Intrastate	
  Biosecurity	
  Policy:	  Survey	  of	  Concepts	
  Introduced	
  in	
  the	  2014	  Legislative	  Session	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  

A	
  briefing	
  paper	  prepared	
  by	
  support	
  staff	
  of	
  the	
  interagency	
  Hawaii	
  Invasive	  Species	  Council,	
  on	
  behalf	
  of	
  Senator	
  Mike	  Gabbard	  December	  2014	  	
  Joshua	  Atwood,	
  Ph.D.,	
  Program	  Supervisor	  Hawaii	
  Invasive	  Species	  Council	
  http://hisc.hawaii.gov	
  
	
  

	
  

Table	  of	  Contents	
  Executive	  Summary..........................................................................................................................	
   1	
  
I.	
  Introduction..................................................................................................................................	
   2	
  
II.	
  Survey	
  Responses.........................................................................................................................	
  	
   3	
  
III.	
  Synthesis:	
  Areas	  of	
  Consensus	
  and	
  Contention..........................................................................	
   12	
  Appendix	
  1:	
  Survey	
  Form.................................................................................................................	
   14	
  Appendix	
  2:	
  Full	  Text	  of	  Survey	
  Respondents’	
  “Other”	
  Input........................................................	
   17	
  Appendix	
  3:	
  Full	  Text	  of	
  Referenced	
  Legislation	
  from	  2014	
  Legislative	  Session	
  
	
  
3a:	
  House	  Bill	  1513.............................................................................................................	
   22	  	
  3b:	  House	  Bill	  1932	
  Senate	
  Draft	
  2.....................................................................................	
   24	  	
  3c:	  House	  Bill	  1994.............................................................................................................	
   27	  	
  3d:	  Senate	
  Bill	
  2347	  (original	
  draft)	
  ...................................................................................	
   37	  	
  3e:	  Senate	
  Bill	
  2347	
  Senate	
  Draft	
  2	
  House	
  Draft	
  1.............................................................	
   39	  	
  3f:	  Senate	
  Bill	  2607.............................................................................................................	
   49	  	  	
  Executive	  Summary	
  
At	
  a	
  June	  2014	
  meeting	
  of	
  the	
  interagency	
  Hawai‘i	
  Invasive	  Species	  Council	
  (HISC),	
  Senator	
  Mike	  Gabbard	
  discussed	
  various	
  bills	
  from	  the	  2014	
  legislative	  session	
  that	  dealt	
  with	  intrastate	
  biosecurity	
  issues,	
  noting	  that	  none	  had	
  passed.	
  Senator	
  Gabbard	
  requested	
  assistance	
  from	  support	
  staff	
  associated	
  with	  the	  HISC	  in	
  gathering	
  stakeholder	
  input	
  on	
  legislative	
  concepts	
  dealing	
  with	  this	
  issue.	
  
	
  
In	
  October	
  2014,	
  HISC	  support	
  staff	
  released	
  a	
  stakeholder	
  survey	
  reviewing	
  seven	
  legislative	
  concepts	
  relating	
  to	
  intrastate	
  biosecurity	
  that	  were	  introduced	
  in	
  the	  2014	
  legislative	  session.	
  This	  survey	
  was	  publically	
  available	
  on	
  the	  HISC	  website	
  from	  October	
  28	
  to	
  November	
  21,	  2014,	
  and	  was	
  promoted	
  via	  the	
  Hawai‘i	
  Farm	  Bureau	
  Federation	
  (HFBF)	
  Annual	  Meeting,	
  the	
  HFBF	
  email	
  list,	  and	  the	  HISC	  stakeholder	
  email	
  list.	
  Sixty-­‐seven	
  responses	
  were	  received,	
  of	
  which	
  11%	
  came	  from	  private	
  business,	
  15%	
  came	  from	  individuals	
  with	  no	
  affiliation,	
  23%	
  came	  from	  the	
  non-­‐profit	
  sector,	
  and	
  51%	
  came	  from	  individuals	
  working	
  within	  a	
  government	
  agency.	
  	
  While	
  none	  of	
  the	
  bills	
  introduced	
  in	
  2014	
  that	  packaged	
  these	
  various	
  concepts	
  passed,	
  the	
  survey	
  indicates	
  that	  there	  may	  be	
  general	
  agreement	
  across	
  sectors	
  on	
  several	
  of	
  the	  individual	
  concepts	  introduced.	
  The	
  survey	
  also	  identified	
  contentious	
  areas	
  that	  may	
  require	  a	
  more	  nuanced	
  approach	
  in	
  order	  to	
  progress	
  legislatively.	
  Broadly,	
  our	
  survey	
  indicated	
  the	
  following:	
  • Concepts	
  with	
  general	
  agreement:	
  o Support	
  for	  the	
  use	  of	
  quarantines	
  for	
  potentially	
  infested	
  material	
  (p.	  7)	  o Support	
  for	
  authorizing	
  the	
  State	  to	
  enter	
  into	  private-­‐public	
  partnerships	
  for	
  components	
  of	
  a	
  biosecurity	
  program	
  (p.	  5)	  o Support	
  for	
  pest	  inspections	
  in	
  non-­‐agricultural	
  commodities	
  moving	
  intrastate	
  (p.	  6)	  • Concepts	
  with	  a	
  moderate	  level	  of	
  agreement:	
  o Requiring	
  the	
  State	  to	
  treat	  lands	
  abutting	
  infested	
  commercial	
  properties	
  (p.	  10)	  o Penalties	
  for	
  intentional	
  versus	
  unintentional	
  movement	
  of	
  pests	
  (p.	  8)	  o Are	
  statutory	
  amendments	
  needed?	
  (p.	  4)	  • Concepts	
  with	  disagreement:	
  o Determining	
  the	
  magnitude	
  of	
  penalty	
  for	  movement	
  of	
  pests	
  (p.	
  9)	
  

1	
  	
  

	
  

I.	
  Introduction	
  
	
  
The	
  Hawaii	
  Invasive	  Species	  Council	
  (HISC)	
  was	
  established	
  by	
  the	
  State	  Legislature	
  in	
  2003	
  for	  the	
  special	
  purpose	
  of	
  providing	
  cabinet-­‐level	  direction	
  on	
  invasive	  species	
  issues.	
  The	  HISC,	
  as	
  described	
  in	
  Hawaii	  Revised	
  Statutes	
  Chapter	
  194,	
  is	
  comprised	
  of	
  the	
  directors,	
  chairpersons,	
  or	
  designees	
  of:	  • Hawaii	
  Department	
  of	
  Land	  and	  Natural	
  Resources	
  (DLNR)	
  • Hawaii	
  Department	
  of	
  Agriculture	
  (HDOA)	
  • Hawaii	
  Department	
  of	
  Health	
  (DOH)	
  • Hawaii	
  Department	
  of	
  Transportation	
  (HIDOT)	
  • Hawaii	
  Department	
  of	
  Business,	
  Economic	
  Development,	
  and	
  Tourism	
  (DBEDT)	
  • The	
  University	
  of	
  Hawaii	
  (UH).	
  In	
  addition	
  to	
  cabinet	
  members,	
  discussions	
  at	
  HISC	  meetings	
  include	
  invited	
  participants	
  from	  the	
  State	  Legislature,	
  county	
  governments,	
  and	
  federal	
  offices	
  in	
  Hawaii.	
  In	
  2014,	
  Senate	
  President	
  Donna	
  Mercado	
  Kim	
  and	  Speaker	
  of	
  the	
  House	  Joseph	  Souki	  appointed	
  the	
  following	
  legislators	
  as	  participants	
  in	
  HISC	  discussions:	
  • Senators	
  Ron	
  Kouchi,	
  Mike	  Gabbard,	
  J.	
  Kalani	  English,	
  and	
  Gil	
  Kahele	  • Representatives	
  Derek	
  Kawakami,	
  Chris	  Lee,	
  Kaniela	
  Ing,	
  and	
  Richard	
  Onishi.	
  
	
  
At	
  a	
  June	  2014	
  meeting	
  of	
  the	
  Hawaii	
  Invasive	  Species	  Council,	
  Senator	
  Mike	  Gabbard	
  described	
  the	  outcome	  of	
  various	
  intrastate	
  biosecurity	
  bills	
  that	  had	  been	
  introduced,	
  but	
  failed	
  to	
  pass,	  the	  2014	  legislative	  session.	
  The	
  Senator	
  urged	  the	  HISC	
  to	
  continue	
  exploring	
  the	
  issue	
  of	
  intrastate	
  biosecurity	
  and	
  asked	
  HISC	
  staff	
  to	
  assist	
  in	
  gathering	
  stakeholder	
  input	
  regarding	
  this	
  issue	
  ahead	  of	
  the	  2015	  legislative	  session.	
  HISC	  members	
  approved	
  this	  request	
  and	
  directed	
  staff	
  to	
  work	  with	  Senator	
  Gabbard’s	
  office	
  on	
  gathering	
  input	
  on	
  issues	  related	
  to	
  intrastate	
  biosecurity.	
  
	
  
In	
  October	
  2014,	
  HISC	  support	
  staff	
  released	
  a	
  survey	
  reviewing	
  specific	
  regulatory	
  concepts	
  that	  were	  introduced	
  in	
  the	  2014	
  legislative	  session	
  and	
  solicited	
  input	
  from	  the	
  general	
  public	
  via	  the	  HISC	  website	
  (hisc.hawaii.gov),	
  from	  targeted	
  emails	
  to	
  the	  HISC	
  stakeholder	
  email	
  list	  (246	
  recipients)	
  and	  the	
  Hawaii	
  Farm	  Bureau	
  Federation	
  email	
  list,	  and	
  through	  a	
  presentation	
  at	
  the	
  Hawaii	
  Farm	  Bureau	  Federation	
  Annual	  Meeting.	
  	
  
	
  
Survey	  questions	  and	  summarized	
  responses	
  are	  described	
  in	
  this	
  report.	
  Responders	
  were	  asked	  a	
  total	
  of	
  eight	
  questions	
  relating	
  to	
  specific	
  concepts	
  introduced	
  in	
  legislation	
  in	
  2014.	
  In	
  particular,	
  this	  survey	
  utilized	
  concepts	
  introduced	
  by	
  House	  Bill	  (HB)	
  1513,	
  HB1932	
  Senate	
  Draft	
  2,	
  HB1994,	
  Senate	
  Bill	  (SB)	
  
2607,	  SB2347,	
  and	  SB2347	
  Senate	
  Draft	
  2	
  House	
  Draft	
  1.	
  Full	  text	  associated	
  with	  these	
  bills	
  is	
  available	
  online	
  at	
  capitol.hawaii.gov,	
  and	  in	
  Appendix	
  3	
  of	
  this	
  report.	
  
	
  
For	
  the	
  purposes	
  of	
  this	  survey,	
  "intrastate	
  biosecurity"	
  refers	
  to	
  any	
  procedure	  or	
  practice	
  undertaken	
  to	
  prevent	
  the	  movement	
  of	
  pests	
  between	
  islands	
  or	
  between	
  locations	
  within	
  a	
  given	
  island.	
  Because	
  this	
  survey	
  is	
  designed	
  to	
  gather	
  input	
  relating	
  to	
  the	  2014	
  legislative	  session,	
  survey	
  questions	
  were	  focused	  on	
  authorities	
  and	  mandates	
  provided	
  in	
  statute,	
  rather	
  than	  policies	
  described	
  by	
  administrative	
  rules.	
  	
  
	
  
Survey	  analysis	
  provided	
  in	
  this	
  report	
  is	
  for	
  information	
  purposes	
  only	  and	
  does	  not	  constitute	
  legislative	  intent,	
  or	
  a	
  formal	
  position	
  by	
  the	  HISC	  or	
  any	  of	
  its	  constituent	
  agencies.	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

2	
  	
  

II.	
  Summary	  of	
  Survey	
  Responses	
  
	
  
For	
  the	
  survey	
  period	
  of	
  October	
  28	
  through	
  November	
  21,	  2014,	
  67	
  responses	
  were	  received.	
  Because	
  the	
  survey	
  allowed	
  users	
  to	
  skip	  questions	
  that	  they	  did	  not	
  want	  to	
  answer,	
  the	
  total	
  number	  of	
  responses	
  for	
  each	  question	
  is	
  equal	
  to	
  or	
  in	
  some	  cases	  less	  than	
  67.	
  Total	
  number	
  of	
  responses	
  is	
  provided	
  for	
  each	  question	
  below.	
  	
  Question	
  1:	
  What	  type	  of	
  agency	
  or	
  organization	
  are	
  you	
  affiliated	
  with?	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

Individual	  (no	
  affiliation)	
  Government	
  agency	
  Non-­‐profit	
  Private	  business:	
  shipping	
  Private	  business:	
  farm	  Private	  business:	
  plant	
  nursery	  Private	  business:	
  other	
  

9	
  
31	
  
14	
  
0	
  
2	
  
2	
  
3	
  

Private	  business:	
  plant	
  nursery	
  
3%	
  
Private	  business:	
  
farm	
  
3%	
  

15%	
  
51%	
  
23%	
  
0%	
  
3%	
  
3%	
  
5%	
  

Private	  business:	
  other	  5%	  Individual	  (no	
  aﬃliaion)	
  
15%	
  

Non-­‐proﬁt	
  
23%	
  
Government	
  agency	  51%	
  Private	  business:	
  shipping	
  
0%	
  

While	
  51%	  of	
  respondents	
  recorded	
  “Government	
  agency”	
  as	
  their	
  affiliation,	
  this	  category	
  is	
  broadly	
  interpreted	
  and	  may	  include	
  individuals	
  affiliated	
  with	  State,	  County,	
  or	
  Federal	
  agencies,	
  the	
  University	
  of	
  Hawai‘i,	  or	
  the	
  State	  Legislature.	
  	
  
	
  
	
  

3	
  	
  

Question	
  2:	
  Current	
  statutes	
  versus	
  statutory	
  amendments	
  “Most	  of	
  the	
  legislation	
  relating	  to	
  biosecurity	
  in	
  the	  2014	
  legislative	  session	
  proposed	
  amendments	
  to	
  
two	
  chapters	
  of	
  the	
  Hawaii	
  Revised	
  Statutes:	
  HRS	  141	  ("Department	
  of	
  Agriculture")	
  and	
  HRS	
  150	  A	  ("Plant	  and	
  Non-­‐domestic	
  Animal	
  Quarantine";	
  you	
  can	  review	
  existing	
  regulations	
  here:	  www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/).	
  Are	
  Hawaii's	
  current	
  statutes	
  sufficient	
  for	
  implementing	
  an	
  effective	  intrastate	
  biosecurity	
  program,	
  or	
  do	
  you	
  feel	  that	  amendments	
  are	
  needed?”	
  

	
  
No,	
  current	
  regulations	
  described	
  in	
  statute	  are	  sufficient	
  Yes,	
  statutory	
  amendments	
  are	
  needed	  I'm	
  not	
  familiar	
  enough	
  with	  those	
  statutes	
  to	
  comment	
  on	
  their	
  status	  Other	
  

5	
  
41	
  
13	
  

7%	
  
62%	
  
20%	
  

7	
  

11%	
  

	
  

I'm	
  not	
  familiar	
  enough	  with	  those	  statutes	  to	
  comment	
  on	
  their	
  status	
  
20%	
  

No,	
  current	
  regulaions	
  described	
  in	
  statute	  are	  suﬃcient	
  
7%	
  

Other	
  
11%	
  

Yes,	
  statutory	
  amendments	
  are	  needed	
  
62%	
  

	
  

Summary	
  of	
  “Other”	
  Responses:	
  • Not	
  familiar	
  enough,	
  but	  I	  suspect	
  authorities	
  for	
  enforcing	  biosecurity	
  need	
  to	
  be	
  
strengthened,	
  especially	
  to	
  allow	  rapid	  response	
  to	
  new	
  invasions	
  without	
  delay.	
  • Need	  enforcement.	
  • There	  are	
  "pukas"	
  in	
  our	
  current	
  regulations	
  that	  continue	
  to	
  allow	  invasive	  and	
  other	  threatening	
  species	
  to	
  come	  in	
  and	  go	
  intra-­‐island.	
  • Statutes	
  would	
  need	  to	  be	
  expanded	
  (or	
  additional	
  rules	
  drafted)	
  to	
  include	
  aquatic	
  organisms	
  and	  to	
  create	
  an	
  effective	  intrastate	
  biosecurity	
  program.	
  • We	
  first	  need	  to	
  have	  a	
  clear	
  definition	
  of	
  intrastate	
  biosecurity	
  and	
  what	  will	  be	
  the	
  goals	  and	
  projected	
  cost.	
  • Yes,	
  amendments	
  or	
  a	
  new	
  section	
  of	
  the	
  law	  are	
  needed.	
  Many	  statutes	
  that	  look	  as	
  though	  they	  offer	  protections	
  for	  transport	
  are	
  under	
  151-­‐A,	
  and	  are	
  limited	
  only	  to	
  import.	
  	
  
A	
  resident	
  has	  been	  trying	
  to	
  get	
  DOA	  to	
  stop	
  a	
  nursery	
  from	  bringing	  a	
  steady	
  stream	
  of	
  coqui	
  frogs	
  from	  one	  part	  of	
  the	
  state	  to	
  another,	
  but	  they	  won't	
  step	
  in	
  because	
  it's	  technically	
  not	  an	
  import	
  unless	
  it	
  comes	
  from	  outside	
  the	
  state.	
  

4	
  	
  

Question	
  3:	
  Private-­‐Public	
  Partnerships	
  “In	
  the	  2014	
  legislative	  session,	
  HB1932	
  would	
  have	  authorized	
  the	
  Hawaii	
  Department	
  of	
  Agriculture	
  to	
  enter	
  into	  private-­‐public	
  partnerships	
  to	
  provide	  inspection	
  facilities,	
  consolidation	  and	
  deconsolidation	
  facilities,	
  transition	
  facilities,	
  and	
  other	  enhancements	
  to	
  the	
  biosecurity	
  program,	
  provided	
  that	  actual	
  inspections	
  were	  carried	
  out	
  only	  by	
  department	
  employees.	
  Should	
  the	
  State	  of	
  Hawaii	
  utilize	
  private-­‐public	  partnerships	
  to	
  enhance	
  biosecurity?”	
  
	
  
No,	
  biosecurity	
  should	
  be	
  a	
  public	
  service	
  provided	
  solely	
  by	
  the	
  
4	
  
6%	
  
State	
  Yes,	  private-­‐public	
  partnerships	
  should	
  be	
  utilized	
  to	
  enhance	
  
50	
  
78%	
  
biosecurity	
  programs	  Other	
  
10	
  
16%	
  
	
  
No,	
  biosecurity	
  should	  be	
  a	
  public	
  service	
  provided	
  solely	  by	
  the	
  State	  6%	
  Other	
  
16%	
  

Yes,	
  private-­‐public	
  partnerships	
  should	  be	
  uilized	
  to	
  enhance	
  biosecurity	
  programs	
  
78%	
  

Summary	
  of	
  “Other”	
  Responses:	
  • BOTH	
  public	
  and	
  private,	
  with	  public	
  service	
  being	
  essential,	
  as	
  in	
  New	
  Zealand.	
  • Depends	
  on	
  the	
  economic	
  advantage.	
  Many	  times	  perceived	
  savings	
  from	  private-­‐public	
  partnerships	
  end	  up	
  costing	
  the	
  taxpayers	
  more	  for	  the	
  same	  service.	
  In	
  other	
  instances	
  these	  partnerships	
  work	  very	  well.	
  • This	  depends	
  upon	
  the	
  actual	
  oversight	
  of	
  the	
  program.	
  
• I	
  am	
  open	  to	
  both	  public	
  and	
  private	
  options	
  as	
  long	  as	
  standards	
  are	  the	
  same	  and	
  upheld.	
  
	
  
	
  

5	
  	
  

	
  

Question	
  4:	
  Pests	
  as	
  "regulated	
  articles":	
  Inspections	
  of	
  agricultural	
  and	
  non-­‐agricultural	
  items	  “HB1994	  and	  SB2607	
  would	
  have	  defined	
  reproducing	
  colonies	
  of	
  little	
  fire	  ant	
  and	
  coqui	
  frogs	  as	
  "regulated	
  articles"	
  under	  HRS150A	
  and	
  prohibited	
  their	
  movement.	
  This	  could	
  have	  potentially	
  expanded	
  the	
  scope	
  of	
  inspections	
  under	  the	
  Hawaii	
  Department	
  of	
  Agriculture	
  from	  focusing	
  on	
  potentially	
  infested	
  agricultural	
  materials	
  (e.g.,	
  nursery	
  stock,	
  fruits	
  and	
  vegetables)	
  to	
  any	
  item	  capable	  of	
  hosting	  a	
  regulated	
  article	
  (e.g.	
  vehicles,	
  household	
  goods,	
  luggage).	
  Should	
  all	
  items	
  moving	
  intrastate	
  be	
  subject	
  to	
  agricultural	
  inspection?”	
  
	
  
No,	
  agricultural	
  inspection	
  is	
  only	  needed	
  for	
  agricultural	
  
4	
  
6%	
  
commodities	
  Yes,	
  agricultural	
  inspection	
  should	
  be	
  utilized	
  for	
  any	
  item	  moving	
   52	
  80%	  intrastate	
  Other	
  
9	
  
14%	
  
	
  
No,	
  agricultural	
  inspecion	
  is	
  
only	
  needed	
  for	
  agricultural	
  commodiies	
  
6%	
  

Other	
  
14%	
  
Yes,	
  agricultural	
  inspecion	
  should	  be	
  uilized	  for	
  any	  item	
  moving	
  intrastate	
  
80%	
  

	
  
Summary	
  of	
  “Other”	
  Responses:	
  • A	
  broader	
  inspection	
  process	
  should	
  be	
  utilized	
  for	
  interstate	
  AND	
  inter-­‐island	
  biosecurity.	
  • Inspection	
  should	
  be	
  risk-­‐based	
  and	  consider	
  the	
  likelihood	
  of	
  infestation	
  based	  on	
  the	
  nature	
  of	
  
the	
  vector	
  and	
  it's	  pathway	
  (origin	
  and	  movement	
  details).	
  • HDOA	  should	
  have	  authority	
  to	
  inspect	
  all	
  items	  determined	
  to	
  be	
  "at	
  risk.”	
  This	  is	
  different	
  from	
  the	
  way	
  this	  question	
  is	
  phrased,	
  which	
  says	  "all	  items	
  moving	
  intrastate,"	
  in	
  which	  case	  my	
  answer	
  would	
  be	
  "no"	  because	
  that	  would	
  be	
  too	
  sweeping	
  and	
  unnecessary.	
  • Yes,	
  with	  more	  inspectors.	
  They	  can't	
  be	
  expected	
  to	
  do	
  this	
  with	  the	
  numbers	
  they	  have	  now.	
  • Items	
  potentially	
  containing	
  invasive	  species	
  should	
  be	
  inspected.	
  • Yes,	
  HDOA	  should	
  have	  the	
  authority	
  inspect	
  any	
  items	
  moving	
  intrastate	
  and	  to	
  exercise	
  that	  authority	
  based	  on	
  assessments	
  of	
  high-­‐risk	
  pathways.	
  • The	
  cost	  of	
  inspecting	
  all	
  interisland	
  commerce	
  will	  be	
  prohibitive.	
  	
  A	  list	  of	
  high-­‐risk	
  commodities	
  for	
  important	
  invasive	  species	
  should	
  be	
  developed	
  and	
  added	  to	
  statutes.	
  If	
  possible,	
  inspectors	
  should	
  also	  have	  power	
  to	
  inspect	
  containers	
  where	
  there	  is	
  probable	
  cause	  for	
  detecting	
  such	  species.	
  • I	
  don't	
  believe	
  that	  the	
  term	  "agricultural	
  inspection"	
  is	
  the	
  correct	
  terminology	
  that	  should	  be	
  used,	  more	  appropriately	
  it	
  should	
  be	
  "invasive	  species	
  inspection."	
  If	
  we	
  are	
  trying	
  to	
  stop	  the	  spread	  of	
  invasive	  species	
  intrastate,	
  everything	
  should	
  be	
  inspected.	
  
	
  
	
  

6	
  	
  

Question	
  5:	
  Quarantines	
  “HB1994,	
  SB2607,	
  and	  SB2347	
  SD2	
  HD1	
  would	
  have	  provided	
  the	
  authority	
  for	  the	
  Department	
  of	
  Agriculture	
  to	
  establish	
  quarantine	
  areas,	
  from	  which	  no	
  regulated	
  article	
  (e.g.,	
  soil,	
  mulch,	
  any	
  article	  capable	  of	
  hosting	
  little	
  fire	  ants	  or	
  coqui	
  frog)	
  would	
  be	
  allowed	
  to	
  move,	  without	  a	
  certificate	  or	
  compliance	
  agreement.	
  Do	
  you	
  feel	  that	  the	
  ability	
  to	
  establish	
  quarantines	
  (with	  associated	
  compliance	
  agreements	
  to	
  allow	
  movement	
  of	
  uninfested	
  material	
  from	  quarantine	
  areas)	
  is	
  needed	
  for	
  effective	  biosecurity	
  in	
  Hawaii?”	
  
	
  
No,	
  quarantines	
  are	  not	
  needed	
  
0	
  
0%	
  
Yes,	
  quarantines	
  (with	  compliance	
  agreements	
  or	
  certificates	
  allowing	
  
58	
  
92%	
  
movement	
  from	  quarantined	
  areas)	
  are	
  needed	
  Other	
  
5	
  
8%	
  
	
  

Other	
  
8%	
  

Yes,	
  
quaranines	
  (with	
  compliance	
  agreements)	
  are	
  needed	
  
92%	
  

	
  
Summary	
  of	
  “Other”	
  Responses:	
  • Yes	  to	
  certificates,	
  but	
  quarantine	
  on	
  the	  originating	
  island	
  in	
  a	
  pest	  free	  zone.	
  	  We	  already	
  have	  examples	  of	  HDOA	  and	
  DOFAW	
  sites	  infested	
  by	
  importing	
  intraisland	
  plant	
  materials.	
  • Quarantines	
  may	  be	
  needed	
  but	  the	
  scope	
  of	
  how	
  invasive	  species	
  move	  needs	
  to	
  be	
  
determined	
  first	
  and	  then	  solutions	  to	
  address	
  the	
  issues	
  can	  be	
  developed.	
  • Yes.	
  “Quarantine”	
  will	  need	  to	
  be	
  clearly	
  defined.	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

7	
  	
  

Question	
  6:	
  Intentional	
  vs.	
  Unintentional	
  Movement	  “When	
  regulating	
  the	  movement	
  of	
  pests,	
  should	
  fines	
  and	
  penalties	
  only	  apply	
  to	
  the	
  intentional	  movement	
  of	
  a	
  pest?	
  For	
  example,	
  HRS	
  150A-­‐14(c)(3)	
  prohibits	
  the	
  intentional	
  transfer,	
  possession,	
  or	
  movement	
  of	
  a	
  pest	  and	
  establishes	
  the	
  violation	
  of	
  this	  prohibition	
  as	
  a	
  felony	
  associated	
  with	  a	
  fine.	
  HB1513/SB2347	
  would	
  have	  amended	
  this	  section	
  such	  that	  movement	
  of	
  a	
  pest,	
  whether	
  intentional	
  or	
  not,	
  would	
  have	  been	  considered	  a	  felony	
  associated	
  with	  a	
  fine.”	
  
	
  
Only	
  intentional	
  movement	
  of	
  a	
  pest	  should	  result	
  in	
  a	
  penalty	
  or	
  fine.	
  	
  
13	
  
21%	
  
Both	
  intentional	
  and	
  unintentional	
  movement	
  of	
  a	
  pest	  should	  result	
  in	
  the	
  
2	
  
3%	
  
same	
  penalty	
  or	
  fine.	
  Both	
  intentional	
  and	
  unintentional	
  movement	
  of	
  pests	
  should	  result	
  in	
  a	
  
40	
  
63%	
  
penalty,	
  but	  the	
  penalty	
  for	
  unintentional	
  movement	
  should	
  be	
  lower	  Other	
  
8	
  
13%	
  

Other	
  
13%	
  

Only	
  intenional	  movement	
  of	
  a	
  pest	  should	  result	
  in	
  a	
  
penalty	  or	
  ﬁne.	
  	
  
21%	
  
Both	
  intenional	
  and	
  unintenional	  movement	
  of	
  a	
  pest	  should	  result	
  in	
  the	  same	
  penalty	
  or	
  ﬁne.	
  
3%	
  

Both	
  intenional	
  and	
  unintenional	
  movement	
  of	
  pests	  should	  result	
  in	
  a	
  penalty,	
  but	  the	
  penalty	
  for	
  unintenional	  movement	
  should	
  be	
  lower.	
  
63%	
  
	
  

	
  
Summary	
  of	
  “Other”	
  Responses:	
  • Fine	  intentional	
  movement	
  and	
  require	
  individuals	
  to	
  have	  their	
  plants,	
  lei	
  material,	
  fruits	  inspected	
  and	
  cleared	
  at	
  an	
  easily	
  accessible	
  place	  before	
  they	  fly	  or	
  take	  a	
  ferry;	
  broaden	
  education	
  outreach	  in	
  newspapers,	
  schools,	
  halau,	
  civic	
  clubs,	
  community	
  mtgs,	
  etc.	
  • Intentional	
  movement	
  should	
  be	
  dealt	
  with	  much	  more	  strictly.	
  Unintentional	
  movement	
  should	
  be	
  fined	
  only	  in	
  repeat	
  offences	
  or	
  in	
  other	  situations	
  where	  violators	
  should	
  know	
  better.	
  Unintended	
  movement	
  should	
  really	
  be	
  used	  as	
  an	
  opportunity	
  for	
  education	
  rather	
  than	  penalizing.	
  • This	  would	
  have	  to	
  be	
  paired	
  with	  an	
  aggressive	  outreach	  campaign.	
  • The	
  penalty	
  for	
  unintentional	
  movement	
  of	
  pests	
  should	
  be	
  much	  lower.	
  However,	
  moving	
  the	
  nursery	  or	
  other	
  plants	
  that	  these	  pests	
  are	
  associated	
  with	  from	  areas	
  known	  to	
  have	  infestations	
  of	
  the	
  pest	  may	
  qualify	
  as	
  something	
  intermediate	
  to	
  intentional	
  and	
  unintentional	  movement,	
  and	
  should	
  be	
  penalized	
  at	
  an	
  intermediate	
  rate.	
  • If	
  inspection	
  certification	
  programs	
  and	
  procedures	  are	
  put	
  into	  place	
  and	
  required	
  for	
  everyone,	
  then	
  only	  intentional	
  movement	
  should	
  be	
  penalized.	
  
• Is	
  it	
  possible	
  to	
  reframe	
  it	
  as	
  negligence,	
  i.e.	
  unintentional	
  movement	
  of	
  a	
  pest	  by	
  a	
  resident	
  
may	
  be	
  pure	  ignorance,	
  whereas	
  unintentional	
  movement	
  of	
  a	
  pest	  by	
  a	
  nursery	
  is	
  negligent?	
  	
  
How	
  does	  one	
  prove	  "intent"	
  to	
  move	  little	
  fire	  ants	
  interisland?	
  • Focus	
  for	
  unintentional	
  movement	
  should	
  include	
  the	  concept	
  of	  "negligent,”	
  for	
  example,	
  the	
  violator	
  should	
  have	  known	  or	
  reasonable	
  person	
  would	
  know.	
  
	
  

8	
  	
  

Question	
  7:	
  Criminal	
  penalties	
  and	
  administrative	  fines	
  for	  the	  movement	
  of	
  pests	  “Much	  of	
  the	
  testimony	
  regarding	
  biosecurity	
  bills	
  in	
  the	  2014	
  session	
  dealt	
  with	  the	  severity	
  of	
  proposed	
  penalties.	
  HB1513	
  and	  SB2347	
  (in	
  its	  original	
  form)	
  would	
  have	  established	
  criminal	
  penalties	  for	
  the	  movement	
  of	
  pests	  (a	
  class	
  C	
  felony,	
  with	  a	
  fine	  between	
  $50,000	
  and	
  $200,000).	
  SB607	
  would	  have	
  established	
  an	
  administrative	  fine	  equal	
  to	
  the	
  value	
  of	
  the	
  shipment	
  or	
  $10,000,	
  whichever	
  was	
  greater.	
  What	  do	
  you	
  feel	  is	
  the	
  most	  appropriate	
  penalty	
  for	  the	  movement	
  of	
  pests?”	
  
	
  
No	
  penalty	
  should	
  be	
  imposed	
  on	
  the	  movement	
  
1	
  
1%	
  
of	
  pests	  Administrative	  fine	
  
18	
  
28%	
  
Criminal	
  penalty:	
  misdemeanor	
  
13	
  
20%	
  
Criminal	
  penalty:	
  felony	
  
15	
  
23%	
  
Other	
  
18	
  
28%	
  
No	
  penalty	
  should	  be	
  imposed	
  on	
  
the	
  
movement	
  of	
  pests,	
  1%	
  Administraive	
  ﬁne,	
  28%	  Other,	
  28%	
  Criminal	
  penalty:	
  misdemeanor,	
  
20%	
  

Criminal	
  penalty:	
  felony,	
  23%	
  

	
  

	
  

Summary	
  of	
  “Other”	
  Responses:	
  • There	
  should	
  be	
  a	
  tiered	
  penalty	
  section	
  that	  would	
  impose	
  both	  administrative	  and	
  criminal	
  penalties	
  based	
  upon	
  the	  severity	
  of	
  the	
  infraction.	
  	
  • Both	  can	  be	
  used,	
  but	
  this	  is	
  too	
  complex	
  to	
  respond	
  to	
  in	
  a	
  multiple-­‐choice	
  question.	
  • Turn	  back	  shipments	
  at	
  the	
  pier	  on	
  their	
  island	
  not	
  when	  it	
  arrives	
  on	
  the	  receiving	
  end.	
  Repeated	  violations	
  should	
  carry	  a	
  heavier	
  penalty.	
  • Criminal	
  penalties	
  should	
  apply	
  to	
  deliberate	
  actions	
  (such	  as	
  moving	
  deer),	
  or	
  repeat/gross	
  negligence	
  (such	  as	
  regularly	
  shipping	
  ants	  or	
  coqui.	
  Minor	
  or	
  unintentional	
  violations	
  should	  result	  in	
  accelerated	
  civil	
  fines	  (develop	
  a	
  penalty	
  schedule).	
  • Depends	
  on	
  intent	
  and	  severity	
  of	
  consequences,	
  etc.	
  Judges	
  need	  to	
  have	  flexibility	
  to	
  judge	  and	
  apply	
  appropriate	
  penalties	
  -­‐	  up	  to	
  very	  severe	
  if	
  warranted.	
  • Again	
  it	
  depends	
  on	
  both	  the	
  level	  of	
  intentional	
  movement	
  and	
  knowledge	
  of	
  the	
  risk	  of	
  moving	  the	
  pests.	
  Intentional	
  movement	
  should	
  probably	
  be	
  penalized	
  at	
  a	
  felony	
  rate,	  as	
  the	  public	  costs	
  associated	
  with	  the	  movement	
  of	
  the	
  pest	  are	
  sometimes	
  several	
  orders	  of	
  magnitude	
  higher	
  than	
  the	
  worth	
  of	
  the	
  shipment.	
  • No	
  penalty,	
  but	
  required	
  payment	
  for	  trainings/surveys	
  for	  prevention	
  in	
  the	
  future	
  (if	  such	  things	  are	  allowed),	
  otherwise	
  administrative	  fine	  with	  $	
  going	  to	
  inspections/trainings	
  • Penalties	
  and	
  fines	
  should	
  be	
  implemented	
  only	  after	  adequate	
  inspection	
  procedures	  are	  in	
  place.	
  Then,	
  goods	
  can	
  simply	  be	
  embargoed	
  as	
  penalty.	
  	
  Nursery	
  certifications	  and	
  licenses	
  should	  be	
  revoked	
  until	  the	
  operation	
  can	
  pass	
  an	
  inspection.	
  
	
  

9	
  	
  

Question	
  8:	
  Treatment	
  of	
  State	  lands	
  abutting	  commercial	
  entities	  “During	  discussion	
  and	
  testimony	
  for	  SB2347	
  SD2	
  HD1,	
  commercial	
  property	
  owners	
  testified	
  that	  in	
  areas	
  where	  infested	
  commercial	
  properties	
  abut	  infested	
  State	  lands,	
  the	
  State	
  should	  not	
  require	
  the	
  commercial	
  property	
  to	
  treat	  for	
  pests	
  unless	
  the	
  State	  also	  treated	
  the	
  abutting	
  land.	
  Do	
  you	
  feel	  that	  the	
  State	
  should	
  be	
  required	
  to	
  treat	
  infested	
  lands	
  that	  abut	  commercial	
  properties?”	
  
	
  
Yes,	
  if	
  the	
  State	  is	
  requiring	
  a	
  commercial	
  property	
  to	
  treat	  for	
  pests,	
  the	
  State	
   43	  66%	  should	  be	
  required	
  to	
  treat	  any	
  infested	
  State	  lands	
  that	  abut	  that	  property	
  No,	
  the	
  State	
  should	
  be	
  treated	
  like	  any	
  other	  landowner	
  and	
  should	  not	
  be	
  
15	
  
23%	
  
required	
  to	
  treat	
  certain	
  areas	
  due	
  solely	
  to	
  commercial	
  activity	
  on	
  abutting	  property	
  Other	
  
7	
  
11%	
  
	
  

No,	
  the	
  State	  should	  be	
  treated	  like	  any	  other	
  landowner,	
  23%	  Other,	
  
11%	
  

Yes,	
  if	
  the	
  State	  is	
  requiring	
  a	
  commercial	
  property	  to	
  treat	
  for	
  pests,	
  the	
  State	
  should	  be	
  required	
  to	
  

	
  
Summary	
  of	
  “Other”	
  Responses:	
  • It	
  depends	
  on	
  the	
  goal	  of	
  treatment.	
  If	
  the	
  goal	  is	  to	
  eradicate	
  the	
  pest,	  then	  treating	  adjacent	
  lands	  is	
  appropriate.	
  If	
  the	
  goal	  of	
  treatment	
  is	
  to	
  remove	
  pest	  from	  specific	
  products	
  being	
  exported,	
  then	
  the	
  exporter	
  should	
  treat	  regardless	
  of	
  the	  presence	
  of	
  pests	
  on	
  adjacent	
  land.	
  A	
  nursery	
  should	  not	
  try	  to	
  avoid	  treating	
  their	
  products	
  using	  the	
  excuse	
  that	  pests	
  may	
  still	  be	
  present	
  on	
  nearby	
  land.	
  • The	
  State	
  should	
  support	
  programs	
  to	
  work	  in	
  partnership	
  with	  commercial	
  property	
  owners	  to	
  treat	
  and	  prevent	
  reinfestation	
  from	  abutting	
  State	  land.	
  • The	
  state	
  should	  not	  be	
  required	
  to	
  treat	
  an	
  area	  for	  the	
  same	  pest,	  but	
  should	
  most	  definitely	
  work	
  with	  those	  commercial	
  landowners	
  to	
  treat	  for	  the	
  pest	
  if	
  reintroduction	
  to	
  the	
  commercial	
  property	
  is	
  continual	
  from	  abutting	
  state	  lands.	
  This	  depends	
  on	
  a	
  particular	
  species	  and	
  area,	  and	
  state	  lands	
  can	
  often	
  be	
  so	
  large	
  as	
  to	
  make	  treatment	
  of	
  the	
  entire	
  abutting	
  parcel	  unrealistic.	
  • The	
  State	
  should	
  be	
  treating	
  all	  of	
  their	
  lands	
  that	  abut	  any	  type	  of	
  private	
  property	
  and/or	
  lands	
  that	  would	  continue	
  the	
  propagation	
  of	
  invasive	  species.	
  • Depends	
  on	
  original	
  source	
  of	
  infestation	  • Commercial	
  property	
  should	  definitely	
  be	
  allowed	
  to	
  treat	
  abutting	
  state	  land	
  if	
  needed	  to	
  prevent	
  reinfestation	
  
	
  
	
  

10	
  
	
  

Question	
  9:	
  Other	  Input	  on	
  Biosecurity	
  Legislation	
  (open	  comment)	
  28	
  survey	
  responders	
  provided	
  additional	
  input	
  in	
  a	
  free-­‐form	
  comment	
  box	  at	  the	
  end	  of	
  the	
  survey.	
  Common	  responses	
  are	  summarized	
  and	  organized	
  by	
  category	
  below.	
  Full,	
  unedited	
  comments	
  are	
  provided	
  in	
  Appendix	
  2.	
  
	
  
1. Increased	
  capacity	
  for	
  inspections	
  within	
  Hawaii	
  Department	
  of	
  Agriculture.	
  
Many	
  of	
  the	  28	  free-­‐form	
  responses	
  highlighted	
  that	  effective	
  biosecurity	
  requires	
  increased	
  capacity	
  for	
  inspections	
  at	
  HDOA,	
  both	  in	
  terms	
  of	
  funding	
  and	  positions.	
  One	
  comment	  highlighted	
  that	  an	
  important	  area	  to	
  focus	
  on	
  is	
  hiring:	
  funding	
  and	  positions	
  may	  be	
  available,	
  but	
  limitations	
  of	
  the	
  State	  hiring	
  system	
  may	  prevent	
  those	  positions	
  from	  being	
  filled.	
  2. Increased	
  requirements	
  for	
  inspection	  and	
  treatments	  Several	  respondents	
  suggested	
  that	  there	  be	
  more	  opportunities	
  or	
  requirements	
  for	
  inspections	
  (e.g.,	
  at	
  all	
  air	
  and	
  seaports,	
  at	
  points	
  of	
  sale,	
  etc).	
  Others	
  suggested	
  that	  pest	  treatments	
  (e.g.	
  hot	
  water,	
  pesticide)	
  be	
  a	
  requirement	
  of	
  moving	
  goods.	
  3. Funding	
  for	
  biosecurity	
  services.	
  A	
  number	
  of	
  responses	
  discussed	
  the	
  need	  for	  increased	
  and	
  sustained	
  funding	
  for	
  biosecurity	
  programs.	
  Several	
  pointed	
  out	
  that	  private	
  industries	
  associated	
  with	  the	  movement	
  of	
  goods	
  should	  contribute	
  to	
  the	
  costs	
  associated	
  with	  these	
  programs.	
  One	
  commenter	
  suggested	
  utilizing	
  a	
  bond	  system	
  for	  the	  movement	
  of	
  goods	
  to	
  fund	  potential	
  pest	  mitigation.	
  4. Federal	
  Recognition	
  of	
  Hawai‘i’s	
  Biosecurity	  Needs,	
  Better	  Coordination	
  with	  Federal	
  Government	  Though	  this	  survey	
  was	  designed	
  to	
  discuss	
  intrastate	
  biosecurity,	
  a	
  number	
  of	
  the	
  open-­‐ended	
  comments	
  addressed	
  the	
  need	  for	
  better	  regulation	
  of	
  goods	
  coming	
  into	  the	
  State.	
  In	
  particular,	
  several	  responses	
  highlighted	
  that	  the	
  U.S.	
  Department	
  of	
  Agriculture	
  should	
  work	  more	  closely	
  with	
  the	
  Hawai‘i	
  Department	
  of	
  Agriculture	
  to	
  implement	
  better	  federal	
  policies	
  (e.g.,	
  having	  luggage	  screened	
  in	
  foreign	
  countries	
  before	
  entering	  Hawai‘i,	
  rather	
  than	
  luggage	
  screened	
  in	
  Hawai‘i	
  before	
  continuing	
  to	
  the	  US	  Mainland)	
  and	
  facilitate	
  the	
  use	  of	
  federal	
  funds	
  in	
  protecting	  Hawai‘i	
  as	
  an	
  international	
  trade	
  and	  transportation	
  hub.	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

11	
  
	
  

III.	
  Synthesis:	
  Areas	  of	
  Consensus	
  and	
  Contention	  	  Responses	
  to	
  this	  survey	
  highlighted	
  a	
  number	
  of	
  interesting	  areas	  of	
  agreement	
  among	  the	  government,	
  non-­‐profit,	
  commercial,	
  and	  individual	
  input	
  received.	
  It	
  should	
  be	
  noted	
  that	  the	
  respondents	
  recording	
  their	
  affiliation	
  as	
  “government	
  agency”	
  may	  be	
  affiliated	
  with	  any	
  level	  of	
  government,	
  including	
  State,	  County,	
  and	  Federal	
  offices,	
  the	
  State	  Legislature,	  and	  the	
  University	
  of	
  Hawai‘i.	
  Future	
  surveys	
  of	
  this	  nature	
  will	  strive	
  to	
  allow	
  further	
  clarification	
  of	
  this	
  affiliation	
  category.	
  	
  Legislative	  Concepts	
  with	  General	
  Agreement	  • Support	
  for	  the	
  use	  of	
  quarantines	
  in	
  limiting	
  the	
  spread	  of	
  potentially	
  infested	
  material.	
  No	
  survey	  respondents	
  opposed	
  the	
  use	  of	
  quarantines	
  in	
  managing	
  pest	  infestations.	
  Ninety-­‐two	
  percent	
  of	
  respondents	
  said	  that	  quarantines	
  (with	  compliance	
  agreements	
  allowing	
  for	  the	  movement	
  goods)	
  are	
  needed.	
  	
  Eight	
  percent	
  of	
  respondents	
  selected	
  “Other,”	
  and	
  provided	
  further	
  input	
  on	
  the	
  need	  to	
  define	
  quarantine	  parameters	
  and	
  understand	
  pathways	
  for	
  pest	  movement.	
  • Authorization	
  to	
  use	
  private-­‐public	
  partnerships	
  in	
  biosecurity	
  functions.	
  Only	
  6%	
  of	
  
respondents	
  said	  that	  biosecurity	
  should	
  be	
  a	
  solely	
  public	
  service.	
  Of	
  the	
  remaining	
  94%,	
  78%	
  
were	
  in	
  favor	
  of	
  private-­‐public	
  partnerships,	
  and	
  16%	
  chose	
  “other.”	
  Responses	
  in	
  the	
  “other”	
  category	
  tended	
  to	
  be	
  in	
  favor	
  of	
  the	  possibility	
  of	
  private-­‐public	
  partnerships,	
  provided	
  that	  clear	
  standards	
  and	
  oversight	
  were	  implemented.	
  These	  partnerships	
  could	
  address	
  facility	
  needs,	
  consolidation	
  or	
  deconsolidation	
  processes,	
  or	
  other	  enhancements	
  to	
  a	
  biosecurity	
  program.	
  Official	
  inspections	  of	
  commodities,	
  however,	
  would	
  still	  be	
  carried	
  out	  by	
  HDOA	  employees.	
  • Pest	  inspections	
  for	
  non-­‐agricultural	
  commodities.	
  Only	
  6%	
  of	
  respondents	
  felt	  that	  only	  agricultural	
  commodities	
  should	
  be	
  inspected	
  for	
  pests.	
  Eighty	
  percent	
  said	  that	  agricultural	
  inspection	
  should	
  be	
  applied	
  for	
  any	
  item	  moving	
  within	
  the	
  State.	
  Nine	  respondents	
  (14%)	  selected	
  “other,”	
  providing	
  additional	
  input	
  that	  there	
  should	
  be	
  pathway	
  risk	  analyses	
  that	  determine	
  what	  types	  of	
  items	
  are	
  inspected	
  before	
  moving	
  intrastate.	
  	
  
	
  
Legislative	  Concepts	
  with	  a	
  Moderate	  Level	  of	
  Agreement	  • Treatment	
  of	
  State	  lands	
  abutting	  commercial	
  properties.	
  Most	  respondents	
  (62%)	
  felt	  that	
  if	
  
the	
  State	  requires	
  a	
  commercial	
  property,	
  such	  as	
  a	
  nursery,	
  to	
  treat	  their	
  property,	
  that	  the	  State	
  should	
  also	  be	
  required	
  to	
  treat	
  abutting	
  State	  lands	
  for	  the	
  same	  pest.	
  Twenty-­‐three	
  percent	
  disagreed,	
  saying	  that	  the	
  State	
  should	
  be	
  treated	
  like	  any	
  other	  landowner	
  next	
  to	
  a	
  
commercial	
  property.	
  Of	
  the	
  11%	  of	
  respondents	
  choosing	
  “other,”	
  several	
  said	  that	  it	
  depends	
  on	
  whether	
  the	
  infestation	
  originated	
  on	
  the	
  commercial	
  property	
  or	
  not.	
  Others	
  suggested	
  that	  the	
  State	
  should	
  work	  collaboratively	
  with	  commercial	
  property	
  owners,	
  but	  not	  be	
  required	  to	
  treat	  on	
  State	  lands	
  based	  on	
  the	  presence	
  of	
  an	
  abutting	  commercial	
  property.	
  • Penalties	
  for	  Intentional	
  vs.	
  Unintentional	
  Movement	
  of	
  Pests.	
  Most	  respondents	
  (63%)	
  said	  that	
  both	  intentional	
  and	
  unintentional	
  movement	
  of	
  pests	
  should	  result	
  in	
  a	
  penalty,	
  but	
  that	  the	
  penalty	
  for	
  unintentional	
  movement	
  should	
  be	
  lower.	
  Two	  respondents	
  (3%)	
  said	  that	  both	  intentional	
  and	
  unintentional	
  movement	
  should	
  be	
  penalized	
  at	
  the	
  same	  rate.	
  Twenty-­‐one	
  percent	
  felt	  that	  only	  intentional	
  movement	
  should	
  be	
  penalized,	
  with	  no	
  penalty	
  for	  the	
  unintentional	
  movement	
  of	
  pests.	
  Thirteen	  percent	
  of	
  respondents	
  selected	
  “other,”	
  providing	  additional	
  input	
  that	  any	
  penalty	
  or	
  fee	
  schedule	
  should	
  be	
  coupled	
  with	  an	
  outreach	  program	  to	
  reduce	
  unintentional	
  movement	
  and	
  make	  business	
  owners	
  aware	  of	
  the	
  penalties.	
  One	
  respondent	
  suggested	
  that	  instead	
  of	
  using	  the	
  language	
  “intentional”	
  or	
  “unintentional,”	
  which	
  

12	
  
	
  

•

can	
  be	
  difficult	  to	
  demonstrate	
  in	
  legal	
  proceedings,	
  that	  the	
  term	  “negligent”	
  be	
  utilized,	
  and	  a	
  standard	
  be	
  developed	
  for	  a	
  reasonable	
  expectation	
  of	
  the	  presence	
  of	
  pests	
  in	
  commodities.	
  Are	
  statutory	
  amendments	
  needed?	
  Sixty-­‐two	
  percent	
  of	
  respondents	
  said	  legislative	  amendments	
  to	
  Hawai‘i’s	
  biosecurity	
  statutes	
  are	
  needed.	
  Eleven	
  percent	
  said	  amendments	
  were	
  not	
  needed,	
  indicating	
  that	  either	
  the	
  status	
  quo	  is	
  sufficient,	
  or	
  enhancements	
  can	
  be	
  
made	
  utilizing	
  non-­‐statutory	
  tools	
  (administrative	
  rules	  or	
  enhancements	
  to	
  capacity	  or	  enforcement).	
  Twenty	
  percent	
  of	
  respondents	
  said	  they	  weren’t	
  familiar	
  enough	
  with	  the	  statutes	
  to	
  comment,	
  and	
  11%	
  selected	
  “other.”	
  The	
  “other”	
  responses	
  largely	
  indicated	
  that	  changes	
  to	
  biosecurity	
  efforts	
  were	  needed	
  at	
  some	  level.	
  	
  Legislative	  Concepts	
  with	  Disagreement	  • Determining	
  Penalties	
  for	  the	
  Movement	
  of	
  Pests.	
  Survey	
  respondents	
  varied	
  on	
  the	
  level	  of	
  penalty	
  they	
  would	
  associate	
  with	  the	  movement	
  of	
  pests.	
  The	
  wording	
  of	
  the	
  survey	
  question	  asked	
  “What	  do	
  you	
  feel	  is	
  the	
  most	  appropriate	
  penalty	
  for	  the	  movement	
  of	
  pests?”	
  This	  wording	  does	  not	  differentiate	
  between	
  intentional	
  versus	
  unintentional	
  movement,	
  which	  was	
  indicated	
  as	
  a	
  potentially	
  divisive	
  concept	
  in	
  responses	
  to	
  question	
  #6.	  In	  response	
  to	
  the	  more	  general	
  wording	
  presented	
  in	
  question	
  #7,	
  23%	
  felt	  that	  movement	
  of	
  pests	
  should	  constitute	
  a	
  felony,	  while	
  20%	
  felt	  that	  it	
  should	  constitute	
  a	
  misdemeanor.	
  Twenty-­‐eight	
  percent	
  suggested	
  that	
  infractions	
  be	
  penalized	
  by	
  an	
  administrative	  fine.	
  Just	  1	
  respondent	
  said	  that	  there	
  should	
  
be	
  no	
  penalty	
  imposed	
  on	
  the	  movement	
  of	
  pests.	
  Of	
  the	
  28%	  of	
  responders	
  who	
  selected	
  “other,”	
  further	
  input	
  was	
  provided	
  that	  the	  severity	
  of	
  the	
  penalty	
  should	  differ	
  for	
  intentional	  movement	
  versus	
  unintentional	
  movement.	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

13	
  
	
  

Appendix	
  1:	
  Survey	
  Form	
  
	
  
The	
  survey	
  utilized	
  to	
  prepare	
  this	  briefing	
  document	
  included	
  the	
  following	
  questions:	  	
  1. What	
  type	  of	
  agency	
  or	
  organization	
  are	
  you	
  affiliated	
  with?	
  a. Individual	
  b. Government	
  agency	  c. Non-­‐profit	  d. Private	
  business:	
  shipping	  e. Private	
  business:	
  farm	  f. Private	
  business:	
  plant	
  nursery	  g. Private	
  business:	
  other	  	
  2. Current	
  statutes	
  vs	
  statutory	
  amendments	
  
Most	
  of	
  the	
  legislation	
  relating	  to	
  biosecurity	
  in	
  the	  2014	
  legislative	  session	
  proposed	
  amendments	
  to	
  two	
  chapters	
  of	
  the	
  Hawaii	
  Revised	
  Statutes:	
  HRS	  141	  ("Department	
  of	
  Agriculture")	
  and	
  HRS	
  150	  A	  ("Plant	
  and	
  Non-­‐domestic	
  Animal	
  Quarantine";	
  you	
  can	  review	  existing	
  regulations	
  here:	  http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/).	
  Are	
  Hawaii's	
  current	
  statutes	
  sufficient	
  for	
  implementing	
  an	
  effective	  intrastate	
  biosecurity	
  program,	
  or	
  do	
  you	
  feel	  that	
  amendments	
  are	
  needed?	
  a) No,	
  current	
  regulations	
  described	
  in	
  statute	  are	  sufficient	  b) Yes,	  statutory	
  amendments	
  are	
  needed	  c) I’m	  not	
  familiar	
  enough	
  with	  those	
  statutes	
  to	
  comment	
  on	
  their	
  status	  d) Other	
  (text	
  input)	
  	
  3. Private-­‐Public	
  Partnerships	
  In	
  the	  2014	
  legislative	  session,	
  HB1932	
  would	
  have	  authorized	
  the	
  Hawaii	
  Department	
  of	
  Agriculture	
  to	
  enter	
  into	  private-­‐public	
  partnerships	
  to	
  provide	  inspection	
  facilities,	
  consolidation	  and	
  deconsolidation	
  facilities,	
  transition	
  facilities,	
  and	
  other	  enhancements	
  to	
  the	  biosecurity	
  program,	
  provided	
  that	  actual	
  inspections	
  were	  carried	
  out	
  only	  by	
  department	
  employees.	
  Should	
  the	
  State	  of	
  Hawaii	
  utilize	
  private-­‐public	
  partnerships	
  to	
  enhance	  biosecurity?	
  a. No,	
  biosecurity	
  should	
  be	
  a	
  public	
  service	
  provided	
  solely	
  by	
  the	
  State	  b. Yes,	
  private-­‐public	
  partnerships	
  should	
  be	
  utilized	
  to	
  enhance	
  biosecurity	
  programs	  c. Other	
  (text	
  input)	
  	
  4. Pests	
  as	
  "regulated	
  articles":	
  Inspections	
  of	
  agricultural	
  and	
  non-­‐agricultural	
  items	  HB1994	
  and	  SB2607	
  would	
  have	  defined	
  reproducing	
  colonies	
  of	
  little	
  fire	  ant	
  and	
  coqui	
  frogs	  as	
  "regulated	
  articles"	
  under	  HRS150A	
  and	
  prohibited	
  their	
  movement.	
  This	  could	
  have	  potentially	
  expanded	
  the	
  scope	
  of	
  inspections	
  under	  the	
  Hawaii	
  Department	
  of	
  Agriculture	
  from	  focusing	
  on	
  potentially	
  infested	
  agricultural	
  materials	
  (e.g.,	
  nursery	
  stock,	
  fruits	
  and	
  vegetables)	
  to	
  any	  item	
  capable	
  of	
  hosting	  a	
  regulated	
  article	
  (e.g.	
  vehicles,	
  household	
  goods,	
  luggage).	
  Should	
  all	
  items	  moving	
  intrastate	
  be	
  subject	
  to	
  agricultural	
  inspection?	
  a. No,	
  agricultural	
  inspection	
  is	
  only	  needed	
  for	
  agricultural	
  commodities	
  b. Yes,	
  agricultural	
  inspection	
  should	
  be	
  utilized	
  for	
  any	
  item	  moving	
  intrastate	  c. Other	
  (text	
  input)	
  
	
  
	
  

14	
  
	
  

5. Quarantines	  HB1994,	
  SB2607,	
  and	  SB2347	
  SD2	
  HD1	
  would	
  have	  provided	
  the	
  authority	
  for	  the	
  Department	
  of	
  Agriculture	
  to	
  establish	
  quarantine	
  areas,	
  from	  which	  no	
  regulated	
  article	
  (e.g.,	
  soil,	
  mulch,	  any	
  article	
  capable	
  of	
  hosting	
  little	
  fire	  ants	  or	
  coqui	
  frog)	
  would	
  be	
  allowed	
  to	
  move,	  without	
  a	
  certificate	  or	
  compliance	
  agreement.	
  Do	
  you	
  feel	  that	  the	
  ability	
  to	
  establish	
  quarantines	
  (with	  associated	
  compliance	
  agreements	
  to	
  allow	
  movement	
  of	
  uninfested	
  material	
  from	  quarantine	  areas)	
  is	
  needed	
  for	
  effective	
  biosecurity	
  in	
  Hawaii?	
  a. No,	
  quarantines	
  are	  not	
  needed	  b. Yes,	
  quarantines	
  (with	  compliance	
  agreements	
  or	
  certificates	
  allowing	
  movement	
  from	  quarantined	
  areas)	
  are	
  needed	  c. Other	
  (text	
  input)	
  	
  6. Intentional	
  vs	
  unintentional	
  movement	
  When	
  regulating	
  the	  movement	
  of	
  pests,	
  should	
  fines	
  and	
  penalties	
  only	  apply	
  to	
  the	
  intentional	  movement	
  of	
  a	
  pest?	
  For	
  example,	
  HRS	
  150A-­‐14(c)(3)	
  prohibits	
  the	
  intentional	
  transfer,	
  possession,	
  or	
  movement	
  of	
  a	
  pest	  and	
  establishes	
  the	
  violation	
  of	
  this	  prohibition	
  as	
  a	
  felony	
  associated	
  with	  a	
  fine.	
  HB1513/SB2347	
  would	
  have	  amended	
  this	  section	
  such	  that	  movement	
  
of	
  a	
  pest,	
  whether	
  intentional	
  or	
  not,	
  would	
  have	  been	  considered	  a	  felony	
  associated	
  with	  a	
  fine.	  a. Only	
  intentional	
  movement	
  of	
  a	
  pest	  should	  result	
  in	
  a	
  penalty	
  or	
  fine.	
  b. Both	  intentional	
  and	
  unintentional	
  movement	
  of	
  a	
  pest	  should	  result	
  in	
  the	
  same	  penalty	  or	
  fine.	
  c. Both	  intentional	
  and	
  unintentional	
  movement	
  of	
  pests	
  should	  result	
  in	
  a	
  penalty,	
  but	  the	
  penalty	
  for	
  unintentional	
  movement	
  should	
  be	
  lower	  d. Other	
  (text	
  input)	
  	
  7. Criminal	
  penalties	
  and	
  administrative	  fines	
  for	  the	  movement	
  of	
  pests	
  
Much	
  of	
  the	
  testimony	
  regarding	
  biosecurity	
  bills	
  in	
  the	  2014	
  session	
  dealt	
  with	  the	  severity	
  of	
  proposed	
  penalties.	
  HB1513	
  and	  SB2347	
  (in	
  its	  original	
  form)	
  would	
  have	  established	
  criminal	
  penalties	
  for	  the	  movement	
  of	
  pests	  (a	
  class	
  C	
  felony,	
  with	  a	
  fine	  between	
  $50,000	
  and	
  $200,000).	
  SB607	
  would	
  have	  established	
  an	
  administrative	  fine	  equal	
  to	
  the	
  value	
  of	
  the	
  shipment	
  or	
  $10,000,	
  whichever	
  was	
  greater.	
  What	  do	
  you	
  feel	  is	
  the	
  most	  appropriate	
  penalty	  for	
  the	  movement	
  of	
  pests?	
  a. No	
  penalty	
  should	
  be	
  imposed	
  on	
  the	  movement	
  of	
  pests	  b. Administrative	  fine	  c. Criminal	
  penalty:	
  misdemeanor	  d. Criminal	
  penalty:	
  felony	  e. Other	
  (text	
  input)	
  	
  8. Treatment	
  of	
  State	  lands	
  abutting	  commercial	
  entities	  During	  discussion	
  and	
  testimony	
  for	  SB2347	
  SD2	
  HD1,	
  commercial	
  property	
  owners	
  testified	
  
that	
  in	
  areas	
  where	  infested	
  commercial	
  properties	
  abut	  infested	
  State	  lands,	
  the	
  State	
  should	  not	
  require	
  the	
  commercial	
  property	
  to	
  treat	  for	
  pests	
  unless	
  the	
  State	  also	  treated	
  the	
  abutting	
  land.	  Do	  you	
  feel	  that	  the	
  State	
  should	
  be	
  required	
  to	
  treat	
  infested	
  lands	
  that	  abut	  commercial	
  properties?	
  a. Yes,	
  if	
  the	
  State	  is	
  requiring	
  a	
  commercial	
  property	
  to	
  treat	  for	
  pests,	
  the	
  State	
  should	  be	
  required	
  to	
  treat	  any	
  infested	
  State	  lands	
  that	  abut	  that	  property	
  

15	
  
	
  

b. No,	  the	
  State	
  should	
  be	
  treated	
  like	  any	
  other	  landowner	
  and	
  should	  not	  be	
  required	  to	
  treat	
  certain	
  areas	
  due	
  solely	
  to	
  commercial	
  activity	
  on	
  abutting	
  property	
  c. Other	
  (text	
  input)	
  	
  9. Other	
  input	
  on	
  biosecurity	
  legislation	
  If	
  you	  have	  any	
  other	
  input	
  on	
  biosecurity	
  legislation	
  from	  the	  2014	
  legislative	  session	  or	
  items	  you	
  would	
  like	  to	
  see	
  addressed	
  in	
  the	  2015	
  legislative	  session,	
  please	
  enter	
  it	
  here.	
  a. (text	
  input)	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  

16	
  
	
  

Appendix	
  2:	
  Full	  Text	  of	  Survey	
  Respondents’	
  “Other”	
  Input	  	
  Question	
  #9	
  on	
  the	
  survey	
  allowed	
  respondents	
  an	
  open-­‐ended	
  opportunity	
  to	
  provide	  input	
  on	
  the	
  topic	  of	
  intrastate	
  biosecurity.	
  Those	  responses	
  are	  presented	
  here	  and	  organized	
  by	
  affiliation.	
  Responders	
  were	  anonymous	
  and	
  names	  of	
  individual	
  responders	
  were	  not	
  solicited.	
  	
  Response	
  text	  is	
  provided	
  without	
  editing	  or	
  correction.	
  Ideas	  presented	
  in	
  these	  responses	
  belong	
  to	
  individual	
  responders	
  and	  do	
  not	  indicate	
  any	  positions	
  taken	
  or	
  recommended	
  by	
  the	
  Hawai‘i	
  Invasive	  Species	  Council.	
  	
  Question	
  #9:	  Other	
  input	
  on	
  biosecurity	
  legislation:	
  If	
  you	  have	  any	
  other	
  input	
  on	
  biosecurity	
  legislation	
  from	  the	  2014	
  legislative	  session	  or	
  items	
  you	
  would	
  like	  to	
  see	
  addressed	
  in	
  the	  2015	
  legislative	  session,	
  please	
  enter	
  it	
  here.”	
  	
  Reponses	
  from	  individuals	
  selecting	
  “No	
  affiliation”:	
  • “If	  we	
  don't	
  address	
  inter-­‐island	
  movement	
  of	
  goods,	
  we	
  continue	
  to	
  be	
  in	
  a	
  reactive	  situation	  and	
  spend	
  more	  taxpayer	
  dollars	
  (unnecessarily)	
  addressing	
  threats	  like	  LFA	
  than	  is	
  needed.	
  If	
  we	
  
were	
  in	
  a	
  proactive	  mode,	  effects	
  to	
  agriculture,	
  human	
  health	
  and	  safety,	
  tourism,	
  and	  the	
  environment	
  would	
  not	  be	
  negatively	
  impacted	
  and	
  less	  money	  spent	
  on	
  situations	
  that	  could	
  have	
  been	
  avoided.	
  	
  Please	
  have	  the	
  courage	
  to	
  do	
  what	  is	
  necessary	
  to	
  stop	
  inter-­‐island	
  movement	
  of	
  goods	
  with	  no	
  proper	
  inspection	  and	
  sanitization	
  procedures	
  in	
  place.”	
  • “Hawai’i	
  Department	
  of	
  Agriculture’s	  Plant	
  Industry	
  Division	
  is	
  committed	
  to	
  regulating	  interisland	
  spread	  of	
  LFA	  to	
  the	
  extent	
  that	  their	
  rules	
  and	  manpower	
  allow,	
  supplying	
  legal	
  authority	
  for	
  LFA	  management	
  as	
  needed	
  (e.g.,	
  accessing	
  property),	
  and	  collaborating	
  with	  partner	
  agencies	
  as	
  needed	
  with	  detection	
  surveys	
  and	
  eradication	
  of	
  LFA.	
  In	
  practice,	
  most	  of	
  their	  personnel	
  are	
  spread	
  thin	
  with	  other	  duties,	
  primarily	
  enforcement	
  of	
  quarantine	  through	
  inspections	
  at	
  airports	
  and	
  harbors.	
  HDOA	  is	
  dramatically	
  understaffed	
  and	
  currently	
  suffers	
  
from	
  a	
  dearth	  of	
  leadership,	
  mostly	
  because	
  of	
  retirements	
  and	
  lost	  positions.	
  This	  essential	
  agency	  has	  traditionally	
  been	
  overwhelmed	
  by	
  the	
  magnitude	
  of	
  invasive	  species	  problems,	
  and	  the	
  situation	
  is	
  not	
  improving.	
  If	
  the	
  situation	
  is	
  not	
  corrected	
  very	  soon,	  the	  result	
  is	
  likely	
  to	
  be	
  
not	
  just	  statewide	
  spread	  of	
  LFA	
  and	
  coqui	  but	
  establishment	
  of	
  long-­‐feared	
  pests	
  such	  as	
  RIFA	  and	
  snakes.”	
  • “Pesticide,	
  hot	
  water	  	  or	
  other	
  effective	  	
  treatments	
  must	  be	
  required	
  for	
  high	  risk	  commerce	  (potted	
  plants;	
  used	  nursery	
  supplies	
  etc.)	
  	  or	
  those	  items	
  should	
  be	
  prohibited	
  if	
  they	  cannot	  be	
  effectively	
  disinfested	
  (e.g.	
  hapu'u	
  logs).	
  	
  Maui	  now	
  has	  a	
  well	  established	
  little	
  fire	  ant	
  population	
  that	  will	  be	
  impossible	
  to	
  eradicate	
  and	  the	
  ant	
  will	  surely	
  spread.	
  	
  How	  many	  more	  times	
  will	  that	  scenario	
  be	
  repeated	
  with	  other	
  invasive	  species	
  on	
  that	  and	
  other	
  islands?	
  	
  Time	  to	
  get	  serious	
  about	
  interisle	
  biosecurity.”	
  • “Do	  a	
  better	  job!	
  similar	
  to	
  Australia	
  or	
  New	
  Zealand.	
  We	
  are	  an	
  island	
  and	  much	  more	  vulnerable	
  to	
  pest	  problems.	
  We	
  need	  to	
  be	
  more	  strict	
  than	
  the	
  mainland	
  USA.	
  Hawaii	
  needs	
  to	
  
be	
  MORE	  SERIOUS	
  about	
  protecting	
  our	
  agriculture	
  and	
  environment.”	
  • “I	
  don't	
  think	
  the	
  public	
  has	
  any	
  faith	  in	
  Dept	  of	  Ag	
  regarding	
  biosecurity	
  within	
  Hawaii.	
  	
  They	  aren't	  all	
  that	  good	
  at	
  preventing	
  things	
  from	  coming	
  into	  the	
  state,	
  but	  they	  seem	  to	
  be	
  even	  worse	  at	  containting	
  things	
  once	  they	  come	  in.	
  DOA	
  exists	
  to	
  promote	
  and	
  support	
  hawaii	
  growers,	
  and	  have	  repeatedly	
  values	  the	
  profits	
  of	
  the	
  growers	
  over	  the	
  interests	
  of	
  the	
  public.	
  Why	
  else	  would	
  they	  refuse	
  to	
  identify	
  which	  nurseries	
  on	
  Oahu	  were	  infested	
  with	  fire	  ants?	
  How	
  can	
  we,	  the	
  purchasing	
  public,	
  avoid	
  buying	
  these	
  plants	
  if	
  they	  won't	
  tell	
  us	
  which	
  

17	
  
	
  

nurseries	
  have	  them?	
  I	
  think	
  the	
  nurseries	
  should	
  be	
  quarantined	
  until	  proven	
  clear.	
  Yes,	
  it	
  will	  cost	
  them.	
  maybe	  enough	  that	  they	  will	  actually	
  require	
  effective	
  measures	
  to	
  prevent	
  receiving	  infested	  products.	
  Growers	
  on	
  Big	
  Island	
  who	
  ship	  contaminated	  	
  goods	
  more	  than	  once	  should	  face	
  huge	  penalties	
  and	  possible	
  closure.	
  In	
  order	  for	  a	
  punishment	
  to	
  be	
  a	
  deterrent,	
  it	
  has	
  to	
  be	
  
painful	  and	
  costly.	
  It	
  is	
  unfair	
  to	
  expect	
  the	
  public	
  to	
  keep	  suffering	
  from	  these	  policies.	
  	
  When	  property	
  values	
  and	
  quality	
  of	
  living	
  plummet	
  because	
  we	
  get	
  infested	
  with	  coqui	
  or	
  LFA,	
  will	
  we	
  
tell	
  our	
  grandchildren	
  that	  their	
  lifestyle	
  must	  suffer	  because	
  DOA	  wasn't	
  willing	
  to	
  take	  any	  stances	
  that	  would	
  be	
  costly	
  to	
  growers?	
  Better	
  to	
  be	
  costly	
  to	
  the	
  public	
  instead?	
  Once	  these	  pests	
  establish,	
  we	
  are	
  screwed.	
  	
  Better	  instead	
  to	
  make	  biosecurity	
  regulations	  and	
  enforcement	
  the	
  kuleana	
  of	
  a	
  different	
  agency,	
  like	  DLNR,	
  who	  is	
  responsible	
  anyway	
  for	  safeguarding	
  our	
  natural	  environment.	
  The	
  growers	
  and	
  shippers	
  are	  the	
  violators.	
  We	
  can't	
  expect	
  the	
  same	  agency	  (DOA)	
  to	
  both	  promote	
  those	  businesses	
  while	  also	  policing	
  them.	
  It	
  doesn't	
  work.”	  	  Responses	
  by	
  individuals	
  selecting	
  “Private	
  Business”	
  as	
  their	
  affiliation:	
  • “Invasive	
  pests	
  are	  destroying	
  quality	
  of	
  life	  in	
  Hawaii.	
  I	
  think	
  of	
  my	
  home	  -­‐	
  until	
  three	
  years	
  ago	  we	
  had	
  quiet	  evenings.	
  That	  changed	
  with	  coqui	
  frogs.	
  Now	
  our	
  evenings	
  are	
  completely	
  degraded	
  by	
  the	
  high	  volume	
  frogs.	
  Until	  last	  year,	  we	
  could	
  pick	  fruit	
  from	  anywhere	
  in	
  the	
  property	
  and	
  wander	  in	
  the	  adjacent	
  forests.	
  Now	  we	
  have	  to	
  treat	
  our	
  entire	
  property	
  for	
  fire	  ants,	
  and	  we	
  are	
  chronically	
  bitten	
  by	
  the	
  fire	  ants.	
  We	
  don't	
  go	
  into	  the	
  forest	
  anymore	
  because	
  of	
  the	
  fire	  ants.	
  I	
  am	
  deeply	
  concerned	
  about	
  what	  the	
  fire	  ants	
  will	  do	  to	
  agriculture	
  on	
  this	  Island	  (Hawaii	  Island)	
  and	  on	  other	  Islands	
  when	
  it	
  spreads.	
  I	
  am	
  also	  concerned	
  about	  the	
  impacts	
  on	
  our	
  native	
  forests	  -­‐	
  for	
  gathering,	
  for	
  hunting,	
  for	
  hiking.	
  It	
  is	
  CRIMINAL	
  that	  invasive	  species	  concerns	
  have	  been	  neglected	
  for	  so	
  long	  by	
  high	  levels	
  of	
  government.”	
  • "Would	
  the	
  state	  be	
  subjected	
  to	
  the	
  same	  criminal	
  penalties	
  or	
  fines	
  for	  moving	
  or	
  allowing	
  the	  movement	
  of	
  pests?	
  Would	
  the	
  military?	
  If	
  private	
  or	
  commercial	
  properties	
  owners	
  are	
  fined	  absurd	  amounts	  for	
  intentional	
  or	
  unintentional	
  movement	
  of	
  pests	
  they	
  would	
  be	
  put	
  out	  of	
  business,	
  they	  should	
  have	  to	
  use	  their	
  labor	
  force	  to	  help	  with	  the	
  cleanup.	
  Where	
  would	
  the	
  money	
  from	  these	
  fines	
  go?	  To	  help	  with	  the	
  cleanup?	
  	
  Who	
  would	
  go	
  to	
  jail,	
  the	
  owner	
  of	
  the	  business?	
  That	  could	
  be	  a	
  death	  sentence	
  for	
  that	  business	
  as	
  well.	
  In	
  todays	
  world	
  of	
  fast	  travel	
  you	
  will	  never	
  stop	  every	
  pest	  from	  coming,	
  just	  slow	
  it	
  down.	
  We	
  need	  more	  qualified	
  inspectors,	
  earlier	
  detection,	
  faster	  response	
  to	
  an	
  infestation,	
  and	
  most	  importantly	
  more	  education,	
  not	  more	
  legislation,	
  or	
  stop	  sending	
  plants	
  intrastate,	
  again	
  death	  sentence	
  for	
  some	  businesses	
  or	  maybe	
  even	  a	
  whole	  islands	
  plant	
  economy."	
  • “ALL	
  Islands	
  shipping	
  plants	
  to	
  neighbors	
  should	
  be	
  inspected	
  by	
  PQ	
  personnel	
  &	
  treating	
  plants	  leaving	  their	
  island.	
  Oahu	  often	
  is	
  the	
  entry	
  port	  for	  new	
  pests	
  in	
  to	
  the	
  State,	
  Varroa	
  mite	
  as	
  an	
  
example.	
  Maui	  recently	
  has	
  yet	
  another	  new	
  pest.	
  There	  are	
  nurseries	
  on	
  all	  the	
  islands,	
  not	
  just	  the	
  Big	
  Island.	
  Protect	
  all	  the	
  islands,	
  not	
  selected	
  ones.”	  	  Responses	
  from	  individuals	
  selecting	
  “Non-­‐Profit”	
  as	
  their	
  affiliation:	
  • “the	  success	
  of	
  inspections	
  will	  only	  be	
  as	
  good	  as	
  the	
  number	
  of	
  inspectors	
  and	  the	
  number	  of	
  opportunities	
  to	
  inspect.	
  	
  the	
  cost	  of	
  pro-­‐active	  education	  and	
  assistance	
  to	
  growers,	
  nurseries,	
  businesses	
  and	  the	
  public	
  is	
  likely	
  to	
  be	
  cheaper	
  than	
  increasing	
  the	
  number	
  of	
  DOA	
  inspectors	
  to	
  
the	
  truly	
  necessary	
  amount.	
  it	
  is	
  critical	
  that	  inspection	  and	
  quarantine	
  facilities	
  are	  beefed	
  up	
  on	
  
the	
  islands	
  of	
  origin	
  to	
  reduce	  the	
  spread	  to	
  other	
  islands.	
  	
  detection	
  dogs	
  will	  increase	
  the	
  capacity	
  of	
  inspectors.	
  	
  it's	  all	
  about	  the	
  budget.	
  	
  in	
  addition	
  to	
  biosecurity	
  legislation	
  expand	
  capacity	  to	
  partner	
  beyond	
  existing	
  agencies	
  and	  organizations.	
  fund	  solutions	
  to	
  control	
  and	
  eradicate	
  both	  conventional	
  and	  organic.	
  	
  reframing	  the	
  picture	
  for	
  funding	
  and	  the	
  legislature	
  	
  -­‐	
  if	  a	
  farmer	  loses	  his	
  livelihood	  to	
  LFA	  we	
  lose	  our	
  capacity	
  for	
  food	  security	
  and	  the	  more	
  we	
  

18	
  
	
  

•

•

have	
  to	
  depend	
  on	
  imports	
  the	  more	  at	
  risk	  we	
  are	
  for	  new	
  pests,	
  not	  to	
  mention	
  weakening	
  even	
  further	
  our	
  ability	
  to	
  weather	  disasters.”	
  "recruit	
  and	
  hire	  more	  inspectors	
  for	
  each	  main	
  island;	
  inter-­‐island	
  quarantine,	
  inspection,	
  and	
  penalties	
  should	
  be	
  in	
  place	
  for	
  quick	  reaction	
  to	
  breeches;	
  in	
  addition	
  to	
  more	  funding	  to	
  HDOA,	
  they	
  should	
  be	
  funded	  to	
  house,	  train	
  sniffing	
  dogs	  and	
  handlers.	
  clarity	
  as	
  to	
  jurisdiction	
  of	
  
DLNR	
  vs	
  HDOA	
  vs	
  HDOH	  should	
  be	
  integrated	
  into	  assigned	
  roles	
  and	
  actions.	
  outreach	  prior	
  to	
  
any	
  legislative	
  lobbying	
  should	
  include	
  info	  in	
  various	
  languages	
  to	
  not	
  only	  reach	  wide	  ethnic	
  net	
  locally,	
  but	
  those	  visiting	
  and	
  potentially	
  importing	
  potential	
  food	  or	
  cultural	
  items	
  that	  may	  involve	
  pests"	  "Thank	  you	
  for	
  your	  work	  on	
  this	  survey.	
  I	
  think	  my	
  main	  input	
  is	
  related	
  to	
  my	
  comments	
  in	
  the	  5th	
  and	
  6th	
  questions;	
  that	  intentional	
  movement	
  of	
  pests	
  should	
  be	
  punishable	
  relative	
  to	
  the	  costs	
  associated	
  with	  controlling	
  	
  the	  resulting	  established	
  pest.	
  Knowingly	
  transporting	
  nursery	
  stock	  or	
  other	  materials	
  from	  areas	
  infested	
  with	  pests	
  known	
  to	
  move	  with	  that	  stock,	
  such	  as	
  Coqui	
  frogs	
  and	
  Little	
  Fire	  Ants,	  should	
  be	
  punishable	
  such	  that	  shipping	
  of	
  the	
  stock	  becomes	  a	
  greater	
  potential	
  cost	  than	
  the	
  potential	
  benefit	
  that	  is	
  expected.	
  This	  is	
  similar	
  to,	
  but	
  seems	  a	
  lesser	  crime	  than	
  intentionally	
  moving	
  a	
  pest	  like	  Little	
  Fire	  Ants	  to	
  another	
  island	  or	
  area,	
  but	  because	  the	
  costs	
  resulting	
  from	  the	  movement	
  are	
  just	  as	
  high	  regardless	
  of	
  intent,	
  it	
  should	
  still	  be	
  punished	
  at	
  a	
  high	  level.	
  If	
  the	
  guilty	
  party	  participates	
  in	
  some	  significant	
  way	  in	
  the	
  effort	
  to	
  combat	  the	  new	
  pest	  in	
  the	  new	  area,	
  perhaps	
  the	
  fine	  for	
  that	  party	
  could	
  be	
  reduced	
  relative	  to	
  their	  contribution.	
  Thank	  you	
  for	  the	
  opportunity	
  to	
  provide	  my	
  input."	
  “glad	
  you	  are	
  working	  on	
  this.	
  	
  it	
  is	
  VERY	
  important”	
  

•
	
  
Responses	
  from	  individuals	
  selecting	
  “Government	
  agency”	
  as	
  their	
  affiliation:	
  (Note:	
  this	  category	
  is	
  broadly	
  interpreted	
  as	
  any	
  State,	  County,	
  Federal	
  agency,	
  the	
  State	  Legislature,	
  the	
  University	
  of	
  Hawai‘i	
  system,	
  and	
  any	
  other	  government	
  entity)	
  • “These	  amendments	
  are	
  sorely	
  needed.	
  	
  Millions	
  of	
  dollars	
  has	  been	  spent	
  eradicating,	
  controlling	
  and	  monitoring	
  infestations	
  brought	
  through	
  interstate	
  transportation.	
  	
  A	
  strong	
  comprehensive	  program	
  will	  need	  significant	
  annual	
  funding,	
  but	
  will	  save	  far	  more	  money	  in	
  the	  long	
  run	
  and	
  let	
  staff	
  working	
  on	
  invasive	
  response	
  concentrate	
  on	
  existing	
  problems	
  instead	
  of	
  constantly	
  fighting	
  off	  new	
  threats.”	
  • “Update	
  plant	
  importation	
  guidelines	
  to	
  reflect	  crops	
  of	
  importance	
  and	  of	
  future	
  importance	
  to	
  Hawaii's	
  agriculture.	
  	
  Impose	
  quarantine	
  on	
  all	  incoming	  propagative	  plant	
  material	
  that	  does	  not	
  come	  from	  a	
  certified	
  source.”	
  • “I	
  see	
  universities	
  were	  not	  included	
  in	
  the	
  "type	
  of	
  agency	
  or	
  organization".”	
  • “Industries,	
  such	  as	
  those	  associated	
  with	  agriculture,	
  horticulture,	
  landscaping,	
  biofuel	  feedstock	
  production	
  etc.,	  that	  profit	
  from	  activities	
  which	  increase	
  the	
  risk	  of	
  introduction,	
  establishment,	
  or	
  spread	  of	
  plants	
  known	
  to	
  be	
  or	
  identified	
  to	
  be	
  potentially	
  invasive,	
  should	  be	
  required	
  to	
  pay	  a	
  bond	  that	  could	
  be	
  utilized	
  by	
  state	  agencies	
  or	
  affiliates	
  as	
  mitigation	
  for	  current	
  of	
  future	
  management	
  costs	
  incurred	
  in	
  control	
  of	
  such	  species.”	
  • "I	
  think	
  there	  is	
  much	  exaggeration	
  about	  the	
  importance	
  of	
  HISC.	
  	
  One	
  reason	
  I	
  believe	
  this	
  is	
  
due	
  to	
  the	
  lack	  of	
  HISC’s	
  focus	
  on	
  coordinating	
  State	  and	  Federal	
  activities	
  and	
  priorities.	
  	
  While	  HISC	
  has	
  done	  an	
  excellent	
  job	  in	
  some	  areas,	
  HISC	  has	  been	  completely	
  ignorant	
  or	
  complacent	
  on	
  the	
  leverage	
  it	
  could	
  provide	  to	
  move	  the	  Federal	
  government	
  to	
  better	  protect	
  Hawaii.	
  HISC	  is	
  not	
  aware	  of	
  effective	  strategies	
  on	
  leveraging	
  USDA	
  at	
  the	  HQ	  level.	
  	
  This	  is	  a	
  complete	
  oversight.	
  States	
  that	  leverage	
  HQ	
  (not	
  at	
  the	
  state	  level)	
  are	  much	  more	  effective.)	
  It	
  is	
  time	  for	
  
HISC	
  to	
  stop	
  acting	
  like	  a	
  beat	  dog	
  with	  its	
  tail	  between	
  its	
  legs	  and	
  start	  flexing	
  its	  political	
  and	
  

19	
  
	
  

•
•

•
•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

public	  support	
  and	
  compel	
  real	  change	
  at	
  the	  NATIONAL	  level.	
  	  I	  also	  believe	
  it	
  would	
  be	
  more	  efficient	
  to	
  direct	
  some	  of	
  the	  monies	  allotted	
  to	
  HISC	  to	
  HDOA."	
  “Luggage	
  should	
  be	
  screened	
  in	
  foreign	
  countries	
  and	  US	  mainland	
  prior	
  to	
  entering	
  into	  Hawaii,	
  
just	
  as	
  Hawaii	
  luggage	
  must	  be	
  screened	
  before	  allowed	
  to	
  fly	  to	  US	
  mainland.”	
  “the	
  process	
  for	
  DOA	  to	
  establish	
  a	
  quarantine	
  is	
  too	
  cumbersome	
  and	
  takes	  too	
  long;	
  it	
  should	  be	
  streamlined	
  and	
  ideally	
  allow	  them	  to	
  also	  prevent	
  infested	
  material	
  from	  leaving	
  a	
  business	  in	
  emergency	
  situations”	
  “Governor	
  needs	
  to	
  work	  with	  US	
  Secretary	
  of	
  Agriculture	
  to	
  bring	
  more	  resources	
  for	
  improving	  biosecurity	
  of	
  commerce	
  entering	
  the	
  state.”	
  “There	  needs	
  to	
  be	
  inspections	
  set	  up	  at	
  the	  point	
  of	
  transport	
  (i.e.,	
  at	
  the	  YoungBrothers	
  port,	
  at	
  
the	
  airport).	
  	
  During	
  the	  SuperFerryʻs	
  short	  run,	
  they	  had	
  inspectors	
  searching	
  vehicles	
  and	
  came	  across	  several	
  violations.	
  	
  With	  no	
  inspections	
  currently	
  taking	
  place	
  with	  Young	  Brothers	  or	
  the	
  Airlines,	
  imagine	
  what	  we	
  are	
  missing	  now?”	  “Inter-­‐island	
  transport	
  is	
  not	  to	
  be	
  held	  and	
  less	
  important	
  than	
  inter-­‐state,	
  international	  movements	
  of	
  pests.	
  	
  Local	  control	
  at	
  county	
  level	  should	
  be	
  coauthorized/deputized	
  along	
  with	  public-­‐private	
  organizations	
  (e.g.	
  ISCs)	
  to	
  best	  control	
  the	
  issue	
  of	
  biosecurity.”	
  “We	
  need	  to	
  fund	  and	  HIRE	
  more	  Agriculture	
  inspectors.	
  Also	  the	  Ag	  declaration	
  form	  is	  a	
  bit	
  of	
  a	
  
joke	
  when	
  you	
  fly	
  into	  Hawaii.	
  Either	  flights	
  to	
  Hawaii	
  need	
  an	
  additional	
  video	
  that	  talks	
  about	  biosecurity	
  and	
  why	
  it's	
  important	  or	
  the	  on	
  board	
  airline	
  employees	
  need	  a	
  short	  and	
  sweet	  spiel	
  that	  hammers	
  home	  why	
  you	
  shouldn't	
  blow	
  off	
  that	
  ag	
  declaration	
  form.	
  Even	
  just	  announcing	
  what	  the	
  fines	  associated	
  with	  not	
  filling	
  it	
  out	
  could	
  help.”	
  "1.	
  Creation	
  of	
  task	  force	  to	
  work	  on	
  improved	
  inter-­‐island	
  and	
  intra-­‐island	
  biosecurity.	
  2.	
  Consider	
  using	  the	  model	  of	
  food	  safety	
  for	  a	
  notification	  and	
  compliance	
  system.	
  3.	
  Consider	
  requiring	
  high-­‐risk	
  businesses	
  to	
  be	
  certified	
  as	
  pest	  free.	
  Need	  to	
  develop	
  standards.	
  4.	
  Consider	
  having	  industry	
  pay	
  for	  the	
  certification	
  process."	
  “A	
  clear	
  definition	
  of	
  intrastate	
  biosecurity	
  with	  stated	
  goals	
  needs	
  to	
  be	
  identified	
  and	  established	
  as	
  the	
  State's	
  program,	
  and	  a	
  clear	
  study	  of	
  how	
  invasive	  species	
  movements	
  are	  occurring	
  throughout	
  the	
  state	  needs	
  to	
  be	
  done	  so	
  that	  we	
  understand	
  the	
  problems,	
  issues	
  and	
  
cost	
  to	
  implement	
  a	
  statewide	
  intrastate	
  biosecurity	
  program.”	
  “Invasive	  species	
  inspections,	
  quarantine	
  areas,	
  treatment	
  facilities	
  at	
  ports,	
  and	
  true	  IPM	
  for	  invasive	
  species	
  needs	
  extremely	
  high	  priorities	
  for	
  funding.	
  For	
  example,	
  Hawaii	
  lacks	
  the	
  capacity	
  for	
  heat	  treatments	
  of	
  non-­‐agricultural	
  commodities,	
  and	
  stored	
  grains	
  and	
  other	
  non-­‐
living	  plant	
  materials	
  within	
  and	
  between	
  islands.	
  	
  Creating	
  special	
  quarantine	  and	
  treatment	
  areas	
  around	
  ports	
  is	
  a	
  necessity	
  to	
  have	  the	
  capacity	
  for	
  real	  action	
  regarding	
  inter-­‐island	
  invasive	
  species	
  mitigation.	
  	
  Also,	
  HDOA	  needs	
  to	
  have	  well-­‐educated	
  and	
  well	
  funded	
  inspectors	
  at	
  every	
  port	  (water	
  and	
  air)	
  with	  the	
  capacity	
  to	
  share	  information	
  rapidly	
  with	  University	
  specialists	  to	
  correctly	
  assess	
  invasive	  species	
  risks	  (pathogens,	
  fungi,	
  roundworms,	
  insects/arthropods).	
  	
  These	
  types	  of	
  jobs	  would	
  have	  immense	
  value	
  for	
  Hawaii,	
  and	  it	
  boggles	
  the	
  mind	  that	  vector	
  control	
  and	  ag	  inspectors	
  have	  not	  been	  reinstated,	
  especially	
  with	  the	
  highly	  damaging	  recent	
  records	
  of	
  invasive	  species	
  (CRB,	
  LFA,	
  Stink	
  Bug,	
  New	
  sulfur	
  butterfly,	  etc.)”	  "Intrastate	
  biosecurity	
  legislation	
  will	  always	
  be	
  ineffective	  and	
  inefficient	
  unless	
  a	
  much	  stronger	
  effort	
  is	
  made	  to	
  keep	  invasive	  species	
  from	  reaching	  Hawaii	
  in	
  the	
  first	
  place.	
  Both	  Australia	
  and	  NewZealand	
  understand	
  this	  and	  are	  areas	
  that	  should	
  be	
  looked	
  at	
  closely	
  for	
  viables	
  olutions.	
  We	
  in	
  Hawaii	
  are	
  only	  addressing	
  the	  symptoms	
  and	  not	  the	
  cause."	
  "All	
  invasive	  species	  programs	
  are	
  hampered	
  by	
  the	
  lack	  of	  an	
  enforceable	
  noxious	
  weed	  and	  noxious	
  pest	  rules.	
  	
  The	
  Department	
  of	
  Agriculture	
  must	  be	
  compelled	
  by	
  the	
  legislature	
  to	
  

20	
  
	
  

establish	
  rules	
  that	  are	
  enforceable	
  and	
  set	
  aside	
  a	
  fund	  for	
  legal	
  costs	
  associated	
  with	  setting	  a	
  legal	  precedent	
  for	
  each	  rule.	
  	
  This	  would	
  involve	
  removing	  the	
  qualification	
  for	  a	
  cooperative	  program	
  clause	
  from	  the	
  noxious	
  weed	  rule,	  setting	
  the	
  administrative	
  process	
  for	
  adding	
  weeds	  to	
  the	
  list	  (empowered	
  and	
  ordered	  by	
  HRS	  141-­‐3(a)),	
  adding	
  appropriate	
  weeds	
  to	
  the	
  list,	  and	  publishing	
  the	
  noxious	
  weed	  list.	
  	
  Then	
  it	
  must	  follow	
  through	
  with	  141-­‐3.5	
  and	
  3.6,	
  establishing	  a	
  control	
  plan	
  and	
  enforcing	
  eradication.	
  	
  Assume	  that	  someone	
  will	  sue,	
  and	
  ensure	
  the	
  laws	  are	
  written	
  so	
  that	  they	  will	  win,	
  and	
  let	  the	
  lawsuit	
  happen	
  so	
  we	
  can	
  establish	
  precedent.	
  	
  There	  is	
  probably	
  a	
  noxious	
  weed	  or	
  two	  on	
  some	  Invasive	  Species	  Committee	
  member's	
  property,	
  who	
  would	
  be	
  happy	
  to	
  sue	  the	
  state	  and	  do	  a	
  terrible	
  job	  of	
  it.	  	
  Second,	
  forget	
  the	  Poor	
  Nurseryman	
  stereotype.	
  	
  Nursery	
  business	
  is	
  big	
  business,	
  and	  very	  profitable.	
  	
  Profiting	  from	
  the	
  state's	
  and	  their	
  own	
  negligence	
  is	
  unacceptable	
  and	
  needs	
  to	
  be	
  stopped.	
  	
  There	  are	  far	
  more	  non-­‐growers	
  than	
  growers,	
  and	
  none	  of	
  them	  want	  little	
  fire	  ants	  in	
  their	
  back	  yards.	
  Third,	
  no	
  more	  bags	  of	  organic	
  material	
  shipped	
  into	  the	
  state	  until	  every	
  last	  albizia	
  tree	  is	
  chopped	
  into	  mulch."	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  

21	
  
	
  

Appendix	
  3a:	
  House	  Bill	  1513	  (2014)	
  
	
  	
  	
  
RELATING TO INVASIVE SPECIES.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF HAWAII:SECTION 1. The legislature finds that coqui frogs are designatedas a pest pursuant to section 141-3, Hawaii Revised Statutes. The
legislature also finds that the department of agriculture isparticipating in a multi-agency campaign to stop the spread of coquifrogs in Hawaii. Since the spread of coqui frogs is associated withthe movement of household potted plants and leaf litter, one way tocontrol the movement and growth of the coqui frog population is toeradicate them before the sale or transport of nursery stock that may
contain pests such as coqui frogs.
The purpose of this Act is to require owners or persons in charge
or in possession of certified and non-certified nursery stock toproperly treat plants for the eradication of pests before the sale ortransport of the nursery stock within the State or intraisland.
SECTION 2. Chapter 150A, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is amended byadding a new section to part III to be appropriately designated and toread as follows:"§150ANursery stock treatment requirements. All certified
and non-certified nursery stock shall be properly treated for theeradication of pests designated in section 141-3 before the sale ortransport of the stock from one island to another island within theState or from one locality to another on the same island. Nurseries
or landscapers shall eradicate nursery stock from all infested
properties where proof of sale or placement has been made. If proofof sale is not documented, owners or persons who have knowledge ofpest infestation on their property must take appropriate measures tobegin and maintain eradication efforts. Any expense or loss inconnection with eradication efforts shall be borne by the owner or theowner's agent."
SECTION 3. Section 150A-6.5, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is amended
to read as follows:"§150A-6.5 Animals; prohibition against possession, etc.;
exception. No person shall possess, propagate, sell, transfer, or
harbor any animal included on the list of prohibited animals
maintained by the board, except upon a determination that the species:(1) (A) Was initially permitted entry and later prohibited
entry into the State[;] for the sole purpose of scientific research;or[(2)] (B) Was continually prohibited but unlawfully
introduced and is currently [established in the State;] underscientific research; and[(3)] (2) Is not significantly harmful to agriculture,horticulture, or animal or public health, and the environment.
Under the circumstances described in this [[]section[]], the board may
permit possession of the individual animal through its registration

22	
  
	
  

with the department while still prohibiting the same species of animal
from importation, propagation, transfer, and sale."
SECTION 4. Section 150A-14, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is amended
by amending subsection (c) to read as follows:"(c) Any person who:
(1) Violates section 150A-6(3) or 150A-6(4)[,] with grossnegligence, or owns [or intentionally], transports, possesses, harbors,transfers, or causes the importation of any snake or other prohibitedanimal seized under section 150A-7(b), or whose violation involves ananimal that is prohibited or a plant, animal, or microorganism that is
restricted, without a permit, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor andsubject to a fine of not less than $5,000, but not more than $20,000;(2) [Intentionally transports,] Transports, harbors, or imports[with the intent to propagate, sell, or release] any animal that isprohibited or any plant, animal, or microorganism that is restricted,
without a permit, shall be guilty of a class C felony and subject to afine of not less than $50,000, but not more than $200,000; or(3) [Intentionally imports,] Imports, possesses, harbors,transfers, or transports, including through interisland or intraisland
movement, [with the intent to propagate, sell, or release,] any pest
designated by statute or rule, unless otherwise allowed by law, shallbe guilty of a class C felony and subject to a fine of not less than
$50,000, but not more than $200,000."
SECTION 5. Section 150A-22, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is amended
to read as follows:"[[]§150A-22[]] Responsibility for treatment. Any treatment ofcertified and non-certified nursery stock which may be required under
the provisions of law shall be at the risk and at the expense of theowner or persons in charge or in possession thereof at the time oftreatment, unless otherwise provided."
SECTION 6. This Act does not affect rights and duties thatmatured, penalties that were incurred, and proceedings that were begun
before its effective date.
SECTION 7. Statutory material to be repealed is bracketed andstricken. New statutory material is underscored.
SECTION 8. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.
	
  	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

23	
  
	
  

Appendix	
  3b:	
  House	  Bill	  1932	
  Senate	
  Draft	
  2	
  (2014)	
  	
  RELATING TO BIOSECURITY.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF HAWAII:SECTION 1. The legislature finds that the unchecked spread ofinvasive species is one of the greatest threats to Hawaii's economy,
natural environment, and the health and lifestyle of Hawaii's
people. Invasive pests can cause millions of dollars in crop losses,
the extinction of native species, the destruction of native forests,
the spread of disease, and the quarantine of exported agricultural
crops.
Island ecosystems are particularly vulnerable to the destructive
power of invasive pests. On Guam, the accidental introduction of thebrown tree snake has resulted in widespread devastation. Without
natural predators or competition for food, brown tree snake
populations have grown exponentially, causing mass extinctions ofendemic birds. Where there were once bird songs, the forests of Guamare now silent and home to as many as fifteen thousand snakes per
square mile. The introduction of just one new pest like the browntree snake could change the ecological character of the Hawaiian
Islands forever.
Despite the State's ongoing efforts to detect and eradicate
invasive species, Hawaii's fragile island ecosystems are constantly atrisk from insects, disease-bearing organisms, snakes, weeds, and otherinvasive pests. The coqui frog, Salvinia molesta, Miconia calvescens,ohia rust, nettle caterpillar, and little fire ant are all present in
Hawaii, disrupting the delicate balance of island ecosystems, crowding
out native species, and reducing the biodiversity of Hawaii.
The department of agriculture has created a biosecurity program
to fight invasive species on several fronts by:(1) Administering pre-entry measures to minimize the risk ofinvasive pests entering the State;(2) Conducting port-of-entry inspections to detect andquarantine or destroy pests upon arrival; and(3) Administering post-entry measures to mitigate theestablishment of pests in the State.
The department has also supported the growth of Hawaii's
agriculture industry by attempting to reduce the State's dependency on
imported agricultural products that may contain pests. The
legislature finds that sufficient support for a biosecurity program isvital to the public's health and welfare.
The purpose of this Act is to:(1) Reaffirm the legislature's finding that the implementationof the department of agriculture's biosecurity program is vital to theState;(2) Appropriate moneys to enable the department of agriculture
to complete the implementation of the biosecurity program; and

24	
  
	
  

(3) Authorize the department of agriculture to establish or
participate in private-public partnerships to enhance the biosecurity
program and quarantine inspection process.
SECTION 2. Section 150A-53, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is amended
to read as follows:"[[]§150A-53[]] General actions to achieve objectives. To
achieve the objectives of the biosecurity program, the department
shall plan for and, within available legislative appropriations or
through funding from other sources, implement the following:(1) Work with government agencies and agricultural commodity
exporters of other states and countries to establish pre-entry
inspection programs under which inbound cargo into the State isinspected at the ports of departure or other points outside the State;(2) Establish, operate, or participate in operating port-ofentry facilities where multiple government agencies may inspect,quarantine, fumigate, disinfect, destroy, or exclude as appropriate,articles that may harbor pests or exclude articles that are prohibitedor restricted without a permit, with the goals of:(A) Performing inspections in an efficient, effective, andexpeditious manner for the government agencies involved and for cargoowners, carriers, and importers; [and](B) Providing for the proper and safe storage and handlingof cargo, especially agricultural and food commodities, awaiting
inspection; and(C) Establishing or participating in private-public
partnerships to enhance the biosecurity program and quarantine
inspection process with on-port and off-port facilities, including
inspection and treatment facilities, transitional facilities, andconsolidation and deconsolidation facilities; provided that actual
inspections shall be performed only by department employees and not
private contractors or their employees.
(3) Develop, implement, and coordinate post-entry measures toeradicate, control, reduce, and suppress pests and, as appropriate,eradicate or seize and dispose of prohibited or restricted organisms
without a permit that have entered the State;(4) Collaborate with relevant government agencies, agriculturalcommodity importers, and other persons to examine and develop joint
integrated systems to better implement the biosecurity program;(5) Improve cargo inspection capabilities and methods, including
enhancement of the content and submission requirements for cargo
manifests and agricultural commodity ownership and movement
certificates;(6) Promote the production of agricultural commodities in theState to reduce cargo shipments of imported commodities into theState; and(7) Provide public education on the negative effects of pests
and prohibited or restricted organisms without a permit, to theenvironment and economy of the State."
SECTION 3. There is appropriated out of the general revenues of
the State of Hawaii the sum of $or so much thereof as may
be necessary for fiscal year 2014-2015 for the biosecurity program ofthe department of agriculture; provided that the appropriation shallbe used for the following projects:

25	
  
	
  

(1) An electronic manifest system for maritime cargoinspections;(2) Import replacement of high risk crops and the development ofsystems management to enhance pest management practices;(3) Research on new generation pesticides and development ofintegrated pest management methods;(4) Development of quarantine treatment options;(5) Development and implementation of diagnostics to quickly andreliably identify new and evolving pests and diseases;(6) Improvement of productivity of inspection capacity; and(7) Public and agriculture industry education activities.
The sum appropriated shall be expended by the department ofagriculture for the purposes of this Act.
SECTION 4. Statutory material to be repealed is bracketed andstricken. New statutory material is underscored.
SECTION 5. This Act shall take effect on July 1, 2050.	
  

26	
  
	
  

Appendix	
  3c:	
  House	  Bill	  1994	
  (2014)	
  	
  RELATING TO CIVIL LIABILITY FOR THE INTRASTATE TRANSPORT OF INVASIVE
SPECIES.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF HAWAII:PART ISECTION 1. The legislature finds that immediate action is needed
to further protect Hawaii from the movement of invasive species
between islands.
Through Act 85, Session Laws of Hawaii 2003, the legislature
recognized the silent invasion of Hawaii by alien invasive species as
the single greatest threat to Hawaii's economy, natural environment,
and the health and lifestyle of Hawaii's people and visitors.
The legislature further finds that the State has spent millionsof dollars to control the invasive coqui frog, but control efforts
were too late to stop its spread across the island of Hawaii, where it
now infests hundreds of thousands of acres, affecting tourism revenues,
property values, residents' quality of life, and the environment. The
coqui frog has been eradicated from Kauai and eradicated from most of
the infested sites on Maui; however, the frog continues to betransported to islands via shipments of landscape materials frominfested nurseries and plant providers on the island of Hawaii. Somebusinesses on the other islands have become "revolving doors" for the
reintroduction of coqui frogs, requiring constant expenditure of humanand financial resources to detect and control new introductions. Each
year, the department of agriculture and local invasive species
committees respond to hundreds of new reports of coqui frogs. Coquifrogs have been detected in shipments of plant materials to Molokai on
at least four different occasions. Equipment and vehicles may also
vector coqui frogs to new locations.
The non-native little fire ant is widespread in the Hilo area andhas now been detected in Waipio valley and Kona coffee farms. This
little fire ant causes blindness in pets and livestock and threatens
ground-nesting wildlife, agricultural production, and humanhealth. The little fire ant has been successfully contained to one
location on Kauai and almost eradicated from Maui, but it is known tobe moving in inter-island commerce. In December 2013, the little fire
ant was detected at several nurseries on Oahu and Maui on hapu‘u tree
ferns, and as a result, now appears to be established at several
locations on Oahu. The little fire ant can be moved via plants, cut
flowers, fruit, soil, sand, equipment, and vehicles.
The legislature further finds that the constant reintroduction ofthese and other harmful and highly invasive species creates an unfair
financial burden on islands where such pests are not known to occur orwhere active detection and control operations exist. The continued
reintroduction of invasive species threatens to undermine or destroy
ongoing efforts to keep such pests from becoming
established. Existing law prohibits the movement of pest species
inter-island and authorizes the department of agriculture to inspect

27	
  
	
  

and quarantine any infested materials. However, the department lacks
adequate inspection capability, and some pests, such as the little
fire ant and coqui frog, are exceptionally difficult to
detect. Public reports are the best method to detect new populationsof little fire ants and coqui frogs that have breached the State's
quarantine system.
The legislature further finds that those residents and businesses
on islands where these pests have become widespread are suffering
enormous financial losses and decreases to their overall quality oflife and that additional support is needed to develop effective
control methods.
The purpose of this Act is to:(1) Establish an affirmative responsibility on the consignor of
any landscape material or products, agricultural goods, construction
materials, equipment, vehicles, soil, or sand to prevent the movementof coqui frogs, little fire ants, and other species designated by thedepartment of agriculture;(2) Support development of additional tools to stop the movementof invasive species between islands; and(3) Provide necessary funds to achieve the objectives of thisAct.
SECTION 2. Chapter 150A, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is amended byadding a new part to be appropriately designated and to read as
follows:"PART. RESTRICTIONS ON INTRASTATE MOVEMENT OF REGULATED ARTICLES§150ARestrictions on intrastate movement of regulated
articles. No person shall move any regulated article intrastate fromany quarantined area except in accordance with this part.
§150ADefinitions.
"Certificate" means a document in which an inspector affirms thata specified regulated article meets the requirements of this part andmay be moved intrastate.
"Compliance agreement" means a written agreement between thedepartment and a person engaged in growing, handling, or moving
regulated articles that are moved intrastate, in which the person
agrees to comply with this part and any conditions imposed under thispart.
"Coqui frog" means living frogs of the species Eleutherodactylus
coqui.
"Limited permit" means a document in which an inspector affirmsthat a specified regulated article not eligible for a certificate iseligible for intrastate movement only to a specified destination andin accordance with conditions specified on the permit.
"Little fire ant" means living ants of the species Wasmannia
auropunctata.
"Management plan" means a plan prepared by the department ofagriculture that includes acceptable treatment options forinfestations of the little fire ant, coqui frog, or any other species
designated by the department.
"Movement" or "moved" means the act of shipping, transporting,delivering, or receiving for movement, or otherwise aiding, abetting,inducing, or causing to be moved.

28	
  
	
  

"Non-compacted soil" means soil that can be removed from anarticle by brisk brushing or washing with water under normal waterpressure.
"Reproducing colony" means:(1) A combination of one or more little fire ant workers and one
or more of the following immature little fire ant forms:(A) Eggs;(B) Larvae; or(C) Pupae;(2) A male and female coqui frog or a male coqui frog and coquifrog eggs; or(3) Other forms or species designated by the department.
"Soil-moving equipment" means equipment used for moving ortransporting soil, including but not limited to bulldozers, dump
trucks, or road scrapers.
"Widespread infestation" means any island where little fire antcolonies, coqui frog colonies, or any other species as designated by
the department, are present on more than twenty-five acres and noactive control or containment efforts are underway.
§150ARegulated articles. The following are regulated
articles:(1) Little fire ant queens and reproducing colonies of little
fire ants;(2) Coqui frogs and reproducing colonies of coqui frogs;(3) Baled hay and baled straw stored in direct contact with theground;(4) Non-propagated material related to agriculture, including
but not limited to:(A) Compost;(B) Mulch; or(C) Fertilizer;(5) Used soil-moving equipment, unless removed of all noncompacted soil; and(6) Any other article or means of conveyance that an inspector
determines presents a risk of spreading the little fire ant, coquifrog, or any other species designated by the department due to its
proximity to an infestation of the little fire ant, coqui frog, or thedesignated species.
§150AQuarantined areas. (a) The department shallquarantine each portion of the State that is infested.
(b) Less than an entire island may be listed as a quarantinedarea only if the department determines that:(1) The county of which the island is a part has adopted and isenforcing restrictions on the intrastate movement of the regulated
articles listed in this part that are equivalent to the restrictions
on intrastate movement imposed by this part; and(2) Designating less than the entire island as a quarantinedarea will prevent the spread of the little fire ant, coqui frog, or
any other species designated by the department.
(c) The department may include uninfested acreage within aquarantined area due to its proximity to an infestation or
inseparability from the infested locality for quarantine purposes, as
determined by:

29	
  
	
  

(1) Projections of the spread of little fire ants, coqui frogs,
or any other species designated by the department around the peripheryof the infestation, as determined by previous years' surveys;(2) Availability of natural habitats and host materials, within
the uninfested acreage, suitable for establishment and survival of
populations of the little fire ant, coqui frog, or any other species
designated by the department; and(3) Necessity of including uninfested acreage within thequarantined area in order to establish readily identifiable boundaries.
(d) The department or an inspector may temporarily designate any
non-quarantined area as a quarantined area in accordance with thecriteria specified in subsections (a), (b), and (c). The department
shall give written notice of this designation to the owner or person
in possession of the non-quarantined area, or, in the case of publicly
owned land, to the person responsible for the management of the nonquarantined area; thereafter, the intrastate movement of any regulated
article from an area temporarily designated as a quarantined area issubject to this section. As soon as practicable, either this area
shall be added to the list of designated quarantined areas insubsection (e), or the department shall terminate thedesignation. The department shall give written notice of thetermination as soon as practicable to the owner or person inpossession of, or, in the case of publicly owned land, the person
responsible for the management of, an area for which the designation
is terminated.
(e) The designated quarantined areas include the county of
Hawaii.
§150AIntrastate movement of regulated articles fromquarantined areas. (a) Any regulated article may be moved intrastatefrom a quarantined area into or through a non-quarantined area only if
moved under the following conditions:(1) With a certificate or limited permit issued and attached inaccordance with this part;(2) Without a certificate or limited permit; provided that eachof the following conditions is met:(A) The regulated article was moved into the quarantinedarea from an area that was non-quarantined at the time the regulated
article was taken;(B) The point of origin is indicated on a waybill
accompanying the regulated article;(C) The regulated article is moved through the quarantinedarea without stopping except for refueling, or for traffic conditions,such as traffic lights or stop signs, or has been stored, packed, orparked in locations inaccessible to the little fire ant, coqui frog,
or any other species designated by the department, or in locations
that have been treated in accordance with management plans under thispart prepared by the department, while in or moving through any
quarantined area; and(D) The article has not been combined or commingled withother articles so as to lose its individual identity; or(3) Without a certificate or limited permit; provided that theregulated article is a soil sample being moved to a laboratory
approved by the department to process, test, or analyze soil samples.

30	
  
	
  

(b) Any treatments shall be in accordance with management plansdeveloped by the department.
§150AIssuance of a certificate or limited permit. (a) An
inspector may issue a certificate for the intrastate movement of aregulated article approved under a compliance agreement if it
determines that the regulated article:(1) Is eligible for unrestricted movement under all otherapplicable domestic plant quarantine regulations;(2) Is to be moved intrastate in compliance with any additional
conditions deemed necessary under state law to prevent the spread ofthe little fire ant, coqui frog, or any other species designated by
the department; and(3) Meets at least one of the following criteria:(A) Is free of infestations of the little fire ant, coquifrog, or any other species designated by the department, based on theindividual's visual examination of the article;(B) Is grown, produced, manufactured, stored, or handled ina manner that would prevent infestation or would destroy all life
stages of the little fire ant or coqui frog;(C) Is treated in accordance with department management
plans developed under this part; or(D) If the article is containerized nursery stock, has been
produced in accordance with requirements established under management
plans developed under this part.
(b) An inspector shall issue blank certificates to a person
operating under a compliance agreement in accordance with this part orauthorize reproduction of the certificates on shipping containers, orboth, as requested by the person operating under the complianceagreement. These certificates may then be completed and used, as
needed, for the intrastate movement of regulated articles that havemet all of the requirements of subsection (a).
(c) An inspector may issue a limited permit for the intrastate
movement of a regulated article not eligible for a certificate if theinspector determines that the regulated article:(1) Is to be moved intrastate to a specified destination for
specified handling, utilization, or processing, where the destinationand other conditions are listed in the limited permit, and thisintrastate movement will not result in the spread of the little fire
ant or coqui frog because the little fire ant or coqui frog will be
destroyed by the specified handling, utilization, or processing; and(2) Is to be moved intrastate in compliance with any conditions
that the department may impose under this part to prevent the spreadof the little fire ant, coqui frog, or other species designated by thedepartment.
§150ACompliance agreements. (a) The department shalldevelop and implement a comprehensive and effective inter-island
quarantine program, including the use of compliance agreements
patterned after the United States Department of Agriculture's animal
plant health inspection service as set forth in title 7 Code ofFederal Regulations section 301.81.
(b) Any person who grows, handles, or moves regulated articles
intrastate may enter into a compliance agreement if the person reviews
each stipulation of the compliance agreement with an inspector, has

31	
  
	
  

facilities and equipment to carry out disinfestation procedures orapplication of chemical materials in accordance with management plansdeveloped under this part, and meets applicable state training andcertification standards. Any person who enters into a complianceagreement with the department shall agree to comply with this part andany conditions imposed under this part.
§150ACancellation of a certificate, limited permit, orcompliance agreement. An inspector may cancel, orally or in writing,any certificate, limited permit, or compliance agreement whenever theinspector determines that the holder of the certificate or limited
permit, or the person who has entered into the compliance agreement,
has not complied with this part or any conditions imposed under thispart. If the cancellation is oral, the cancellation shall become
effective immediately and the cancellation and reasons for thecancellation shall be confirmed in writing as soon as circumstances
allow but within twenty days after oral notification of thecancellation. Any person whose certificate, limited permit, orcompliance agreement has been canceled may appeal the decision, in
writing, within ten days after receipt of the written cancellation
notice. The appeal shall state all of the facts and reasons thedepartment should consider in deciding the appeal. A hearing may beheld to resolve any conflict as to any material fact. The department
shall adopt rules for the hearing in accordance with chapter 91. Assoon as practicable, the department shall grant or deny the appeal, in
writing, stating the reasons for the decision.
§150AAssembly and inspection of regulated
articles. (a) Persons requiring certification or other services
shall coordinate the services with an inspector at least forty-eight
hours before the services are needed.
(b) The regulated articles shall be assembled at the place andin the manner the inspector determines is necessary to comply withthis part.
§150AAttachment and disposition of certificates and limited
permits. (a) Any person transporting a regulated article intrastateshall ensure that the certificate or limited permit authorizing
intrastate movement of the regulated article is, at all times during
intrastate movement, attached to:(1) The outside of the container encasing the regulated article;(2) The article itself, if it is not in a container; or(3) The consignee's copy of the accompanying waybill; provided
that any description of the regulated article on the certificate or
limited permit, and on the waybill, are sufficient to identify theregulated article.
(b) The consignor shall furnish the certificate or limited
permit authorizing intrastate movement of a regulated article or cause
the certificate or limited permit to be furnished to the consignee atthe shipment's destination.
§150ALittle fire ant and coqui frog detection, control,
exclusion, and enforcement program for nurseries producing
containerized plants. (a) There is established in the department alittle fire ant and coqui frog detection, control, exclusion, andenforcement program for nurseries producing containerized plants. The
program is designed to keep nurseries free of the little fire ant and

32	
  
	
  

coqui frog, and provide a basis to certify containerized nursery stock
for intrastate movement. Participating nurseries shall operate undera compliance agreement in accordance with this part. Such complianceagreements shall state the specific requirements that a nursery agrees
to follow to move plants in accordance with the requirements of the
program. Certificates and a nursery identification number may be
issued to the nursery for use on shipments of regulated articles.
(b) Participating nurseries shall survey their entire premises
twice a month for the presence of little fire ants and coqui frogs
using protocols established by the department.
(c) Participating nurseries shall be inspected by an inspector
at least twice per year. More frequent inspections may be necessary
depending upon little fire ant or coqui frog infestation levels
immediately surrounding the nursery, the thoroughness of nursery
management in maintaining a little-fire-ant-free or coqui-freepremises, and the number of previous detections of little fire ants or
coqui frogs in or near containerized plants. Any nurseries determined
during nursery inspections to have little fire ant or coqui frogcolonies shall be immediately treated to the extent necessary toeliminate the colonies.
(d) Under this program, nursery plants that are transported
shall originate in a nursery that meets the requirements of thispart. Nurseries shall implement a treatment program with registeredbait and contact insecticides for the little fire ant and hot water
treatment or other department-approved treatments for coquifrogs. The premises, including growing and holding areas, shall bemaintained free of the little fire ant and coqui frog. As part ofthis treatment program, all exposed soil surfaces, including sod andmulched areas, on property where plants are grown, potted, stored,
handled, loaded, unloaded, or sold shall be treated with approved
insecticide or pesticide consistent with departmental
standards. Follow-up treatments with a contact insecticide inaccordance with management plans under this part shall be applied toeliminate all remaining colonies.
(e) For plants grown on the premises of participating nurseries,
treatment of soil and potting media in accordance with standards
established by management plans developed by the department prior toplanting is required.
(f) For plants received by participating nurseries from outside
sources, to prevent the spread into a nursery free of the imported
fire ant by newly introduced, infested nursery plants, all plants
shall be:(1) Obtained from nurseries in compliance with the requirementsof this section and that operate under a compliance agreement inaccordance with this part; or(2) Treated upon delivery in accordance with management plans
under this part, and within the specified number of days be either:(A) Repotted in treated potting soil media;(B) Retreated in accordance with management plans under thispart at the specified interval; or(C) Transported.
(g) Participating nurseries shall maintain records of thenursery's surveys and treatments for the little fire ant or coqui

33	
  
	
  

frog. These records shall be made available to the department uponrequest.
(h) If an inspector detects little fire ants or coqui frogs innursery stock of a participating nursery, issuance of certificates for
movement shall be suspended until necessary treatments are applied andthe plants and nursery premises are determined to be free of thelittle fire ant and coqui frog. The department may declare a nursery
to be free of the little fire ant and coqui frog upon reinspection of
the premises. This inspection shall be conducted no sooner than
thirty days after treatment. During this period, certification may bebased upon treatments for plants in accordance with management plansdeveloped by the department under this part.
(i) Upon notification by the county that a confirmed little fire
ant infestation was found on a shipment from a nursery that had until
then been considered free of the little fire ant, the department shallcease its certification of shipments from that nursery. An
investigation shall commence immediately to determine the probablesource of the problem and to ensure that the problem is resolved. If
the problem is an infestation, issuance of certification for movementon the basis of little-fire-ant-free or coqui-free premises shall besuspended until treatment and elimination of the infestation iscompleted. Reinstatement into the program may be granted upondetermination that the nursery premises are free of the little fire
ant or coqui frog, and that all other provisions of this part are
being followed.
(j) In cases where the issuance of certificates is suspended
through oral notification, the suspension and the reasons for thesuspension shall be confirmed in writing within twenty days of theoral notification of the suspension. Any nursery whose issuance ofcertificates has been suspended may appeal the decision, in writing,within ten days after receipt of a written suspension notice. The
appeal shall state all of the facts and reasons that the department
should consider in deciding the appeal. A hearing may be held toresolve any conflict as to any material fact. The department shalladopt rules for the hearing in accordance with chapter 91. As soon aspracticable, the department shall grant or deny the appeal, in writing,stating the reasons for the decision.
§150ACounty authority. Unless and until the department
implements these provisions, including the adoption of any necessary
rules, any county may establish its own requirements by ordinance toprevent the introduction of infested, regulated articles, consistent
with the intent of this law and not in conflict with any departmental
rules, including but not limited to:(1) Development of a little-fire-ant free certification program;(2) Development of a coqui-frog-free certification program; and(3) Treatment requirements for regulated articles being moved toany island of the county.
§150AInformation sharing. The department shall makeavailable online on a monthly basis the numbers and locations byisland of all interceptions of little fire ants and coqui frogs
detected by department inspectors.

34	
  
	
  

§150APenalties. Any person who moves infested regulated
articles intrastate shall be subject to a fine equal to the value ofthe shipment or $10,000, whichever is greater."
SECTION 3. There is appropriated out of the general revenues of
the State of Hawaii the sum of $2,000,000 or so much thereof as may benecessary for fiscal year 2014-2015 to the department of agriculture
for enforcing restrictions on intrastate movement of regulated
articles and the establishment of an inter-island quarantine program
to control intrastate movement of invasive species.
The sum appropriated shall be expended by the department ofagriculture for the purposes of this part.
PART IISECTION 4. (a) There is established within the Hawaii invasive
species council an invasive species task force to address thecontinued movement of invasive plants, plant pests, and vertebrate
pests between islands.
(b) The invasive species task force shall:(1) Consider and propose recommendations to address thecontinued movement of invasive plants, plant pests, and vertebrate
pests between islands;(2) Gather relevant background data on invasive species thatpose a threat to Hawaii;(3) Assess the current and future impact of invasive species to
Hawaii;(4) Examine and assess existing methods for addressing invasive
species in Hawaii;(5) Examine needed state policies or responses to address thecontinued movement of invasive species between islands; and(6) Examine other concerns of the task force regarding invasive
species movement in Hawaii.
(c) The invasive species task force shall consist ofrepresentatives from the following departments, sectors, andorganizations:(1) Department of land and natural resources;(2) Department of agriculture;(3) Department of health;(4) Department of business, economic development, and tourism;(5) Department of transportation;(6) University of Hawaii;(7) Agriculture;(8) Horticulture;(9) Shipping;(10) Tourism; and(11) Others as determined by the Hawaii invasive species council.
(d) Members of the task force shall designate a chair from among
themselves and serve without compensation for their service on thetask force, but may be reimbursed for reasonable expenses, including
travel expenses, incurred for serving on the task force.
(e) The invasive species task force shall meet at least fourtimes to develop a comprehensive set of recommendations and shallsubmit a report of its findings and recommendations to the legislatureno later than twenty days prior to the convening of the regularsession of 2015.

35	
  
	
  

(f)

The invasive species task force shall be dissolved on July 1,

2015.
SECTION 5. There is appropriated out of the general revenues of
the State of Hawaii the sum of $50,000 or so much thereof as may benecessary for fiscal year 2014-2015 to establish the invasive species
task force to address the continued movement of invasive plants, plantpests, and vertebrate pests between islands, including the use forfacilitation or consultant services necessary to gather relevant
background data and travel to ensure adequate statewide representation.
The sum appropriated shall be expended by the Hawaii invasive
species council for the purposes of this part.
PART IIISECTION 6. This Act shall take effect on July 1, 2014.
	
  
	
  

36	
  
	
  

Appendix	
  3d:	
  Senate	
  Bill	
  2347	  (original	
  draft,	
  2014)	
  	
  RELATING TO INVASIVE SPECIES.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF HAWAII:SECTION 1. The legislature finds that coqui frogs are designatedas a pest pursuant to section 141-3, Hawaii Revised Statutes. The
legislature also finds that the department of agriculture isparticipating in a multi-agency campaign to stop the spread of coquifrogs in Hawaii. Since the spread of coqui frogs is associated withthe movement of household potted plants and leaf litter, one way tocontrol the movement and growth of the coqui frog population is toeradicate them before the sale or transport of nursery stock that may
contain pests such as coqui frogs.
The purpose of this Act is to require owners or persons in charge
or in possession of certified and non-certified nursery stock toproperly treat plants for the eradication of pests before the sale ortransport of the nursery stock within the State or intraisland.
SECTION 2. Chapter 150A, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is amended byadding a new section to part III to be appropriately designated and toread as follows:"§150ANursery stock treatment requirements. All certified
and non-certified nursery stock shall be properly treated for theeradication of pests designated in section 141-3 before the sale ortransport of the stock from one island to another island within theState or from one locality to another on the same island. Nurseries
or landscapers shall eradicate nursery stock from all infested
properties where proof of sale or placement has been made. If proofof sale is not documented, owners or persons who have knowledge ofpest infestation on their property must take appropriate measures tobegin and maintain eradication efforts. Any expense or loss inconnection with eradication efforts shall be borne by the owner or theowner's agent."
SECTION 3. Section 150A-6.5, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is amended
to read as follows:"§150A-6.5 Animals; prohibition against possession, etc.;
exception. No person shall possess, propagate, sell, transfer, or
harbor any animal included on the list of prohibited animals
maintained by the board, except upon a determination that the species:(1) (A) Was initially permitted entry and later prohibited
entry into the State[;] for the sole purpose of scientific research;or[(2)] (B) Was continually prohibited but unlawfully
introduced and is currently [established in the State;] underscientific research; and[(3)] (2) Is not significantly harmful to agriculture,horticulture, or animal or public health, and the environment.
Under the circumstances described in this [[]section[]], the board may
permit possession of the individual animal through its registration

37	
  
	
  

with the department while still prohibiting the same species of animal
from importation, propagation, transfer, and sale."
SECTION 4. Section 150A-14, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is amended
by amending subsection (c) to read as follows:"(c) Any person who:
(1) Violates section 150A-6(3) or 150A-6(4)[,] with grossnegligence, or owns [or intentionally], transports, possesses, harbors,transfers, or causes the importation of any snake or other prohibitedanimal seized under section 150A-7(b), or whose violation involves ananimal that is prohibited or a plant, animal, or microorganism that is
restricted, without a permit, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor andsubject to a fine of not less than $5,000, but not more than $20,000;(2) [Intentionally transports,] Transports, harbors, or imports[with the intent to propagate, sell, or release] any animal that isprohibited or any plant, animal, or microorganism that is restricted,
without a permit, shall be guilty of a class C felony and subject to afine of not less than $50,000, but not more than $200,000; or(3) [Intentionally imports,] Imports, possesses, harbors,transfers, or transports, including through interisland or intraisland
movement, [with the intent to propagate, sell, or release,] any pest
designated by statute or rule, unless otherwise allowed by law, shallbe guilty of a class C felony and subject to a fine of not less than
$50,000, but not more than $200,000."
SECTION 5. Section 150A-22, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is amended
to read as follows:"[[]§150A-22[]] Responsibility for treatment. Any treatment ofcertified and non-certified nursery stock which may be required under
the provisions of law shall be at the risk and at the expense of theowner or persons in charge or in possession thereof at the time oftreatment, unless otherwise provided."
SECTION 6. This Act does not affect rights and duties thatmatured, penalties that were incurred, and proceedings that were begun
before its effective date.
SECTION 7. Statutory material to be repealed is bracketed andstricken. New statutory material is underscored.
SECTION 8. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.
	
  
	
  

38	
  
	
  

Appendix	
  3e:	
  Senate	
  Bill	
  2347	
  Senate	
  Draft	
  2	
  House	
  Draft	
  1	
  (2014)	
  	
  RELATING TO INVASIVE SPECIES.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF HAWAII:PART ISECTION 1. The legislature finds that coqui frogs are designatedas a pest pursuant to section 141-3, Hawaii Revised Statutes. The
legislature also finds that the department of agriculture isparticipating in a multi-agency campaign to stop the spread of coquifrogs in Hawaii. Since the spread of coqui frogs and other pests areassociated with the movement of household potted plants and leaf
litter, one way to control the movement and growth of the coqui frog
population is to eradicate them before the sale or transport ofnursery stock that may contain pests such as coqui frogs.
The purpose of this part is to require owners or persons incharge or in possession of certified and non-certified nursery stock
to properly treat plants for the eradication of pests before the saleor transport of the nursery stock within the State or intraisland.
SECTION 2. Chapter 150A, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is amended byadding a new section to part III to be appropriately designated and toread as follows:"§150ANursery stock treatment requirements. (a) Nurserystock infested with little fire ants, coqui frog, or any other pest
designated pursuant to section 141-3 for control or eradication shallnot be sold or transported from one island to another island within
the State or from one locality to another on the same island unlessthe nursery stock has been subjected to appropriate treatment inaccordance with management plans developed by the department pursuant
to partof this chapter. This requirement shall apply whether
the nursery stock is from a certified or non-certified nursery.
(b) Nurseries or landscapers who fail to treat their nurserystock in accordance with subsection (a) prior to transport shall be
responsible for appropriate treatment at their own expense toexterminate the pest from:(1) Nursery stock on infested properties where proof of sale orplacement of their nursery stock has been made; and(2) Any other nursery stock on the affected properties that has
been infested by the transported nursery stock.
(c) For purposes of subsection (b)(1), if proof of sale orplacement is not documented, persons with knowledge of pest
infestation on their property shall take and maintain appropriate pest
control and extermination measures at their own expense.
(d) Nurseries or landscapers with knowledge of pest infestationon their properties shall take and maintain vigilant and appropriate
control and extermination measures on their property against any pest
designated pursuant to section 141-3 and shall bear the expense of
these efforts."
SECTION 3. Section 150A-14, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is amended
by amending subsection (c) to read as follows:

39	
  
	
  

"(c) Any person who:
(1) Violates section 150A-6(3) or 150A-6(4)[,] with grossnegligence, or owns [or intentionally], transports, possesses, harbors,transfers, or causes the importation of any snake or other prohibitedanimal seized under section 150A-7(b), or whose violation involves ananimal that is prohibited or a plant, animal, or microorganism that is
restricted, without a permit, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor andsubject to a fine of not less than $5,000, but not more than $20,000;(2) [Intentionally transports,] Transports, harbors, or imports[with the intent to propagate, sell, or release] any animal that isprohibited or any plant, animal, or microorganism that is restricted,
without a permit, shall be guilty of a class C felony and subject to afine of not less than $50,000, but not more than $200,000; or(3) [Intentionally imports,] Imports, possesses, harbors,transfers, or transports, including through interisland or intraisland
movement, [with the intent to propagate, sell, or release,] any pest
designated by statute or rule, unless otherwise allowed by law, shallbe guilty of a class C felony and subject to a fine of not less than
$50,000, but not more than $200,000."
SECTION 4. Section 150A-22, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is amended
to read as follows:"[[]§150A-22[]] Responsibility for treatment. Any treatment ofcertified and non-certified nursery stock which may be required under
the provisions of law shall be at the risk and at the expense of theowner or persons in charge or in possession thereof at the time oftreatment, unless otherwise provided."PART IISECTION 5. The legislature finds that immediate action is needed
to further protect Hawaii from the movement of invasive species
between islands.
Through Act 85, Session Laws of Hawaii 2003, the legislature
recognized the silent invasion of Hawaii by alien invasive species as
the single greatest threat to Hawaii's economy, natural environment,
and the health and lifestyle of Hawaii's people and visitors.
The legislature further finds that the State has spent millionsof dollars to control the invasive coqui frog, but control efforts
were too late to stop its spread across the island of Hawaii, where it
now infests hundreds of thousands of acres, affecting tourism revenues,
property values, residents' quality of life, and the environment. The
coqui frog has been eradicated from Kauai and eradicated from most of
the infested sites on Maui; however, the frog continues to betransported to islands via shipments of landscape materials frominfested nurseries and plant providers on the island of Hawaii. Somebusinesses on the other islands have become "revolving doors" for the
reintroduction of coqui frogs, requiring constant expenditure of humanand financial resources to detect and control new introductions. Each
year, the department of agriculture and local invasive species
committees respond to hundreds of new reports of coqui frogs. Coquifrogs have been detected in shipments of plant materials to Molokai on
at least four different occasions. Equipment and vehicles may also
vector coqui frogs to new locations.
The non-native little fire ant is widespread in the Hilo area andhas now been detected in Waipio valley and Kona coffee farms. This

40	
  
	
  

little fire ant causes blindness in pets and livestock and threatens
ground-nesting wildlife, agricultural production, and humanhealth. The little fire ant has been successfully contained to one
location on Kauai and almost eradicated from Maui, but it is known tobe moving in inter-island commerce. In December 2013, the little fire
ant was detected at several nurseries on Oahu and Maui on hapu‘u tree
ferns, and as a result, now appears to be established at several
locations on Oahu. The little fire ant can be moved via plants, cut
flowers, fruit, soil, sand, equipment, and vehicles.
The legislature further finds that the constant reintroduction ofthese and other harmful and highly invasive species creates an unfair
financial burden on islands where such pests are not known to occur orwhere active detection and control operations exist. The continued
reintroduction of invasive species threatens to undermine or destroy
ongoing efforts to keep such pests from becoming
established. Existing law prohibits the movement of pest species
inter-island and authorizes the department of agriculture to inspectand quarantine any infested materials. However, the department lacks
adequate inspection capability, and some pests, such as the little
fire ant and coqui frog, are exceptionally difficult to detect.
The purpose of this part is to establish an affirmative
responsibility on the consignor of any landscape material or products,
agricultural goods, construction materials, equipment, vehicles, soil,
or sand to prevent the movement of coqui frogs, little fire ants, andother species designated by the department of agriculture.
SECTION 6. Chapter 150A, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is amended byadding a new part to be appropriately designated and to read as
follows:"PART. RESTRICTIONS ON INTRASTATE MOVEMENT OF REGULATED ARTICLES§150ARestrictions on intrastate movement of regulated
articles. No person shall move any regulated article intrastate fromany quarantined area except in accordance with this part.
§150ADefinitions.
"Certificate" means a document in which an inspector affirms thata specified regulated article meets the requirements of this part andmay be moved intrastate.
"Compliance agreement" means a written agreement between thedepartment and a person engaged in growing, handling, or moving
regulated articles that are moved intrastate, in which the person
agrees to comply with this part and any conditions imposed under thispart.
"Coqui frog" means living frogs of the species Eleutherodactylus
coqui.
"Infestation" means any island where little fire ant colonies,
coqui frog colonies, or any other species as designated by thedepartment, are present on more than twenty-five acres and no active
control or containment efforts are underway.
"Limited permit" means a document in which an inspector affirmsthat a specified regulated article not eligible for a certificate iseligible for intrastate movement only to a specified destination andin accordance with conditions specified on the permit.
"Little fire ant" means living ants of the species Wasmannia
auropunctata.

41	
  
	
  

"Management plan" means a plan prepared by the department that
includes acceptable treatment options for infestations of the little
fire ant, coqui frog, or any other species designated by thedepartment.
"Movement" or "moved" means the act of shipping, transporting,delivering, or receiving for movement, or otherwise aiding, abetting,inducing, or causing to be moved.
"Non-compacted soil" means soil that can be removed from anarticle by brisk brushing or washing with water under normal waterpressure.
"Reproducing colony" means:(1) A combination of one or more little fire ant workers and one
or more of the following immature little fire ant forms:(A) Eggs;(B) Larvae; or(C) Pupae;(2) A male and female coqui frog or a male coqui frog and coquifrog eggs; or(3) Other forms or species designated by the department.
"Soil-moving equipment" means equipment used for moving ortransporting soil, including but not limited to bulldozers, dump
trucks, or road scrapers.
§150ARegulated articles. The following are regulated
articles:(1) Little fire ant queens and reproducing colonies of little
fire ants;(2) Coqui frogs and reproducing colonies of coqui frogs;(3) Baled hay and baled straw stored in direct contact with theground;(4) Non-propagated material related to agriculture, including
but not limited to:(A) Compost;(B) Mulch; or(C) Fertilizer;(5) Used soil-moving equipment, unless removed of all noncompacted soil; and(6) Any other article or means of conveyance that an inspector
determines presents a risk of spreading the little fire ant, coquifrog, or any other species designated by the department due to its
proximity to an infestation of the little fire ant, coqui frog, or thedesignated species.
§150AQuarantined areas. (a) The department shallquarantine each portion of the State that is infested.
(b) Less than an entire island may be listed as a quarantinedarea only if the department determines that:(1) The county of which the island is a part has adopted and isenforcing restrictions on the intrastate movement of the regulated
articles listed in this part that are equivalent to the restrictions
on intrastate movement imposed by this part; and(2) Designating less than the entire island as a quarantinedarea will prevent the spread of the little fire ant, coqui frog, or
any other species designated by the department.

42	
  
	
  

(c) The department may include uninfested acreage within aquarantined area due to its proximity to an infestation or
inseparability from the infested locality for quarantine purposes, as
determined by:(1) Projections of the spread of little fire ants, coqui frogs,
or any other species designated by the department around the peripheryof the infestation, as determined by previous years' surveys;(2) Availability of natural habitats and host materials, within
the uninfested acreage, suitable for establishment and survival of
populations of the little fire ant, coqui frog, or any other species
designated by the department; and(3) Necessity of including uninfested acreage within thequarantined area in order to establish readily identifiable boundaries.
(d) The department or an inspector may temporarily designate any
non-quarantined area as a quarantined area in accordance with thecriteria specified in subsections (a), (b), and (c). The department
shall give written notice of this designation to the owner or person
in possession of the non-quarantined area, or, in the case of publicly
owned land, to the person responsible for the management of the nonquarantined area; thereafter, the intrastate movement of any regulated
article from an area temporarily designated as a quarantined area issubject to this section. As soon as practicable, either this area
shall be added to the list of designated quarantined areas insubsection (e), or the department shall terminate thedesignation. The department shall give written notice of thetermination as soon as practicable to the owner or person inpossession of, or, in the case of publicly owned land, the person
responsible for the management of, an area for which the designation
is terminated.
(e) The designated quarantined areas include the county of
Hawaii.
§150AIntrastate movement of regulated articles fromquarantined areas. (a) Any regulated article shall be moved
intrastate from a quarantined area into or through a non-quarantinedarea under the following conditions:(1) With a certificate or limited permit issued and attached inaccordance with this part;(2) Without a certificate or limited permit; provided that eachof the following conditions is met:(A) The regulated article was moved into the quarantinedarea from an area that was non-quarantined at the time the regulated
article was taken;(B) The point of origin is indicated on a waybill
accompanying the regulated article;(C) The regulated article is moved through the quarantinedarea without stopping except for refueling, or for traffic conditions,such as traffic lights or stop signs, or has been stored, packed, orparked in locations inaccessible to the little fire ant, coqui frog,
or any other species designated by the department, or in locations
that have been treated in accordance with management plans under thispart prepared by the department, while in or moving through any
quarantined area; and

43	
  
	
  

(D) The article has not been combined or commingled withother articles so as to lose its individual identity; or(3) Without a certificate or limited permit; provided that theregulated article is a soil sample being moved to a laboratory
approved by the department to process, test, or analyze soil samples.
(b) Any treatments shall be in accordance with management plansdeveloped by the department.
§150AIssuance of a certificate or limited permit. (a) An
inspector may issue a certificate for the intrastate movement of aregulated article approved under a compliance agreement if it
determines that the regulated article:(1) Is eligible for unrestricted movement under all otherapplicable domestic plant quarantine regulations;(2) Is to be moved intrastate in compliance with any additional
conditions deemed necessary under state law to prevent the spread ofthe little fire ant, coqui frog, or any other species designated by
the department; and(3) Meets at least one of the following criteria:(A) Is free of infestations of the little fire ant, coquifrog, or any other species designated by the department, based on theindividual's visual examination of the article;(B) Is grown, produced, manufactured, stored, or handled ina manner that would prevent infestation or would destroy all life
stages of the little fire ant or coqui frog;(C) Is treated in accordance with department management
plans developed under this part; or(D) If the article is containerized nursery stock, has been
produced in accordance with requirements established under management
plans developed under this part.
(b) An inspector shall issue blank certificates to a person
operating under a compliance agreement in accordance with this part orauthorize reproduction of the certificates on shipping containers, orboth, as requested by the person operating under the complianceagreement. These certificates may then be completed and used, as
needed, for the intrastate movement of regulated articles that havemet all of the requirements of subsection (a).
(c) An inspector may issue a limited permit for the intrastate
movement of a regulated article not eligible for a certificate if theinspector determines that the regulated article:(1) Is to be moved intrastate to a specified destination for
specified handling, utilization, or processing, where the destinationand other conditions are listed in the limited permit, and thisintrastate movement will not result in the spread of the little fireant, coqui frog, or other species designated by the department because
the little fire ant, coqui frog, or other species will be destroyed by
the specified handling, utilization, or processing; and(2) Is to be moved intrastate in compliance with any conditions
that the department may impose under this part to prevent the spreadof the little fire ant, coqui frog, or other species designated by thedepartment.
§150ACompliance agreements. (a) The department shalldevelop and implement a comprehensive and effective inter-island
quarantine program, including the use of compliance agreements

44	
  
	
  

patterned after the United States Department of Agriculture's animal
plant health inspection service as set forth in title 7 Code ofFederal Regulations section 301.81.
(b) Any person who grows, handles, or moves regulated articles
intrastate may enter into a compliance agreement if the person reviews
each stipulation of the compliance agreement with an inspector, has
facilities and equipment to carry out disinfestation procedures orapplication of chemical materials in accordance with management plansdeveloped under this part, and meets applicable state training andcertification standards. Any person who enters into a complianceagreement with the department shall agree to comply with this part andany conditions imposed under this part.
§150ACancellation of a certificate, limited permit, orcompliance agreement. An inspector may cancel, orally or in writing,any certificate, limited permit, or compliance agreement whenever theinspector determines that the holder of the certificate or limited
permit, or the person who has entered into the compliance agreement,
has not complied with this part or any conditions imposed under thispart. If the cancellation is oral, the cancellation shall become
effective immediately and the cancellation and reasons for thecancellation shall be confirmed in writing as soon as circumstances
allow but within twenty days after oral notification of thecancellation. Any person whose certificate, limited permit, orcompliance agreement has been canceled may appeal the decision, in
writing, within ten days after receipt of the written cancellation
notice. The appeal shall state all of the facts and reasons thedepartment should consider in deciding the appeal. A hearing may beheld to resolve any conflict as to any material fact. The department
shall adopt rules for the hearing in accordance with chapter 91. Assoon as practicable, the department shall grant or deny the appeal, in
writing, stating the reasons for the decision.
§150AAssembly and inspection of regulated
articles. (a) Persons requiring certification or other services
shall coordinate the services with an inspector at least forty-eight
hours before the services are needed.
(b) The regulated articles shall be assembled at the place andin the manner the inspector determines is necessary to comply withthis part.
§150AAttachment and disposition of certificates and limited
permits. (a) Any person transporting a regulated article intrastateshall ensure that the certificate or limited permit authorizing
intrastate movement of the regulated article is, at all times during
intrastate movement, attached to:(1) The outside of the container encasing the regulated article;(2) The article itself, if it is not in a container; or(3) The consignee's copy of the accompanying waybill; provided
that any description of the regulated article on the certificate or
limited permit, and on the waybill, are sufficient to identify theregulated article.
(b) The consignor shall furnish the certificate or limited
permit authorizing intrastate movement of a regulated article or cause
the certificate or limited permit to be furnished to the consignee atthe shipment's destination.

45	
  
	
  

§150ALittle fire ant and coqui frog detection, control,
exclusion, and enforcement program for nurseries producing
containerized plants. (a) There is established in the department alittle fire ant and coqui frog detection, control, exclusion, andenforcement program for nurseries producing containerized plants. The
program is designed to keep nurseries free of the little fire ant andcoqui frog, and provide a basis to certify containerized nursery stock
for intrastate movement. Nurseries that agree to participate in the
program shall operate under a compliance agreement in accordance withthis part. Such compliance agreements shall state the specificrequirements that a nursery agrees to follow to move plants inaccordance with the requirements of the program. Certificates and anursery identification number may be issued to the nursery for use on
shipments of regulated articles.
(b) Participating nurseries shall survey their entire premises
twice a month for the presence of little fire ants and coqui frogs
using protocols established by the department.
(c) Participating nurseries shall be inspected by an inspector
at least twice per year. More frequent inspections may be necessary
depending upon little fire ant or coqui frog infestation levels
immediately surrounding the nursery, the thoroughness of nursery
management in maintaining a little-fire-ant-free or coqui frog-freepremises, and the number of previous detections of little fire ants or
coqui frogs in or near containerized plants. Any nurseries determined
during nursery inspections to have little fire ant or coqui frogcolonies shall be immediately treated to the extent necessary toeliminate the colonies.
(d) Under this program, nursery plants that are transported
shall originate in a nursery that meets the requirements of thispart. Nurseries shall implement a treatment program in accordancewith a management plan developed by the department ofagriculture. The premises, including growing and holding areas, shallbe maintained free of the little fire ant and coqui frog. As part ofthis treatment program, all exposed soil surfaces, including sod andmulched areas, on property where plants are grown, potted, stored,
handled, loaded, unloaded, or sold shall be treated with approved
insecticide or pesticide consistent with departmental
standards. Follow-up treatments with a contact insecticide inaccordance with management plans under this part shall be applied toeliminate all remaining colonies.
(e) For plants grown on the premises of participating nurseries,
soil and potting media shall be treated in accordance with standards
established by management plans developed by the department prior toplanting.
(f) For plants received by participating nurseries from outside
sources, to prevent the spread into a nursery free of the imported
fire ant or coqui frog by newly introduced, infested nursery plants,
all plants shall be:(1) Obtained from nurseries in compliance with the requirementsof this section and that operate under a compliance agreement inaccordance with this part; or(2) Treated upon delivery in accordance with management plans
under this part, and within the specified number of days be either:

46	
  
	
  

(A) Repotted in treated potting soil media;(B) Retreated in accordance with management plans under thispart at the specified interval; or(C) Transported.
(g) Participating nurseries shall maintain records of thenursery's surveys and treatments for the little fire ant or coquifrog. These records shall be made available to the department uponrequest.
(h) If an inspector detects little fire ants or coqui frogs innursery stock of a participating nursery, issuance of certificates for
intrastate movement shall be suspended until necessary treatments areapplied and the plants and nursery premises are determined to be freeof the little fire ant and coqui frog. The department may declare anursery to be free of the little fire ant and coqui frog uponreinspection of the premises. This inspection shall be conducted no
sooner than thirty days after treatment. During this period,
certification may be based upon treatments for plants in accordancewith management plans developed by the department under this part.
(i) Upon notification by the county that a confirmed little fire
ant or coqui frog infestation was found on a shipment from a nurserythat had until then been considered free of the little fire ant, thedepartment shall cease its certification of shipments from that
nursery. An investigation shall commence immediately to determine theprobable source of the problem and to ensure that the problem isresolved. If the problem is an infestation, issuance of certification
for movement on the basis of little-fire-ant-free or coqui frog-freepremises shall be suspended until treatment and elimination of theinfestation is completed. Reinstatement into the program may be
granted upon determination that the nursery premises are free of thelittle fire ant or coqui frog, and that all other provisions of thispart are being followed.
(j) In cases where the issuance of certificates is suspended
through oral notification, the suspension and the reasons for thesuspension shall be confirmed in writing within twenty days of theoral notification of the suspension. Any nursery whose issuance ofcertificates has been suspended may appeal the decision, in writing,within ten days after receipt of a written suspension notice. The
appeal shall state all of the facts and reasons that the department
should consider in deciding the appeal. A hearing may be held toresolve any conflict as to any material fact. The department shalladopt rules for the hearing in accordance with chapter 91. As soon aspracticable, the department shall grant or deny the appeal, in writing,stating the reasons for the decision.
§150ACounty authority. Unless and until the department
implements these provisions, including the adoption of any necessary
rules, any county may establish its own requirements by ordinance toprevent the introduction of infested, regulated articles, consistent
with the intent of this law and consistent with any departmental rules,
including but not limited to:(1) Development of a little-fire-ant free certification program;(2) Development of a coqui-frog-free certification program; and(3) Treatment requirements for regulated articles being moved toany island of the county.

47	
  
	
  

§150APenalties. Any person who moves infested regulated
articles intrastate shall be subject to a fine equal to the value ofthe shipment or $10,000, whichever is greater."PART IIISECTION 7. This Act does not affect rights and duties thatmatured, penalties that were incurred, and proceedings that were begun
before its effective date.
SECTION 8. Statutory material to be repealed is bracketed andstricken. New statutory material is underscored.
SECTION 9. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.
	
  
	
  

48	
  
	
  

Appendix	
  3f:	
  Senate	
  Bill	  2607	
  (2014)	
  	
  RELATING TO CIVIL LIABILITY FOR THE INTRASTATE TRANSPORT OF INVASIVE
SPECIES.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF HAWAII:PART ISECTION 1. The legislature finds that immediate action is needed
to further protect Hawaii from the movement of invasive species
between islands.
Through Act 85, Session Laws of Hawaii 2003, the legislature
recognized the silent invasion of Hawaii by alien invasive species as
the single greatest threat to Hawaii's economy, natural environment,
and the health and lifestyle of Hawaii's people and visitors.
The legislature further finds that the State has spent millionsof dollars to control the invasive coqui frog, but control efforts
were too late to stop its spread across the island of Hawaii, where it
now infests hundreds of thousands of acres, affecting tourism revenues,
property values, residents' quality of life, and the environment. The
coqui frog has been eradicated from Kauai and eradicated from most of
the infested sites on Maui; however, the frog continues to betransported to islands via shipments of landscape materials frominfested nurseries and plant providers on the island of Hawaii. Somebusinesses on the other islands have become "revolving doors" for the
reintroduction of coqui frogs, requiring constant expenditure of humanand financial resources to detect and control new introductions. Each
year, the department of agriculture and local invasive species
committees respond to hundreds of new reports of coqui frogs. Coquifrogs have been detected in shipments of plant materials to Molokai on
at least four different occasions. Equipment and vehicles may also
vector coqui frogs to new locations.
The non-native little fire ant is widespread in the Hilo area andhas now been detected in Waipio valley and Kona coffee farms. This
little fire ant causes blindness in pets and livestock and threatens
ground-nesting wildlife, agricultural production, and humanhealth. The little fire ant has been successfully contained to one
location on Kauai and almost eradicated from Maui, but it is known tobe moving in inter-island commerce. In December 2013, the little fire
ant was detected at several nurseries on Oahu and Maui on hapu‘u tree
ferns, and as a result, now appears to be established at several
locations on Oahu. The little fire ant can be moved via plants, cut
flowers, fruit, soil, sand, equipment, and vehicles.
The legislature further finds that the constant reintroduction ofthese and other harmful and highly invasive species creates an unfair
financial burden on islands where such pests are not known to occur orwhere active detection and control operations exist. The continued
reintroduction of invasive species threatens to undermine or destroy
ongoing efforts to keep such pests from becoming
established. Existing law prohibits the movement of pest species
inter-island and authorizes the department of agriculture to inspect

49	
  
	
  

and quarantine any infested materials. However, the department lacks
adequate inspection capability, and some pests, such as the little
fire ant and coqui frog, are exceptionally difficult to
detect. Public reports are the best method to detect new populationsof little fire ants and coqui frogs that have breached the State's
quarantine system.
The legislature further finds that those residents and businesses
on islands where these pests have become widespread are suffering
enormous financial losses and decreases to their overall quality oflife and that additional support is needed to develop effective
control methods.
The purpose of this Act is to:(1) Establish an affirmative responsibility on the consignor of
any landscape material or products, agricultural goods, construction
materials, equipment, vehicles, soil, or sand to prevent the movementof coqui frogs, little fire ants, and other species designated by thedepartment of agriculture;(2) Support development of additional tools to stop the movementof invasive species between islands; and(3) Provide necessary funds to achieve the objectives of thisAct.
SECTION 2. Chapter 150A, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is amended byadding a new part to be appropriately designated and to read as
follows:"PART. RESTRICTIONS ON INTRASTATE MOVEMENT OF REGULATED ARTICLES§150ARestrictions on intrastate movement of regulated
articles. No person shall move any regulated article intrastate fromany quarantined area except in accordance with this part.
§150ADefinitions.
"Certificate" means a document in which an inspector affirms thata specified regulated article meets the requirements of this part andmay be moved intrastate.
"Compliance agreement" means a written agreement between thedepartment and a person engaged in growing, handling, or moving
regulated articles that are moved intrastate, in which the person
agrees to comply with this part and any conditions imposed under thispart.
"Coqui frog" means living frogs of the species Eleutherodactylus
coqui.
"Limited permit" means a document in which an inspector affirmsthat a specified regulated article not eligible for a certificate iseligible for intrastate movement only to a specified destination andin accordance with conditions specified on the permit.
"Little fire ant" means living ants of the species Wasmannia
auropunctata.
"Management plan" means a plan prepared by the department ofagriculture that includes acceptable treatment options forinfestations of the little fire ant, coqui frog, or any other species
designated by the department.
"Movement" or "moved" means the act of shipping, transporting,delivering, or receiving for movement, or otherwise aiding, abetting,inducing, or causing to be moved.

50	
  
	
  

"Non-compacted soil" means soil that can be removed from anarticle by brisk brushing or washing with water under normal waterpressure.
"Reproducing colony" means:(1) A combination of one or more little fire ant workers and one
or more of the following immature little fire ant forms:(A) Eggs;(B) Larvae; or(C) Pupae;(2) A male and female coqui frog or a male coqui frog and coquifrog eggs; or(3) Other forms or species designated by the department.
"Soil-moving equipment" means equipment used for moving ortransporting soil, including but not limited to bulldozers, dump
trucks, or road scrapers.
"Widespread infestation" means any island where little fire antcolonies, coqui frog colonies, or any other species as designated by
the department, are present on more than twenty-five acres and noactive control or containment efforts are underway.
§150ARegulated articles. The following are regulated
articles:(1) Little fire ant queens and reproducing colonies of little
fire ants;(2) Coqui frogs and reproducing colonies of coqui frogs;(3) Baled hay and baled straw stored in direct contact with theground;(4) Non-propagated material related to agriculture, including
but not limited to:(A) Compost;(B) Mulch; or(C) Fertilizer;(5) Used soil-moving equipment, unless removed of all noncompacted soil; and(6) Any other article or means of conveyance that an inspector
determines presents a risk of spreading the little fire ant, coquifrog, or any other species designated by the department due to its
proximity to an infestation of the little fire ant, coqui frog, or thedesignated species.
§150AQuarantined areas. (a) The department shallquarantine each portion of the State that is infested.
(b) Less than an entire island may be listed as a quarantinedarea only if the department determines that:(1) The county of which the island is a part has adopted and isenforcing restrictions on the intrastate movement of the regulated
articles listed in this part that are equivalent to the restrictions
on intrastate movement imposed by this part; and(2) Designating less than the entire island as a quarantinedarea will prevent the spread of the little fire ant, coqui frog, or
any other species designated by the department.
(c) The department may include uninfested acreage within aquarantined area due to its proximity to an infestation or
inseparability from the infested locality for quarantine purposes, as
determined by:

51	
  
	
  

(1) Projections of the spread of little fire ants, coqui frogs,
or any other species designated by the department around the peripheryof the infestation, as determined by previous years' surveys;(2) Availability of natural habitats and host materials, within
the uninfested acreage, suitable for establishment and survival of
populations of the little fire ant, coqui frog, or any other species
designated by the department; and(3) Necessity of including uninfested acreage within thequarantined area in order to establish readily identifiable boundaries.
(d) The department or an inspector may temporarily designate any
non-quarantined area as a quarantined area in accordance with thecriteria specified in subsections (a), (b), and (c). The department
shall give written notice of this designation to the owner or person
in possession of the non-quarantined area, or, in the case of publicly
owned land, to the person responsible for the management of the nonquarantined area; thereafter, the intrastate movement of any regulated
article from an area temporarily designated as a quarantined area issubject to this section. As soon as practicable, either this area
shall be added to the list of designated quarantined areas insubsection (e), or the department shall terminate thedesignation. The department shall give written notice of thetermination as soon as practicable to the owner or person inpossession of, or, in the case of publicly owned land, the person
responsible for the management of, an area for which the designation
is terminated.
(e) The designated quarantined areas include the county of
Hawaii.
§150AIntrastate movement of regulated articles fromquarantined areas. (a) Any regulated article may be moved intrastatefrom a quarantined area into or through a non-quarantined area only if
moved under the following conditions:(1) With a certificate or limited permit issued and attached inaccordance with this part;(2) Without a certificate or limited permit; provided that eachof the following conditions is met:(A) The regulated article was moved into the quarantinedarea from an area that was non-quarantined at the time the regulated
article was taken;(B) The point of origin is indicated on a waybill
accompanying the regulated article;(C) The regulated article is moved through the quarantinedarea without stopping except for refueling, or for traffic conditions,such as traffic lights or stop signs, or has been stored, packed, orparked in locations inaccessible to the little fire ant, coqui frog,
or any other species designated by the department, or in locations
that have been treated in accordance with management plans under thispart prepared by the department, while in or moving through any
quarantined area; and(D) The article has not been combined or commingled withother articles so as to lose its individual identity; or(3) Without a certificate or limited permit; provided that theregulated article is a soil sample being moved to a laboratory
approved by the department to process, test, or analyze soil samples.

52	
  
	
  

(b) Any treatments shall be in accordance with management plansdeveloped by the department.
§150AIssuance of a certificate or limited permit. (a) An
inspector may issue a certificate for the intrastate movement of aregulated article approved under a compliance agreement if it
determines that the regulated article:(1) Is eligible for unrestricted movement under all otherapplicable domestic plant quarantine regulations;(2) Is to be moved intrastate in compliance with any additional
conditions deemed necessary under state law to prevent the spread ofthe little fire ant, coqui frog, or any other species designated by
the department; and(3) Meets at least one of the following criteria:(A) Is free of infestations of the little fire ant, coquifrog, or any other species designated by the department, based on theindividual's visual examination of the article;(B) Is grown, produced, manufactured, stored, or handled ina manner that would prevent infestation or would destroy all life
stages of the little fire ant or coqui frog;(C) Is treated in accordance with department management
plans developed under this part; or(D) If the article is containerized nursery stock, has been
produced in accordance with requirements established under management
plans developed under this part.
(b) An inspector shall issue blank certificates to a person
operating under a compliance agreement in accordance with this part orauthorize reproduction of the certificates on shipping containers, orboth, as requested by the person operating under the complianceagreement. These certificates may then be completed and used, as
needed, for the intrastate movement of regulated articles that havemet all of the requirements of subsection (a).
(c) An inspector may issue a limited permit for the intrastate
movement of a regulated article not eligible for a certificate if theinspector determines that the regulated article:(1) Is to be moved intrastate to a specified destination for
specified handling, utilization, or processing, where the destinationand other conditions are listed in the limited permit, and thisintrastate movement will not result in the spread of the little fire
ant or coqui frog because the little fire ant or coqui frog will be
destroyed by the specified handling, utilization, or processing; and(2) Is to be moved intrastate in compliance with any conditions
that the department may impose under this part to prevent the spreadof the little fire ant, coqui frog, or other species designated by thedepartment.
§150ACompliance agreements. (a) The department shalldevelop and implement a comprehensive and effective inter-island
quarantine program, including the use of compliance agreements
patterned after the United States Department of Agriculture's animal
plant health inspection service as set forth in title 7 Code ofFederal Regulations section 301.81.
(b) Any person who grows, handles, or moves regulated articles
intrastate may enter into a compliance agreement if the person reviews
each stipulation of the compliance agreement with an inspector, has

53	
  
	
  

facilities and equipment to carry out disinfestation procedures orapplication of chemical materials in accordance with management plansdeveloped under this part, and meets applicable state training andcertification standards. Any person who enters into a complianceagreement with the department shall agree to comply with this part andany conditions imposed under this part.
§150ACancellation of a certificate, limited permit, orcompliance agreement. An inspector may cancel, orally or in writing,any certificate, limited permit, or compliance agreement whenever theinspector determines that the holder of the certificate or limited
permit, or the person who has entered into the compliance agreement,
has not complied with this part or any conditions imposed under thispart. If the cancellation is oral, the cancellation shall become
effective immediately and the cancellation and reasons for thecancellation shall be confirmed in writing as soon as circumstances
allow but within twenty days after oral notification of thecancellation. Any person whose certificate, limited permit, orcompliance agreement has been canceled may appeal the decision, in
writing, within ten days after receipt of the written cancellation
notice. The appeal shall state all of the facts and reasons thedepartment should consider in deciding the appeal. A hearing may beheld to resolve any conflict as to any material fact. The department
shall adopt rules for the hearing in accordance with chapter 91. Assoon as practicable, the department shall grant or deny the appeal, in
writing, stating the reasons for the decision.
§150AAssembly and inspection of regulated
articles. (a) Persons requiring certification or other services
shall coordinate the services with an inspector at least forty-eight
hours before the services are needed.
(b) The regulated articles shall be assembled at the place andin the manner the inspector determines is necessary to comply withthis part.
§150AAttachment and disposition of certificates and limited
permits. (a) Any person transporting a regulated article intrastateshall ensure that the certificate or limited permit authorizing
intrastate movement of the regulated article is, at all times during
intrastate movement, attached to:(1) The outside of the container encasing the regulated article;(2) The article itself, if it is not in a container; or(3) The consignee's copy of the accompanying waybill; provided
that any description of the regulated article on the certificate or
limited permit, and on the waybill, are sufficient to identify theregulated article.
(b) The consignor shall furnish the certificate or limited
permit authorizing intrastate movement of a regulated article or cause
the certificate or limited permit to be furnished to the consignee atthe shipment's destination.
§150ALittle fire ant and coqui frog detection, control,
exclusion, and enforcement program for nurseries producing
containerized plants. (a) There is established in the department alittle fire ant and coqui frog detection, control, exclusion, andenforcement program for nurseries producing containerized plants. The
program is designed to keep nurseries free of the little fire ant and

54	
  
	
  

coqui frog, and provide a basis to certify containerized nursery stock
for intrastate movement. Participating nurseries shall operate undera compliance agreement in accordance with this part. Such complianceagreements shall state the specific requirements that a nursery agrees
to follow to move plants in accordance with the requirements of the
program. Certificates and a nursery identification number may be
issued to the nursery for use on shipments of regulated articles.
(b) Participating nurseries shall survey their entire premises
twice a month for the presence of little fire ants and coqui frogs
using protocols established by the department.
(c) Participating nurseries shall be inspected by an inspector
at least twice per year. More frequent inspections may be necessary
depending upon little fire ant or coqui frog infestation levels
immediately surrounding the nursery, the thoroughness of nursery
management in maintaining a little-fire-ant-free or coqui-freepremises, and the number of previous detections of little fire ants or
coqui frogs in or near containerized plants. Any nurseries determined
during nursery inspections to have little fire ant or coqui frogcolonies shall be immediately treated to the extent necessary toeliminate the colonies.
(d) Under this program, nursery plants that are transported
shall originate in a nursery that meets the requirements of thispart. Nurseries shall implement a treatment program with registeredbait and contact insecticides for the little fire ant and hot water
treatment or other department-approved treatments for coquifrogs. The premises, including growing and holding areas, shall bemaintained free of the little fire ant and coqui frog. As part ofthis treatment program, all exposed soil surfaces, including sod andmulched areas, on property where plants are grown, potted, stored,
handled, loaded, unloaded, or sold shall be treated with approved
insecticide or pesticide consistent with departmental
standards. Follow-up treatments with a contact insecticide inaccordance with management plans under this part shall be applied toeliminate all remaining colonies.
(e) For plants grown on the premises of participating nurseries,
treatment of soil and potting media in accordance with standards
established by management plans developed by the department prior toplanting is required.
(f) For plants received by participating nurseries from outside
sources, to prevent the spread into a nursery free of the imported
fire ant by newly introduced, infested nursery plants, all plants
shall be:(1) Obtained from nurseries in compliance with the requirementsof this section and that operate under a compliance agreement inaccordance with this part; or(2) Treated upon delivery in accordance with management plans
under this part, and within the specified number of days be either:(A) Repotted in treated potting soil media;(B) Retreated in accordance with management plans under thispart at the specified interval; or(C) Transported.
(g) Participating nurseries shall maintain records of thenursery's surveys and treatments for the little fire ant or coqui

55	
  
	
  

frog. These records shall be made available to the department uponrequest.
(h) If an inspector detects little fire ants or coqui frogs innursery stock of a participating nursery, issuance of certificates for
movement shall be suspended until necessary treatments are applied andthe plants and nursery premises are determined to be free of thelittle fire ant and coqui frog. The department may declare a nursery
to be free of the little fire ant and coqui frog upon reinspection of
the premises. This inspection shall be conducted no sooner than
thirty days after treatment. During this period, certification may bebased upon treatments for plants in accordance with management plansdeveloped by the department under this part.
(i) Upon notification by the county that a confirmed little fire
ant infestation was found on a shipment from a nursery that had until
then been considered free of the little fire ant, the department shallcease its certification of shipments from that nursery. An
investigation shall commence immediately to determine the probablesource of the problem and to ensure that the problem is resolved. If
the problem is an infestation, issuance of certification for movementon the basis of little-fire-ant-free or coqui-free premises shall besuspended until treatment and elimination of the infestation iscompleted. Reinstatement into the program may be granted upondetermination that the nursery premises are free of the little fire
ant or coqui frog, and that all other provisions of this part are
being followed.
(j) In cases where the issuance of certificates is suspended
through oral notification, the suspension and the reasons for thesuspension shall be confirmed in writing within twenty days of theoral notification of the suspension. Any nursery whose issuance ofcertificates has been suspended may appeal the decision, in writing,within ten days after receipt of a written suspension notice. The
appeal shall state all of the facts and reasons that the department
should consider in deciding the appeal. A hearing may be held toresolve any conflict as to any material fact. The department shalladopt rules for the hearing in accordance with chapter 91. As soon aspracticable, the department shall grant or deny the appeal, in writing,stating the reasons for the decision.
§150ACounty authority. Unless and until the department
implements these provisions, including the adoption of any necessary
rules, any county may establish its own requirements by ordinance toprevent the introduction of infested, regulated articles, consistent
with the intent of this law and not in conflict with any departmental
rules, including but not limited to:(1) Development of a little-fire-ant free certification program;(2) Development of a coqui-frog-free certification program; and(3) Treatment requirements for regulated articles being moved toany island of the county.
§150AInformation sharing. The department shall makeavailable online on a monthly basis the numbers and locations byisland of all interceptions of little fire ants and coqui frogs
detected by department inspectors.

56	
  
	
  

§150APenalties. Any person who moves infested regulated
articles intrastate shall be subject to a fine equal to the value ofthe shipment or $10,000, whichever is greater."
SECTION 3. There is appropriated out of the general revenues of
the State of Hawaii the sum of $2,000,000 or so much thereof as may benecessary for fiscal year 2014-2015 to the department of agriculture
for enforcing restrictions on intrastate movement of regulated
articles and the establishment of an inter-island quarantine program
to control intrastate movement of invasive species.
The sum appropriated shall be expended by the department ofagriculture for the purposes of this part.
PART IISECTION 4. (a) There is established within the Hawaii invasive
species council an invasive species task force to address thecontinued movement of invasive plants, plant pests, and vertebrate
pests between islands.
(b) The invasive species task force shall:(1) Consider and propose recommendations to address thecontinued movement of invasive plants, plant pests, and vertebrate
pests between islands;(2) Gather relevant background data on invasive species thatpose a threat to Hawaii;(3) Assess the current and future impact of invasive species to
Hawaii;(4) Examine and assess existing methods for addressing invasive
species in Hawaii;(5) Examine needed state policies or responses to address thecontinued movement of invasive species between islands; and(6) Examine other concerns of the task force regarding invasive
species movement in Hawaii.
(c) The invasive species task force shall consist ofrepresentatives from the following departments, sectors, andorganizations:(1) Department of land and natural resources;(2) Department of agriculture;(3) Department of health;(4) Department of business, economic development, and tourism;(5) Department of transportation;(6) University of Hawaii;(7) Agriculture;(8) Horticulture;(9) Shipping;(10) Tourism; and(11) Others as determined by the Hawaii invasive species council.
(d) Members of the task force shall designate a chair from among
themselves and serve without compensation for their service on thetask force, but may be reimbursed for reasonable expenses, including
travel expenses, incurred for serving on the task force.
(e) The invasive species task force shall meet at least fourtimes to develop a comprehensive set of recommendations and shallsubmit a report of its findings and recommendations to the legislatureno later than twenty days prior to the convening of the regularsession of 2015.

57	
  
	
  

(f)

The invasive species task force shall be dissolved on July 1,

2015.
SECTION 5. There is appropriated out of the general revenues of
the State of Hawaii the sum of $50,000 or so much thereof as may benecessary for fiscal year 2014-2015 to establish the invasive species
task force to address the continued movement of invasive plants, plantpests, and vertebrate pests between islands, including the use forfacilitation or consultant services necessary to gather relevant
background data and travel to ensure adequate statewide representation.
The sum appropriated shall be expended by the Hawaii invasive
species council for the purposes of this part.
PART IIISECTION 6. This Act shall take effect on July 1, 2014.
	
  

58