion of a non

- chemical disinfestation treatment on quality of pome fruit and mortality of lepidopterous pests. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 39(3):335

- 344.
Chervi n, C., P. Franz, S. Kulkarni, S. Whitemore, and G. McGregor. 2000. A Method to Screen
Pome Fruit for Resistance to Skin

- chewing Insects and to Analyze Feeding Trends. Hortscience 35(4):673

- 676. Chervin, C., S. Kulkarni, S. Kreidl, F. Birrell, and D. Glenn. 1997. A high temperature/low oxygen pulse improves cold storage disinfestation. Postharvest Biology and Technology 10(3):239

- 245. Chong, M. 1961. Hawaiian insect notes. Co

- operative Economic Insect Report 7:80. Christeller, J. T., N. P. Markwick, J. Poult on, and M. O'Callaghan. 2006. Binding of an insecticidal transgene procut to soil: Biological activity of soil

- bound avidin and the effects of time and microbial activity. Soil Biology & Biochemistry 38(8):2043

- 2052.
CISRO. 2004. Australian Insect Common N ames: Epiphyas postvittana. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Entomology. Last accessed June 28, 2007, http://www.ento.csiro.au/aicn/name_s/b_1541.htm Clancy, T. 1997. Integration is a Nasty Word for Vine Pests. Wine I ndustry Journal 12(1):67

- 69. Clare, G., D. M. Suckling, S. J. Bradley, J. T. S. Walker, P. W. Shaw, J. M. Daly, G. F. McLaren, and C. H. Wearing. 2000. Pheromone trap colour determines catch of non

target insects. New Zealand Plant Protection 53:216

- 220.
C learwater, J. R. 2008. Analysis of current proposals for the eradication of the light brown apple moth from California and the definition of a suitable product with which to attempt this eradication. Clearwater Research and Consulting, Auckland, New Zealan d. 8 pp. Clout, M. N., and C. R. Veitch. 2002. Turning the tide of biological invasion: the potential for eradicating invasive species. Pages 1

- 3 in C. R. Veitch and M. N. Clout, (eds.). Turning the Tide: The Eradication of Invasive Species. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Species Survival Commission No. 27, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Cochran, W. G. 1977. Sampling techniques 3rd edition. Wiley, New York. 428 pp. Collett, N. G., and J. McBeath. 2007. Managing insect pests in Eucalyptus globulus (Labill.) plantations in Victoria using insecticide tablets at establishment. Australian Forestry 70(1):53

- 60. Collyer, E., and M. V. Geldermalsen. 1975. Integrated control of apple pests in New

- Zealand part 1. Outline o f experiment and general results. New Zealand Journal of Zoology 2(1):101

- 134. Colunga

- Garcia, M. 2007 . Human

- mediated Pathways for Invasive Species in Metropolitan Areas: The Light Brown Apple Moth Case Study. Presentation at APHIS Pest Risk Mapping Workshop. June 5

- 7, Fort Collins, Colorado, 2007. http://www.nappfast.org/ASPRM%20web/presentations/Colunga.pdfDRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of Light Brown Apple Moth [ Epiphyas postvittana ( Walker)] as a Non

- Quarantine Pest

40 Cordingley, C. L., and W. Danthanarayana. 1976. The Lepidopterous Fauna of Capeweed (Arctotheca Calendula) in Victoria with keys for Larval Inde ntification. J. Aust. ent. Soc. 15(1):19

- 34. Cowley, J. M., K. D. Chadfield, and R. T. Baker. 1992. Evaluation of dry heat as a postharvest disinfestation treatment for persimmons. New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science 20(2):209

- 215. Cross, J. V. 1996. A pheromone trap survey of tortricid moths (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in apple orchards in England subject to different insecticide management. The Entomologist 115(3):168

- 180. Danthanarayana, W. 1975a. The Bionomics, Distribution and Host Ran ge of the Light Brown Apple Moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walk.) (Tortricidae). Australian Journal of Zoology 23(3):419

- 437. Danthanarayana, W. 1975b. Factors Detemining Variation in Fecundity of the Light Brown Apple Moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walker) (Tor tricidae). Australian Journal of Zoology 23(3):439

- 451. Danthanarayana, W. 1976a. Diel and Lunar Flight Periodicites in the Light Brown Apple Moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walker) (Tortricidae) and their Possible Adaptive Significance.
Australian Journal of Zoology 24(1):65

- 73. Danthanarayana, W. 1976b. Environmentally cued size variation in the light

- brown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walk.) (Tortricidae), and its adaptive value in dispersal. Oecologia

26:121

- 132. Danthanarayana, W. 1976c. Flight thresh olds and seasonal variations in flight activity of the Light

- Brown Apple Moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walk.) (Tortricidae), in Victoria, Australia. Oecologia 23:271

- 282. Danthanarayana, W. 1980a. Occurrence of Trichogramma funiculatum, an egg parasitoid of the light brown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana. Ent. exp. & appl 28:287

- 294. Danthanarayana, W. 1980b. Parasitism of the Light Brown Apple Moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walker), by its Larval Ectoparasite, Goniozus jacintae Farrugia (Hymenoptera: Bethylida e), in Natural Populations in Victoria. Australian Journal of Zoology 28(5

- 6):685

- 692. Danthanarayana, W. 1983. Population ecology of the light brown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). The Journal of Animal Ecology 52(1):1

- 33.

Dan thanarayana, W., and S. Dashper. 1986. Response of some night

- flying insects to polarized light. Pages 120

- 127 in W. Danthanarayana, (ed.). Insect Flight: Dispersal & Migration. Springer

- Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. Danthanarayana, W., D. Farrugia, and I. D. Gauld. 1977. Studies on the biology and systematic position of a new species of ichneumonid parasitising the light brown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Torricidae), in Australia. Bulletin of Entomological Research 67(4):607

- 618.

Da nthanarayana, W., and H. Gu. 1991. Multiple mating and its effect on the reproductive success of femal Epiphyas postvittana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Ecological Entomology 16(2):169

- 176. Danthanarayana, W., and H. Gu. 1992. Influence of Environmental Con ditions on Flight Duration of Epiphyas postvittana (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Australian Journal of Zoology 40(5):477

- 484.DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of Light Brown Apple Moth [ Epiphyas postvittana ( Walker)] as a Non

- Quarantine Pest

41 Danthanarayana, W., H. Gu, and S. Ashley. 1995. Population growth potential of Epiphyas postvittana, the lightbrown apple m oth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in relation to diet, temperature and climate. Australian Journal of Zoology 43(4):381

- 394. Danthanarayana, W., J. G. Hamilton, and S. P. Khoul. 1982. Low

- Desity Larval Crowding in the Light Brown Apple Moth, Epiphyas postvitt ana and its Ecological Significance. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 31(4):353

- 358. de Castro Oliveira, J. V., J. L. C. Wolff, A. Garcia

- Maruniak, B. M. Ribeiro, M. E. B. de Castro, M. L. de Souza, F. Moscardi, J. E. Maruniak, and P. M. de Andrade Zanotto. 2006. Genome of the most widely used viral biopesticide: Anticarsia gemmatalis multiple nucleopolyhedrovirus. Journal of General Virology 87(Part 11):3233

- 3250. Dentener, P. R., S. M. Alexander, P. J. Lester, R. J. Petry, J. H. Maindonald, and R. M. McDonald. 1996. Hot air treatment for disinfestation of lightbrown apple moth and longtailed mealy bug on persimmons. Postharvest Biology and Technology 8(2):143

- 152. Dentener, P. R., K. V. Bennett, L. E. Hoy, S. E. Lewthwaite, P. J. Lester, J. H. Maind onald, and P. G. Connolly. 1997. Postharvest disinfestation of lightbrown apple moth and longtailed mealybug on persimmons using heat and cold. Postharvest Biology and Technology 12(3):255

- 264. Dentener, P. R., S. E. Lewthwaite, K. V. Bennett, J. H. Maindonald, and P. G. Connolly. 2000. Effect of temperature and treatment conditions on the mortality of Epiphyas postvittana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) exposed to ethanol. J. Econ. Entomol. 93(2):519

- 525. Dentener, P. R., S. M. Peetz, and D. B. Birtles. 1 992. Modified atmospheres for the postharvest disinfestation of the New Zealand persimmons. New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science 20(2):203

- 208.
Direccion de Estadisticas de la Provincia. 2005. Presentacion de Censo Citricola 2005 a traves del GIS. Secretaria de Estado de Planeamiento, Estación Experimental Agroindustrial 'Obispo Colombres', Asociacion Tucumana del Citrus, Gobierno de Tucuman. 18 pp. Drake, J. M. 2004. Allee effects and the risk of biological invasions. Risk Analysis 24(4):7 95

- 802. Dumbleton, L. J. 1940. Tortrix postvittana Walk. and its parasites in Australia. New Zealand Journal of Science and Technology A 21(6):322

- 336. Dunkle, R. L. 2007a. Federal Domestic Quarantine Order for Light Brown Apple Moth (LBAM), Epiphyas postv ittana; Interstate Movement Restrictions (DA

- 2007

- 18). United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine. Last accessed June 28, 2007, http://www.nationalplantboard.org/docs/spro_lbam_2007_ 05_02.pdf Dunkle, R. L. 2007b. Light brown apple moth in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California (DA

- 2007

- 11). United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine. 2 pp. Durrance, B. 2 008. Moth #3 appears, just as CDFA calls off twist tie program. Sonoma Valley Sun. Last accessed http://sonomasun.thmm.com/?p=4150.

El

- Sayed, A. M. 2007a. Application of semiochemicals to control Epiphyas postvittana, the Lightbrown apple moth. The Pheroba se. Last accessed January 14, 2010, http://www.pherobase.com/database/control/control

- detail

- Epiphyas

- postvittana.php

El

- Sayed, A. M. 2007b. Semiochemicals of Epiphyas postvittana, the Lightbrown apple moth.
The Pherobase. Last accessed January 14, 2010, http://www.pherobase.com/database/species/species

- Epiphyas

- postvittana.phpDRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of Light Brown Apple Moth [ Epiphyas postvittana ( Walker)] as a Non

- Quarantine Pest

42 ESRI. 2008. ArcGIS 9.3. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, California. Etienne, J., G. Delvare, and H. P. Aberlenc. 1992. Contribution a la connaissance de
l'arth ropodofaune associee aux cultures de Casamance (Senegal). Bollettino di Zoologia Agraria e di Bachicoltura 24(2):159

- 193. EUNIS. 2007. European Nature Information System (EUNIS): Epiphyas postvittana. European Environment Agency. Last accessed June 28, 200 7, http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/species

factsheet.jsp?idSpecies=304898&idSpeciesLink=304898 Europaea, F. 2007. Epiphyas postvittana. Last accessed June 28, 2007, http://www.faunaeur.org/full_results.php?id=292858. Evans, J. W. 1937a. The light

- brown apple m oth (Tortrix postvittana Walker). Tasmanian Journal of Agriculture 8(3 Suppl.):1

- 18. Evans, J. W. 1937b. The light

- brown apple moth (Totrix postvittana, Walk.) The Tasmanian Journal of Agriculture 8(3):125

- 128. Farrugia, D. 1981. Three new Australian speci es of Goniozus Foerster (Hymenoptera: Bethylidae), and G. antipodum Westwood redescribed. Bulletin of Entomological Reserach 71(2):317

- 322. Fedchock, C. 2007. Response from APHIS

- PPQ to SENASICA regarding light brown apple
moth. Personal communication to J . Trujillo on May 10, 2007, from C. Fedchock ( APHIS

- PPQ

- PIM). Ferguson, K. L., T. J. Wicks, and P. Bailey. 1996. Lightbrown apple moth increases the incidence of Botrytis rots in maturing grapes. The Australian Grapegrower and Winemaker (Annual Technical I ssue):59

- 60. Field, R. P. 1976. Integrated Pest C o ntrol in Victorian Peach Orchards: The Role of Typhlodromus occidentalis Nesbitt (Acarina: Phytoseiidae). Australian Journal of Zoology 24(4):565

- 572. Follas, G., R. Welsh, S. Bland, and T. M. Patterson. 19 94. Lufenuron

- an insect growth inhibitor for the control of leafrollers in apples and kiwifruit. Pages 341

- 345Forty Seventh New
Zealand Plant P r otection Conference. New Zealand Plant Protection Society Inc., Waitangi Hotel, New Zealand. Formstone, B. 1993 . Epiphyas postvittana (Walk.) (Lep.: Tortricidae) in Denbighshire, North Wales. Entomologist's Record and Journal of Variation 105(3

- 4):91. Foster, S. P. 1993. Neural Inactivation of Sex Pheromone Production in Mated Lightbrown Apple Moths, Epiphyas postv ittana (Walker). J. Insect Physiol. 39(3):267

- 273. Foster, S. P. 2000. Periodicity of Sex Pheromone Biosynthesis, Re;ease and Degradation in the Lightbrown Apple Moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walker). Archives of Insect Biochemistry and Physiology 43(3):125

- 136. Foster, S. P. 2001. Fatty acyl pheromone analogue

- containing lipids and their roles in sex pheromone biosynthesis in the lightbrown apple moth, Epipyhas postvittana (Walker). Journal of Insect Physiology 47(4

- 5):433

- 443. Foster, S. P., and R. H. Ayers . 1995. Effect of a vertical object on the sex pheromone

- mediated flight and landing behaviors of the male lightbrown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Journal of lnsect Behavior 8(4):465

- 484. Foster, S. P., and R. H. A yers. 1996. Multiple mating and its effects in the lightbrown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walker). Journal of Insect Physiology 42(7):657

- 667.DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of Light Brown Apple Moth [ Epiphyas postvittana ( Walker)] as a Non

- Quarantine Pest

43 Foster, S. P., R. H. Ayers, and S. J. Muggleston. 1995a. Trapping and sex pheromone

- mediated flight and lan ding behaviour of male Ctenopseustis obliquana. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 74(2):125

- 135. Foster, S. P., and D. R. Greenwood. 1997. Change in Reductase Activity is Responsible for Senescent Decline in Sex Pheromone Titre in the Lightbrown Apple Moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walker). J. Insect Physiol. 43(12):1093

- 1100. Foster, S. P., and M. O. Harris. 1992. Factors influencing the landing of male Epiphyas postvittana (Walker) exhibiting pheromone

- mediated flight (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae).

J ournal of lnsect Behavior 5(6):699

- 720. Foster, S. P., and A. J. Howard. 1998. Influence of stimuli from Camellia japonica on ovipositional behavior of generalist herbivore Epiphyas postvittana. Journal of Chemical Ecology 24(7):1251

- 1275. Foster, S. P., a nd A. J. Howard. 1999a. Adult female and neonate larval plant preferences of the generalist herbivore, Epiphyas postvittana. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata
92:53

- 62. Foster, S. P., and A. J. Howard. 1999b. The effects of mating, age at mating, and plant stimuli, on the lifetime fecundity and fertility of the generalist herbivore Epiphyas postvittana. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 91:287

- 295. Foster, S. P., and A. J. Howard. 1999c. The effects of source dosage, flight altitude, wind speed, and ground pattern on the sex pheromone

- mediated flight maneuvers of male lightbrown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walker). New Zealand Journal of Zoology 26:97

- 104. Foster, S. P., A. J. Howard, and R. H. Ayers. 1995b. Age

- related changes in reproduct ive characters of four species of tortricid moths. New Zealand Journal of Zoology 22:271

- 280. Foster, S. P., A. J. Howard, and M. O. Harris. 1997. The influence of tactile and other non

chemical factors on the ovipositional responses of the generalist herb ivore Epiphyas postvittana. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 83:147

- 159. Foster, S. P., and S. J. Muggleston. 1993. Effect of design of a sex

- pheromone

- baited delta trap on behavior and catch of male Epiphyas postvittana (Walker). Journal of Chemica l Ecology 19(11). Foster, S. P., S. J. Muggleston, and R. D. Ball. 1991. Behavioral responses of male Epiphyas postvittana (Walker) to sex pheromone

- baited delta trap in a wind tunnel. Journal of Chemical Ecology 17(7):1449

- 1468. Foster, S. P., and W. L. R oelofs. 1990. Biosynthesis of a monoene and a conjugated diene sex pheromone component of the lightbrown apple moth by Δ11 desaturation. Experientia

46:269

- 273. Foster, S. P., and W. L. Roelofs. 1994. Regulation of Pheromone Production in Virgin and
Mated Females of Two Tortricid Moths. Archives of Insect Biochemistry and Physiology 25(4):271

- 285. Fountain, M. T., and J. V. Cross. 2007. The light brown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae), in UK pome and stone fruit orchards. Bulletin OILB/SROP 30(4):51

- 60. Fowler, G., L. Fowler, L. Garrett, and E. M. Jones. 2007a. Light Brown Apple Moth Watsonville Project Trip Report August 6

- 10, 2007. 29 pp. Fowler, G., L. Garrett, A. Neeley, D. Borchert, and B. Spears. 2007b. Economic anal ysis: Risk to U.S. apple, grape, orange, and pear production from the light brown apple moth,DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of Light Brown Apple Moth [ Epiphyas postvittana ( Walker)] as a Non

- Quarantine Pest

44 Epiphyas postvittana (Walker). United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Center for Pl ant Health Science and Technology, Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory, Raleigh, North Carolina. 24 pp. Fowler, G., Garrett, L., Neeley, A., Magarey, R., Borchert, D., Spears, B. 2009. Economic analysis: risk to U.S. apple, grape, orange and pe ar production from the light brown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walker). Pages 28 in. APHIS

- PPQ

- CPHST

- PERAL Fowler, S. R., M. V. Jaspers, M. Walter, and A. Stewart. 1999. Suppression of Overwintering Botrytis cinerea Inoculum on Grape Rachii Using Ant agonistic Fungi. Pages 141

- 147Fifty Second New Zealand Plant Protection Conference. New Zealand Plant Protection Society Inc. Frank, S. D., S. D. Wratten, H. S. Sandhu, and P. M. Shrewsbury. 2007. Video analysis to determine how habitat strata affects pred ator diversity and predation of Epiphyas postvittana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in a vineyard. Biological Control 41(2007):230

- 236. Fullaway, D. T. 1913. Report of the entomologist. Pages 155 USDA Experiment Station Record. Government Printing Office, Wash ington, D.C. Garrett, L. 1998. Thanks and FYI on Australian Naval Orange 1998 Shipment to United States
with LBAM. Personal communication to on from Geier, P. W. 1981. The light

- brown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walker); 6. Practical
evaluation of t he life system concept. Australian Journal of Ecology 6(43

- 57). Geier, P. W., and D. T. Briese. 1979. The light

- brown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walker). 3. Differences in susceptibility to a nuclear polyhedrosis virus. Australian Journal of Ecology 4(2):187

- 194. Geier, P. W., and D. T. Briese. 1980a. The light

- brown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walker): 4. Studies on population dynamics and injuriousness to apples in Australian Capital Territory. Australian Journal of Ecology 5:63

- 93. Geier, P. W., and D. T. Briese. 1980b. The light

- brown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walker): 5. Variability of demographic characteristics in field populations of southeastern Australia. Australian Journal of Ecology (1980) 5, 135

- 142 5:135

- 142. Geier, P. W., and D. T. Briese. 1981. The light

- brown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walker): a native leafroller fostered by European settlement. Pages 131

- 135 in R. Kitching and R. Jones, (eds.). The Ecology of Pests. CSIRO, Melbourne, Australia. Geier, P. W., D. T. Briese, and T. Lewis. 1978. The light

- brown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana (walker), 2. Uneven sex ratios and a condition contributing to them in the field. Australian Journal of Ecology 3(4):467

- 488. Geier, P. W., L. R. Clark, and D. T. Briese. 1983 . Principles for the control of arthropod pests 1. Elements and functions involved in pest control. Protection Ecology 5(1):1

- 96. Geier, P. W., and L. T. Oswald. 1977. The light

- brown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walker). 1. Effects associated with co ntaminations by a nuclear polyhedrosis virus on the demographic performance of a laboratory strain. Australian Journal of Ecology 2(1):9

- 29. Geier, P. W., and B. P. Springett. 1976. Population characteristics of Australian leafrollers (Epiphyas spp., Lepidoptera) infesting orchards. Austral Ecology 1(3):129

- 144. Gleave, A. P., R. J. Hedges, A. H. Broadwell, and P. J. Wigley. 1992. Cloning and nucleotide sequence of an insecticidal crystal protein gene from Bacillus thuringiensis DSIR732DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of Light Brown Apple Moth [ Epiphyas postvittana ( Walker)] as a Non

- Quarantine Pest

45 active against three species of leafroller (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science 20(1):27

- 36. Gleave, A. P., R. Williams, and R. J. Hedges. 1993. Screening by Polymerase Chain Reaction of Bacillus thuringiensis Serotypes for th e Presence of cryV

- Like Insecticidal Protein Genes and Characterization of a cryV Gene Cloned from B. thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 59(5):1683

- 1687. Glenn, D. 2000. 3.2 The future is integrated pest management. Pages 15

- 18 in K. Group, (ed.). Organic Farming in Australia. Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation,
Australia. Glenn, D. C., M. J. Hercus, and A. A. Hoffmann. 1997. Characterizing Trichogramma (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae) Species for Biocon trol of Light Brown Apple Moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in Grapevines in Australia. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 90(2):128

- 137. Glenn, D. C., and A. A. Hoffmann. 1997. Developing a commercially viable system for biological control of light brown apple moth (Le pidoptera: Tortricidae) in grapes using endemic Trichogramma (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae). Journal of Economic Entomology 90(2):370

- 382. Goldman, P., E. Nicholson, S. Davis, and M. Meuter. 2007a. Lawsuit Challenges EPA on Deadly Pesticide: Pesticide p oisons farm workers, drifts onto rural schoolyards and homes. Personal communication to L. F. a. L. J. Garrett on July 31, 2007, from Letter sent to Larry Fowler and Lynn J. Garrett. Goldman, P., J. Osborne

- Klein, K. L. Boyles, S. Davis, V. Ruiz, A. Colang elo, M. Meuter, and J. Gettleman. 2007b. United Farm Workers, AFL

- CIO, Sea Mar Community Health Center, Pineros y Campesinos Unidos Del Noroeste, Beyond Pesticides, Frente Indigena de Organizaciones Binacionales, Farm Labor Organizing Committee, AFL

- CIO, T eamsters Local 890, Martha Rodrigues and Silvina Canez, Plaintiffs, vs. Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protectio Agency, Defendant. Civ. No. Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. Personal communication to U. S. E. P. Agency on July 30, 2007, from GPDD. 2007a. Epiphyas postvittana. APHIS. Last accessed 8/10/2007 7:55:47 AM, https://www.gpdd.info/display.cfm?view=report&pest_id=348. GPDD. 2007b. Pest ID 348 Epiphyas postvittana. Last accessed Greaves, A. J., A. R. Tomkins, C. P. Malcolm, M. P . Upsdell, C. Thomson, and D. J. Wilson. 1992. Distribution and decay of phosmet residues in the canopy of "T

- bar" trellised kiwifruit. New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science 20(3):313

- 318. Green, O. R. 1984. New Zealand host and locality re cords for an introduced tortricid parasite, Trigonospila brevifacies (Diptera: Tachinidae). New Zealand Entomologist 8(69

- 71). Groenendaal, H. 2006. Introduction to quantitative analysis. Vose Consulting, Princeton, New Jersey. Gu, H. 1991. Electrophoretic variation at flight

- related enzyme loci and its possible association with flight capacity in Epiphyas postvittana. Biochemical Genetics 29(7/8):345

- 354. Gu, H., and W. Danthanarayana. 1990a. Age

- related flight and reproductive performance of the light bro wn apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana. Entomol. exp. appl. 54: 109

- 115, 1990.
54:109

- 115. Gu, H., and W. Danthanarayana. 1990b. The role of availability of food and water to the adult Epiphyas postvittana, the light brown apple moth, in its reproductive perf ormance. Entomol E xp. A ppl 54:101

- 108.DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of Light Brown Apple Moth [ Epiphyas postvittana ( Walker)] as a Non

- Quarantine Pest

46 Gu, H., and W. Danthanarayana. 1992a. Influence of Larval Rearing Conditions on the Body Size and Flight Capacity of Epiphyas postvittana Moths. Aust. J. Zool. 40(6):573

- 581. Gu, H., and W. Danthanarayana. 1992b. Quan titative genetic analysis of dispersal in Epiphyas postvittana. I. Genetic variation in flight capacity. Heredity 68(1):53

- 60. Gu, H., and W. Danthanarayana. 1992c. Quantitative genetic analysis of dispersal in Epiphyas postvittana. II. Genetic covariation s between flight capacity and life

- history traits. Heredity 68(1):61

- 69. Gu, H., and W. Danthanarayana. 2000. Variations in life history traits and flight capacity among populations of the light brown apple moth Epiphyas postvittana (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Austral Ecology 25(6):571

- 579. Gu, H., and W. Danthanarayana. 2000a. Genetic variation in the life

- history traits of Epiphyas postvittana: population structure and local adaptation. Austral Ecology 25:394

- 401. Gurr, G. M., W. G. Thwaite, and H. I. Nicol. 1999. Field evaluation of the effects of the insect growth regulator tebufenozide on entomophagous arthropods and pests of apples. Australian Journal of Entomology 38(2):135

- 140. Gurr, G. M., S. D. Wratten, P. Kehrli, and S. Scarratt. 2005. C ultural manipulations to enhance biological control in Australia and New Zealand: progress and prospects. Second International Symposium on Biological Control of Arthropods, Davos, Switzerland. September 12

- 16, 2005. Gutierrez, A. P. M., N.J. and Ponti, L. . unpublished. Climatic limits of the light brown apple
moth in Arizona

- California and comments on its eradication.27. Halstead, A. J. 2005. Epiphyas pstvittana (Walker) (Lep.: Tortricidae) damaging apricot fruits in Tyne and Wear. Entomologist's Record a nd Journal of Variation 117(Part 2):48. Hancock, E. F. 1989. Epiphyas postvittana (Walk.) (Lep.: Tortricidae) in Wales. Entomologist's Record and Journal of Variation 101(11

- 12):277. Handson, P. D. 1984. Lead and Arsenic Levels in Wines Produced from V i ney ards where Lead Arsenate Sprays are Used for Caterpillar Control. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 35(2):235

- 238. Harder, D., and J. Rosendale. 2008. Integrated pest management practices for the light brown apple moth in New Zealand: implicat ions for California. The Arboretum, University of
California at Santa Cruz. Harris, A. C. 1994a. Ancistrocerus gazella (Hymenoptera: Vespoidea: Eumenidae): a potentially useful biological control agent for leafrollers Planotortrix octo, P. excessana, Ctenopseustis obliquana, C. herana, and Epiphyas postvittana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science 22:235

- 238. Harris, A. C. 1994b. Biology of Ancistrocerus gazella (Hymenoptera: Vespoidea: Eumenid ae) in New Zealand. New Zealand Entomologist 17(0):29

- 36. Harris, M. O., S. R. Foster, T. Bittar, K. Ekanayake, K. Looij, and A. Howard. 1995. Visual behaviour of neonate larvae of the light brown apple moth. Entomologia Experimentalis

et Applicata 77:323

- 334. Harris, M. O., F. Mafile'o, and S. Dhana. 1997. Behavioral responses of lightbrown apple moth neonate larvae on diets containing Bacillus thuringiensis formulations or endotoxins. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 84(3):207

- 219. Harris, M. O., N . P. Markwick, and M. Sandanayake. 2006. Is Resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis Endotoxin Cry1Ac Associated with a Change in the Behavior of Light Brown Apple Moth Larvae (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae)? J. Econ. Entomol. 99(2):508

- 518.DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of Light Brown Apple Moth [ Epiphyas postvittana ( Walker)] as a Non

- Quarantine Pest

47 Harris, M. O., M. Sanda nayake, and S. P. Foster. 1999. Chemical stimuli from apple influence the behavior of neonate caterpillars of the generalist herbivore, Epiphyas postvittana. Journal of Chemical Ecology, Vol. 25, No. 8, 1999 25(8):1717

- 1738. Hastings, A., K. Cuddington, K. F. Davies, C. J. Dugaw, S. Elmendorf, A. Freestone, S. Harrison, M. Holland, J. Lambrinos, and U. Malvadkar. 2005. The spatial spread of invasions: new developments in theory and evidence. Ecology Letters 8(1):91

- 101. HDOA. 2007a. USDA places quarantine o n Hawaii plant exports. Hawaii Department of Agriculture (HDOA). Last accessed August 7, 2008, http://hawaii.gov/hdoa/news/2007

-

news

- releases/news

- release

- nr07

- 09

- may

- 2

- 2007.
HDOA. 2007b. E

- news from the Hawaii Department of Agriculture. Hawaii Department of Agriculture. Last accessed August 7, 2008, http://hawaii.gov/hdoa/meetings_reports/e

news/hdoa

- e

- news

- june

- 5

- 2007. Hely, P. C., G. Pasfield, and J. G. Gellatley. 1982. Insect Pests of Fruit and Vegetables in NSW. Inkata Press, Melbourne.
Herbison

- Evans, D., and S. Crossley. 2007. Australian Caterpillars: Epiphyas postvittana (Walker, 1863). Hide, R. P., and D. M. Suckling. 1988. Decision analysis of insecticide resistance in light

- brown apple moth. New Zealand Journal of Experimental Agriculture 16(3):2 19

- 224. Hodge, S., M. Barron, and S. D. Wratten. 2000. Induced defences in kawakawa (Macropiper excelsum): do caterpillars avoid previous leaf damage? New Zealand Journal of Ecology 24(1):91

- 95. Hoffmann, A. A., R. E. Woods, E. Collins, K. Wallin, A. White , and J. A. Mckenzie. 2005. Wing shape versus asymmetry as an indicator of changing environmental conditions in insects. Australian Journal of Entomology 44(Part 3):233

- 243. HortNET. 2007. Lightbrown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walker). (n.d.). Inse cts and mites of stonefruit. HortNET. Last accessed June 28, 2007, http://www.hortnet.co.nz/key/stone/info/lba

- info.htm. Hoy, L. E., and D. C. Whiting. 1998a. Cold Storage to Control Temperate Insect Pests on New Zealand Apples

- An Overview [Abstract]. Ac ta Hort. (ISHS) 464:523. Hoy, L. E., and D. C. Whiting. 1998b. Mortality responses of three leafroller (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) species on kiwifruit to a high

- temperature controlled atmosphere treatment. New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Scie nce 26(1):11

- 15. Hudson, N. M., and A. Terauds. 1969. Investigations on the control of the Light Brown Apple Moth Epiphyas postvittana (Walk.) in Tasmania 1965

- 1966 season. Tasmanian Journal of Agriculture 40(2):163

- 166. Hyink, O., R. A. Dellow, M. J. Olse n, K. M. B. Caradoc

- Davies, K. Drake, E. A. Herniou, J. S. Cory, D. R. O'Reilly, and V. K. Ward. 2002. Whole genome analysis of the Epiphyas postvittana nucleopolyhedrovirus. Journal of General Virology 83(4):957

- 971. Hyink, O., S. Graves, F. M. Fairbairn, and V. K. Ward. 1998. Mapping and polyhedrin gene analysis of the Epiphyas postvittana nucleopolyhedrovirus genome. Journal of General Virology 79:2853

- 2862. IIE. 1991. Distribution Maps of Pests: Epiphyas postvittana (Series A, Map No. 82).
Internationa l Institute of Entomology. London: CAB International. Ikeda, M., M. Shikata, N. Shirata, S. Chaeychomsri, and M. Kobayashi. 2006. Gene organization and complete sequence of the Hyphantria cunea nucleopolyhedrovirus genome. Journal of General Virology 87(Pa rt 9):2549

- 2562.DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of Light Brown Apple Moth [ Epiphyas postvittana ( Walker)] as a Non

- Quarantine Pest

48 Il'ichev, A. L., and S. P. Flett. 1999. Major pest and disease problems in stone fruit production in Northern Victoria, Australia. Integrated Plant Production in Stone Fruit 22(11):131

- 135. IPPC. 2007. International Standards for Phytosani tary Measures No. 2. Framework for Pest Risk Analysis. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), Rome, Italy. 15 pp. Irvin, N. A., S. L. Scarratt, S. D. Wratten, C. M. Fra mpton, R. B. Chapman, and J. M. Tylianakis. 2006. The effects of floral understoreys on parasitism of leafrollers (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) on apples in New Zealand. Agricultural and Forest Entomology 8:25

- 34. Jackson, R. V. 1996. Lepidoptera breeding rec ords from Alphitonia species (Rhamnaceae) at Paluma, North Queensland. Australian Entomologist 23(2):75

- 76. Jamieson, L. E., X. Meier, K. J. Smith, S. E. Lewthwaite, and P. R. Dentener. 2003. Effect of ethanol vapor treatments on lightbrown apple moth larv al mortality and ‘Braeburn’ apple fruit characterization. Postharvest Biology and Technology 28(3):391

- 403. Jehle, J. A., G. W. Blissard, B. C. Bonning, J. S. Cory, E. A. Herniou, G. F. Rohrmann, D. A. Theilmann, S. M. Thiem, and J. M. Vlak. 2006. On the c lassification and nomenclautre of baculoviruses: A proposal for revision. Arch Virol 151(7):1257

- 1266. Johnson, M. W., C. Pickel, L. L. Strand, L. G. Varela, C. A. Wilen, M. P. Bolda, M. L. Flint, W. K. F. Lam, and F. G. Zalom. 2007. Light brown apple moth in California: quarantine, management, and potential impacts. University of California Statewide IPM Program: Light Brown Apple Moth, July 17, 2007:21. Last accessed July 17, 2007, http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PDF/PUBS/lbam070717.pdf. Jones, E. M. 2007. LB AM Economic Assessment Information. Personal communication to B. M. Spears and L. Fowler on 7/09/2007, from Jones, V. M., and B. C. Waddell. 1996. Hot water treatment of lightbrown apple moth eggs on apples and nectarines. Pages 71

- 74 Forty Ninth New Zeal and Plant Protection Conference. New Zealand Plant Protection Society Inc., Quality Hotel Rutherford, Nelson, New Zealand. Jones, V. M., B. C. Waddell, and J. H. Maindonald. 1995. Comparative Mortality Responses of Three Tortricid (Lepidoptera) Species to Hot Water. J. Econ. Entomol. 88(5):1356

- 1360. Karg, G., and D. M. Suckling. 1997. Polyethylene Dispensers Generate Large

- Scale Temporal Fluctuations in Pheromone Concentration. Environ. Entomol. 26(4):896

- 905. Karg, G., D. M. Suckling, and S. J. Bradley. 1 994. Absorption and release of pheromone of Epiphyas postvittana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) by apple leaves. Journal of Chemical Ecology 20(8):1825

- 1841. Karg, G., D. M. Suckling, and S. J. Bradley. 1997. Defining Interaction between Electroantennogram Re sponses of Epiphyas postvittana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) to Pheromone and Other Volatiles. J. Insect Physiol. 43(2):179

- 187. Karunaratne, C., G. A. Moore, R. Jones, and R. Ryan. 1997. Phosphine and its effect on some
common insects in cut flowers. Postha rvest Biology and Technology 10(3):255

- 262. Kay, J. 2008a. Experts question plan to spray to fight moths San Francisco Chronicle (appeard on page A

- 1). Last accessed http://www.sfgate.com/cgi

bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/06/MN69VD309.DTL. Kay, J. 2008b. Experts question plan to spray to fight moths. in San Francisco Chronicle, San
Francisco.DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of Light Brown Apple Moth [ Epiphyas postvittana ( Walker)] as a Non

- Quarantine Pest

49 Kay, M. K. 1991. Australian and New Zealand species in forestry. Pages 765

- 773 in L. P. S. Van der Geest and H. H. Evenhuis, (eds.). Tortricid pests, their biology, n atural enemies and control. Elsevier, Amsterdam. KCAPS. 2005. Light Brown Apple Moth. (2005). Kentucky Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey (CAPS). Last accessed July 2, 2007, http://www.uky.edu/Ag/CAPS/currentsurvey/lbam05.htm Kimber, I. 2007. UK Moths: Your guide to the moths of Great Britain and Ireland, Light Brown Apple Moth. UK Moths. Last accessed June 28, 2007, http://ukmoths.org.uk/show.php?bf=998. Klots, A. B. 1970. Lepidoptera. Pages p. 13

- 18, 115

- 130 in S. L. Tuxen, (ed.). Taxonomist's glossary of genitalia in insects, Munksgaard, Copenhagen. Knight, J. S., A. H. Broadwell, W. N. Grant, and C. B. Shoemaker. 2004. A Strategy for Shuffling Numerous Bacillus thuringiensis Crystal Protein Domains. J. Econ. Entomol. 97(6):1805

- 1813. Knighten, C., and L. Hawkins. 2007a. USDA Confirms Light Brown Apple Moth in California [News Release]. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Last accessed July 2, 2007, http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps/pdep/USDAReleaseApplemoth_p pq.pdf Knighten, C., and L. Hawkins. 2007b. USDA Issues Federal Order to Halt Spread of Light Brown Apple Moth [News Release]. Washington, DC. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Last accessed http://www.ap his.usda.gov/newsroom/content/2007/05/lbam.shtml Lance, D. R. 2007. Requesting TWG Input. Personal communication to H. Wright on August 20, 2007, from D. R. Lance ( APHIS ). Archived at the PERAL library, Raleigh, NC. Lance, D. R. 2007a. LBAM program activi ty update. Personal communication to M. W. Johnson, T. C. Ring, D. McInnis, E. Brockerhoff, K. Bloem, M. Suckling, and B. Woods on August 9, 2007, from D. R. Lance ( APHIS ). Archived at the PERAL library, Raleigh,

NC. Langmaid, J. R., and M. R. Young. 1999. Microlepidoptera review of 1997. Entomologist's Record and Journal of Variation 111(3):105

- 119. Lavandero, B. I., S. D. Wratten, R. K. Didham, and G. M. Gurr. 2006. Increasing floral diversity for selective enhancement of biological control agents: A doub le

- edged sward? Basic and Applied Ecology 7(3):236

- 243. Lawrence, L. A., and R. J. Bartell. 1972. The effect of age on calling behaviour of virgin females of Epiphyas postvittana (Lepidoptera) and on their pheromone content and ovarian development. Ent. E x p. & A ppl 15:455

- 464. Lay

- Yee, M., D. C. Whiting, and K. J. Rose. 1997. Response of 'Royal Gala' and 'Granny Smith' apples to high

- temperature controlled atmosphere treatments for control of Epiphyas postvittana and Nysius huttoni. Postharvest Biology and Technology 12:127

- 136. Lester, P. J., P. R. Dentener, R. J. Petry, and S. M. Alexander. 1995. Hot

- water immersion for disinfestation of lightbrown apple moth (Epiphyas postvittana) and longtailed mealy bug (Pseudococcus longispinus) on persimmons. Postharv est Biology and Technology 6(3/4):349

- 356. Lester, P. J., and D. R. Greenwood. 1997. Pretreatment Induced Thermotolerance in Lightbrown Apple Moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) and Associated Inductin of Heat Shock Protein Synthesis. J. Econ. Entomol. 90(1):1 99

- 204.DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of Light Brown Apple Moth [ Epiphyas postvittana ( Walker)] as a Non

- Quarantine Pest

50 Lew, S. 2004. Spiders of California. Last accessed September 11, 2008, http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~stevelew/soc. Lewthwaite, S. E., P. R. Dentener, and P. G. Connolly. 1999. Mortality of Epiphyas postvittana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) after exposu re to sodium bicarbonate at elevated temperatures or combined with emulsifiers. New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science

27:83

- 90. Liebhold, A. M., and P. C. Tobin. 2007. Population Ecology of Insect Invasions and Their Management*. Annual Rev iew of Entomology 53:387

- 408. Lightfield, J. 1995. Movement of Litchi (Litchi chinensis) Fruits from Hawaii into other Regions of the United States. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA, Riverdale, MD. Liu, W., H. Jiao, N. C. Murray, M. O'Connor, and W. L. Roelofs. 2002. Gene characterized for membrane desaturase that produces (E)

- 11 isomers of mono

- and diunsaturated fatty acids. Pages 620

- 624 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America. Llewellyn, R. (no date). Using Trichogramma wasps for the biological control of lightbrown apple moth (Epiphyas postvittana). B u gs for Bugs and Bio Resources Pty Ltd., Mundubbera, Queensland, Australia. 4 pp. Lo, P. L. 2004. Leafroller insecticide resistance manageme nt strategy. Pages 71

- 77 in N. A. Martin, R. M. Beresford, and K. C. Harrington, (eds.). Pesticide Resistance: Prevention and Management Strategies 2005. New Zealand Plant Protection Society Inc., Hastings,
New Zealand. Lo, P. L. 2005. Pesticide resistanc e: prevention and management strategies 2005. in N. A. Martin, R. M. Beresford, and K. C. Harrington, ed. eds. Leafroller insecticide resistance management strategy. The New Zealand Plant Protection Society Incorporated, The Secretary

- Sonja Reid, c/

- Pi pfruit NZ, PO Box 11094, Hastings, New Zealand. Email: secretary@nzpps.org. Lo, P. L., V. F. Bohm, J. T. S. Walker, and D. W. Manktelow. 1995. Monitoring pests of peaches in Hawke's Bay to reduce insecticide applications. Pages 107

- 110 Proceedings of the 47th New Zealand Plant Protection Conference. New Zealand Plant Protection Society. Lo, P. L., and V. C. Murrell. 2000. Time of leafroller infestation and effect on yield in grapes.
New Zealand Plant Protection 53:173

- 178. Lo, P. L., D. M. Suckling, S. J. Bradley, J. T. S. Walker, P. W. Shaw, and G. M. Burnip. 2000. Factors affecting feeding site preferences of lightbrown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae), on apple trees in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Crop
and Horticultura l Science 28:235

- 243. Lo, P. L., and J. T. S. Walker. 2006. Monitoring Leafrollers (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in Vineyards. New Zealand Plant Protection 59:317

- 322. Loch, A. 2007. Prime facts (511): Grapevine pests and their management. NSW Department of

P rimary Industries. 4 pp. Longworth, J. F., and P. Singh. 1980. A Nuclear Polyhedrosis Virus of the Light Brown Apple Moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 35(1):84

- 87. Loveys, B. R., S. D. Tyerman, and B. R. Loveys. 2001. Transfer of photosynthate and naturally occurring insecticidal compounds from host plants to the root hemiparasite Santalum acuminatum (Santalaceae). Aust. J. Bot. 49(1):9

- 16.DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of Light Brown Apple Moth [ Epiphyas postvittana ( Walker)] as a Non

- Quarantine Pest

51 Lynberg, M., and D. Dilworth. 2008. Complaints of adverse react ions to aerial spraying in Monterey and Santa Cruz counties. Helping Our Peninsula's Environment; California Alliance to Stop the Spray; Coalition for Sustainable Action; Pesticide Watch Education Fund, California. 10 pp. MacCollom, G. B., and E. M. Reed. 1971. A Nuclear Polyhedrosis Virus of the Light Brown Apple Moth, Epiphyas postvittana. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 18(3):337

- 343. Macdonald, J. A. 1994. Development of an integrated pest management program for blueberries grown on the North Coast of NSW. HRDC Project No FR136:1

- 29. MacLellan, C. R. 1973. Natural enemies of the light brown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana, in the Australian capital territory. Canadian Entomologist 105:681

- 700. MacQuillan, M. J. 1976. Insecticides for control of light brown apple moth and codling moth in Australia. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry 16(78):135

- 139. Madge, D. 2007. Invertebrate pest management. Pages 10

- 01 to 10

- 27 in D. Madge, (ed.). Organic viticulture: An Australian ma nual. Australian Government, Grape and Wine Reseach and Development Corporation, Department of Primary Industries, Irymple, Victoria, Australia. Madge, D. G., and S. C. Stirrat. 1991. Development of a day

- degree model to predict generation events for light brown apple moth Epiphyas postvittana (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) on grapevines in Australia. Plant Protection Quarterly 6(1):39

- 42. Magarey, P. A., P. R. Nicholas, and M. F. Wachtel. 1994. Control of the diseases of grapes in
Australia and New Zea land. Wine Industry Journal 9(3):197

- 206. Magarey, R. D., G. A. Fowler, D. M. Borchert, T. B. Sutton, M. Colunga

- Garcia, and J. A. Simpson.

, 2007. NAPPFAST an internet tool for the weather

- based modeling of plant pathogens. Plant Disease 91: 336

- 345. Magar ey, R.D. et al. 2005. Informal Comparative Review of Phytop h thora ramorum models. http://nature.berkeley.edu/comtf/pdf/P.%20ramorum%20v7%20griffin.pdf Maguire, T., P. Harrison, O. Hyink, J. Kalamakoff, and V. K. Ward. 2000. The inhibitors of apoptosis of Epiphyas postvittana nucleopolyhedrovirus. Journal of General Virology

81:2803

- 2811. Maheswaran, G., L. Pridmore, P. Franz, and M. A. Anderson. 2007. A proteinase inhibitor from Nicotiana alata inhibits the normal development of light

- brown apple moth, Epi phyas postvittana in transgenic apple plants. Plant Cell Rep 26:773

- 782. Mansfield, S., D. J. Kriticos, K. J. B. Potter, and M. C. Watson. 2005. Parasitism of Gum Leaf Skeletoniser (Uraba Lugens) in New Zealand. New Zealand Plant Protection 58(191

- 196).

Ma rkwick, N. P., J. T. Christeller, L. C. Dochterty, and C. M. Lilley. 2001. Insecticidal activity of avidin and streptavidin against four species of pest Lepidoptera. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 98:59

- 66. Markwick, N. P., L. C. Docherty, M. M. Phung, M. T. Lester, C. Murray, J.

- L. Yao, D. S. Mitra, D. Cohen, L. L. Beuning, S. Kutty

- Amma, and J. T. Christeller. 2003. Transgenic tobacco and apple plants expressing biotin

- binding proteins are resistant to two cosmopolitan insect pests, potato tuber moth and lightbrown apple moth, respectively. Transgenic Research 12:671

- 681.DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of Light Brown Apple Moth [ Epiphyas postvittana ( Walker)] as a Non

- Quarantine Pest

52 Markwick, N. P., S. Graves, F. M. Fairbairn, L. C. Docherty, J. Poulton, and V. K. Ward. 2002. Infectivity of Epiphyas postvittana nucleopolyhedrovirus for New Zealand leafrolle rs. Biological Control 25(2):207

- 214. Markwick, N. P., W. A. Laing, J. T. Christeller, J. Z. Mchenry, and M. R. Newton. 1998a. Overprodcution of Digestive Enzymes Compensates for Inhibitory Effects of Protease and Alpha

- Amylase Inhibitors Fed to Three Spec ies of Leafrollers (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 91(6):1265

- 1276. Markwick, N. P., W. A. Laing, J. T. Christeller, S. J. Reid, and M. R. Newton. 1996. Alpha

Amylase Activities in Larval Midgut Extracts from Four Species of Lepidoptera (Tort ricidae and Gelechiidae): Response to pH and to Inhibitors from Wheat, Barley, Kidney Bean, and Streptomyces. J. Econ. Entomol. 89(1):39

- 45. Markwick, N. P., D. C. Whiting, and C. M. Lilley. 1998b. Quarantine implications of exposing Epiphyas postivittana (Walker)(Lep., Torticidae) larvae to sub

- lethal high

- temperature controlled atmosphere treatments. Journal of Applied Entomology 122(9):613

- 616. Mckenna, C. E., P. S. Stevens, and D. Steven. 1995. A New Bacillus Thuringiensis Product for
use on Kiwifruit. Pages 135

- 138 Forty Eighth New Zealand Plant Protection Conference. New Zealand Plant Protection Society Inc., Angus Inn, Hastings, New Zealand. McLaren, G. F., and J. A. Fraser. 1992. Leafroller and codling moth flights in Central Otago.
The Orchardist: P est Control 65:21. McLaren, G. F., and J. A. Fraser. 1994. Current research on the control of pests and diseases of organic stonefruit Hort Research. Last accessed http://www.hortnet.co.nz/publications/proceedings/ifoam/ifoam29.htm. Mclaren, G. F., and J. A. Fraser. 1998. Mating disruption for the control of leafrollers on apricots. New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science 26(4):259

- 268. McLaren, G. F., and D. M. Suckling. 1993. Pheromone trapping of orchard lepidopterous pests in Central Otago , New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science
21:25

- 31. McLennan, W. 1995. Value of agricultural commodities produced Australia 1993

– 94. Pages 26
in. Australian Bureau of Statistics. McManus, M. T., W. A. Laing, L. M. Watson, N. P. Markwick, C. R. Voisey, and D. W. R. White. 2005. Expression of the soybean (Kunitz) trypsin inhibitor in leaves of white clover (Trifolium repens L.). Plant Science (Oxford) 168(5):1211

- 1220. McPhail, J. 1990. Epiphyas postvittana (Walk.) (Lep.: Tortrici dae) in Leicestershire, England UK. Entomologist's Record and Journal of Variation 102(3

- 4):73. MDAR. 2007. Massachusetts Introduced Pests Outreach Project: Light Brown Apple Moth. Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources, University of Massachus etts Extension Agriculture and Landscape Program. Last accessed July 2, 2007, http://www.massnrc.org/pests/pestFAQsheets/lightbrownapplemoth.htm. Meijerman, L., and S. A. Ulenberg. 2007. Eurasian Tortricidae: Epiphyas postvittana. Zoological Museum, Unive rsity of Amsterdam. Last accessed July 5, 2007, http://nlbif.eti.uva.nl/bis/tortricidae.php?selected=beschrijving&menuentry=soorten&id=
197. Mills, N. 2008. Biological control of light brown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana, in California. University of Cal ifornia, Berkeley. Last accessed March 20, 2008, http://nature.berkeley.edu/millslab/lbam.html.DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of Light Brown Apple Moth [ Epiphyas postvittana ( Walker)] as a Non

- Quarantine Pest

53 Mitcham, E. J., T. Lee, A. Martin, M. Zhou, and A. A. Kader. 2007. Potential of CA for postharvest arthropod control in fresh horticultural perishables: an upd ate of summary tables compiled by Ke and Kader, 1992a. Last accessed January 14, 2010 http://postharvest.ucdavis.edu/Ipm/ca2001

- insect/ca2001/I_SUMB.pdf Mo, J. 2002. Light Brown Apple Moth in Citrus. State of New South Wales, Department of Primary Industri es. Last accessed July 20, 2005, http://www.agric.nsw.gov.au/reader/cit

lbam.htm. Mo, J. 2004. Light brown apple moth development calculator. New South Wales Department of Primary Industries. Last accessed July 3, 2008, www.agric.nsw.gov.au/reader/cit

lbam calc,htm. Mo, J. 2006. Light brown apple moth in citrus (No. 216). Primefacts, 1

- 4. Primefacts 216(July 2, 2007):1

- 4. Last accessed March 27, 2008, http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/76206/Light

- brown

- apple

- moth

in

- citrus

- Primefact

- 216

- f inal.pdf. Mo, J., M. Glover, S. Munro, and G. A. C. Beattie. 2006a. Development of Epiphyas postvittana (lepidoptera: tortricidae) on leaves and fruit of orange trees. J. Econ. Entomol 99(4):1321

- 1326. Mo, J., M. Glover, S. Munro, and G. A. C. Beattie. 200 6b. Evaluation of mating disruption for control of Lightbrown Apple Moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in citrus. J. Econ. Entomol 99(2):421

- 426. Moore, K. M. 1963. Observations on some Australian forest insects. 15. Some mortality factors
of Phoracantha semi punctata (F.)(Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). Proc. Linn. Soc. New
South Wales 88:221

- 229. Moore, K. M. 1972. Observations on some Australian forest insects 26. Some insects attacking three important tree species. Australian Zoologist 17:30

- 39. Muggleston, S. J ., and S. P. Foster. 1989. Sustained

- flight tunnel responses of male lightbrown apple moth to synthetic sex pheromone. Physiological Entomology 14(4):443

- 449. Munro, V. M. W. 1998a. A record of the releases and recoveries of the Australian parasitoids

Xant hopimpla rhopaloceros Krieger (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae) and Trigonospila brevifacies Hardy (Diptera: Tachinidae) introduced into New Zealand for leafroller control. New Zealand Entomologist 21(0):81

- 91. Munro, V. M. W. 1998b. A retrospective analysis of the establishment and dispersal of the introduced Australian parasitoids Xanthopimpla rhopaloceros (Krieger) (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae) and Trigonospila brevifacies (Hardy) (Diptera: Tachinidae) within New Zealand. Biocontrol Science and Technology ( 19 98) 8, 559 ±571 8:559

- 571. Munro, V. M. W., and I. M. Henderson. 2002. Nontarget effect of entomophagous biocontrol: shared parasitism between native lepidopteran parasitoids and the biocontrol agent Trigonospila brevifacies (Diptera: Tachinidae) in fores t habitats. Environ. Entomol. 31(2):388

- 396. Myers, J. H. 2003. Eradication: Is It Economically, Financially, Environmentally, and Realistically Possible? Pages 1

- 7. CRC Press LLC. Myers, J. H., A. Savoie, and E. Randen. 1998. Eradication and pest management. Annual Review of Entomology 43(1):471

- 491. Nair, N. G. 1985. Fungi Associated with Bunch Rot of Grapes in the Hunter Valley. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 36:435

- 442.DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of Light Brown Apple Moth [ Epiphyas postvittana ( Walker)] as a Non

- Quarantine Pest

54 Nair, N. G., R. W. Emmett, and F. E. Parker. 1998. Some factors predisposing grape ber ries to infection by Botrytis cinerea. New Zealand Journal of Experimental Agriculture 16:257

- 263. NAPIS. 2009. Map of light brown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana: Pest Tracker. in. National Agricultural Pest Information System.
NAPPFAST. 2009. North Caro lina State University Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Plant Pest Forecasting System.

NAPPO

- PAS. 2007a. Light Brown Apple Moth in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties,
California

- United States. North American Plant Protection Organization, Phytosa nitary Alert System. Last accessed July 2, 2007, http://www.pestalert.org/oprDetail.cfm?oprID=260

NAPPO

- PAS. 2007b. Update on Quarantine Areas for Light Brown Apple Moth (LBAM), Epiphyas postvittana

- United States. North American Plant Protection Organiz ation, Phytosanitary Alert System. Last accessed July 2, 2007, http://www.pestalert.org/oprDetail.cfm?oprID=263&keyword=Epiphyas%20postvittana. NASDA. 2008. New Zealand light brown apple moth expert distances self, colleagues from Harder/Rosendale paper on light brown apple moth. National Association of State Departments of Agriculture. Last accessed April 2, 2008, http://www.nasda.org/cms/7197/9060/16202/16207.aspx. NCDACS. 2007. New Pest Alert: Light Brown Apple Moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walker).
North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Plant Industry Division, Plant Protection Section. Last accessed July 2, 2007, http://www.ncagr.com/plantind/plant/entomol/LBAM.htm. Neumann, F. G. 1978. Insect populations in eucalypt and pine for ests in north

- eastern Victoria.
Australian Forest Research 8:13

- 24. Neumann, F. G., and G. C. Marks. 1976. A synopsis of important pests and diseases in Australian forests and forest nurseries. Australian Forestry (Australia); Journal of the
Institute of F oresters of Australia 39(2):83

- 102. Newcomb, R. D., T. M. Sirey, M. Jordan, S. D. J. Marshall, C. Turner, and D. R. Greenwood. 2003. Functional genomics of genes involved in odorant reception from the tortricid moth, Epiphyas postvittana. Journal of Insect Science (Tucson) 2(36 Cited January 6, 2003):12. Newcomb, R. D., T. M. Sirey, M. Rassam, and D. R. Greenwood. 2002. Pheromone binding proteins of Epiphyas postvittana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) are encoded at a single locus. Insect Biochemistry and Molecu lar Biology 32(11):1543

- 1554. Newman, I. C., J. T. S. Walker, and D. J. Rogers. 2004. Mortality of the Leafroller Parasitoid Dolichogenidea tasmanica (Hym: Braconidae) Exposed to Orchard Pesticide Residues.
New Zealand Plant Protection 57:8

- 12. Nicholas, A . H., W. G. Thwaite, and R. N. Spooner

- Hart. 1999. Arthropod abundance in an Australian apple orchard under mating disruption and supplementary insecticide treatments for codling moth, Cydia pomonella (L.) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Australian
Journal of Entomology 38(1):23

- 29. Nicholls, H. M. 1934. The light brown apple moth. Tasmanian Journal of Agriculture 5(2):68

- 72. Nielsen, and Common. 1991. The Insects of Australia: A textbook for Students and Research Workers. 2, 872

- 874. Ithaca, New York. . Pages 872

- 874 (Second). Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York.DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of Light Brown Apple Moth [ Epiphyas postvittana ( Walker)] as a Non

- Quarantine Pest

55 Nietshcke, B., Borchert, D.M., Magarey, R.D., and Ciomperlik, M.A. 2008. Climatological potential for S c irtothrips dorsalis ( T hysanoptera:thripidae) establishment in the U nited

S tates. Florida Entomologist. 91:79

- 86. Novotny, V., Y. Basset, S. E. Miller, G. D. Weiblen, B. Bremer, L. Cizek, and P. Drozd. 2002. Low host specificity of herbivorous insects in a tropical forest. Nature 416(6883):841

- 844. Noyes, J. S. 2007. Universal Chalcidoidea Data base: Epiphyas postvittana. Natural History Museum, London. Last accessed June 28, 2007, http://internt.nhm.ac.uk/jdsml/research

curation/projects/chalcidoids/namedHost.dsml?searchPageURL=indexNamedHost.dsml &HOSTFAMILY=&HOSGENUSqtype=equals&HOSGENUS=Epiph yas&HOSSPECIE Sqtype=equals&HOSSPECIES=postvittana. Nuttall, M. J. 1983. Planotortrix excessana (Walker), Planotortrix notophaea (Turner), Epiphyas postvittana (Walker). Forest and Timber Insects in New Zealand No. 58.
NZAC. 1996

- 2003. Biological Control: A rthropod Targets New Zealand Australian Connections, Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research. Last accessed June 5, 2003, http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/research/biodiversity/invertebratesprog/nzac/arthropo ds.asp. NZFFA. 2008. Greenheaded leafroller, blacklegg ed leafroller, light brown apple moth. New Zealand Farm Forestry Association. Last accessed http://www.nzffa.org.nz/pests/Pests/Planotortrix/Planotortrix_Ent58.html. NZMAF. 2005. Comments by the Government of New Zealand on Biosecurity Australia's
revised draft import risk analysis report for apples from New Zealand. New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (NZMAF). 51

- 57 pp. Oag, D. 2001. 3. Grape Production in Australia. Pages 4

- 18 in M. K. Papademetriou and F. J. Dent, (eds.). Grape Production in The Asia

- Pacific Region. Food and Agriculture Organization of The United Nations, Regional Office for Asia and The Pacific (ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/003/x6897e/x6897e00.pdf), Bangkok, Thailand. ODA. 2007. Pest alert: light brown apple moth Oregon Department of Agriculture, Plant Division. Last accessed July 2, 2007, http://www.oregon.gov/ODA/PLANT/docs/pdf/ippm_lbam_flyer07.pdf. Ohmart, C. 2007. Light Brown Apple Moth

- Our Latest Invasive Pest. Wines and Vines 89(9):52

- 54. Ohmart, C. P., L. G. Ste wart, and J. R. Thomas. 1983. Phytophagous insect communities in the canopies of three Eucalyptus forest types in south

- eastern Australia. Austral Ecology 8(4):395

- 403. Olson, D. M., E. Dinerstein, E. D. Wikramanayake, N. D. Burgess, G. V. N. Powell, and E . C. Underwood. 2001. Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: a new map of life on earth. Bioscience 51(11):933

- 938. Palisade. 2002. A concise summary of @Risk probability distribution functions, Newfield, N.Y. Palisade. 2002a. @Risk 4.52 Professional, Newfie ld, N.Y.
PANNA. 2009. LBAM Reclassification Petition. Personal communication to T. Vilsack on February 4, 2009, from Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA). Archived at the PERAL library, Raleigh, NC. Paull, C., and A. D. Austin. 2006. The hymenopt eran parasitoids of light brown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in Australia. Australian Journal of Entomology (2006) 45, 142

– 156 45:142

- 156.DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of Light Brown Apple Moth [ Epiphyas postvittana ( Walker)] as a Non

- Quarantine Pest

56 PBC. 2007. Pacific Biocontrol Corporation Isomate LBAM Plus Label. Biocontrol

. Pickett, J. A., L. J. Wadhams, and C. M. Woodcock. 1997. Developing sustainable pest control from chemical ecology. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 64(2):149

- 156. Pickles, T. 2000. Unusual food plant for Epiphyas postvittana (Walker) (Lep.: Tortr icidae). Entomologist's Record and Journal of Variation 112(1):40

- 41. Porter, J. 2001. Range expansion in the light brown apple

- moth Epiphyas postvittana (Walk.). Atropos (14):42

- 46. Prokopy, R. J. 2003. Two decades of bottom

- up, ecologically based pest ma nagement in a small commercial apple orchard in Massachusetts. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 94(3):299

- 309. Quarles, W. 2008. Light brown apple moth

— crisis of trust. IPM Practitioner 30(3/4):1

- 6. Ramsden, M., J. McDonald, and F. R. Wylie. 2002. F orest pests in the South Pacific region: A review of the major causal agents of tree disorders. Development of Forest Health Surveillance Systems for South Pacific Countries and Australia. ACIAR Project
FST/2001/045. Rapley, P. 1999. Light Brown Apple Moth . Horticulture Research and Development Corporation, Gordon, NSW, Australia. 1

- 39 pp. Read, J., E. Gras, G. D. Sanson, F. Clissold, and C. Brunt. 2003. Does chemical defence decline more in developing leaves that become strong and tough at maturity? Austra lian Journal of Botany 51(5):489

- 496. Roberston, J. L., K. F. Armstrong, D. M. Suckling, and H. K. Preisler. 1990. Effects of Host Plants on the Toxicity of Azinphosmethyl to Susceptible and Resistant Light Brown Apple Moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). J. E con. Entomol. 83(6):2124

- 2129. Robinson, G. S., P. R. Ackery, Kitching, I. J., G. W. Beccaloni, and L. M. Hernández. 2007.

HOSTS

- a Database of the World's Lepidopteran Hostplants: Epiphyas postvittana. London: Natural History Museum. Last accessed Jun e 28, 2007, http://internt.nhm.ac.uk/jdsml/research

curation/projects/hostplants/list.dsml?searchPageURL=index.dsml&Familyqtype=starts+ with&Family=&PFamilyqtype=starts+with&PFamily=&Genusqtype=starts+with&Genus =Epiphyas&PGenusqtype=starts+with&PGenus=&Spec iesqtype=starts+with&Species=p ostvittana&PSpeciesqtype=starts+with&PSpecies=&Country=&sort=Family. Rogers, D. J., J. T. S. Walker, I. C. Moen, F. Weibel, P. L. Lo, and L. M. Cole. 2003. Understorey influence on leafroller populations in Hawke’s Bay organic apple orchards. Pages 168

- 17356th Conference Proceedings of The New Zealand Plant Protection Society Incorporated. Rohitha, B. H., R. A. Hill, N. B. Perry, A. K. Karl, S. D. Lorimer, and J. T. Taylor. 1995. Freeze

Dried Artificial Diet

- Based Technique for Screening Plant Extracts Against Epiphyas postvittana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 88(6):1566

- 1569. Roltsch, W. 2008a. Biological Control of the Light Brown Apple Moth (Augmentation using egg parasitoids) [Power Point]. LBAM Environmental Advisory Task Force Meeting (February 21, 2008). 1

- 13 pp. Roltsch, W. 2008b. Biological Control of the Light Brown Apple Moth [Power Point]. LBAM Environmental Advisory Task Force Meeting (May 5, 2008). 1

- 13 pp. Rosendale, J. 2007. Epiphyas postvittana Fa ct finding tour to the Monterey Bay AreaDRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of Light Brown Apple Moth [ Epiphyas postvittana ( Walker)] as a Non

- Quarantine Pest

57 Personal communication to L. F. a. L. J.Garrett on August 13, 2007, from Letter from Jeff Rosendale, Rosendale Nursery, Sierra Azul Nursery & Gardens, Soquel Nursery Growers to Larry Fowler and Lynn J. Garrett, APHI S

- CPHST, Raleigh, NC.
Rumbo

- Csiro, E. R. 1981. Study of single sensillum responses to pheromone in the light

- brown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana, using an averaging technique. Physiological Entomology 6(1):87

- 98. Rumbo, E. R. 1983. Differences between s ingle cell responses to different components of the sex pheromone in males of the lightbrown apple moth (Epiphyas postvittana). Physiological Entomology 8(2):195

- 201. Rumbo, E. R. 1984. A comparison between electroantennograms and receptor potentials in th e light brown apple moth Epiphyas postvittana. Chemical Senses 8(3):263. Rumbo, E. R. 1988. Cross

- and Self

- adaptation of Electroantennogram Responses in the Lightbrown Apple Moth (Epiphyas postvittana). J. Insect Physiol. 34(2):117

- 123. Rumbo, E. R. 1993. Interactions between male moths of the lightbrown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walker) (Lep.: Tort.), landing on synthetic sex pheromone sources in a wind

tunnel. Physiological Entomology 18(1):79

- 86. Rumbo, E. R., S. M. Deacon, and L. P. Regan. 1993 . Spatial discrimination between sources of pheromone and an inhibitor by the light

- brown apple moth Epiphyas postvittana (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Journal of Chemical Ecology 19(5):953

- 962. Rumbo, E. R., D. M. Suckling, and G. Karg. 1995. Measu rement of Airborne Pheromone Concentratins Using Electroantennograms: Interactions Between Environmental Volatiles and Pheromone. J. Insect Physiol. 41(6):465

- 471. Rundle, B. J., and A. A. Hoffmann. 2003. Overwintering of Trichogramma funiculatum Carver (H ymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae) under semi

- natural conditions. Environ. Entomol. 32(2):290

- 298. Russell, G. B., W. S. Bowers, V. Keesing, H. M. Niemeyer, T. Sevenet, S. Vasanthaverni, and S. D. Wratten. 2000. Patterns of bioactivity and herbivory on Nothof agus species from Chile and New Zealand. Journal of Chemical Ecology 26(1):41

- 56. Russell, G. B., P. Singh, and P. G. Fenemore. 1976. Insect

- control Chemicals from Plants III. Toxic Lignans from Libocedrus bidwillii. Aust. J. Biol. Sci. 29:99

- 103.
SAIN. 20 08. Invasive plant pests definitions and criteria. Southern Appalachian Information Node (SAIN). Last accessed June 4, 2008, www.sain.utk.edu/invasives/inv_plant_pest_def.shtml. Sale, P. R., D. Sawden, and D. Steven. 1985. Trials with Bacillus Thuringiensi s on Kiwifruit
1982

- 1984. Pages 162

- 164 Thirty Eighth New Zealand Weed and Pest Control Conference. New Zealand Plant Protection Society Inc. SARDI. 2007. Apricot Pests and Diseases: Light Brown Apple Moth. Government of South Australia, South Australian R esearch and Development Institute. Last accessed July 2, 2007, http://www.sardi.sa.gov.au/pages/hort/hort_crops/apricots/light_brown_apple_moth.htm: sectID=1122&tempID=1. Sax, D. F., and S. D. Gaines. 2008. Species invasions and extinction: The future of na tive biodiversity on islands. Colloquium of the National Academy of Sciences. Schwalbe, C. P., and V. C. Mastro. 1988. Multispecific Trapping Techniques for Exotic

- Pest Detection. Agricultural, Ecosystems and Environment 21(1

- 2):43

- 51.DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of Light Brown Apple Moth [ Epiphyas postvittana ( Walker)] as a Non

- Quarantine Pest

58 Sexton, S. 2000. Iso mate LBAM Plus: A New Weapon for Integrated Management of Lightbrown Apple Moth in Apples and Grapes Biocontrol Ltd. Last accessed July 20, 2005, http://www.biocontrol.com.au/pdfs/IsomateLBAMTechnotes.pdf. Sexton, S. 2001. Management of Lightbrown Apple M oth in Apple and Pear Orchards. BioControl. Last accessed June 5, 2003, http://www.biocontrol.com.au/articles/manageLBAM.html. Sharov, A. A. 2004. Bioeconomics of managing the spread of exotic pest species with barrier zones. Risk Analysis 24(4):879

- 892.
S harov, A. A., A. M. Liebhold, and E. A. Roberts. 1998. Optimizing the use of barrier zones to slow the spread of gypsy moth (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) in North America. Forest Entomology 91(1):165

- 174. Shaw, M. R. 1981. Some Parasites (Hymenoptera) of Epi phyas postvittana (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in Cornwall. Entomologist's Gazette 32(1):36

- 38. Shaw, P. W., V. M. Cruickshank, and D. M. Suckling. 1994. Geographic changes in leafroller species composition in Nelson orchards. New Zealand Journal of Zoology, 1994, Vol. 21:
289

- 294 21:289

- 294. Simberloff, D. 2002. Why not eradication. Managing for Healthy Ecosystems (DJ Rapport, WL Lasley, DE Ralston, NO Nielsen, CO Qualset and AB Damania, eds.):541

- 548. Simberloff, D. 2003. Why not eradication? Pages 541

- 548 in D. J. Rapport, W. L. Lasley, D. E. Ralston, N. O. Nielsen, C. O. Qualset, and A. B. Damania, (eds.). Managing for Healthy Ecosystems CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton, Florida. Simpson, R. M., E. P. J. Burgess, and N. P. Markwick. 1997. Bacillus thurin giensis Delta

Endotoxin Binding Sites in Two Lepidoptera, Wiseana spp. and Epiphyas postvittana. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 70(2):136

- 142. Simpson, R. M., and R. D. Newcomb. 2000. Binding of Bacillus thuringiensis delta

- endotoxins Cry1Ac and Cry1Ba to a 120

- kDa aminopeptidase

- N of Epiphyas postvittana purified
from both brush border membrane vesicles and baculovirus

- infected Sf9 cells. Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 30(11):1069

- 1078. Sin, F. Y. T., D. M. Suckling, and J. W. Marshall. 1995. Differentiation of the endemic New Zealand greenheaded and brownheaded leafroller moths by restriction fragment length variation in the ribosomal gene complex. Molecular Ecology 4(2):253

- 256. Singh, G., L. E. Rippon, W. S. Gilbert, and B. L. Wild. 1976. I norganic bromide residue in bananas, bell capsicums (sweet peppers), cherries and apples following fumigation with ethylene dibromide and methyl bromide. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry 16(82):780

- 784. Singh, P. 1974a. A chemically defined medium for rearing Epiphyas postvittana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). New Zealand Journal of Zoology 1(2):241

- 243. Singh, P. 1974b. Aseptic rearing of Epiphyas postvittana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) on a meridic
diet. New Zealand Journal of Zoology 1(1):111

- 117. Singh, P., and J. S. Dugdale. 1979. Morphogenetic and physiological effects of a juvenile hormone analogue on the light brown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). New Zealand Journal of Zoology 6(2):381

- 388. Singh, P., G. B. Russell, Y. Hayashi, R. T. Gallagher, and S. Fredericksen. 1979. The Insecticidal Activity of Some Norditerpene Dilactones. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 25(2):121

- 127.DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of Light Brown Apple Moth [ Epiphyas postvittana ( Walker)] as a Non

- Quarantine Pest

59 Smith, M., P. Cole, and S. Kreidl. 1995. Improving efficacy of the biological insecticide, Bacillus thuringiensis, for control of lightbrown apple moth. The Australian Grapegrower
and Winemaker:71

- 74. Southwood, T. R. E. 1977. Habitat, the templet for ecological strategies? The Journal of Animal Ecology:337

- 365.
S outhwood, T. R. E., and H. N. Comins. 1976. A synoptic population model. The Journal of Animal Ecology:949

- 965. Spalding, A. 1994. Epiphyas postvittana (Walker) (Lep.: Tortricidae) in Cornwall. Entomologist's Record and Journal of Variation 106(7

- 8):129

- 13 2. Spears, B. M. 2007a. LBAM host plants. Personal communication to J. W. Smith, G. Fowler, and L. Fowler on 6/27/2007, from Spears, B. M. 2007b. Our compiled host list. Personal communication to J. W. Smith, L. Fowler, and G. Fowler on 6/22/2007, from

S plitt M. E., and J. Horel, 1998: Use of multivariate linear regression for meteorological data analysis and quality assessment in complex terrain. Preprints, 10th Symp. on Meteorological Observations and Instrumentation, Phoenix, AZ, Amer. Meteor. Soc.,
35 9

– 362. Statzner, B., A. G. Hildrew, and V. H. Resh. 2001. Species traits and environmental constraints: entomological research and the history of ecological theory. Annual Review of Entomology 46(1):291

- 316. Stevens. 1995. Host preferences of Trichogrammat oidea bactrae fumata (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae) an egg parasitoid of leafrollers (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Entomophaga 40(3/4):379

- 385. Stevens, P. S., and D. Steven. 1994. An Insect Growth Regulator for Controlling Leafrollers on Kiwifruit. Page s 310

- 313 Forty Seventh New Zealand Plant Protection Conference. New Zealand Plant Protection Society Inc., Waitangi Hotel, New Zealand. Suckling, D. M. 1984. The minimum effective level concept of pesticide deposits: an evaluation. Pages 59

- 63Thirty Seven th New Zealand Weed and Pest Control Conference. New Zealand Plant Protection Society Inc. Suckling, D. M. 1985. The Persistence of Azinphos

- methyl against Epiphyas postvittana Walker (Lep.: Tortricidae) in New

- Zealand. Agronomie (Paris) 5(10):893

- 898.
Su ckling, D. M. 1993. Sex Pheromones: Are They Delivering to Expectations? Pages 62

- 65 in S. Corey, D. Dall, and W. Milne, (eds.). Pest Control and Sustainable Agriculture. CSIRO, Canberra, Australia. Suckling, D. M. 1996a. Leafroller Insecticide Resistance Management Strategy Pages p. 168

- 171 Pesticide Resistance: Prevention and Management. Suckling, D. M. 1996b. Status of Insecticide and Miticide Resistance in New Zealand. Pages 49

- 58 Pesticide resistance: Prevention and management. Suckling, D. M., and N. P. D. Angerilli. 1996. Point Source Distribution Affects Pheromone Spike Frequency and Communication Disruption of Epiphyas postvittana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Environ. Entomol. 25(1):101

- 108. Suckling, D. M., K. F. Armstrong, and J. G. I. Khoo. 1990d. Selection with Azinphosmethyl
Influences Glutathione S

- Transferase Activity in the Light Brown Apple Moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology 38(1):9

- 17.DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of Light Brown Apple Moth [ Epiphyas postvittana ( Walker)] as a Non

- Quarantine Pest

60 Suckling, D. M., and E. G. Brockerhoff. 1999. Con trol of Light Brown Apple Moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) Using an Attracticide. J. Econ. Entomol. 92(2):367

- 372. Suckling, D. M., J. F. Brunner, G. M. Burnip, and J. T. S. Walker. 1994a. Dispersal of Epiphyas postvittana (Walker) and Planotortrix octo Dug dale (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) at a Canterbury, New Zealand orchard. New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural
Science 22:225

- 234. Suckling, D. M., G. M. Burnip, J. R. Clearwater, P. W. Shaw, G. F. McLaren, and D. Thomson. 1994c. Mating disruption for caterpillar control in organic pipfruit orchards in New
Zealand. The Horticulture and Food Research Institute of New Zealand Ltd. Last accessed June 28, 2007, http://www.hortnet.co.nz/publications/proceedings/ifoam/ifoam55.htm Suckling, D. M., G. M. Burn ip, A. R. Gibb, J. M. Daly, and K. F. Armstrong. 2001. Plant and host effects on the leafroller parasitoid Dolichogenidia tasmanica. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 100:253

- 260. Suckling, D. M., G. M. Burnip, J. Hackett, and J. C. Daly. 2006. Frass sampling and baiting indicate European earwig (Forficula auricularia) foraging in orchards. J. Appl. Entomol. 130(5):263

- 267. Suckling, D. M., G. M. Burnip, J. T. S. Walker, P. W. Shaw, G. F. McLaren, C. R. Howard, P. Lo, V. White, and J. Fraser. 1998. Ab undance of leafrollers and their parasitoids on selected host plants in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural
Science 26:193

- 203. Suckling, D. M., R. B. Chapman, and D. R. Penman. 1984a. Insecticide Resistance in the Light Brown Apple Moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae): Larval Response to Azinphosmethyl. J. Econ. Entomol. 77(3):579

- 582. Suckling, D. M., R. B. Chapman, and D. R. Penman. 1986. Toxicity of insecticides to Epiphyas postvittana (Walker) and Planot ortrix excessana (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). New Zealand Journal of Experimental Agriculture 14(1):89

- 95. Suckling, D. M., and J. R. Clearwater. 1990. Small Scale Trials of Mating Disruption of Epiphyas postvittana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Envi ron. Entomol. 19(6):1702

- 1709. Suckling, D. M., J. M. Daly, X. Chen, and G. Karg. 2007. Field electroantennogram and trap assessments of aerosol pheromone dispensers for disrupting mating in Epiphyas postvittana. Pest Management Science 63(2):202

- 209. Suckling, D. M., and C. Ioriatti. 1996. Behavioral responses of leafroller larvae to apple leaves and fruit. Entmologia Expertmentalis et Applicata 81:97

- 103. Suckling, D. M., Karg, G., S. Green, and A. R. Gibb. 1999. The effect of atmospheric pheromone co ncentrations on behavior of lightbrown apple moth in an apple orchard. Journal of Chemical Ecology 25(9):2011

- 2024. Suckling, D. M., and G. Karg. 1997. Mating Disruption of the Lightbrown Apple Moth: Portable Electroantennogram Equipment and Other Aspects. Pages 411

- 420 in R. T. Carde and A. K. Minks, (eds.). Insect Pheromone Research: New Directions. Chapman & Hall, New York, NY. Suckling, D. M., and G. Karg. 2007. The role of foliage in mating disruption in apple orchards 4. Last accessed http://phero.net /iobc/montpellier/suckling.html. Suckling, D. M., G. Karg, and S. J. Bradley. 1996a. Apple foliage enhances mating disruption of light

- brown apple moth. Journal of Chemical Ecology 22(2):326

- 341.DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of Light Brown Apple Moth [ Epiphyas postvittana ( Walker)] as a Non

- Quarantine Pest

61 Suckling, D. M., G. Karg, S. J. Bradley, and C. R. Howard. 1 994b. Field Electroantennogram and Behavioral Responses of Epiphyas postvittana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) Under Low Pheromone and Inhibitor Concentrations. J. Econ. Entomol. 87(6):1477

- 1487. Suckling, D. M., G. Karg, A. R. Gibb, and S. J. Bradley. 1996. E lectroantennogram and oviposition responses of Epiphyas postvittana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) to plant volatiles. New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science 24:323

- 333. Suckling, D. M., and J. G. I. Khoo. 1990. Cross

- resistance in the lightbrow n apple moth Epiphyas postvittana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science 18(4):173

- 180. Suckling, D. M., and J. G. I. Khoo. 1993. Cline in Frequency of Azinphosmethyl Resistance in Light Brown Apple Moth (Lepidopt era: Tortricidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 86(5):1308

- 1316. Suckling, D. M., J. G. I. Khoo, and D. J. Rogers. 1989. Dynamics of Azinphosmethyl Resistance in Epiphyas postvittana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 82(4):1003

- 1010. Suckling, D. M., N. P . Markwick, P. J. Wigley, C. Frater, C. N. Chilcott, and J. H. Maindonald. 1996b. Response to Purified Cry IB Protein in Lab

- wild Type Corsses of Lightbrown Apple Moth. Pages 64

- 70Forty Ninth New Zealand Plant Protection Conference. New
Zealand Plant Prote ction Society Inc., Quality Hotel Rutherford, Nelson, New Zealand. Suckling, D. M., D. J. Rogers, and P. W. Shaw. 1990a. Disruption of Lightbrown Apple Moth Epiphyas postvittana (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) Trapping in Nelson, New
Zealand. Aust. J. Zool. 38(4):363

- 374. Suckling, D. M., D. J. Rogers, P. W. Shaw, C. H. Wearing, D. R. Penman, and R. B. Chapman. 1987. Monitoring Azinphosmethyl Resistance in the Light Brown Apple Moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in New Zealand. J. Econ. Entomol. 80(4):733

- 738. Suckling, D. M., and P. W. Shaw. 1992. Conditions that Favor Mating Disruption of Epiphyas postvittana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Environ. Entomol. 2(5):949

- 956. Suckling, D. M., and P. W. Shaw. 1995. Large

- scale trials of mating disruption of lightb rown apple moth in Nelson, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science 23(2):127

- 137. Suckling, D. M., P. W. Shaw, and B. Brown. 1993. Efficacy of Carbaryl, Bacillus thuringiensis and Pyrethrum Against Lightbrown Apple Moth Larvae on Apples. Pages 141

- 145Forty Sixth New Zealand Plant Protection Conference. New Zealand Plant Protection Society Inc., Rotorua, New Zealand. Suckling, D. M., P. W. Shaw, J. G. I. Khoo, and V. Cruickshank. 1990c. Resistance management of lightbrown apple mot h, Epiphyas postvittana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) by mating disruption. New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science 18:89

- 98. Suckling, D. M., J. T. S. Walker, and P. W. Shaw. 1990b. Reducing insecticide use in pipfruit:
Nelson demonstration tri als. Pages 306

- 310Forty Third New Zealand Weed and Pest Control Conference. New Zealand Plant Protection Society Inc. Suckling, D. M., J. T. S. Walker, P. W. Shaw, and V. White. 1988. Spray less for leafroller
control. The Orchardist of New Zealand:21

- 24. Suckling, D. M., C. H. Wearing, W. P. Thomas, D. R. Penman, and R. B. Chapman. 1984b. Insecticide resistance in the lightbrown apple moth: a case for resistance management. Pages 248

- 252 37th N.Z. Weed and Pest Control Conference. Sutherland, P. W., M. O. Harris, and N. P. Markwick. 2003. Effects of Starvation and the Bacillus thuringiensis Endotoxin Cry1Ac on the Midgut Cells, Feeding Behavior, and Growth of Lightbrown Apple Moth Larvae. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 96(3):250

- 264.DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of Light Brown Apple Moth [ Epiphyas postvittana ( Walker)] as a Non

- Quarantine Pest

62 Sutherst, R. W. 2000. Pests and Pest Management

– Impact of Climate Change. Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation. Publication No. 00/16, Project No. CSE

- 76A. Sutherst, R. W., W. Danthanarayana, and B. Collyer. 1997. Report of the first light brown apple moth modelling wor kshop. Pages 17. CSIRO Entomology, University of New England (Division of Zoology), Knoxfield. Sutherst, R. W.

, Maywald, G. F., and Kriticos, D. J. 2007

. CLIMEX Version 3: User's Guide. Http: www.Hearne.com.au: Hearne Scientific Software Pty Ltd; 2007. 131pp. Tabatabai, S., C. Chervin, A. Hamilton, and A. Hoffmann. 2000. Sensitivity of pupae of lightbrown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walker) (Lepidoptera:Tortricidae), to
combinations of abiotic stresses. Australian Journal o f Entomology 39:78

- 82. Takahashi, G. 2002. Notes on the light brown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walker) intercepted at import plant quarantine of Narita Airport in Japan. Research Bulletin of the Plant Protection Service, Japan 38:99

- 103. Taverner, P., P. Bailey , M. Hodgkinson, and G. A. C. Beattie. 1999. Post

- harvest disinfestation of lightbrown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana Walker (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae), with
an alkane. Pesticide Science 55:1159

- 1156. Taverner, P. D. 2001. Why growers need help to control LBAM. South Australian Research and Development Institute Packer Newsletter (63):2. Taverner, P. D., P. T. Bailey, and R. T. Roush. 2002. Evidence for oil

- induced oxidative stress to larvae of the lightbrown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana Walker (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Pest Management Science 58(4):329

- 334. Taverner, P. D., R. V. Gunning, P. Kolesik, P. T. Bailey, A. B. Inceoglu, B. Hammock, and R. T. Roush. 2001. Evidence for Direct Neural Toxicity of a "Light" Oil on the Peripheral

N erves of Lightbrown Apple Moth. Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology 69(3):153

- 165. Terauds, A. 1969. Investigations on the control of the Light Brown Apple Moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walk.) in Tasmania in 1966

- 1967 and 1967

- 1968. Tasmanian Journal of Ag riculture 40(4):335

- 339. Terauds, A. 1977. Two methods of assessing damage to apples caused by light brown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walker). J. Aust. E nt. Soc. 16:367

- 369. Terauds, A., J. E. Ireson, P. E. L. Rapley, and J. B. O'Loughlin. 1978. Pos t

- harvest disinfestation of apples of the light

- brown apple moth Epiphyas postvittana. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry 18(91):313

- 317. Thomas, W. P. 1968. An Artificial Diet for Rearing the Light Brown Apple Moth Epiphya s postvittana (Walk.) (lepidoptera: Tortricidae). New Zealand Entomologist 4(1):31

- 32. Thomas, W. P. 1975a. Additional Notes on Leaf Rollers. Orchardist of New Zealand 48:354

- 355. Thomas, W. P. 1975b. Lightbrown apple moth, Life Cycle Chart. in. Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, Auckland, New Zealand. Thomas, W. P. 1989. Epiphyas postvittana (Walker), lightbrown apple moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Pages 187

- 195 in P. J. Cameron, R. L. Hill, J. Bain, and W. P. Thomas, (eds.). A review of b iological control of invertebrate pests and weeds in New Zealand 1874 to 1987. Technical Communication No. 10. Wallingford, United Kingdom: DSIR Entomology Division.DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of Light Brown Apple Moth [ Epiphyas postvittana ( Walker)] as a Non

- Quarantine Pest

63 Thomas, W. P. 1998. Lightbrown Apple Moth Life Cycle. The Horticulture and Food Research

I nstitute of New Zealand Ltd. Last accessed June 28, 2007, http://www.hortnet.co.nz/publications/hortfacts/hf401003.htm. Thomas, W. P., and G. M. Burnip. 1994. Pests and associated beneficials recorded in a Canterbury pipfruit orchard during the transition to "Bio

- Gro" certification. Last accessed http://www.hortnet.co.nz/publications/proceedings/ifoam/ifoam61.htm. Thomas, W. P., and P. W. Shaw. 1982. An attempt to control the light brown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walk.) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) by male removal. Pages 71

- 78 in R. A. Galbreath, (ed.). Insect pheromones and their application, Auckland, New Zealand. Thomson, C., A. R. Tomkins, and D. J. Wilson. 1993. Activity of Oils Against Lightbrown Apple Moth (Epiphyas postvittana) Larvae. Pages 67

- 70Forty Sixth New Zealand Plant Protection Conference. New Zealand Plant Protection Society. Thomson, L. J., D. C. Glenn, and A. A. Hoffmann. 2000. Effects of sulfur on Trichogramma egg parasitoids in vineyards: measuring toxic effects and establishing re lease windows. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 40(8):1165

- 1171. Thomson, L. J., and A. A. Hoffmann. 2002. Laboratory fecundity as predictor of field success in Trichogramma carverae (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae). J. Econ. Entomol 95(5):91 2

- 917. Thomson, L. J., and A. A. Hoffmann. 2006. Field validation of laboratory

- derived IOBC toxicity ratings for natural enemies in commercial vineyards. Biological Control 39(3):507

- 515. Thomson, L. J., D. J. Sharley, and A. A. Hoffmann. 2007. Beneficial organisms as bioindicators for environmental sustainability in the grape industry in Australia. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 47(4):404

- 411. Thwaite, W. G. 1976. Effect of reduced dosage of azinophos

- methyl on control of codling moth, Cyd ia pomonella (L.), and light

- brown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walk.), in an apple orchard. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Entomologie 80:94

- 102. Thwaite, W. G. 1978. Light

- Brown Apple Moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walk.) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae): FLight Records for Eight Seasons at Bathurst, N.S.W. General and Applied Entomology 10:39

- 44. Thwaite, W. G. 1997. Australia's Progress in Apple IPM A review of integrated pest management in Australian Apple Orchards. Pages 1

- 34 in Technical Bulletin NSW Agricul ture. NSW Agriculture Communication Unit, Research Liaison Officer (Scientific Publications), Orange, Australia. Tomkins, A. R., D. R. Penman, and R. B. Chapman. 1987. Use of traps for monitoring adult leafrollers in apple orchards. New Zealand Journal of Experimental Agriculture 15(1):91

- 95. Tomkins, A. R., D. R. Penman, and R. B. Chapman. 1989. Effect of temperature and host plant on development of three species of leafrollers (lepidoptera: Tortricidae). New Zealand Entomologist 12:48

- 55. Tomkins, A. R., D. R. Penman, and R. B. Chapman. 1991. Leafroller oviposition on larval host plants. New Zealand Entomologist 14:37

- 41. Tomkins, A. R., and C. Thomson. 1992. Ovicidal activity of oils against lightbrown apple moth (Epiphyas postvittana) on kiwifruit leaves . Pages 167

- 170. Turner, C. T., M. W. Davy, R. M. MacDiarmid, K. M. Plummer, N. P. Birch, and R. D. Newcomb. 2006. RNA interference in the light brown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittanaDRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of Light Brown Apple Moth [ Epiphyas postvittana ( Walker)] as a Non

- Quarantine Pest

64 (Walker) induced by double

- stranded RNA feeding. Insect Molecular Biolog y 15(3):383

- 391. TWG. 2007a. Recommendations of the Technical Working Group for the Light Brown Apple Moth Infestation in California (June 8, 2007). Light Brown Apple Moth Technical Working Group (TWG). 5 pp.
TWG. 2007b. Recommendations of the Technical Working Group for the Light Brown Apple Moth Program (January 25, 2007). Technical Working Group (TWG) for the Light Brown Apple Moth. 5 pp.

UC

- IPM. 2006. How to manage pests. UC Pest Management Guidelines: Grape Omnivorous Leafroller. University of Califo rnia, Integrated Pest Management Online (UC

- IMP). Last accessed Augu s t 2, 2008, http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/r302300311.html. Upton, R. 2008a. Light Brown Apple Moth (LBAM) Eradication Program: Post

- Spray Effects on Animals and Pets. Citizens For Health, Soquel. 22 pp. Upton, R. 2008b. Light Brown Apple Moth (LBAM): Die

- off of seabirds after aerial spraying of
Checkmate LBAM

- F pesticide solution in Santa Cruz, CA. Citizens For Health. 11 pp. Upton, R., D. Harder, and T. Dadant. 2008. Light Brown Apple Mot h (LBAM) Eradication Program: Potential Effects on Pollinators and Implications for California Agriculture. Citizens For Health and University of California. 19 pp.

APHIS . 1984. Pests Not Known to Occur in the United States or of Limited Distribution (PNKT O), No. 50: Light

- brown Apple Moth. Pages 12 in. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Hyattsville, MD.

APHIS . 1993. Fact Sheet for Exotic Pest Detection Survey Recommendations : Light Brown Apple Moth. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey. Last accessed June 28, 2007, http://www.ceris.purdue.edu/napis/pests/misc /fexotic.txt

APHIS . 2007a. LBAM situation report November 3, 2007. in. United States Department of Agriculture. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.

APHIS . 2007b. Light brown apple moth. Last accessed

APHIS . 2007c. Risk Management Document: Import ation of Sweet Cherries, Prunus avium, from Australia into the 50 States of the United States, including the District of Columbia. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Health Programs, Commodity Imports Analyses and Operations. 7 pp.

APHIS . 2007a

- b. Federal domestic quarantine order: Epiphyas postvittana (Light Brown Apple Moth) (LBAM) DA

- 2007

- 42. in. United States Department of Agriculture. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.

APHIS . 2007b. Feder al Domestic Quarantine Order: Epiphyas postvittana (Light Brown Apple Moth) DA

- 2007

- 18.
APHIS . 2007c. Light brown apple moth. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Last accessed August 13, 2007, http://www.aph is.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/lba_moth/index.shtml

APHIS . 2007d. Northern and Southern Regions of Light Brown Apple Moth Quarantine for Canada United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service. Last accessed Ju ly 2, 2007,DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of Light Brown Apple Moth [ Epiphyas postvittana ( Walker)] as a Non

- Quarantine Pest

65 http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/lba_moth/downloads/canadaquar antinemap.pdf.

APHIS . 2008. Answers to a portion of questions Congressman Sam Farr (D

- Carmel) provided USDA officials during hearing in early 2008. Received Jun e 11, 2008. Personal communication to S. Farr on June 11, 2008, from APHIS , through "The Online Office of Congressman Farr". Archived at the PERAL library, Raleigh, NC.

APHIS . 2009. LBAM confirmations: 2007 to April, 22, 2009. in. United States Department of Agriculture. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Data courtesy of Roxanne Broadway.

USDA

- NASS. 2000. Noncitrus Fruits and Nuts 1999 Summary: Released July, 2000. in. National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). Agricultural Statistics Board. U.S. Department of Agriculture.

USDA

- NASS. 2000a. Citrus Fruits 2000 Summary: Released September, 2000. in. National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). Agricultural Statistics Board. U.S. Department of Agriculture.
USDA

- NASS. 2002. Noncitrus Fruits a nd Nuts 2001 Summary: Released July, 2002. in. National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). Agricultural Statistics Board. U.S. Department of Agriculture.

USDA

- NASS. 2002a. Citrus Fruits 2002 Summary: Released September, 2002. in. National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). Agricultural Statistics Board. U.S. Department of Agriculture.

USDA

- NASS. 2004. Citrus Fruits 2004 Summary: Released September, 2004. in. National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). Agricultural Statistics Board. U.S. Depar tment of Agriculture.

USDA

- NASS. 2005. Noncitrus Fruits and Nuts 2004 Summary: Released July, 2005. in. National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). Agricultural Statistics Board. U.S. Department of Agriculture.

USDA

- NASS. 2006. Citrus Fruits 2006 Summ ary: Released September, 2006. in. National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). Agricultural Statistics Board. U.S. Department of Agriculture.

USDA

- NASS. 2007. 2007 Census of agriculture United States Department of Agriculture. National Agricultural St atistics Service. Last accessed http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Online_Highlights/Desktop_Applicatio n/index.asp.

USDA

- NASS. 2008. Noncitrus Fruits and Nuts 2007 Summary: Released July, 2008. National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). i n. National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). Agricultural Statistics Board. U.S. Department of Agriculture.

USDA

- NASS. 2008a. Citrus Fruits 2008 Summary: Released September 25, 2008. in. National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). Agricultural Statistics Board. U.S. Department of Agriculture. USDA. 2007. Northern and southern regions of light brown apple moth quarantine for Canada.
in. Valentine, B. J., G. M. Gurr, and W. G. Thwaite. 1996. Efficacy of the insect growth regulators
tebufenozide an d fenoxycarb for lepidopteran pest control in apples, and their compatibility with biological control for integrated pest management. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 36(4):501

- 506.DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of Light Brown Apple Moth [ Epiphyas postvittana ( Walker)] as a Non

- Quarantine Pest

66 van den Broek, W. 1975. The effect of temperature on damage to stored apples by the light

brown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walker), and the effect of cold storage on its viability. J. Aust. E nt. Soc. 14:1

- 5. Varela, L. G., M. W. Johnson, L. Strand, C. A. Wilen, and C. Pickel. 2008. Light brown apple
moth’s a rrival in California worries commodity groups. California Agriculture 62(2):57

- 61. Last accessed March 27, 2008, http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3202&context=anrcs/californiaag
riculture. Venette, R. C., E. E. Davis, M. DaCosta, H. Holly, and M. Larson. 2003. Mini risk assessment Light brown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walker) [Lepidoptera: Tortricidae].38. Last accessed July 5, 2007, http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/pest_detection/downloads/pra/ep ostvittanapra.pdf

. Venette, R.C. et al. (2010). Pest risk maps for invasive alien species: a roadmap for improvement.
Bioscience in press

. Vit iNotes. 2006. Options for effective management of Lightbrown Apple moth. Cooperative
Research Centre for Viticulture. Last accessed www.crcv.com.au. Vose, D. 2000. Risk analysis: a quantitative guide. 2nd edition. John Wiley and Sons, Ltd, New York. 418 p p. Waddell, B. C., P. R. Dentener, and T. A. Batchelor. 1990. Time

- Mortality Response of Leafrollers Exposed to Commercial Controlled Atmosphere Coolstorage. Pages 328

- 333Forty Third New Zealand Weed and Pest Control Conference. New Zealand Plant
Protectio n Society Inc. Walker, J. 1990. Pests and Diseases. Pages p. 35

- 51 in A. White, D. Cranwell, B. Drewiit, C. Hale, N. Lallu, K. Marsh, and J. Walker, (eds.). Nashi: Asian Pear in New Zealand. Dsir Publishing Wellington, New Zealand. Walker, J., G. T. Baynon , and V. White. 1991. Insect Control on Apples with RH

- 5992 A Novel Insect Growth Regulator. Pages 66

- 69Forty Forth New Zealand Weed and Plant Control Conference. New Zealand Plant Protection Society Inc. Walters, M. L., R. Sequeira, R. T. Staten, and O. E l

- Lissy. 2008. Eradication

- Strategies and Tactics [Power Point]. 2 pp. Wearing, C. 1998a. Cross

- Resistance between Azinphos

- Methyl and Tebufenozide in the Greenheaded Leafroller, Planotortrix octo. Pesticide Science 54:203

- 211. Wearing, C. H. 1975. Probl ems of Pest Assessment in Horticulture, particularly Orchards. New Zealand Entomologist 6(1):17

- 21. Wearing, C. H. 1998b. Bioassays for measuring ovipositional and larval preferences of leafrollers (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) for different cultivars of appl e. New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science 26(4):269

- 278. Wearing, C. H., and K. Colhoun. 1999. Bioassays for measuring the resistance of different apple cultivars to the development of leafrollers (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). New Zealand

Jour nal of Crop and Horticultural Science 27(2):91

- 99. Wearing, C. H., K. Colhoun, B. Attfield, R. R. Marshall, and G. F. McLAREN. 2003. Screening for resistance in apple cultivars to lightbrown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana, and greenheaded leafroller, Pla notortrix octo, and its relationship to field damage. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 109:39

- 53.DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of Light Brown Apple Moth [ Epiphyas postvittana ( Walker)] as a Non

- Quarantine Pest

67 Wearing, C. H., W. P. Thomas, J. S. Dugdale, and W. Danthanarayana. 1991. Tortricid Pests of Pome and Stone Fruits, Australian and New Zealand Species. Pages 453

- 472 in L. P. S. Van Der Geest and H. H. Evenhuis, (eds.). Tortricid Pests: Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands. Wearing, C. H., J. T. S. Walker, W. P. Thomas, J. R. Clearwater, D. M. Suckling, J. G. Charl es, P. W. Shawo, V. White, and G. M. Burnip. 1994. Pest control for organic production in
New Zealand Hort Research. Last accessed http://www.hortnet.co.nz/publications/proceedings/ifoam/ifoam69.htm. Weinzierl, R., T. Henn, P. Koehler, and C. Tucker. 2008. Insect Attractants and Traps. UF IFAS. Last accessed 7/30/08, http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu / in080. Werner, A. 2008. CBS 5 Investigates: Is apple moth really a risk? Last accessed September 11, 2008, www.cbs5.com/investigates/apple.moth.spraying.2.700753.html

. White, M. J. 2000. Some moths new to Monmouthshire. Entomologist's Record and Journal of Variation 112(1):41

- 42. Whiting, D., and L. Hoy. 1997a. Mortality response of lightbrown apple moth to a controlled atmosphere cold storage treatment for apricots Pa ges 431

- 435. New Zealand Plant Protection Society (Inc,). Whiting, D. C., S. P. Foster, and J. H. Maindonald. 1991. Effects of Oxygen, Carbon Dioxide, and Temperature on the Mortality Responses of Epiphyas postvittana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). J. Econ. E ntomol. 84(5):1544

- 1549. Whiting, D. C., S. P. Foster, J. Van Den Heuvel, and J. H. Maindonald. 1992a. Comparative Mortality Responses of Four Tortricid (Lepidoptera) Species to a Low Oxygen

Controlled Atmosphere. J. Econ. Entomol. 85(6):2305

- 2309. Whiting, D. C., and L. E. Hoy. 1997b. Mortality response of lightbrown apple moth to a controlled atmosphere cold storage treatment for apricots. Pages 431

- 435 Proceedings of the 50th New Zealand Plant Protection Conference: Horticultural Pest Management. New Zealand Plant Protection Society, Rotorua, New Zealand. Whiting, D. C., and L. E. Hoy. 1998. Effect of Temperature Establishment Time on the Mortality of Epiphyas postvittana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) Larvae Exposed to a Hight

Temperature Controlled A tmosphere. J. Econ. Entomol. 91(1):287

- 292. Whiting, D. C., L. E. Hoy, J. H. Maindonald, P. G. Connolly, and R. M. McDonald. 1998. High

Pressure Washing Treatmetns to Remove Obscure Mealybug (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae) and Lightbrown Apple Moth (Lepidopter a: Tortricidae) from Harvested Apples. J. Econ. Entomol. 91(6):1458

- 1463. Whiting, D. C., L. E. Jamieson, and P. G. Connolly 1999. Effect of Sublethal Tebufenozide Application on the Mortality Responses of Epiphyas postvittana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) La rvae Exposed to a High

- Temperature Controlled Atmosphere. J. Econ. Entomol. 92(2):445

- 452. Whiting, D. C., L. E. Jamieson, and P. G. Connolly. 2000. Pre

- and postharvest effects of lufenuron on Epiphyas postvittana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). J. Econ. Ento mol. 93(3):673

- 679. Whiting, D. C., G. M. O'Connor, and J. H. Maindonald. 1997. Density and Time Effects on Distribution and Survival of Lightbrown Apple Moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) Larvae on Granny Smith Apples. Environ. Entomol. 26(2):277

- 284.DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of Light Brown Apple Moth [ Epiphyas postvittana ( Walker)] as a Non

- Quarantine Pest

68 Whitin g, D. C., G. M. O'Connor, J. Van Den Heuvel, and J. H. Maindonald. 1995. Comparative Mortalities of Six Tortricid (Lepidoptera) Species to Two High

- Temperature Controlled Atmospheres and Air. J. Econ. Entomol. 88(5):1365

- 1370.DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of Light Brown Apple Moth [ Epiphyas postvittana ( Walker)] as a Non

- Quarantine Pest

69 V II I. Appendices

Appendix 1

- Explanation of key regulatory terminology

A regulated pest is a pest for which phytosanitary measures are applied under some regulatory authority. Phytosanitary measures in this context are regulatory requirements including regulations and programmatic actions designed to prevent the introduction or spread of a pest. When this concept is applied in international trade, a pest is eligible for the application of phytosanitary measures if it meets the defining criteria of the IPPC for a quarantine pest; t hat is to say that the pest
is of potential economic importance to the area endangered thereby and not yet present there, or present but not widely distributed and being officially controlled

.

Phytosanitary measures are applied by the U.S. and other count ries at ports of entry to exclude quarantine pests. When quarantine pests are detected at the border, APHIS may take quarantine

action depending on the risk associated with the import in question. For example, exotic armored scales found on imported fruit may be technically classified as quarantine pests but action at the border may not be justified because of the very low probability that their movement via this pathway
will result in introduction (defined as entry and establishment ). On the other hand, th e same scales found on imported plants would probably require quarantine action such as a treatment. APHIS further distinguishes pests as actionable and reportable , where the former requires action when found and the latter is simply noted for tracking and information collection purposes. LBAM has long been considered by APHIS to be an actionable quarantine pest.

In the event quarantine pests such as LBAM are found present inside the U

. S

. , the quarantine action
APHIS may take is to establish a regulated ar ea and place the pest under official control with the objective of either eradication or containment of the pest. By implementing an official control

program, APHIS is able to argue against the application of phytosanitary measures by trading partners who may place restrictions on U

. S

. exports coming from outside the regulated area. In the absence of an official control program, exports from the entire U

. S

. are likely to be restricted.

Not all pests fit easily into the categories discussed above. There are a range of situations where the regulatory status of the organism in question cannot be clearly determined. For example, it may not be possible to identify a pest specimen to the taxon omic level required to determine its status, or the organism may have never been encountered previously, or its taxonomy may be changing or under debate. Under such circumstances, APHIS makes a determination regarding whether the organism has the potential to be quarantine significant . This only means that the regulatory status of the organism is not solidly established, but the evidence available to APHIS at the time indicates it is reasonably probable that quarantine action would be required.

APHIS generally uses IPPC terminology in its regulations and programs (see ISPM No. 5, Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms (IPPC, 2006)) . One reason for this is that APHIS authorities and activities fall within the international framework of the World Trade Organiz ation Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (the SPS Agreement) which identifies the IPPC as the international standard setting organization for phytosanitary measures. Other terminology may be used by other agencies and autho rities. Terms associated with invasive species can be particularly confusing in a phytosanitary context because of ambiguities and the overlap of concepts. As a rule,
APHIS considers invasiveness to be one aspect of the risk associated with a pest and a key element of risk analysis. As a result, the concept of invasiveness is integral to the concept of pest risk which also includes other factors including the probability and the magnitude of the impact of introduction or spread of a pest

.DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of Light Brown Apple Moth [ Epiphyas postvittana ( Walker)] as a Non

- Quarantine Pest

70 Appendi x 2 : LBAM Degree Day Model Validation Map

Based on average climatology from 1999 to 2008. Black numbers = generations at validation points and red numbers = generations in countries or country areas, e.g.
northern New Zealand.DRAFT APHIS Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of Light Brown Apple Moth [ Epiphyas postvittana ( Walker)] as a Non

- Quarantine Pest

71 Appendix 3: Technical Working Group Members

Dr. Victor Mastro, USDA

- APHIS

- Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ), Cape Code, MA

Dr. Kenneth Bloem, USDA

- APHIS

- PPQ, Raleigh, NC

Dr. Eckehard Brockerhoff, Ensis, Christchurch, Canterbury, New Zealand

Dr. Ring Carde, Uni versity of California, Riverside, CA

Dr. Marshall Johnson, University of California, Riverside, CA

Dr. David Lance, USDA

- APHIS

- PPQ, Cape Code, MA

Dr. Donald McInnis, USDA

- ARS (Ret.), Honolulu, HI

Dr. Bob Staten, USDA

- APHIS

- PPQ (Ret.), Phoenix, AZ

Dr. David Suckling, HortResearch, Lincoln, Canterbury, New Zealand

William Woods, Department of Agriculture and Food, Perth, Western Australia