HAWAII INVASIVE SPECIES COUNCIL
PLANT QUARANTINE CONFERENCE ROOMHAWAII DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
JULY 9, 2008
10:00 A.M. –12:00 P.M.
MINUTESITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Sandra Kunimoto called the meeting of the Hawaii Invasive Species Council toorder at 10:12 a.m. The following were in attendance:

Ms. Sandra Kunimoto, DOA
Ms. Laura Thielen, DLNR
Mr. Francis Paul Keeno, DOT

MEMBERS:Mr. Laurence Lau, DOH
Mr. Sam Callejo, UH
Ms. Liz Corbin, DBEDT

AGENCY AND LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVES:
Mr. Matthew Goo, USDA
Representative Fuji
OTHERS:
Dr. Ann Marie LaRosa, USFS
Mr. Tony Montgomery, DLNR/DAR
Dr. Earl Campbell, USFWS
Ms. Ana Gabela, DLNR/DOFAW
Dr. Lyle Wong, HDOA
Ms. Anjie Pham, Animal Rights Hawaii
Dr. Neil Reimer, HDOA
Ms. Anoa Naniole, for Senator Kokubun
Dr. Tracy Johnson, USFS
Ms. Betsy Gagne DLNR/DOFAW
Mr. Chris Buddenhagen, HISC/DOFAW
Ms. Cathy Goggel, Animal Rights Hawaii
Mr. Chris Dacus, DOT
Ms. Christy Martin, CGAPS
Mr. Chuck Chimera, HPWRA
Ms. Inga Gibson, HSUS
Mr. Darcy Oishi, HDOA
Ms. Kathy Carlstead, Honolulu Zoo. Soc.
Mr. Domingo Carvalho, HDOA
Ms. Leslie Iseke, HDOA
Mr. Eric Arquero, for Senator English
Ms. Lisa Fiedler, JGDO
Mr. Glen Sakamoto, HDOA
Ms. Liz Corbin, DBEDT
Mr. Keevin Minami, HDOA
Ms. Priscilla Billig, OISC
Mr. Mark Fox, TNC
Ms. Rachel Neville, OISC
Mr. Patrick Chee, HISC/DOFAW
Ms. Stephanie Joe, HPWRA
Mr. Paul Conry, DLNR/DOFAW
Ms. Susan Gray-Ellis, DBEDT
Mr. Phil Andresser, Nat’l Invasive Species
Ms. Teya Penniman, MISC
Council
Mr. Rob Hauff, DLNR/DOFAWITEM 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM JULY 19, 2007
Member Callejo noted that there were numerous small typing errors, as did Co-Chair
Kunimoto and member Lau. Co-Chair Kunimoto directed staff to make necessarychanges.
Unanimously approved as amended (Member Keeno/Corbin).

ITEM 3. HISC STRATEGIC PLAN UPDATE PRESENTATION
Staff Buddenhagen gave a brief overview of the process to update the HISC Strategic
Plan (SP): shortening the original plan, condensing into bullet points, adding legal
mandates, review by Working Groups (WG) and CGAPS, clarify process, add a timeline,
and remove the Integrated Working Group.
Science and Research Working Group now chaired by Dr. Christopher Dunn (unable toattend today), met to consider Request for Proposals. The Interagency Working Group
did not meet; however all groups are interagency groups, but with functions specific toeach of their respective areas of invasive species management.
Upcoming meetings and budget-setting processes: HISC will meet to discuss priorities
and current issues during the second quarter of the FY; WG will work to prepare budgets
with alternatives during third quarter; WG chairs will make priority budget
recommendations with alternatives to Resources WG fourth quarter; Chair of Resources
WG will work to create a balanced budget which will then be recommended to theCouncil for budget approval.. This plan preferentially supports innovation,addresses
gaps in invasive species management and transitions from HISC funds to agencies for
future internal funding and action.
Further points: the SP may be updated at any time; the Council should provide advice toLegislature regarding invasive issues; adoption of rules mandated in law and SP and if
implemented would address access to private property to control invasive species andhelp reduce liability of staff and landowners; specific points for WG not included here;also, there should be two meetings per year and a process for submitting issues to theCouncil for consideration has been included.
Comments Member Lau requested more measures of effectiveness under the sectionthat describes the HISC goals and measures of effectiveness. Some of these weremodified measures of effectiveness described in the plan under the sections for thePrevention and Established Pests Working Groups. He emphasized the following
measures: number of invasive species detected; number of priority pests threatening
Hawaii that are not yet present; current status of priority pests in Hawaii; proportion ofinvasive species eradicated or controlled; species, habitats, agricultural and managed
areas protected; our bottom line. It was agreed that Staff Buddenhagen would work withMember Lau to rework the HISC measures of effectiveness.
Co-Chair Kunimoto summarized comments: one Council meeting for the budget and
one for policy and issues. Staff Buddenhagen suggested 5 – 6 months between, with
one in beginning of FY (July/August) the second before the Legislative session(December). Member Lau emphasized the need to be flexible due to many meetingsscheduled in December with Legislators.
ITEM 4. APPROVE ADOPTION OF STRATEGIC PLAN AND CHANGES TO
WORKING GROUP STRUCTURE
MOTION: Member Lau moved to adopt proposed changes to the Strategic Plan;
seconded by Member Keeno. Co-Chair Kunimoto suggested one addition: clarify
budget process and schedule. Member Lau said that his motion was only for his

2changes. Co-Chair Kunimoto suggested a motion for all; Member Lau withdrew
his original motion.
MOTION: Members Lau/Callejo moved and to adopt the Strategic Plan withproposed amendments as suggested by Member Lau and budget schedule asneeded for clarity, dropping the Integrated Working Group, but keeping all theother Working Groups.
Comments
Dr. Reimer (HDOA) liked the changes proposed by Member Lau; asked about theprocess. Co-Chair Kunimoto: Staff Buddenhagen will work with Member Lau to makechanges.
Ms. Cathy Goggel from Animal Rights Hawaii expressed concern regarding individual
Working Groups, when individual Non Government Organization (NGO) ideas do not jivewith the majority; she questioned whether HISC groups considered and if they have avoice at all. Cathy, who attends the Established Pest WG, felt her voice had not been
heard.
Staff Buddenhagen commented that there is now a website with all Working Group
Minutes located at http://www.hawaiiinvasivespecies.org/hisc/ He assured that all
those who want to be included will be included on mailing lists for HISC meetings.
Co-Chair Kunimoto called for the vote: Approved as amended.

ITEM 5. DISCUSS WORKING GROUP PRIORITIES IN CONTEXT OF STRATEGICPLAN FY 09: WORKING GROUPS TO PRESENT MAIN PRIORITIES
Public Outreach
Mr. Chris Dacus, from DOT, gave an update as new Chair of the Public OutreachWorking Group. Dacus replaces the previous chair Maile Sakamoto, from DOH. The
groups focus is on the promotion of a number of statewide messages and help to
support the prevention and established pests.
Christy Martin responded to a question from Member Callejo about public outreach workwith the DOE. Martin outlined work carried out by outreach staff with teachers on Mauiusing the Hoike curriculum (http://www.hear.org/hoike/) and through an education
program funded through HISC at the Moanalua Gardens.
Prevention
Domingo Carvalho, from HDOA, reported on the Working Group for Carol Okada. He
discussed the West Nile Virus work, avian disease coordination, hull fouling and ballast
detection and prevention efforts, and the Pacific Invasives Learning Network initiative
which is a peer learning program with South Pacific Island trading partners.
Established PestsTony Montgomery gave an update as new Chair of the Established
Pests Working Group with a special focus on the Aquatic Invasive Species program.
Montgomery emphasized the need to maintain the capacity for early detection and rapid
response similar to that provided by the invasive species committees.

3

Member Lau asked about the Invicta database. Cravalho responded: the database
covers permits, inspections, and detections. He indicated that the information is notshareable outside of DOA at this point.
Co-chair Thielen expressed her approval that Tony Montgomery should take the role of
Chair for the Established Pests Working Group because of his role in the managementof marine invaders, and indicated that this issue has an important interaction with nonpoint sources of pollution, another issue of concern.
Research and Technology
Staff Buddenhagen, HISC Coordinator, DLNR, gave an update on the research andtechnology development efforts of HISC for Chair Dunn, University of Hawai`i. The
strategic plan emphasizes biocontrol, marine issues and science based risk assessment.
Resources
Liz Corbin reported as Chair. Susan Gray-Ellis is a new staff member supporting thisworking group. Resources Working Group plan aims to find corporate funding sources
for some of the invasive species effort, document funding needs for addressing invasive
species, and identified a need to move projects funded by the HISC special
appropriations to departmental budgets where possible.
Member Lau indicated that some departments may be better placed than others to getfunds budgeted from the legislature to address invasive species issues.
West Nile Virus
Member Lau, Deputy Director of Environmental Health, HDOH, reported that HDOH wasvery grateful to the HISC for the funding received. HDOH has been very active withmany partners in their efforts to detect WNV in bird and mosquito populations andsuppress mosquitoes in high risk areas.
ITEM 6. HAWAII PACIFIC WEED RISK ASSESSMENT (HPWRA) PROGRESSREPORT
Mr. Chuck Chimera reported on progress in the use of the HPWRA. He described the
HPWRA process as an objective science based background check that is done on
introduced plant species, leading to a determination that a plant has a low risk or highrisk of becoming invasive (or there is insufficient information). Seven hundred andseventeen (717) species have been assessed to date, with one third being designatedas as high risk. Chimera has been reviewing species suggested for use as biofuels.
Sixty percent (60%) of these potential biofuel species are considered high risk. Chimera
previously worked with the landscape industry and early detection teams on Oahu, Maui,and Kauai. His efforts include a number of public outreach efforts. The same weed risk
assessment model was used in Australia where it was shown that within 10 years ascreening program pays for itself, in terms of costs avoided by keeping potential
invaders out of Australia. In addition, a similar model to the HPWRA is used to inform
technical advisory groups to make decisions about whether or not to allow new species
to be introduced. According to a recent landscape industry survey in Hawaii, 66% ofrespondents supported mandatory screening using input from the HPWRA andconcerned parties.

4

Deleted: Chair
Deleted: .

Co-chair Thielen suggested that work was needed to work one on one with government
agencies to ensure that planting lists are compatible with the HPWRA. Intensive one on
one work is needed with the agencies.
Christy Martin said that some progress has been made with arborists, Maui County, andothers, but that more needs to be done.
Co-chair Kunimoto asked about the cost and turn around time for users.
Chimera responded that many species are already assessed and the information is
publicly available. Return time is typically between one half to two days.
Co-chair Kunimoto recommended that more targeted outreach be undertaken to
promote the use of the HPWRA for planting programs.
Patrick Chee asked if such a recommendation could be dealt with through a rule making
process as mandated by the HISC legislature.
Co-chair Kunimoto said that the process of making rules under HISC was a larger issue
and at this time they would only consider the recommendation.
Co-chair Thielen recommended to adopt the motion with the amendment that HPWRA
and outreach staff work with state and county agencies to identify the ones with planting
guidelines, seeking to gain their support of this recommendation and informing them of
the weed risk assessment services we provide.

Motion: Thielen / Keeno moved to adopt staff recommendation: That stateagencies conducting planting operations request HPWRA scores, when available,
as one of the tools to assist decision makers in determining whether of not toplant a species. For species that have scored as potentially invasive in Hawai`i,
this information should underscore the need for containment plans or remediation
efforts if it becomes necessary. HPWRA and outreach staff should work withstate and county agencies to identify the ones with planting guidelines, seeking togain their support of this recommendation and informing them of the weed risk
assessment services we provide.

Approved as amended.

ITEM 7. BRIEFING ON CURRENT BIOCONTROL ISSUES INCLUDING PROPOSEDCONTROL OF STRAWBERRY GUAVA
Dr. Neil Reimer presented background information about biocontrol in Hawaii. Since
biocontrol was introduced in Hawaii in the 1890s, more than 240 biocontrol agents havebeen established. He noted that mongoose was not a biocontrol introduction.
The scientific process of selecting agents that are specific to the target has improved
significantly in the last 30 years with the emphasis now on eliminating any detrimental
environmental impacts. Since 1970 none of the biological control agents have attacked

5non-target organisms. USDA, FWS, HDOA and OEQC are involved in the regulation of
biological control introductions through a publicly consulted environmental assessment
process. He outlined as an example some efforts that are in progress to find abiocontrol agent for the Erythrina gall wasp, that attacks endemic Wiliwili trees, and otherintroduced species of Erythrina. He described some of the limitations of biocontrol, but
concluded the high benefit to cost ratio makes biocontrol a viable option for managing
some invasive species.
Tracy Johnson from USDA Forest Service works on biocontrol projects for invasiveplants that impact native forest in Hawaii. Johnson described a number of invasive alienplant species impacting native forests that may be targeted for biocontrol. He described
research initiated in 1988 to find a species specific biocontrol agent for strawberry
guava. The biocontrol agent they found, Tectococcus ovatus, is specific to strawberry
guava (does not attack any other species except strawberry guava),. The biocontrol
agent spreads via wind and it’s dispersal is passive.Hence the biocontrol spread is
expected to be slow. Federal environmental assessments and USDA and HDOA permit
reviews were completed and approved for the strawberry guava agent. The Forest
Service voluntarily initiated an environmental assessment process under state laws andmore outreach and public listening sessions are planned. Johnson showed picturesfrom Brazil of strawberry guava with infestations of Tectococcus right next to the healthy
common guava, which is historically more important in Hawaii as a crop. Strawberry
guava covers hundreds of thousands of land throughout Hawaii, and it’s range is still
expanding. He showed an image of highly impacted native forests where strawberry
guava prevents the regeneration of native ohia forests. The agent is expected to reduce
fruit productivity, much as it does in its native range in Brazil, where the cost of control
with mechanical means is high on a per acre basis, and requires continuous inputs.
Nevertheless, biocontrol is expected to be a cost effective means of reducing the rate of
spread.
An unidentified speaker asked whether both the types of strawberry guava would becontrolled. Johnson replied that both types would be controlled and reiterated that
common guava would not be impacted.
Anjie Pham thought strawberry guava was uncommon on Oahu and asked if native birds
depend on strawberry guava. Johnson responded that native birds did not depend on
strawberry guava, explaining that native birds typically feed on the nectar of ohia, orother native species; though alien birds are known to spread guava. Anjie expressed
concern about the aesthetics of the forest and the role
Phil Andresser asked for confirmation that the proposed biocontrol agent is a tool in the
toolbox that is expected to make all other control methods currently used more effective,
and that it would not kill trees outright. Johnson confirmed that this was the case.
Teya Penniman said that strawberry guava was controlled on Lanai to protect native bird
habitat, and that the personnel costs for this control exceeded $10,000 per acre.
Paul Conry asked that the Council support increased outreach efforts with respect toresponding to the public’s concerns as part of the environmental assessment process.
Anne Marie LaRosa wanted to clarify that biocontrol has never resulted in eradication in
Hawaii, and she could not think of any way for it to be eradicated with available

6resources; she believes strawberry guava is here to stay. She said that all we are trying
to do is keep it under control.
Co-chair Kunimoto asked for further comment from the Council
Member Lau noted that the recommendation was worded as a general recommendation
and asked whether it should be a specific recommendation about strawberry guava.
Second, he stated he would like some reassurance that we would not be making some
sort of decision that could be construed as bypassing the environmental assessment
process under the environmental laws. His sense was that we wouldn’t since it was a
voluntary submission, but was concerned with who would be the accepting agency? His
third concern was the budget related to strawberry guava and wondered what thebudgetary implications of that might be.
On Member Lau’s third concern, Co-chair Thielen said she thought the recommendation
should be a statement of general support for scientifically researched, regulated andapproved biocontrol as a tool for combating invasive species; because she has seenfrom the presentations that there are some invasive species that we will not be able tocontrol using labor. As long as thorough protections are in place, she said she hopesthat the council would support biocontrol. As far as the budget is concerned, shethought that would come up on a case by case. She did not think the generalrecommendation would have budgetary implications. She further stated that she thought
more information needs to be distributed, explaining that we are really trying to protect
native forests, habitats and ecosystems without eradicating a species that might havesome landscape value. She said she would support the recommendation of general andthe supplemental recommendation that encourage additional outreach on this particular
topic (strawberry guava control).
Member Lau wondered if this would lead to a request for more HISC funds.
Co-chair Thielen thought DLNR would be doing the environmental review under thestate EA process.
Christy Martin informed everyone that listening sessions are planned on each island tosupport the EA process and respond to public concerns, but clarified that there is nobudget request being made.
Member Lau recommended that we vote on the two issues separately. He said that weare making a general recommendation without budgetary implications.

Corbin / Callejo moved that the Council issue a statement of support forscientifically researched, regulated and approved biocontrol as a tool for
combating invasive species.
Motion approved as amended.
Thielen / Lau moved that the Council support a statewide outreach effort to
distribute information and address community concerns with respect to theTectococcus biocontrol Environment Assessment process.

7Motion approved.
ITEM 8. NEW BUSINESS
Staff Buddenhagen said that we need to arrange a meeting in August to approve thebudget. Co-Chair Kunimoto directed staff to find a common date and inform HISC.
Member Lau asked about status of the Brown Tree Snake (BTS) project, following
previous meeting’s substantial budget request. Dr. Campbell gave a quick update: BTS
is moving along with success, but still faces significant budgetary issues. Of the $6.2
million budget total, Department of the Interior (DOI) is currently providing $ 2.9 – 3
million and they are working on next year’s funding. The Department of Defense (DOD)
has different parts to it: the Air Force has put a $3 million line item into their budget; theNavy has not yet addressed this issue.

ITEM 9. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Cathy Goggel asked how to get minority issues considered by a WG, because membersof the public are supposed to participate as well, but the wording seems to say that the
majority of the WG may squash proposals for more humane disposal of animals.
Staff Buddenhagen said that the public is present at HISC/Working Group meetings andmay comment during the public comment period. Ms. Goggel indicated that the views ofminority opinions from the WG were not adequately addressed.
Co-Chair Kunimoto agreed that the comments at HISC and working groups would beincorporated into the minutes and posted on line for all to read. There should be a way
for us to be able to hear that.

ITEM 10. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 12:17 p.m. by Co-Chair Kunimoto, following motion from MemberLau.

8