United States Department of Agriculture 

# Field Release of the
Parasitoid **Spathius galinae**  for the Biological
Control of the Emerald Ash Borer ( **Agrilus planipennis**  ) in the
Continental United
States

Environmental Assessment,
November 2014 Marketing and Regulatory Programs

Animal and
Plant Health Inspection
Service

# Field Release of the Parasitoid **Spathius galinae** for the f or the Biological Control of the Emerald Ash Borer ( **Agrilus planipennis**  ) in the Continental
United States

Environmental Assessment,
November 2014

Agency Contact : Shirley Wager

- Page, Ph.D.
Pest Permi tting Plant Protection and Quarantine Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service U.S. Department of Agriculture 4700 River Road, Unit 133 Riverdale, MD 20737

– 1236Non

- Discrimination Policy

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrim ination against its customers, employees, and applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, gender identity, religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital status, familial or parental s tatus, sexual orientation, or all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program, or protected genetic information in employment or in any program or activity conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all prohibited base s will apply to all programs and/or employment activities.)

To File an Employment Complaint

If you wish to file an employment complaint, you must contact your agency's EEO Counselor (PDF) within 45 days of the date of the alleged discriminatory act, ev ent, or in the case of a personnel
action. Additional information can be found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_file.html.

To File a Program Complaint

If you wish to file a Civil Rights program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form (PDF), found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html, or at any USDA office, or call (866) 632

- 9992 to request the form. You may also write a letter containing all of the information req uested in the form. Send your completed complaint form or letter to us by mail at U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250

– 9410, by fax (202) 690

– 7442 or email at program.intak e@usda.gov.

Persons With Disabilities

Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, or have speech disabilities and you wish to file either an EEO or program complaint please contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877

- 8339 or (800) 845

- 61 36 (in Spanish).

Persons with disabilities who wish to file a program complaint, please see information above on how to contact us by mail directly or by email. If you require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, lar ge print, audiotape, etc.) please contact US DA's TARGET Center at (202) 720

– 2600 (voice and TDD).

M en tion o f c o m pan ies o r c o mm er c ial produ c ts in t h i s repor t do e s no t i m p ly re c o m m enda t ion o r endor s e m e n t b y USDA o v e r o t her s no t me n t i oned

. U S D A ne i t he r gu aran t ee s no r w arran ts t h e
st andar d o f an y produ ct m en tio ned

. P rodu c t n a m e s ar e me n t i one d to repor t f a ct ua lly on a v a il ab le
da ta an d to pro v ide s p e c i fic inf o r matio n

.

This pub l i c a tion repor ts re s ear ch i n v o l v i n g pe sti ci d e s. All u s e s o f p e st i cid e s m u s t b e r eg i st ere d b y
appropr i a te St a te an d / o r F edera l agen ci e s be f or e t he y c a n b e r e c o m m ended.

C A U TIO N : P e s t i c id e s c a n b e in j u r io u s to h u m a n s, d o m e st i c an i m a l s

, de sir a b le p la n t s

, an d f i sh and

o t he r w il d l i f e

— if t he y ar e no t hand led o r app li e d prope r l y

. U se a ll p e s t i cid e s s e le ct i ve ly an d c are f u ll y

. Foll o w re c o mme nde d label p r a ct i c e s f o r t h e use and d i s p o s a l o f pe s ti c i d e s an d pe s t i cide c o n t a in er s

.

## Table of Contents

I. Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action

................................ . 1

II. Alternatives

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

III

. Affected Environment

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

I V. Environmental Consequences

................................ ................. 1 0

V. Other Issues

................................ ................................ ............. 2 0

VI

. Agencies, Organizations, and Individuals C onsulted

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

VII. References

................................ ................................ ............. 2 3

## I. Purpose and Need for the Proposed
Action

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Anima l and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ), Pest Permitting Branch is proposing to issue permits for release of the insect parasitoid 1 species Spathius galinae ( S. galinae ) Belokobylskij & Strazanac (Hymenoptera: B raconidae)

. This organism would be used by the permit applicant for biological control of the nonindigenous emerald ash borer (EAB) ( Agrilus planipenni s ) in the continental United States

.

This en vironmental assessment 2 (EA) has been prepared, consisten t with USDA, APHIS' National Environmental Policy Act (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 re lease of the parasitoid wasp, S. galinae , to
control EAB within the continental United States

. This EA considers a “no action” alternative and the potential effects of the proposed action.

The applicant’s purpose for releasing S. galinae is to reduce inf estations of

EAB in the continental United States

. The EAB is an invasive wood

- boring

beetle from Asia threatening North America’s ash trees ( Fraxinus spp.). It was introduced into the Detroit, M ichigan area, probably sometime in the 1990s, and was identi fied as the cause of ash mortality in the area in 2002 (Haack et al., 2002). EAB larvae feed on ash phloem, cutting off the

movement of resources within the tree and killing the tree in 4

- 5 years (Smith

, 2006 ; Knight, 2013 )

. Unlike other Agrilus species th at are attracted

to and attack mainly stressed trees, EAB is able to attack and kill presumably healthy trees in both natural and urban settings. Today, EAB

infestations have been detected in 2 2 states; Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, I owa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. EAB appears well suited for climatic conditions

in North America and destroys entire stands of ash trees

. EAB will continue to disperse along continuous corridors of ash now present in

natural and urban e nvironments due to the w idespread use of ash as a landscape tree.

1 In th is case, small, stingless wasps that during their development, live in the body or egg of a single host individual, eventually killing that individual.

2 Regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42

United States Code 4321 e t seq. ) provide that an environmental assessment “[shall include brief discussions of the need for the proposal, of alternatives as required by section 102(2)(E), of the environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives, and a listing of agenci es and persons consulted.” 40 CFR § 1508.9.

1All of the existing EAB management options (discus sed below) are expensive, temporary, ineffective, and/or include non

- target impacts. For these reasons, there is a need to identify and release an effective, host

specific biological control organism against EAB in the continental United

States.



## II. Alternatives

This section will explain the two alternatives available to APHIS

– PPQ: no action (no issuance of permits) and issuance of permits for environmental

release of S. galinae in the continental United States. Although APHIS’

a lternatives are limited to a decision of whether to issue permits for release

of S. galinae , other methods are described that are currently used to control

EAB in the United States . Use of these control methods is not an APHIS decision, and their use is li kely to continue whether or not APHIS

- PPQ issued permits for environmental release of S. galinae

.

APHIS

– PPQ considered a third alternative but will not analyze it further. Under this third alternative, APHIS

– PPQ would issue permits for the field

release of S. galinae . The permits, however, would contain special provisions or requirements concerning release procedures or mitigating

measures , such as limited releases of S. galinae in the United States. There

are no issues raised i ndicat ing that special pro visions or requirements are

necessary.



### A. No Action

Under the no action alternative, APHIS

– PPQ would not issue permits for

the field release of S. galinae for the control of EAB

— t he release of this biological control agent would not occur, and curren t methods to control

EAB in the United States will continue. Use of these methods is likely to

continue even if APHIS

– PPQ issues permits for release of S. galinae

. Presently, control of EAB in the United States is limited to physical,

chemical

, and biologi cal control methods.

1. Physical Control

In a forest environment, rapid detect ion of EAB presence and destruction

of affected tree materials is the best method to reduce the chance of other

ash trees being attacked in the area

. D ead and dying ash trees s hould be cut

down and chip ped , burn ed , or bur ied on the site

.

22 . Chemical Control

There are several insecticides that may be applied to ash trees ; systemic insecticides and protective cover sprays. Systemic insecticides are applied

and translocated th roughout the tree. Systemic insecticides including imidacloprid, emamectin benzoate, and Bidrin ® may be applied as soil injections or drenches, or may be injected directly into the tree using specialized equipment (Herms et al., 2009). The systemic insect icide dinotefuran can be applied to the bark ; it is absorbed through the bark and distributed throughout the tree (Herms et al., 2009). Protective cover sprays using permethrin, bifenthrin, cyfluthrin, or carbaryl, are applied to the bark and foliage to ta rget adult beetles or EAB larvae as they chew through the bark (Herms et al., 2009)

.

3 . Biological Control

Three parasitoids were discovered parasitizing EAB in China and were approved as biological control agents of EAB in the United States (Liu et

al.

, 2003 ; 2007). These EAB biocontrol agents are: (1) Oobius agrili , a solitary egg parasitoid that has two generations per year (Zhang et al.

, 2005; Bauer and Liu

, 2007), (2) Tetrastichus planipennisi , a larval endoparasitoid that may complete four gene rations per year and produces an average of 57 progeny per EAB larva (Liu et al.

, 2003; 2007; Yang et

al.

, 2006; Ulyshen et al.

, 2010), and (3) Spathius agrili , a larval ectoparasitoid that has two generations per year and produces an average of five prog eny per EAB larva (Yang et al.

, 2010; Gould et al.

, 2011).



### B

. Issue Permits for Environmental Release of **S. galinae** (Preferred Alternative)

Under this alternative, APHIS

– PPQ would issue permits upon reques t and after evaluation of each application for the field release of S. galinae for the

control of EAB in the continental United States . These permits would contain no special provisions or requirements concerning release procedures or mitigating measures.

1. **Spathius galinae** Taxonomic Information

Spathius galinae is an ectoparasitoid attacking 2 nd to 4 th instar EAB larvae.

O viposition (egg laying) by S. galinae on the EAB larva paralyzes it and
stop s its development beyond the larval stage

.

a. Taxonomy: Spa thius galinae (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). No

synonymy or common names.

3b. Location of voucher specimens. Specimen s of S. galinae were deposited in the Zoological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, Ru ssia. Specimens also were depos ited in the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, the American Museum of Natural History, New York (Beloko bylskij et al., 2012), and at the USDA

- Agricultural Research Service ( ARS ) Beneficial

Insects Introduction Rese arch Unit

.

c. Natural geographic range, other areas of introduction, and expected attainable range in North America (also habitat preference and climatic requirements of S. galinae ). Spathius galinae has been collected from Vladivostok and Khaborovsk, Russi a and from Daejeon and Yangsuri , South Korea (Belokobylskij et al.

, 2012 ; Gould and Duan, 2013 ).

The insects used to initiate colonies in the United States were all collected

from EAB populations infesting F raxinus pennsylvanica trees in the

Vladivostok a rea (Duan et al.

, 2012 a ). In contrast, the previously introduced agent S

. agrili was collected primarily from Tianjin, China

, and

it is rare and difficult to collect in Changchun, China. Tianjin, approximately 1

, 000 kilometers south of Vladivostok, is th e source of the S. agrili population released in the United States. T he climatic conditions that are most conducive to population growth of S. galinae or S. agrili are not explicitly known; therefore, climate matching analyse s were conducted

to determine how similar Vladivostok and Tianjin are with the regions of

the United States that are infested with EAB

.
The climate matching feature of the climate analysis software CLIMEX (Hearne Scientific Software Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia) was used. The

softw are calculated a Climate Match Index (CMI) that is a measure of the degree of similarity between a home location and away locations. The index had values between 0, complete dissimilarity, and 1, exact climate

match. Adult Spathius are only present in th e summer, so the adult model for matching was restricted to June 4 through September 30 and was based on minimum temperature, maximum temperature, total precipitation, precipitation pattern, and relative humidity. Because l arvae live under

bark

, the larva l model for matching was based on minimum temperature, maximum temperature, total precipitation, and precipitation pattern for an entire year.

Climate matching analyses comparing Vladivostok and Tianjin to the rest

of Asia indicate that S. agrili and S. ga linae come from climatically unique regions of Asia

. Species adapted to one of these conditions are more likely

to establish and survive well in parts of North America that match these climatic conditions than will other species

. The climate of Tianjin (t he

source area for S. agrili ) is best matched with the climate in the center of

the United States (larval model

– green area in Fig. 1 ) and the southeastern

4United States (adult model

– green area in Fig. 2 ). The areas where

scientists have released and s tudied establishment of S. agrili to date are in the more northern parts of the United States (Michigan, Ohio, Illinois). At these sites, S. agrili does establish, and percentage parasitism after the first winter is sometimes high, but after the first yea r the insects are found in very low numbers or not at all. Climate incompatibility and possible asynchrony between parasitoid and host could certainly contribute to the observed lack of persistence of S. agrili in the northern United States. The

climate matching analysis indicates that S. galinae may be better adapted

than S. agrili for establishment in the northern United States ( green areas in Figs. 3 and 4 )

.

Figure 1 : Climate match between Tianjin

, China (source of S. agrili ) and

North America based on minimum temperature, maximum temperature, total precipitation, and precipitation pattern for the entire year (larval model).

5Figure 2 : Climate match between Tianjin

, China (source of S. agrili ) and North America based on minimum temperatur e, maximum temperature, total precipitation, and precipitation pattern, and relative humidity from June 4

– September 30 (adult model).

Figure 3 : Climate match between Vladivostok

, Russia (source of S. galinae ) and North America based on minimum temp erature, maximum temperature, total precipitation, and precipitation pattern for the entire year (larval model).

6Figure 4 : Climate match between Vladivostok

, Russia (source of S. galinae ) and North America based on minimum temperature, maximum temperatur e, total precipitation, and precipitation pattern, and relative humidity from June 4

– September 30 (adult model).

d. Source of the culture/agent in nature (name of collector, name of identifier). Spathius galinae was collected by USDA

- ARS and USDA

APHIS scientists in collaboration with personnel from t he Russian Far East

Research Institute

, and the insects were described as a new species by Belokobylskij et al. (2012).

e. Life history (including dispersal capability and damage inflicte d on

EAB ). Spathius galinae females search the trunk of ash trees infested with EAB, ovipositing on the larvae through the bark. The EAB is paralyzed and the parasitoid eggs are deposited on the outside of the larva

. From

6

− 15 larvae feed externally on the EAB larva and spin cocoons inside the EAB gallery (Duan et al.

, 2012 a ), eventually chewing through the bark and emerging as adults. In the laboratory, a female lays an average of 31 eggs during her lifetime, which averages 6.8 weeks. Spathius galinae can complete a generation in 3

– 4 weeks under normal rearing conditions (25

– 27 o C, and 16 hours of light :8 h ours of dark photoperiod) and diapause is not obligatory (it does not enter diapause under long day/warm temperature conditions), both of which indic ate that this insect completes at least two generations per year. Sample percentage parasitism on green ash at two

sites near Vladivostok

, Russia averaged approximately 63 percent (Duan et

al.

, 2012 a ); while at a site near Khabarovsk , EAB were attacked by T. planipennisi and S. galinae was not present. Because S. galinae has at least two generations per year, total attack by parasitoids within a single EAB

7generation is likely higher. Although data are not available on the dispersal capability of S. galin ae , they fly strongly and are long lived (10

– 12 weeks), indicating that dispersal capabilities may be high.

f. History of past use of S. galinae

. Spathius galinae has never been used as a biological control agent.

g

. Pathogens, parasites, hyperparasitoids o f S. galinae and how to eliminate them from a culture of the agent. No pathogens, parasitoids, or hyperparasitoids have been observed attacking S. galinae , either in Russia or Korea or in specimens imported to the United States. Only healthy S. galinae ar e used to establish colonies. If any diseased organisms are discovered, they will be sent to insect pathologists for identification

, and hyperparasitoids will be eliminated from the colony. Insects that are subsequently reared in the United States will be maintained in pure culture

and monitored for disease.

h. Standard Operating Procedure s stating how agent will be handled in quarantine. Both the ARS Beneficial Insects Intr oduction Research Unit

and PPQ have well developed quarantine standard operating pr ocedures for handling exotic insects including S

. galinae

. A ll imported (exotic) insects

will be first examined and screened in a well

- confined sample processing

room; any contaminants will be excluded during the process. Spathius galinae will be reared on EAB larvae feeding in small ash logs according to

methods described in Duan et al. (2011; 2013 b ). Spathius galinae females readily parasi tize EAB larvae in these logs. Colonies will be maintained in bioclimatic chambers set at 25oC, 65 percent relative h umidity , and a day length of 16 hours of light and 8 hours of dark

. Under these conditions, S. galinae do es not enter diapause and colonies c an be maintained indefinitely. All material is sterilized before being removed from quarantine.



## III . Affected Envi ronment

A. North American **Agrilus** species

The “Nomina insecta Nearctica ; a che ck list of the insects of North

A merica ” (Poole

, 1997) lists 164 species of Agrilus in North America. Most are not considered pests; however, Solomon (1995) considers 24 Agril us species to cause injury to trees and shrub s under certain

circumstances. Most species of Agrilus are unable to colonize healthy trees; in fact, EAB is not typically a pest of Fraxinus in its native range. Agrilus species typically attack trees that are stressed by factors such as drought, damage from other insects, o r poor silvicultural practices. In some cases their actions may be considered beneficial since they remove sick or

8damaged trees from the forest. Species such as Agrilus anxius Gory (bronze

b irch borer) and Agrilus bilineatus (Weber) (two

- lined chestnut borer) are often considered major pest species in forest and landscape situations, but they are typically acting as secondary pests on already stressed trees or

trees not native to the United S tates

. Agrilus hyperici (Creutzer) has been released as a biological control agent of the weedy St. John’s wort, Hypericum perforatum L., in the western United States and is considered to be contributing to weed suppression in Idaho (Campbell and McCaffery

, 1991). However, St. John’s wort is a perennial herb, not a tree, and grows in meadows, not in forests.



### B. Ash Resources of North America

The known hosts of EAB in the United States are ash trees ( Fraxinus spp.). Twenty

- two s pecies of ash grow in the United States, of which sixteen are native (USDA

, NRCS, 2006 ). Ash species native to North American forests and known to be susceptible to EAB include: white ash ( F. americana ), green ash ( F. pennsylvanica ), and black ash ( F. nigra ), which are major

comp onents of the forest; and blue ash ( F. quadrangulata ) and pumpkin ash ( F. profunda ), which are less common species. There is increasing

evidence that EAB will attack all Fraxinus spp., although susceptibility varies by ash species and variety (Liu et al.

, 2003 ; W ei et al.

, 2004 ; 2007;

Rebek et al.

, 2008; Duan et al.

, 2012 a ).

Ash trees are present as ornamentals, street trees, or timber trees in all of

the lower 48 states except Idaho

. It is estimated that there are more than 7.5

billion ash trees in the U nited States , and unless climate inhibits population growth in the most southern states, all of those trees are at risk of being destroyed by EAB. Each Fraxinus sp ecies is adapted to slightly different habitats within forest ecosystems. Several species ar e tolerant of poorly

drained sites and wet soils, protecting environmentally

- sensitive riparian

areas ; pure stands of black ash grow in bogs and swamps in northern areas where they provide browse, thermal cover, and protection for wildlife such

as deer and moose. In agricultural and shelterbelt areas, ash provides vital shelter for livestock; for example, about 25 percent of all trees in North

Dakota are Fraxinus spp. Bark of young ash trees is a favored food of mammals including beaver, rabbit, and porcu pines; older trees provide habitat for cavity

- nesting birds such as wood ducks, woodpeckers, chickadees, and nuthatches; seeds are consumed by ducks, song and game birds, small mammals, and insects.

Ash timber is valued for applications requiring strong, h ard wood, but with less rigidity than maple. In the e astern United States , a net volume of 114 billion board feet of ash sawtimber is harvested, comprising 7.5 percent of the volume of all hardwood species (F R , 2003) . In 2001, ash accounted for

over 149 m illion board feet of timber products produced in the U nited

9States . White ash is the primary commercial hardwood used in production of tool handles, baseball bats, furniture, flooring, containers, railroad cars and ties, canoe paddles, snowshoes, boats, d oors, and cabinets; green ash is used for both solid wood applications such as crating, boxes, handles, and for fiber in the manufacture of high grade paper; black ash is typically used for interior furniture, cabinets (FR, 2003) , and Northeastern Native

A mericans require ash for the art of basketry.

Beyond manufacturing, ash trees play an important role in the urban landscape due to their historical resistance to pests and tolerance of adverse growing conditions, such as soil compaction and drought. Many of the ash trees that now serve as street, shade, and landscape trees were planted to replace elm trees destroyed by Dutch elm disease; ash trees now comprise

5

− 20 percent of all street trees throughout North America. In the United

States , urban areas co ver a bout 3.5 percent of the total land area, contain

more than 75 percent of the population, and support about 3.8 billion trees. The City of Chicago has approximately 603,000 ash trees that provide 14.4
percent of leaf area (F R, 2003). Trees are consid ered vital to the health of cities because they sequester gaseous air pollutants and particulate matter, help people conserve energy through the shade they provide, assist in the dispersal of storm water, provide shelter belts for urban fauna, and

contribu te aesthetic pleasure to the lives of city

- dwellers and tourists. Ash

is a vital component of the urban forest.



## I V

. Environmental Consequences

A. No Action Alternative

1. Impact of EAB

EAB is an invasive wood

- boring beetle that is spreading rapidl y and poses a serious threat to ash trees in the United States if not controlled. Despite state and federal quarantines designed to contain EAB, th er e is a lack of

effective methods to detect and control EAB. Besides natural dispersal, the spread of EAB has been accelerated through human

- assisted movement of infested ash firewood, timber, solid

- wood packing materials, and nursery

stock. As EAB spreads throughout North America, regulatory agencies, land managers, and the public are seeking sustainable mana gement tools to reduce EAB population densities and to slow its spread (Cappaert et al., 2005; GAO, 2006; Poland and McCullough, 2006). Since its discovery,

EAB has k illed tens of millions of ash trees and has c ost municipalities,
property owners, nursery operators and forest products industries tens of

millions of dollars.

10Trees in the genus Fraxinus are important components of many forested ecosystems throughout North America and are planted extensively as urban

and shelterbelt trees. USDA Forest Serv ice Forest Inventory and Analysis estimates that establishment of EAB throughout the United States could

result in loss of approximately 2.6 percent of trees in timberlands or 7.5 billion trees (USDA FS

, 2006). White, blue, and Oregon ash grow on

fertile uplands and river terraces; green, black, Carolina, and pumpkin ash are wetland species; and velvet and single

- leaf ash grow in semi

- deserts and canyons. If EAB populations are not managed, ash resources throughout North America will be devastated (MacFar lane and Meyer

, 2005). The loss of ash over large geographical areas will adversely affect water, soil, and air, resources. Ash is an important riparian tree and is often found along river banks. Removing ash from stream banks will affect bank

soil rete ntion and stream processes.

2. Impact from the Use of Other EAB Control Methods

The continued use of physical, chemical

, and biological control at current levels would result if the “no action” alternative is chosen, and may continue even if permits are issued for environmental release of S. galinae

.

a. Physical Control

Although physical control may slow the spread of EAB to other ash trees in an area, this method is not effective at controlling the EAB population. It is likely that ash trees in the a rea will eventually become infested.

b . Chemical Control

Insecticide t reatment of ash trees for EAB control is inconsistent in

effectiveness , especially on larger trees

. Results have been mixed in insecticide efficacy studies; i n some sites, insectici des are effective but fail

in other sites (Herms et al., 2009)

. In addition, insecticide treatment does not guarantee that the tree will be protected from EAB attack. Trees with greater than 50 percent canopy loss are unlikely to recover even if treated

w ith insecticides (Herms et al., 2009). Foliar and bark treatments can result in pesticide drift that affects non

- target organisms in the treatment area, and trunk injections can cause damage to the injected tree. Insecticide treatments can be costly, espec ially on large trees and must be repeated annually to be effective , although emamectin benzoate is effective for two years or longer (Herms et al., 2009)

.

Insecticide treatments are useful to protect certain high value trees but are not practical for co ntrolling EAB over a large area or forest situation. Besides being costly, there are label restrictions on the amount of insecticide that can be applied per acre per year.

11c . Biological Control

All three parasitoid species that have been previously r eleased against EAB ( Oobius agrili

, Tetrastichus planipennisi

, and Spathius agrili ) have been recovered following release in the United States; however, only T. planipennisi and O. agrili have been recovered consistently more than one year after release. A t two sites in Michigan , parasitism by O. agrili

increased from 3

- 4 percent in the year of release to 20

– 28 percent two years later. Tetrastichis planipennisi

, a stronger flier than O. agrili, has effectively spread and established . At six intensively st udied sites in Michigan , 92 percent of the trees at the release site contained at least one

brood of T. planipennisi four years after release, and parasitism levels increased steadily to an average of over 20 percent (Duan et al.

, 2013 a ). Parasitism by T. planipennisi at the six control sites (at least 1 kilometer away) also increased yearly to an average level of 13 percent. The story

was not the same for S. agrili . At a release site near Hawley, Michigan , 18
percent of the EAB were parasitized by S. ag rili after one year; however, a sample of 40 entire trees the following year revealed not a single parasitoid. At another site, parasitism one year after release was 45 percent , two broods were discovered the following year and two broods were recovered

i n 2011, but parasitism by S. agrili has been very low. At the six intensively sampled study sites, S. agrili was recovered in yellow pan traps, but only two EAB larvae parasitized by this species have been recovered

after 2

– 5 years of sampling. One possi ble explanation is that S. agrili was collected from Tianjin, China, which is near the southern limit of the EAB distribution in China, and the climate there is a better match for the central

rather than the northern United States

. There may be a problem with synchrony between the emergence of adult S. agrili and availability of the mature EAB larvae that they attack.

Although O. agrili and T. planipennisi are establishing and dispersing, both have limitations that affect their ability to successfully con trol EAB populations. Oobius agrili is a very small insect, dispersing much more slowly than T. planipennisi

. It is also solitary, with only one adult emerging from an EAB egg, although it is important because it prevents damage to the phloem caused by EAB larvae. Tetrastichus planipennisi is a gregarious larval parasitoid, producing an average of 57 adults per EAB larva (Liu et

al.

, 2003; 2007; Yang et al.

, 2006; Ulyshen et al.

, 2010); however, it is a relatively small insect with a short ovipositor (egg

- l aying organ) and cannot parasitize EAB larvae under the thick bark of larger trees (Abell et

al

., 2012). Tetrastichus planipennisi cannot oviposit in bark thicker than

3.2 millimeters ( mm ) , which means it is limited to attacking EAB in the top

of mature t rees or in smaller trees (stems <11.2 centimeters ( cm ) diameter). It is anticipated that T. planipennisi will be most effective in stands of small, early successional ash rather than in mature forests.

12

### B. Bio logical control alternative (preferred alt ernative)

1. Environmental and Economic Impacts of the Proposed
Release of **S. galinae** 

a. Known impact on vertebrates including humans: Spathius galinae is an obligate parasitoid of wood boring larvae, specifically EAB . As such, it will rarely come in to contact with humans or other vertebrates, and if it does, it is incapable of stinging or biting. Braconid wasps have no known adverse impacts on humans or other vertebrates.

b. Direct impact of S. galinae (e.g.

, intended effects on EAB , direct

effects on non

- targets). Percentage parasitism by S. galinae in Russia can

reach 63 percent in stands of green ash ( Fraxinus pennsylvanica ) (Duan et

al.

, 2012 a ). Because S. galinae has at least two generations per year compared with just one (univoltine) or hal f (semivoltine) for EAB, generational percentage parasitism will be greater than that measured during a single collection. Spathius galinae clearly has the potential to cause considerable mortality to EAB populations. In Asia, it is probable

that EAB is not typically a pest because of the interaction between host plant resistance and natural enemies. While it is clear that American ash species are not resistant to EAB per se, they can withstand some attack as evidenced by callusing of EAB galleries, and w oodpeckers can remove a considerable percentage of overwintering larvae. In Michigan, 32 to 42
percent of EAB larvae were removed by woodpeckers (Duan et al.

, 2010 ; 2013 a ) and a 2012 study at sites in Ulster C ounty in New York found that woodpeckers remov ed between 40 and 65 percent of mature EAB larvae (Gould and Vandenberg , unpublished )

. Duan et al. (2010) also found that tree defenses in lightly infested young green ash ki lled 10 to 12 percent of

EAB larvae. Spathius galinae will not have to cause 100 p ercent mortality of EAB to beneficially affect the health of ash stands, because ash can successfully withstand some attack.

To evaluate the effects of S. galinae on non

- target insect species , no

- choice and choice host specificity tests were conducted in the United States to determine the physiological host range of S. galinae and possible direct

effects on non

- target species. Between 2011 and 2013, 15 North American species of wood

- boring insects were exposed to S. galinae by scientists at

the ARS Benefic ial Insects Introduction Research Unit and PPQ to assess the parasitoid’s host range. Spathius galinae finds hosts to parasitize by using cues associated with sounds or vibrations produced by feeding borer larvae. Studies have shown that they do not attac k prepupae or molting larvae that are not feeding (Duan et al.

, 2013c). All test larvae, therefore, had to be feeding inside their natural hosts during testing. To accomplish this, bark flaps were created in 4

- 8 cm diameter logs and a 3 cm long

groove wa s drilled underneath each flap. The test larvae were placed in

13these grooves, and the flaps were reassembled and secured with rubber bands. The logs were placed into plastic jars that contained five one

- week

old S. galinae females and one male. The para sitoids were fed honey

streaked on the fabric covering the lid of the jars. Every time a test was

initiated with one or more non

- target hosts, the same number of EAB larvae was tested in ash as a positive control to demonstrate that the wasps

used in the tests were physiologically ready to attack suitable hosts. After two weeks, the larvae were checked to determine if they were parasitized. All parasitized larvae were held for at least 4 weeks to determine if S. galinae could develop to the adult stage. For the choice tests, gravid

females of S. galinae were presented simultaneously to both an ash log containing five target host larvae (EAB) and an ash or non

- ash log containing five non

- target host larvae in a test arena (ventilated

- clear polystyrene cris per boxes

, each 17.6 × 12.6 × 10 cm, Tri

- State Plastics, Latonia, KY) . After a period of 2

- weeks of exposure, the logs were incubated in normal rearing conditions for two weeks and scored for parasitism by S. galina e as previously described for the no

- choic e test.

The larvae of fifteen wood

- boring insects were tested to assess the host specificity of S. galinae (Table 1). Emphasis was placed on species closely related to the target pest or those feeding on ash. Thirteen species were

wood

- boring beetle s; one clearwing moth (Lepidoptera: Sesiidae) and one sawfly (Hymenoptera: Cephidae) were also tested . Of the beetles, five were in the genus Agrilus, and were thus closely related to the EAB, and another was in the same family (Buprestidae). Three of th e tested insects, the longhorned beetle Neoclytus acuminatus ; the clearwinged moth

Podosesia spp.; and the eastern ash bark beetle, Hylesinus fraxini attack ash as their main host and would be susceptible to parasitism if S. galinae accepts any boring inse cts infesting ash.

Spathius galinae only attacked one species other than the EAB, and that was the gold spotted oak borer, Agrilus auroguttatus in red oak. The rate of parasitism was, however, considerably less (41 percent ) on the non

target host than o n the EAB (71 percent ) under test conditions tha t strongly favored parasitism. Spathius galinae did not attack any of the other three species infesting red oak, nor did they attack any of the other Agrilus or any of the three non

- Agrilus species infesting ash.

14Table 1. Host specificity testing of S. galinae against sixteen species of wood

- boring insects. EAB larvae were used in each trial as a positive control ( from Gould and Duan, 2013 ).

Test Species Order/Family Choice

or no choice Host

Plant No. of

R eplicates #

viable

hosts Parasitism

Rate S. galinae Progeny Per Host ( + SE)

Agrilus anxius Coleoptera: Buprestidae none Birch 5 18 0%

Agrilus planipennis Coleoptera: Buprestidae none Ash 5 12 67% 8.0 + 1.4

Agrilus anxius Coleoptera: Buprestidae choice Birch 5 11 0%

Agrilus planipennis Coleoptera: Buprestidae choice Ash 5 23 91% 6.7 + 0.3

Agrilus masculinus Coleoptera: Buprestidae none Maple 16 42 0%

Agrilus planipennis Coleoptera: Buprestidae none Ash 15 52 33% 7.1 + 0.5

Agrilus sulcicollis Cole optera: Buprestidae none Red Oak 10 38 0%

Agrilus bilineatus Coleoptera: Buprestidae none Red Oak 10 45 0%

Agrilus planipennis Coleoptera: Buprestidae none Ash 10 37 62% 5.6 + 0.7

Agrilus auroguttatus Coleoptera: Buprestidae none Red Oak 10 44 41% 5.4 + 1.4

Unknown C erambycidae Coleoptera: Cerambycidae none Red Oak 10 48 0%

Agrilus planipennis Coleoptera: Buprestidae none Ash 10 48 71% 5.8 + 0.7

Chrysobothris spp. Coleoptera: Buprestidae none Maple 4 12 0%

Agrilus planipennis Coleoptera: Bup restidae none Ash 4 17 65% 5.4 + 1.3

Anoplophora glabripennis Coleoptera: Cerambycidae none Maple 13 65 0%

Agrilus planipennis Coleoptera: Buprestidae none Ash 9 44 57% 5.1 + 0.8

15Test Species Order/Family Choice

or no choice Host

Plant No. of Replic ates #

viable

hosts Parasitism

Rate S. g alinae Progeny Per Host ( + SE)

Anoplophora glabripennis Coleoptera: Cerambycidae choice Maple 9 20 0%

Agrilus planipennis Coleoptera: Buprestidae choice Ash 9 32 100% 7.0 + 0.4

Elaphidion mucronatum Coleoptera: Cerambycidae none Maple 10 38 0%

Agrilus planipennis Coleoptera: Buprestidae none Ash 10 45 29% 4.2 + 0.9

Neoclytus acuminatus Coleoptera: Cerambycidae none Ash 11 49 0%

Agrilus planipennis Coleoptera: Buprestidae none Ash 11 36 83% 3.6 + 0.7

Neocl ytus acuminatus Coleoptera: Cerambycidae none Maple 10 41 0%

Agrilus planipennis Coleoptera: Buprestidae none Ash 10 38 47% 5.7 + 0.7

Urographus fasciatus Coleoptera: Cerambycidae none Maple 6 25 0%

Agrilus planipennis Coleoptera: Buprestidae none A sh 9 32 50% 5.6 + 0.9

Isorhipis obliqua Coleoptera: Eucnemidae none Maple 6 15 0%

Agrilus planipennis Coleoptera: Buprestidae none Ash 6 10 30% 8.0 + 1.0

Hylesinus fraxini Coleoptera: Curculionidae none Ash 10 52 0%

Agrilus planipennis Coleoptera: Buprestidae none Ash 10 42 98% 4.5 + 0.5

Podosesia spp. Lepidoptera: Sesiidae none Ash 6 24 0%

Agrilus planipennis Coleoptera: Buprestidae none Ash 6 22 36% 6.3 + 1.1

Janus abbreviatus Hymenoptera: Cephidae none Willow 10 37 0%

Agrilus planipennis Coleoptera: Buprestidae none Ash 15 55 78% 5.7 + 0.8

162

. Effects on the Physical Environment and Indirect Effects of
the Release of **S. galinae**

a. Effects on physical environment (e.g. water, soil and air resources): Trees in the genus Fraxinus are imp ortant components of many forested ecosystems throughout North America and are planted extensively as urban and shelterbelt trees. USDA Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis estimates that establishment of EAB throughout the United

States could res ult in loss of approximately 2.6 percent of trees in U.S. timberlands or 7.5 billion trees (USDA

, FS

, 2006). White, blue, and Oregon ash grow on fertile uplands and river terraces; green, black, Carolina, and pumpkin ash are wetland species; and velvet an d single

- leaf ash grow in semi

- deserts and canyons. If EAB populations are not managed, ash resources throughout North America could be devastated (MacFarlane and Meyer

, 2005). The loss of ash over large geographical areas will adversely affect water, so il, and air, resources. Ash is an important riparian tree and is often found along river banks. Removing ash from stream banks will affect bank soil retention and stream processes. The successful deployment of EAB biocontrol agents such as S. galinae

wil l have a positive impact on the physical environment by moderating EAB population increase, thus limiting tree damage. Conservation of ash

trees in North American timberlands and urban forests will result in less flooding and soil erosion and moderate cha nges in air quality.

b. Indirect effects (e.g. potential impacts on organisms that depend on

EAB or non

- target species including potential competition with resident biological control agents). Successful management of EAB using biological control agents, including S. galinae , will result in positive, indirect effects on U.S. municipalities, land owners, wood industries, Native American basketry, air quality, forest biodiversity, wildlife, riparian areas

, wildlife, and organisms dependent on Fraxinus

spp. (e.g., the cerambycid : red

- headed ash borer, Neoclytus acuminatus ; the sphingid: great ash sphinx, Sphinx cher s is )

. Organisms most directly affected by EAB

- associated ash demise will be those directly dependent

on ash trees

, such as ash

- specialist plant

- fe eding arthropods (Gandhi and

Herms

, 2010), including several Lepidoptera (butterflies, moths, and skippers) species identified at high risk of endangerment (Wagner

, 2007)

. Fraxinus pennsylvanica provides food and nesting for songbirds and food

and shelter for mammals ( USDA, NRCS

, 2003). Fraxinus nigra seeds are consumed by game birds, songbirds and small mammals and used as browse by white

- tailed deer and moose (Wright et al.

, 1990). Beavers also use ash as a food resource (Henry and Bookhout

, 1970).

Th e indirect effects on a few biological control projects that utilize Agrilus species to control weeds must be considered

. Agrilus hyperici was released against Klamath weed (St. John’s wort) in the western United

17States and has shown mixed results. In nor thern Idaho it is beneficial in assisting two Klamath weed beetles, Chrysolina sp., in controlling the target weed (Campbell and McCaffery

, 1991), but in California it has been displaced by Chrysolina quadrigemina (McCaffrey et al.

, 1995). Agrilus hyperici is a root feeder acting on a rangeland weed and it is not likely to come in contact with populations of S. galinae

. Another exotic buprestid, Sphenoptera jugoslavica , also a root feeder, was released against spotted, diffuse, and squarrose knapweeds. Spat hius galinae attacks larvae in

branches an d trunks in forest ecosystems. It is unlikely that S. galinae will be attracted to rangeland habitats or to attack larvae in t he roots of herbaceous plants. Spathius galinae is not known to search for hosts undergr ound and is not likely to attack A. hyperici or S. jugoslavica

.

3

. Uncertainties Regarding the Environmental R elease of **S. galinae** 

**.**

Once a biological control agent such as S. galinae is released into the

environment and become s established, there is a s light possibility that it could move from the target insect (EAB) to attack nontarget insects , such

as native Agrilus species

. Based on host specificity testing conducted, S. galinae only attacked one species other than the EAB, and that was the gold spott ed oak borer, Agrilus auroguttatus

, in red oak. The rate of parasitism was considerably less (41 percent) on the non

- target host than on EAB (71 percent) under test conditions that strongly favored parasitism

. Nativ e species that are closely related to th e target species are the most likely to be attacked (Louda et al., 2003)

. If other insect species were to be attacked by S. galinae , the resulting effects could be environmental impacts th at may not be easily reversed. Biological control agents such as S. galinae generally spread without intervention by man. In principle, therefore, release of these parasitoids at even one site should be considered equivalent to release over the entire area in which potential

hosts occur and in which the climate is suitable for re production and

survival. Post

- release evaluations of S. galinae populations and their

effects on EAB and other non

- target species will be conducted by the permittee

.

In addition, these agents may not be successful in reducing EAB populations in the continental United States. Approximately 12 percent of all parasitoid introductions have led to significant sustained control of the target pests, but the majority of int ro ductions have failed to provide control of the pest (Greathead and Great head, 1992) either because

intro duction did not lead to establishment or establishment did not lead to control (Lane et al., 1999). Actual impacts on EAB populations by S. galinae will not be known until after release occurs and post

- release monitoring has been condu cted. For instance, although Oobius agrili and

18Tetrastichus planipennisi are establishing and dispersing, both have limitations that affect their ability to successfully control EAB populations

that were not known until after their release . Para si tism of EAB by Spathius agrili has also been much lower than expected.

T he environmental consequences discussed under the “no action” alternative may occur even with the implementation of the biological control alternative, depending on the efficacy of S. galinae

, in combination with the other organisms released for biological control of EAB, to reduce EAB populations in the continental United States.

4 . Cumulative Impacts

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

results from the i ncremental impact of the action when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agencies or person undertakes such other actions” (40 CFR 1508.7).

APHIS has put q uarantines in place to prevent the movement of EAB out

of EAB

- infested areas of the United States (7 CFR Subpart 301.53) . This area may expand as new infestations are discovered. Quarantines are put in place to prevent the artificial spread of EAB through movement of

infested firewood or other inf ested wood materials. In addition, APHIS, in cooperation with the appropriate State Departments of Agriculture,

conduct s survey program to determine new areas of EAB infestation

. These methods do not control EAB but slow the spread or provide

infestation information to state departments of agriculture for implementation of quarantines.

Homeowners apply insecticides or hire arborists and tree care professionals to make applications to protect high

- value ash trees in the landscape. Landowners may conduc t a salvage harvest should EAB be

detected in their ash trees. Insecticide applications and tree removals provide a temporary local reduction of EAB but do not result in long term

control.

Because little can be done to control EAB, r esearch is being condu cted at

universities and by Federal agencies to understand the beetle's life cycle and find ways to detect new infestations, control EAB adults and larvae,

and contain the infestation.

Release of S. galinae will have no negative cumulative impacts in the

continental United States because of its host specificity to EAB , other than potential impacts on non

- target Agrilus species such as the gold spotted oak borer, Agrilus auroguttatus

. However, based on host

- specificity testing conducted, impacts to non

- target Agrilus spp. are expected to be

19minimal because S. galinae clearly preferred EAB. Effective bio logical control of EAB will have beneficial effects to current EAB management activities, and may result in protection of ash resources and reduction in

removals of infested trees.

5

. Endangered Species Act

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 federal ly listed threatened

or endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse modification

of critical habitat.

Only one wood boring insect is listed as threatened under the ESA , the valley elderberry longhorned beetle ( Desmocerus californicus dimo rphus ) and none are listed as endangered. The valley elderberry longhorned beetle mines the interior wood of the host plant, which must be at least 2.5 cm in diameter (Paine et al.

, 2004), where it would not be accessible to the relatively short oviposito r of S. galinae . In addition, the valley elderberry longhorned borer is not closely related to EAB, and elderberry is not closely related to ash. Therefore, release of S. galinae will have no effect on the valley elderberry longhorned beetle or its design ated critical

habitat. Spathius galinae must attack its hosts, even EAB, as they are feeding beneath the bark of trees; therefore S. galinae will have no effect

on any other threatened or endangered insects (or their critical habitat)

, which are all extern al feeders.



## V

. Other Issues

Consistent with Executive Order (EO) 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low

- income Populations,” APHIS considered the potential for disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any minority populations and low

- income populations. No environmental or human health effects from the proposed action are expected and there will be no disproportionate adverse effects to any mino rity or low

- income populations.

Consistent with EO 13045, “Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks,” APHIS considered the potential for disproportionately high and adverse environmental health and safety risks

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

environmental reviews are involved in implementing the preferred alternative. Therefore, it is expected that no disproportionate effects on children are anticipated as a consequence of implementi ng the preferred

20alternative.

EO 1317 5

, “ Consultation and Coo r dination with Indian Tribal

Govern m ents ” , w a s issued to ensure t h at there would be “ m eaningful

consultation and collaboration with tribal officials in the dev e lop m ent of Federal policies that h ave tribal i mpli c ations....” Consistent w ith EO

131 7 5, i n April and May, 2014

, APHIS sent letters of notification and requests for comment and consultation on this proposed action to tribes in

32 states , reflecting the very wide national distribution of ash ( Fraxinus spp.) in the lower 48 states. APHIS recei ved responses from the Quartz Valley Indian Reservation (California), the Sokaogon Chippewa Community (Wisconsin), and the Hoult on Band of Maliseets (Maine). In June, 2014, APHIS conducted a phone conversation with the S eneca Nation ( N ew York ) who expressed support at the end of the call. Contacts were made informally with other tribes in N ew York, followed by calls in July and August 1 , 2014 . On August 1, APHIS officials participated in informal consultation, via telephone, with represen tatives fro m the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe and the Shinnecock Nation, both in New York . The Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe supported the action, while the Shinnecock

Nation wished to further examine the documents. The Shinnecock Nation subsequently indicated they had no further questions. S ome of these tribes have expressed interest in participating in S . galinae releases and monitoring activities. A P HIS will continue to consult and c o llaborate

with Indian tri b al officials to ensure that they are wel l

- infor m ed and
represent e d in policy a nd program decisions th a t m ay i m pact t heir agricultural interests, in accorda n ce with EO 1 3175

.

21

## V I

. Agencies, Organizations, and
Ind ividuals Consulted

This EA was prepared and reviewed by APHIS. The addresses of participating APHIS units, cooperators, and consultants (as applicable)

follow.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Plant Protection an d Quarantine Otis Pest Survey, Detection, and Exclusion Laboratory Building 1398 Otis ANGB, MA 02542

- 5008

U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Policy and Program Development

Environmental and Risk Analysis Services

4 700 River Road, Unit 149 Riverdale, MD 20737

– 1238

22

## V II . References

Abell, K.J., J.J. Duan, L. Bauer, J.P. Lelito, and R.G. Van Driesche. 2012. The effect of bark thickness on host partitioning between Tetrastichus planipennisi (Hymen: Eulophidae) and Atanycolus spp. (Hymen: Braconidae), two parasitoids of emerald ash borer (Coleop: Buprestidae). Biological Control. 63: 320

− 325.

Bauer, L. S.

, and H

- P. Liu. 2007. Oobius agrili (Hymentoptera: Encyrtidae), a solitary egg parasitoid of emerald ash borer from China, pp.

63

− 64. In: Proceedings of the 2006 Emerald Ash Borer Research and Development Meeting. USDA Forest Service FHTET.

Belokobylskij, S.A., G.I. Yurchenko, J.S. Strazanac, Al. Zaldi’var

Riveron, and V. Mastro. 2012. A new emerald ash borer (C oleoptera: Buprestidae) parasitoid species of Spathius Nees (Hymenoptera: Braconidae: Doryctinae) from the Russian Far East and South Korea.

Ann

. Entomol

. Soc

. Am

. 105: 165

− 178.

Campbell, C.L.

, and J.P. McCaffery. 1991. Population trends, seasonal

peno logy, and impact of Chrysolina quadrigemina, C. hyperici (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), and Agrilus hyperici (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) associated with Hypericum perforatum in northern Idaho.

Environ

. Entomol

. 20: 303

− 315.

Cappea rt, D., D.G. McCullough, T.M . Poland, and N. W. Siegert. 2005. Emerald ash borer in North America: a research and regulatory challenge.

Am. Entomol. 51: 152

− 165.

Duan, J.J., M.D. Ulyshen, L.S. Bauer, J. Gould, and R. Van Driesche. 2010. Measuring the impact of biotic factors on po pulations of immature emerald ash borers (Coleoptera: Buprestidae). Environ

. Entomol. 39:

1513

– 1522.

Duan, J. J., T. Watt, and C. B. Oppel. 2011. An alternative host plant

based method for laboratory rearing of emerald ash borer to produce larval parasi toids for biological control, pp. 3. In : Lance, D and V. Mastro [ eds ]

. Proceedings of Emerald Ash Borer Research and Technology Meeting,

October 10

– 23, 2011, Wooster Ohio.

Duan, J.J., G. Yurchenko, and R. Fuester. 2012a. Occurrence of Emerald

Ash B orer (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) and Biotic Factors Affecting Its Immature Stages in the Russian Far East. Environ

. Entomol

. 41: 245

– 254.

23Duan , J.J., L.S. Bauer, K. J. Abell, J.P. Lelito, and R.G. van Drieshe 2013 a

. E stablishment and abundance of Tetrastich us planipennisi (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae) in Michigan: Potential for success in classical biocontrol of the invasive emerald ash borer (Coleoptera: Buprestidae). Journal of Economic Entomology (accepted with minor revision)

.

Duan, J.J., T. Watt., and K. L arson. 2013 b

. Laboratory Rearing, Biology and Life History of Spathius galinae (Hymenoptera: Braconidae), a Larval Parasitoid of the Invasive Emerald Ash Borer (Coleoptera: Buprestidae). Journal of Economic Entomology (submitted/in review).

Federal Regi ster. 2003. Emerald ash borer: Quarantine and Regulations. 7 CFR Part 301 [Docket No. 02

- 125

- 1]

Federal Register. 2007. Availability of an environmental assessment for the proposed release of three parasitoids for the biological control of the

emerald as h borer ( Agrilus planipennis ) in the continental United States. Federal Register 72: 28947

– 28948 [Docket No. APHIS

- 2007

- 006]. regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS

- 2007

- 0060

.

FR

— see Federal Register.

Government Accounting Office

. 2006. Invasive Fore st Pests : Lessons Learned from Three Recent Infestations May Aid in Managing Future

Efforts. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06353.pdf

Gandhi, K. J.K. and D. A. Herms. 2010. North American arthropods at risk due to widespread Fraxinus mortality caused by the alien emerald ash

borer. Biol. Invasions. 12: 1839

– 1846.

GAO

— see Government Accounting Office

.

Gould, J.R., T. Ayer, and I. Fraser. 2011. Effects of rearing conditions on reproduction of Spathi us agrili (Hymenoptera: Braconidae), a parasitoid

of the emerald ash borer. J. Econ. Entomol. 104: 379

– 387.

Gould, J.R., and J.J. Duan. 2013. Petition for release of an e xotic

p arasitoid, Spathius galinae Belokobylskij & Strazanac, for the b iological

c on trol of the emerald ash b orer, Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire

. Submitted to USDA, APHIS. 29 pp.

Greathead, D. and A.H. Greathead. 1992. Biological control of insect pests by parasitoids and predators: the BIOCAT database. Biocontrol

News and Informa tion. 13: 61N

- 68N.

Haack, R. A., E. Jendek, H

- P Liu, T. Petrice, T.M. Poland, and H. Ye.

242002. The emerald ash borer: a new exotic pest in North America. Michigan Entomol. Soc. Newslett. 47: 1

– 5.

Henry, D.B. and T.A. Bookhout. 1970. Utilization of woo dy plants by

beavers in northeastern Ohio. The Ohio Journal of Science

. 70: 123

– 127.

Herms

, D

. A

. , D.G. McCullough

, D.R. Smitley, C. Sadof, R.C. Williamson

and P.L. Nixon. 2009. Insecticide options for protecting ash trees from

emerald ash borer. North Ce ntral IPM Center Bulletin. 12 pp.

Knight, K.S., J.P. Brown , and R.P. Long. 2013. Factors affecting the survival of ash ( Fraxinus spp.) trees infested by emerald ash borer ( Agrilus planipennis ) . Biological Invasions. 15: 371

– 383.

Kozlowski , T.T. 2002. Phy siological

- ecological impacts of flooding on ripar ian forest ecosystems. Wetlands. 22: 550

– 561.

Lane, S.D., Mills, N.J., and Getz, W.M. 1999. The effects of parasitoid fecundity and host taxon on the biological control of insect pests: the

relationshi p between theory and data. Ecological Entomology.

24:181

− 190.

Liu, H

- P., L.S. Bauer, R

- T. Gao, T.H. Zhao, T. R. Petrice, and R A. Haack. 2003. Exploratory survey for the emerald ash borer, Agrilus planipennis (Coleoptera: Buprestidae), and its natural enemies in China. The Great

Lakes Entomol. 36: 191

– 204.

Liu , H

- P., L.S. Bauer, D.L. Miller, T

- H

. Zhao, R

- T. Gao, L

- W. Song, Q

- S.
Luan, R

- Z. Jin, and C

- Q. Gao. 2007. Seasonal abundance of Agrilus planipennis (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) and its natural enemies Oobius agrili (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae) and Tetrastichus p lanipennisi (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae) in China. Biol. Control. 42: 61

– 71.

Louda, S.M., R.W. Pemberton, M.T. Johnson, and P.A. Follet t. 2003. Nontarget effects−The Achilles’ Heel of biological control? Retrospective analyses to reduce risk associated with biocontrol introductions. Annual Review of Entomology. 48: 365

– 396.

MacFarlane, D.W., and S. P Meyer. 2005. Characteristics and distribution of potential ash tree hosts for emerald ash borer. Forest Ecology and Management

. 213: 15

– 24.

McCaffrey, J.P., C.L. Campbell, and L.A. Andres. 1995. St. Johnswort. pp. 281

- 285

. In : Nechols, J.R., L.A. Andres, J.W. Beardsley, R.D. Goeden, a nd C.G. Jackson [ eds. ]. Biological Control in the Western United States. University of California Division of Agriculture and

25Natural Resources Publication 3361.

Paine, T.D. , J.G. Millar, and L.M. Hanks. 2004. Host preference testing for parasitoids of a eucalyptus borer in California. pp. 138

– 142

. In R .G. Van Driesche and R.Reardon [ eds. ]. Assessing host ranges for parasitoids and predators used for classical biological control: a guide to best practices. Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team 2004

- 0 3. USDA

Forest Service, Morgantown, West Virginia, USA.

Poland, T. M., D.G. McCullough. 2006. Emerald ash borer: invasion of

the urban forest and the threat to North America’s ash resource. J. Forestry

. 104: 118

– 124.

Poole, R.W. 1997. Nomina Insecta N eartica: a check list of insects of North America. Nomina series volume 1. pp. 64

– 66.

Rebek, E. J., D. A. Herms, and D. R. Smitley. 2008. Interspecific variation in resistance to emerald ash borer (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) among North

American and Asian a sh ( Fraxinus spp.). Environ

. Entomol

. 37: 242

– 246.

Smith, A. 2006. Effects of community structure on forest susceptibility and response to the emerald ash borer invasion of the Huron River watershed in southeast Michigan. M.S. Thesis, The Ohio State Unive rsity.

Solomon, J.D. 1995. Guide to insect borers of North American broadleaf

trees and shrubs. A g ric. Handbk. 706. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

Ulyshen, M. D., J. J. Duan, and L. S. Bauer. 2010. Suitability and

acce ssibility of immature Agrilus planipennis (Coleoptera: Buprestidae)
stages to Tetrastichus planipennisi (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae). J. Econ.

Entomol. 103: 1080

– 1085

.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service . 2006. Effects of

urban forests a nd their management on human health and environmental quality. http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/syracuse/Data/Nation/data_list_eab.htm

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural R esources Conservation

Service. 2003. Wetland Plantings for Wildlife. Indiana Biology Technical Note No. 3. United States Department of Agriculture. 7 pp.

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation

Service . 2006. Plants D atabase. http://plants.usda.gov/java/nameSearch

last accessed December 19, 2013.

26USDA

, FS

— see United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service

.

USDA, NRCS

— see United States Department o f Agriculture, Natural

Resources Conservation Service

.

Wagner, D.L. 2007. Emerald ash borer threatens ash

- feeding Lepidoptera. News of the Lepidopterist Soc. 49: 10

– 11.

W ei , X., D. Reardon, Y. Wu, and J

- H. Sun

. 2004. Emerald ash borer, Agrilus planipen nis , in China: a review and distribution survey. Acta Entomologica Sinica

. 47: 679

– 685.

Wei, X., W. Yun, R. Reardon, T

- H. Sun, M. Lu, and J

- H. Sun. 2007. Biology and damage traits of emerald ash borer ( Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire) in China. Insect S ci. 14: 367

– 373.

Wright, J .W., and H. M. Rauscher. 1990. Fraxinus nigra Marsh. black ash. In: Burns, Russell M.; Honkala, Barbara H., technical coordinators. Silvics of North America: Vol. 2. Hardwoods. Agriculture Handbook 654. Washington, DC: U.S. Depa rtment of Agriculture, Forest Service: 344

– 347.

Yang, Z

- Q., J.S. Strazanac, Y

- X. Yao, and X

- Y. Wang. 2006. A new species of emerald ash borer parasitoid from China belonging to the genus

Tetrastichus Haliday (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae) parasitizing emerald a sh

borer from China. Proc. Entomol. Soc. Wash. 108: 550

– 558.

Yang

, Z

- Q

. , X

- Y. Wang, J.R. Gould, R.C. Reardon , Y

- N. Zhang, G

- J. Liu,

E

- S. Liu. 2010. Biology and behavior of Spathius agrili , a parasitoid of the

emerald ash borer , Agrilus planipennis , in Chi na. 13 pp. J. Insect Science. Online: insectscience.org/10.30

Zhang, Y

- Z., D

- W. Huang, T

- H. Zhao, H

- P. Liu, and L.S. Baue r . 2005. Two new egg parasitoids (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae) of economic importance from China. Phytoparasitica

. 33: 253

– 260.

27