FILLING THE GAPS IN THE FIGHT
AGAINST INVASIVE SPECIESEDMOND K. IKUMADEAN SUGANOJEAN KADOOKA MARDFIN
Researchers

Report No. 1, 2002

Legislative Reference Bureau
State Capitol
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Internet: www.state.hi.us/lrb/

This report has been cataloged as follows:
Ikuma, Edmond K. + Sugano, Dean + Mardfin, Jean Kadooka
Filling the gaps in the fight against invasive species. Honolulu, HI: Legislative
Reference Bureau, January 2002.
1. Animal introduction - United States - States - Hawaii. 2. Alien plants - UnitedStates - States - Hawaii. 3. Pest introduction - United States - States - Hawaii.
KFH421.5.L35 A25 02-1

FOREWORD
This study was prepared in response to Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 45,
H.D. 1 (2001). The concurrent resolution directed the Legislative Reference Bureau toconduct a study on policy recommendations and funding options for a comprehensive
alien invasive species protection and control program for the State of Hawaii.
The Bureau extends its appreciation to the many federal, state, private agencies,
and individuals who generously and promptly provided information and assistance in the
preparation of this study.

Wendell K. Kimura
Acting Director
January 2002

iii

FACT SHEETI.

II.

Highlights
A.

The alien invasive species problem in Hawaii is both serious and daunting.
The damage that invasive species cause and may potentially cause
affects the State's health and safety, as well as its economic andenvironmental well being.

B.

The present system to fight invasive species is comprised of dedicatedstate, federal and private agencies. The system, however, is plagued withserious gaps and leaks.

C.

Two of the more major gaps involve funding problems and administering
invasive species programs.

D.

This report addresses these gaps by recommending the establishment ofan Invasive Species Administrator/Coordinator and suggesting various
sources of funding to finance invasive species programs.

Anticipated Questions
A.

Will the establishment of an Invasive Species Administrator/Coordinatorand the use of various funding sources suggested by this study solve theinvasive species problem in Hawaii?
Answer: No. Although the administration of programs and money are twovery important issues in the fight against invasive species, they are by nomeans a panacea.
It is important to understand that alien invasive species are not limited tojust the miconia, Brown tree snake, or Caribbean coqui frog. "Invasive
species" is a collective term that refers to all foreign plants, animals andorganisms that are harmful to Hawaii. Recognition of this "big picture" isnecessary to appreciate the overall damage caused by all invasive
species and to formulate programs and policies that appreciate the longterm requirements necessary to effectively and efficiently utilize funds andresources.
It is also important for the Legislature to realize that funding for invasive
species is an on-going cost. The elimination of the coqui frog or miconia
or any other pest will not of itself solve the invasive species problem. Like
any other budget line item such as education or housing, the invasive
species problem is a recurring legislative concern.

iv

B.

How much will it cost to solve the invasive species problem?
Answer: For one year, the estimated cost of financing all invasive
species programs is approximately $50 million. Obviously, that amount isbeyond the reach of the State, especially in this economic climate.
It is more important for the Legislature to focus on the on-going nature of
the funding problem and to designate dedicated sources of funding forfighting invasive species, as well as to concentrate funding on prevention
and inspection activities to achieve the greatest return on funds expended.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
FOREWORD...........................................................................................................

iii

FACT SHEET..........................................................................................................

iv

1.

INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................

1

What is so Bad About a Foreign Plant or Animal in Hawaii? ...................
Biodiversity the Ultimate Goal .................................................................
The Proper Perspective ..........................................................................
Legislative Intent .....................................................................................
Scope of the Study..................................................................................
Organization of the Study........................................................................
Endnotes .................................................................................................

1
1
2
2
3
4
4

SCOPE OF THE INVASIVE SPECIES PROBLEM ON GLOBAL
AND LOCAL LEVELS .................................................................................

5

Globally ...................................................................................................
Nationally ................................................................................................
Locally .....................................................................................................
Why is the Invasive Species Problem so much Worse in Hawaii? ..........
The Scope of the Problem ......................................................................
Pathways to Paradise .............................................................................
Endnotes .................................................................................................

5
6
7
7
8
10
10

THE ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS TO HAWAIIASSOCIATED WITH INVASIVE SPECIES..................................................

13

Economics of Prevention and Eradication...............................................
Agriculture ...............................................................................................
Other Economic Costs ............................................................................
Potential Economic Costs .......................................................................
Endnotes .................................................................................................

13
13
14
15
17

HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUES FOR HAWAII ASSOCIATED
WITH INVASIVE SPECIES ..........................................................................

19

Endnotes .................................................................................................

20

2.

3.

4.

vi

Page
5.

STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES HAVING RESPONSIBILITIESCONCERNING THE INVASIVE SPECIES PROBLEM................................
Inspection
State Agencies ........................................................................................
Hawaii Department of Agriculture....................................................
Plant Quarantine Branch, Plant Industry Division, HDOA ...............
Cargo Inspection .............................................................................
Passenger Inspection......................................................................
Military Inspection ...........................................................................
Plant Pest Control Branch (PPC), Plant Industry Division,
HDOA ........................................................................................
Inspection and Quarantine Branch (IQB), Animal Industry
Division, HDOA..........................................................................
Livestock Disease Control Branch (LDC), Animal Industry
Division, HDOA..........................................................................
Federal Agencies ....................................................................................
U.S. Customs Service, Department of Treasury .............................
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Department ofInterior .......................................................................................
Plant Protection and Quarantine Branch (PPQ), Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), U.S.
Department of Agriculture ..........................................................
Military Customs Inspection Program (MCI)....................................
U.S. Postal Service (USPS) ............................................................
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Department of
Health and Human Services ......................................................
Eradication
State Agencies ........................................................................................
Plant Quarantine Branch (PQ), Plant Industry Division, HDOA.......
Plant Pest Control Branch (PPC), Plant Industry Division,
HDOA ........................................................................................
Division of Forestry and Wildlife (DFW), DLNR...............................
Division of Aquatic Resources (DAR), DLNR ..................................
Vector Control Branch (VCB), Environmental HealthServices Division, DOH..............................................................
Federal Agencies ....................................................................................
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Department of Interior ....
Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry, U.S. Forest Service andTropical Fruit and Vegetable Research Laboratory,
Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department ofAgriculture ...................................................................................
National Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior .........................
Private Organizations..............................................................................

vii

21

21
21
22
22
22
22
22
23
23
23
23
23

23
24
24
24
24
24
25
25
26
26
26
26

27
27
27

Page

6.

7.

8.

Collaborative Efforts Between Organizations in the Public,
Private, and Non-Profit Sectors and Among Government
Agencies .........................................................................................
The Potential for Future Collaborative Efforts .........................................
Tourism Industry .....................................................................................
Endnotes .................................................................................................

27
29
30
30

GAPS AND LEAKS IN THE PRESENT SYSTEM .......................................

31

Funding Related Issues ..........................................................................
State Administration Issues.....................................................................
Federal Issues.........................................................................................
Endnotes .................................................................................................

31
32
32
33

FUNDING INVASIVE SPECIES PROGRAMS .............................................

34

The Money Problem................................................................................
On-Going Cost ........................................................................................
How much is Needed to Fight Invasive Species? ...................................
How much does the State Spend Fighting Invasive Species? ................
Federal and Other Sources of Funding ...................................................
Existing Funding Sources .......................................................................
Potential Funding Sources ......................................................................
Endnotes .................................................................................................

34
34
34
34
35
35
39
42

HOW OTHER JURISDICTIONS ADMINISTER THE CONTROLAND ERADICATION OF ALIEN INVASIVE SPECIES ................................

49

New Zealand ...........................................................................................
Administration .................................................................................
Regional Councils ...........................................................................
Lead Agency ...................................................................................
Cooperative Efforts Between the New Zealand Nationaland Local Governments.............................................................
Summary of New Zealand's Approach ............................................
Australia ..................................................................................................
Quarantine Act ................................................................................
Nairn Committee .............................................................................
Exclusion List ..................................................................................
Lead Agency Approach...................................................................
Florida .....................................................................................................
Gaps in Florida's Attack on Invasive Species..................................
Georgia ...................................................................................................
Montana ..................................................................................................

viii

49
49
50
50
50
51
51
51
52
52
53
53
53
55
55

Page

9.

10.

Utah ........................................................................................................
California .................................................................................................
Minnesota................................................................................................
Texas ......................................................................................................
Washington .............................................................................................
Summary.................................................................................................
Endnotes .................................................................................................

56
56
57
57
58
59
60

ASSESSING THE NEED FOR A LEAD AGENCY ......................................

62

The Council Approach.............................................................................
State Administrator/Coordinator ..............................................................
Endnotes .................................................................................................

63
64
65

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .....................................................

66

The Money Gap ......................................................................................
The Need for an Administrator/Coordinator Position...............................
Endnotes .................................................................................................

66
67
70

Table
7-1.

Funding Sources for Invasive Species Control and Prevention....................

37

AppendicesA.

Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 45, H.D. 1, Regular Session of 2001.....

71

B.

Laws and Rules or Regulations Administered or Implemented ....................

74

C.

Statewide Alien Prevention and Control Needs............................................

78

D.

Recent State Expenditures on Alien Species Prevention/Control.................

79

E.

Survey of States Regarding Expenditures for Invasive Species Activities....

80

F.

Transmittal Letter to Mr. Kazu Hayashida, Director of Transportation,from Mr. Barry L. Molar, Manager, Airport Compliance Division...................

98

G.

Proposed Legislation Relating to Invasive Species Funding ........................ 102
Proposed Legislation Relating to Alien Invasive Species ............................. 111

ix

Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 45, H.D. 1 (2001) (see Appendix
A), the Legislative Reference Bureau was requested to conduct a study on policy
recommendations and funding options for a comprehensive alien invasive species
protection and control program for the State of Hawaii.
Simply put, the term "alien invasive species" means foreign plants or animals thathave invaded another locality. A dictionary definition of "species" refers to a basic
biological category of living things that "are able to breed among themselves, but are
not able to breed with members of another species." 1 On a more technical level, alien
invasive species refers to plants, animals, organisms, or microorganisms that weremoved or transported beyond their natural habitat and have invaded or taken-overanother habitat or ecosystem.
In a survey of the more serious alien pests in the Hawaiian Islands, George
Staples and Robert Cowie's "Hawaii's Invasive Species," describes the scope ofinvasive species as "vertebrate and invertebrate [(snails, insects, etc.)], animals andplants that occur in terrestrial (land), freshwater, and marine habitats." Alien species
also include "organisms that live underground including minute nematode worms, fungi,
and protists (single-celled organisms)," as well as "disease-causing micro-organisms(bacteria, viruses, protists) ..." 2

What is so Bad About a Foreign Plant or Animal in Hawaii?
Not all alien species are bad or invasive. Many plants, fruits, vegetables, anddomesticated animals such as pineapples, sugarcane, coconuts, and taro, which are allalien to Hawaii, were imported here to provide food, sustenance, and economic growth.
Alien species become invasive in a new environment because the natural
predators or other biological mechanism that kept the specie manageable in its former
habitat is missing in its new environment. Without this biological balance, invasive
species compete with native species for food and territory, alter or destroy natural
habitats, change predator/prey relationships, and sometimes transmit foreign diseases
or parasites. In doing so, these pests effectively change the biodiversity of a locality
and can often cause millions of dollars in damage to local economies.

Biodiversity the Ultimate Goal
Biodiversity or biological diversity refers to variety within the living world. The
world needs biodiversity "to guide important decisions at every level, from local
1

FILLING THE GAPS IN THE FIGHT AGAINST INVASIVE SPECIES

landscaping to federal importation regulations. ...[H]umans need to understand the roleof place -- and the separation of places -- in shaping the biotic world." 3 (Emphasis inoriginal)"Based on the number of species per square mile on each of the continents,[biologists] projected that such a landmass would support about 2,000 species ofmammals. However, with the continents separate, the earth actually has about 4,200
species of mammals. [T]he complete breakdown of biogeographic barriers [as is thecase with invading alien species,] might result in the eventual extinction of more thanhalf of the earth's mammalian species." 4 "The ecological importance of a species canhave a direct effect on ... overall biological diversity." 5"The continuing destruction and degradation of natural habitats cause more
species to become endangered. They also reduce our ecosystem's ability to provide
basic ecological services, such as flood control and crop pollination, on which humans
depend. Against this backdrop of ecological deterioration, exotic species are emerging
as one of the leading threats to our native species and ecosystems." 6A case in point is the miconia calvescens plant. The miconia, which somebelieve was imported into Hawaii as a commercial decorative plant, 7 is a native of SouthAmerica and can quickly grow up to fifty feet tall with huge "elephant-ear" like leaves
that can span more than a foot and a half wide and close to three feet long.8 These
monstrous plants can grow almost anywhere and create gigantic canopies that not only
effectively kill smaller native and non-native plants by blocking the sun's light, but in theprocess destroy the habitat of native forest birds, animals and insects, as well as
threaten watersheds that supply water to thousands of households. Left unchecked, aninvasive species like miconia is virtually impossible to eradicate. Maui county alone
spends $1 million a year just to contain the miconia plant.9

The Proper Perspective
It is important to understand that alien invasive species are not limited to justmiconia, Brown tree snakes, or Caribbean coqui frogs. "Invasive species" is a collective
term that refers to all foreign plants, animals and organisms that are harmful to Hawaii.
Recognition of this "big picture" is necessary to appreciate the overall damage causedby all invasive species and to formulate programs and policies that appreciate the longterm requirements necessary to effectively and efficiently utilize funds and resources.

Legislative Intent
The Legislature recognized the environmental and economic threat posed byinvasive species and was well aware of the efforts to address this problem by federal,state, county and concerned private organizations. The Legislature, however, was also
aware of state invasive species programs that were "piecemeal [and lacked] adequate2

INTRODUCTION

rigor, comprehensiveness, and political will ..." 10 To resolve this administrative problem,
the Legislature adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 45 in an attempt to provide
policy recommendations and funding options to develop a comprehensive invasive
species protection and control program for the State of Hawaii.

Scope of the Study
The scope of this study is set-out in the concurrent resolution and requests the
Bureau to provide information in the following areas:(1)

The scope of the invasive species problem on a global and local level;(2)

The economic and environmental costs to Hawaii associated with invasive
species;(3)

The health and safety issues for Hawaii associated with invasive species;(4)

Hawaii's existing programs and policies that address the invasive species
problem;(5)

Existing collaborative efforts between organizations in the public, private,
and non-profit sectors and among government agencies;(6)

Potential for future collaborative efforts between organi zations in the
public, private, and non-profit sectors and among government agencies;(7)

Statutory changes the Legislature can make to improve control andprevention of invasive species;(8)

Assessing the need for a lead state agency for the control and preventionof invasive species, and if deemed necessary, recommending the leadstate agency; and(9)

Evaluating existing funding sources and recommending potential future
funding sources for a comprehensive state plan.

This study will concentrate on the larger, more visible species that people
generally encounter. Except for invasive species targeted by the Department of
Health's Vector Control, organisms that live underground including minute nematodeworms, fungi, and protists (single-celled organisms), as well as disease-causing microorganisms will, for the most part, not be included in this study since the primary thrust of
on-going efforts are not aimed at these pests.

3

FILLING THE GAPS IN THE FIGHT AGAINST INVASIVE SPECIES

Finally, this study does not address the "how to" of controlling and eradicating
invasive species. This study is intended to focus on identifying "gaps" and "leaks" in thepresent system, assessing the need for a lead state agency, and evaluating funding
issues related to combating invasive species in Hawaii.

Organization of the Study
This report is generally organized following the above issues as set forth in the
concurrent resolution. Each issue is generally treated in a separate chapter withadditional chapters discussing the gaps and leaks in the present system to fight invasive
species, and how other jurisdictions administer their invasive species programs. The
report concludes with recommendations and suggested legislation.

Endnotes1.

Random House Webster's College Dictionary 1991.

2.

Staples, George and Cowie, Robert, 2001, "Hawaii's Invasive Species", Mutual Publishing.

3.

Van Driesche, Jason and Roy, 2000, "Nature Out of Place", Island Press.

4.

Id., quoting the "American Scientist", at 33-47.

5.

World Conservation Monitoring Centre, 1995, "Biodiversity: An Overview", www.wcmc.org.uk/
infoserv/biogen/biogen.html.

6.

The Nature Conservancy, "America's Least Wanted", a NatureServe Publication.

7.

Various interviews with state and private agency staff.

8.

Honolulu Star-Bulletin, September 10, 2001, www.starbulletin.com.

9.

Id.

10.

Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 45 (2001), p. 1.

4

Chapter 2
SCOPE OF THE INVASIVE SPECIES PROBLEM
ON GLOBAL AND LOCAL LEVELS
Globally
According to the IUCN -- The World Conservation Union, 1 the expansion of
global trade and transport has allowed modern society to gain greater access to andbenefits from the world's biological diversity. As a result, the world has become
enriched through access to and introduction of different varieties of plant and animal
species, including alien species. These species have been used for agriculture,
forestry, fishing, ornamental and recreational purposes.2
Often, however, the introduction to ecosystems of alien species has carried aheavy price tag, especially in terms of loss of biodiversity and environmental and natural
resource damage. As a result, the introduction of alien species has been recognized as
one of the most serious threats to our health, and to our ecological, social and economic
well being.3 "The environmental problems caused by alien species worldwide rank with
habitat destruction in seriousness." 4 "Tropical rainforests are being cut down faster thanthey can grow back, and ... the forest is replaced with grassland, usually composed ofalien species." 5 "The effects of invasive alien species are often less noticeable than the
more obvious habitat destruction such as logging or urban development and in the past
have generated less concern among politicians and the general public." 6
Almost every country is grappling with the problems caused by introduced alien
species. Addressing the problem is urgent because the threats increase daily. For
example, according to the Invasive Species Advisory Committee 7 and the Van
Driesche's "Nature Out of Place":•

Zebra mussels are affecting fisheries and electric power generation in
North America causing $5 billion in damage to water pipes, boat hulls, andother hard surfaces in the region by the end of 2000;•

Water hyacinths are choking wetlands and waterways in Africa and China;•

Brown tree snakes are decimating native bird species on oceanic islands,
and pose a major threat to Hawaii;•

Grey squirrels are ousting native Red squirrels in Europe;•

Foot and mouth disease, a highly contagious disease of cloven-hoofed
animals has caused the United States to temporarily ban meat imports

5

FILLING THE GAPS IN THE FIGHT AGAINST INVASIVE SPECIES

from the European Union and Chile costing British companies $30 billion;
and•A comb jelly, native to the eastern coast of the America's was accidentally
released into the Black Sea, provoking the collapse of the alreadystressed Black Sea fisheries with an estimated $350 million loss.

Worldwide, the losses to agriculture may be anywhere from $55 billion to nearly$248 billion annually. 8 Philippine rice farmers have lost nearly $1 billion in crops to theinvasive golden apple snail. An exotic cattail is strangling rice paddies in the wetlandsof northern Nigeria.9
The threat of alien species has resulted in numerous international conventions,
treaties and agreements. The Convention on Biological Diversity included over 170
countries that addressed alien species introduction, control, and eradication across all
biological taxa and ecosystems. To put the worldwide effects of invasive species into
perspective, we need only look at the devastation in our own country.

Nationally
There are approximately 50,000 foreign species (not all harmful) that have been
introduced in this country and the number is increasing.10 The National Conference ofState Legislatures estimates the total costs attributable to invasive species in the UnitedStates amount to $137 billion each year with an estimated thirty percent of the National
Park System in the lower forty-eight states infested by invasive species. The cost to
U.S. agriculture alone is approximately $72.7 billion, 11 and the Nature Conservancy
reports that invasive species impact nearly half of the species currently listed as"threatened" or "endangered" under the U.S. Federal Endangered Species Act. 12
On Guam, the Brown Tree Snake originating in the South Pacific and Australia,
has exterminated ten to thirteen native bird species, six of twelve native lizard species,
and two of three bat species. The Glassy-winged sharpshooter, an invasive insect
recently detected in California, carries the plant bacterium Xylella fastidiosa, a disease
that has caused nearly $40 million in losses to California grapes. The disease poses amajor economic threat to the grape, raisin, and wine industries, as well as to tourism
related activities all valued at nearly $35 billion annually. 13
An estimated 138 alien tree and shrub species have invaded native U.S. forestand shrub ecosystems.14 Also, invading weeds have spread and are invading
approximately 700,000 hectares per year (1 hectare = 2.471 acres) of wildlife habitat in
the United States. 15 Similarly, European Cheatgrass has invaded and spreadthroughout the Great Basin in Idaho and Utah, predisposing the invaded habitat tofires. 16 Before the invasion of Cheatgrass, fire burned once every 60-100 years, andshrubs had a chance to become well established. Now, fires occur about every 3-5
years; shrubs and other vegetation are diminished, and competitive monocultures of6

SCOPE OF THE INVASIVE SPECIES PROBLEM ON GLOBAL AND LOCAL LEVELS

Cheatgrass now exist on five million hectares in Idaho and Utah.17 The animals
dependent on the shrubs and other original vegetation have been reduced oreliminated.18
Many small mammals have been introduced in the United States, including
numerous species of rodents. 19 The total cost of destruction by introduced rats in the
United States is more than $19 billion per year.20 Introduced cats have also become aserious threat to some native birds and other animals. The total damage to the U.S.
bird population is approximately $14 billion per year. 21
The list of invading alien species in this country seems almost endless and few
dispute the estimated $137 billion22 in damage that they cause each year.

Locally"There is wide-spread agreement among farmers, scientists, government
agencies, business people, and others that stopping the influx of new pests is essential
to Hawaii's future well-being." 23
A 1994 report of the United States Office of Technology Assessment declared
the Hawaii's alien pest species problem to be the worst in the nation. 24 Governor
Cayetano apparently agreed with that assessment in a letter to the National Invasive
Species Council when he said, "the invasive species problem [in Hawaii] is the most
severe of any state ...".25"Each year an average of twenty new insects become established in our islands,
half of which are known pests.... For the past five years, an average of one hundred
new alien plants each year have been discovered in the islands." 26
Additionally, according to the U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources
Division's Pacific Island Ecosystems Research Center, human colonization of theislands has severely impacted native plant and animal populations -- more than 75
percent of the historically known endemic bird species are now either extinct (23) orendangered (30). Of the nearly 1,300 endemic plant species described from Hawaii,
104 are considered extinct, and 267 of the remaining taxa are either listed or areproposed as endangered or threatened species.

Why is the Invasive Species Problem so much Worse in Hawaii?
According to the Coordinating Group on Alien Pest Species (CGAPS), an
organization composed of private, state, federal, and other interested parties that isdedicated to fighting invasive species in Hawaii:

7

FILLING THE GAPS IN THE FIGHT AGAINST INVASIVE SPECIESThe same natural circumstances that have made Hawaii ... a paradise
now make the islands exceptionally vulnerable to new pest species. For millionsof years, Hawaii was isolated from the rest of the world by 2,000 miles of open
ocean. Plants and animals succeeded in crossing the ocean and colonizing
Hawaii very infrequently, perhaps as seldom as once in 50,000 years. Thosethat did survive this incredible journey found a pleasant climate, fertile soils, few
competitors, and fewer diseases or predators....
As a result of this gentle environment, many native species lost theirnatural defenses because they had no need to escape or protect themselvesfrom predators. For example, most native plants have no poisonous saps or
thorns, and several birds lost their ability to fly.
But now a new pest reaches Hawaii once every 18 days on average.
Like other species, they too, benefit from Hawaii's lush environment. Free of thecompetitors and natural diseases that kept them in check in their own nativeenvironments, these foreign pests sometimes explode in Hawaii, overwhelming
native species, harming valuable crops, and sometimes threatening the islands'
people as well. 27

The Scope of the Problem
The scope of the invasive species problem in Hawaii is enormous. The next two
chapters will discuss the economic and environmental costs and the health and safetyissues with respect to invasive species in Hawaii. But first, the following brief survey ofsome of the more notorious invasive species identified in Hawaii:(1)

Snakes, especially the Brown tree snake are a threat to humans as wellas to the environment. "Of the more than 200 people treated in Guamemergency rooms for snakebites, 84% were bitten at night while asleep inbed. On more than one occasion, parents checking on a crying baby havebeen horrified to find an eight foot snake coiled around the child, thebaby's hands punctured and swollen from repeated bites." 28"The brown tree snake has already wiped out nine of Guam's elevennative land bird species and most of the non-native birds as well." In
Hawaii, "state inspectors captured 32 snakes and nearly 100 illegal
reptiles and amphibians ... 1994 alone." 29(2)

The Caribbean frog is quickly propagating on several islands. The
mating call of a male frog "can reach up to the decibel level of 90 to 100,
making it comparable to the noise made by a lawnmower, table saw, or
helicopter." 30 "Two species of small brown Caribbean frogs ... have been
introduced to Hawaii in the past ten years or so. One of these species (E.
coqui) occurs on Maui; the second (E. planirostris) occurs on the Big
Island, Oahu, and Kauai and could easily be transported to Maui." 31 "Thefrogs can occur at densities up to 8,000 per acre, and may occur at higher
densities in Hawaii. They consume an average of 45,000 prey items peracre per night (approximately 16 million prey items per acre per year).
8

SCOPE OF THE INVASIVE SPECIES PROBLEM ON GLOBAL AND LOCAL LEVELS

They do not require standing water for a tadpole stage, eggs are laid inlead axils or in lead litter. Females produce 4-6 clutches per year, eachclutch consisting of 16-41 eggs. They can occur from sea level to at least
mid-elevation rainforest and mesic forest (ca. 4,000 feet)." 32
The Environmental Protection Agency has recently approved the use of
caffeine to kill Caribbean frogs. 33 "The approval required an exemption
from the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. The state
Agricultural Department requested the exemption after tests administeredby the U.S. Department of Agriculture indicated caffeine was an effective
agent to kill coqui frogs." 34(3)

The Miconia plant which creates gigantic canopies that not only kills
smaller plants by blocking the sunlight, but in the process destroys the
habitat of native forest birds, animals and insects, as well as threatens
watersheds that supply water to thousands of households. 35(4)Fruit flies, the Papaya ringspot virus and other agricultural related
pests that cause an estimated $300 million in damage annually. 36(5)The Formosan ground termite causes nearly $150 million in treatment
and damage repair costs annually, most of which is paid byhomeowners." 37 "Six species of termites occur in the islands, all of themaliens." 38 The subterranean termite causes the most damage and is the
single most costly economic pest in the Hawaiian Islands.39 Because of
their large colonies (2-10 million termites) these insects can cause
enormous damage in a short time. This species has not yet reached its
full potential.40(6)

Biting sand flies. "On May 2, 1995, three canoes in the historic
Polynesian voyaging fleet sailing from the Marquesas to Hawaii reported
biting flies on board. The crews had seen for themselves the swarms ofthese no-no flies at beaches and streams on Nuku Hiva, and the infected
sores on the legs of bitten Marquesan children. These tiny, voracious flies
breed in beach sand or in streams, and are most active on sunny days." 41(7)

Mosquitoes that act as vectors for Dengue Fever and Malaria and havethe potential to cause serious epidemics to humans and native birds. 42
Dengue Fever poses a threat to not only local residents but tourists aswell. "Dengue and dengue hemorrhagic fever are caused by one of four
closely related, but antigenitically distinct, virus serotypes." 43 Dengue isprimarily a disease of the tropics, and the viruses that cause it are
maintained in a cycle that involves humans and Aedes asgypti, adomestic, day-biting mosquito that prefers to feed on humans.

9

FILLING THE GAPS IN THE FIGHT AGAINST INVASIVE SPECIES(8)

Piranhas which have already found their way into Oahu waterways andremain a favorite illegal importation specie of pet hobbyists. 44(9)Pigs, goats, deer and sheep that destroy native vegetation, accelerate
erosion, pollute water supplies, and devour bird nestlings. Their wallows
create breeding sites for mosquitoes that may spread deadly diseases foranimals and humans. 45(10)Rodents which transmit leptospirosis and murine typhus to humans aswell as feed on sugarcane, native birds and plants including koa.46

Pathways to Paradise
Alien pests enter Hawaii's boundaries through different means or pathways. The
most popular pathways utilized by alien pests are by air, sea, and the mail. The
following is a summary of these pathways and the scope of their use in Hawaii (prior to
September 11, 2001):"Every day by air:
•
•
•
•
•
•

68 commercial flights
192 interisland flights
21,992 passengers
11 military flights
260,000 pounds of cargo
15,575 parcels

Every day by sea:•••

30,964,000 pounds of cargo
20,888 parcels
222 passengers

Every day by mail:••614,000 pounds of mail1,171,384 parcels" 47

Endnotes
1.

IUCN -- The World Conservation Union, 2001, "A Guide to Designing Legal and Institutional
Frameworks on Alien Invasive Species", www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/pubs/policy.htm.

2.

Id.

10

SCOPE OF THE INVASIVE SPECIES PROBLEM ON GLOBAL AND LOCAL LEVELS

3.

Id.

4.

Staples and Cowie, 2001, "Hawaii's Invasive Species", Mutual Publishing, at 5.

5.

Id.

6.

Id.

7.

Invasive Species Advisory Committee, Invasive Species Council, 2000, "International Working
Group Report". The Committee and Council are a product of President Clinton's Executive Order13112 and is discussed further in Chapter 7.

8.

Id., at 57-58.

9.

Id.

10.

Pimentel, et al., "Environmental and Economic Costs Associated with Non-indigenous Species in
the United States", June 12, 1999, Cornell University.

11.

National Conference of State Legislatures, National Conference on Science, Policy, and theEnvironment, October 12, 2000.

12.

Pimental, et al., "Environmental and Economic Costs Associated with Non-indigenous Species in
the United States", quoting Nature Conservancy 1996; Wilcove, et al., 1998.

13.

Id.

14.

Pimental, et al., "Environmental and Economic Costs Associated with Non-indigenous Species in
the United States", quoting Campbell 1998.

15.

Pimental, et al., "Environmental and Economic Costs Associated with Non-indigenous Species in
the United States", quoting Babbit 1998.

16.

Pimental, et al., "Environmental and Economic Costs Associated with Non-indigenous Species in
the United States", quoting Kurdila 1995; Vitousek, et al., 1996; Vitousek, et al., 1997.

17.

Pimental, et al., "Environmental and Economic Costs Associated with Non-indigenous Species in
the United States", quoting Whisenant 1990.

18.

Pimentel, et al., "Environmental and Economic Costs Associated with Non-indigenous Species in
the United States", June 12, 1999, Cornell University.

19.

Pimental, et al., "Environmental and Economic Costs Associated with Non-indigenous Species in
the United States", quoting Layne 1997.

20.

Pimentel, et al., "Environmental and Economic Costs Associated with Non-indigenous Species in
the United States", June 12, 1999, Cornell University.

21.

Id.

22.

Id.

23.

The Coordinating Group On Alien Pest Species (CGAPS), 1999 (hereafter "CGAPS, 1999"), "TheSilent Invasion".

24.

U.S., Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), May 7,
2001, http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ oa/hialien.html.

11

FILLING THE GAPS IN THE FIGHT AGAINST INVASIVE SPECIES

25.

Letter from Governor Benjamin Cayetano to the National Invasive Species Council,
November 22, 2000.

26.

CGAPS, 1999, "The Silent Invasion".

27.

Id.

28.

Id.

29.

Id.

30.

Honolulu Star-Bulletin, October 1, 2001, "EPA approves use of caffeine to kill noisy coqui frogs",
http://www.starbulletin.com.

31.

Maui Invasive Species Committee, 2001, "2001 Action Plan", at 8.

32.

Id.

33.

Honolulu Star-Bulletin, October 1, 2001,"EPA approves use of caffeine to kill noisy coqui frogs",
http://www.starbulletin.com.

34.

Id.

35.

Honolulu
Star-Bulletin,
September
http://www.starbulletin.com.

36.

CGAPS, 1999, "The Silent Invasion".

37.

Coordinating Group on Alien Pest Species, 2001, "Protecting Hawaii from Invasive Pests".

38.

Staples and Cowie, 2001, "Hawaii Invasive Species", Mutual Publishing, at 44-45.

39.

Id.

40.

Id.

41.

CGAPS, 1999, "The Silent Invasion".

42.

Staples and Cowie, 2001, "Hawaii Invasive Species" Mutual Publishing, at 51.

43.

U.S., Centers for Disease Control, CDC Dengue Fever Home Page, http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/
dvbid/dengue/index.htm, October 8, 2001.

44.

Id., CGAPS, 1999, "The Silent Invasion".

45.

Id.

46.

Staples and Cowie, 2001, "Hawaii Invasive Species", Mutual Publishing, at 18-19.

47.

CGAPS, 1999, "The Silent Invasion".

10,

12

2001,

"the

Green

CancerSpreads",

Chapter 3
THE ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS TO HAWAIIASSOCIATED WITH INVASIVE SPECIESThe tourism industry is Hawaii's primary economic engine. Tourists come to
Hawaii, in large part, to experience its scenic beauty and pristine idyllic environment.
Therefore, the economy and the environment are inextricably interrelated -- any threat
to Hawaii's environment is logically a threat to its economy. Thus, an invasion of alien
species that alters or affects the environment will affect the economy.
Invasive species affect Hawaii economically in two basic ways. First, the costs
that are involved in preventing or eradicating these alien pests, and second, thepotential costs associated with invasive species damage.

Economics of Prevention and Eradication
The economic costs involved with the prevention or eradication of invasive
species "draw resources away from [other] activities that improve the quality of life [ofHawaii's residents]." 1 Funds that would otherwise have been spent on costs associatedwith the quality of life, instead are used to:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)

[P]revent the establishment of harmful species (e.g. fencing out of feral
animals),[C]ontrol populations (e.g. the application of pesticides), ...
[R]emediate damages caused by harmful pests (e.g. replacement ofwood structures due to termite damage) ... [and][R]esidual damages (those that are leftover after control and remediation
efforts) such as lower property values or decreased agricultural
production. 2

Agriculture
Hawaii's agricultural industry pays for costs in all of the foregoing categories.
Lost revenues alone (due to potential markets that refuse Hawaii exports with pest
infestations) account for an estimated $300 million per year.3"Many of Hawaii's most promising crops are struggling under a siege of alien
pests. Anthurium growers battle bacterial blight which has caused a 40% decline instatewide production since 1980. Several ginger root farmers have suffered 60-70%
crop loss due to a bacterial wilt that first appeared in 1991. An alien root aphid on
Maui is causing crop losses of 20-90% in affected cabbage, broccoli, and cauliflower
crops." 4 (Emphasis in original)

13

FILLING THE GAPS IN THE FIGHT AGAINST INVASIVE SPECIES"Since 1985, four new sugarcane insect pests have become established in
Hawaii, costing sugar planters more than $9 million. Alien snails, insects, viruses, andother pests threaten the resurgence of taro (already a $2 million industry statewide) as
an agricultural commodity and the staple of traditional Hawaiian diet. The taro root
aphid causes 90% crop loss in dryland taro. (Emphasis in original) Big island taro
growers are already battling this pest, and it spread to Oahu farms for the first time inlate 1994. The only treatment for taro root aphid: removal of all taro from the infested
field for at least one year." 5"Since fruit flies have made their way to Hawaii, restrictions have been placed on
the export of papaya, mango, and other produce to fruit fly-free markets like California
and Japan. The agriculture industry values these lost potential markets at $300 million
per year." 6"The papaya ringspot virus weakens the papaya tree and ruins the fruit. The
virus could bring an end to large-scale papaya production on the Big Island, valued at$16 million annually and employing 1,200 farmers. The fall of papaya, the fifth largest
commodity in the state, could mean a $50 million loss in an economy already sufferingfrom the decline of the sugar industry." 7
Many in Hawaii are familiar with the story behind the arrival of the Indianmongoose to Puerto Rico and Hawaii to control the local rat population. Although themongoose failed to eliminate its nocturnal prey, it was successful in killing poultry in
Puerto Rico and Hawaii. Additionally, the mongoose is responsible for the extinction ofamphibians, reptiles, and native birds, and preys on native ground nesting birds in
Hawaii and Puerto Rico. The mongoose causes approximately $50 million in damages
each year in Hawaii and Puerto Rico.8
The mongoose's intended prey -- rodents -- also cause their share of economic
problems. "In Hawaii, rats were causing $6 -- 10 million dollars a year in damage tosugarcane in the early 1990's." 9 "Rats now cause an estimated reduction in themacadamia nut harvest of 5 -- 10 percent, which for 1995 would account for $1.8 to 3.6
million in direct agricultural damages." 10
Introduced bird species are an especially severe problem in Hawaii. A total of 35
of the 69 non-indigenous bird species introduced between 1850 and 1984 in Hawaii are
still extant on the islands.11 One such species, the common myna bird, was introduced
to help control pest cutworms and army worms in sugarcane.12 However, it became themajor dispenser of seeds of an introduced serious weed, Lantana camara. 13

Other Economic Costs
Termites caused an estimated $60 million in 1986 which jumped to $150 million
in 1995.14

14

ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS TO HAWAII

The infamous brown tree snake has all but devastated Guam ecologically inrecent years and causes an estimated $1 million in economic damages annually. The
brown tree snake causes an average of one power outage every four days on Guam.15"If Oahu faced similar conditions, the expense of power outages would be dramatic. A
conservative estimate of the cost for one major Oahu power outage triggered by a fallen
tree branch in 1991 was $13 million." 16 A few brown tree snakes have been found in
Hawaii but thus far have been exterminated. Hawaii's concern about the snake,however, has prompted the federal government to invest $1.6 million per year in browntree snake control.17
Feral pigs, native to Eurasia and North Africa have been introduced into Hawaii
where they have substantially changed the vegetation in area parks. 18 More than eighty
percent of the soil is bare in regions inhabited by pigs. 19 This disturbance allows annual
plants to invade the overturned soil and intensifies soil erosion. Pig control per park in
Hawaii (1,500 pigs/park)20 costs about $150,000 per year. Assuming that the threeparks in Hawaii have similar pig control problems, the total damage attributable to pigs
is approximately $450,000 per year. 21
More costly and a more recent invasive species is the miconia plant. "More than
$1 million is spent each year on Maui and the Big Island ... [to fight the miconia plant.]" 22"[T]he cost is expected to rise; some say it would take $49 million to get rid of
miconia." 23

Potential Economic Costs
The most obvious potential economic cost related to invasive species is its
impact on the State's cash cow -- tourism. The invasion of unwanted pests has thepotential to economically devastate the State by keeping tourists away from the islands.
"The visitor industry is the backbone of Hawaii's economy, generating $18.9
billion in total sales, 30% of all state and county taxes ($1.1 billion), and 37% of allcivilian jobs in 1994. Hawaii's visitor industry is largely dependent on the islands' image
as a paradise with one of the world's safest and most pleasant outdoor environments -fantastic weather, clean beaches and water, and no dangerous snakes, insects, or
tropical diseases to worry about. But ... pest species threaten Hawaii's borders every
year, if any sneak through, they could permanently tarnish this image and pose real
threats to the engine that drives Hawaii's economy." 24
The "Silent Invasion" report preceded the dengue fever outbreak in the latter halfof 2001. The 59 confirmed cases of dengue fever in Maui as of October 18, 2001, wasblamed partially for an estimated 75% business slowdown in Hana, Maui, as well as a
25 percent layoff of employees at Hotel Hana-Maui.25

15

FILLING THE GAPS IN THE FIGHT AGAINST INVASIVE SPECIESConsidering the relative seclusion of the Hana community, the State wasfortunate that the outbreak was not in a more populated area. "In Tahiti, for example,
dengue has spread to an estimated 28,000 people." 26 Had the outbreak occurred in
Waikiki or West Maui, the economic repercussions would have been far greater.
The dengue outbreak also illustrates the quickness with which the disease or any
invasive specie can spread in today's global community, the potential for widespreadand substantial damage, and the difficulty of eradicating the alien specie. The latest
outbreak of dengue was transported from Tahiti to over a dozen Hawaiian communities
on three islands in a matter of months and devastated the town of Hana economically.
Even after intensive eradication efforts by the Department of Health, vestiges of thedisease still linger at the time of this writing.
In 1943, the only other dengue outbreak in Hawaii's history, the disease spread
rapidly and infected 1,500 people statewide. Because of the relative infrequency ofinter-island travel during the 40's, dengue was confined to the island of Oahu and thetotal eradication of the disease took ten years to complete.27
Other invasive species that have the direct potential to negatively affect the
tourism industry include:(1)

Biting sand flies. These flies stowed away on the historic Polynesian
voyaging fleet from the Marquesas in May of 1995. It also devastated a
Caribbean resort development before it even formally opened.28 "Thesetiny voracious flies breed in beach sand or in streams, and are most active
on sunny days. Peak swarms can inflict up to 10,000 bites per person perday. Millions of dollars have been spent trying to control the flies in the
Marquesas with little success ..." 29(2)

The Caribbean Coqui frog. These frogs pose problems to not only local
residents, but to Hawaii's visitors as well. Reports of the frogs at Mauihotels have modified the habits of some kamaaina guests who werebothered by the ear-piercing calls of male frogs. 30(3)The "Lethal yellowing" disease. This disease attacks and kills coconut
trees -- which has come to symbolize Hawaii and its beauty to tourist allover the world.31(4)

Red fire ants. These ants "almost made their way to Hawaii in 1991 ...
[and caused] nearly 20,000 people a year in the U.S. to seek medical
attention, including 32 people that died in 1989 from allergic reactions to
the ants' toxic stings. 32

As mentioned earlier, the foregoing invasive species have the potential to directly
impact Hawaii's tourism industry. Other species can still affect the industry indirectly byaltering or displacing Hawaii's environmental assets.

16

ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS TO HAWAII

Endnotes
1.

Kaiser, Krause, Meecham, Wooley and Roumasset, "Environmental Valuation and the Hawaiian
Economy", A Working Paper, at 102.

2.

Id.

3.

U.S., Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) website -"Alien Species Prevention in Hawaii".

4.

CGAPS, 1999, "The Silent Invasion".

5.

Id.

6.

Id.

7.

Id.

8.

Pimental, et al., 1999, "Environmental and Economic Costs Associated with Non-indigenous
Species in the United States".

9.

Kaiser, et al., "Environmental Valuation and the Hawaiian Economy", A Working Paper, at 111.

10.

Id., at 111.

11.

Pimental, et al., 1999, "Environmental and Economic Costs Associated with Non-indigenous
Species in the United States" quoting Moulton and Pimm 1983; Pimm 1991.

12.

Pimental, et al., 1999, "Environmental and Economic Costs Associated with Non-indigenous
Species in the United States" quoting Kurdila 1995.

13.

Pimental, et al., 1999, "Environmental and Economic Costs Associated with Non-indigenous
Species in the United States".

14.

The Coordinating Group on Alien Pest Species (CGAPS), 1999 (hereafter "CGAPS, 1999"), "TheSilent Invasion" quoting College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, University of
Hawaii Department of Entomology.

15.

Kaiser, et al., "Environmental Valuation and the Hawaiian Economy", A Working Paper, at 103.

16.

Id., at 103.

17.

Pimental, et al., 1999, "Environmental and Economic Costs Associated with Non-indigenous
Species in the United States" quoting Holt 1997-98.

18.

Pimental, et al., 1999, "Environmental and Economic Costs Associated with Non-indigenous
Species in the United States" quoting Kotanen 1995.

19.

Pimental, et al., 1999, "Environmental and Economic Costs Associated with Non-indigenous
Species in the United States" quoting Kurdila 1995.

20.

Pimental, et al., 1999, "Environmental and Economic Costs Associated with Non-indigenous
Species in the United States" quoting Stone, et al., 1992.

17

FILLING THE GAPS IN THE FIGHT AGAINST INVASIVE SPECIES

21.

Pimental, et al., 1999, "Environmental and Economic Costs Associated with Non-indigenous
Species in the United States" quoting P.C., R. Zuniga, 1999, Cornell University.

22.

Honolulu
Star-Bulletin,
September
http://www.starbulletin.com.

23.

Id.

24.

CGAPS, 1999, "The Silent Invasion".

25.

The Honolulu Advertiser, October 18, 2001, "Dengue fever count now 59", and "Gov. urges visits
to Maui despite fears of dengue", October 19, 2001, http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com.

26.

The Honolulu Advertiser, October
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com.

27.

The Honolulu Advertiser, October 22, 2001, http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com.

28.

CGAPS, 1999, "The Silent Invasion".

29.

Id.

30.

Interviews with various state officials and private agencies.

31.

CGAPS, 1999, "The Silent Invasion".

32.

Id.

9,

18,

18

2001,

2001,

"The

"Dengue

Green

fever

Cancercount

Spreads",

now

59",

Chapter 4
HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUES FOR HAWAIIASSOCIATED WITH INVASIVE SPECIES
Alien invasive species affect the health and safety of residents and tourists in
Hawaii both directly and indirectly. Invasive pests that harm or damage theenvironment indirectly affect the health of all other living things -- including humans. For
instance, the miconia plant destroys the ecology of local forests -- thereby destroying
the ecological balance of not only the physical environment, but the plant and animal lifethat depend on that delicate balance.
Invasive species do far greater damage to the health of residents and visitors
directly than they do indirectly. Since alien invasive species include microorganismsthat can take the form of a disease, any disease that is transported to Hawaii isconsidered an invasive specie. But because most diseases are alien to Hawaii, thisreport will concentrate on non-immunizable, new or reestablished diseases, such as
dengue fever.
As was previously mentioned, the outbreak of dengue fever wreaked economic
havoc on the little town of Hana on Maui, not to mention the debilitating, flu-like
symptoms suffered by 59 Hana residents. 1 Luckily for Hawaii, the disease appears tohave been contained in the Hana community before it could replicate the massive
health problems it caused on Oahu some sixty years ago.2
Another disease that threatens the health and safety of Hawaii's people andvisitors is the bacterium that causes anthrax, the bacillis anthracis. 3 Since the death ofa Florida man for inhalation of anthrax in October of 2001, anthrax has left a trail ofvictims across the East Coast.
Fortunately, no fatalities have occurred in Hawaii as of this writing, but the merethreat of anthrax has caused dozens of reportings (all ultimately negative) tooverworked local authorities in addition to a rash of hoaxes that only added to theconcerns of a public trying to get past the events of September 11, 2001.
Besides health concerns with diseases and bacteria, a host of other invasive
species affect or have the potential to affect the health and safety of Hawaii's residents
and tourists. As mentioned previously, these pests include:•

Biting sand flies which inflict 1,000 to 10,000 bites per human per day;•Red fire ants which killed 32 people in 1989;•

Brown tree snakes which contribute to the 200 attacks annually onhumans in Guam;
19

FILLING THE GAPS IN THE FIGHT AGAINST INVASIVE SPECIES•

Mosquitoes which carry both dengue fever as well as malaria;•

Africanized honey bee or "killer bees" which are responsible for 1,000
deaths and as many as 200,000 attacks on humans worldwide are alreadyin southern California;•

Termites, which cause $150 million in structural damage each year in
Hawaii, jeopardize the safety of occupants in termite-eaten homes andbuildings;•

Piranhas, which have already been found in Hawaii's waterways and can
inflict serious injury to humans and animals;•

Rodents that transmit leptospirosis and murine typhus to humans as well
as feed on sugarcane, native birds, and plants including koa;•

Fire promoting grasses that burn readily and serve as serious promotersof fire in native dryland ecosystems; 4•The stinging nettle caterpillar that causes a burning sensation whentouched and attacks rhapis palm leaves;5 and•

The Caribbean coqui frog which emits a shrill mating call from "dusk todawn ... at 90 to 100 decibels ... hovering somewhere between a chain
saw and a rock band." 6 Residents on the Big Island, Maui, and parts of
Oahu have lost sleep and are forced to "close all the windows at night, but
the whistling is so loud it is still nerve-racking." 7

Endnotes
1.

The Honolulu Advertiser, October
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com.

2.

Id.

3.

U.S., Centers for Disease Control press release, October 7, 2001, "Update:
Message Regarding Florida Anthrax Case".

4.

Hawaii, Department of Land and Natural Resources, 2001, "Alien Species" website.

5.

Honolulu Star-Bulletin, October
http://www.starbulletin.com.

6.

Carol Chang, MidWeek magazine, May 30, 2001, "The War on Frogs", at 46.

7.

Id.

9,

18,

2001,

2001,

20

"Dengue

"New

fever

InvasivecountyCaterpillar

now

59",

Public Health

Identified",Chapter 5
STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES HAVINGRESPONSIBILITIES CONCERNING THE
INVASIVE SPECIES PROBLEM
Hawaii's existing invasive species programs and policies are essentially divided
into two areas. First, preventing the introduction of invasive species into the Statethrough inspection, and second, the eradication of incipient invasive species before they
become established or the control of invasive species after their establishment in
Hawaii.
The following is a brief description of the duties performed by state and federal
agencies with respect to alien invasive species. Most of the material in this chapter iscondensed from a report published by The Nature Conservancy of Hawaii,1 which
provides an excellent summary in this regard. Lists of state and federal laws, rules, andregulations administered or implemented or implemented by the respective state andfederal agencies are included as Appendix B.

Inspection
State Agencies
Hawaii Department of Agriculture"Generally, the Hawaii Department of Agriculture (HDOA) has sole responsibility
for species importation originating within the U.S. Its authority however, extends only tomaterials coming from the continental U.S. It therefore relies heavily on referrals from
U.S. Customs, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)-Plant Protection and Quarantine
Branch (PPQ) , and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Law Enforcement Division (USFWS - LE) to intercept foreign and trust territory items prohibited by the State."
The Hawaii Board of Agriculture is "responsible for enforcing the list of species
prohibited by statute and determining which plant and animal species are prohibited or
permitted into the State." 1 The board also maintains three lists for animals "conditionallyapproved" (permit required for importation); "restricted" (permit required for both
importation and possession); and "prohibited." An animal not on the first two lists is also
prohibited, however, unlike animals, there is no statutory language which states thatplants must be on the permitted list or they cannot be imported.
With respect to microorganisms, the board maintains lists of:(1)"Restricted" microorganisms (permit required for importation);

21

FILLING THE GAPS IN THE FIGHT AGAINST INVASIVE SPECIES(2)

Select human pathogens for certified clinic laboratories (no permit
required); and(3)

Nonrestricted microorganisms (no permit required).
Unlisted
microorganisms may be allowed based on the department's determinationof the level of risk (high, moderate, or low).

Plant Quarantine Branch, Plant Industry Division, HDOAThe Plant Quarantine Branch (PQ) regulates the importation of plants,
nondomestic animals and microorganisms and the movement within the islands of allplants and nondomestic animals. Its primary goal is to prevent the introduction ofharmful insects, plant diseases, illegal animals and other pests into Hawaii.
Cargo Inspection"The [B]ranch separates in-coming goods into one of three "risk-categories" -high, medium, or low risk -- and randomly inspects the items in decreasing order ofemphasis.1
Passenger Inspection"All passengers, officers and crew members arriving in Hawaii by commercial
aircraft or vessel and carrying plants, animals, microbial cultures, or soil must complete
the HDOA mandatory Declaration Form and submit the imported items for inspection." 1
Military Inspection"Military maritime and airport facilities are subject to PQ inspection, but suchinspections are limited due to the lack of staff." 1

Plant Pest Control Branch (PPC), Plant Industry Division, HDOAThe Plant Pest Control Branch is responsible for eradication of incipient plantdiseases, weeds, and invertebrate pests. The Branch is not responsible for controllingsome vertebrate pests, although it will assist in the control of specific vertebrate pests
through departmental collaborative efforts. PPC also "plays a lead role in carrying out
the department's responsibility to develop lists of noxious seeds and noxious weeds thatare subject to regulation." 122

INVASIVE SPECIES PROBLEM

Inspection and Quarantine Branch (IQB), Animal Industry
Division, HDOAThe IQB focuses on cats, dogs and other carnivores and places particularemphasis on keeping Hawaii free of rabies at its animal quarantine stations.1 "IQB
[also] has authority to inspect military air and sea transport." 1

Livestock Disease Control Branch (LDC), Animal Industry
Division, HDOA"The mission of the LDC is [the] prevention, control and eradication of diseasesof livestock and poultry in Hawaii. Prevention is conducted through disease surveillance
activities, which includes enforcing livestock import regulations.... The goal of thisprogram is to ensure that the State remains free of ... [livestock] diseases and in turnmakes it easier to export livestock." 1Federal Agencies
U.S. Customs Service, Department of Treasury
The U.S. Customs Service seizes prohibited plants and animals or their products
at foreign ports of entry into Hawaii and from foreign mail. "Customs requires amanifest from the shipping agent of all in-coming cargo. The shipper holds imported
goods against a bond. Customs always inspects certain types of cargo, such as
aquarium fish, before granting entry. Others, such as new cars, are rarely inspected." 1"All packages mailed from outside the U.S. must have customs declarations thatclearly state the nature of the contents. Customs can inspect any mail from foreign
points of origin. In addition, Customs generally conducts spot checks to re-inspectselected military cargo and passengers previously inspected by Military Customs
Inspectors." 1

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Department of Interior
The USFWS is responsible for all imports of wildlife or wild plants into the U.S.
from foreign sources and the exportation of wildlife to foreign countries. The USFWS
may review all in-coming plant or animal material for Customs. Much of their inspection
duties involves examining baggage and mail referred by Customs and from incomingcargo.1

Plant Protection and Quarantine Branch (PPQ), Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service (APHIS), U.S. Department of Agriculture
The PPQ and APHIS inspect foreign shipments entering Hawaii or bound for the
mainland to prevent the importation of plant and animal diseases and pests. Much of23

FILLING THE GAPS IN THE FIGHT AGAINST INVASIVE SPECIES

PPQ's work in Hawaii involves pre-clearance inspections of baggage and exports boundfor the U.S. mainland.1 The PPQ also provides foreign arrival inspections and also
inspects plants or plant material that are found in baggage or cargo of foreign origin.1

Military Customs Inspection Program (MCI)MCI is an adjunct to U.S. Customs and APHIS and responsible for inspecting
transfers of military goods and personnel from overseas into U.S. jurisdictions. They
are responsible for implementing federal customs statutes and agriculture regulation fortransfers of military goods and personnel from overseas into U.S. jurisdiction. MCI staff
look for flying insects in airplane cabin areas and spray as necessary. They also review
household and personal goods transferred to the U.S. from foreign duty stations, andreview troops, gear, and equipment returning to areas of U.S. jurisdiction.1 MCI is not
responsible for goods transported to Hawaii from the U.S. mainland and vice versa.1

U.S. Postal Service (USPS)The USPS attempts to identify and screens some types of mail to intercept
quarantined agricultural material. Current postal regulations continue to prohibit the
opening or inspection of any first-class mail by state agricultural inspectors unless theparcel is plainly marked by the sender as containing a plant or plant product or labeled"may be opened for agricultural inspection". State agricultural inspectors are allowed toinspect parcels after getting consent from the sender or importer.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Department of
Health and Human Services"The FDA does not have a specific program for preventing alien pests fromentering Hawaii. Very few instances involve live infestations; 90-99 percent of the foodthat FDA finds to be contaminated is infested with either dead insects or insect parts." 1

Eradication
State Agencies
Eradication duties are presently shared by the Department of Land and Natural
Resources (DLNR), the Department of Health (DOH), and the Hawaii Department ofAgriculture (HDOA).

Plant Quarantine Branch (PQ), Plant Industry Division, HDOA
PQ conducts selected "post-entry" follow-up inspections to ensure that potentiallyharmful species authorized for entry under HDOA and/or USDA permits do not escapeand become established.

24

INVASIVE SPECIES PROBLEM"Problems arise with established vertebrates. Although the law tasks PQ with the
responsibility for species when they are entering the State, traditionally the [B]ranch isalso involved in pursuing illegal species (e.g. snakes, other reptiles, a cougar) long after
they have left the importation system -- airport, dock, warehouse or retail outlet -- areout in the wild. 'Handing off' of responsibility to another agency generally only happens
if the other controlling agency has been previously designated.... If, however, the linesof responsibility are unclear, PQ is often the responding agency." 1
PQ also participates in programs related to or developing: agricultural quarantine
inspection monitoring (sea cargo); banana inspection protocol; plant quarantine
standard operating procedures; plant quarantine policy manual; plant pest control
priority list; and plant pest control (biocontrol program) -- guidelines for conducting hostrange testing.

Plant Pest Control Branch (PPC), Plant Industry Division, HDOA
PPC "is responsible for controlling established diseases, invertebrate pests,
some vertebrate pests and noxious plant species." 1 "PPC responds to some pest calls,
including those reporting any animal, insect, disease agent or any other organism in any
stage of development that is detrimental, or potentially harmful to agriculture, natural
resources or the environment." 1 "Although the primary purpose of the [B]ranch's
activities is to promote agriculture, the statutory definition of "noxious weed" extends
PPC's jurisdiction to include weeds that threaten forest and conservation lands." 1

Division of Forestry and Wildlife (DFW), DLNR
Generally, DFW "is responsible for controlling pest species in conservation or
nonagricultural lands while HDOA is responsible for agricultural pests. In many cases,
however, this statutory distinction does not provide a clear jurisdictional boundary
between the two agencies. The two agencies collaborate frequently, particularly whentrying to control newly escaped species. HDOA-PQ is the first responding agency forescaped potential pests. Where necessary, PQ calls on DFW to assist with capturing or
destroying escaped animals (especially vertebrates) and may ask DFW to accept
primary responsibility for operations in remote areas where there is no HDOA staff." 1"Domesticated, nongame animals, such as chickens, ducks, and rabbits, alsopresent jurisdictional difficulties involving several agencies. Although DFW may
respond to escapes or assist HDOA in handling them, jurisdiction over this class ofpotential pest is not clear. For example, although Animal Industry Division statutes
provide some control over releasing domestic animals, no specific agency has
jurisdiction over 'feral rabbits.' The problem is further complicated when the animals inquestion are pets or farm animals valued by the owner. Feral animals in urban settings
are often captured or destroyed by the island humane societies." 1
DFW is responsible for:25

FILLING THE GAPS IN THE FIGHT AGAINST INVASIVE SPECIES(1)

Protecting alien birds occurring in a wild state;(2)

The taking of alien animals declared as game mammals (feral pigs, goats,etc.) by requiring hunting licenses and other requirements; and(3)

Selected situations on nonconservation and private lands where a serious
pest threatens to expand into conservation land and provide technicalassistance to private landowners for controlling pests.1

Division of Aquatic Resources (DAR), DLNRThe DAR "is responsible for conserving, protecting and enhancing the state's
renewable resources of aquatic life and habitat; managing noncommercial use of theseresources; promoting, developing and enhancing opportunities for public recreational
fishing; managing commercial use of Hawaii's aquatic resources; and encouraging the
growth and development of commercial fisheries and aquaculture in the State.... DAR
has initiated a high profile campaign against releasing aquarium fish into Hawaii's
streams." 1

Vector Control Branch (VCB), Environmental HealthServices Division, DOH
VCB "conduct[s] detection programs under the International Sanitation Rules andprovide protection against quarantinable diseases.... VCB prevents vector-borne
diseases by keeping populations of potential vectors below disease transmission
levels." 1
VCB also administers the statewide Port-of-Entry Program in Hawaii. The
Program is a critical priority for DOH and prevents alien species of public healthsignificance from entering the State.
Program operational procedures include
monitoring, surveillance, cordon sanitation, alien specie identification, enforcement andzoonotic laboratory diagnosis, and support functions.
The Branch also assists the DOA and DLNR with various eradication efforts as
resources allow through collaborative departmental agreements.

Federal Agencies
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Department of Interior
USFWS's mission is to resolve the problems created when wildlife causes
damage to agricultural, urban or natural resources. USFWS control efforts include rat
control and eradication and control of introduced predators on endangered waterbird
refuges.

26

INVASIVE SPECIES PROBLEM

Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry, U.S. Forest Service andTropical Fruit and Vegetable Research Laboratory, Agricultural
Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
These agencies provide research and testing services for biological control offorest weeds and fruit flies.

National Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior
Control activities include "large-scale feral animal and weed control programs ...
and jellow-jackets, mongoose and other mammalian predators [control programs]." 1

Private Organizations
Private organizations that have contributed to the eradication and control ofinvasive species include the Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum, The Nature Conservancy
of Hawaii, the Hawaiian Sugar Planters' Association, the Hawaiian Humane Society, theMaui Human Society, and the Sierra Club.

Collaborative Efforts Between Organizations in the Public, Private,
and Non-Profit Sectors and Among Government Agencies
Collaborative efforts between public, private and non-profit agencies abound withrespect to invasive species. These efforts include:(1)

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the state Department ofLand and Natural Resources (DLNR) and the Hawaii Department ofAgriculture (HDOA) that basically delegates responsibility for preventing
the introduction of invasive species into the State to HDOA and theeradication of invasive species already in the State to DLNR;(2)

MOU between the U.S. Departments of Interior, Transportation andAgriculture, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the state
Departments of Agriculture, Health, Transportation, and Land and Natural
Resources for the Hawaii Alien Species Action Plan (ASAP) for
improvements at Kahului Airport;(3)

The Hawaii Alien Species Action Plan (ASAP) was produced by the effortsof over eighty professionals from government, non-profit, and private
agencies and organizations that produced a strategy to strengthen
Hawaii's protection against invasive species. ASAP was the predecessor
to the present Coordinating Group on alien Pest Species (CGAPS);

27

FILLING THE GAPS IN THE FIGHT AGAINST INVASIVE SPECIES(4)Alien Species Action Team (Interdiction Team) that included (2) above
and the National Parks Service (Haleakala), Airlines Committee of Hawaii,
the Maui Hotel Association, the Nature Conservancy, and other concerned
civic groups;(5)

MOU between the state Department of Health and HDOA as to which
department should respond to a specific invasive specie threat (i.e., bitingflies on the Hokulea/fire ants on Kauai);(6)

Cooperative agreement between Plant Protection and Quarantine Branch(PPQ) and HDOA that HDOA will assist PPQ in identifying seeds imported
into Hawaii;(7)

Cooperative agreement that allows the U.S. Department of Agriculture(USDA) and HDOA to screen certain types of mail processed by the U.S.
Postal Service as well as private carriers like Federal Express and DHL;

(8)

The Coordinating Group on Alien Pest Species (CGAPS), a multi-agency
partnership of state and federal agencies, as well as private groups
formed to coordinate efforts against the invasive species problem;(9)

The respective island invasive species committees on Oahu, Maui,
Hawaii, and formatively on Kauai that are, for the most part, privately
funded to combat invasive species;(10)

The Brown Tree Snake Control Group, formed in response to the threat of
the snake's migration to Hawaii;(11)

The Noxious Plants Task Force, formed in anticipation of the state noxious
weed hearings;(12)

The First-Class Mail Inspection Task Force, established by the HDOA to
examine the problems presented by the entry of invasive species throughthe mail;(13)

The Melastome Action Committee organized to prepare long-term
prevention and control strategies for weed species in the Melastome plantfamily;(14)

The Firetree Control Committee formed to control the noxious weed
Myrica faya, an invasive tree native to the Azores and Canary Islands;(15)

Red Imported Fire Ant Action Plan (draft form);(16)

Brown Tree Snake Emergency Response Protocol;

28

INVASIVE SPECIES PROBLEM(17)

Alien Aquatic Organism Task Force formed under Act 237, Session Laws
of Hawaii 1997;(18)

Memorandum of Agreement between HDOA, USDA and APHIS on
postentry inspection which is required for HDOA to conduct postentry
quarantine inspections for APHIS in Hawaii (draft form);(19)

The National Invasive Species Council (Council) co-chaired by the
Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce and the Interior -- and includes the
Secretaries of State, Treasury, Defense, and Transportation, and theAdministrator of the Environmental Protection Agency;(20)

The National Invasive Species Advisory Committee which advises the
National Invasive Species Council;(21)

The Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 which authorizes the
Secretary of Agriculture to conduct activities and provide technicalassistance relating to insect infestations and disease conditions andfederal and non-federal lands;(22)

The National Environmental Policy Act which requires federal agencies to
identify actions that are likely to affect invasive species or be affected by
them;

(23)

The federal Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force which coordinates
activities relating to aquatic invasive species;(24)

The Federal Interagency Committee on the Management of Noxious andExotic Weeds which coordinates weed management efforts on federal
lands; and(25)

The Committee on Environment and Natural Resources of the National
Science and Technology Council which coordinates research efforts.

The Potential for Future Collaborative Efforts
To date, there has been a plethora of collaborative efforts among various stateand federal agencies and private organizations for the purpose of fighting invasive
species. The willingness or the potential for agency collaboration does not appear to be
an issue. It is to the credit of state, federal and especially private agencies, thatcooperative efforts among the various and sometimes adversarial groups have becomecommonplace and an effective means to combat problems posed by invasive species.

29

FILLING THE GAPS IN THE FIGHT AGAINST INVASIVE SPECIESTourism Industry
Considering the potentially devastating economic consequences that invasive
species could cause to the tourism industry (see chapter 3), participation by the tourism
industry in existing collaborative efforts to fight invasive species was surprisingly low.
Some tourism officials had either no understanding of the potential consequences
related to invasive species or any desire to participate in any collaborative effort, or
both.2Endnotes
1.

The Nature Conservancy of Hawaii, Natural Resources Defense Council, 1992, "The Alien Pest
Species Invasion in Hawaii:
Background Study and Recommendations for Interagency
Planning."

2.

Various interviews with state agency officials and private groups.

30

Chapter 6
GAPS AND LEAKS IN THE PRESENT SYSTEM
Despite Hawaii's status as one of the leading states with respect to fighting
invasive species, 1 "gaps", and "leaks" still plague the State's present system.
State and federal agencies, CGAPS, the Hawaii Nature Conservancy, and others
have identified several gaps and leaks that can be organized into the following four
categories.

Funding Related Issues•

The present system lacks proper funding to provide adequate inspection
and control efforts at almost every phase of the present system including
pests in vessel ballast water and hull encrustations and microalgae growth
on local beaches.

•

A large proportion of the total passenger, cargo, and other traffic entering
Hawaii is currently uninspected, including materials known to besignificant sources of new invasive species.

•

The interisland spread of invasive species is a major, largely unregulated
problem.

•Federal reimbursement is not fully utilized for state funds generally, andspecifically for "interline" funding to subsidize the protection of the U.S.
mainland from pests in Hawaii.

•

Present laws and penalties for illegal introductions are inadequately
enforced.

•

Funding for vertebrate-control research needs to be increased because
current levels are insufficient to cover more than a couple, out of the wide
range of pests in Hawaii.

•

DOH's revised Port-of-Entry Program needs to be fully funded to provide
adequate rodent trapping, rodenticiding, mosquito larviciding, mosquito
surveillance and other alien vector activities at ports-of-entry.

These budget and funding issues are discussed in the next chapter, Funding
Invasive Species Programs.

31

FILLING THE GAPS IN THE FIGHT AGAINST INVASIVE SPECIESState Administration Issues•

Response to new infestations is frequently delayed by jurisdictional,organizational, or procedural problems, allowing pests to become
established and, in some cases, spread beyond control.

•

Jurisdictional problems also reflect the absence of a single authority solely
responsible for fighting invasive species that can represent the State
regarding federal issues and concerns.

•

Better involvement of county governments is needed in the island invasive
species committees and in the prevention of the spread of invasive plants
through state and county sponsored nurseries.

•

A lack of agreement exists between state departments on the goals ofpreserving the agricultural base versus the natural resources of the State.

•

Agency mandates and commercial interests sometimes call for
maintenance of potentially destructive alien species as resources for sport
hunting, aesthetic resources or other values.

•

State lacks an invasive species mission statement and state agencies
should be mandated not to promote the introduction or spread of invasive
species.

Since these issues relate to administering invasive species programs, they are
discussed further in chapter 9, Assessing the Need for a Lead Agency.

Federal Issues•

International trade agreements and other federal programs do not protect
Hawaii from the full range of pests. Hawaii's fight against invasive species
is hampered by federal laws (quarantine preemption problem) that do notrecognize the dangers of pests already on the mainland but not in Hawaii,
and international trade agreements that do not take into account theissues related to foreign pests.

•

Domestic first-class mail is a pathway for invasive species into Hawaii andis federally protected from inspection.

•

Quarantine of domestic pests arriving from the mainland should be
provided by the federal government, as is the present practice that
protects the mainland from pests originating in Hawaii.

32

GAPS AND LEAKS IN THE PRESENT SYSTEM•

Lack of coordination between federal agencies, especially between the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of Defense and the
National Park Service.

•

The federal Lacey Act should be amended to include possession ofprohibited alien wildlife that is consistent with the State's injurious wildlife
list to improve state-federal coordination in enforcing smuggling and blackmarket violations involving injurious alien species.

•

The duties of the USDA in quarantines should be integrated with the
Department of Interior on the interdiction of invasive species forinternational airline arrivals.

•

Federal policy is needed to inspect domestic airline passengers, baggage
and cargo for invasive species.

•

The National Park Service has taken an active role in fighting invasive
species far beyond the boundaries of their parks.

•

More involvement by the federal Environmental Protection Agency inpublic health issues as it relates to invasive species.

•

Provide properly funded collaborative USDA assistance, to in effect,"deputize" the USDA's plant protection and quarantine program to enforce
Hawaii's laws.

Although these federal issues are, for the most part, beyond the authority of state
government and hence -- this report, they reflect the complicated and interdependent
relationship between federal and state agencies, laws and policies. These issues need
to be addressed by federal authorities and actively promoted by the State and are
therefore incorporated into chapter 9, relating to the administration of invasive species
programs.

Endnotes
1.

U.S., Office of Technology Assessment. Harmful Non-indigenous Species in the United States,
Washington, D.C., September 1993, Chapter 7. "State and Local approach from a National
Perspective".

33

Chapter 7
FUNDING INVASIVE SPECIES PROGRAMSThe Money Problem
When state, federal, and private agencies were asked to identify the single
greatest problem they faced in their fight against invasive species, their answer wasalways the same -- money. 1 If the Legislature does nothing else but appropriate more
funds for the fight against invasive species, it will have dramatically improved the State's
condition with respect to alien pests.
In the prior chapter that identifies "funding related" gaps and leaks, all of theissues in that section involve the underfunding or lack of funds to adequately fight theinvasive species problem in Hawaii. Especially issues related to the "inspection" ofballast water discharges, commercial cargo, interisland travel and cargo, and Port-ofEntry surveillance activities, unduly affect the fight against invasive species because of
the State's priority on inspection activities -- a discussion of which follows later in thischapter. Underfunding also affects federal matching programs that are also discussed
later in this chapter.

On-Going Cost
It is important for the Legislature to realize that funding for invasive species is an
on-going cost. The elimination of the coqui frog or miconia or any other pest will not
solve the invasive species problem. Like any other budget line item such as educationor housing, the invasive species problem is a recurring legislative concern.

How much is Needed to Fight Invasive Species?
CGAPS estimates that the cost to effectively fight invasive species in Hawaii for
one year is $49,847,000. See Appendix C, for a breakdown of this estimate.

How much does the State Spend Fighting Invasive Species?
The United States General Accounting Office (GAO) conducted a study on
invasive species in July of 2001 and found that for fiscal years 1999 and 2000, Hawaii
spent $6.3 million and $7.6 million, respectively to fight invasive species. This is only
12% to 15% of the total amount needed to fight invasive species. See CGAPS estimateof spending breakdown in Appendix D.

34

FUNDING INVASIVE SPECIES PROGRAMS

As of July 2001, in response to the GAO study, the following four state
departments reported the following expenditures to fight invasive species for 1999 and
2000:
1999

2000

DLNR
HDOA
DOT
DOH

$1,500,000$6,270,300$ 482,200$ 245,000$ 1,500,000$ 7,582,380$ 1,760,000$ 245,000

TOTAL$8,497,500$11,087,3802

Federal and Other Sources of Funding
The GAO report also provides the following federal and other sources of funding
to the following state departments for 1999 and 2000:
1999

2000

$ 260,000$ 210,000$ 260,000$ 210,000$ 562,000$ 570,000$ 847,000$ 550,000

$
$

$
$

DLNR
federalother
HDOA
federalother
DOTfederalother
DOH
federal
other
TOTAL

0
0

$
0
$
0
$1,413,000

0
0

$
0
$
0
$1,867,000

Excerpts of the GAO report are included in Appendix E.

Existing Funding Sources
The scope of this next section regarding existing funding sources has been
limited to sources normally reported under the State Budget Act, which for fiscal year
2001-2002 is Act 259, Regular Session of 2001, Session Laws of Hawaii 2001.3"Funding sources" means the specific revenue sources that make up the means offinancing that in turn finances programs in the state budget that involve invasive species
control and prevention.

35

FILLING THE GAPS IN THE FIGHT AGAINST INVASIVE SPECIESAt present, no programs in the state budget are devoted exclusively to invasive
species. Instead, several programs in the budget incorporate or can incorporate
invasive species activities within their broader objectives. The means of financing forthese programs include general funds, special funds, federal funds, trust funds,
interdepartmental transfers, and revolving funds.
Of these several means of financing, the special and revolving funds havestatutorily established funding sources. These funding sources consist of fees, rates,
charges, sales, fines, gifts, interest, legislative appropriations, or specific taxes.
Generally, funding sources are not earmarked for a particular use.4 Instead, the special
or revolving fund into which the funding sources are deposited is earmarked for someuse.
With regard to the other means of financing, the funding sources for theinterdepartmental transfers are the state Department of Land and Natural Resources
and the Airports and Harbors divisions of the state Department of Transportation. The
federal funding sources include the United States Department of Agriculture, the UnitedStates Department of the Interior, the United States Department of Transportation, andthe Environmental Protection Agency. Within the Department of the Interior, funding
sources include the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the United States
Geological Survey Biological Resources Division. Within the Department of Agriculture,
funding sources include the United States Forest Service. Within the Department ofTransportation funding sources, include the Federal Aviation Administration.
The departments in state government that either engage in or assist in funding
programs that include invasive species efforts are the Departments of Agriculture, Land
and Natural Resources, Health and Transportation. 5 In the budget act, the programs ofthese departments are found in the program areas of economic development,
environmental protection, transportation, health, and culture and recreation.6
Specifically, the departments through their divisions administer the following
programs (as indicated by their budget program acronym and number), which include
invasive species activities or funding:
Department of Agriculture
Plant Industry Division
AGR 122
Plant Pest and Disease Control
AGR 846
Pesticides
Animal Industry Division
AGR 131
Rabies Quarantine
AGR 132
Animal Disease Control
Department of Land and Natural Resources
Aquatic Resources Division
LNR 401
Aquatic Resources
LNR 805
Recreational Fisheries

36

FUNDING INVASIVE SPECIES PROGRAMS

Forestry and Wildlife Division
LNR 402
Forests and Wildlife Resources
LNR 407
Natural Area Reserves and Management
Department of Transportation
Airports Division
TRN 102
Honolulu International Airport
TRN 131
Kahului Airport
TRN 195
Airports Administration
Harbors Division
TRN 395
Harbors Administration7
Department of Health
Environmental Health Services Division
HTH 610
Environmental Health Services.
Existing funding sources for invasive species are set out in the table below. The
table breaks out programs by the means of financing. For each means of financing
except general funds, the funding sources are identified. For the special and revolving
funds, the name of the fund and the statute establishing the fund and the funding
sources are cited.

Table 7-1
Funding Sources for Invasive Species Control and Prevention
Program ID

Means ofFinancing

Name of Fund

HRS
SectionFunding Sources

AGR 122 8

Revolving

Permit revolving
fund

150A-6.7

Legislative, appropriations,user fees, interest, grants
and gifts, any other moneys

Revolving

Microorganism
150A-48
import certification
revolving fundLegislative appropriations,certification and inspection
fees, fines,
reimbursements, interest,
grants and gifts, any othermoneysPlant Pest andDiseaseControl

Trust9Non-recurring funds

GeneralTransfer10

Dept of Trans. (Airports
Div)

Federal 11

US Dept of Ag., & Dept ofInterior (including the US
Geological Survey Bio.

37

FILLING THE GAPS IN THE FIGHT AGAINST INVASIVE SPECIES

Program ID

Means ofFinancing

Name of Fund

Funding Sources

HRS
SectionResources Div.)12

AGR 846
Pesticides

Revolving

Pesticide use
revolving fund 13

149A-13.5

GeneralFederal 14
AGR 131

15

SpecialRabiesQuarantine
AGR 132 16

Licensing and registration
fees and charges,
educational services andtraining fees
EPA

Animal quarantine 142-28.5
special fundQuarantine fees, state
appropriations, interest

GeneralAnimalDiseaseControl
Transfer17
LNR 401 18
Aquatic
Resources

Dept of Trans. (Airports
Div.)

GeneralFederal 19
LNR 805 20

SpecialRecreational
Fisheries

US Dept of the Interior (USFish and Wildlife Service)
Sport fish specialfund

187A-9.5

Fees for licenses, permits,
programs, facilities andgrounds use; other; fines,
sales, monetarycontributions, interest

GeneralFederal 21
LNR 402 22

US Dept of the Interior (USFish and Wildlife Service)

SpecialNatural area
reserve fund195-9;
247-7

Conveyance tax, public or
private sources, investment
earnings

SpecialEndangered
species trust fund

195D-31

Sales, private contributions,
fees and assessments,
fines, legislative
appropriations

Forests andWildlife
Resources

GeneralFederal 23
LNR 407 24

SpecialUS Dept of Ag. Forest
ServiceNatural area

195-9;

38

Conveyance tax, public or

FUNDING INVASIVE SPECIES PROGRAMSProgram ID

Means ofFinancing

Name of Fund

Funding Sources

reserve fund

HRS
Section247-7

Airport revenue
fund248-8;
261-5

Aviation fuel taxes, rents,
fees, and other charges

TRN 131 26
SpecialKahului Airport

Airport revenue
fund 27248-8;
261-5

Aviation fuel taxes, rents,
fees, and other charges

Special28

Airport revenue
fund248-8;
261-5

Aviation fuel taxes, rents,
fees, and other charges

Natural Area
Reserves andManagement
TRN 102

GeneralSpecial25

HonoluluInternational
AirportTRN 195
Airports
Administration

Federal 29
TRN 395

30

SpecialHarbors
Administration

private sources, investment
earnings

U.S. Dept of Trans. (FAA)
Harbor special
fund266-19;266-17;2662(a)(3)Rates, fees, and charges
for dockage, wharfage,
demurrage, storage,
equipment, toll

HTH 610 31
GeneralEnvironmental
HealthServices
Transfer32

Dept of Trans. (Harbors
Div.), DLNR

Potential Funding Sources
In a Bureau e-mail survey sent out to members of CGAPS, the members wereasked for their suggestions on potential funding sources to fight the invasive species
problem. Among the potential funding sources that the respondents themselvesrecommended were the following:(1)

Federal government matching funds;33(2)

The state conveyance tax; 34(3)

Airport landing fees; 35(4)

Air cargo assessments; 36(5)

The incoming vessel fee;37

39

FILLING THE GAPS IN THE FIGHT AGAINST INVASIVE SPECIES(6)

Sea cargo assessments; 38 and(7)A tax on nursery plants, pet animals, non-native aquacultural products,
and non-native forestry products. 39

Except for the last item, these funding sources already exist. For federal funds,
the problem seems to be the underutilization of those funds due to the lack of adequate
state matching funds. For the conveyance tax, the problem appears to be theconditions imposed on the use of the tax. For the other state funding sources, theproblem seems to be the absence of a link between the funding source and invasive
species efforts. Specifically, the funding source is just one of several funding sources ofa special or revolving fund that supports activities that can include invasive species. In
other words, the funding source exists, but it does not exist necessarily for invasive
species. However, the tax on nursery plants, pet animals, non-native aquacultural
products, and non-native forestry products would constitute new sources of funding,since the tax does not currently exist.
These potential funding sources recommended by the survey respondents are
discussed more fully below:
First, federal funds are already a means of financing under several programs
involved in invasive species efforts. The issue with regard to federal funds is that they
are being underutilized by the State.40 However, the other side of the issue seems to bethat the lack of adequate state matching funds considerably reduces the State's options
for obtaining or maintaining federal funds for program activities. 41 In other words,
without increased levels of state funding, it will be difficult to draw increased levels offederal matching funds.
Second, the state conveyance tax is already a funding source of the natural area
reserve fund administered by the Department of Land and Natural Resources. This
special fund supports departmental programs that can potentially relate to invasive
species. The law establishing the fund does not attach any conditions on the use of theconveyance tax. 42 The law establishing the conveyance tax attaches conditions on theuse of the tax revenues, and these conditions potentially hinder the department's
access to that tax for invasive species activities. The conditions relate to proceduresand priorities that the department must follow in disbursing the tax. Before disbursing
the tax the department must consult with two entities, a committee and a commission, insetting priorities for the disbursement of the tax among three different programs, plans,or groups. 43"
Third, air cargo assessments and airport landing fees are authorized by statute 44
and implemented under the administrative rules.45 Specifically, the administrative rules
establish the airports system landing fees, based on the approved maximum landed
weight for the aircraft.46 These fees are deposited into the airport revenue fundpursuant to statute.47 Nothing in the language of the statutes establishes a clear

40

FUNDING INVASIVE SPECIES PROGRAMS

connection between the assessments and fees on the one hand and invasive specieson the other. However, in practice, the Department of Transportation has used thespecial fund to fund the environmental impact statement for Kahului Airport andcurrently uses the fund to also transfer funds to the Department of Agriculture foractivities relating to invasive species at Kahului Airport and at the Honolulu International
Airport. 48 Legislation establishing the connection should indicate that there are federal
laws to follow in the disposition of those fees. 49
Fourth, the incoming vessel fee and sea cargo assessments are authorized bystatute 50 and implemented under the administrative rules. 51
Specifically, theadministrative rules establish the incoming vessel fees, or port entry fees,52 the dockage
rates, 53 and sea cargo assessments, or wharfage payments.54 These rates andcharges are deposited into the harbor special fund pursuant to statute.55 Again, nothing
in the language of the statutes establishes a clear connection between the fees andassessments on the one hand and invasive species on the other. However, from thisspecial fund the Department of Transportation transfers funds to the Department of
Health for vector control activities, which can include invasive species efforts if thoseinvasive species have public health significance.56
Fifth, a tax on nursery plants, pet animals, non-native aquacultural products, andnon-native forestry products would create a new funding source for invasive species
control, as it would be a new tax. Presumably, the tax would attach to the importation orsale of the item. Existing models of legislation for the new tax appear to be the transient
accommodations tax, the fuel tax law, the liquor tax law, or the cigarette tax andtobacco tax law. If the Legislature decides to enact a new tax, there are other technicalmatters to address aside from the disposition of the tax for invasive species activities.
They include identifying the person to tax, the item to be taxed, the action for which theitem is taxed, and the amount of the tax.
Accordingly, if the Legislature desires to re-direct state funds from existingfunding sources, which were recommended by the survey respondents, to invasive
species control and prevention programs, then the Legislature needs to establish clear
directives between the funding source and invasive species. Legislative proposals inthis regard are included in chapter 10.
Alternatively, the Legislature may wish to enact new special or revolving funds
based on one or more of those existing funding sources recommended by the
respondents. Examples of these types of funds include the California exotic species
control fund and the Florida invasive plant control trust fund. Each fund is financed by
specific funding sources and administered by a single agency for invasive species
activities within its jurisdiction. Neither fund is a comprehensive fund for all activities
related to invasive species. No state appears to have such a fund in place.57
The California exotic species control fund is administered by the State Lands
Commission to carry out activities relating to ballast water management for the control
of nonindigenous species. The funding sources are fees collected from owners or

41

FILLING THE GAPS IN THE FIGHT AGAINST INVASIVE SPECIES

operators of vessels that enter a California port with ballast water loaded from outside
the exclusive economic zone, and fines for violations relating to ballast water
management requirements.58
The Florida invasive plant control trust fund is administered by the Department ofEnvironmental Protection to carry out invasive exotic plant control on public lands. 59
The funding source is a specified percentage of the excise tax on documents. 60

Endnotes
1.

Interviews with various federal, state, and private agency administrators.

2.

Totals are inconsistent with CGAPS totals.

3.

Invasive species funding also exists outside of the state budget. An example is Act 4, 3d Special
Session of 2001, relating to the Emergency Environmental Workforce. The act appropriates
funds for the establishment of an emergency environmental workforce to be administered by the
Research Corporation of the University of Hawaii. The workforce will employ individuals who
were terminated from their jobs after the September 11 tragedy and the resulting local economic
downturn. The individuals will be contracted for three months for the isolation of dengue fever,
the eradication of the miconia plant and other invasive plants, and the reduction of coqui frog andfire ant populations.

4.

The exception is the use of the conveyance tax, a funding source of the natural area reservefund. The conditions on the use of the tax is established in Hawaii Revised Statutes section
247-7. The general purposes of the fund is stated in section 195-9.

5.

The objectives and activities of these programs are described in The Multi-Year Program and
Financial Plan and Executive Budget For the Period 2001-2007 (Budget Period: 2001-03), vols. I– III.

6.

The chart below shows the location of these programs in the state budget by program area anddepartment:

AGR
Econ. Dev.

LNR

TRN

Plant Pest andDisease Control
Rabies Quarantine
Animal Disease
Control

Transport.

HonoluluInternational
AirportKahului Airport
Airports
Admin.
Harbors
Admin.

42

HTH

FUNDING INVASIVE SPECIES PROGRAMS

Environ.
Protection

Pesticides

Aquatic Resources
Forests and Wildlife
Resources
Natural Area
Reserves andManagement

HealthEnviron.
Hth. Serv.

Culture andRecreation

Recreational
Fisheries

7.

No clarification was received from the Harbors Division of the Department of Transportation as towhich particular Harbors Division program ID provides transfer funds to the Department of Healthfor vector control activities.

8.

The Department of Agriculture confirmed that "General funds, other federal funds, trust funds,
interdepartmental transfers and revolving funds are all used for plant pests and invasive species
initiatives in PI." Email response from Lyle Wong, Administrator, Plant Industry Division,
Department of Agriculture, to Dean Sugano, Researcher, Legislative Reference Bureau,
October 8, 2001.
Furthermore, according to the budget proposal, among the inspection activities performed under
AGR 122 is "Inspection of all military and domestic aircraft and cargo from Guam for brown treesnakes." The Multi-Year Program and Financial Plan and Executive Budget For the Period 20012007 (Budget Period: 2001-03), vol. I, p. 421.

9.

The Department of Agriculture stated that the trust funds under AGR 122 are "used as a clearing
account for non-recurring funds received by the PI division (e.g., moneys from the Tahiti
Government to conduct research on Miconia biocontrol; moneys from DLNR for thesame)...Moneys going into the trust fund are in one way or another related to pest control
activities." Email response from Lyle Wong, Administrator, Plant Industry Division, Department ofAgriculture, to Dean Sugano, Researcher, Legislative Reference Bureau, October 8, 2001.

10.

Sums under TRN 131 Kahului Airport may be transferred to AGR 122 Plant Pest and Disease
Control to fund plant quarantine inspector positions for alien pest species detection at Kahului
Airport. Email response from Airports Division, Department of Transportation, to Dean Sugano,
Researcher, Legislative Reference Bureau, October 16, 2001.

11.

The United States Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Interior provide funds forcanine teams for the brown tree snake program. In addition, the United States Department ofAgriculture funds insect surveys, inspection of seeds for the presence of weed seeds, andexploration for parasitoids of the melon fruit fly. Also, the United States Geological Survey –Biological Resources Division, the sole science agency for the Department of the Interior, funds
the development of a decision support system for invasive bird species. Email response fromLyle Wong, Administrator, Plant Industry Division, Department of Agriculture, to Dean Sugano,
Researcher, Legislative Reference Bureau, September 21, 2001.
These activities appear to be reflected in the budget proposal for AGR 122. The Multi-Year
Program and Financial Plan and Executive Budget For the Period 2001-2007 (Budget Period:
2001-03), vol. I, p. 421.

43

FILLING THE GAPS IN THE FIGHT AGAINST INVASIVE SPECIES

12.

The Department of Agriculture confirmed that "General funds, other federal funds, trust funds,
interdepartmental transfers and revolving funds are all used for plant pests and invasive species
initiatives in PI." Email response from Lyle Wong, Administrator, Plant Industry Division,
Department of Agriculture, to Dean Sugano, Researcher, Legislative Reference Bureau, October
8, 2001.

13.

The Department of Agriculture explained that the pesticide use revolving fund "is used to support
various research projects, one or more projects each year related to invasive species control."
Email response from Lyle Wong, Administrator, Plant Industry Division, Department ofAgriculture, to Dean Sugano, Researcher, Legislative Reference Bureau, October 8, 2001.

14.

Funds from the Environmental Protection Agency are available for the pesticides program. Emailresponse from Lyle Wong, Administrator, Plant Industry Division, Department of Agriculture, toDean Sugano, Researcher, Legislative Reference Bureau, September 21, 2001.

15.

The Department of Agriculture noted that "AGR 131 is concerned with preventing the introductionof the rabies virus into Hawaii. In addition, the program staff inspect dogs and cats entering theState and are particularly concerned about ticks exotic to Hawaii. Such ticks can transmit human
and/or animal diseases or act as serious livestock pests. The assumption is that viruses as wellas bacteria and fungi are "alien" species – in this case rabies virus." Email response from James
Foppoli, Administrator, Animal Industry Division, Department of Agriculture, to Dean Sugano,
Researcher, Legislative Reference Bureau, October 8, 2001.

16.

The Department of Agriculture noted that "All animals entering the State are delivered to theAnimal Quarantine Holding Facility at the Honolulu International Airport. Inspectors within AGR
132 inspect to verify that entering animals are not prohibited or restricted species (hamsters,
various species of birds, turtles, etc) and also inspect to determine if any external parasites arepresent (mites, lice, ticks, leeches, etc). Animals found with exotic parasites are either refusedentry or must be treated to remove the offending parasites before release from the Holding
Facility....Livestock and horses are inspected in a similar fashion and tested for certain diseases(bacterial or viral) absent from the State." Email response from James Foppoli, Administrator,
Animal Industry Division, Department of Agriculture, to Dean Sugano, Researcher, Legislative
Reference Bureau, October 8, 2001.

17.

The transfer funds are from the Airports Division of the Department of Transportation. "The funds
are to staff the airport quarantine facility with animal caretakers on a 24 hour per day, 7 day/weekbasis. Their primary duties are to receive animals after regular working hours and care for thoseanimals. The role of Animal Caretakers in "invasive species" is very limited. For example they
may detect external parasites on a bird arriving at the facility. This type of activity probably
occupies less than 5% of their time and would only occur when Livestock Inspectors were notavailable (5:00 pm to 7:00 am)." Email response from James Foppoli, Administrator, AnimalIndustry Division, Department of Agriculture, to Dean Sugano, Researcher, Legislative Reference
Bureau, December 3, 2001.

18.

The Department of Land and Natural Resources confirmed that general funds and other federal
funds are used to address the invasive species problem. The funds are used for "Identification,assessment of abundance, distribution, trends, observed and potential impact, control anderadication when feasible and warranted. Prevention of introductions through education, review
with recommendations of proposed actions, policy and program establishment (For example, wehave just received federal funds to design a program to limit the potential for accidental
introductions of marine organisms via shipping--ballast water and hull encrusting organisms.)
Email response from William Devick, Administrator, Aquatic Resources Division, Department ofLand and Natural Resources, to Dean Sugano, Researcher, Legislative Reference Bureau,
October 12, 2001.

44

FUNDING INVASIVE SPECIES PROGRAMS

19.

Specifically, the federal funds are from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service's
Dingell/Johnson and Wallop/Breaux program.
Email response from William Devick,
Administrator, Aquatic Resources Division, Department of Land and Natural Resources, to Dean
Sugano, Researcher, Legislative Reference Bureau, November 27, 2001.

20.

The Department of Land and Natural Resources noted that funds in LNR 805 are involved in thefight against invasive species in "All aspects except those related to shipping." Email response
from William Devick, Administrator, Aquatic Resources Division, Department of Land and Natural
Resources, to Dean Sugano, Researcher, Legislative Reference Bureau, October 12, 2001.
Furthermore, according to the budget proposal for LNR 805, some of the activities performed
there are "evaluating and controlling threats from alien aquatic species; protecting and managing
native stream biota; managing estuarine habitat." The Multi-Year Program and Financial Plan
and Executive Budget For the Period 2001-2007 (Budget Period: 2001-03), vol. III, p. 1203.

21.

The federal funds are from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service's Dingell/Johnson and
Wallop/Breaux program. Email response from William Devick, Administrator, Aquatic Resources
Division, Department of Land and Natural Resources, to Dean Sugano, Researcher, Legislative
Reference Bureau, November 27, 2001.

22.

It is inferred from the budget proposal that LNR 402 funds are used to address the invasive
species issue. No confirmation response was received from the Forestry and Wildlife Division,
Department of Land and Natural Resources, to the LRB inquiry emailed on October 3, 2001.
According to the budget proposal for LNR 402, "The silent invasion of Hawaii by insects, diseaseorganisms, snakes, weeds, and other pests is the single greatest threat to Hawaii's economy andnatural environment and the health and lifestyle of Hawaii's people. Invasive pests already cause
millions of dollars of crop losses, the extinction of native species, the destruction of native forests,
and the spread of disease. But many more harmful pests now threaten to invade Hawaii andwreak further damage." The Multi-Year Program and Financial Plan and Executive Budget For
the Period 2001-2007 (Budget Period: 2001-03), vol. II, p. 745.

23.

Specifically, the federal funds are from the United States Department of Agriculture Forest
Service's program under the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978. Email response fromMichael Buck, Administrator, Forestry and Wildlife Division, Department of Land and Natural
Resources, to Dean Sugano, Researcher, Legislative Reference Bureau, September 24, 2001.

24.

It is inferred from the budget proposal that LNR 407 funds address the invasive species issue.
No confirmation response was received from the Forestry and Wildlife Division, Department ofLand and Natural Resources, to the LRB inquiry emailed on October 3, 2001.
According to the budget proposal for LNR 407, "Nearly all the reserves have some degree ofdestructive infestation by non-native plants and animals. Management activities include fencing,
non-native plant and animal control, monitoring and research designed to protect or enhance thenatural resources." The Multi-Year Program and Financial Plan and Executive Budget For the
Period 2001-2007 (Budget Period: 2001-03), vol. II, p. 759.

25.

TRN 102 transfers funds to AGR 132 Animal Disease Control for animal quarantine activities.
The funds are for staff costs.
Email response from Airports Division, Department ofTransportation, to Dean Sugano, Researcher, Legislative Reference Bureau, December 4, 2001.

26.

TRN 131 transfers funds to AGR 122 for alien species activities. The Department of Agricultureuses the funds for inspections of arriving passengers, baggage, and cargo at Kahului Airport.
Email response from the Airports Division, Department of Transportation, to Dean Sugano,
Researcher, Legislative Reference Bureau, October 16, 2001.

45

FILLING THE GAPS IN THE FIGHT AGAINST INVASIVE SPECIES

27.

The Department of Transportation confirmed that "The Airport Revenue Fund which wasestablished in HRS 248-8 is the fund being used to address the alien species issue. The Airport
Revenue Fund is the only airport fund active..." Email response from Airports Division,
Department of Transportation, to Dean Sugano, Researcher, Legislative Reference Bureau,
October 16, 2001.

28.

Funding for the Department of Transportation's alien species studies done for the Kahului Airport
Environmental Impact Statement is reflected in the Airports Division capital improvement projects
budget as special funds under TRN 195. Email response from Airports Division, Department ofTransportation, to Dean Sugano, Researcher, Legislative Reference Bureau, November 29,
2001.

29.

The Federal Aviation Administration provided reimbursement to the Airports Division of the
Department of Transportation for the Kahului Airport Environmental Impact Statement. The
reimbursements are reflected as Other Federal Funds ("N") in the budget appropriation. Emailresponses from Airports Division, Department of Transportation, to Dean Sugano, Researcher,
Legislative Reference Bureau, October 16, 2001 and November 29, 2001.

30.

No clarification was received from the Harbors Division of the Department of Transportation as towhich particular Harbors Division program ID provides transfer funds to the Department of Healthfor vector control activities.

31.

Activities related to invasive species control and prevention are initiative-based, not legislatively
mandated. Furthermore, they focus on issues with public health significance or implications.
Only general funds and interdepartmental transfers are used for these activities. HTH 610 also
has special funds and federal funds, but these funds are not involved with the invasive species
issue. Telephone interview with Kenneth Hall, Chief, Vector Control Branch, Environmental
Health Services Division, Department of Health, November 28, 2001.

32.

The interdepartmental transfer funds are from the Department of Transportation, Harbors
Division, and the Department of Land and Natural Resources. First, the transfer funds from the
Department of Transportation, Harbors Division, fund positions at the harbors and airports tocontrol vermin and rodent infestations. Second, the transfer funds from the Department of Land
and Natural Resources fund supplies such as rodent bait traps at small boat harbors. Telephoneinterview with Kenneth Hall, Chief, Vector Control Branch, Environmental Health Services
Division, Department of Health, November 28, 29, 2001.

33.

The Nature Conservancy of Hawaii stated that "The federal government is the single largest
potential funding source. There are millions of dollars in matching funds available that Hawaii
does not take full advantage of. The US Department of Agriculture is an underutilized ally in thiseffort with tremendous capacity to devote to the issue." Email response by Alenka Remec,
Nature Conservancy of Hawaii, to Dean Sugano, Researcher, Legislative Reference Bureau,
October 10, 2001.

34.

The Department of Land and Natural Resources suggested use of the conveyance tax. Emailresponse from Michael Buck, Administrator, Forestry and Wildlife Division, Department of Land
and Natural Resources, September 24, 2001.
No clarification of the problem regarding the use of those funds was received from thedepartment to the LRB follow up inquiry sent out on October 3, 2001.

35.

The Nature Conservancy of Hawaii suggested airport landing fees and the state Department ofTransportation as potential funding sources.
Email response by Alenka Remec, Nature
Conservancy of Hawaii, to Dean Sugano, Researcher, Legislative Reference Bureau, October 10,
2001.

46

FUNDING INVASIVE SPECIES PROGRAMSThe Bishop Museum also suggested a fee on all arriving aircraft and a fee on all arriving
passengers. Email response by Fred Kraus, Bishop Museum, September 21, 2001.
36.

The Nature Conservancy of Hawaii suggested assessments on air and sea cargo to pay for morethorough inspections. Email response by Alenka Remec, Nature Conservancy of Hawaii, to Dean
Sugano, Researcher, Legislative Reference Bureau, October 10, 2001.

37.

Both the Department of Land and Natural Resources and the Bishop Museum suggested anincoming vessel fee or a fee on all arriving ships and boats. The Department of Land and Natural
Resources in particular noted that the incoming vessel fee has been imposed by other states.
Specifically, west coast states require vessel fees from every commercial vessel entering theirports to cover the costs of vessel inspection.
Email responses from William Devick,
Administrator, Aquatic Resources Division, Department of Land and Natural Resources,
September 13, 2001, and Fred Kraus, Bishop Museum, to Dean Sugano, Researcher, Legislative
Reference Bureau, September 21, 2001.

38.

Both the Nature Conservancy of Hawaii and the Bishop Museum suggested a charge orassessment on shipped cargo or sea cargo. Email responses by Alenka Remec, Nature
Conservancy of Hawaii, October 10, 2001, and Fred Kraus, Bishop Museum, to Dean Sugano,
Researcher, Legislative Reference Bureau, September 21, 2001.

39.

The Bishop Museum specifically suggested a charge on each nursery plant sold, a charge oneach pet animal sold, a tax on non-native aquacultural products, and a tax on non-native forestry
products (excluding Koa products).

40.

See note 33, for the response by the Nature Conservancy.

41.

Email response from William Devick, Administrator, Aquatic Resources Division, Department ofLand and Natural Resources, to Dean Sugano, Researcher, Legislative Reference Bureau,
November 27, 2001.

42.

Hawaii Revised Statutes, §195-9(a).

43.

Hawaii Revised Statutes, §247-7.

44.

Hawaii Revised Statutes, §261-7(e).

45.

Hawaii Administrative Rules, §§19-16.1-1, et seq., for non-signatory carriers.

46.

Hawaii Administrative Rules, §19-16.1-3.

47.

Hawaii Revised Statutes, §261-5(a).

48.

Email responses from the Airports Division, Department of Transportation, to Dean Sugano,
Researcher, Legislative Reference Bureau, October 16, November 29, December 4, 2001.

49.

See Appendix F, Correspondence from the Federal Aviation Administration to the state
Department of Transportation, dated July 31, 1998, on the alien species action plan for Kahului
Airport. Evidently, there is a web of restrictions placed by the federal government on the alien
species activities to which the airport revenue may be applied.

50.

Hawaii Revised Statutes, §266-2(a)(2) - (4).

51.

Hawaii Administrative Rules, beginning at section 19-44-1.

52.

Hawaii Administrative Rules, §19-44-91.

47

FILLING THE GAPS IN THE FIGHT AGAINST INVASIVE SPECIES

53.

Hawaii Administrative Rules, §19-44-61.

54.

Id.

55.

Hawaii Revised Statutes, §266-19.

56.

Funds from the Department of Transportation, Harbors Division, fund vector control positions at
the harbors and airports. Telephone interview with Kenneth Hall, Chief, Vector Control Branch,
Environmental Health Services Division, Department of Health, November 28, 29, 2001.

57.

Among the countries of the world, New Zealand appears to have established a comprehensive
funding source in its Biosecurity Act 1993. The act is aimed in part at preventing the introductionofunwantedorganisms
notalready
establishedinthecountry.
http://www.mfe.govt.nz/about/laws/bios.htm The act appears to delegate rather broad, rulemaking powers to the Governor-General to impose levies on persons, activities, and goods thatwill be specified in the rules. New Zealand Biosecurity Act 1993, sections 90-93. In America, thegrant of such powers might be challenged as being unconstitutional.

58.

California Public Resources Code, §71215.

59.

Florida Statutes, §369.252(4).

60.

Florida Statutes, §201.15(6).

48Chapter 8
HOW OTHER JURISDICTIONS ADMINISTER THE CONTROLAND ERADICATION OF ALIEN INVASIVE SPECIES
Before discussing and assessing the need for a lead agency for the control andprevention of invasive species (which follows in the next chapter) this chapter examines
the strategies for managing the fight against alien species in New Zealand, Australia
and several U.S. states including Florida, Georgia, Montana, and Utah. These statesand Hawaii were reviewed by the federal Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) andfound to have exemplary approaches to fish and wildlife invasive species control. 1 The
review was based on states with detailed laws, no major authority gaps and lawmakers
with "rigorous standards".2 Also reviewed in this chapter are California, Minnesota,
Texas, and Washington.

New Zealand
New Zealand published an issues paper in September 2001 that sought todevelop a biosecurity strategy that included invasive species efforts. The issues paper
was the culmination of months of consultations with various public and private
stakeholders. It summarized and integrated approximately 400 issues identified by the
stakeholders to a strategy development team.3
After a series of workshops and public meetings during October throughDecember 2001, the strategy development team will prepare a draft Biosecurity
Strategy for another set of public discussions in summer 2002. A final report will bepresented in October 2002 with implementation expected to begin in 2003.

Administration
New Zealand administers its biosecurity program by coordinating participating
national agencies. New Zealand has four primary government biosecurity agencies:(1)

The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry;(2)

The Ministry of Fisheries;(3)

The Ministry of Health; and(4)

The Department of Conservation.

In addition the Ministries of Environment, Research, Science, and Technology,
among others, contribute to development of biosecurity policy while the Environmental

49

FILLING THE GAPS IN THE FIGHT AGAINST INVASIVE SPECIES

Risk Management Authority controls the intentional importation of new organisms under
the New Zealand Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act of 1996 (HSNO).
In addition to New Zealand's national ministries, the regional councils at the local
level are also involved with invasive species, usually at the point when an invasive pest
is considered to be of "regional" rather than "national" significance.

Regional Councils
A regional council is a single agency, not like a U.S. state that may have as manyas twenty departments administering concerns ranging from health to wildlife andnatural resources. Each regional council coordinates its own pest control and mayassess taxes for such purposes if necessary. Regional councils are represented on thenational Biosecurity Council which reports to the Minister of Biosecurity. 4 Regional
councils manage unwanted organisms via the Biosecurity Act of 1993s small-scale
management provisions, if eradication or control of an organism can be achieved within
three years and at a cost of less than $100,000.5
Other groups involved with invasive species include industries in forestry, cattle,
and bees, and individuals who conduct pest control on their private lands by ridding
their areas of certain weeds or animal pests.
Notably, New Zealand is guided only by national law with local governments
adopting the law at their discretion which sometimes results in variations and gaps intreatment of specific pests.

Lead Agency
New Zealand's lead agency for invasive species purposes is the Ministry ofAgriculture and Forestry (MAF). New Zealand also has a Minister for Biosecurity who isaided by a Biosecurity Council created in 1997 that coordinates policy and advises the
Minister for Biosecurity. In 1999 the MAF created a Biosecurity Authority "with a wider
role to coordinate the government's biosecurity program." 6 The Minister of Biosecurity
with the Council's advice sets priorities for the four aforementioned agencies. The
Authority provides secretariat services and is involved in managing risks for theenvironmental, non-agricultural and forestry sectors. 7
The Issues Paper acknowledged that there may be more emphasis on
agricultural pests, forestry weeds and diseases rather than environmental pests
because MAF is the lead agency.

Cooperative Efforts Between the New Zealand
National and Local Governments
In New Zealand, the national government is the first to respond to theintroduction of a new invasive specie. However, if eradication is not possible or fails,

50

CONTROL AND ERADICATION OF ALIEN INVASIVE SPECIES

land managers such as the regional councils and individual landowners are expected toassume the management of the invasive pests. The Issues Paper pointed out thatduring this transitional management and funding changeover from national government
to regional councils, response to the particular invasive species might be delayed. In
addition, if adjoining land management areas are not in agreement over eradication
efforts, this lack of cooperation can undermine treatment efforts.
The Issues Paper also suggested that "the multi-agency approach toadministering biosecurity policies still requires fine-tuning and a "whole of government
approach" to prevent duplicative efforts, to close gaps, to assure agency accountability,[and] early [invasive species] involvement..." 8

Summary of New Zealand's Approach
New Zealand has been tackling the invasive species problem for some time andin many respects is viewed as a country well prepared in this area. However it
recognizes that biosecurity risks are on the increase because of more international
trade and travel. Therefore New Zealand has embarked on a long-term plan fordeveloping a strategy to handle invasive species. It began officially with the Biosecurity
Act of 1993 and the country now seeks to implement a Biosecurity Strategy in 2003. In
the course of developing an Issues Paper and Draft Biosecurity Strategy by 2002, thegovernment identified several areas that require attention and interest groups' concernsthat must be addressed in order for all to move forward with like purpose.
As will be seen from other governments' methodology, New Zealand's
administrative structure is not unlike other jurisdictions in that it has established a leadagency to coordinate the work of several agencies and interest groups that have narrowconcerns related to particular invasive species. New Zealand's lead agency is assisted
by a policy advisory board at the national level. New Zealand's website can be found atwww.biostrategy.govt.nz.

Australia
Australia, like its neighbor New Zealand, has rigorously attacked the problems
associated with invasive species. Both countries' ecosystems support many uniquecreatures that have evolved over centuries of isolation. Yet both countries participate in
the global mobility of the twenty-first century that all too often ignores transported
invading species to the detriment of ecosystems worldwide.

Quarantine Act
Australia's Quarantine Act of 1908 established the Australian Quarantine andInspection Service (AQIS) in the Department of Primary Industries and Energy. AQIS
implements the delegated duties of the Director of Animal and Plant Quarantine,
Secretary of the Department.

51

FILLING THE GAPS IN THE FIGHT AGAINST INVASIVE SPECIES

Nairn Committee
In 1995 Australia's national government set up the Nairn Committee to examine
the nation's plant and animal quarantine policies and programs. The Committee
published "Australian Quarantine: a Shared Responsibility" and recommended AQIS to"develop improved strategies to communicate its risk analysis process." 9 In response tothat request, AQIS developed a Risk Analysis Process Handbook (seehttp://www.dpie.gov.au/docs/market_access/biosecurity/index.html).
The Handbook
describes the process AQIS follows in developing and reviewing quarantine policies forimporting plants, animals, and their products.

Exclusion List
Australia, like New Zealand, operates from an exclusion list of organisms not
permitted entry into the country. When an organism, plant, insect or animal is reviewed
for import, a process is generated that is called Import Risk Analysis (IRA) that follow six
principles. The process must be:(1)

Conducted in a consultative framework;(2)

A scientific process and therefore politically independent;(3)

A transparent and open process;(4)

Consistent with both government policy and Australia's international
obligations;(5)Harmonized, through taking account of international standards andguidelines; and(6)

Subject to appeal on the process.

Stakeholders are consulted and the applicant interested in introducing theinvasive species must provide the data for analysis to proceed.
Depending on the nature of the organism or plant being proposed for import
determines the type of pathway risk analysis that is followed. The "routine" pathway risk
analysis is shorter and involves an AQIS in-house team of experts, while the "nonroutine" pathway involves a risk analysis panel comprised of AQIS and other experts.
Once the Executive Director of AQIS makes a determination on the plant or
animal, the import proposal can be implemented. However, "any stakeholder of theopinion that the process outlined in the Handbook has not been properly followed,
including that the risk analysis failed to consider a significant body of relevant scientific52

CONTROL AND ERADICATION OF ALIEN INVASIVE SPECIESor technical information may appeal to the Director of Animal and Plant Quarantine." 10
The appeal is considered by the Import Risk Analysis Appeal Panel.

Lead Agency Approach
Australia and New Zealand both follow the "lead agency" type of organizational
structure where one state/government agency has the responsibility to lead othergovernment agencies: New Zealand by it Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF),
and Australia by its Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS).
Both countries use advisory groups, and consult stakeholders who have aninterest in allowing or banning entry of an invasive species. The publication of
handbooks such as the Risk Analysis Process Handbook keeps the process transparent
and less likely to be tainted by special interests. Both governments try to keep risks to aconservatively low level and seek to harmonize their national policy with international
trade organization policies to minimize conflicts in trade.

FloridaFlorida's motivation for pest control is fueled by the awareness that failure toadequately prevent or eliminate pests can have devastating effects on its agricultural,
floral, tourism, and equine industries.
Florida's invasive species policies are influenced by several factors:(1)

Fifty million tourists visit Florida annually;(2)

Florida is surrounded by water on three sides through which cargo ships
transport a variety of exotic pests from as close as the Caribbean;(3)

Florida's climate favors a number of tropical organisms; and(4)

Florida's coastal and wetlands ecology could be detrimentally affected byinsensitive eradication techniques.

Because of these high risks, Florida created the Florida Pest Exclusion Advisory
Committee (PEAC), consisting of 22 members, appointed in 1999. The mission of
PEAC, among other things, is to review and evaluate Florida's existing and future
exclusion, detection and eradication programs, the science behind the programs, andthe current laws.

Gaps in Florida's Attack on Invasive Species
The PEAC recognized that "…there has been to this point no regular, structured
communication or forum for working together in a strategic way to address this53

FILLING THE GAPS IN THE FIGHT AGAINST INVASIVE SPECIES

increasingly urgent problem" regarding collaborative efforts on exclusion/risk prevention
issues. Among its findings, PEAC indicated:11(1)

There is no organized method for exchanging information related toinvasive species between the multiple federal and state agencies;(2)

In some cases the interests of agencies concerned with the impact on
ecosystems and biodiversity, but not agriculture, have not beenaccommodated;(3)

Managing the risk of disease vectors on wildlife imports is not being
adequately addressed due to the lack of effective communication andcollaboration between the responsible federal and state agencies;(4)

There is inefficient communication between affected state and federal
agencies when consideration is being given to open new ports of entry or
when there are major importation/expansion initiatives at existing ports;
and

(5)

There is no platform for objectively assessing and reaching consensus onareas of priority, overall resource needs, and new technology
opportunities of federal or state exclusion agencies.

To address these concerns, PEAC recommended the following:(1)

Develop a multi-agency email protocol to communicate issues on pest
exclusion and provide an information exchange forum for important issues
to ensure that everyone involved receives the same information at thesame time;(2)

Review areas of jurisdictional overlap within state and federal agencies;(3)

Establish a state invasive species council;(4)

Use the Florida Pest Exclusion Advisory Committee as a working groupfor coordination and communication of Florida's plant and animal pest anddisease exclusion, detection, and response programs;(5)

Align state and federal research institution priorities to identify and perform
investigations to mitigate future/impending invasions; and(6)

Institute APHIS clearance protocol in U.S. Customs reference ofpassenger declarations. 12

54

CONTROL AND ERADICATION OF ALIEN INVASIVE SPECIES

Georgia
In Georgia, the Legislature declared: "[t]he importation, transportation, sale,transfer, and possession of wild animals are privileges not to be granted unless it can
be clearly demonstrated that such actions can be accomplished in a manner that does
not pose unnecessary risk to Georgia's wildlife and other natural resources or to thecitizens of and visitors to th[e] state." Certain named animals are listed as inherently
dangerous and require a license or permit and insurance from the Department of
Natural Resources which is responsible for animal and wildlife control.13
Georgia's Department of Agriculture is responsible for weed pests and noxious
weed control. 14
Like Florida and Tennessee, Georgia has also established an Exotic Pest Plant
Council. The Council was created in 1999 and its mission is "to focus attention on:(1)[T]he adverse effects exotic pest plants have on the diversity of Georgia's
native plants and animals;(2)[T]he use of exotic pest plant management to prevent habitat loss;(3)[T]he socioeconomic impacts of these plants;(4)[C]hanges in the seriousness of the different exotic pest plants over time;
[and]

(5)

[T]he need to exchange information which helps land owners andmanagers set priorities for exotic pest plant management." 15

Due to the efforts of this Council, Georgia has an exotic pest plant list andconducts a symposium to "allow the Council to deliver its mission, provide an
educational forum and encourage membership in the organization".

Montana
Although the term "lead agency" is not used, the Department of Fish, Wildlife,and Parks and its Commission is charged with the responsibility of managing wildlife
and protecting endangered species.
"Management" means the collection andapplication of biological information for the purposes of conserving populations ofwildlife consistent with other uses of land and habitat. The term includes the entire
range of activities that constitute a modern scientific resource program, including
research, census, law enforcement, habitat improvement, control, and education ...
including periodic protection and regulated taking.16

55

FILLING THE GAPS IN THE FIGHT AGAINST INVASIVE SPECIESThe Commission and Department are directed to consult with the Departments ofAgriculture and Livestock on matters of wildlife that may have a harmful effect on
agricultural and livestock production.17 Montana's Department of Agriculture handles
noxious weeds.
Consultation appears to be the mode of interaction among the Department ofAgriculture and Livestock, and Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks.

Utah
In Utah, the State Weed Committee advises on matters pertaining to theadministration of the state's noxious weed program. 18 "Weed" is defined as any plant
which grows where not wanted.19 The noxious weed program is administered by the
Utah Bureau of Land Management.
Utah has also adopted the Pest Control Compact (as did Georgia and several
other states). The Compact establishes a Pest Control Insurance Fund to be used tofinance other than normal pest control operations.
The Division of Wildlife Resources is responsible for administration of laws andrules regarding terrestrial and aquatic pests injurious to health or the environment. 20
There appears to be no council type structure nor an overall lead agency in Utah.

California
In California, endangered species are dealt with by the Fish and Game
Department. The California Legislature found that "all state agencies, boards, andcommissions shall seek to conserve endangered species and threatened species andshall utilize their authority in furtherance of the purposes of the [California Endangered
Species Act]." 21
Aquatic plants are handled through the Fish and Game Code, but California
desert native plants and exotic plant pests, including noxious weeds are managed by
the Department of Food and Agriculture.
An Oversight Committee in the Department of Food and Agriculture (which is the"lead department" in noxious weed management) is composed of representatives fromlivestock production, agricultural crop protection, forest products industry, the California
Exotic Pest Plant Council, research institutions, wildlife conservation groups,
environmental groups, resource conservation districts, the general public, local
government, and the Department of Fish and Game.22

56

CONTROL AND ERADICATION OF ALIEN INVASIVE SPECIESThe Food and Agriculture Department is also responsible for plant quarantine
inspection stations that ascertain the origin, quantity, and kinds of meat, poultry,
livestock, agricultural commodity, and plants that may be brought into the state at
airports, maritime facilities, and vehicle inspection stations along highways.
A state task force is planned to "develop and implement a program of preventive
measures to reduce the likelihood that pests will be transported into the state." 23
California also enacted the University of California Pest Research Act of 1990
and requested the Regents of the University of California to establish a pest research
center that would apply itself to pest management research for the welfare of
California's agricultural, forest, or urban settings. 24 More information can be found at
http://cnas.ucr.educ/.
California follows the "lead agency" approach to invasive species management
and has created task forces and councils in specific areas to facilitate cooperation andcoordination.

Minnesota
Minnesota follows a "lead agency" approach to the extent that at least for certain
pests, a particular agency is assigned the lead role. The Commissioner of the
Department of Agriculture is responsible for the administration of the Local Pest Control
Act and the Plant Pest Act. 26 These insect pests include grasshoppers, corn borers,
beetles, destructive, or nuisance animals such as rats, gophers, and other animals
dangerous to people, and plant or bee diseases that can endanger agriculture,horticulture, and forestry.
25

The Purple Loosestrife weed, however, is managed by the Commissioner of
Natural Resources whose commission acts as the lead agency. 27 The Commissioner of
Natural Resources, along with the Commissioner of Transportation are directed to work
cooperatively to develop a management plan for the Purple Loosestrife Program,including coordinated detection, prevention of accidental introduction, public education,
control of exotic species on lands and public waters, and classification of exotic species.
The Commissioner of Natural Resources is also responsible for the state's Harmful
Exotic Species Management Program.

Texas
Texas deals with exotic harmful or potentially harmful fish, shellfish, and aquaticplants through the Department of Parks and Wildlife which publishes a list of exotic
animals and plants for which a permit is required. The Parks and Wildlife Department
coordinates its activities with the Texas Animal Health Commission regarding testing for
diseases. If manifestations of these diseases are found, the Department of Agriculture,57

FILLING THE GAPS IN THE FIGHT AGAINST INVASIVE SPECIES

the Natural Resource Conservation Commission and the Animal Health Commission
are notified.28
Non-indigenous aquatic plants and animals are managed by the Department ofAgriculture under aquaculture regulations. 29 The Agriculture Code covers agriculturaland horticultural seeds, noxious weeds, various agricultural diseases and pests such as
fire ants and the Mexican fruit fly. Regulations relating to the importation, possession,
propagation, and sale of harmful exotic wildlife is the responsibility of the Parks andWildlife Commission.30
In Texas as is the case in most places, administrative responsibility for
endangered species appears to follow function.

Washington
In Washington, the Legislature stepped in to settle an apparent jurisdictionaldifficulty in 1995 regarding a wetland plant called Spartina. In its findings theLegislature described the spread of the Spartina weed as threatening native freshwaterand saltwater wetlands, intertidal zones, critical habitats for migratory birds, fish, andother marine organisms. The Legislature found:
Current laws and rules designed to protect the environment and preserve thewetland habitats, fish, and wildlife of the state are not designed to respond to an
ecosystem-wide threat of this kind. State and federal agencies, local
governments, weed boards, concerned individuals, and property owners
attempting to deal with the ecological emergency posed by spartina and purple
loosestrife infestations have been frustrated by interagency disagreements,
demands for an undue amount of procedural and scientific process andinformation, dilatory appeals, and the improper application of laws andregulations by agencies that have in fact undermined the legislative purposes of
those same laws while ignoring the long-term implications of delay and inaction.
There is a compelling need for strong leadership, coordination, and reporting bya single state agency to respond appropriately to this urgent environmental
challenge. ... Control efforts must be coordinated across political and ownershipboundaries in order to be effective. …
The legislature finds that six years is sufficient time for state agencies to debate
solutions to the spartina and purple loosestrife problems… It is the mandate of
the legislature that one state agency, the department of agriculture, be
responsible for a unified effort to eliminate spartina and control purple loosestrife,with the advice of the state noxious weed control board, and that state agency
shall be directly accountable to the legislature on the progress of the spartina
eradication and purple loosestrife control program.31 (Emphasis added)

While Spartina has its own "lead agency", this was an unusual response for anoxious weed. Washington state's Department of Agriculture was named lead agency
for spartina only because of difficulties dealing with the spread of this weed and the58

CONTROL AND ERADICATION OF ALIEN INVASIVE SPECIES

Department of Agriculture was made responsible for overseeing special control funds
for this noxious weed. Otherwise, the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board
sets the state weed list annually and coordinates control efforts with county weed
programs. 32 Because there are only two staff persons on the Board, they must workwith other agencies from the counties and other stakeholders.33
Invasive vertebrates are dealt with by the Department of Fish and Wildlife.34"Deleterious exotic wildlife" are animals not native to Washington and designated as
dangerous to the environment or wildlife of the state.

Summary
In the United States, a response to an invasive species is usually initiated after aperceived threat to a state's economy or public health. Generally, it takes longer for astate to respond to an invasive species that is viewed as merely an ecological threat.
Since invasive plants and animals do not respect state boundaries or property rights,
cooperative strategies between adjoining states, or between public landowners andprivate landowners are commonplace.
State governments often respond to invasive species by directing a government
agency with the closest ties to the threat to deal with control or eradication. Therefore, itis the nature of the invasion that usually determines if a state department becomes a"lead agency" for that particular purpose.
If the invading species is a weed, or horticultural pest, agriculture departments
are usually involved. If the invader is a threat to forests, trees, the lumber industry, or
wilderness areas, the state's natural resources department is usually given primary
responsibility.
Florida and California have a "pest council" or "pest committee" withrepresentatives from several stakeholder organizations to identify and develop
programs for dealing with plant and animal pests. Montana's law on endangered
species directs the Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks to consult with the
Departments of Agriculture and Livestock on potentially destructive wildlife. In
Washington, the Department of Agriculture was singled out by the state legislature toact as the lead agency for the Spartina weed.
Having a single state coordinator is an uncommon method for addressing theinvasive species problem, although used in New Zealand with its national position of"Minister of Biosecurity".

59

FILLING THE GAPS IN THE FIGHT AGAINST INVASIVE SPECIES

Endnotes
1.

U.S., Office of Technology Assessment, Harmful Non-indigenous Species in the United States,
Washington, D.C., September 1993, Chapter 7. "State and Local Approaches from a National
Perspective."

2.

U.S. Office of Technology Assessment, Harmful Non-indigenous Species in the United States,
Washington, D.C., September 1993, Chapter 7, p. 217.

3.

Issues Paper, Developing a Biosecurity Strategy for New Zealand, Biosecurity Strategy
Development Team, Wellington, NZ, September 2001, p.3.

4.

Email communication to J. Mardfin, Researcher, Legislative Reference Bureau, from K. Thomas,
Oct. 10, 2001.

5.

Issues Paper, Developing a Biosecurity Strategy for New Zealand, Biosecurity Strategy
Development Team (hereafter "Issues Paper", NZ), Wellington, NZ, p. 8.

6.

Issues Paper, NZ, p. 11.

7.

Issues Paper, NZ, p. 11.

8.

Issues Paper, NZ, p. 16.

9.

Australia, Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service.
Process; Handbook, 1998, Foreword.

The AQIS Import Risk Analysis

10.

Australia, Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service.
Process; Handbook, 1998, pp. 18-19.

The AQIS Import Risk Analysis

11.

Florida Pest Exclusion Report, pp. 26-28.

12.

Florida, Pest Exclusion Advisory Committee Report, January 2001, Tallahassee, Florida, pp. 2627.

13.

Georgia Statutes, Game and Fish Code 27-5.

14.

Georgia Statutes, Agriculture Code 2-1.

15.

Georgia, Exotic Pest Plant Council website, see www.gaeppc.org.

16.

Montana Code Ann., §87-5-102.

17.

Montana Code Ann., §87-5-716.

18.

Utah Code, §4-2-7.

19.

Utah Code, §4-14-2.

20.

Utah Code, §23-13 to 14.

21.

California Fish and Game Code, §2055.

22.

California Food and Agricultural Code, §7273.

23.

California Food and Agricultural Code, §§5350 to 5350.5.

24.

California Food and Agricultural Code, §576 to 585.

60

CONTROL AND ERADICATION OF ALIEN INVASIVE SPECIES

25.

Minnesota statutes, §18.011.

26.

Minnesota statutes, §§18.44 to 18.61.

27.

Minnesota statutes, §§18.76 to 18.88, Minnesota Noxious Weed Law.

28.

Tx Stats. Parks and Wildlife Code, ch. 66.007 (Exotic harmful or potentially harmful fish, shellfish,
and aquatic plants).

29.

Tx Stats. Agriculture Code, chap. 134, Aquaculture.

30.

Tx Stats. Agriculture Code, §134.020, Exotic Species.

31.

Rev. Code of Washington, §§17.26.005 and 17.26.006.

32.

Rev. Code of Washington, §17.10.

33.

Email correspondence to Jean Mardfin, Researcher, Legislative Reference Bureau, from Lisa
Lantz, Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board, October 15, 2001.

34.

Pursuant to Rev. Code of Washington, chapter 77.08.

61

Chapter 9
ASSESSING THE NEED FOR A LEAD AGENCY
The concept of a lead agency in multi-agency administrative situations is not new-- especially with respect to fighting invasive species. As discussed in the previous
chapter, the nature of an invasion usually determines whether a particular state
department becomes a lead agency.
A lead agency approach is attractive because it ostensibly provides
administrative accountability by giving a single agency ultimate responsibility for fighting
invasive species. Since the invasive species problem often crosses agency lines, alead agency would insure that any administrative or responsibility gaps would be filledby the lead agency or someone designated by it.
Presently, the Departments of Agriculture, Land and Natural Resources, Health,and to a lesser extent, Transportation, work collaboratively to fight invasive species in
Hawaii. Thus far, these departments have had mixed success with their efforts. The
current system has been described as "a set of programs that are generally effective
within their own jurisdictions but which, together, leave many gaps and leaks for pest
entry and establishment." 1
A good example of an invasive species that fell through an administrative gap isthe Caribbean coqui frog. The frog first appeared a few years ago on the Big Island andslowly spread to Maui and parts of Oahu. Had the State acted earlier to eradicate thefrog, the suffering of many homeowners statewide might have been avoided.
Administratively, agency responsibility for eradicating the frog was unclear. To
an extent, the HDOA was responsible for the frog because it was suspected that thefrog was imported into the State in ornamental plants -- hence the agriculturalconnection to HDOA. But due to a memorandum of agreement between the HDOA and
DLNR, responsibility for the eradication of the frog appeared to be designated to DLNR
(see chapter 5, item no. 1). For years, no agency responded to the frog infestation. But
after widespread media coverage and an apparent consensus between state
departments and private organizations, eradication of the frogs finally began in earnest.
Had a lead agency for invasive species been in place, the coqui frog problem
may not have proliferated to the point where it is today. But despite the apparent
benefits of a lead agency approach, it is not without its detractors.
First, not all state agencies support the lead agency approach because of thefear that a lead agency, by virtue of its administratively superior position to the agencies
it leads, would give preference to its own needs to the detriment of subordinate
agencies. 2 This appears to be the case in New Zealand where the New Zealand Issues
Paper acknowledged that there may be more emphasis on agricultural pests, forestry

62

ASSESSING THE NEED FOR A LEAD AGENCY

weeds, and diseases rather than environmental pests because the Ministry ofAgriculture and Forestry is the lead agency. 3 Critics also point out that a lead agency
would garner special favor with the Legislature and therefore receive more funds than it
would have otherwise to the detriment of other agencies.
Secondly, there is a concern that a department in a lead agency capacity would
not understand the needs of other departments. The Departments of Agriculture,
Health, and Land and Natural Resources have very diverse missions and complex
duties that may not be understood by a sister department. Also, if a department isfocused primarily on its mission and duties, efforts to resolve an issue with and between
other departments with different concerns may produce more problems than it solves.
Besides Australia, California, Minnesota, and to an extent Montana andWashington, also follow the lead agency approach.

The Council Approach
An alternative to the lead agency approach is for the State to follow in thefootsteps of the federal government's National Invasive Species Council.
In February of 1999, President Clinton issued Executive Order No. 13112 on
invasive species. "The order established the National Invasive Species Council -chaired by the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, and the Interior -- with members
including the Departments of State, Treasury, Defense, and Transportation, and theEnvironmental Protection Agency.
The Order directs the Council to provide national leadership on invasive species
and to see that federal agency efforts are coordinated and effective. The Secretary of
the Interior was also directed to form the Invasive Species Advisory Committee toprovide information and advice to the Council." 4The primary advantage of a council approach (for Hawaii's purposes) is that it
would conceivably include the heads of all participating departments.
This
concentration of authority addresses one of the criticisms made against the
Coordinating Group on Alien Pest Species (CGAPS) -- that it lacked "high-level politicalleadership." 5
CGAPS was formed in 1995 and is the quintessential collaborative effort
comprised of federal, state, and private organizations and is the administrative standard
used by other jurisdictions in developing strategies to fight invasive species. One of the
problems with CGAPS, however, is the inability of "individuals sitting on CGAPS as
agency representatives ... to make major commitments for their agency. CGAPS candevelop excellent strategies and resolve problems that require little new funding and nomajor legislative work. Major improvements, however, require political leadership of thehighest level ..." 663

FILLING THE GAPS IN THE FIGHT AGAINST INVASIVE SPECIESThe same authority or power vacuum at CGAPS is also lacking at the stateagency level. Comments by some state agency officers confirm the comments byprivate organizations -- that the State lacks political will to effectively fight the invasive
species problem. 7 A council approach could presumably address this concern.
Additionally, a council approach could also provide:"(1)[I]ntegrated planning to encourage partnerships, coordinate funding, anddevelop response priorities;(2)[T]echnical assistance and other resources; and(3)[G]uidance on effective response measures." 8

Florida, Tennessee, and Georgia currently favor a council type approach toadministering their invasive species problem.

State Administrator/Coordinator
Another alternative is for the State to name an administrator/coordinator forinvasive species. An autonomous administrator/coordinator position has several
advantages including:(1)

Independence from any state agency, thereby eliminating or reducing
agency rivalries;(2)

The ability to see the "big picture" that includes all agency concerns which
may not be the case with a lead agency;(3)

Providing a single authority with ultimate responsibility for the invasive
species problem for accountability purposes; and(4)

Quicker decision making as compared with the group consensus evident
in a council approach.

An administrator/coordinator, however, would not enjoy the benefits of thecollective wisdom that a council could provide. An administrator/coordinator would also
not be able to act as quickly as a council with respect to disseminating information backto participating agencies. Except for New Zealand, no other country or state reviewed
in chapter 6 adopted the administrator/coordinator approach.
All three administrative alternatives discussed above have their advantages anddisadvantages. None of the alternatives alone, however, provide the efficiency andaccountability required for the administration of the State's invasive species program.

64

ASSESSING THE NEED FOR A LEAD AGENCY

To best service this program, the Bureau recommends a hybrid of all three alternatives
that is discussed in the next chapter.

Endnotes
1.

The Nature Conservancy of Hawaii, 1992, "The Alien pest Species Invasion in Hawaii:
Background Study and Recommendations for Interagency Planning", at 65.

2.

Interviews with various state agency administrators.

3.

See chapter 8.

4.

U.S., General Accounting Office, July 2001, Report to Congressional Requesters, "Obstacles
Hinder Federal Rapid Response to Growing Threat", at 10.

5.

The Nature Conservancy of Hawaii, 1992, "The Alien pest Species Invasion in Hawaii:
Background Study and Recommendations for Interagency Planning".

6.

Id.

7.

Interviews with various state agency administrations and private groups.

8.

U.S., General Accounting Office, July 2001, Report to Congressional Requesters, "Obstacles
Hinder Federal Rapid Response to Growing Threat", at 6.

65

Chapter 10
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The alien invasive species problem in Hawaii is both serious and daunting. The
damage that invasive species cause and may potentially cause affects the State's
health and safety, as well as its economic and environmental well being.
Economically, invasive species have the potential to literally shut down theState's cash cow -- tourism. Pests such as biting sand flies, the lethal yellowing
disease, red fire ants, the Caribbean coqui frog and a host of other harmful pests canwreak havoc on tourists and an industry dependent on a tranquil and peacefulenvironment. Other industries, such as agriculture suffer losses of an estimated $300
million annually from the destruction caused by alien pests.
Environmentally, Hawaii's scenic beauty and pristine environment are
inextricably interrelated with the tourism industry. Thus, protecting the environment
from invasive species means protecting the State's primary economic engine asdemonstrated by recent efforts to control and eradicate the miconia plant that has
overrun parts of the State cost $1 million in Maui county alone.
Invasive species also affect the health and safety of island residents andvisitors. From rodents and brown tree snakes to dengue fever carrying mosquitoes andthe stinging nettle caterpillar, the very nature of our Hawaiian lifestyle is jeopardized by
the danger and disease caused by invading pests.
But thanks to Herculean efforts by dedicated and hard-working state, federal andespecially private agencies, invasive species are being challenged and fought on a daily
basis. The battle, however, is not without its problems. The present system is plagued
with gaps and leaks that allow alien pests to enter and proliferate in the State.

The Money Gap
The biggest and most obvious gap in the fight against invasive species is thefunding gap. If the Legislature does nothing else except increase funding to fightinvasive species, it will have dramatically improved the State's condition with respect tothese alien pests. To raise additional funds for fighting invasive species, the Legislature
may wish to consider the following funding proposals:(1)

Amending Hawaii Revised Statutes section 247-7 by specifying invasive
species as a priority in the disbursement of the conveyance taxes;(2)

Amending Hawaii Revised Statutes section 261-7(e) by adding a newparagraph to require a specific percentage or amount of the airport landing66

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

fees to be disbursed for invasive species activities permissible underfederal law; and(3)

Amending Hawaii Revised Statutes section 266-2(b) by adding a newparagraph to require a specific percentage or amount of the wharfage,
demurrage, or other harbor charge to be disbursed for invasive species.

These amendments are provided as suggested legislation in Appendix G.
Legislation to tax invasive species related products is a much more complex andvoluminous proposal that requires more time than is presently available for research,
consultation and preparation. A proposal for that purpose may be furnished with
sufficient notice.
Lastly, with respect to funding issues, the Legislature may wish to consider theenormous fiscal advantages of prioritizing funding to detection and inspection efforts
over other program areas. The old saying "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound ofcure" could never be more applicable. Considering the millions of dollars spent on
eradicating miconia and the continuing eradication efforts aimed at the Caribbean coquifrog, funding for inspection or detection purposes represents the greatest return forfunds expended.

The Need for an Administrator/Coordinator Position
The invasive species problem also crosses a multitude of federal, state, andprivate agency lines. The sheer number of agencies involved with invasive species, notto mention the myriad of federal and state laws, regulations, rules, and policies makecoordination oftentimes difficult and frustrating. To ease this administrative burden,
especially at the state level, the Bureau recommends the establishment of a stateinvasive species administrator/coordinator position.
First,
theBureaurecommends
that
the
State
establishanadministrator/coordinator position for invasive species that is selected by a nominating
committee.1 To avoid agency rivalries, the position should not be administratively
attached to any particular department, but instead, administratively placed in the
Governor's office.
Second, like the National Council on Invasive Species, the administrator would
fulfill the duties of the position with the advice of an advisory organization composed ofstate, federal, and private organizations. The Bureau recommends that CGAPS be
named as the advisory organization.
Third, the administrator would also be required to consult with the heads of thefour primary departments involved with invasive species (HDOA, DLNR, DOA, andDOT) on a regular basis to address the authority or power vacuum that exists in thepresent system.

67

FILLING THE GAPS IN THE FIGHT AGAINST INVASIVE SPECIES

Fourth, the administrator would not act as the "lead" for invasive species
purposes, but would instead have the authority to designate a state agency to act as thelead agency for a specific invasive species -- notwithstanding but consistent with, if
possible -- current applicable law. The ability to designate lead agencies would provide
quicker responses to prevent the establishment of invasive species.
Additionally, the administrator would be responsible for the following concerns,
including those raised in chapter 6, Gaps and Leaks in the Present System:(1)

Maintaining a broad overview of the invasive species problem in the Stateand serving as an information clearinghouse for invasive species in
Hawaii;(2)

Advising and coordinating efforts between the HDOA, DLNR, DOH, andDOT on issues related to invasive species including state, federal,international, and privately organized programs and other areas ofconcern;(3)

After consulting with appropriate state agencies and the advisorycommittee, create and implement a plan that includes the prevention,
early detection, rapid response, control, enforcement, and education of the
public with respect to invasive species, as well as create a mission
statement articulating the State's position against invasive species;(4)

Coordinating and promoting the State's position with respect to federal
issues including:(a)Quarantine preemption;(b)International trade agreements that ignore the invasive species
problem in Hawaii;(c)First class mail inspection prohibition;(d)Quarantine of domestic pests arriving from the mainland should be
provided by the federal government;(e)Coordinating efforts with federal agencies to maximize resources
and reduce or eliminate system gaps and leaks including deputizing
the USDA's plant protection and quarantine program to enforce
Hawaii's laws;(f)Promoting the amendment of federal laws as necessary, including
the Lacey Act (so that federal and state laws are consistent) and

68

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

other laws to improve inspection of domestic airline passengers,
baggage, and cargo;(g)

Coordinating efforts and issues with the federal Invasive Species
Council and its National Invasive Species Management Plan; and(5)

Identifying and recording all invasive species present in the State anddesignating a state department to act as the lead agency for each invasive
specie identified;(6)

Identifying all state, federal, and other moneys expended for the purposesof the invasive species problem in the State;(7)

Identifying all federal and private funds available to the State to fightinvasive species and advising and assisting state departments to acquire
these funds;(8)

Advising the Governor and Legislature on budgetary and other issues
regarding invasive species;(9)

Providing annual reports to the Legislature on budgetary and other related
issues;(10)

Including the counties in the fight against invasive species to increase
resources and funding and to address county-sponsored activities thatinvolve invasive species;(11)

Reviewing state agency mandates and commercial interests thatsometimes call for maintenance of potentially destructive alien species as
resources for sport hunting, aesthetic resources or other values;(12)

Reviewing the fines and penalties structure to insure maximum deterrence
to invasive species related crimes; and(13)

Suggesting appropriate legislation to improve the State's administration ofinvasive species programs.

Suggested legislation establishing a state invasive species administrator/
coordinator position is included in Appendix G.
This proposal as well as the aforementioned funding proposals lack the benefit ofstate agency and public review and should be treated accordingly.

69

FILLING THE GAPS IN THE FIGHT AGAINST INVASIVE SPECIES

Endnotes
1.

The nominating committee is based on the selection process for the Commission on Water
Resource Management under section 174C-7, Hawaii Revised Statutes.

70

SCR45 HD1
Report Title:
Study of Alien Aquatic and Terrestrial Species

THE SENATE

S.C.R. NO.

TWENTY-FIRST LEGISLATURE, 2001

45
H.D. 1

STATE OF HAWAIISENATE CONCURRENTRESOLUTION
REQUESTING THE LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE BUREAU TO study policy recommendations andfunding options for a comprehensive invasive species protection and control
program for the State of Hawaii.

WHEREAS, the silent invasion of Hawaii by insects, disease organisms, snakes, weeds, andother pests is the single greatest threat to Hawaii's economy, natural environment and thehealth and lifestyle of Hawaii's people and visitors; andWHEREAS, invasive pests already cause millions of dollars of crop losses, the extinction ofnative species, the destruction of native ecosystems, and the spread of disease; andWHEREAS, many more harmful pests threaten to invade Hawaii and wreak further damage; andWHEREAS, the cumulative impacts of harmful invasive species create a burden for the UnitedStates, and the nation's current protection system is piecemeal and lacking adequate rigor
and comprehensiveness; andWHEREAS, these deficiencies led to a 1999 Executive Order that brought increased regulatory
scrutiny and responsibilities for federal agencies as well as the creation of a national
invasive species management plan; andWHEREAS, the State of Hawaii's programs to address invasive species are also piecemeal,lacking adequate rigor, comprehensiveness, and political will; andWHEREAS, the deficiencies in Hawaii's programs to address invasive species are evidenced bydebate over determining a lead state agency and the formation in 1995 of a coalition of stateagencies and non-profit partners called the Coordinating Group on Alien Pest Species (CGAPS);

1 of 3

SCR45 HD1and
WHEREAS, a principal lesson from the CGAPS program is that Hawaii needs a more coordinatedinvasive species prevention and control program that has sufficient programmatic capability
to prevent new invasive species from entering into the State and control those species
already present at a level that reduces the risks and mitigates the hazards to the people of
Hawaii; andWHEREAS, public and private sectors involved and affected by the invasive species issue
should participate together in formulating funding options and policy changes for future
legislative consideration; now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED by the Senate of the Twenty-First Legislature of the State of Hawaii, Regular
Session of 2001, the House of Representatives concurring, that the Legislative Reference
Bureau is requested to conduct a study on policy recommendations and funding options for acomprehensive invasive species protection and control program for the State of Hawaii; andBE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this study should address, but not be limited to, the following
areas:(1) The scope of the invasive species problem on a global and local
level;(2) The economic and environmental costs to Hawaii associated withinvasive species;(3) The health and safety issues for Hawaii associated with invasive
species;(4) Hawaii's existing programs and policies that address the invasive
species problem;(5) Existing collaborative efforts between organizations in the
public, private, and non-profit sectors and among government agencies;(6) Potential for future collaborative efforts between organizationsin the public, private, and non-profit sectors and among government
agencies;(7) Statutory changes the Legislature can make to improve control andprevention of invasive species;(8) Assessing the need for a lead state agency for the control andprevention of invasive species, and if deemed necessary, recommending
the lead state agency; and(9) Evaluating existing funding sources and recommending potential
future funding sources for a comprehensive state plan;andBE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Legislative Reference Bureau consult with the Department ofAgriculture, Department of Land and Natural Resources, Department of Health, Department ofTransportation, Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism, Hawaii Tourism
Authority, affected private sector industry groups, relevant federal agencies, and relevant
non-governmental organizations in its analysis; andBE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Legislative Reference Bureau submit a report on its findings
and recommendations, including draft legislation, to the Legislature no later than twenty
days prior to the convening of the Regular Session of 2002; andBE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that certified copies of this Concurrent Resolution be transmitted to
the Governor, the Legislative Reference Bureau, the Board of Land and Natural Resources, theDepartment of Agriculture, the Department of Health, the Department of Transportation, the2 of 3

SCR45 HD1
Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism, and the Hawaii Tourism Authority.

3 of 3

Appendix B
LAWS AND RULES OR REGULATIONSADMINISTERED OR IMPLEMENTED
Laws and rules administered or implemented by the Hawaii Department ofAgriculture.
(1)

Section 141-2, Hawaii Revised Statutes, Prohibition of importation into the Stateof diseased or infested insects that are injurious, harmful or detrimental toagriculture or the forest of the State;(2)

Section 141-3, Hawaii Revised Statutes, Designation of pests; control or
eradication of pests; emergency powers; authority to enter into contracts andcooperative agreements;(3)

Section 141-3.6, Hawaii Revised Statutes, Entry of private property to control or
eradicate any pests;(4)

Chapter 142, Part I, Hawaii Revised Statutes, Animal Diseases and Quarantine;(5)

Chapter 149A, Hawaii Revised Statutes, Hawaii Pesticides Laws;(6)

Chapter 150A, Hawaii Revised Statutes, Plant and non-domestic animal
quarantine;(7)

Chapter 4-21, Hawaii Administrative Rules, Vaccines, microorganisms, andparasites;(8)

Chapter 4-66, Hawaii Administrative Rules, Pesticides;(9)

Chapter 4-67, Hawaii Administrative Rules, Seed Rules;(10)

Chapter 4-68, Hawaii Administrative Rules, Noxious Weed Rules;(11)

Chapter 4-69A, Hawaii Administrative Rules, Pests for control or eradication;(12)

Chapter 4-70, Hawaii Administrative Rules, Plant and non-domestic animal
quarantine;(13)

Chapter 4-71, Hawaii Administrative Rules, Non-domestic animal introductions
and microorganism introductions;(14)

Chapter 4-72, Hawaii Administrative Rules, Plant and Non-domestic animal
quarantine plant intrastate rules; and(15)

Chapter 4-73, Hawaii Administrative Rules, land and non-domestic animal
quarantine and quarantine plant export rules.

74Laws and rules administered or implemented by the Department of Land andNatural Resources.
(1)

Section 183-1.5(4), Hawaii Revised Statutes, Devise ways and means ofprotecting the forest and forest reserves;
Section 183D-2(1), Hawaii Revised Statutes, Manage and administer the wildlife
and wildlife resources of the State;(2)

Section 183D-2(10), Hawaii Revised Statutes, Pursuant to section 183D-65,
destroy predators deemed harmful to wildlife;(3)

Section 195-4 (1) HRS, Management of natural area reserves;(4)

Section 195-6.5, Hawaii Revised Statutes, Natural area partnership program;(5)

Section 195D-4, Hawaii Revised Statutes, Endangered species and threatened
species;(6)

Section 183D-65, Hawaii Revised Statutes, Posting; destruction of predators;(7)

Section 197-3, Hawaii Revised Statutes, Introduction of aquatic life and wildlife;
and

(8)

Chapter 13-124, Hawaii Administrative Rules, Indigenous wildlife, endangered
and threatened wildlife, and introduced wild birds.

Laws and rules administered or implemented by the Department of Health.
(1)

Section 321-11(23), Hawaii Revised Statutes, Disinsectization of aircraft enteringor within the State as may be necessary to prevent the introduction,transmission, or spread of disease or the introduction or spread of any insect orother vector of significance to health;(2)

Chapter 322, Hawaii Revised Statutes, Nuisances; Sanitary regulations (noise);
and

(3)

Chapter 11-26, Hawaii Administrative Rules, Vector control.

Laws and regulations administered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
(1)

Endangered Species Act (ESA);(2)

Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna andFlora (CITES);(3)

Lacey Act of 1900, as amended;(4)

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended;(5)

Migratory Bird Treaty Act, as amended; and

75

(6)

Regulations relating to "Endangered & Threatened Wildlife and Plants";"Endangered Species Convention"; "Importation, Exportation, and Transportationof Wildlife", and "Injurious Wildlife".

Laws and regulations administered by the Plant Protection and Quarantine andPlant Health Inspection Service.
(1)

Animal Damage Control Act of 1931;(2)

Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, as amended;(3)

Alien Species Prevention and Enforcement Act;

(4)

Animal Industry Act, as amended;(5)

Animal Quarantine Act, as amended;(6)

Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978;(7)

Establishment of International Animal Station, as amended;(8)

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976;(9)Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974, as amended;(10)

Federal Seed Act;

(11)

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Research Act of 1978;(12)

Hawaii Tropical Forest Recovery Act;

(13)

Imported Meat Act, as amended;(14)

Livestock and Poultry Diseases Act, as amended;(15)

National Environmental Policy Act, as amended;(16)

Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act;

(17)

Organic Administration Act;

(18)

Plant Protection Act;

(19)

Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978;(20)

Virus-Serum-Toxin Act; and(21)

Regulations relating to "Domestic Quarantine Notices"; "Foreign Animal
Quarantines"; "Foreign Plant Quarantines"; "Noxious Weed Regulations";"Territorial Plant Quarantines"; and "Migratory Bird Permits.

76

Laws and regulations administered by the United States Postal Service.
(1)

Agricultural Quarantine Enforcement Act;

(2)

Terminal Inspection Act;

(3)

P.L. 100-574; and(4)

Regulations relating to "Importation of plants or plant products by mail".

77

Appendix C

Statewide Alien Prevention
and Control Needs
CGAPS “Capacity Exercise” Statewide Additional Needs Matrix
Resources that can be shared with other efforts appear in red text
Species: Summary of All

Category: N/A#FTE’sPrevention
Early Detection
Rapid Response
Control
Enforcement
Public Outreach
Totals

FTE$
144
29
68.25
292
4
37.25
515

Funding$8,640,000$1,740,000$4,095,000$17,520,000$240,000$2,235,000$34,470,000

Assumptions:
FTE $= projected at $60,000 per position to cover salary, fringe and support
Helicopter time= $640/hr$620,000$389,000$439,000$12,732,000$260,000$937,000$14,003,000

Subtotal$9,260,000$2,129,000$4,534,000$30,252,000$500,000$3,172,000$49,847,000

Appendix D

Recent State Expenditures on Alien Species
Prevention/Control
FY 1999
Prevention
Early Detection
Rapid Response
Control
Enforcement
Public OutreachMonitoring
Restoration
Research
Information
management
Totalsestimated FY 2000
$528,000$662,000$2,076,000$2,149,000$2,106,000$125,000$2,075,000$65,000$475,000$10,000$800,000$168,000$400,000$590,000$10,000$995,000$595,000$6,271,000$7,582,000

Appendix G
Report Title:
Invasive Species; Funding

Description:
Earmarks a portion of the airport landing fees and the harbor
port entry, dockage, and wharfage fees for invasive species.
Sets invasive species as the first priority for the disbursementof the conveyance taxes deposited into the natural area reserve
fund.

Appendix G Species Funding*Appendix G Species Funding*102THE SENATETWENTY-FIRST LEGISLATURE, 2002
STATE OF HAWAII

S.B. NO.

A BILL FOR AN ACTRELATING TO INVASIVE SPECIES FUNDING.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF HAWAII:
1
2
3

SECTION 1.

Section 247-7, Hawaii Revised Statutes, isamended to read as follows:"§247-7

Disposition of taxes.

All taxes collected under4

this chapter shall be paid into the state treasury to the credit

5of the general fund of the State, to be used and expended for6

the purposes for which the general fund was created and exists

7by law; provided that of the taxes collected each fiscal year,8

twenty-five per cent shall be paid into the rental housing trust

9

fund established by section 201G-432 and twenty-five per cent10

shall be paid into the natural area reserve fund established by

11section 195-9; provided that the funds paid into the natural

12

area reserve fund shall be annually disbursed by the department

13of land and natural resources after joint consultation with the14forest stewardship committee and the natural area reserves

15

system commission in the following priority:

16

(1)

To invasive species control programs;

Appendix G Species Funding*Appendix G Species Funding*103

Page 2

1

S.B. NO.

[(1)] (2)2
3

To other natural area partnership and forest

stewardship programs;[(2)] (3)Projects undertaken in accordance with watershed4

management plans pursuant to section 171-58 or

5watershed management plans negotiated with private

6

landowners; and

7[(3)] (4)

8
9
10
11

The youth conservation corps established underchapter 193."
SECTION 2.

Section 261-7, Hawaii Revised Statutes, isamended by amending subsection (e) to read as follows:"(e)

The department may fix and regulate, from time to12time, reasonable landing fees for aircraft, including the13

imposition of landing surcharges or differential landing fees,

14

and other reasonable charges for the use and enjoyment of the15

airports and the services and facilities furnished by the16

department in connection therewith, including the establishment

17of a statewide system of airports landing fees, a statewide

18

system of airports support charges, and joint use charges for19

the use of space shared by users, which fees and charges may

20vary among different classes of users such as foreign carriers,

21

domestic carriers, inter-island carriers, air taxi operators,

22

helicopters, and such other classes as may be determined by the
Appendix G Species Funding*Appendix G Species Funding*104

Page 3

S.B. NO.

1

director, for the purpose of meeting the expenditures of the2statewide system of airports set forth in section 261-5(a),3which includes expenditures for capital improvement projects

4

approved by the legislature.

5

Of the statewide system of airports landing fees collected6

each year, one per cent shall be disbursed by the department for7

invasive species control and prevention in accordance with

8

applicable federal law regarding the disposition of airport

9

revenue.

10

In setting airports rates and charges, including landing

11

fees, the director may enter into contracts, leases, licenses,

12

and other agreements with aeronautical users of the statewide

13

system of airports containing such terms, conditions, and14

provisions as the director deems advisable.

15

If the director has not entered into contracts, leases,

16

licenses, and other agreements with any or fewer than all of the17

aeronautical users of the statewide system of airports prior to18

the expiration of an existing contract, lease, license, or

19agreement, the director shall set and impose rates, rentals,

20

fees, and charges pursuant to this subsection without regard to21

the requirements of chapter 91; provided that a public

Appendix G Species Funding*Appendix G Species Funding*105

Page 4

S.B. NO.

1

informational hearing shall be held on the rates, rentals, fees,2and charges.

3

The director shall develop rates, rentals, fees, and4charges in accordance with a residual methodology so that the5statewide system of airports shall be, and always remain, self-

6sustaining.

7

at such levels as to produce revenues which, together with8

aviation fuel taxes, shall be at least sufficient to meet the9expenditures of the statewide system of airports set forth in10

section 261-5(a), including expenditures for capital improvement

11

projects approved by the legislature, and to comply with12

covenants and agreements with holders of airport revenue bonds.

13

The director may develop and formulate methodology in

14setting the various rates, rentals, fees, and charges imposed15

and may determine usage of space, estimate landed weights, and16

apply such portion of nonaeronautical revenue deemed appropriate

17

in determining the rates, rentals, fees, and charges applicable18

to aeronautical users of the statewide system of airports.

The rates, rentals, fees, and charges shall be set

19

The rates, rentals, fees, and charges determined by the20

director in the manner set forth in this subsection shall be

21

those charges payable by the aeronautical users for the periods

22

immediately following the date of expiration of the existing
Appendix G Species Funding*Appendix G Species Funding*106

Page 5

S.B. NO.

1

contract, lease, license, or agreement.

If fees are established2

pursuant to this section, the department shall prepare a3

detailed report on the circumstances and rates and charges that4

have been established, and shall submit the report to the5legislature no later than twenty days prior to the convening of6

the next regular session.

7

If a schedule of rates, rentals, fees, and charges

8

developed by the director in accordance with this section is

9

projected by the department to produce revenues which, together

10with aviation fuel taxes, will be in excess of the amount11

required to meet the expenditures of the statewide system of

12

airports set forth in section 261-5(a), including expenditures

13

for capital improvement projects approved by the legislature,

14

and to comply with covenants and agreements with holders of

15

airport revenue bonds, the department shall submit the schedule16of rates, rentals, fees, and charges to the legislature prior to17

the convening of the next regular session of the legislature.

18

Within forty-five days after the convening of the regular19

session, the legislature may disapprove any schedule of rates,

20

rentals, fees, and charges required to be submitted to it by21

this section by concurrent resolution.

22

the legislature within the forty-five-day period the schedule ofAppendix G Species Funding

If no action is taken by*Appendix G Species Funding*107

Page 6

S.B. NO.

1

rates, rentals, fees, and charges shall be deemed approved.

2

the legislature disapproves the schedule within the forty-five-3

day period, the director shall develop a new schedule of rates,4

rentals, fees, and charges in accordance with this section

5

within seventy-five days of the disapproval.

6

development of a new schedule of rates, rentals, fees, and7charges, the schedule submitted to the legislature shall remain

8

in force and effect.

If

Pending the9

Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary,10

the department may waive landing fees and other aircraft charges

11

established under this section at any airport owned or

12controlled by the State whenever:

13

(1)

The governor declares a state of emergency; and

14

(2)

The department determines that the waiver of landing

15

fees and other charges for the aircraft is consistent16

with assisting in the delivery of humanitarian relief

17

to disaster-stricken areas of the State."

18
19
20

SECTION 3.

Section 266-2, Hawaii Revised Statutes, isamended by amending subsection (b) to read as follows:"(b)"Notwithstanding any law or provision to the21

contrary, the department of transportation is authorized to22plan, construct, operate, and maintain any commercial harbor
Appendix G Species Funding*Appendix G Species Funding*108

Page 7

S.B. NO.

1

facility in the State, including, but not limited to, the2acquisition and use of lands necessary to stockpile dredged

3

spoils, without the approval of county agencies.

4

All moneys appropriated for commercial harbor improvements,

5

including new construction, reconstruction, repairs, salaries,

6and operating expenses, shall be expended under the supervision7

and control of the department, subject to this chapter and8chapter 103D.

9

All contracts and agreements authorized by law to be

10

entered into by the department shall be executed on its behalf

11by the director of transportation.

12

Of the port entry, wharfage, and demurrage fees collected13

each year, one per cent shall be disbursed by the department for14

invasive species control and prevention."

15
16
17

SECTION 4.
and stricken.
SECTION 5.

Statutory material to be repealed is bracketed
New statutory material is underscored.
This Act shall take effect upon its approval.

18
INTRODUCED BY: _____________________________

Appendix G Species Funding*Appendix G Species Funding*109

Report Title:
Alien Invasive Species; State Administrator/Coordinator

Description:
Establishes a state invasive species administrator/coordinatorand authorizes the departments of agriculture, health, and landand natural resources to enter private property for the purposeof controlling or eradicating alien invasive species.

Appendix G Alien Species*Appendix G Alien Species*
110THE SENATETWENTY-FIRST LEGISLATURE, 2002
STATE OF HAWAII

S.B. NO.

A BILL FOR AN ACTRELATING TO ALIEN INVASIVE SPECIES.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF HAWAII:
1

SECTION 1.

The Hawaii Revised Statutes is amended by2

adding a new chapter to be appropriately designated and to read3

as follows:

4"CHAPTER5INVASIVE SPECIES

6

§

-1

Findings and purpose.

The legislature finds that7

the silent invasion of Hawaii by alien invasive species is the8

single greatest threat to Hawaii's economy, natural environment,

9

and the health and lifestyle of Hawaii's people and visitors.

10

Invasive species cause millions of dollars in crop damage, the11extinction of native species, the destruction of native

12

ecosystems, and the spread of many diseases.

13

The purpose of this chapter is to:

14

(1)

Establish an administrator/coordinator position for

15

invasive species to better orchestrate the war against

16

invasive species;

Appendix G Alien Species*Appendix G Alien Species*
111Page 2

1

S.B. NO.
(2)

2
3

Affirm the objective of the State to rid Hawaii ofinvasive species; and(3)

Provide other statutory means to facilitate the4administration of the State's efforts to control

5

invasive species.

6

§

-2

Administrator/coordinator.

(a)There is7

established an administrator/coordinator position for invasive8

species that shall be administratively attached to the9governor's office.

10

at least five years experience in researching, controlling or

11

eradicating, or administering programs related to alien invasive

12

species.

13

have sole discretion in determining the eligibility of persons

14nominated for the administrator/coordinator position.

15

(b)

The administrator/coordinator shall possess

The nominating committee under subsection (b) shall

The administrator/coordinator shall be appointed by

16

the governor subject to confirmation by the senate; provided

17

that the governor shall select an administrator/coordinator from18

a list submitted by a nominating committee.

19committee shall be composed of three individuals chosen as

20

follows:

21

appointed by the president of the senate; and one person

The nominating

one person appointed by the governor; one person

Appendix G Alien Species*Appendix G Alien Species*
112Page 3

S.B. NO.

1

appointed by the speaker of the house of representatives.

2

committee shall solicit applications and send to the governor

3

the names of at least three nominees.

4

without compensation and serve at the pleasure of the appointing

5

authority.

6

administrator/coordinator for cause and replace the7administrator/coordinator as the need arises.

8

(c)

The

The committee shall serve

The nominating committee may dismiss the

The administrator/coordinator shall serve a term of

9four years, shall be appointed without regard to chapter 76, and10compensated at a salary level set by the nominating committee11with approval by the governor.

12

may request staff assistance from the office of the governor and13other appropriate agencies.

14

also employ, without regard to chapters 76 and at the15

administrator/coordinator's pleasure, hire and dismiss such

16

persons as the administrator/coordinator finds necessary for the17

purposes of this chapter and fix their compensation accordingly.

The administrator/coordinator

The administrator/coordinator may

18

(d)

The administrator/coordinator shall:

19

(1)

Maintain a broad overview of the invasive species

20

problem in the State;

Appendix G Alien Species*Appendix G Alien Species*
113Page 4

1

S.B. NO.
(2)

Advise, consult, and coordinate invasive species2

related efforts with and between the departments of3

agriculture, land and natural resources, health, and4transportation including state, federal,

5international, and privately organized programs and6

policies;

7(3)

Identify and prioritize each lead agency's

8organizational and resource shortfalls with respect to9invasive species;

10

(4)

After consulting with appropriate state agencies and11

the advisory body under section

12

implement a plan that includes the prevention, early13

detection, rapid response, control, enforcement and14

education of the public with respect to invasive15

species, as well as fashion a mission statement

16

articulating the State's position against invasive17

species;18(5)-3, create andCoordinate and promote the State's position with19

respect to federal issues including:

20

(A)

Quarantine preemption;

Appendix G Alien Species*Appendix G Alien Species*
114Page 5

S.B. NO.

1

(B)

2

International trade agreements that ignore theinvasive species problem in Hawaii;

3(C)First class mail inspection prohibition;

4(D)

Quarantine of domestic pests arriving from the5mainland should be provided by the federal

6

government;

7(E)

Coordinating efforts with federal agencies to8maximize resources and reduce or eliminate system

9gaps and leaks including deputizing U.S.

10

Department of Agriculture's plant protection and11quarantine inspectors to enforce Hawaii's laws;

12

(F)

Promoting the amendment of federal laws as

13necessary, including the Lacey Act (so that14federal and state laws are consistent) and laws

15

related to inspection of domestic airline

16

passengers, baggage and cargo;

17

(G)

Coordinating efforts and issues with the federal

18

Invasive Species Council and its National

19

Invasive Species Management Plan;

20
21

(6)

Identify and record all invasive species present in
the State and designate the department of agriculture,

Appendix G Alien Species*Appendix G Alien Species*
115Page 6

S.B. NO.

1

health, or land and natural resources as the lead2

agency for each invasive species identified;3(7)

Identify all state, federal and other moneys expended

4

for the purposes of the invasive species problem in5

the State;

6(8)

Identify all federal and private funds available to7

the State to fight invasive species and advise and8assist state departments to acquire these funds;

9

(9)

10
11

Advise the governor and legislature on budgetary andother issues regarding invasive species;(10)

Provide annual reports to the legislature twenty days

12prior to every legislative session on budgetary and13other related issues;

14

(11)

Include the counties in the fight against invasive15

species to increase resources and funding and to16

address county-sponsored activities that involve

17

invasive species;

18

(12)

Review state agency mandates and commercial interests

19that sometimes call for maintenance of potentially20

destructive alien species as resources for sport

21

hunting, aesthetic resources or other values;

Appendix G Alien Species*Appendix G Alien Species*
116Page 7

1

S.B. NO.

(13)

Review the fines and penalties structure to insure2

maximum deterrence for invasive species related3

crimes;4(14)

Suggest appropriate legislation to improve the State's

5administration of invasive species programs and6

policies; and

7

(15)

8
9

Any other function necessary to effectuate thepurposes of this chapter.

§-3

Advisory body.

The administrator/coordinator may

10

appoint a local advisory body to advise the11administrator/coordinator to assist in coordinating activities

12

to fight invasive species.

13

representatives of state, and private members.

14

of federal agencies shall be asked to participate.

15

selection of the local advisory body shall be at the discretion

16of the administrator/coordinator who shall meet with the body at17least quarterly.

18

appoint an advisory body, then the administrator/coordinator

19

shall conduct quarterly public hearings to gain public input on

20

current issues of concern.

21

also meet at least semi-annually with the chairpersons of the

The body shall be comprised ofRepresentatives
The

If the administrator/coordinator does not

The administrator/coordinator shallAppendix G Alien Species*Appendix G Alien Species*
117Page 8

S.B. NO.

1

board of agriculture and board of land and natural resources and2

the directors of health and transportation to gain input and to3

keep them abreast of current issues.

4

§

-4

Lead agency; duties.

A state department that is5

designated a lead agency under section

6

to a particular species shall have sole administrative

7

responsibility and accountability for that designated invasive8

species.

9(1)-2(b)(5) with respect

The lead agency shall:
Coordinate all efforts between other departments and10federal and private agencies to control or eradicate

11

the designated invasive species;

12

(2)

Prepare a biennial multi-departmental budget proposal

13

for the legislature and invasive species

14

administrator/coordinator forty days before the15

convening of the regular session of the legislature in16

each odd-numbered year, showing the budget

17

requirements of each of the lead agency's assigned

18

invasive species that includes the budget requirements

19of all departments that it leads for that species as

20

well as other federal and private funding for that21

invasive species;

Appendix G Alien Species*Appendix G Alien Species*
118Page 91

S.B. NO.
(3)

Prepare and distribute an annual progress report forty

2days prior to the convening of each regular session of3

the legislature to the governor, legislature, and the4invasive specie administrator/coordinator that5

includes the status of each assigned invasive species

6with respect to its control or eradication; and

7

(4)

8
9

Any other function of a lead agency necessary toeffectuate the purposes of this chapter.

§-5

Authority to enter premises; departments of

10

agriculture, health, and land and natural resources.

11

Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, and in addition

12

to any other authority provided by law that is not inconsistent13

with the purposes of this chapter, the departments of

14

agriculture, health, and land and natural resources and each15

departments agents, pursuant to this chapter, are authorized to16

examine, control, and eradicate all instances of invasive17

species identified as such by the invasive species

18

administrator/coordinator under section

19

public or private premises or in any aircraft or vessel landed

20

or docked in waters of the State.

Appendix G Alien Species-(2)(b)(5) on any*Appendix G Alien Species*
119Page 10

1§

S.B. NO.
-6

Private property.

(a)Whenever any invasive2

specie identified by the invasive species

3administrator/coordinator under section

4

on private property, the departments of agriculture, health, or5

land and natural resources, as the case may be, may enter such6

premises to control or eradicate the invasive species after

7

reasonable notice is given to the owner of the property and8pursuant to the court order in subsection (d).

9(b)-(2)(b)(5) is foundIf applicable, a duplicate of the notice so given

10

shall be left with one or more of the tenants or occupants of11

the premises.

12

mailed to the last known place of residence of the owner if

13

residing in the State.

14

cannot be reached with notice speedily, notice left at the house15

or posted on the premises shall be sufficient.

16

(c)

If the premises are unoccupied, notice shall be

If the owner resides out of the State or

The department may instead cause notice to be given,17

and order the owner to control or eradicate the invasive species

18

at the owner's expense within such reasonable time as the19

department may deem proper, pursuant to the notice requirements

20of this section.

Appendix G Alien Species*Appendix G Alien Species*
120Page 111(d)S.B. NO.
If the owner thus notified fails to comply with the2order of the department, or its agent, within the time specified

3

by the department, the department or its agent may apply to the4

district court of the circuit in which the property is situated5

for a warrant, directed to any police officer of the circuit,6commanding the police officer to take sufficient aid, and, being

7

accompanied by the department, between the hours of sunrise and8sunset, execute measures to control or eradicate the invasive9

species.

10(e)

The department may recover by appropriate proceedings11

the expenses incurred by its order from any owner, who, after

12

proper notice has failed to comply with the department's order.

13

(f)

In no case shall the department or any officer or

14

agent thereof be liable for costs in any action or proceeding

15

that may be commenced in pursuance of this chapter.

16

§

-7

State or county property.

(a)Whenever any

17invasive species identified by the invasive species

18

administrator/coordinator under section

19

on state or county property or on a public highway, street,20

lane, alley, or other public place controlled by the State or21

county, notice shall be given by the departments of agriculture,

Appendix G Alien Species-(2)(b)(5) is found*Appendix G Alien Species*
121Page 12

S.B. NO.

1

health, or land and natural resources, or its agent, as the case2

may be, to the person officially in charge thereof, and the3

person shall be reasonably notified and ordered by the4department to control or eradicate the invasive species.

5(b)

In case of a failure to comply with the order, the6mode of procedure shall be the same as provided in case of7

private persons in section

8
9
10

§

-8

Rulemaking.

-6.
The administrator/coordinator may

adopt rules pursuant to chapter 91 to effectuate this chapter."
SECTION 2.

There is appropriated out of the general11

revenues of the State of Hawaii the sum of $12much thereof as may be necessary for fiscal year 2002-2003.

13

SECTION 3.

, or soThis Act shall take effect on July 1, 2002.

14
INTRODUCED BY: _____________________________

Appendix G Alien Species*Appendix G Alien Species*122