**United States**

**Department of Agriculture**  **Marketing and Regulatory**  **Programs Animal and**  **Plant Health Inspection**  **Service** 

# Release

**Beetle coniferarum**  **Coccinellidae), Biological Control of**  **the Hemlock Woolly Adelgid (**  **in the Eastern United S**  **tates Environmental Assessment**  **Febr** 

# Release **of the Predatory**  **Beetle Scymnus**  **coniferarum (Coleoptera:**  **Coccinellidae), for**  **Biological Control of the Hemlock Woolly**  **Adelgid ( Adelges tsugae**  **in the Eastern United tates**  **Environmental Assessment Febr**  **uary 2012**  

# Predatory

**(Coleoptera:**
**Adelges tsugae )**  **in the Eastern United**

**Environmental Assessment ,** 

# Release **of the Predatory Beetle** 

**Scymnus c**  **oniferarum (Coleoptera:**  **Coccinellidae), for Biological Control**  **of the Hemlock Woolly**  **Adelgid (** **Adelges tsugae )**  **in the Eastern United States**  **Env ironmental Assessment,**  **Febr uary**  **201 2**  **Ag ency** **Contact:** Shirley W ager- Page , Branch Chief Pest Permitting Plant Protection and Quarantine Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service U.S. Department of Agriculture 4700 River Road, Unit 133 Riverdale, MD 20737

– 1236 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720

– 2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326

–

W, W hitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Wa shington, DC 20250

– 9410 or call (202) 720

– 5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Mention of companies or commercial products in this repor t does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) over others no t mentioned. USDA neither guarantees or warrants the standard of any product mentioned. Product names are mentioned solely to report factually on available data and to provide specific information. This publication reports research involving pesticides. All uses of pesticides mu st be registered by appropriate State and/or Federal agencies before they can be recommended. CAUTION: Pesticides can be injurious to humans, domestic animals, d esirable plants, and fish or other wildlife

– if they are not handled or applied properly. Use all pesticides selectively and carefully. Follow recommended practices for the disposal of surplus pesticides and pesticide containers.

## Table of Contents **I. Purpose and Need for the Proposed A** **ction**
**....................... 1**  **II. Al**  **ternatives**
**................................ ................................**  **........... 2**  **III. Affected**  **Environment**
**................................ ...........................**  **7 IV.**  **Environmental Consequences**
**................................ .............**  **9 V.**  **Other Issues**
**................................ ................................**  **........ 1**  **5 VI.**  **Ag encies, Organizations, and Individuals Consulted** 
**...... 1**  **5 VII.**  **References**
**................................ ................................**  **........... 1**  **7**
**Ap pendix**  **A**
**................................ ................................**  **............... A**  **- 1**  **Ap pendix**  **B**
**................................ ................................**  **............... B**  **- 1** **1** 

## I. **Purpose and Need for the Proposed Ac**  **tion** The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) , Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) Pest Permitting Branch (PPB) is proposing to issue p e r mits f or the interstate movement and release of the pre d atory b e et l e Scymnus (

Pullus ) coniferarum (Coleopt e ra: Coccinellidae). This species is native to the western United States and would be used b y the appli c ants f or the bi o logi c al control of the hemlock wooll y adelgid ( ( Adel ges t s ugae ) (Homoptera: Adelgidae)) (HWA) in the eastern United St at e s. Before permit s are issued for release of S. coniferarum , the APHI S

–PPQ PPB needs to anal yz e the potential impacts of the release of this agent into the eastern United States

. This environmental assessment 1 (EA) has been prepared, consistent with USDA

–APHI S' National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) implementing procedures (Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 372). It examines the potential effects on the quality of the human environment that may be associated with the release of S. coniferarum to control HWA in the eastern United States . This EA considers a “no action” alternative and the potential effects of the proposed action

. The applicant’s purpose for releasing S. coniferarum in the eastern United States is to reduce the severity of damage caused by HWA

. HWA is native to eastern Asia and western North America (Havill and Foottit, 200 7 ). The HWA was accidentally introd u ced to the eastern United States and is destructive there to the eastern hemlock, Tsuga canadensis, and Carolina hemlock

, T. carolinian a. This sucking insect feeds at the base of the needles ca

u sing needle loss and abortion of buds which leads to decline in crown health and tree death after several years (Orwig et al. , 2002 ; Eschtruth e t al. , 2006 ). It is destructive to hemlocks in landsca p es and f ore s ts and has affe cted f

edera l parks, r e cr eation areas, and f orests; st ate
- m anaged f

orest land s ; co mm ercial and priv ate l andowners; and urban and suburban co mmuniti e s (Evans et al. , 2011 ; Krapfl , 2011). To date, four predatory

beetles have been introduced to the eastern United States for biological control of HWA and two ( L aricobius nigrinus and Sasajiscymnus tsugae ) are considered to be established (Cheah et al. , 2004)

. However, because, HWA has a group of natural enemies that control it where it is native, a full complement of predators are needed to
1 Regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 United States Code 4321 et seq. ) provide that an environmental assessment “[shall include brief discussions of the need for the proposal, of alternatives as required by section 102(2)(E), of the e nvironmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives, and a listing of agencies and persons consulted” ( 40 CFR § 1508.9 )

.**2** more effectivel y control HWA in the eastern United States where it is an invasive pest. Adelgids, such as HWA, have complex multig enerational lifecycles with multiple forms appearing at different times. Specialized predators, such as S. coniferarum, that are part of the full complement of natural enemies where HWA is native, attack different lifecycle forms of HWA at different times of the year. For these reasons, the applicant has a need to move S. coniferarum from the western United States and release it into the eastern United States in order to provide an additional predator to the complement of natural enemies currentl y in plac e for more effective control of HWA

. 

## II
**. Al**  **ternati ve**  **s** This section will explain the two alternatives available to the APHIS

–PPQ PPB

— no action (no issuance of permits) and issuance of permit s for interstate movement and environmental release of S. coniferarum in the eastern United States wherever HWA becomes established

. Although APHI S ’ alternatives are limited to a decision o f whether to issue permit s for interstate movement and release of S. coniferarum , other methods available for control of HWA in the eastern United States are also described. These control methods are not decisions to be made b y APHIS , and are li kel y to continue whether or not permit s are issued for environmental release of S. coniferarum . These are methods presentl y being used to control HWA in the eastern United States where it is not native and has established as a pest

. A third alternative was considered, but will not be anal yz ed further. Under this third alternative, the APHIS

–PP Q PPB would have issued permits for the field release of S. coniferarum , however, the permits would contain special provisions or requirements concerning release procedures or mitigating measures , such as limited release of S. coniferarum . No issues have been raised which would indicate that special provisions or requirements are necessary

. 

### A. **No A** **ction** Under the no action alternative, the APHIS

–PPQ PPB would not issue permit s for the field release of S. coniferarum for the control of HWA

— the release of this biological control agent in the eastern United States would not take place. The following methods are presentl y being used to control HWA in the eastern United States ; these methods will continue under the “no a ction” alternative and ar e likely to continue even if permit s are issued for release of S. coniferarum

. Chemical insecticides provide an effective method to reduce HWA populations on individual hem l ocks. Spraying i n f ested tr ees thorough ly **1. Chemical C**  **ontrol 3**  with insect i ci d al soap or ho rt icu l tura l oil is co mm only used and highl y e ff ec t ive in kil l ing adelgi d s but two spray tre atm ents each ye ar are usually n ec e ssary ( McC lure et al. , 2 0 01). The large equipment used for spraying make this method impractical for forests. Sy stem ic insecticides applied to the soil or tree t

r unks can reduce HWA populations for several years and is one of the options used to control HWA in National Parks (Webb et al. , 2003; Cowles et al ., 2006; Webster , 2010). Certain states have enacted quarantines to prevent the transport of HWA infected hemlock from infested states to uninfested areas in their states. Some states also restrict the import of hemlock timber with bark. States may all ow shipment of nursery stock or hemlock timber if accompanied by a certificate of inspection that the items are HWA free or other compliance agreement (Gibbs , 2002). These restrictions to interstate commerce are likely

to remain in place until HWA becomes widel y established in these states. The susceptible Carolina hemlock has been cross

- pollinated with the very resistant Chinese hemlock to produce a h yb rid cross with high resistance to HWA (Montgomery

et al. , 2009). Clones of these are in field trials and a new, resistant hemlock cultivar would not be available to the nursery industry for several years. Efforts are being made to identify resistant hemlocks in HWA infested stands of eastern hemlock (Caswell e t al., 2008; In gwell and Preisser , 2011). E ff orts have been made to d evelop ef f ective f ungus - bas e d pest i cide f o rm ulations using Leca n ic i llium mus carium ( f o r m ally Vertic i llium lecan i i ) and Beauveria b assiana (C h eah et a l. , 2 0 04; Gouli et al. , 2008). Shortly after it was recognized as a significant pest, McClure (1987) noted that several native predators attack HWA in the eastern United States, but none were of an y significance in reducing HWA density . A quantitative assessment of the resident natural enemies of HWA in Connecticut was made in 1993

- 1994 prior to the intentional release of exotic agents for biological control of HWA (Montgomery and Lyon , 1996). Two predatory beetles, Laricobius rubidus (L eConte) and Scymnus (Pullus) suturalis Thunberg were recovered. Laricobius rubidus is native to N orth America while S. suturalis is native to Europe. Both of these beetles were collected in about equal numbers from the foliage of eastern hemloc k, white pine, and Scotch pine. Although it is likely that L. rubidus evolved on the pine bark adelgid ( Pineus strobi (Hartig) ) , which attacks white pine, and S. suturalis evolved on the European pine adelgid ( Pineus pini (Macquart) ) , which attacks Scotch pine, both beetle predators can utilize several adelgids, including HWA as hosts. Host range tests found that S. suturalis and L. rubidus feed readily and equally on HWA and P. strobi in no - choice situations, although S. suturalis is attracted more to pine foliage **3. Development**  **of Resistant**  **H emlocks**  **2. Restriction of**  **Interstate Movement of**  **Nursery S**  **tock**

**4. Bio**   ** insecticides**
**5. Biological C**  **ontrol 4**  than to hemlock foliage (Montgomery et al. , 1997). Larvae of both beetle species were found on HWA in the field, but the number per branch decreased with distance from pine (Montgomery and Lyon , 1996). Although this sur

vey indicated that resident predators associated with pine adelgids could switch to an exotic adelgid on hemlock, recent survey s, 15 ye ars later, have found far fewer of these two predators on hemlock (Montgomery , unpublished). A survey of natural enemies in 1997

- 199 8 in North Carolina found several families of predators, but their numbers were too low to have an y noticeable effect on HWA density (Wallace and Hain , 2000). Because of the lack of effective natural enemies of HWA in eastern United States, natur a l e ne mies of H WA were imported from J a pan, China , and weste r n Canada (Cheah et a l. , 2004)

. A summary account of the predators imported and released follows. The first predator released was the lady beetle Sas ajis c ymnus tsugae (Sa sa ji and M cC lure) ( f

or m erl y Pseudos c

ymnus tsuga e ) c o l l ected in Ja p an and first released in 1995 in Connecticut (Cheah and McClure , 2002). M ore than 2 million adult S. tsugae beetles have been released at 513 locations in 13 states (Roberts et al. , 2010). Although it is esta blished in several states, its impact on HWA has been difficult to discern (Cheah et al. , 2005; Hakeem et al

. , 2010). Laricobius nigrinus , f

ro m the beetle f

amily Derodontid a e, was imported from Vancouver Island, British Columbia beginning in 1997 and several ye ars of evaluations (Zilahi

- Balogh , 2001) pr e ceeded its field release in 2003. More recentl y, L. nigrinus adults are being collected in the Seattle, W ashington area (McDonald , 2010) and in Idaho (Mausel et al. , 2011) for direct release in eastern states. To date, more than 100,000 adult beetles have been released at 267 locations in 13 states (Roberts et al. , 2010). Its establishment has been very good with a slow but steady yearly increase in population density

of the beetle (Mausel et al. , 201 0; McDonald , 2010). Another derodontid beetle, Laricobius osakensis Montgomery & Shiyake, native to Japan, has recently been approved by

APHI S for environmental release (USDA , APHI S , 2010 ). More than 50 species of “ Neopullus ” lady beetles have been coll e c ted from HWA

- infested hemlocks in China (Yu and Montg o m ery , 2008). Of these, three species that were abundant and fed specificall y on adelgids were imported (Cheah et al. , 2004). These species in the genus Scymnus , subgenus Neopullus have been difficult to mass rear. Field releases have been made with Scymnus sinuanodulus Yu & Yao and Scymnus ningshanensis Yu &Yao, but neither is known to have established. A third species, Scymnus camptodromus Yu & Liu, is undergoing further study in quarantine.**5** 

### B
**. Issue**  **P ermit**  **s for**  **E nvironmental**  **R elease**  **of S. coniferarum** 
**.** Under this alternative, the APHI S

–PPQ PPB would issue permit s upon request and after evaluation of each application for the interstate movement and environmental release of S. coniferarum for the control of HWA in the eastern United States . Th ese permit s would contain no special provisions or requirements concerning release procedures or mitigating measures

. Insect Taxonomy Order: Cole optera Family : Coccinellidae Genus: Scymnus Species: Scymnus coniferarum Common name none Scymnus coniferarum Crotch (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) was described in 1874 from specimens collected from pine in California. The ty pe specimen is at the Museum of Comparative Zoology , Harvard Universit y (MCZ). Vouchers (male and female adults) have been deposited at the N ational Museum of Natural History , Washington, D.C. (NMNH) and the University

of Georgia Arthropod Collection, Athens, GA (UGAC). Scymnus coniferarum is a small lady beetle, about 2 millimeters in length , covered in fine, short hairs, with reddish

- brown wing covers edged in black . Whitehead (1967) and Gordon (1976) provide full descriptions with figures. Scymnus larvae are cover ed with white woolly wax . In the laboratory , S. coniferarum has been reared for several successive generations on HWA growing on eastern hemlock. Its life stages consist of egg, four larval instars, pupa , and adult. During the spring months, a female lay s about 1 egg per day in a bud scale , male flower , or near a HWA ovisac (egg

- containing capsule). At 20° C, development is rapid with the egg, larval, and pupal stages lasting about 6 , 19, and 9 day s , respectivel y (Schwartzberg et al., 2009). The beetle also develops well at 15° C. To understand the relations hip of this predator to its preferred host, HWA, the life cycle of HWA must also be understood. Adelgids , such as HWA, have complex, multi

- generational, life cycles, with multiple forms, and several types of life cycles even within a single species (Havil l and Foottit, 2007). The lifecycle of HWA varies depending on region. In Japan and China, where it is native, HWA is “holocyclic” and migrates between hemlock and a species of spruce. This holocycle takes two years with sexual reproduction and the form ation of galls (abnormal swellings of plant tissue caused b y insects) occurring on spruce, and three **1. Taxonomic**  **Information for**  **S. coniferarum** 

**2. Description**  **and Biology of**  **S. coniferarum** **6** partheno ge netic (a form of reproduction in which an unfertilized egg develops into a new individual) g enerations occurring on he m lock (Havill and Foottit, 2007). In western North America, where HWA is also native, HWA is “anholocyclic” and it does not migrate to spruce

— it has onl y two alternating, asexual, wingless generations on hemlock; the “sistens” which diapauses (a period of inactivity during which de velopment is suspended) during the summer and develops during the fall, winter, and spring, and the “progrediens” generation which develops during spring and early

summer. In the ea s tern United S t ate s, the life cycle is similar to that in Japan, but there is no spruce host in eastern United States on which it can reproduce (McClure, 1989). The seasonal occurrence of S. coniferarum and another predator, L. nigrinus, as well as their host, HWA, was monitored on western hemlock in the Seattle, Washington are a from October, 2010 to June, 2011. In earl y October, S. coniferarum adults were more abundant on western hemlock than adults of L. nigrinus , but both species were equall y abundant b y the end of the month . Both species were found during the cold winter m onths. By

April, adults of L

. nigrinus were no longer present, but S. coniferarum adults were abundant. The larvae of L. nigrinus were most abundant during April whereas larvae of S. coniferarum were most abundant during June

. The larvae of L. nigrinus coincided with the eggs of the overwintering generation (sistens) of HWA and the larvae of S. coniferarum coincided with the eggs laid by the late spring generation (progrediens) of HWA. The larvae of L. nigrinus enter the soil in April to become adults and remain in the soil until the fall , whereas the larvae of S

. coniferarum become adults in June and remain on the tree throughout the year

. The known native geographical range of S. coniferarum is western North America (Gordon , 1985). Specimens have been collected from various species of pines in British Columbia, Arizona, California, Colorado, Id aho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming (Gordon , 1976). Recent ly , several hundred specimens have been collected from western hemlock in Washington State (Montgomery et al. , 2009 ; McDonald , 2010). It has recentl y been recovered from Monterey pine in Chile and Peru (Gonzalez , 2006); probably an accidental introduction since pine and adelgids are not native to South America. There is a report of it in the eastern United States (Malkin , 1945), but this may be a misidentification. Gordon (1976) recorded it in Pennsylvania, but later clarified that these were S. suturalis (Gordon , 1985). Considering that the species has spread intercontinentally , has been found in the Rocky Mountains as far east as the Black Hills, South Dakota , and occurs in a variety of habitats in western North America, it is possible that it is alrea dy established in eastern North America. **3**
**. Geographic**  **R ange**  **of S.**  **coniferarum 7**  In the field , the adults of S. coniferarum and L. nigrinus feed on all HWA stages, except ny

mphs that are in diapause during the summer. Diapause is a period of inactivity or rest, during which development is suspended

. The larvae of both S. coniferarum and L. nigrinus target the egg stage of HWA. Larvae of L. nigrinus primarily attack the spring generation eggs laid in late winter to early spring while the larvae of S. coniferarum primarily attack eggs laid in later spring to earl y summer. Because these two species attack the eggs of separate HWA generations, they complement each other in reducing HWA popul ations. By releasing S. coniferarum in the eastern United States, the spring HWA generation will have a predator that it currentl y lacks and additional pressure will be provided to reduce HWA populations. 

## III
**. Af**  **fected Env ironment**  **A. A**  **reas A** 

**ffected by Hemlock Wooly**  **A delgid**  The HWA is native to eastern Asia and the western North America (Havill et al. , 2007). It is not considered a pest in these regions (Furniss and Carolin , 19 7 7; Cheah et al. , 2004). The f irst r ep ort of H WA in ea s tern United S t ates cam e f ro m the Virgi n ia Departm ent of Agriculture and Con s um er Servi c es in 1951 o n planted east e rn he m lock in Ric hm ond, V irginia ( Stoetz e l , 20 0 2) and has since spread to 18 eastern stat es (USDA , FS , 2011). Currentl y, HWA infests all of the U.S. counties with Carolina hemlock and 50 percent of the U.S. counties with eastern hemlock (USDA , F S , 2011)

. It is the onl y adelgid that feeds on hemlock and its distinctive white woolly wax makes it eas y for non - specialists to distinguish it from other insects on hemlock

. Eastern North America has two native hemlock species, Tsuga canadensis , eastern hemlock and Tsuga caroliniana , Carolina h e m lock , and these species serve as the primary hosts of HWA

. Eastern hemlock grows on almost 19 million acres in the United States, while Carolina hemlock is limited to the Blue Ridge of the southern Appalachian Mountains. Bo th hemlock species are long

- l ived species th at, if le f t undi s tur bed, eventu a lly

do minate tree stands. Ea s tern he m lock, m ay

take 25 0 to 300 years to reach m aturity , l ive f or 800 ye ars, and att ain h e ights of 150 to 175 f eet. It is th e m o st shade

- tol e rant tree species in North Am erica, capab l e of surviving underne ath a shaded f ore s t canop y f

or as long as 3 50 years ( Qui m by , 199 6 ). B ecause it is so shade t olerant and l ong - li v ed, h e mlock is a l ate su c ces si onal, "cli m ax" tr ee th at can d o minate a f

orest f or c enturies. Ward et al. (2004) provides an overview of the species and its ecological and commercial values. Eastern h e m lock f

orests provide i m

portant h a

bit at f or a wide variety o f wildli f e. **2. Present**  **D istribution in**  **the United States** 

**3**
**. Hemlock**  **Resources in Eastern North**  **Am erica**  **4 . Impact**  **of S.**  **coniferarum on**  **Hemlock Woolly**  **Ad elgid** 

**1. Native**  **and Worldwide**  **Distribution 8**  In the n orth ea st ern United States , 96 bird and 47 m amm al species are ass o ci at e d with he mlock f orests ( Y am asaki et al. , 2000). O f these, at l e ast e ight sp e cies of birds and ten sp e cies of m amm als have strong ec ologic a l l ink ages with h e m lock f

orest habit at. H e mlock is an i m portant winter ha b i t at f or whit e - tai led de e r. Man y nat ive plant s p eci e s thri v e in h e mlock stands, inclu d i n g leath erw o od, rattles nake plant a ins, b unchberry , Can ada m ayf l o wer , g o ldthr ead, blu ebeard, and wood sorre ls (Ev ans et a l. , 19 9 6). H e m lock stands are very

popul ar rec r eat ional sites f or f is h ing, hiking, camping, hunting, and bird watc h i n g. H e m lock is not a valuab l e ti m ber spe c ies, but it is used widely f or pulpwood and uti l it ari an uses (such a s pal l et s ). He m locks are valued l and s cape plants and are o n e of the m ost cultured and cul t ivated l andsca pe tre e s in the Un it ed Stat e s ( Swartley , 1984 ). 

### B. **Insects R**  **elated to HWA**  **and S. coniferarum**  There is considerable uncertainty about the taxonomy of adelgid species, which is further complicated b y the several forms produced on primary and secondary

host plants (Havill and Foottit , 2007). Review of the literature indicates that there are as many as 25 species of adelgids in North America, but only

16 may be valid species, with 1 0 species of these native to North America (see Appendix A ). Ineastern North America, there are no native adelgids in the genus Adelges , but there are six non native species in this genus. There ar e nine adelgid species of Pineus in eastern North America: three are Eurasian ( P. cembrae , P. pineoides , P. pini ), two are considered to be native to North America ( P. pinifoliae, P. similus ), two species are native to western North America ( P. boerneri , P. coloradensis ,) and two species are native to eastern North America ( P. floccus , P. strobi ). Pineus strobi is the most common pine adelgid in eastern North America and it has spread worldwide. Pineus boerneri and P. coloradensis were pests 30 ye ars ago on red pine in Connecticut (McClure , 1989). All the adelgids present in e astern s tates are considered to be pests, with the non

- native species more damaging than native species

. Although S. coniferarum belongs to the subgenus Pullus , which has more than 80 species in the United States, it is unlikely to interact with native lady beetles. No other native Scymnus lady beetle is known to feed on adelgids to any

appreciable extent. A non - native species , Scymnus ( Pullus ) suturalis Thunberg , pre sent in the northeastern United States is sim il ar to S. coniferarum (Gordon , 1985). These two species and S. impexus

— a native of Europe introduced for biological control of the bal sam woolly

adelgid in the 1960s

— form a distinctive group with similar form and structure and hav e adelgids as hosts (Whitehead , 1967). Scymnus suturalis ’ primary host seems to be Pineus pini on Scots pine, but it can complete development on HWA (Montgomery and Lyon , 19 96 )

. **1. Insects**  **Taxonomically Related**  **to HWA** 

**2. Insects T**  **axonomically Related to**  **S. coniferarum** **9** 

## IV. Env **ironmental Consequences A.**  **No Ac**  **tion** The infestation and damage caused b y HWA in urban and forest landscapes has received considerable attention from landowners and land managers, both public, and private. Several management tactics have been implemented to reduce the infestation level of HWA and the damage and mortality

it causes. The use of chemical insectici des , development of bioinsecticides and resistant hemlocks, and biological controls at current levels would be expected to continue if the “no action” alternative is chosen. The current rate of spread, and levels and trends of eastern hemlock mortality

an d other environmental consequences from infestation by HWA will likely

continue if the “no action” alternative is chosen. These environmental consequences may also continue at some level even with the establishment of S. coniferarum in eastern hemlock forests , depending on its efficacy in reducing HWA populations

. **a . Continued decline and mortality**  **of eastern hemlocks** Currently , about 50 percent of the counties with hemlock in the e astern United States are infested by HWA (USDA , F S , 2011) and HWA is exp ected t o continue to expand its range. Damage in the southern range of the hemlocks appears to be more severe (Evans et al ., 2011). This may reflect the absence of low winter temperatures which can reduce HWA populations (Trotter et al. , 2009). Although HWA can quickl y cause a decline in the crown condition of hemlock, mortality can be rapid or take many years, depending on site conditions (Orwig et al. , 2002). For example, in Shenandoah National Park, some sites experienced a rise in mortality from 8 p ercent to 48 percent in just two years, with several site factors deemed to be important including, elevation and which direction a slope faces (Blair , 2002). Although the rate of spread and mortality is variable, the overall expectation is that most of the hemlock in the e astern United States may

be lost without more and better options to control HWA. **b . Loss of economic,**  **social, and recreational value** Yearl y monetary

loss caused by HWA is estimated to be over $200,000,000 (Aukema et al. , 2011). About one

- half of this is expenditures by

governments and citizens for control of the pest and removal of damaged trees. Lo ss of residential property values due to damage b y HWA is estimated to total $100,000,000. Lo ss of hemlock landscape trees due to H WA infestations in residential properties has been estimated at $2,000

– $7,000 per home (Holmes et al. , 2005). Forest timber **1. Impact of Hemlock**  **Woolly Ad**  **elgid on the**  **Environment 10**  loss to landowners is estimated to be on $1,100,000 per year (Aukema et al. , 2011). Hemlock has little value for lumber or pulp but has an important ecological role in forests. Hemlock mortality

can have considerable impact on recreational use of forests. Consequentl y, large federal parks and forests have engaged in integrated pest management (IPM) programs to address the varied r ecreational and ecos ys tem needs on their properties. For example, long term monitoring, ecosy stem studies, and management efforts were begun at the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area in 1993 (this p ark was originally

infested in 1989). Monitoring has shown a rapid decline and mortality

and as of 2006, 28 percent of originally healthy plot trees had died and none of the remaining trees were in healthy condition (Evans and Shreiner , 2008). The Great Smoky Mountains National Park has engage d in an aggressive IPM program to respond to the infestation which threatens over 35,000 acres of hemlock dominated forest (Johnson et al. , 2008).
**c . Continued impacts on ecosy** **stems** Evans (2002) commented that the “decline and loss of our remaining easte rn hemlock stands could be more ecologically significant than the loss of American chestnut ( Castanea dentata ) in the earl y 1900s from chestnut blight” due to the fact that hemlock would not be replaced b y ecological equivalent species as occurred with the loss of the American chestnut. The large scale remo val of hemlock trees due to HWA

- caused mortality , and in some cases the resulting salvage logging of stands is well documented (Kizlinski et al. , 2002; Orwig et al., 2002; Foster and Orwig , 2006). Impac ts include negative effects on brook trout (reversal of cooler summer and warmer winter stream temperatures), carbon cycling (Nuckolls et al. , 2009), soil , and water chemistry (Yorks et al. , 2003). L oss of foliag e and tree mortality

in hemlock

- dominated s tands often results in the invasion of exotic and native species which provide less shade and cover during the summer and winter seasons, affecting temperature, and moisture microhabitats. In the Southern Appalachian area , hemlock has an ecoh ydrological f

unction that no other forest tree can fill (Ford and Vose , 2007). Reduction in the number and variety of species after tree mortality due to HWA has been reported extensively (Yamasaki et al. , 2000; Brooks , 2001; Evans, 2002; Snyder et al., 2002; Tingley et al. , 2002; Ross et al. , 2003 ; Ross et al. , 2004 ; Buck e t al., 2005; Ellison et al., 2005; Li shawa et al. , 2007). Hemlock mortality is also changing ecos ys tem processes, structure, and function (Jenkins et al. 1999, Stadler et al. , 2005; Cobb e t al. , 2006; Stadler et al. , 2006), and water qualit y (Yorks et al. , 2003).**11** C urrent levels of the current control methods would continue if the “no action” alternative is chosen , and may continue even if permits are issued for environmental release of S

. coniferarum

. **a. Chemical**  **C ontrol**  Control of HWA with available chemical insecticides is expensive, ha s environmental restrictions, and is not long lasting

. The n o action alternative will likely

increase reliance o n chemical methods to control HWA. **b. Restriction of interstate movement of nursery**  **stock** R estrictions to interstate commerce are likely to remain in place until HWA becomes widely

established in eastern states. No action may shorten the time for uninfested states to become infested.
**c. Development of resistant hemlocks**  The susceptible Carolina hemlock has been cross

- pollinated with the very resistant Chinese hemlock to produce a h yb rid cross with high resistance to HWA (Montgomery

et al. , 2009). Clones of these are in field trials and a new, resistant hemlock cultivar would not be available to the nursery industry for several years. Collections of hemlock seed are being made from several geographical areas in order to conserve the genetic resources of the eastern heml ocks until a permanent solution is found to reduce hemlock mortality

caused by

HWA (Jetton et al. , 2008; Potter et al. , 2008). **d. Bio**  **insecticides** Bioinsecticides for c ontrol of HWA are expensive and not long lasting. In addition, these are still experimental so efficacy has not been established

. Biopesticides must be as effective as conventional pesticides if they are to be successful but can decrease the potential for adverse chemical insecticide impact. **e. Biological Control** The biological control agents released show promise to reduce populations of HWA, but more time is needed to find if they will be successful in providing the level of control desired

. However, the addition of S. coniferarum that is expected to complement L. nigrinus would not occur and would reduce the potential for successful biological control of HWA. These environmental consequences may occur even with the **2. Impact from the U**  **se of O**  **ther C**  **ontrol Methods** **12** implementat ion of the biological control alternative , d epending on the efficacy of S. coniferarum to reduce HWA infestations in the eastern United States

.



### B. **Issue P ermit**  **s for**  **E nvironmental**  **R elease**  **of S** 
**. coniferarum** 
**a. Host**  **s pecificity**  **t esting**  Scymnus coniferarum did not feed on any prey offered in the laboratory other than adelgids (Appendix B). N on - preferred prey included wooll y alder aphid (

Paraprociphilus tessellates ), linden aphid ( Eucallipterus tiliae ), Taxus mealy

bug (Dysmicoccus wistariae ) , and elongate h emlock scale ( Fiorina externa ) (Montgomery and McDonald, 2010). Laboratory choice tests did not find any consistent preferences between pine adelgid s ( European pine adelgid, Pineus pini and pine bark adelgid, Pineus strobi ) and HWA as prey

. Although the beetle laid eggs on the pine bark adelgid that feeds on eastern white pine, only 1 6 percent of the eggs survived to the adult stage (Appendix B). L aboratory

feeding tests indicate that S. coniferarum is a voracious predator of HWA. Adult S. conife rarum , given 10 eggs, 10 n ymphs and 2 adult HWA, consumed an average of 8.9 eggs, 3.4 ny mphs, and 1.0 adult in 24

- hours. By

contrast, an adult consumed an average of onl y two larch adelgid eggs in 24 hours. L ate instar larvae consumed all of the 25 HWA e ggs they were provided within 24 hours (Schwartzberg et al. , 2009

. ) **b. Field**  **o bservations**  F ield observations in its area of origin indicate that S. coniferarum feeds on both pine and hemlock adelgids and does not use other homoptera ns or arthropods associated with hemlock or other woody plants as alternative food. E ven though the adult stage of S. coniferarum was collected from western white pine infested with Pineus pinifolia , only one larva was collected from this host. It seems that adelgids on white pine are supplemental rather than primary hosts. **1. Impact of**  **S. coniferarum on**  **Non -** **target Insects** **13 a.**  **Success in**  **e stablish**  **ment in eastern United States**  The climate in the Seattle area differs from the release areas of the Southern Appalachian region, primaril y in having a more temperate environment and in the seasonal pattern of rainfall. That L. nigrinus collected from the Seattle area has been successfully established in several states in th e Southern Appalachian region and is a strong indication that climatic differences should not be a barrier to the establishment of S. coniferarum

. A model that pr edict s the effects of climate on species , CL IMEX , indicates that S. coniferarum has a high probability of establishing in much of the eastern United States.

**b. Extent that n ative adelgids will be attacked**  Establishment of S. coniferarum in the eastern United States would result in possible contact with only one adelgid species, Pineus floccus , that is not present in the western United States (Appendix A ). This species has at least one generation on spruce (DeBoo and Weidhaas, 1967; Walton, 1980). S. coniferarum has not been found on spruce. Other adelgid species may

be attacked to a limited e xtent, because S. coniferarum feeds on other adelgid species in the western United States that are also present in the eastern United States. Western conifers from which S. coniferarum has been collected include ponderosa and lodgepole pine. These conifers are host to Pineus coloradensis , which has been reported as a pest of white pine and red pine in Eastern States (Doane , 1961), but this adelgid has not been reported in man y ye ars. In a laboratory test S. coniferarum readily ate the eggs of what is pre sumed to be this species (Appendix B ). Although there are man y uncertainties concerning the adelgids that S. coniferarum may

prey upon, the rel ationships it is expected to have with the adelgids in the e ast ern United States is expected to be similar to th e relatio n ships it has with these same adelgids in the w estern United States. **c. Success in reducing HWA**  **populations** Only 12 percent of the introductions of biological control agents against pests have led to “complete” control of the target pests (Greathead and Greathead , 1992). Actual impacts on HWA populations by S. coniferarum will not be known until after release occurs and post

- release monitoring has been conducted. **2. Uncertainties**  **Regarding the Environmental**  **R elease of**  **S**
**. coniferarum** 
**. 14**  **d. Competition or interference with established adelgid**  **predators** The pre viousl y introduced L. nigrinus seems to be the biological control agent that is present in greatest number and most widely distributed (Mausel et al. , 2010). Based on the co

- existence of L. nigrinus and S. coniferarum in the western United States and diff erences in their life history , they are expected to coexist and have additive impact on HWA in the eastern United States. L ikewise, L. osakensis , which has been approved for environmental release, and S. coniferarum should have a complementary e ffect on H WA, based on their life histories. The lady beetle from Japan, Sasajiscymnus tsugae , has been widely released in the eastern United States, but its numbers remain low. Itprey s on other adelgids (Jetton et al. , 2011) and has been recovered in Japan from m arshes and on pines far from hemlock (Sasaji and McClure , 1997; Shiyake et al. , 2008). This species has a life history similar to S. coniferarum ; thus , these two lady beetles could compete for resources. The most direct interaction may be with a lady

be etle in the same subgenus that was accidently introduced from Europe, Scymnus ( Pullus ) suturalis

. Scymnus suturalis also feeds on both pine and hemlock adelgids, although it is seldom recovered from hemlock. There have been no adverse interactions reported for adeligid predators. Flowers et al. (2007) studied the interactions between three predators of HWA ( L. nigrinus, S. tsugae, and Harmonia axyridis , a generalist lady beetle predator) and found that they had little impact on each other and recomm ended multiple

- predator releases for HWA.

“ C um ulative i m

pacts ” is de f

ined as th e i m

pact on the env i ro nm ent which resu l ts f rom the in c re m ental i m

pact of the action when added to oth e r pa s t, present and reasona

b ly f orese e able f

uture a ctio n s regard less of what agenci e s or person undertakes such other a ctio n s” (40 CFR 1508.7). Many st ates and c ount i e s , as well as f ederal, s t ate , local , and priv ate pro p erty owner s hips condu c t the i r own program s to m anage H WA along with other inva s ive f

orest pes t s. Ch e mical, bioinsecticidal, and biolog i cal c ontrols, along with resistant hemlock development and restrictions on movement of nursery

stock as d escrib ed pr e viously in th is docum ent are used in a wide range of habitats. Release of S

. coniferarum i s not expe ct ed to have any negati v e cum

ulative i m pacts in the conti n ent al United St ates b e cause of its spe c i f ic i ty to adelgids. If e ff

ective , b i ologic a l co ntrol of H WA would have b ene f ici a l e ff ects f or f or e st and ornam ental p e st m anage m ent program s, and m ay result i n a long

- te rm, non - dam aging m ethod t o assi s t in m aint a ining n ative **Cumula tive**  **I mpacts**  **3. Cumulative Impacts** **15** h e m l o ck tr e es and he m lock stands in good health. Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and ESA’s implementing regulations require Federal agencies to ensure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of federall y listed threatened and endangered species , or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. APHI S has deter

mined that based on the host s pe ci f ic i ty of S

. coniferarum and because the r e are no li s t e d species r el ated to H WA or dependent o n H WA, there wi l l be no e ff ect on an y lis t ed spe c ies or design ated c ri t ic a l hab i t at in t

h e conti nental Un i t e d States

. No federally listed threatened or endangered insects belong to the insect family Adelg idae (USFWS , 20 1 2 ). No federall y listed species are known to depend on or use HWA

. 

## V. Other **Issues** Consiste nt with Executi ve Order ( E O) 12898, “Federal A c t i ons to Addr ess Environm e ntal Ju s ti ce in Minori ty P o pulat ions an d L ow - inco m e Populatio n s , ” APHI S c onsidered the potent ial f or dispropo rt i onately h igh and adver s e hum an heal th or enviro nm ental e ff e c ts on any minority populat ions and low

- in c o m e populat ions. There are no adv er se environm ental or hum an health e ff ects f ro m the f ield r e lea s e o f S

. coniferarum an d it will not have disprop ortion ate adv e rse e ff ects to any minority or l ow - inco m e populat ions. Consiste nt with EO 13045, “Prote c t i on of Children From E nvironm ental Health Ris k s and Sa f

ety Risks,” APHI S consid e red the p o t e nti a l f or dispropo rti o nately high and a dver s e environm ental he a lth and sa f ety ris k s to ch i ldren. No circum stances th at w ould trigger the need f or speci a l environm ental re v iews are involved in i m pl e m enting the pre f

e rr ed alt e rnat ive. There f

ore, i t is expe c ted that no d isp roportio n ate e ff ects on chil dren ar e anti c ipat ed a s a consequ e nce of the f ield r e lea s e o f S

. coniferarum in the eastern United States

. EO 1317 5 , “ Consultation and Coo rdination with Indian Tribal Governm ents ” , w a s issued to ensure th at there would be “ m eaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal officials in the dev e lop m ent of Federal policies that have tribal i m pli c ations....”. Consistent w ith EO 131 7 5, AP H I S sent letters of notification and requests for comment and consultation on the proposed action to tribes in Connecticut, Florida, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina and Wisconsin . APHIS will continue to consult and collaborate with Indian tribal officials to ensure that they are well

- in formed and represented in policy and program decisions that may impact their agricultural interests, in accordance with EO 13175

. **4. Endangered Species A** **ct 16**  

## VI. **Ag encies, Organizations, and**  **Indiv iduals Consulted**  This EA was prepared by personnel from the Forest Service, Virginia Tech, and University of Georgia , and reviewed by APHIS. The addresses of participating APHIS units , cooperators, and consultants follow. U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Serv ice Plant Protection and Quarantine Registrations, Identifications, Permits and Plant Safeguarding 4700 River Road, Unit 133 Riverdale, MD 20737 U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Policy and Program Development Envi ronmental and Risk Analy sis Services 4700 River Road, Unit 1 49 Riverdale, MD 20737 U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Northeast Area, State and Private Forestry Forest Health Protection Morgantown Field Office 180 Canfield Rd. Morgantown, WV 26505 U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Northern Research Station Ecology and Management of Invasive Species and Forest E cosy stems 51 Mill Pond Rd. Hamden, CT 06514 Virg inia Tech Departm ent of Ent o m ology Blacksburg, VA 24060 University

of Georgia, Department of Entomology 413 Biological Sciences Building Athens, GA 30602**17** Sy mbiont Biological Pest Management 194 Shull’s Hollar Sugar Grove, NC 28679**18** 

## V **II . References**  Annand, P.N. 1928. A contribution toward a monograph of the Adelginae (Phylloxeridae) of North America. Stanford University Press. 146 pp. Aukema, J. E., B. Leung, and K. Kovacs. 2011

. Economic impacts of non - native forest insects in the continental United States. PloS ONE : 6: 1

− 6. Blackman, R.L. and V.F. Easto p . 1994. Aphids on the world’s trees: an identification and information guide. CAB International. Wallingford, Oxon, United Kingdom. 987 pp. Blair, M

. W

. 2002. E astern h e mlock ( Tsuga canaden s is ) m ortal i ty in Shenandoah National P ark. P p. 61

- 6 6

. I n : B. Onken, R. Reardon, and J. Lasho m b [ e ds. ] , Proce e dings, S y

m p osium on H e m lock W oolly Adelgid i n the Eas t ern United St at e s, February 5

− 7, 2002, East Brunsw i ck, NJ. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univers i ty
. B oe rner, C.V. and K. Heinze. 1957. Aphidina

- Aphidoidea. In Tierische Sch ae dlinge an Nutzpflanzen. Homoptera 2. Teil, ed. H. Blunck, pp. 325

− 55. Berlin: Paul Parey

. Brooks, R. T. 2001. Effects of the r e m oval of o verst o ry h e mlock f

r o m he m lock d o minated f

orests on e a s te r

n redback sa lam anders. Forest Ecology and Manage m ent. 149: 197

− 204. Buck, L., P. Lam

bdin, D. Paulsen, J. Grant , and A. Saxton. 2005. In sect species ass o ciat ed with e astern h e mlock in the Great S m oky Mountains National P ar

k and enviro ns. Journal o f the Tenne s see Acade my of Science

. 80: 60

− 69. Butin, E.E., N.P. Havill, J.S. Elkinton, and M.E. Montgomery. 2004. Feeding preference of three lady beetle predators of the hemlock wooll y adelgid (Homoptera: Adelgidae). J. Econ. Entom ol

. 97: 1635

− 1641. Caswell, T., R. Casagrande, B. May nard, and E. Preiss e r. 2008. Pro duction and e valuat ion o f e astern h e m locks p otenti a lly r es is tant to the h e m lock w oolly a delgid. Pp. 124

− 134. In : B. Onken and R. Reardon [ eds. ] , Fourth Sy

mposium on H e mlock W oolly Adel gi d in the Ea st ern United States. U S DA Forest Servi c e, Hart f ord, CT. F H TET

- 2008

- 01. Cheah, C.A

. S.

- J and M.S. McClure. 2002. P seudoscymnus tsugae in Connecticut forests: The first five years. Pp. 150

− 165. In : B. Onken, R. Reardon, and J. Lasho m

b [ e ds. ] , Pro ce e dings, Sy

mp osium on H e m lock W oolly Adelgid i n the Eas t ern United St at e s, February 5

− 7, 2002, East Brunsw i ck, NJ. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univers i ty
.**19** Cheah, C.A

. S.

- J., M.E. Montgo m ery, S. Salo m , B.L. Parker, S. Costa, and M. Skinner. 2004. Biol o gical contro l of h e m lock woolly ade l gid. Reard o n, R. and B. O nken (Tech. Coordinat or s). USDA F orest S e rvi c e, FHTET

- 2004

− 04. Morgantown, WV. Cheah, C.A. S.

- J., M. A. Mayer, and D. Palmer. 2005. Assessments of biological control of hemlock woolly adelgid with Sasajiscymnus tsugae in Connecticut and New Jersey . P p. 116

− 130. In : B. Onken and R. Reardon [e ds. ] , Third Symposium on Hemlock Woolly Adelgid in the Eastern Un ited States FHTET

- 2005

- 01. USDA Forest Service, Forest Health Technology

Enterprise Team, Morgantown, West Virginia, Asheville, North Carolina. Cobb, R. C., D. A. Orw i g, and S. Currie. 2006. D eco m position of green f oliage in ea stern he mlock f orests of south ern N e w England impacted by he m lock w o oll y ad e lg id in f estat ions. Canadian J o urnal of Fo r est Rese arch

. 36: 1331

− 1 3 41. Cowles, R. S. 2006. Activity and residues of imidacloprid applied to soil and tree trunks to control hemlock woolly adelgid (Hemiptera: Adelgidae) in forests. Journal of Economic Entomology

. 99 **:** 1258

− 1267. DeBoo, R.F. and J.A. Weidhaas. 1967. Phenological notes on a non migrating population of Pineus floccus (Homoptera: Chermidae). The Candian Entomologist. 99: 765

− 766. Doane, C.C. 1961. Taxonomy and Biology

of Pineus strobi (Hartig) and P. coloradensis (Gillette) (Homoptera: Adelgidae)

. The Canadian Entomologis t
. 93: 553

− 560

. Ellison, A.M., J. Chen, D. Díaz, C. K amm erer - Burnham, an d M. Lau. 2005. Changes in ant c ommunity str ucture and c o m

position associ ated with he m lock decli n e in New England. P p. 280

− 289. In : B. Onken and R. C. Reardon [ eds. ] , Third S y m posi um on H e mlock W oolly Adelgid in the Eastern Un it ed Stat e s. Ashevi l le, NC February 1

− 3, 2005. U S DA Forest Service. F H TET

- 2005

- 01. Eschtr uth, A.K., N. L. C leav i tt, J.J. Battl e s, R.A. Evans, and T. J. Fahey

. 2006. Vegetation dynam ics in d ec l in i ng east e rn h e m lock stands: 9 year s o f f orest resp o nse to he m lock woolly a delgid in f es t ation. The C anadian Journal of Forest Res e arch. 36: 1435

− 1450. Evans, R. A. 2002. An ecosy stem unraveling. pp. 23

− 33. In : B. Onken, R. C. Reardon and J. L ash c o m b [ eds. ] , H e m lock W oolly Adel gi d in the Eastern Un it ed Stat e s Sy

mposi um . U SDA For. S erv. Pub., East Brunswick, NJ.**20** Evans, R. A

. , E. Johnson, J. Shrein e r, A. Am bler, J. Batt l es, N. Cleavi tt, T. F., J. Sciasc i a, and E. Pehek. 1996. Potent ial i m p acts of he mlock woolly adelgid ( Ad e lges tsuga e) on east e rn h e mlock ( Tsuga canaden s is) ecos ys te m s. Pp. 42

− 57

. I n : S. M. Salo m , T.C. Tigner, T. C

. and R.C. Reardon [eds.] , Pro c eedings of the First H e mlock W oolly A delgid Review, Charlo ttesv i lle, V i rgin i a, Oct. 12, 1995. USDA Forest Ser vi ce, Morganto wn, WV: F H TET 1996

- 10. Evans, R. and J. Shreine r. 2008. Research, monitoring, and management of eastern hemlock forests at Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area. P p. 70

− 80

. In : B. Onken and R. Reardon [eds.] , Fourth Sy mposium on Hemlock Woolly

Adelg id in the Eastern United States. Hartford, Connecticut, February

12

− 14, 2008. USDA Forest Service, FHTET

- 2008

- 01, Morgantown, West Virginia. Evans, R.A., W.M. Aust, C.A. Dolloff, B.S. Templeton, and J.A. Peterson. 2011. Eastern hemlock decline in riparian areas from Maine to Alabama. North. J. Appl. For. 28: 97

− 104. Flowers, R.W., S.M. Salom, L .T. Kok, and D.E. Mullins. 2007. Behavior and daily activity patterns of specialist and generalist predators of the hemloc k woolly

adelgid, Adelges tsugae

. J. of Insect Sci. 7: article 44, 20 pp . Ford, C.R., and J.M. Vose. 2007. Tsuga canadensis (L .) Carr. mortality will impact hydrologic processes in southern Appalachian forest ecos ys tems. Ecological Applications

. 17: 1156

− 1167

. Foster, D.R. and D. A. Orwig. 2006. Pree m ptive and salva g e harves t ing of New Eng l and f

orests: When doing nothing i s a viable al t e r native. Conservat i o n Biology

. 2 0: 959

− 970. Furniss, R. L. and V. M. Carolin

. 1 9 77. W estern Forest In se c ts. USDA For. Ser. M i sc. Pub. No. 1339, US G overnm ent Print ing O ff ice, W ashington, D.C. 654 p p. Gibbs, A

. 2002. Regulating hemlock wooll y adelgid in noninfested states. P p . 310

− 312

. In : B. Onken, R. Reardon, and J. L ashomb [ eds. ]. Proceedings: Hemlock Woolly Adelgid in the Eastern United States Sy mposium. Feb. 5

− 7, 2002, East Brunswick, NJ, USDA For est Serv ice/State Univ. of N. J. Rutgers

. Gonzalez, G. 2006. Lo s Coccinellidae de Chile. http://www.coccinellidae.cl/paginasWebChile/PaginasOriginal/scy mnus_c oniferarum.php

. last accessed January 18, 2012.**21** Gordon, R.D. 1976. The Scy mnini (Coleopte ra: Coccinellidae) of the United States and Canada: Key t o genera and revision of Scymnus , Nephus , and Diomus

. Bull. Buffalo Soc. Nat. Sci. 28: 1

− 71. Gordon, R.D. 1985. The Coccinellidae (Coleoptera) of America north of Mexico. J. New York Entomol. Soc. 93: 1

− 912. Gouli, S., V. Gouli, H. B. Teillon, A. Kassa, M. Skinner, C. F r ank, and B. L. Parker. 2008. Contro l ling H e mlock W o oll y Adel g id with New For m s o f M ycoinse c t i cides. P p.1 7 9

– 187. In : B. Onken and R. Reardon [ eds. ] , Fourth Sy mposium on H e mlock W oolly Adel gi d in the Ea st ern United States. U S DA Forest Servi c e, Hart f ord, CT. F H TET

- 2008

- 01. Greathead, D. and A.H. Greathead. 1992. Biol o gical contro l of insect pests by p arasit o ids and predat o rs: the BIOCAT databa s e. Biocontrol News and In f

o rm ation. 13: 61N −68N. Hakeem, A. , J. F. Grant, and P. L. L ambdin

. 2010

. Recovery of Sasajiscymnus tsugae , released against hemlock woolly adelgid, Adelges tsugae, in the southern Appalachians. Biocontrol Science and Technology . 20: 1069

− 1074. Havill, N.P. and R. G. F oott i t. 2007. Biology and Evolution o f Adelgidae. Annual Rev i ew o f

. Ent o m ology

. 52: 325

− 349. Havill, N.P., R.G. Foottit, and C.D. von Dohlen

. 2007

. Evolution of host specialization in the Adelgidae (Insecta: Hemiptera) inferred from molecular phylogenetics. Molecular Ph yl ogenetics and Evolution . 44: 357

− 370

. Ho l m es, T.P., E. A. Murphy , and D. D. Royle. 2005. The e c on o mic i m pacts of h e m lock wo o lly

ad e lg id o n reside nt i al landsca p e v alue s : Sparta, New Jersey c ase study

. P p. 15

− 24

. In : B. Onken and R. C. Reardon [ eds. ] , Third S y

m posi um on H e m lock W oolly Adelgid in the Eastern United St at e s. Ashevil l e, NC , February 1

− 3, 2005. US D A Forest Serv i ce. FHTET

- 20 0 5

- 01. In gwell, L.L., and E. L. Preisser. 2011. Using citizen science programs to identify host resistance in pest

- invaded forests. Conservation Biology

. 25: 182

− 188. Jenkins, J. C ., J.D. Aber, and C. D. C anham . 19 9 9. H e m lock wooll y adelgid i m

p acts on co mmunity

str uc ture and N c yc ling rat e s in ea s tern he m lock f

o r ests. Cana di an Journal o f Forest Research. 2 9 : 6 3 0

− 645.**22** Jetton, R.M., W.S. Dvorak, and W. A. Whitter. 2008. E cological and genetic factors that define the natural distribution of Carolina hemlock in the southeastern United States and th eir role in ex situ conservation. Forest Ecology

and Management. 255: 3212

− 3221. Jetton, R.M., J.F. Monahan, and F.P. Hain. 2011. Laboratory studies of feeding and oviposition preference, developmental performance, and survival of the predatory

beetle, Sasajiscymnus tsugae on diets of the woolly adelgids, Adelges tsugae and Adelges piceae

. Journal of Insect Science

. 11 : article 68

. Johnson, K., T. R e m aley , and G. Taylor. 2008. Mana gi ng H e m lock W oolly Adelgid at Great S m o ky Mountains National P ark: Si tu a t ion and Response. Pp. 62

− 69. I

n : B. Onken and R. Reardon [ eds. ] , F ourth S y m posi um on H e mlock W oolly Adelgid in the Eastern Un it ed Stat e s. US D A Forest Serv i ce, Hart f ord, CT. FHTET

- 2 008

- 01. Kizlins ki, M .L ., D. A. O rwig, R. C. Cobb, and D.R. Foster. 2 002. Direct and indi rect ecos ys tem consequences of an invas i ve pest on f orests d o minated b y east e rn h e mlock. Journal of Biogeograph y. 29: 1489

− 1503. Kohler, G. R., V.L. Stie f

el, W allin, K. F., and D.W. Ros s. 200 8

. Predato r s associ ated with th e he m lock woolly adelgid (H e m iptera: Adelgid a e) in the Paci f ic Northwest. Envi ro nm ental. E nto m ology

. 37: 494

− 504. Krapfl, K. J. 2011. Early impacts of hemlock woolly adelgid in Tsuga canadensis forest communities of the southern Appalachian Mountains. Journal Torrey

Botanical Society

. 138: 93

− 106. Lishawa, S.C., D. R. Bergdahl , and S

. D. Costa. 2007. W inter condi t ions in ea s tern h e m lock and mixed

- hardwood deer winte ring ar eas of Ver m ont. Canadian J o urnal of Fo r est Rese arch

. 37: 697

− 70 3

. Malkin, B. 1945

. A s upplement to the New York State l ist of Coleoptera, No. 6, a dditions and c orrections. Journal of the New York Entomological Society

. 53: 91

− 116. Mausel, D.L., S.M. Salom, L .T. Kok, and G.A. Davis. 2010. Establishment of the hemlock woolly adelgid predator, Laricobius nigrinus (Coleoptera: Derodontidae), in the eastern United States. Environmental Entomology . 39: 440

− 448. Mausel, D L., R. G . Van Driesche, and J. S. Elkinton. 2011. Comparative cold tolerance and climate matching of coastal and inland Laricobius nigrinus ( Coleoptera: Derodontidae), a biological control agent of hemlock woolly

adelgid. Biological Control. 58 : 96

− 102.**23** McClure, M

. S. 1987. Biology and contro l of he m lo ck wo o lly ad e lg id. Bulle t in 85 1 . Connecti cut Agric u ltural Exp e ri m ent St ation. New Haven. McClure, M

. S. 1989. Evidence of a pol y m orphic li f

e cyc le i n the he m lock woolly

ade l gid, Adelges tsugae (H om optera: A d elgid a e). Annals of the Ento m ological Soc i ety of Am erica. 82: 50

− 54. McClure, M.S. 2001. Managing Hemlock Woolly Adelgid in Ornamental Landscapes

. PHC Pest Alerts. Bulletin 925. McDonald, R.D. 2010. Key cues and factors for imp ro ving HWA predator recovery

efforts. In : B. Onken and R. Reardon [ eds

. ] , Fifth S y m posium o n H e mlock W oolly Adelgid in the Eastern Un it ed Stat e s. USDA Forest Service, Asheville, NC. F HTET

- 2010

- 07

. Montgo m ery, M. E. and S. M. Lyon. 1996. Natural e n e mies of adelgids in North Am erica: the i r pro spect f or bi o logic a l control of Adelges tsugae (H o m optera: Adelgida e)

. In : S. M. Salo m , T.C. Tigner, and R.C. R eardon, [ ed s .] , Proceedin g s of the First H e mlock W oolly Adel gi d Review, Charlo ttesv i lle, V i rgin i a, Oct. 12, 1995. USDA Forest Ser vi ce, Morganto wn, WV: F H TET 1996

- 10

. Montgomery , M.E. and R.D. McDonald. 2010. H ost pre f erences o f Scymnus (pullus) coniferarum : an a delgid pred ator . Pp 173 −176. In : B. Onken and R. Reardon [ eds. ] , Fifth S y m posium o n H e m lock W oolly Adelgid in the Eastern Un it ed Stat e s, Asheville, NC USDA F orest Service. F HTET

- 2008

- 01. Montgomery , M.E., S. M. Lyon, W. Lu, Y. Defu, and H. Wang. 1997. Developing biological control technology : evaluation of the feedin g range of predaceous beetles. P p. 28

− 34. In : Resource Technology 1997: Beijing International S ymposium Proceedings. China Forestry Publishing House, Beijing. Montgomery , M. E., R. McDonald, and L. Schwartzberg. 2009. Scymnus (Pullus) coniferarum (Coleoptera: Coc cinellidae): an adelgid predator native to the western United States

. p . 89. In : K.A. McManus, and K.W. Gottschalk, [ eds ], Proceedings of the 20th U.S. Department of Agriculture interagency

research forum on invasive species 2009; Annapolis, MD. Gen. Te ch. Rep. NRS

- P

- 51. Newtown Square, PA: USDA , Forest Service, Northern Research Station. Nuckol ls, A. E., N. Wurz burger, C.R. Ford, R. L. Hendrick, J

. M. Vose, and B. D. Kl oeppel. 200 9

. H e mlock decli n es ra pi dly with h e m lock wooll y adelgid in f

estat ion: Im

p acts on the c arbon cyc le of southern Appalac h ian f orests. Eco s ys te m s. 12: 179

− 190.**24** Orwig, D. A ., D.R. Foster, and D. L. Mausel. 20 0 2. Landsca p e patt erns of he m lock decline in New England due to the intro duced he m lock woolly adelgid. Journal of Biogeograph y. 29: 1475

− 1487

. Potter, K. M ., W.S. Dvorak, B.S. Crane, V.D. Hipkins, R.M. Jetton, W. A. Whitter, and J. Rhea. 2008. Allozy me variation and recent evolutionary history of eastern hemlock ( Tsuga canadensis ) in the southeastern United States. New Forests

. 35: 131

− 145. Qu i m by , J. W . 1996. Value and importance o f h e m lock ecos ys te m s in the ea s tern United St at e s. Pp

. 1

- 8

. In : S. M. Salo m , T.C. Tigner, and R.C. R eardon [ eds .], Proceedings of the First H e mlock W oolly Adel gi d Review, Charl o ttes v i l le, Virgin i a, Oct. 12, 1995. US D A Forest Ser v ice, Morganto wn, WV: F H TET 1996

- 10. Roberts, A., A. Lamb, B. Onken , and S. M. Salom. 2010. The HWA Predator Release, and Recovery Database. P p. 43

− 52. In : B. Onken and R. Reardon [ eds. ] , Fifth S y m posium o n H e mlock W oolly Adelgid in the Eastern Un it ed Stat e s, Asheville, NC USDA Forest Service. F HTET

2008

- 01. Ross, R.M., R.M. Bennett, C.D. Snyder, J.A. Young, D. R. S mith, and D. P. L e m ar ie. 2003. In f

luence of e a stern he mlock ( Tsuga c anadensis L .) on f ish co mmunity

str uc ture and f

un ction in he a dwater s tre am s o f the Delaware Ri ver B asin. E cology of Freshwater F is h. 12: 60

− 65. Ross, R.M., L .A. Redell, R. M. Bennett , and J. A. Young. 2004. Mesohab i tat use of thre atened he mlock f orests by breeding b i rds of the Delaware Ri ver B asin in northea s t e rn United St at es. Natura l Areas Jour n al

. 24: 307

− 315. Sasaji, H., and M.S. McClure. 1997. Description and distribution of Pseudoscymnus tsugae sp. nov. (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), an important predator of hemlock woolly adelgid in Japan. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 90: 563

− 568. Schwartzberg, L ., M

. E

. Montgomery , and R.C. McDonald. 2009. Preliminary

study of the biology

of Scymnus (

Pullus ) coniferarum Crotch 1874 (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), an adelgid predator native to the western United States and a potential biocontrol for Adelges tsugae . Odum Conference 2009

– Understanding and managing biological invasions as dy namic processes: integrating information across space and time: proceedings of the meeting; 2009 April 30

− May 1, 2009, Rensselaerville, NY: 2. Abstract. New York Invasive Species Institute, Ithaca, NY. http://nyisri.org/OdumposterA .aspx last accessed January 24, 2012.**25** Shiyake, S., Y. Mi yatake, M.E. Montgomery, and A. Lamb. 2008. Hemlock woolly

adelgid phenology

and predacious beetle community on Japanese hemlocks. Pp . 261

− 266

. In: B. Onken, and R. Reardon [ eds. ]

. Fourth Sy mposium on Hemlock Woolly Adelgid in the Eastern United States, FHTET

- 2010

- 07, USDA Forest Service, Forest Health Enterprise Team, Hartford, Connecticut. Snyder, C.D., J. A. Y o ung, D. P. L e m arie, and D. R. S mith. 2002. In f luence of east e rn he m lock ( Tsuga canadensi s ) f orests on a quatic inve rtebrate asse m

blages in headwat e r str eam s. C anadian Jo ur nal of Fisheri es an d Aquatic S cienc e s. 59: 262

− 275. Stadl e r, B., T. Mull e r, D. Orwig, and R. Cobb. 2 0 05. H e mlock wooll y adelgid in New England f orests: c an o py

i m pacts trans f

or ming ecos ys tem process e s an d landsca

p e s . Ecosy ste m s. 8: 233

− 24 7

. Stadl e r, B., T. Mull e r, an d D. Orwig. 2006. The ecology of energy

and nutri ent f lux es in he mlock f

orests inv aded by

he m lock woolly adelgid. Ecology

. 87: 1792

− 1804. Stoetz e l , M.B. 2002. History of the i ntrodu c tion of Adelges t sugae based on voucher s peci m ens in the S mithsonian In s t i tut e Nation a l Colle c tion of Insec t s. p . 12. I

n : Onken, B., R. Reardon, and J. Lasho m b [ e ds. ] , Proceeding s , S y

m posium on H e ml o ck W oolly Adelgid in the East e rn United St at e s, February 5

− 7, 2002, East Brunsw i ck, NJ. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univers i ty
. Swartly , J. C. 1984. The Cultivated Hemlocks. Timber Press, Portland, Oregon. 186p. Tingley , M. W ., D.A. O rwig, and R. Field. 2002. Avian resp o nse to re m oval of a f

orest do minant: co n se quences of h e mlock woolly adelgid in f estat ions. Journal of Biogeograph y. 29: 1505

− 1 5 16. Trotter, R.T. and K. S. Shields. 2009. Variation in winter survival of the invasive hemlock woolly adelgid (Hemiptera: Adelgidae) across the Eastern United States. Environmental Entomology

. 38 :577

− 587. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

. 2010. Decision and Finding of No Significant Impact for Field Release of Laricobius osakensis

. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/ea/downloads/Laricob ius

osakensis

- FONSI

- June2010.pdf last accessed January 18, 2012

. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service . 2011. Counties with established HWA populations 2010. http://na.fs.fed.us/fhp/hwa/maps/2010.pdf

. last accessed January 18, 2012

.**26** USDA , APHI S

— see United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. USDA , F S

— see United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. U.S. Fi sh and Wildlife Service. 2012. Species Reports. Environmental Conservation Online Sy stem. http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/ last accessed January

19, 2012. USFWS

— see U .S. Fish and Wildlife Service. W allace, M. S. and F. P. Hain. 2000. Field sur v e y s and evaluation of native and e stab l ished pr edators of th e he m lock w oolly ad e lg i d (H o m optera: Adelgida e ) in the so uth e astern Un i t e d States. E nvironm ental Ento m ology

. 29: 638

− 64 4

. Walton, L . 1980. Gall formation and life history of Pineus floccus (Patch) (Homoptera: Adelgidae) in Virginia. Virginia J. of Sci. 31: 55

− 60. W ard, J.S., M. E. Mont g o m ery, C.A. S.

- J. Ch eah, B. P. O nken, and R. S. Cowles. 2004. Eastern h e mlock f or e sts: gu ide l i n es to mini mi ze the i m pacts of h e m lock wo o lly

ad e lg id. US D A Forest Serv i ce Northea s t Area, Mo r gantown WV MAY 20 0 4. NA

- TP

- 03

- 04. W ebb, R.E., J. R. Frank, and M.J. Raupp. 2003. Eastern h e mlock recov ery f ro m h e m l o ck wooll y a delgid f oll o wing i midacloprid the ra py . Journal of Arboricu l tur e. 29: 29 8

− 302. Webster, J. 2010. Management of hemlock woolly adelgid in Great Smoky Mountains National Park. P p. 57

− 60. In : B. Onken and R. Reardon [ eds. ] , Fifth S y

m posi um on H e mlock W oolly Adelgid in the Eastern Un it ed Stat e s. US D A Forest Serv i ce, Asheville , NC. FHTET

2 010

- 07. Whitehead, V.B. 1967. The validity of the higher taxonomic categories of the tribe Scy

mnini (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), Ph. D. Thesis. University of California, Berkley . 215 p. Y am asaki, M., R. M. DeGra af, and J. W . Lanier. 2000. W ildl if e habitat associ atio n s in ea s tern h e mlock

– birds, s m all m amm als, and f orest carniv o res. P p. 135

− 141. In : K. A. McManus, K. S. Shields an d D. R. Souto [ eds. ] , Proceedin g s: Sy m posi um on Susta i nable Mana ge m ent of H e m lock Ecosyste m s in Eastern No rth Am erica. June 22

− 24, 1999 Durham , N H. U S DA F orest S e rvi c e General T echnic a l R eport NE

- 267 (February 2 000).**27** Yorks, T.E., D. J. L eopold , and D. J. Ray nal. 20 0 3. E ff

ects of Tsuga canadensis m ortal i ty

on soil wat er c he mistry

and underst o ry veget ation: possible co n sequences o f an invasive inse c t her bi vore. Canadi an Journal of Forest Research. 3 3 : 1 525

− 1537. Yu, G. and M. E. Mont g o m ery. 2008. An overv i ew of lady beet l es in rel ation to th eir p o tent ial as Biolog i c a l controls fo r he m lock w ooll y adelgid. Pp. 19

–28. In : B. Onken and R. Reardon [ eds. ] , Fo urth S y m posi um on H e mlock W oolly Adelgid in the Eastern Un it ed Stat e s. US D A Forest Serv i ce, Hart f ord, CT. FHTET

- 2 008

- 01. Zilah i

- Balo gh, G.M. G. 2001. Biol o gy of Laricobius nigr in us Fender (Coleopt e ra: Derodonti d ae) and its p otent ial a s a biolog i cal control agent of the he m l o ck wooll y a delgid, Ad el ges tsugae Annand (Ho m optera: Adelgida e ) i n the ea s tern United St at es. Ph.D. dissert ation. Virgin i a Po l yt echn i c In s titute and S t ate Univ e rs i ty , Blacksb urg. VA. 109 pp. Zurovcova, M., J. Havelka, P. Stary , P. Vechtova, et al. 2010. "DNA barcoding" is of limited value for identifying adelgids (Hemiptera: Adelgidae) but supports traditional morphological taxonomy . Eur. J. Entomol. 107: 147

− 156.**A –**  **1 Appendix**  **A .**  Li st of adelgid species in North America (NA); hosts column gives genus of the primary

and secondary

host

—“None” means it is anholocyclic and “?” = believed to be holocyclic but host not identified; the right column gives current North American distribution.

**Species Taxon** 

**Validity Hosts** 

**(1**  **, 2**  **) Native Range**  **Occurrence in North Am**  **erica** Adelges abietis (Linneaus 1758) Picea , None Europe Continental Adelges aenigmaticus Annand 1928 ? 1 ?, Larix Eastern NA No records after 1928 Adelges cooleyi (Gillette 1907) None, Pseudotsuga Western NA Continental Adelges coweni (Gillette 1907) ? 2 None, Pseudotsuga Western NA Only in Europe? Adelges diversis Annand 1928 ? 1 ? , Larix Western NA No records after 1928 Adelges lariciatus (Patch 1909) ? 1 Picea , Larix North America Western Adelges laricis (Vallot 1836) None, Larix Europe, NA? Continental Adelges nordmannianae (Eckstein 1890) ? 3 None, Abies Caucasus Mtns. Continental Adelges oregonensis Annand 1928 ? 1 ? , Larix Western NA No records after 1928 Adelges piceae (Ratzeburg 1844) Picea, Abies Europe Continental Adelges tsugae Annand 1924 Picea, Tsuga Asia,Western NA Continental Pineus abietinus Underwood & Balch 1964 None, Abies Western NA No records after 1964 Pineus boerneri Annand 1928 ? 4 None, Pinus Western NA? Continental Pineus boycei Annand 1928 Picea , ? Western NA Western Pineus cembrae (Cholodkovsky 1888) Picea, Pinus Eurasia Eastern Pineus coloradensis (Gillette 1907) None, Pinus North America Continental Pineus engelmannii Annand 1928 ? 5 Picea , ? Western NA Western Pineus floccus (Patch 1909) ? Picea, Pinus Eastern NA Eastern Pineus patchae Börner 1926 ? 6 Picea, ? North America Status unclear Pineus pineoides (Cholodkovsky 1903) Picea , None Europe Eastern Pineus pini (Macquart 1819) None, Pinus Europe Continental Pineus pinifoliae (Fitch 1853) Picea, Pinus North America Continental Pineus similis (Gillette 1907) Picea , None North America Continental Pineus strobi (Hartig, 1937) None, Pinus Eastern NA Continental Pineus sylvestris Annand 1928 ? 4 ? , Pinus Western NA No records after 1928 Sources: Annand, 1928; B oe rner and Heinze , 1957; Blackman and Eastop , 1994; Havill and Foottit , 2007) 1 variants of A. laricis (Blackman and Eastop , 1994); A. lariciatus and A. laricis DNA different (Havill et al. , 200 7 ) 2 A. cooleyi (Blackman and Eastop , 1994)**A –**  **2** 3 A. piceae based on DNA barcodes (Havill et al. , 2007; Zurovcova et al. , 2010) 4 these species are closely related to P. pini , if not the same species (B lackman and Eastop , 1994) 5 sexupara of P. boycei (Boerner and Heinze , 1957; Blackman and Eastop , 1994) 6P. similis (Blackman and Eastop , 1994)**B –**  **1**

**Appendix B. Host range evaluation of**  **Scymnus (Pullus) coniferarum (Montgomery and**  **McDonald, 2010)**  **Field observations**

. The only hosts of S

. coniferarum reported in the literature are adelgids that feed on pine ( Pineus spp.) (Whitehead , 1967), but while collecting L. nigrinus from western hemlock, it has been found to be common on hemlock. From s amples of trees in landscapes in the Seattle , Washington area , it was also found to be abundant on hemlocks infested with HWA and on western white pine infested with adelgids and aphi ds (Montgomery et al. , 2009; McDonald , 2010). From October 9

- 19, 2004, 1 , 003 S. coniferarum and 1 , 417 L. nigrinus adults were collected from western hemlock (McDonald, pers. obs.). S. coniferarum was also recovered in low numbers on eastern hemlock, Caro lina hemlock, and lodgepole pine growing in arboreta in the Seattle Washington area. The heml ocks were infested with HWA, the white pine with Pineus pinifolia, and the lodgepole pine with another Pineus adelgid that may be P. coloradensis

. It was not found on 13 species of spruce, including the following which had live adelgid galls: Picea glehnii , P. koyamai , P. alcoquiana , and P. sitchensis

. S. coniferarum also was not recovered from Douglas

- fir infested with Adelges cooleyi and larch in fested with Adelges laricis

. It has not been found on broad

- leaved trees, shrubs , or forbs infested with aphids, mealy bugs or scale insects. **Prey acceptance tests.** Several species in the insect s uborder Homoptera that occur in the eastern United States were evaluated in quarantine. First no

- choice tests were conducted in which a single potential prey species on its host is placed in a small covered

- dish with an adult S. coniferarum lady beetle. The beetle’s previous food was HWA, but they were starved for 24

- h ours prior to the test. The number of prey

on the host in each dish was counted at the start of the test and recounted the next day after confinement with an adult beetle. Each test had 10 replicates and was accompanied by control dishes with an HWA adult and 10

- 15 eggs in the ovisac (most eggs were removed so that an accurate before and after count could be made and the adult feeding was disrupted so it stopped laying eggs)

. When confined with potential prey , S. coniferarum fed on all of the adelgid species tested and none o f the other homopteran species (Table 1). Other Scymnus lady beetles that are considered adelgid specialists also feed on aphids, including P. tesselatus (Montgomery et al. , 1997; Butin et al. , 2004).**B –** **2**

**Appendix B**  **, Table 1** 

. Feeding b y adult S. coniferarum when confined for one day on a potential prey

species that occur in the eastern United States. **Prey Species Stage** 

**Tested Host plant**  **No. eaten Remarks**  **Adelgidae** Adelges tsugae Adult/egg Tsuga can a densis 1.0 adults

18.0 eggs Fed 3 adults and 25 eggs

**"** Ny

mph II " 9.9 Fed 10 n ymphs **"** Neosistens " 0.6 Diapausing, not significantly

. different from zero Adelges piceae Adult, eggs Abies balsamea 0.4 adults

4.3 eggs Adelgid on bark Pineus strob i Adult, eggs Pinus strob us 1.4 adults 2.4 eggs Adelgid on twig Pineus pini Adult, eggs P inus sylvestris 0.6 adults

1.2 eggs Adelgid at tip of twig **Aphididae** Eucallipterus tiliae Adults,

ny mphs Tilia

cordata 0.0 on underside of leaf Parap rocipilulus tesselatus 1 Ny

mph I Alnus

serrulata 0.0 Small colonies of the first instar ny mph settled on twig. **Diaspididae** Fiorinia externa A dult T. canadensis 0.0 Crawlers not tested **Pseudococcidae** Dysmicoccus wistariae Ny

mphs Taxus 0.0
1 Additional testing with this species, the woolly alder aphid, found no feeding after 1 0 days of confinement. Of the 1 5 beetles confined with the aphid, 2 died, but none of the control S. coniferarum l ady beetles reared on HWA died. Choice tests were conducted by confining a dult S. coniferarum with a choice of HWA on eastern hemlock or a pine adelgid ( Pineus sp.) on its pine host. The adelgids on pine are smaller, about three

- fourths the size of HWA. There was no consistent preference for HWA compared to pine adelgids (Table 2). **Appendix 2, Table 2** 

. Number of adelgids eaten when provided a choice between a pine adelgid and hemloc k adelgid on their respective hosts

. **Pineus species**  **Source 1**  **Pineus HWA**  **Prefer Variable measured**  Pineus strob i East 49 39 ns # eggs eaten

" 24 9 Pineus sp. # adults eaten Pineus pini East 28 60 H WA # eggs eaten Pineus coloradensis 2 West 125 47 Pineus sp. # eggs eaten 1 Collected in Washington State (West) or Connecticut (East) 2 Tentative identification**B –**  **3**

Host preference for oviposition (egg laying) was examined by placing 10 recentl y received S. coniferarum in a one - gallon oviposition jar with a choice of HWA on eastern hemlock or Pineus strobi on eastern white pine (n = 5 jars). After five

- day s, the white pine foliage had an average of 14 beetle eggs whereas the hemlock foliage had an average of 58 eggs. This preference for hemlock to oviposit corresponds to the finding of more larvae on western hemlock than on western white pin e in the Seattle area. **Host suitability tests with the p ine bark adelgid**  The pine bark adelgid, Pineus strobi Hartig, is native to eastern North America but occurs worldwide wherever species of white pine occur. It colonizes and feeds on both the tip o f twigs and on the bark of eastern white pine, Pinus strobus . This pine often co

- occurs with eastern hemlock in forests; thus, tests were conducted to determine if S. coniferarum could develop successfull y on P. strobi . For this assay , S. coniferarum adul t females were individually confined with adults and eggs of P

. strobi on white pine bark or HWA in Petri dishes at 15 o C. On each host , S. coniferarum oviposited about 0.1 eggs per female per day

. From these eggs, 19 S. coniferarum larvae, less than 24

- hours old, were confined with P. strobi adults and eggs on white pine bark. Onl y 16 percent of the larvae successfully developed t o the adult stage . While these data indicate that S. coniferarum will oviposit and can develop on pine bark ade lg id, the low fecundity and survival is not indicative of a host that would be successfully utilized in nature.