APPLICATION FORM Containment

To obtain approval for new organisms in containment

Send to Environmental Protection Authority preferably by email ([email protected]) or alternatively by post (Private Bag 63002, Wellington 6140) Payment must accompany final application; see our fees and charges schedule for details.

Application Number

APP203338

Date

28 July 2017

www.epa.govt.nz 2

Application Form Approval for new organism in containment

Completing this application form

1. This form has been approved under section 40 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act 1996. It only covers importing, development (production, fermentation or regeneration) or field test of any new organism (including genetically modified organisms (GMOs)) in containment. If you wish to make an application for another type of approval or for another use (such as an emergency, special emergency or release), a different form will have to be used. All forms are available on our website. 2. If your application is for a project approval for low-risk GMOs, please use the Containment – GMO Project application form. Low risk genetic modification is defined in the HSNO (Low Risk Genetic Modification) Regulations: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2003/0152/latest/DLM195215.html. 3. It is recommended that you contact an Advisor at the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) as early in the application process as possible. An Advisor can assist you with any questions you have during the preparation of your application including providing advice on any consultation requirements. 4. Unless otherwise indicated, all sections of this form must be completed for the application to be formally received and assessed. If a section is not relevant to your application, please provide a comprehensive explanation why this does not apply. If you choose not to provide the specific information, you will need to apply for a waiver under section 59(3)(a)(ii) of the HSNO Act. This can be done by completing the section on the last page of this form. 5. Any extra material that does not fit in the application form must be clearly labelled, cross- referenced, and included with the application form when it is submitted. 6. Please add extra rows/tables where needed. 7. You must sign the final form (the EPA will accept electronically signed forms) and pay the application fee (including GST) unless you are already an approved EPA customer. To be recognised by the EPA as an “approved customer”, you must have submitted more than one application per month over the preceding six months, and have no history of delay in making payments, at the time of presenting an application. 8. Information about application fees is available on the EPA website. 9. All application communications from the EPA will be provided electronically, unless you specifically request otherwise.

December 2013 EPA0324 3

Application Form Approval for new organism in containment

Commercially sensitive information

10. Commercially sensitive information must be included in an appendix to this form and be identified as confidential. If you consider any information to be commercially sensitive, please show this in the relevant section of this form and cross reference to where that information is located in the confidential appendix. 11. Any information you supply to the EPA prior to formal lodgement of your application will not be publicly released. Following formal lodgement of your application any information in the body of this application form and any non-confidential appendices will become publicly available. 12. Once you have formally lodged your application with the EPA, any information you have supplied to the EPA about your application is subject to the Official Information Act 1982 (OIA). If a request is made for the release of information that you consider to be confidential, your view will be considered in a manner consistent with the OIA and with section 57 of the HSNO Act. You may be required to provide further justification for your claim of confidentiality. Definitions

Restricting an organism or substance to a secure location or facility to prevent Containment escape. In respect to genetically modified organisms, this includes field testing and large scale fermentation

Any obligation or restrictions imposed on any new organism, or any person in relation to any new organism, by the HSNO Act or any other Act or any Controls regulations, rules, codes, or other documents made in accordance with the provisions of the HSNO Act or any other Act for the purposes of controlling the adverse effects of that organism on people or the environment

Any organism in which any of the genes or other genetic material:  Have been modified by in vitro techniques, or Genetically Modified  Are inherited or otherwise derived, through any number of replications, from Organism (GMO) any genes or other genetic material which has been modified by in vitro techniques

A new organism is an organism that is any of the following:  An organism belonging to a species that was not present in New Zealand immediately before 29 July 1998;  An organism belonging to a species, subspecies, infrasubspecies, variety, strain, or cultivar prescribed as a risk species, where that organism was not present in New Zealand at the time of promulgation of the relevant regulation;  An organism for which a containment approval has been given under the New Organism HSNO Act;  An organism for which a conditional release approval has been given under the HSNO Act;  A qualifying organism approved for release with controls under the HSNO Act;  A genetically modified organism;  An organism belonging to a species, subspecies, infrasubspecies, variety, strain, or cultivar that has been eradicated from New Zealand;

December 2013 EPA0324 4

Application Form Approval for new organism in containment

 An organism present in New Zealand before 29 July 1998 in contravention of the Act 1967 or the Plants Act 1970. This does not apply to the organism known as rabbit haemorrhagic disease virus, or rabbit calicivirus A new organism does not cease to be a new organism because:  It is subject to a conditional release approval; or  It is a qualifying organism approved for release with controls; or  It is an incidentally imported new organism

An individual or collaborative endeavour that is planned to achieve a particular Project aim or research goal

December 2013 EPA0324 5

Application Form Approval for new organism in containment

1. Applicant details

1.1. Applicant

Company Name: (if applicable) The New Zealand Forest Research Institute Ltd (trading as Scion)

Contact Name: Toni Withers

Job Title: Senior Entomologist

Physical Address: Te Papa Tipu Innovation Park, 49 Sala St, Rotorua

Postal Address (provide only if not the same as the physical): Private Bag 3020, Rotorua 3046

Phone (office and/or mobile): Tel: +64 07 343 5721 Reception 07 343 5899

Fax: +64 7 348 0952

Email: [email protected]

1.2. New Zealand agent or consultant (if applicable)

Company Name:

Contact Name:

Job Title:

Physical Address:

Postal Address (provide only if not the same as the physical):

Phone (office and/or mobile):

Fax:

Email:

December 2013 EPA0324 6

Application Form Approval for new organism in containment

2. Information about the application

2.1. Type of containment activity Tick the box(es) that best describe your application

Application type Type of new organism

☐ GMO Import into containment ☐ Non-GMO ☐ Develop in containment i.e. regeneration, fermentation GMO or genetic modification ☒ Non-GMO

☐ GMO Field test in containment ☐ Non-GMO

2.2. Brief application description Approximately 30 words about what you are applying to do

To develop within containment four new organism tree pests already established in New Zealand to assist with research on pest management against four tree pests in New Zealand.

2.3. Summary of application Provide a plain English, non-technical description of what you are applying to do and why you want to do it

A number of tree pests have established in New Zealand in the last decade, and are new organisms. Not all are problematic, however the forest and apiculture industry have identified a small number that already have, or have the potential to, cause significant economic harm once they spread nationally. Here we list those species that Scion have industry support to initiate a pest management research programme. Research may include pesticide trials, biology and temperature development studies, plus the assessment of parasitoids as biological control agents to control:

1. Giant willow aphid (GWA) Tuberolachnus salignus, a pest of willow trees that was discovered in New Zealand in 2013. Feeds on stems of Salix sp. and has cascading impacts on the apiculture, pipfruit, farming, and kiwifruit sectors. Widespread from Northland to Southland, MPI response stood down soon after the wide distribution was ascertained.

2. variegated (EVB) Paropsisterna variicollis, a pest of Eucalyptus spp. that was discovered in New Zealand in 2016, MPI response stood down March 2017.

December 2013 EPA0324 7

Application Form Approval for new organism in containment

3. Eucalyptus (ELB) Paropsisterna beata, a pest of Eucalyptus spp. First discovered in New Zealand in 2012, rediscovered in 2016, MPI response stood down October 2016.

4. Red gum lerp psyllid Glycaspis brimblecombei, a pest of Eucalyptus spp. First discovered in New Zealand in 29 May 2017, MPI response stood down 21 July 2017.

The aim of this application is to gain permission to collect from areas of New Zealand where the pests are established, transport them securely into facility 5603, and then rear populations of (develop) these pests safely within containment in Rotorua. All these new organisms listed are established in parts of New Zealand and are not (and have not been) listed on the MPI unwanted organisms register.

2.4. Background and aims of application This section is intended to put the new organism(s) in perspective of the wider activities that they will be used in. You may use more technical language but all technical words must be included in a glossary

Most high-impact pests in New Zealand are exotic. Despite our stringent biosecurity measures that target high-risk species or pathways at the border, or pre-border, New Zealand continues to be invaded by a range of exotic .. For example, aphids are known to arrive naturally in New Zealand, and do so by dispersing on the prevailing wind currents. Hence, aphids are one group of insects that can breach our border despite the efforts of our biosecurity system. Whilst most invasive species are economically benign, some are significant pests that affect productivity or access to export markets.

Once a new organism has been declared non-eradicatable, the next phase is to initiate pest management research to support a range of management strategies to minimise the potential impact of the pest on productive or natural ecosystems. This application is to develop four new organism pests in Scion’s containment facility to undertake research as these species have recognised impacts on New Zealand’s primary sectors.

For the past year Scion has been researching the pest Giant Willow Aphid (GWA) and its parasitoids in both Japan and California through collaborations with Kenichi Ozaki at Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute in Japan and Steven Seybold at USDA Forest Service in California, USA. An overview of the project and links to related publications can be viewed at www.giantwillowaphid.co.nz. Scion has a long history of developing braconid parasitoids as biological control agents to reduce invasive forest pest impacts, e.g., Uraba lugens and charybdis in our MPI approved containment facility in Rotorua. This project will follow similar phases of development, with the first need being a GWA colony approved to be established then maintained inside containment to provide a constant supply of individuals for testing. The colony will be used to rear the specialist koinobiont parasitoid, Pauesia sp. (Hymenoptera: Braconidae: Aphidiinae) (APP203191). Specific experiments will quantify interactions between the parasitoids and its host, quantify the impacts of the parasitoid on GWA, and assess the potential for non-target impacts on

December 2013 EPA0324 8

Application Form Approval for new organism in containment

native aphids (funded by Sustainable Farming Fund project SFF404830). A new Better Border Biosecurity project “Improving risk prediction and reducing uncertainty pre-release for classical biocontrol agents -T1P1” will also investigate the olfactory responses of the parasitoid to odours from both the GWA and its host tree species.

The red gum lerp psyllid (G. brimblecombei) and the two paropsine pests (Paropsisterna variicollis and Paropsisterna beata) of Eucalyptus, have similar pest management research needs. No researchers in New Zealand currently have regulatory approval via the HSNO Act to develop laboratory colonies of any of these pests which is a necessary step to support effective pest management research. Once a continuous laboratory colony is underway reseachers can quantify population dynamics, host preferences (Eucalyptus spp.), susceptibility to insecticides, and susceptibility of life stages to predators and parasitoids currently present in New Zealand. Scion with the forest industry are currently considering developing a proposal for biological control of these species. If funded, the next phase is the importation of candidate parasitoids from the native range of these pests in Australia to Scion’s containment facility (under consideration by EPA App203337). As mentioned above, continuous colonies of pest are needed within containment to support biological control research.

Biological control is the deliberate use of natural enemies to reduce pest populations. It is an effective and environmentally sustainable method of pest management that has been proven to work in New Zealand and internationally. Biological control is one of the most important alternative pest control options available to replace chemical insecticides. Furthermore, in many geographical locations biological control is the only economical and practical option to achieve sustained population suppression of pest species.

December 2013 EPA0324 9

Application Form Approval for new organism in containment

3. Information about the new organism(s)

3.1. Name of organism Identify the organism as fully as possible

Non-GMOs - Provide a taxonomic description of the new organism(s).

Both -  Describe the biology and main features of the organism including if it has inseparable organisms.  Describe if the organism has affinities (e.g. close taxonomic relationships) with other organisms in New Zealand.  Could the organism form an undesirable self-sustaining population? If not, why not?  How easily could the new organism be recovered or eradicated if it established an undesirable self- sustaining population?

1. Giant Willow Aphid (Tuberolachnus salignus)

 Taxonomic status: o Class: Insecta o Order: Hemiptera o Family: Aphididae o Sub-family: Lachninae o Genus: Tuberolachnus o Species (and strain if relevant): salignus (Gmelin) o Common name(s): giant willow aphid (GWA)  Type of organism:Invertebrate

Giant willow aphid (GWA) was first detected in New Zealand in 2013. Since its establishment GWA has spread rapidly throughout New Zealand, and MPI did not consider it eradicable, closing the response soon after. Over 50 species and hybrids of willow are confirmed as hosts (Sopow, Jones, McIvor, McLean, & Pawson, 2017). Additional hosts include some species/varieties of poplar, apple, pear, and the native species Coprosma macrocarpa. GWA continues to cause significant damage to willow trees and, in some cases has resulted in tree death. Willows are a highly valued group of species in New Zealand and the NZ Poplar and Willow Research Trust has developed numerous species and hybrids that have been extensively used for the stabilisation of slopes and the prevention of erosion along river margins. In addition willows are vital to New Zealand’s apiculture industry as willow flowers are an important source of pollen and nectar for honey bees in early spring when there is a lack alternative resources.

December 2013 EPA0324 10

Application Form Approval for new organism in containment

GWA is present year round in New Zealand, however numbers increase substantially in late summer when large colonies are present on host trees. Aphids feed by sucking sap from stems and produce honeydew that ‘rains’ down from colonies and coats both the trees, ground and objects passing underneath. The vast quantities of honeydew released from this process causes numerous problems: 1) honeydew supports expanded wasp populations (analagous to a beech forest ecosystem) that are both a public health/nuisance issue and a problem for beekeepers as wasps predate foraging bees and attack and kill hives, 2) honeydew collected by bees results in the formation of crystallised ‘cement honey’ that is difficult to commercially extract reducing bee keeper revenue and potentially reduces hive health (annecdotal reports currently being researched), and 3) surfaces coated with honeydew become covered in black sooty mould. Sooty mould generates a range of negative impacts across a range of sectors, including parks, gardens, horticultural and agricultural products. Since willows are widespread throughout New Zealand in both rural and urban areas, there are virtually no areas of New Zealand exempt from this pest. A full flow chart of these impacts is available online (and attached) (https://www.scionresearch.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/48183/GiantWillowAphid.pdf).

Self Sustaining Population?

Yes, if viable GWA (i.e., individuals within the colony inside containment) did escape containment then they could re-join the current undesirable self-sustaining population that is established throughout the region. GWA have already formed self-sustaining populations from Northland to Southland and escaped individuals would be indiscernible from those already present on Scion grounds (Sopow et al., 2017).

A localised population could be eradicated however no unauthorised escapee from the containment facility would be detectable given the widespread distribution of GWA on Scion grounds and in the Rotorua region.

2. Eucalyptus variegated beetle (EVB) Paropsisterna variicollis

 Taxonomic status: o Class: Insecta o Order: Coleoptera o Family: Chyromelidae o Tribe: Chrysomelini o Genus: Paropsisterna Motschulsky, 1860 o Species: variicollis (Chapuis, 1877) o Synomyms: Chrysophtharta varicollis  Common name: none recorded. Eucalyptus variegated beetle (EVB) was suggested by MPI to distinguish between other eucalyptus feeding beetles in NZ  Type of organism: Invertebrate

December 2013 EPA0324 11

Application Form Approval for new organism in containment

EVB is a serious pest of Eucalyptus spp. that was first discovered at Te Pohue in Hawke’s Bay in March 2016 (https://www.mpi.govt.nz/protection-and-response/responding/alerts/eucalyptus- variegated-beetle/). It causes significant damage to Eucalyptus plantations in its native Australian range (Loch, 2005). Early indications at the initial detection sites were that the P. variicollis had not been there for that long as the level of leaf damage appeared quite low. However, further survey work in March 2016 detected individuals ~ 50km apart (Brent Rogan 2016: FH News 269: https://www.scionresearch.com/services/science-publications/forest-health-news). MPI stood down the EVB response in March 2017 concluding that eradication was not viable (David Voice, MPI, pers comm.). EVB is firmly established in New Zealand and has spread from its point of first detection to Waimarama and Elsthorpe in the southern Hawke’s Bay. Most recently a Eucalyptus nursery has reported EVB in Woodville in the Rangitikei district (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Distribution of Paropsisterna variicollis (EVB) as at July 2017. (http://naturewatch.org.nz/taxa/495700-Paropsisterna-variicollis Accessed 18 July 2017)

.

According to Dr H Nahrung (pers.comm. TAG member of EVB response, University of Sunshine Coast, Australia 2016), P. variicollis belongs to a “species complex” that comprises E. obovata- variicollis-cloelia. There has been some uncertainty and interchange between these species names and what was originally referred to as variicollis in Western Australia (Loch 2005, paper attached) is now referred to as obovata. Scion is currently undertaking a molecular study to ascertain the

December 2013 EPA0324 12

Application Form Approval for new organism in containment

species from this complex that is genetically closest to the New Zealand incursion. Until the results are known, we refer to the pest species as P. variicollis. Unlike the long established Eucalyptus Tortoise Beetle (Paropsis charybdis), EVB feeds on juvenile foliage of Eucalyptus spp (Nahrung, 2006). Until EVB arrived NZ plantation species such as E. nitens did not incurr significant defoliation during their first 1-4 years as the waxy ‘juvenile’ foliage was unpalatable to the Eucalyptus Tortoise Beetle. EVB has also been recorded on E. viminalis, E. globulus, E. obliqua, E. regnans in New Zealand, however in Australia a number of other species, including E. nitens, E. camaldulensis, E. globulus, & E. dunnii are affected (Simmul & De Little, 1999). It is likely that EVB will feed on most species in the subgenus Symphyomyrtus. Eucalyptus nitens is the most common plantation eucalypt species in New Zealand. The NZ pulp and paper industry grows E. nitens (native to Australia) for its superior short fibre quality and speed of growth. Pulp chip exporters supplement E. nitens plantations withother species including Eucalyptus fastigata. Although E. fastigata is largely resistant to insect browse, it is significantly slower growing. Eucalyptus nitens grows best in colder higher elevation areas of NZ and large plantations were established in the central North Island, only a short distance from the current EVB infestation. Large plantations also exist in Southland and Otago. Additional concern is the threat EVB is presents to the emerging speciality hardwoods Eucalypts industry (NZ Drylands Forests Initiative http://nzdfi.org.nz/). Although small (FOA, 2016) the plantation estate of these species is growing. Eucalyptus are becoming increasingly important as there is a recognised need to provide speciality hardwood products for domestic and export markets. Specialty hardwood growers have expressed significant concern about the potential damage of EVB given its affect within its native range. EVB may even exceed current damage caused by the widely distributed P. charybdis. Recent research has shown that most specialty “ground durable” timber species currently evaluated by the New Zealand Drylands Forests Initiative suffer moderate to severe defoliation by a combination of EVB and P. charybdis (Lin, Murray, & Mason, 2017). The spread of EVB into these plantations will result in addition chemical control costs to growers that was not previously needed early in the growing rotation. Current aerial applications of alpha- cypermethrin (a synthetic pyrethroid used for leaf beetle control in Australia (Loch, 2005)) used to control Eucalyptus Tortoise Beetle (Rolando, Baillie, Withers, Bulman, & Garrett, 2016) are likely to be effective to control EVB as well. However, broad spectrum synthetic insecticides can only be used under a derogation for Forest Stewartship Council certified forests and alternative approaches like biological control are strongly encouraged.

Biology. The life history of Paropsisterna (Chrysophtharta), Paropsis and Trachymela are similar. Eggs are generally laid late in the spring or early summer on new leaves or one year old foliage. According to Cumpston (1939) eggs are deposited in longitudinal overlapping rows on the dorsal surface of the leaves at the extreme tip of young shoots. There are 4 larval instars with the final instar distinguishable by the presence of a heavy black line running medially down its back. Paropsisterna larval stages are gregarious and feed together on the same leaves, moving from leaf to leaf as it is consumed. Mature larvae drop to the ground and pupate in the soil. They over winter

December 2013 EPA0324 13

Application Form Approval for new organism in containment

as adults in bark crevices, under stones or in leaf litter. After emerging from overwintering sites in spring the adults feed on “flush” foliage, then mate and lay batches of 30-50 pale yellow eggs on young terminal leaves. The aim of this application is to obtain permission to develop a laboratory colony of P. variicollis, so that interactions with established parasitoids can precede any targeted biological control with imported species. It will also enable any other pest management experiments to occur within the controlled climate conditions of our containment facility, such as pesticide impacts on different hosts and under different temperature regimes.

Could the organism form an undesirable self-sustaining population? If not, why not? Yes, if a mated female, or multiple male and female individuals escaped quarantine they could form a self-sustaining population given that EVB is a strong flyer, and Eucalyptus species are ubiquitous in the environment, particularly in the vicinity of Scion’s Rotorua campus, in Whakarewarewa forest and urban Rotorua. Rotorua’s climate is also likely to be suitable since the natural range of EVB covers much of Australia and it is particularly common in areas that are climatically similar to New Zealand in NSW and Tasmania. With over 28,000ha of commercial eucalypt plantations grown across the North and South Island (FOA, 2016), the potential exists for EVB to spread rapidly throughout the country. We expect it will disperse independently, as well as aided by human activity such as movement via vehicle very rapidly, and may even reach Rotorua within the next 12 months.

How easily could the new organism be recovered or eradicated if it established an undesirable self-sustaining population?

It may be difficult to ascertain if an individual of EVB recovered in Rotorua is an escapee from the containment facility, or a result of natural dispersal of the population already established in the North Island. But should this pest escape from containment and establish on surrounding vegetation there is a possibility of eradication, even in tall trees, using aerial spraying methods. In the unlikely event of the pest becoming widespread, conventional broadcast application of insecticides has previously been successfully used in eradication operations even in urban environments (Richardson & Kimberley, 2010). However, assuming rapid detection before the pest becomes widespread, a suite of targeted aerial spray application tools are available. Targeted tools have the advantage of having lower environmental and social footprints. Strand et al. (2014) demonstrated that a manually operated spot-gun was an effective method for applying insecticide from an aircraft to individual tall trees. The method achieved good coverage of insecticide through the crown of the target plants; this attribute is particularly important with pesticides relying on a contact action for efficacy. Slight variations on this method were used operationally to eradicate the eucalyptus leaf beetle from a suburb near Wellington (Yamoah, Voice, Gunawardana, Chandler, & Hammond, 2016). More recent work in the Urban Battlefield MBIE programme has further evolved

December 2013 EPA0324 14

Application Form Approval for new organism in containment

this technology using a small ‘ring’ boom suspended on a tether which has a number of advantages over previous methods (Richardson et al. in prep). In summary, in the unlikely event of an accidental release, and in the even more unlikely event that a decision is made to eradicate the escapees (given the insects in question are already established in NZ), there are effective pest eradication tools at our disposal.

3. Eucalyptus leaf beetle (ELB) Paropsisterna beata

 Taxonomic status: o Class: Insecta o Order: Coleoptera o Family: Chyromelidae o Tribe: Chrysomelini o Genus: Paropsisterna Motschulsky, 1860 o Species (and strain if relevant): beata (Newman) o Common name(s): Eucalyptus leaf beetle  Type of organism: Invertebrate

The Eucalyptus leaf beetle (ELB), Paropsisterna beata, was first discovered in 2012 on Eucalyptus nitens in Upper Hutt and was believed to be confined to a 4km radius. The Ministry for Primary Industries initiated an eradication program using aerial applications of Dominex EC 100 (alpha- cypermethrin) and ground applications of Talstar bifenthrin. After a 15 month program of insecticide applications and another two years of monitoring, the eradication program for ELB was considered to be a success (Yamoah et al., 2016). However, in July 2016 ELB was rediscovered in nearby Waikanae (believed to have been carried on firewood collected from Porirua), and one other location in Upper Hutt (Katherine Mansfield Drive, Brent Rogan, SPS Biota, pers. comm 2016). As mentioned above, MPI stood down any response on 17 October 2016. No further surveys have been undertaken, but it is likely ELB is still present and established in that area.

ELB belongs to a complex of similar looking species in Australia. However, ELB can be identified by the distinctive red “skirt” around the elytra, and red colouring on the edges of the pronotum and on the head. Other species in this complex lack this combination of features. In New Zealand, ELB is unlikely to be confused with any other species.

If it spreads throughout the country, ELB has the potential to become a major pest of Eucalyptus plantations, threatening New Zealand’s $41 million eucalypt forest industry (NZFOA Facts and Figures). Eucalyptus species, including two of the three most important eucalypt plantation species in New Zealand, E. nitens and E. camaldulensis, are the only known hosts for ELB. The adults and larvae feed on the leaves, with larvae attacking flush foliage and adults feeding on older leaves. High levels of herbivory can result in affected trees having a “broom” appearance, as the leaves are stripped from the upper canopy. The adult beetles are relatively long-lived and able fliers, both

December 2013 EPA0324 15

Application Form Approval for new organism in containment

characteristics that may aid in their dispersal. The propensity of adult beetles to shelter under loose bark may also result in dispersal by people transporting firewood. ELB is unlikely to pose a risk to native plants or animals as it only attacks Eucalyptus spp.

The aim of this application is to obtain permission to develop a laboratory colony of P. beata, so that interactions with established parasitoids can be understood before evaluating biological control using imported species. Development in containment allows additional testing of other pest management options, such as pesticide impacts, under controlled climate conditions.

Could the organism form an undesirable self-sustaining population? If not, why not? Yes, if a mated female, or multiple male and female individuals escaped quarantine they could form a self-sustaining population given that ELB can fly, and Eucalyptus species are ubiquitous in the environment, particularly in the vicinity of Scion’s Rotorua campus. Rotorua’s climate is also likely to be suitable since the natural range of ELB in the south east of Australia, which is climatically similar to New Zealand’s North Island. With over 28,000ha of commercial eucalypt plantations grown across the North and South Island, the potential exists for ELB to spread throughout the country. As with EVB section above, it would be difficult to ascertain beyond doubt if an individual of ELB recovered in Rotorua is an escapee from the containment facility, or a result of natural dispersal of the population already established in the North Island.

How easily could the new organism be recovered or eradicated if it established an undesirable self-sustaining population?

Refer above to P. varicollis as the approach to eradication from Rotorua is identical.

4. Red Gum Lerp Psyllid: Glycaspis brimblecombei

 Taxonomic status: o Class: Insecta o Order: Hemiptera o Suborder: Sternorrhyncha o Superfamily: Psylloidea o Family: Psyllidae o Genus: Glycaspis o Species (and strain if relevant): brimblecombei Moore o Common name(s): Red gum lerp psyllid o Type of organism: Invertebrate

December 2013 EPA0324 16

Application Form Approval for new organism in containment

Glycaspis brimblecombei (red gum lerp psyllid) was originally detected on 5 year old Eucalyptus camaldulensis in northern Canterbury on May 29 2017. The sample sent to Scion contained adults and nymphs, suggesting that a population has established (MPI 2017). The psyllid was tentatively identified as Glycaspis brimblecombei (Red Gum Lerp Psyllid). The specimen was collected during Forest Owners Association funded industry surveillance in northern Canterbury on Eucalyptus camaldulensis. The trees are approximately five years old and planted for seed or cutting production and are part of the NZ Dryland Forest Initiative. Initial collection of specimens were made during a scheduled pre-harvest inspection via a targeted inspection on 29 May 2017. An inspection of immediate surrounding host plants was conducted by SPS Biosecurity Ltd. on the same day as initial collection and no further psyllids were detected. SPS Biosecurity Ltd. observed low population numbers at the site and that the weather was unseasonably warm for the time of year which may have been beneficial to G. brimblecombei. MPI entomologists validated the identification as G. brimblecombei on 8 June 2017. The identification was confirmed morphologically. MPI decided no response action was recommended, with the investigation stood down on 21 July 2017 (MPI 2017) (Scion wishes this knowledge to remain CONFIDENTIAL until a public statement has been released).

Until further field inspections have been undertaken, the extent of the geographical distribution of G. brimblecombei is not known, but is suspected to be North Canterbury.

This psyllid is native to Australia and is a serious pest of Eucalyptus species in its introduced range across the globe (Africa, Europe, North America and South America) (CABI 2017). Its most commonly reported host is E. camaldulensis but it has also been collected from many other Eucalyptus species.

Glycaspis brimblecombei injury includes leaf discoloration and, in heavy infestations, severe leaf drop and twig dieback. In California, USA, tree death is often the result, arising both from the affects of severe and multiple defoliations, but also from attacks by introduced cerambycid beetles (Phoracantha spp.). In addition, the nymphs produce a large amount of honeydew, which falls to the ground where it will adhere to the feet of pedestrians and animals, or drop onto vehicles, outdoor furniture, appliances and swimming pools. The defoliated leaves are also a serious problem, since they fall into swimming pools and are tracked into buildings. Also, the honeydew is a substrate for sooty mould growth that further detracts from the appearance of the trees and whatever the honeydew falls on (CABI 2017).

If it spreads throughout the country, red gum lerp pysllid has the potential to further reduce the foliar health of Eucalyptus plantations, threatening New Zealand’s $41 million eucalypt forest industry (NZFOA Facts and Figures). Eucalyptus species, including two of the three most important eucalypt plantation species in New Zealand, E. nitens and E. camaldulensis, as well as E. globulus are preferred hosts for the psyllid. It is possible that already present biological control agents will provide adequate suppression of red gum lerp psyllid in New Zealand. One of the specialist parasitoids Psyllaephagus bliteus= quadricyclus Riek (CABI 2017) is already present in New Zealand, attacking another species of Glycaspis.

December 2013 EPA0324 17

Application Form Approval for new organism in containment

Monitoring of field populations over time by bringing samples into the containment facility, will enable researchers to quantify what levels of control this parasitoid is exerting.

The aim of this application is to obtain permission to both bring samples of red glum lerp psyllid into containment and to develop a laboratory colony of the psyllid, so that interactions with established parasitoids can be understood before evaluating biological control using imported species. Development in containment allows additional testing of other pest management options, such as pesticide impacts, under controlled climate conditions.

Could the organism form an undesirable self-sustaining population? If not, why not? Yes, if a mated female, or multiple male and female individuals escaped quarantine they could form a self-sustaining population given that red gum lerp psyllid can fly, and Eucalyptus species are ubiquitous in the environment, particularly in the vicinity of Scion’s Rotorua campus. Rotorua’s climate is also likely to be suitable since the natural range of red gum lerp psyllid in the east of Australia, which is climatically similar to New Zealand’s North Island. With over 28,000ha of commercial eucalypt plantations grown across the North and South Island, the potential exists for red gum lerp psyllid to spread throughout the country.

How easily could the new organism be recovered or eradicated if it established an undesirable self-sustaining population?

Refer above to P. varicollis as the approach to eradication from Rotorua is identical, although the pesticide applied would need to be a systemic, in order to treat the psyllid by ingestion of the active ingredient.

3.2. Regulatory status of the organism

Is the organism that is the subject of this application also the subject of:

An innovative medicine application as defined in section 23A of the Medicines Act 1981?

☐ Yes ☒ No

An innovative agricultural compound application as defined in Part 6 of the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act 1997?

☐ Yes ☒ No

4. Information about the containment

December 2013 EPA0324 18

Application Form Approval for new organism in containment

4.1. For field tests: The nature and method of the field test Describe the nature and method of the field test and the experimental procedures to be used

4.2. Proposed containment of the new organism(s) (physical and operational)

Describe how you propose to contain the new organism(s) after taking into account its ability to escape from containment (i.e. the possible pathways for escape)

The new organisms named in this application, will be housed in Scion’s approved Invertebrate Transitional and Containment Facility at Scion’s, Rotorua campus (MPI facility number 5603). This purpose-built facility was established in 2000 and was designed specifically to undertake research on imported biological control agents whilst ensuring minimal risk of escape. The facility is registered and operated to meet or exceed the specifications and procedures within MPI/EPA Standard 154.02.08 Transitional and containment facilities for invertebrates.

Building Design: Scion’s facility sits on a concrete pad, with steel exterior walls and a steel roof. Independent of this secure outer shell, the insect containment rooms are housed on the concrete pad. All have multiple levels of physical containment barriers, including double independent glazing of any windows, double layers of mesh on air vents, etc. Environmental controls for individual containment rooms are internal within each room, and air circulation to each room is filtered by double layers of insect proof mesh. Each room is separately sealed internally with impervious Bondcor sheeting overlaid with vinyl on the floor extending part way up the walls. Entry to each sealed room is only possible via a double-door ‘air-lock’ system, which leads to a sealed corridor within the facility. These ‘airlocks’ are a further barrier to each of the containment rooms, which operate under negative air pressure. Entry to the corridor is via another locked preparation area into which only authorised personnel have access.

Containment procedures: Only authorised personnel who have been trained in invertebrate containment protocols by the facility operator or manager, who undergo annual refresher training, and who are directly involved with specific research projects, have access to the facility.

Live insects are held in rooms within the approved containment facility. Within each room, insects are contained yet again within cages so that there is at least 1 further level of containment in the room. The exact design varies according to species, life-stage and purpose. The insects are held in these rooms for as long as is required to assist in their colony rearing.

No live material leaves the containment facility without prior EPA and MPI approval. Any dead or surplus insects, all host and plant material and plant food, soil, and associated packaging and rearing containers are either destroyed or decontaminated using an approved method. This can be either by

December 2013 EPA0324 19

Application Form Approval for new organism in containment

autoclaving in an approved autoclave, incineration, freezing, or chemical disinfection. Reusable rearing containers are washed and treated with an approved disinfectant within the room, as detailed in the facility operating manual.

Sticky insect traps are hung from the ceiling throughout the facility and inspected at regular intervals. If an escaped insect is detected at any level of containment then the next area of containment such as the room’s ‘air-lock’ is also inspected, etc. and approved procedures immediately put in place to determine and mitigate any escape pathway.

The containment provisions required by MPI/EPA Standard 154.02.08 require auditable measures, tailored to the individual species in containment, to be taken to identify possible pathways for escape, and to prevent, manage or mitigate escape via any of these pathways, as appropriate for that species and for that particular facility. Scions facility has regularly met and passed all its external audit requirements.

Possible pathways for escape of insects from containment facilities are summarised in the following table:

Pathway Example of procedures to mitigate risk Escape of organisms During transport all insects are housed in sealed containers, during transport to reducing the risk of escape. These containers consist of three containment facilities layers of sealed containment, as per IATA requirements, are clearly labelled, and are only handled by approved authorised carriers at every point along the route. The most direct route is taken between the port of entry, and the containment facility. Accidental/unintentional Computer programmed swipe card entry and computer-cut keys removal by authorised limit access to the containment facility to trained and authorised personal personnel only. All authorised persons have received auditable training in containment protocols to minimise the risk of escape through personal error. Staff are required to wear protective clothing which is removed before leaving the facility and is disinfested between uses in a freezer. The individual species containment measures (described above) along with other measures such as sticky traps further reduce the likelihood of accidental escape. Deliberate removal by 24 hour on and off-site security monitoring of door entry as well as unauthorised personal an outer site security fence reduce the likelihood of unauthorised personnel entering the Scion site in Rotorua. Double security measures detailed above mitigate the risk of unauthorised personnel gaining access to the facility. Electronic swipe cards are only issued to approved containment facility users. Padlocked

December 2013 EPA0324 20

Application Form Approval for new organism in containment

computer-cut door-keys are only issued to approved facility and project users. Escape from contaminated Sterilisation of waste reduces the risk of organisms escaping. No laboratory equipment and live insect or plant material leaves the containment room without waste being first treated by one of the approved methods. Associated organisms (e.g. hyperparasitoids emerging from shipped individuals) are preserved in ethanol or frozen for 7 days for future identification. All solid waste generated in the secure rooms is double-bagged before being autoclaved or incinerated within an approved facility. Liquid waste is discharged into a sealed soak hole 1.5m deep at the lid. The facility is kept in a clean and tidy condition with no unnecessary rubbish. Floors are mopped regularly, and mop water disposed of down the sink with other liquid waste. All rearing containers are sterilised between uses. The room is disinfected, thoroughly cleaned, and sterilised between projects. Staff are required to wear protective clothing which is removed before leaving the facility and is disinfested between uses in a freezer. Escape due to a failure of Multiple layers of containment are built into the containment containment barriers facilities designs to reduce the risk of escape. Multiple containment barriers would need to be breached before an organism was able to escape into the New Zealand environment. In addition to these layers, attractive sticky yellow insect traps are used at strategic points so that in the low chance of an insect(s) escaping they are caught and trapped. Escape from containment A fire contingency plan has been lodged with all local fire brigades following natural disaster listing how to manage a disaster so as to prevent or minimise the chance of insects escaping from this particular facility. Should a breach of multiple containment be suspected following a natural disaster there are two potential remote methods of killing the entire insect colony within the room without personnel having to enter: CO2 and prolonged heat disinfestation.

5. Māori engagement

Discuss any engagement or consultation with Māori undertaken and summarise the outcomes. Please refer to the EPA policy ‘Engaging with Māori for applications to the EPA’ on our website (www.epa.govt.nz) or contact the EPA for advice.

December 2013 EPA0324 21

Application Form Approval for new organism in containment

The operation of the Invertebrate Containment Facilitiy at Scion falls under CRI’s protocols with local tangata whenua (iwi and hapū) for the respective campuses of which they are a part. In Scion’s case, engagement with Maori for biological control falls under Scion’s Research Office. The Te Papa Tipu Innovation Park sits on Ngati Tuteata and Ngati Te Taeotu tribal whenua (lands). The marae, Hurunga Te Rangi, is located at Ngapuna, Rotorua and resident kaumatua, Mr George Mutu (Koro George) has an on-going and open relationship with Scion. Scion meets with their kaumatua Koro George and other hapu representatives on a regular basis in relation to Scion’s research activities.

The importance of the Giant Willow Aphid to the honey industry, and the importance of Eucalyptus species to the forest industry have been outlined above. Iwi have strong economic and cultural interests in both these industries. ApiNZ board member Stuart Fraser included the GWA project in his presentation to iwi at the National Maori Manuka Conference at the Holiday Inn Rotorua 4th & 5th August 2016 and also disseminated our information leaflet about the project to attendees. Project chair Barry Foster, also on the board of ApiNZ, also presented to the Manuka and More Hui in Ruatoria on the 2nd of November 2016. In the presentation he spoke about the proposed biological control project and introduced the audience to how the work will be safely conducted within Scion’s Rotorua containment facility. These opportunities to inform will pave the way towards further iwi engagement in the future.

Dr Toni Withers and Scion research office staff have met with Koro George and his representatives on 10th April 2014 and 23rd August 2016 to discuss engagement with his hapu for biological control of forestry pest projects. Subsequently Toni Withers was invited to speak at a hui at Hurunga Te Rangi marae to discuss and inform on the topic of insect biological control, of Eucalyptus Tortoise Beetle, on the 5th of July 2015. The iwi recognise that Eucalyptus tree crops have been established in the past on a number of maori-owned landholdings. Some of these plantations were E. nitens and thus a great deal of discussion occurred when some hapu lost considerable investments when their plantations were destroyed by a combination of Leaf spot fungi and Eucalyptus tortoise beetle. The potential value of eucalyptus and the increasing interest iwi and hapu have in manuka honey production was discussed. These areas also overlap with some east coast iwi exploring the potential of eucalyptus to provide winter floral resources for honey bees, to support the manuka honey industry.

Experience shows that many Maori have strong views of biological control. There is generally a strong dislike of invasive species by Maori as historically such species have disrupted their relationship with the natural environment. Sometimes this dislike is then generalised to biological control, and there is strong disagreement for introducing purportedly beneficial classical biological control agents as they can be viewed as yet another invasive species into New Zealand, even with a claimed benefit of managing the first pest. However, sometimes the dislike for the invasive species means Maori support

December 2013 EPA0324 22

Application Form Approval for new organism in containment

biological control for its potential to bring harmony back into the ecosystem that has been impacted by the pest.

Previous engagement with this hapu and other Te Arawa leaders about biocontrol projects underway within the Containment Facility at Scion in the Te Papa Tipu Innovation Park grounds (K. Potter internal Scion notes, 2004) had resulted in feelings of distrust being aired, in particular about the potential for escape of biocontrol agents from containment facilities. Steps were taken to inform and educate iwi representatives about the likelihood of these risks at this time. We are currently undergoing additional engagement, and will host Hurunga Te Rangi members on Scion grounds to show interested individuals our facilities and explain the complex physical and operational containment measures in place within our facilities, so try and build some greater understanding and trust.

6. Risks, costs and benefits

Provide information of the risks, costs and benefits of the new organism(s).

These are the positive and adverse effects referred to in the HSNO Act. It is easier to regard risks and costs as being adverse (or negative) and benefits as being positive. In considering risks, cost and benefits, it is important to look at both the likelihood of occurrence (probability) and the potential magnitude of the consequences, and to look at distribution effects (who bears the costs, benefits and risks).

Consider the adverse or positive effects in the context of this application on the environment (e.g. could the organism cause any significant displacement of any native species within its natural habitat, cause any significant deterioration of natural habitats or cause significant adverse effect to New Zealand’s inherent genetic diversity, or is the organism likely to cause disease, be parasitic, or become a vector for or plant disease?), human health and safety, the relationship of Māori to the environment, the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, society and the community, the market economy and New Zealand’s international obligations.

You must fully complete this section referencing supporting material. You will need to provide a description of where the information in the application has been sourced from, e.g. from in-house research, independent research, technical literature, community or other consultation, and provide that information with this application.

Potential risks and costs

Any potential risk of this application stems from the escape of the new organism from containment. The probability of an escape is low and the magnitude of the potential impact is also low. Hence both potential risks and costs are low. Why? Because the costs associated with all four organisms are already realised as they are established and causing direct impacts on our productive environments.

December 2013 EPA0324 23

Application Form Approval for new organism in containment

1. Giant willow aphid is already widespread throughout New Zealand and causes substantial cross-sector damage (Sopow, Jones, McIvor, McLean, & Pawson, 2017). No more costs would be incurred by an escape of any individuals from containment in Rotorua, and as stated above would be impossible to ascertain if an escape had occurred.

2. Paropsisterna variicollis is already established throughout the Hawke’s Bay and is spreading rapidly to other regions. A recent survey has shown that it will cause significant damage to Eucalyptus plantations, and hence cost to the forestry and farm forestry sectors (Lin et al 2017). The risk of an escape from containment is low, but the cost to it establishing in Rotorua prior to the inevitable natural spread of the pest to the same region, would be non-negligible, possibly low.

3. Paropsisterna beata may be established in Upper Hutt in the Wellington region. An economic analysis suggested that economic costs would be significant if the pest undertakes serious defoliation of E. nitens (Yamoah et al., 2016). These are costs along the same lines as those that EVB would also cause. The risk of an escape from containment is low, but the cost to it establishing in Rotorua some years before the inevitable natural spread of the pest to the same region, would be non-negligible but low or moderate.

4. Glycaspis brimblecombei may be established in the North Canterbury region, and possibly beyond. No economic analysis has been undertaken, but it is likely economic costs would be additional to those listed for P. beata, if the pest further defoliates E. nitens (see 3. Above). The risk of an escape from containment is low, but the cost to it establishing in Rotorua years before natural spread to the Bay of Plenty region would be non-negligible but possibly only low due to the presence of a biological control agent Ps. bliteus that should exert some population control.

A. Potential adverse effects on the environment, in particular on ecosystems and their constituent parts

Early establishment of the pests Paropsisterna variicollis, Paropsisterna beata and Glycaspis brimblecombei in Rotorua as a result of an escape from containment could cause adverse impacts upon the exotic Eucalyptus plantation industry, that would incur costs. This has been outlined in the sections above. The most significant negative impacts would be those as a result of spraying pesticides to reduce populations of the pests. Pesticides can have negative impacts upon other insects that are inhabiting exotic forest plantations, both native, and beneficial insects such as honeybees. We cannot forsee any adverse impacts on any native flora and endemic ecosystems from establishment as a result of an escape, as these two pests feed only on Eucalyptus species, which are exotic plantation tree species in New Zealand.

B. Potential adverse effects on public health (including occupational exposure)

December 2013 EPA0324 24

Application Form Approval for new organism in containment

While it is very unlikely that these new organisms would pose a risk to human health, Scion staff will use appropriate PPE, personal protective equipment during all research within containment.

C. Potential adverse effects on the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, valued flora and fauna and other taonga

There is a risk that accidental release of new organisms from containment, leading to earlier impacts on the environment than expected could have an adverse effect on the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, valued flora and fauna and other taonga. Should an escape occur from containment there would be negative consequences on Scion’s relationship with local tangata whenua, especially representatives of Hurunga Te Rangi. As stated earlier, GWA is already having negative impacts on many ecosystems, but an early escape of the two paropsine beetles would only impact upon Eucalyptus (exotic plants), and not on any native vegetation.

D. Other potential adverse effects (such as New Zealand’s international obligations, social or economic adverse effects, ethical issues)

No other potential adverse effects have been identified.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS

Scion believes there are significant benefits from developing laboratory colonies of the four new organisms listed. To manage the impacts of invasive pests to the New Zealand forest industry, tools to reduce damaging populations of pests are required. These tools can assist forest managers in areas such as informing risk analyses, future investment decisions, planting plans, field monitoring, sustainable methods of control, and urgent measures such as aerial pesticide applications. To develop these pest management tools new scientific knowledge of the pest is required. Laboratory colonies of these pests enable Scion scientists to conduct the following experiments on the pests:

 Measure population dynamics

 Undertake growth modelling by quantifying growth rates and mortality at different temperatures

 Susceptibility of various pest lifestages to pesticides

 Pesticide dose-reponse assays to various life stages

 Ascertain levels of attack by parasitoids already present in New Zealand (by rearing out attacked life stages from either field exposure or laboratory exposure)

 Host specificity testing of candidate biological control agents

December 2013 EPA0324 25

Application Form Approval for new organism in containment

 Ascertain host plant species and/or genetic stock susceptibility to the pest

In summary, being able to safely and securely maintain laboratory colonies of new organism pest species under containment is the number one most crucial stage underpinning the entire pest management research area. The benefits to New Zealand’s forestry sector will be very significant if Scion is granted this approval.

December 2013 EPA0324 26

Application Form Approval for new organism in containment

7. Alternative methods and potential effects from the transfer of genetic elements This section is for developments of GMOs that take place outdoors and field tests of GMOs only

 Discuss if there are alternative methods of achieving the research objective.  Discuss whether there could be effects resulting from the transfer of genetic elements to other organisms in or around the site of the development or field test.

8. Pathway determination and rapid assessment This section is for the imports of GMOs only

Under section 42B of the HSNO Act your application may be eligible for a rapid assessment. The pathway for your application will be determined after its formal receipt, based on the data provided in this application form. If you would like your application to be considered for rapid assessment (as per the criteria below), we require you to complete this section.

8.1. Discuss whether the GMO(s) to be imported fulfil the criteria The criteria are:  The host organism(s) are Category 1 or 2 host organisms as per the HSNO (Low Risk Genetic Modification) Regulations  The genetic modifications are Category A or B modifications as per the HSNO (Low Risk Genetic Modification) Regulations and the modifications are not listed in the Schedule of these Regulations  The minimum containment of the GMO(s) will be as per the HSNO (Low Risk Genetic Modification) Regulations (PC1 or PC2 as per AS/NZS2243.3:2002)

9. Other information

Add here any further information you wish to include in this application including if there are any ethical considerations that you are aware of in relation to your application.

December 2013 EPA0324 27

Application Form Approval for new organism in containment

10. Checklist This checklist is to be completed by the applicant

Application Comments/justifications All sections of the application form completed ☒ Yes ☐ No or you have requested an information waiver (If No, please discuss with an under section 59 of the HSNO Act Advisor to enable your application to be further processed)

Confidential data as part of a separate, ☒ Yes ☐ No Please keep the identified appendix confidential references in the identified appendix out of public circulation

Supplementary optional information attached:

 Copies of additional references ☐ Yes ☒ No

 Relevant correspondence ☐ Yes ☒ No

Administration Are you an approved EPA customer? ☐ Yes ☒ No If Yes are you an: Applicant: ☒ Agent: ☐

If you are not an approved customer, payment of fee will be by:  Direct credit made to the EPA bank ☒ Yes ☐ No account (preferred method of payment) ☒ Payment to follow Date of direct credit: July 2017

 Cheque for application fee enclosed ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Payment to follow

Electronic, signed copy of application e- ☒ Yes mailed to the EPA

December 2013 EPA0324 28

Application Form Approval for new organism in containment

Signature of applicant or person authorised to sign on behalf of applicant

☒ I am making this application, or am authorised to sign on behalf of the applicant or applicant organisation.

☒ I have completed this application to the best of my ability and, as far as I am aware, the information I have provided in this application form is correct.

29 July 2017

Signature Date

Request for information waiver under section 59 of the HSNO Act

I request for the Authority to waive any legislative information requirements (i.e. concerning ☐ the information that has been supplied in my application) that my application does not meet (tick if applicable).

Please list below which section(s) of this form are relevant to the information waiver request:

December 2013 EPA0324 29

Application Form Approval for new organism in containment

Appendices and referenced material (if any) and glossary (if required)

GLOSSARY

Endoparasitoid: a parasite that lives inside another animal and ultimately kills it. Endoparasitoids, such as some solitary wasps, are commonly used as biological control agents.

Haemocoel: the primary body cavity of most invertebrates, containing circulatory fluid. Koinobiont: a parasitoid whose larval growth is on or within a host that continues to develop after oviposition. The host is often an early or mid-instar larva, exposed or weakly concealed; parasitoid development accelerates after the host has spun a cocoon or constructed a pupation chamber.

All references have already been supplied with App203337

Cumpston, D. M. (1939). Observations on the bionomics and mortphology of seven species of the Trbie Paropsini (). Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales, 64(3-4), 353- 366. FOA. (2016). Facts and Figures 2015/16 New Zealand Plantation Forest Industry. In N. Z. F. O. Association (Ed.), https://www.nzfoa.org.nz/images/stories/pdfs/ff_2016_web.pdf New Zealand Forest Owners Association: New. Lin, H., Murray, T., & Mason, E. (2017). Incidence of and defoliation by a newly introduced insect pest, Paropsisterna variicollis (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), on eleven durable Eucalyptus species in Hawke’s Bay, New Zealand. New Zealand Plant Protection, 70, in press. Loch, A. D. (2005). Mortality and recovery of eucalypt beetle pest and beneficial populations after commercial application of the insecticide alpha-cypermethrin. Forest Ecology and Management, 217(2), 255-265 Nahrung, H. F. (2006). Paropsine beetles (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) in south-eastern Queensland hardwood plantations: identifying potential pest species. Australian Forestry, 69(4), 270-274. Richardson, B., & Kimberley, M. O. (2010). Lessons learned from monitoring the effectiveness of the Asian gypsy moth aerial spraying eradication program. Applied Engineering in Agriculture, 26(3), 355-361. Rolando, C. A., Baillie, B., Withers, T. M., Bulman, L. S., & Garrett, L. G. (2016). Pesticide use in planted forests in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Forestry, 61(2), 3-10. Simmul, T. L., & De Little, D. W. (1999). Biology of the paropsini (Chrysomelidae: Chrysomelinae). In M. Cox (Ed.), Advances in Chysomelidae Biology (Vol. 1, pp. 463-477). Leiden, The Netherlands: Backhuys Publishers. Sopow, S. L., Jones, T., McIvor, I., McLean, J. A., & Pawson, S. M. (2017). Potential impacts of Tuberolachnus salignus (giant willow aphid) in New Zealand and options for control. Agricultural and forest entomology, 19, 225-234. doi: Agricultural and Forest Entomology (2017), DOI: 10.1111/afe.12211 Strand, T. M., Rolando, C. A., Richardson, B., Gous, S. F., Bader, M. K. F., & Hammond, D. (2014). An aerial spot-spraying technique: a pilot study to test a method for pest eradication in urban environments. SpringerPlus, 3, 750. doi: 10.1186/2193-1801-3-750 Yamoah, E., Voice, D., Gunawardana, D., Chandler, B., & Hammond, D. (2016). Eradication of Paropsisterna beata (Newman) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) in a semi-rural suburb in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Forestry Science, 46(5), 1-6. doi: DOI 10.1186/s40490-0616-0061- 3

CONFIDENTIAL APPENDIX REFERENCES

CABI (2017). Datasheet report for Glycaspis brimblecombei (red gum lerp psyllid), CABI Invasive Species Compendium. http://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheetreport?dsid=25242 Accessioned 27/07/2017.

December 2013 EPA0324 30

Application Form Approval for new organism in containment

MPI (2017). Response Stand-down Memo Glycasis brimblecombei Draft 21 July 2017 INV 15253. CONFIDENTIAL

December 2013 EPA0324