HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 1013.003 2004-2006
COQUI FROG PLANS
ch61Wd Nand 990?
Comm. No. /01 303
Ref. ?o:.
Ref. Uote AUG 22 2~U6
O O 0 111 c g a g
c
;m
0 yz v 3W vc AD Dy m -0 -0
W z m~ cm 'C mm mIa ~D IS vD C}0
W a <O 0~ zm Z c m0 Cf: omi z, Dom, 0~
C) 0
-13 W
-n 0 =W 00 CA;a =a 00 ~3 vm no ~RD m A9. ~ Z
30 D D m n z = 1 D p: 0 3 m y (D m T 00 y y 0 x
° D Om d DZ R -lA n~ Zi c Zz C'>T
- 0 - o N d
CO) QD 2 RD O H O
• . . . . . .
0 CD x x r K m 5 m 71 K to -n m m o m 60 m O
Df
0 0 CD CD O 3 a 0 CL V c J N C J N v n < CL 0 CL CL 3
j O O N. N < I C Z N 3 7 y S.
r
m 0 < N N N m CD 0 m w ' CD
F D N CD N O
m E,
m ° l a o v o
y o !p O
(D w CD 0 0.
o w > > o o j o o C) 'D
G am 'm M
J
'0 -0 o m v ° o a n J G) N o 0
N v p m c - mo o O m CC
a rn p c CD
p 0. G
c c d CD
CL c fA
7 3 X
Z
" mmoxx CD ~tnK TD gvoCKC) pm0am oa0uT3 (n~z00- 'n
9 X J y 0 a 0 Q N D) l0 <'O D) (D N N N n 3 O N-0 (D aa N -0 N (D O O d A
N 0 0 O -O N y N< d N N fJN. Q N J N N C~ CD 0 -O ,C 7 a i J O
Oo
ync oo m~ m5oz aim~(De~ ~y a'7yo rtt Z 5'- m
.0 < 03 c 0-~a > T
00.<7 c w~-v Jc 0MCL0) NT 33 0
~ 00 Np
dK Jm m
0 O N T O N O 0 N N O c C a W N 0 o D, Q, O ° D N m 7 z' a C CD C N
9 co J 0 0 w o o (o m (D o D 0' = c m m 0 0 D 2. J T. O C7
0 F) 03 04 0 co, 'a SA C7 -n J n < N T p Z
7 N a N 0 d N N O O T N J O N S m 3 0 0
CD C 0) @c CD-U Saod(o p< J < G) 6V
0 CD CL -0 ~ -,O J~-0 5CD0 Jm 0
Jc D0) o ma~~ ~ m
O a U y 3 O v (n O N O N J (D (D a C J O 7 m z
-n CD j m J O J y. 1" 0 (D C O N c (0 7 O (p N J 7 N `2, N
CL (a d 0 CD N O O N X J d n N O O O D
w m CD :3 CD CD 7",
° a f° N Q J 0 < N N O N
j N O a a N O
C O Z
C p
- - v
r
z
a a m Dv m d; m v m m
0 0 a N -0 J a (D a
+-000 C N C a C N 7 C C
m CD 0 CD
T m
A O O 0 N "O a V 'O 'O -
. C. CD (D CD CD 0
O T go (D J rn J
3 T
C 0 N O (n (D CO 0 7 C/1 N W fp T Z
J y a N C a 0 C D7 Qo c N. 0 y 0, (A n i Z
='a c 5 v~ T a m
J D) 'a 0 'a N CD 0 NB N O CD Ifrw
O (°D `Z N CD -0 _fB
O (D N N N F
J N 0 0 0° O° m a) n 00 D> N I 0
N O flit ° O. CL N O
° V) C7 O p7 N 1 y d 7 d '
CO)
Ul CL
go I 'a -4
N N < O N' a
(D J
O N ) N C.
N (D
- INCIDENT ACTION PLAN
COQUI FROG CONTROL AND ERADICATION
`w.,. ISLAND OF HAWAII
JULY 1, 2005 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2006
VERSION 8/26/05
PRIORITY OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIES
OBJECTIVE 1. PROVIDE COMMUNITY SUPPORT TO CONTROL FROGS
• PROVIDE MINI GRANTS TO COMMUNITIES - COUNTY OF HAWAII
PROVIDE PUBLIC EDUCATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO CONTROL FROGS
AND THEIR SPREAD - CTAHR
• PROVIDE DIRECT CONTROL ASSISTANCE TO COMMUNITIES - USDA WS
• PURCHASE ADDITIONAL SPRAY EQUIPMENT/CONTRACT WATER HAULING
SERVICES FOR COMMUNITY LOAN PROGRAM - HIEDB
• ADMINISTER SPRAY EQUIPMENT LOAN PROGRAM TO COMMUNITIES AND
HOMEOWNERS - USDA WS
OBJECTIVE 2. ERADICATE INCIPIENT POPULATIONS
• UPDATE MAP OF FROG DISTRIBUTION USING HOTLINE DATA - BIISC/NWRC
• CONDUCT RECONAISANCE AND FIELD CHECKS TO DOCUMENT FROG
DISTRIBUTION - NWRC
• ERADICATE POPULATIONS IN OUTLYING AREAS OF THE CURRENT DISTRIBUTION -
USDA WS
• ERADICATE POPULATIONS TO PROTECT HIGH VALUE NATURAL AREAS - BIISC
OBJECTIVE 3. CONTROL THE SREAD OF FROGS ON COMMODITIES
• ENSURE THAT PLANT PRODUCTS SOLD AT ALL RETAIL OUTLETS ARE SANITIZED
AND FREE OF FROGS - HDOA PLANT PEST BRANCH
• PREVENT INTERISLAND SHIPMENT OF FROGS THROUGH PLANT COMMODITIES
THROUGH QUARANTINE AND SANITATION MEASURES - HDOA PQ
• PROVIDE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO NURSERIES, GREENHOUSES, FARMS TO
ENSURE THAT FROGS ARE NOT SPREAD THROUGH PLANT COMMODITIES - CTAHR
• OBTAIN DATA TO SUPPORT REGISTRATION OF HYDRATED LIME - NWRC/HDOA
PESTICIDES BRANCH
OBJECTIVE 4. DEVELOP AND IMPROVE METHODS TO CONTROL OF FROGS
• IMPROVE CHEMICAL CONTROL OF FROGS IN THE FIELD and COMMODITIES- NWRC,
HDOA PESTICIDES BRANCH
• IMPROVE CONTROL OF FROGS ON PLANT COMMODITIES - CTAHR
• DETERMINE ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS OF THE FROG INFESTATION - UH HILO
• DOCUMENT AND DETERMINE EFFICACY OF ALL EFFORTS TO CONTROL FROG
POPULATIONS - NWRC
THE COQUI FROG WORKING GROUP CONSISTS OF:
COQUI FROG COORDINATOR, COUNTY OF HAWAII
WILLIAM KENOI, COUNTY OF HAWAII
ARNOLD HARA, CTAHR
WILLIAM MAUZ, UH HILO
WILL PITT, NWRC
KYLE ONUMA, HDOA
TIM OHASHI (SHAYNE VERIATO AS ALTERNATE), WILDLIFE SERVICES
The CFWG will develop objectives and strategies and is comprised of a coordinator and section
chiefs charged with implementing the incident response plan.
Coqui Frog Working Group Coordinator (Incident Commander) - County Contractor
• A county contractor will serve as the chairperson of the CFWG and will be in charge
managing the incident response plan
• Coordinate activities of the county and cooperating agencies, section chiefs and community
groups
• Serve as spokesperson for CFWG
• Serve as legislative liaison
Operations Section Chief - Tim Ohashi, USDA APHIS WS
• Operations will be divided into two divisions: Wildlife Services Division and BIISC Division
• Wildlife Services Division will field crews to assist and support community efforts to control
frogs
• Wildlife Services Division will conduct direct control operations to eradicate incipient
populations not covered by BIISC
• BIISC Division will field crews to protect high value natural areas from infestations such as
those near the national park and natural areas reserve systems.
• Hawaii County Division will field crews to conduct control operations on County lands
especially solid waste transfer stations
• HIEDB will contract water hauling services for community operational support in catchment
areas
• County will provide water for community operations in non-catchment areas.
• CTAHR will field one two man crew during the summer to respond to small frog infestations
of 1-10 individuals during the summer
Reconnaissance, Planning and Evaluation Section Chief - Dr. Will Pitt, USDA APHIS WS
NWRC
• BIISC will continue to obtain data from HOTLINE and will provide to NWRC
• NWRC will update database and distribution map of coqui populations
• Updated maps will be provided to Operations Section to plan control of incipient populations
• NWRC will conduct reconnaissance activities to improve map and to assist in planning
control of incipient populations
• NWRC will evaluate Wildlife Services Division operations for efficacy and to recommend
retreatments.
Research and Development Section Chief- Dr. William Mautz, UH Hilo
There will be three areas of research coordinated by the R&D Section Chief. chemical
control, non chemical control, ecology
NWRC will conduct chemical control research and development
• CTAHR will conduct non chemical control research and development
• UHHILO will conduct ecological studies
• Ensure research information is shared among all section chiefs.
Education and Outreach Section Chief - Dr. Arnold Hara, CTAHR
• CTAHR will develop education and outreach materials and programs to inform public on all
aspects of coqui frog control
• CTAHR will develop press releases and other information to support CFWG activities
Regulatory and Commodities Section Chief - Kyle Onuma, HDOA
• HDOA will inspect, quarantine and regulate shipments of plant commodities to other islands
to ensure products are free of frogs and other pests
• HDOA will work with retail outlets to establish sanitation procedures to ensure that the public
purchases products free of frogs
• CTAHR will work with nurseries, greenhouses, farms to ensure that plant commodities are
free of frogs.
Finance Section Chief - William Kenoi, County of Hawaii
• The County will disperse current funding to appropriate agencies, purchase equipment and
supplies or delegate such tasks
0 Administer County Mini-Grant Program
yr..
r
C7~ r J
r
F
HAWAII COUNTY
COQUI FROG PLAN
August, 2004
Draft
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1
II. AUTHORITY
A. Federal Government 3
B. State Government 3
C. County Government 3
III. PROBLEM
A. Noise ..........................................................................................4
B. Ecosystem 4
C. Economy ....................................................................................4
IV. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 6
V. ACTION STEPS
A. Stop the Importation of Frogs into the State ..............................6
B. Stop the Spread of Frogs from Infested Areas
- to the Rest of the State 6
C. Stop the Spread of the Frogs from Infested Areas
to Other Parts of Hawaii Island 7
D. Eradicate and Control Existing Populations of Frogs 7
VI. RESOURCES
A. Government Agencies 8
B. Private Industry ..........................................................................8
C. Community Groups and Resources 8
VII. GAPS IN ACCOMPLISHING GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
A. Manpower ..................................................................................9
B. Equipment ..................................................................................9
C. Funding ......................................................................................9
D. Research and Development ....................................................10
E. Legislation ................................................................................10
VIII. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................10
HAWAII COUNTY COQUI FROG PLAN
Draft
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
In 1992, the first sightings of caribbean tree frogs, Eleutherodactylus
coqui, more commonly known as Coqui Frogs, were identified on the
Island of Hawaii. It is believed that their accidental introduction to the
Island of Hawaii occurred in the early 1990's when this alien species
hitched a ride in potted nursery plants.
The documented sightings and reports of the coqui frogs increased
from eight (8) reported sights in 1998 to over eighty-five (85) by 2001.
Currently, the coqui frog has established populations on the Islands of
Hawaii, Maui, Oahu, and Kauai. However, the largest numbers of
infestations, currently estimated at over two hundred (200) sites, are
on the Island of Hawaii. Maui has over forty (40) sites.
. The adverse and negative impacts from the coqui frogs are measured
by its loud and noisy mating calls, its high population density, and its
impact upon native species, the nursery industry, real property values,
and the peace and quiet of residents and visitors alike. The coqui's
loud calls are the mating sounds of the male frog and have been
measured at levels exceeding 70 decibels. Combined with population
densities that can exceed 8,000 individuals per acre, coqui infestations
present a serious threat to the quality of life for our Island residents.
Research on controlling the coqui frogs began in 1999 by the USDA
National Wildlife Research Center (NWRC), Hawaii Field Station, in
collaboration with the Hawaii State Department of Agriculture (DOA).
Early efforts were focused on finding a chemical (pesticide /
pharmaceutical) solution to eradicate and control coqui frog
populations. Initially, success was found with caffeine and pyrethroids
but the cost, effectiveness, and federal requirements proved to be
hurdles in establishing these chemicals as effective eradication and
control tools. In 2001, an ad hoc working group started an invasive
Species Management Plan.
1
• This working group consisted of members from the State Department
of Agriculture, Department of Land and Natural Resources, the
University of Hawaii, the United States Department of Agriculture
(Wildlife Services Division and the National Wildlife Research Center),
the County of Hawaii, private industry representatives, and community
associations. The goal was to establish a short-term, medium-term,
and long-term strategic plan focused on eradication and control of
coqui frog infestations.
• The initial focus of the Coqui Frog Working Group (CFWG) was to
increase communication between government agencies and private
entities to ensure cooperation and minimize duplication of efforts to
limit the spread of coqui frog populations. Bi-monthly meetings were
held between community stakeholders beginning in 2002. Laboratory
and field research, control and abatement efforts, chemical and
biological control methods, as well as educational materials were
developed over a two year period by the CFWG.
• On April 12, 2004, Mayor Harry Kim declared that a state of
emergency exists on the island of Hawaii due to the current and future
adverse impacts of coqui frog infestations on the environment, the
economy, and the health and safety of Island residents.
2
11. AUTHORITY
A. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
USDA - The Wildlife Services program of the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture is the Federal Agency authorized to manage
wildlife that threaten natural resources, agriculture and
human health and safety (46 Stat. 1468, 7 U.S.C. 426).
B. STATE GOVERNMENT
• DOA - The Plant Quarantine program regulates the inter-
island movement of plants infested with the coqui frog
(HRS 150A-2 & HAR 4-72-3,4). The DOA officially declared
the coqui frog a pest on September 27, 2001. The Plant
Pest Control Branch is tasked with controlling or eradicating
pests injurious to agriculture or vegetation. (HRS 141-3,
HAR 4-69A).
• DLNR - Species that are injurious to wildlife fall under the
jurisdiction of the DLNR. They are tasked with enforcing the
unlawful transportation or release of pests or harmful
organisms into the wild, into areas where they are not
established, or export from the State. (HRS Title 13,
Chapter 124).
• UH - The University of Hawaii, College of Tropical
Agriculture and Human Resources (CTAHR) is federally
mandated to fulfill the University's threefold land grant
mission of instruction, scientific research, and outreach to
address the State needs.
C. COUNTY GOVERNMENT
• OFFICE OF THE MAYOR - The County of Hawaii has
jurisdiction to execute and implement programs to safeguard
the health and well-being of its residents. The Office of the
Mayor, as the executive agency of the County, has the
authority to proclaim and declare a state of emergency if a
threat to the County exists (FIRS, Chapter 127 and 128,
Hawaii County Code, Chapter 7).
3
III. PROBLEM
A. NOISE
• The Department of Health established 70 decibels as the
maximum permissible sound level before the sound is
determined to be excessive noise (HRS 324F-1).
• The mating calls of coqui frogs have been measured in
excess of 70 decibels.
• The sound of a single coqui frog has been measured at
95 decibels at 50 cm.
• Population estimates for coqui frog infestations are
believed to exceed 8,000 individuals per acre.
• Multiple complaints have been received from residents that
coqui frog infestations are disturbing their sleep patterns
and adversely impacting their way of life.
B. ECOSYSTEM
• There is great concern that coqui frogs pose a threat to the
stability of Hawaii's native forest ecosystems.
T • The coqui frog could affect native bird populations by
competing for prey in native forests.
• The coqui frog consumes a wide variety of insects which
could negatively impact native invertebrates, many of
whom are already competing with non-native predators
and parasitoids.
There is no evidence that the coqui frog consumes
mosquitoes or termites, thus there is no positive impact of
their introduction into Hawaii's ecosystem.
• The food web of Hawaiian forests could be irreversibly
altered by dense populations of coqui frogs and their
impact upon native species.
• Coqui frogs could be a food source for future invasion of
brown tree snakes and contribute to an explosion of snake
populations if they are introduced to Hawaii.
C. ECONOMY
• Public and vendor concerns of purchasing plant material
infested with frogs could have adverse impacts on the
floriculture and nursery industry.
• The Island of Hawaii, with over $40 million in sales, ranks
number one in the State, with most of the nurseries in East
Hawaii, where coqui frog populations are highest.
4
• Shipments of plants to Oahu have been returned to Hawaii
Island after they were found to be infested with coqui frogs.
• A nursery shipment was destroyed in Guam after
inspection revealed that coqui frogs were contained in a
container.
• Hawaii Island Board of Realtors has expressed a desire to
eradicate and control coqui frog populations because of the
impact that the frog is having on sales and purchases of
real property.
• A recent survey of realtors revealed that between $4.6 to
6.5 million dollars of real estate transactions have been
affected because of coqui frog infestations.
• The impact of coqui frogs upon the visitor industry is not
known at this time but there is concern that there could be
an adverse impact if Hawaii becomes known for harboring
noisy pests.
5
IV. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
A. STOP THE IMPORTATION OF FROGS INTO THE STATE
B. STOP THE SPREAD OF FROGS FROM INFESTED AREAS
TO THE REST OF THE STATE
C. STOP THE SPREAD OF THE FROGS FROM INFESTED
AREAS TO OTHER PARTS OF HAWAII ISLAND
D. ERADICATE AND-CONTROL EXISTING POPULATIONS OF
FROGS
V. ACTION STEPS
A. STOP THE IMPORTATION OF FROGS INTO THE STATE
• More stringent inspection of incoming cargo from mainland
and foreign origins.
• More USDA and DOA personnel to execute inspections of
airport and harbor shipments.
• Stricter fines and penalties for importation of frogs by
importers and exporters of materials that harbor frogs.
• Dissemination of information and education of businesses
to avoid unintentional shipment of coqui frogs.
• Federal and State legislation to implement action steps.
B. STOP THE SPREAD OF FROGS FROM INFESTED AREAS
TO THE REST OF THE STATE
• More DOA personnel to conduct random inspections of
cargo containing nursery or plant material.
• More DLNR personnel to conduct enforcement of violations
of harboring and/or transporting declared pests.
• Stricter laws to put teeth into existing legislation regarding
the harboring and transportation of coqui frogs.
• Self-policing and education of wholesale and retail outlets
of potted plants and nursery materials to avoid the spread
of frogs to uninfested areas.
6
C. STOP THE SPREAD OF THE FROGS FROM INFESTED
AREAS TO OTHER PARTS OF HAWAII ISLAND
Spray and clean up transfer stations, which are infested
with coqui frogs, and serve as a source of unintentional
transport for coqui frogs
Work closely with nurseries, retail outlets, and
transportation companies to avoid transport of frogs to
other parts of Hawaii Island
Public education campaign utilizing all forms of media to
inform public about the different ways that coqui frogs can
be unintentionally transported
Identify all infestations on Island to contain existing sites
and avoid growth and spread of coqui frogs
D. ERADICATE AND CONTROL EXISTING POPULATIONS OF
FROGS
Support and encourage the USDA Wildlife Services to
implement their eradication and control plan that is focused
on coqui frogs on Hawaii Island.
Work with the Hawaii Invasive Species Council to
encourage the DOA and DLNR to conduct eradication and
control campaigns on State lands and in State parks.
Create County Task Force made up of county personnel to
conduct eradication frogs on County land (parks, dumps).
Empower and support community eradication and control
efforts through loan sprayer program.
7
VI. RESOURCES
A. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
• Federal - Funding request has been approved by the
USDA and is awaiting final approval from the Office of
Management and Budget in the amount of $3,000,000 a
year for 3 years. Monies are allocated for coqui frog
control for Hawaii Island.
• State - The Legislature passed a funding bill for the HISC
this past legislative session for $3,000,000 that is intended
to cover all invasive species for all Islands.
• County - The County appropriated $45,000 for an island-
wide loan sprayer program that is intended to support
community based efforts to eradicate and control coqui
frog populations.
B. PRIVATE INDUSTRY
• Currently, individual nurseries have been using their own
resources to clean, protect, and control coqui frogs on their
properties and within their businesses.
• Realtors have been meeting and are looking for ways to
support coqui frog control efforts.
• The Hawaii Visitors and Convention Bureau has been
contacted and asked to determine level of support of the
visitor industry to participate in control efforts.
• A couple of private parties have been attempting to provide
a fee for service for residents and businesses interested in
hiring contractors to perform coqui eradication and control.
To date, no significant effort has been established.
C. COMMUNITY GROUPS AND RESOURCES
• Hawaiian Paradise Park residents have established a Frog
Squad to control coqui frogs in their subdivision. To date,
they have raised nearly $30,000 from a small percentage
of property owners in the subdivision. They are working
closely with the USDA and the CFWG.
• Kohala residents have raised over $15,000 for coqui frog
eradication in their area. They have been successful thus
far in eradicating and controlling coqui frogs in Kohala.
• Kapoho residents have been using their own resources to
develop eradication and control techniques. They have
also been successful with their efforts thus far
8
VII. GAPS IN ACCOMPLISHING GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
A. MANPOWER
• To date, there is a shortage of manpower at every level.
Federal agencies, State agencies, and County agencies all
complain of a lack of dedicated manpower for coqui frog
control efforts. The Big Island Invasive Species Council
(BIISC) has recently lost all of its personnel because of
budget cuts. Community manpower is limited to specific,
motivated areas. Other communities, with elderly
populations, want to help control coqui frogs but are
physically unable to do the work.
• Each agency needs to commit a minimum amount of
manpower to this effort - at least to address coqui frog
populations on lands under their jurisdiction.
• Residents continue to call various departments looking for
governmental action but are disappointed when there is no
"strike force" to respond to their requests.
Ideally, private businesses will find it worth their effort to
focus on coqui frog control and eradication.
B. EQUIPMENT
• Power sprayers for coqui control have been purchased by
the DOA (4), community group Malama O Puna (2), and
soon, by the County and USDA (8). This will allow for
community groups and residents to use this equipment for
coqui control efforts in their neighborhoods
• Citric Acid and Hydrated Lime are effective chemicals that
can be used for coqui frog infestations. However, citric
acid can be costly and hydrated lime, although legal and
widely available, has not been certified as a registered
pesticide by the EPA and thus cannot be used by
government agencies.
• Power drenchers are being experimented with to determine
if they are effective in controlling coqui. The DOA and UH
will know its effectiveness by the end of the year.
C. FUNDING
• The legislative reference bureau, when tasked by the
legislature to report on invasive species, reported that
federal, state, and private agencies greatest challenge in
addressing invasive species is the same - "money".
9
The Coordinating Group on Alien Pest Species, in the
same legislative report, stated that funding for invasive
species is an "ongoing" cost and that to effectively fight
invasive species in Hawaii for one year would require
$49,847,000.
D. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
• Dr. Larry Woolbright, Professor from Sienna College in
New York and pre-eminent scholar on the coqui frog, will
be taking a research sabbatical from his job and spending
a year, 2005, in Hawaii doing research on the impact of the
coqui frog in Hawaii.
• Dr. Eloise Killgore, DOA, is continuing research into
chytridiomychosis, a fungus that kills frogs, and its viability
as a biological control of the coqui frog in Hawaii.
• Dr. Arnold Hara and Dr. Bill Maus (UHH) are continuing
their research into the biology of the coqui frog and
methods of destroying coqui egg clutches before they
hatch. Also, they are continuing to determine the efficacy
of habitat modification.
• Dr. Bob Sugihara and Dr. Will Pitt are continuing their
research to discover other chemical/pharmaceutical
methods of eradication and control of coqui infestations.
E. LEGISLATION
• The Hawaii Invasive Species Council, co-chaired by the
Directors of the DOA and DLNR, and including
representatives from each county and all relevant
departments (DBEDT, DOD, DOT, DOH) are tasked with
identifying and drafting relevant legislation for invasive
species impacting the State of Hawaii.
VIII. CONCLUSION
• It is critical that resources and manpower be dedicated towards coqui frog
control by all levels of government. It is also important to include the
private sector and community members in addressing this problem.
10
I
J'Z1 Or -
V' 4
Harry Kim Dixie Kaetsu
Mayor Managing Director
~W+R" •r a.
` ir• eiN~~ Peer L. Hendricks
Deputy Managing Director
County of Hawaii
25 Aupuni Street, Room 215 • Hilo, Hawaii 967204252 • (808) 961-8211 Fax (808) 961-6553
KONA: M6 Kuakini High::ay, Suite 103 Kai!ua .Kona, Hawa:'i 96740
(808)329-5226 • Fax (808)326-5663
WHEREAS, the Department of Health establishes 70 dBA as the maximum
permissible sound level before the sound is determined to be excessive noise as
defined in Hawai'i Revised Statutes Section 342F-1; and
WHEREAS, the Island of Hawaii has become infested by an invasive species of
Caribbean tree frog, Eleutherodactylus coqui, more commonly known as Coqui frogs,
since their accidental introduction on the Island of Hawai'i in the early 1990's; and
WHEREAS, in early 1992 there were only sporadic sightings of coqui frogs, in 1998
there were eight reported occurrences, in 2001 over 85 occurrences were
documented with another 65 occurrences that were undocumented, and now there
are over 150 firmly established specific sites on the Island of Hawaii; and
WHEREAS, in their native range on Puerto Rico, coqui populations can reach
densities greater than 8,000 individuals per acre and consume an estimated 47,500
prey per night per acre, and because Hawai'i is similar in climate to Puerto Rico but
without any natural predators, it is estimated that populations on the Island of Hawai'i
can reach ten times that reported for coqui in the native forests of Puerto Rico; and
WHEREAS, the infestation of Coqui frogs is in such concentrations that the sounds
they emit have been measured at sustained levels exceeding the Department of
Health's maximum permissible sound level of 70 dBA, and therefore have become a
threat to human health and welfare and unreasonably interferes with the comfortable
enjoyment of life and property; and
WHEREAS, it is unknown to what extent this invasive species will impact on the
native and endemic species of plant and animal and local ecosystems throughout the
Island of Hawai'i but researchers with the University of Hawaii have stated that with
the amount of food that a coqui population consumes per acre per night, that it will
irreparably harm our fragile ecosystem; and
WHEREAS, the Island of Hawai'i is known for its unique endemic ecosystems with
flora and fauna that are found nowhere else in the world and it is unknown what effect
this invasive species will have on these ecosystems; and
WHEREAS, the excessive noise emitted from Coqui frogs has caused a threat
! to the economic welfare of the Island of Hawai'i due to the possibility of quarantine
restriction and de-infestation measures being placed on floral and plant exports, upon
the important visitor industry, and upon sales of property; and
WHEREAS, the Coqui was declared an agricultural pest on September 27, 2001,
making shipments of plants infested with Coqui subject to quarantine according to
Chapter 150A-2 of the Hawai'i Revised Statutes and Sections 4-72-3 and 4 of the
Hawaii Administrative Rules, which has the potential to negatively impact grower
sales of HawaiTs floriculture industry which totaled $61.187 million in 2002, the
majority of growers being located in East Hawai'i where the Coqui frog infestation is
greatest; and
WHEREAS, the brown tree snake, which has devastated the ecosystem of Guam,
but has not yet established populations in the State of Hawai'i, will have a readily
available and abundant supply of food because of Coqui infestations and will allow
the brown tree snake to not only establish a foothold, but allow any infestation to
grow because of the density of populations of Coqui in certain parts of the Island of
Hawai'i; and
WHEREAS, the State of Hawai'i Department of Agriculture, the State of Hawai'i
Department of Land & Natural Resources, the University of Hawai'i College of
Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, and the United States Department of
Agriculture have been working closely with private sector businesses and
communities to try to address the Coqui frog infestation with very limited financial
resources, and have expressed the need for an influx of resources to mitigate this
problem; and
WHEREAS, the State of Hawaii Legislature enacted Act 85 in 2003 establishing the
Hawai'i State Invasive Species Council (HISC), providing statutory authority to the
Council to continue its special purpose to foster and organize coordinated
approaches among various executive departments, federal agencies, and
international and local initiatives for the prevention and control of invasive species
and to affirm the objective of the State to rid Hawai'i of invasive species; and
WHEREAS, the 2003 State Legislature authorized the creation of the Council and
stated that the invasion of Hawaii by alien species is the single greatest threat to
HawaiTs economy, natural environment, and the health and lifestyle of HawaiTs
people and visitors; and
WHEREAS, Hawai'i is one of only four states in the entire country that has
recognized the need for coordination among all state agencies, at a cabinet level, that
have responsibility to control invasive species on the ground, as well as regulate or
promote the pathways in which invasive species can gain access into the State of
Hawai'i; and
WHEREAS, due to the threat that excessive noise emitted by the Coqui frogs poses
to human health and welfare, the unknown impact of the Coqui frogs on the Island of
Hawai'i's ecosystems, as well as the threat to the economic welfare of the Island of
Hawai'i, and the need for government agencies and representatives from the private
sector to mobilize and provide immediate services to our island residents, a civil
defense state of emergency is authorized pursuant to Chapters 127 and 128, Hawai'i
Revised Statutes, as amended, and Chapter 7, Hawaii County Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, HARRY KIM, Mayor of the County of Hawaii, do hereby
proclaim and declare that a state of emergency exists on the Island of Hawai'i,
effective I=oo p.m., April v~- 2004, and continuing thereon until further
act by this office.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the
County of Hawai'i to be affixed. Done this I2'- day of ARri 1 2004, in
Hilo, Hawai'i.
HARRA YKI'b}-
Mayor
County of Hawai'i
COUNTY OF HAWAII
Emergency Action Plan for Coqui Frog
Short Term Plan
Goals & Objectives: Immediately assist ongoing efforts by Big Island communities to
mitigate coqui frogs in their own neighborhoods.
Accomplishments: 1) Reduce the noise around communities, 2) reduce the build-up
and spread of frogs, 3) show that the County is supportive of community programs, and
d) gain support for overall frog control project.
County of Hawaii: 1) designated a Coqui Frog Control Coordinator, 2) purchase 8 truck-
mounted sprayers @ $3,000 each for $24,000 total: 4 sprayers to be loaned out to
community groups for control on private lands, and 4 for County personnel to control
frogs on County lands, 3) purchase citric acid (hydrated lime when applicable) for
$26,000 total for use by County and community groups on a subsidized or cost-share
basis.
Hawaii Department of Agriculture: 1) Assist in providing statewide coordination during
interim until Hawaii Invasive Species Council provides oversight, 2) continue efforts to
develop an exemption for use of hydrated lime to control frogs, 3) assist in educating
the public and County personnel on controlling coqui frog, 4) continue Sprayer Loan
Program to assist communities, 5) assist nurseries and retail outlets to stop the spread
of frogs on and between islands, and 6) continue applied research on innovative
strategies to control frogs.
UH-CTAHR Manoa / Coqui Frog Working Group: 1) Continue research on frog biology,
habitat modification, and other control methods, 2) continue outreach and education of
nurseries, communities and general public, 3) solicit and gain political/public support of
project, and 5) advise County Coqui Frog Control Coordinator.
Private Parties: 1) Nurseries and other agricultural producers to control frogs on their
property and on plants prepared for distribution; 2) plant retailers to sell frog-free plants;
and 3) agricultural retail sales to provide reduced price for bulk shipments of chemicals,
use existing facilities to assist with storage and delivery, and help develop a plan for the
orderly distribution of chemicals to communities.
Communities in Greatest Need: Kurtistown, Mt. View, Pahoa, Ainaloa, Orchidland,
Hawaiian Paradise Park, Papaikou, Honaunau, Kainaliu, and Kukuihaele.
Total Cost: $ 24,000 - 8 100-gal. sprayers or 2-3 drenchers (hydrated lime only)
26,000 - for citric acid or hydrated lime (when applicable)
$ 50,000 -Total Cost
1
Medium Term Plan
Goals & Obiectives: With the Hawaii Invasive Species Council providing oversight,
develop a statewide coqui frog control plan with community groups and other County,
State and Federal agencies to address this problem on all islands.
Accomplishments: 1) Target specific County, State and Federal lands for frog control to
motivate all agencies and individuals to cooperate in the ongoing frog control program,
and 2) get other counties to follow suit by providing leadership by example.
County of Hawaii: 1) Coordinate and mobilize major frog control efforts where
applicable in various hot spots on the island, similar to the Lake Wilson effort, with
personnel from the County, State, Federal, Big Island Invasive Species Committee,
private parties, and military, 2) consider use of other strategies including aerial spraying,
controlled burning or land clearing with heavy equipment (dozers, cranes, dumpsters),
and 3) provide the equipment and logistical support to carry out these projects.
Department of Agriculture: 1) Support the Hawaii Invasive Species Council which
provides statewide oversight, 2) continue applied research to control the frog, 3)
continue to assist nurseries and retail outlets to stop the spread of frogs on and
between islands, 4) continue to inspect and monitor plants moving between islands for
frogs, 5) develop a monitoring program for intra-island shipments of plants at
designated sites on island, and 6) continue work on biocontrol.
UH-CTAHR Manoa / Coqui Frog Working Group: 1) Continue research and educational
outreach programs on frog, and 2) provide media with updates on project.
Department of Land and Natural Resources: 1) Support the Hawaii Invasive Species
Council which provides statewide oversight, 2) clear and treat frog-infested state lands
under their jurisdiction, especially those lands adjacent to communities, and 3) enforce
injurious wildlife laws pertaining to the intentional moving or harboring of the coqui frog.
Department of Health: 1) Support the Hawaii Invasive Species Council which provides
statewide oversight, 2) grant open burning permits where applicable to reduce frog
habitats, and 3) treat frog-infested lands under their jurisdiction, especially those lands
adjacent to communities.
USDA - Wildlife Services: 1) Educate regarding need for more federal monies to
control the frog, 2) work with county to develop Environmental Assessment or
Environmental Impact Statement to conduct large scale projects listed above, 3)
continue to obtain and provide testimony on the seriousness of this invasive species, 4)
continue research on alternative toxicants for the frog, and 5) continue to maintain
hotline with BIISC on frogs.
Big Island Invasive Species Committee: 1) Maintain frog hotline, 2) continue database
and mapping of frog populations, 3) assist USDA-WS and Volcanoes National Park
2
r' personnel in treating that and surrounding areas, and 4) assist in treating remote areas
where rappelling may be necessary.
Areas in Greatest Need: County, State and Federal lands that are adjacent to
communities and/or other areas where active frog control is being practiced.
Total Cost: $500,000 - funds to be disbursed by Coqui Frog Control Coordinator to
County, State and Federal agencies assisting the county in
controlling frogs on County, State and Federal lands on the
Big Island.
Long Term Plan
OPTION A
Goals & Objectives: Control the coqui frog biologically by releasing a pathogen or other
natural enemy that targets the coqui frog.
Accomplishments: 1) Obtain chytrid fungus or other natural enemies of the coqui frog
for potential biocontrol, 2) test natural enemies of the coqui frog in a Quarantine Facility
for effectiveness and possible impact on non-target species, 3) request and receive
approval for release from quarantine, 4) release and evaluate effectiveness of biocontrol
agent.
County of Hawaii: Continue to support ongoing efforts to biologically control the coqui
frog.
Department of Agriculture: 1) Obtain chytrid fungus and/or search for other potential
biocontrol agents, 2) test suitability in quarantine, 3) request and receive approval for
release, 4) release and evaluate effectiveness of biocontrol agent.
UH-CTAHR / Coqui Frog Working Group: Support department's biocontrol efforts.
Areas in Greatest Need: Entire State of Hawaii.
Total Cost: $ 10,000 - cost to retrieve chytrid fungus
35,000 - explorations in Puerto Rico for natural enemies of frog
5,000 - incidentals
$ 50,000 -Total Cost
OPTION B
Goals & Objectives: Control the coqui frog genetically by 1) incorporating new and
potentially deleterious genes into the genetic makeup of the coqui frog population, 2)
3
"knocking out" or silencing developmental genes arresting frog development leading to
death, or 3) develop reproductive sterility in coqui frogs.
Accomplishments: 1) By manipulating coqui-specific DNA sequences, design a short
sequence that will prove lethal to developing embryos, 2) formulate RNAi (interference)
that can be applied in the field as a species specific growth inhibitor of coqui frogs, and
3) develop a chemosterilant that could be specific to the coqui when applied in the field.
County of Hawaii: Continue to support ongoing efforts to genetically control the coqui
frog.
UH-CTAHR / Coqui Frog Working Group: 1) Acquire graduate students and post
doctorate researchers and technicians to conduct research, 2) contract research with a
leading frog genetic research laboratory, 3) release and evaluate effectiveness of
genetic control.
Department of Agriculture: Support the college's genetic control efforts.
Areas in Greatest Need: Entire State of Hawaii.
Total Cost: $ 300,000 - personnel
50,000 - equipment
100.000 - materials & supplies
$ 450,000 - Total Cost (3-year budget)
4
Coqui Frog Control Plan for State of Hawaii
February 2004
by Hawaii Department of Agriculture
Coqui Frog Working Group
Purpose - To control the coqui frog on all islands in the State of Hawaii where it is
causing nuisance, environmental and economic problems by its sheer numbers and
loud mating calls.
Strate -The coqui frog problem is larger than what can be handled by any single
government agency. This strategy relies on the public to help control the frog on private
lands and government agencies to control frogs on public lands. Since the frog is not
equally distributed throughout the State and each county may have specific priorities for
control, the coordination of control activities in each county is best determined by the
county itself with technical assistance from Coqui Frog Working Group (CFWG) that
was organized in Hilo, Hawaii in June 2002 to address the coqui frog crisis. The
purpose of the CFWG is to serve as a source of diverse technical and scientific
expertise, provide a forum for sharing results of research, encourage networking
between various government agencies (i.e. federal, state, county) and the private sector
(i.e. nurseries, retail outlets etc.), consolidate government agencies' manpower, assets,
and expertise to improve cost effectiveness, and to reduce redundancy of multi
organizational efforts in controlling the coqui frog.
Three Point Plan - Funding can be designated to one entity that disburses funds to
each county or be disbursed directly to each county. Funding should be based on
need, be used to address the immediate problems first, and used in a way that results in
the greatest impact with the. limited funds available.
1. Empower the public to control the frog on their own properties (short-
term goal).
A. Each county needs to provide the necessary equipment and supplies to
control the frog, and designate a Coqui Frog Coordinator to disseminate
frog control information and coordinate control activities in that county.
- Coqui Frog Working Group will include representatives from each
county and advise the county coqui frog coordinators.
- Univerisity of Hawaii (UH), Hawaii Department of Agriculture
(HDOA) and the Invasive Species Committees in each county
(ISC) will assist counties during interim by providing knowledge
about the frog and its weaknesses, and control strategies.
B. Each county needs to develop a Sprayer Loan Program for their islands.
1
- Counties needs to purchase large power sprayers to loan out to
community associations and other volunteer groups.
Decision needs to be made by each county as to whether county
can purchase citric acid or other toxicants, or whether community
groups need to purchase their own.
C. Community associations and volunteer groups need to take responsibility
for controlling the frog in their own backyards where frogs are causing
problems.
- Groups need to get permission from property owners before
spraying, forewarn property owners that spraying is to take place,
and spray in a responsible manner.
- Groups need to borrow equipment from county and be prepared
to purchase citric acid or other toxicant on their own accord.
D. Resources needed for each county (Update needed).
$50,000 for Hawaii (8 power sprayers @ $3,000 each + toxicants)
- $15,000 for Maui (2 power sprayers @ $3,000 each + toxicants)
$15,000 for Kauai (2 power sprayers @ $3,000 each + toxicants)
- $15,00 0 for Oahu (2 power sprayers @ $3,000 each + toxicants)
$95,000 Total for all counties
2. Empower government agencies to control the frog on public lands for
which agencies are responsible (medium-term goal).
A. Leadership is needed for all county, state, and federal agencies within a
county to get involved to do their part in controlling the frog on their lands
which they manage or are responsible.
- Target specific County, State or Federal lands for cooperative
control effort.
- Coordinate and mobilize major frog control effort to provide
leadership and to motivate participants.
- County Coordinators and their Mayor's Offices need to meet with
and influence other agencies to work together in reaching a
common goal to reduce frog numbers in problem areas.
B. Government agencies need to know how the frog directly impacts their
missions and responsibilities, i.e., the frog's impact on the nursery
industry, or the frog's impact on native insects that serve as food for native
2
birds and pollinators of native plants; or the frog's impact on the social
well-being and health of a public that is exposed to the constant noise; or
the frog's impact on land values, property tax and tourism due to its noise.
- UH, HDOA and others need to assist in developing the "story
C. County, state, and federal agencies need to start spraying on their lands,
especially those lands that border communities that are trying to control
the frogs themselves.
- Affected agencies need to designate personnel and set aside
funds for sprayers and citric acid, or if need be, redirect existing
funds to control frogs.
D. Reduce the movement of frogs from one island to another or from one
location to another.
- HDOA needs to strengthen interisland quarantine inspections.
- Other agencies need to enforce existing rules on the movement
or transport of pests or injurious animals from one location to
another.
E. Resources needed for all counties (Update needed)
- $500,000 for County of Hawaii
- 100,000 for Maui, Kauai and Oahu
$600,000 Total for all counties
3. Continue the research on finding a more cost-efficient control solution
for the frog (long-term goal).
A. Seek Quarantine Exemption for use of hydrated lime as a frog toxicant.
(Accomplished).
- HDOA is running tests with hydrated lime and citric acid and will
push for exemption
B. Screen registered pesticides for use against coqui frogs.
(Ongoing)
- USDA National Wildlife Research Center and HDOA are
conducting trials.
C. Search and study internal parasistes of coqui frogs from Puerto Rico in a
long-term biocontrol program
(Ongoing)
3
UH and HDOA to conduct quarantine studies on potential
biological control agents.
D. Research ways to treat plants for frogs before export, movement, or sale.
- UH-CTAHR is conducting research on hot water treatments and
other methods (Accomplished).
E. Investigate barriers and traps to prevent frogs from infesting nurseries.
(Ongoing)
F. Research ways to control the frog genetically.
- UH, other universities or research centers with expertise in frog
genetics should conduct research to control coqui frog by
incorporating new deleterious genes in frog population, by
"knocking out" developmental genes, or by inducing reproductive
sterility in the coqui frog (sterility by irradiation is planned by UH-
CTAHR)
G. Resources needed to conduct research (Update needed).
$ 50,000 for UH and HDOA biological control of frogs
450.000 for genetic control of frogs
$500,000 total costs
Total Resource Needs (Update needed)
Resource needs for short- and medium-term control are for first-year only. Subsequent
year costs are dependent on quality of treatments and the weather. Long-term control
costs are for the first 3 years.
$ 95,000 Short-term Control
600,000 Medium-term Control
500,000 Long-term Control
$1,195,000 Total Cost of Statewide Frog Control Program.
4
t)epartment
USDA ofAgriculture.
STATE OF HAWAII
Invasive Carribean Tree-Frog (Eleutherodactylus)
Eradication and Control - State of Hawaii
Invasive Species Management Plan
Draft Prepared by:
United States Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Wildlife Services
State of Hawaii
Department of Agriculture
Ver. March 31, 2003
or.r
Executive Summary
This Invasive Species Management Plan was developed to control Caribbean tree frogs from commercial
nurseries and eradicate incipient populations found in the state of Hawaii. Hawaii's climate is similar to the
frogs native range of Puerto Rico. The frog populations are expected to reach 8,000 individuals per acre and
consume an estimated 47,500 prey per night which will pose a threat to native forest ecosystems. High
densities of tree frogs can reach a noise level of 70 decibel's which may affect residential land values and the
tourism industry in Hawaii. Public concern over purchasing plant material infested with the tree frogs is
beginning to have an adverse impact on the floriculture and nursery product industry. Tree frogs are found on
the island of Hawaii, Oahu, Maui and Kauai. Established sites include commercial plant nurseries, residential
areas, resorts and hotels, public parks and within forest areas. The frogs are being spread primarily through
transportation of infested plant material. Research on controlling the tree frogs began in 1999 by the USDA
National Wildlife Research Center (NWRC), Hawaii Field Station. Laboratory tests were conducted to evaluate
substances that might be used in controlling the frogs. NWRC found that dermal exposure to a 2% solution of
caffeine and water caused 90% or greater mortality. As a result of the caffeine tests, a one year Federal
Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), Section 18 Specific Emergency Exemption was issued by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on September 27, 2002. Hawaii Department of Agriculture
Pesticides Branch imposed additional restrictions to caffeine use. Because of the restrictions there was no
operational use of the caffeine to control the frogs for most of the exemption. The authorization expired on
September 27, 2002. Wildlife Services (WS) has applied for a FIFRA Section 18 Quarantine Exemption to
continue to make caffeine available, to allow nursery growers to use caffeine in solution to control frogs on plant
products.
Further research by NWRC found that citric acid at a concentration of 16% was also effective at killing
Caribbean tree frogs. Citric Acid is an exempt active ingredient according to the EPA. Currently, citric acid has
been cleared by HDOA for general use to control Caribbean tree frogs. Due to very high populations of coqui
frogs at Lava Tree State Park a multi-agency pilot project was implemented on December 2002. Labor crews
cleared all non native understory and subcanopy vegetation and research crews sprayed a 16% solution of
citric acid later at night. The project showed that vegetation removal along with the citric acid spraying was
highly effective against frogs in a control operation. The use of citric acid will prove to be a valuable tool to the
residential property owner.
The application of hot water at 45 degrees Celsius to plants for 3 minutes was also found lethal. Further tests
showed that Vapor Heat Treatments were also very effective. Hawaii Board of Agriculture has declared the
coqui frog an agricultural pest, thereby restricting the movement of plant products between the islands if they
are infested with the frogs. Recently two shipments of plants arriving on Oahu were found to be infested with
frogs were sealed and returned to the island of Hawaii at the shipper's expense. The transport of frogs around
the state is an illegal activity, but the law requires proof of intent to deliberately spread the frog, which is difficult
to prove. Despite this warning, frogs are still being dispersed through the potted and cut plant trade, through
wholesalers and retail garden outlets. Currently Wildlife Services, CTAHR and the Hawaii Department of
Agriculture are actively working with community and neighborhood associations to provide technical assistance
in controlling frog infestations on the island of Hawaii.
When funded this ISMP proposes to apply control and eradication efforts over the next 4 years, on the coqui
and green house frogs to reduce and eliminate their numbers in an integrated pest management approach.
Carribean Tree Frog Control and Eradication
2
I Introduction
This Invasive Species Management Plan (ISMP) was developed to eradicate and control
populations of Caribbean tree frogs (Eleutherodactylus coqui and E. planirostris) in the State
of Hawaii. It incorporates a previous plan for controlling the frogs that was produced by an
ad hoc working group consisting of the Hawaii Department of Agriculture (HDOA), Hawaii
Pest Control Association, Wildlife Services National Wildlife Research Center, hotel industry
representatives and the County of Hawaii (Hawaii Export Nursery Association 2001). The
current ISMP was further developed after discussions and reviews by the County of Hawaii,
the University of Hawaii Cooperative Extension Service, Hawaii Department of Agriculture,
the National Wildlife Research Center and industry representatives. Plan revisions were
made after the implementation of a successful multi-agency pilot project at Lava Tree State
Park in Pahoa, East Hawaii to control the Caribbean tree frogs using vegetation removal and
citric acid. The objectives of the proposed Plan are to reduce or eliminate the high density
populations near commercial nurseries and eradicate incipient populations wherever they
occur.
11 Need for Action
In its native range on Puerto Rico, coqui populations can reach densities greater than 8,000
individuals per acre (20,000 per hectare) and consume an estimated 47,500 prey per night
per acre (114,000 prey per night per hectare) (Kraus et al. 1999). Since Hawaii's climate is
similar to that of Puerto Rico, it is expected that the frogs will also reach these or higher
densities in Hawaii (HDOA 2001 a). At one collection site on the island of Hawaii, 105 frogs
were collected from a 538 ft2 (50 m2) area in 50 minutes (Kraus et al. 1999). Based on this
collection rate, the population estimate for this site is believed to be ten times that reported
for coqui in native rainforests in Puerto Rico (Kraus et al 1999)
There is great concern that Caribbean tree frogs pose a threat to the stability of Hawaii's
native forest ecosystems. The majority of native birds are partially or wholly insectivorous.
The Caribbean tree frogs could indirectly effect some populations of these birds if the frogs
spread to native forest bird ranges. None of the known sites are inhabited by endangered
species but there is potential for the frogs to enter areas where threatened or endangered
species are present (HDOA 2001a). Coqui have been found in Volcano Village, which is
adjacent to Hawaii Volcanoes National Park and nearby Kilauea Forest Reserve where
endangered species are present.
High densities of the coqui frog in residential areas have become a noise nuisance due to the
male's loud calls which can reach 70 decibels. Complaints have been reported from
residents and tourists who are disturbed by calling frogs (Kraus et.al. 1999). There is
concern that the coqui frogs will impact the tourism industry and have a negative effect on
property values.
Vendor and public concern over purchasing plant material infested with frogs is beginning to
have some impact on the floriculture and nursery products sales. Grower sales of Hawaii's
floriculture and nursery products totaled a record $75.4 million in 1999. Hawaii is now
ranked third in the nation in volume of sales, exceeded only by Florida and California. Hawaii
Carribean Tree Frog Control and Eradication
3
Island, with $41.6 million in sales, ranked number one among the islands in 1999 with most
M of the nurseries located in East Hawaii which is the core frog infested area (HASS 2001).
III Actions Taken
The coqui and greenhouse frogs are two relatively recent invasive species introduction$ to
Hawaii (Kraus, et.al. 1999). They are both native to the Caribbean, although one or both
have become established in the states of Florida, Louisiana and Alabama (Kraus et.al. 1999).
Unconfirmed reports of one or more of these species were first reported in Hawaii as early as
1988 (Kraus et. al. 1999).
In early 1992 there were only sporadic sightings of the Caribbean tree frogs on the island of
Hawaii with later reports of some nurseries on Maui. In early 1998, eight occurrences were
reported, but 2.5 years later, over 85 occurrences were documented and another 65 were
reported but unconfirmed (HDOA 2001b). The coqui is now firmly established at more than
200 specific sites on the island of Hawaii and about 40 sites on Maui. Incipient populations
are also reported on Kauai and Oahu. The greenhouse frog more widespread than the coqui
frog and is found on all the major Hawaiian Islands. The established sites include
commercial plant nurseries, residential areas, resorts and hotels, public parks and sites
within forests. The Caribbean tree frogs are being spread to additional sites primarily
through the transportation of infested plant material (Kraus et.al. 1999). There are also
unconfirmed reports of deliberate dispersal of tree frogs by individuals (HDOA 2001b).
Research
Research on controlling the tree frogs began in 1999 by the USDA National Wildlife
Research Center (NWRC), Hawaii Field Station, under contract with HDOA. Laboratory
tests were conducted to evaluate more than 40 commercially registered pesticides and
selected household and pharmaceutical substances that might be used in controlling tree
frogs in Hawaii (Campbell 2001 a). Caffeine and resmethrin (a synthetic pyrethroid based
aerosol pesticide) showed success in killing the tree frogs in the laboratory.
Despite its effectiveness, the Resmethrin aerosol product was not considered a likely
candidate for the control of tree frogs in Hawaii. Designed for spot treatment of plants in the
nursery or around the garden, the aerosol product would be costly and impractical for wide-
scale control of tree frogs (Campbell, 2001 a).
Dermal exposure to 1-2 percent caffeine to water caused 90% or greater mortality to both
species of frogs. Field efficacy trials subsequently were conducted by NWRC to test the
application of caffeine solutions for controlling the frogs in floriculture and nursery crops in
Hawaii (Campbell 2001 b). These trials showed that a single spray application of 2 percent
concentration caffeine solution caused a 90-100% decline in the relative abundance of tree
frogs (Campbell 2001 b). Concentrations down to 0.5 percent were tested with similar
success depending on the dermal exposure, density and type of foliage (HDOA 2001b).
Carribean Tree Frog Control and Eradication
4
Based on these results, NWRC and HDOA requested and received a Section 18 exemption
to use caffeine. However, due to its restricted use labeling requirements operational use was
never adopted in Hawaii.
Citric acid has shown some promise in proving lethal to Caribbean tree frogs under
laboratory conditions. Citric acid is a pesticide substance that is exempt from FIFRA
requirements (40 CFR Part 152). NWRC initially tested citric acid in the laboratory after
learning of its use to control Cuban Tree Frogs by a former Honolulu Zoo curator of reptiles
and amphibians. Under laboratory conditions, NWRC found that it was effective at killing the
two species of Carribean tree frogs at all citric acid: water concentrations at or above 16%
(64, 32, 16,12, 10, 8, & 4% tested). The citric acid effect was found to be dosage dependent
with differential efficacy at dosage levels less than 0.9 ml solution directly applied to the frog.
Further tests were conducted by HDOA, NWRC and CTAHR to determine plant phytotoxicity,
and a demonstration project at Lava Tree State Park was planned to determine its
effectiveness under field conditions and to determine whether there were any adverse effects
on nontarget species.
Citric acid is an exempt active ingredient per 40 CFR 152.25(g), and according to EPA, no
consideration needs be given to its effect on non-target species and or ground water. Water,
the other ingredient in the proposed formulation is exempt per 4A of the regulation. The
proposed use is exempt from federal EPA oversight and no further testing is required by EPA
for operational use. Currently, citric acid has been cleared for general use to control tree
frogs by HDOA.
Pesticide Registration
As a result of the caffeine tests, the Hawaii Department of Agriculture and the Department of
Land and Natural Resources applied for a Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA) Section 18 Specific Emergency Exemption to treat up to 1,200 acres with caffeine to
control the tree frogs in order to protect the native biota. The exemption was granted for one
year by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) beginning September 27, 2001.
HDOA, Pesticides Branch, imposed additional specific restrictions on the use of caffeine
since caffeine, a common food additive, has never been registered for use as a pesticide.
Some of the restrictions have been questioned as too restrictive, e.g., requiring areas to be
sealed off for 24 hours after treatment by more than just warning signs or a tape and
requiring security guards or police to be posted to prevent entry and limiting the use of
caffeine solely to persons certified to use restricted pesticides (not by persons under the
supervision of a certified applicator). Due to these requirements, there was no operational
use of caffeine to control the tree frogs for most the exemption period by either private or
public sectors. Only at the very end of the exemption period was a caffeine application
conducted on Maui by the Maui Invasive Species Committee (MISC) specifically to obtain
efficacy and nontarget effects data that were required by EPA. The MISC application of
caffeine was the first test of the efficacy of caffeine in a large-scale field application.
Carribean Tree Frog Control and Eradication
5
WS has applied for a FIFRA Section 18 Quarantine Exemption to allow nursery growers to
continue to use 2 percent caffeine and water solution to control frogs on plant products. The
quarantine exemption allows EPA to authorize an exemption for up to 3 years.
Further experimental work has been conducted by the State of Hawaii Department of
Agriculture and the University of Hawaii - College of Tropical Agriculture and Human
Resources, to identify a broad spectrum pesticide that can be used by the public, without a
commercial pesticide license. Likely candidates are products that contain pyrenone or other
synthetic pyrethroids (HDOA 2001), hydrated lime, lime sulfur and citric acid. Hydrated lime
proved to be effective, but HDOA was not optimistic that hydrated lime, a soil amender,
would be registered as a pesticide product, since the manufacturers that were contacted did
not want to bear the heavy regulatory burden of registering the substance as a pesticide.
Operations
On October 1, 2002, WS and CTAHR entered into a cooperative service agreement to begin
the initial phases of ISMP to suppress, control and eradicate Caribbean tree frog populations
in the State of Hawaii. The planned activities covered under this agreement did not cover
the full array of actions necessary to completely manage the frog problem, but it covered key
components of the ISMP such as complying with the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), applying for a Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Section
18 Quarantine Exemption to use caffeine in solution to control the frogs, conducting research
to develop methods to control frogs, and to begin some operational control on the islands of
1 Kauai and Hawaii
A multi-agency demonstration pilot project was implemented in December 2002 at Lava Tree
State Park in Pahoa, Puna District, on the island of Hawaii. Lava Tree State Park was
considered to have the highest coqui frog population density in the state. Labor crews
cleared the nonnative subcanopy and ground vegetation in an area slightly less than 2 acres.
The plant material was mulched and piled on site. Research crews then sprayed a 16
percent solution of citric acid to the site. Then the mulch was spread over the site. The
project proved that vegetation removal was an important factor in controlling the frog
numbers, and that citric acid was highly effective against frogs in a control operation.
Further tests will be made to determine the efficacy of using citric acid in a control operation
without clearing the vegetation.
Plant Sanitation
The application of hot water at 45 degrees C (113 degrees F) to plants for 3 minutes was
found to be lethal to Eleutherodactylus frogs on potted tree seedlings (Arnold Hara, pers.
comm). An apparatus was developed by the University of Hawaii at Hilo, the Cooperative
Extension Service and the Hawaii Division of Forestry and Wildlife at the tree nursery in Hilo
in which potted plants move under a conveyor belt through the hot water treatment. Frogs
were killed when subjected to this hot water treatment. The treatment can be applied to
commercial nursery operations. Further tests showed that vapor heat treatment used to
control fruit flies in papaya, was also effective in killing tree frogs (Hara pers. comm.).
Carribean Tree Frog Control and Eradication
6
A protocol for inspecting, sanitizing and modifying habitats was distributed to the nursery
industry by the Hawaii Department of Agriculture. Hawaii Board of Agriculture has since
declared the coqui frog an agricultural pest, thereby restricting the movement of plant
products between the islands if they are infested with the frog. As recently as August 2002,
two shipments of plants arriving on Oahu were found to be infested with the frogs, sealed
and returned to the island of Hawaii at the shipper's expense. While the majority of plant
shipments have passed inspections for the frog, at least half a dozen other plant shipments
have been held on the island of Hawaii because of frog infestation (Hawaii Tribune Herald
2002). Citric acid is now being used to sanitize exported nursery plants that show no signs of
phytotoxicity to the solution; but citric acid can cause leaf chlorosis to some delicate plants
and flowers, however, rinsing plants with tap water after spraying minimizes damage.
Alternative treatment techniques are is being sought by NWRC and CTAHR.
Legal Efforts
The transport of coqui frogs around the state is an illegal activity, but the law requires proof of
intent to deliberately spread the frog, which is difficult to prove. In a letter to the floriculture
and nursery plant industry dated June 28, 2000, the Department of Land and Natural
Resources reminded the industry that spreading the frogs was illegal and asked the industry
to ensure that frogs were not spread through their trade. Despite this warning, frogs are still
being dispersed through the potted plant and cut flower trade, through wholesalers and retail
garden outlets.
1
Information and Coordination
Informational and planning meetings have been held with key officials from federal, state and
county agencies and with stakeholder associations in Hawaii. An initial control plan was
developed by the Hawaii Department of Agriculture and presented to the Hawaii Export
Nursery Growers. A Coqui Frog Working Group was organized by the Dr. Arnold Hara of
the CTAHR. The group was comprised of industry representatives and federal, state and
county agency officials. The purpose of the working group was to meet regularly to share
information and determine how best to control the spread of the tree frogs. The group met
monthly and provided a forum for information sharing, planning operations, inspections,
research, control and outreach.
A number of pest alert leaflets and brochures have been produced by CTAHR and Wildlife
Services. CTAHR also produced a video that was aired on the public access channel.
Wildlife Services, CTAHR and the Hawaii Department of Agriculture are actively working with
community and neighborhood associations to provide basic information and technical
assistance in controlling frog infestations on the island of Hawaii. To date, meetings have
been held with the Nanawale Community Association in Pahoa, Honokaa-Kukuihaile
Community Association and the Ainaloa Community Association in Keaau. The Hawaii
Department of Agriculture has purchased five 100 gal. tanks and spray pumps to loan to
community groups to control the frogs.
Carribean Tree Frog Control and Eradication
7
IV Life History of the Carribean Tree Frogs
Hara et al. (2002) provide a life history summary of the coqui frog. The coqui frog is a native
of Puerto Rico where it has been extensively studied in the field and laboratory with respect
to its development, morphology, metabolism, neurophysiology and reproduction (Campbell
2001 a). The developmental biology of the coqui frog is not typical of common bullfrogs,
because the fertilized egg undergo direct development rather than passing through a free-
living, tadpole stage. Standing water is not required for egg-laying (Townsend and Stewart
1985, 1994). Coqui deposit 4-6 clutches of about 28 eggs each (range 16-41) per year, with
a developmental period of 17-26 days, a time between clutches of about eight weeks, and a
time between generations (i.e., from egg-laying adult) of about eight months (Townsend and
Stewart 1994, Kraus et al. 1999). Males guard the eggs to keep them from drying out
(Taigen et al. 1984) and in severely dry conditions they will leave the nest, gather moisture,
and return to rehydrate the eggs (Michael 1995).
In its native range, coqui frogs consume a diet consisting mostly of insects, but may include
other invertebrates, such as mollusks, arachnids, centipedes and millipedes (Stewart and
Woolbright 1996). Hymenopterans, primarily ants, accounted for 38 percent of the total
number of prey found in coqui stomachs but made up only 6 percent of the prey volume due
to their relatively small size. Orthopterans, primarily crickets and roaches, accounted for 70
percent of the total prey volume (Stewart and Woolbright 1996).
Numerous invertebrates and at least 19 species of vertebrates feed on coqui frogs in its
j native range. Vertebrate predator species include two frogs, three lizards, three snakes, eight
birds and three mammals, with birds consuming the most frogs (Stewart and Woolbright
1996). By far the major predators on coqui eggs are the coqui themselves. Both sexes but
especially males will eat coqui eggs (Townsend 1984, Townsend et al. 1984). Parental male
coqui frogs may eat their own eggs if disturbed early during brooding. Egg-eating by other
males is a common behavior in coqui, hence the males defend the egg clusters (Hara et al.
2002).
V Carribean Tree Frog Distribution
As of June 2002 Caribbean tree frogs have been reported from 327 sites occupying
approximately 2,000 acres on the islands of Hawaii, Maui, Oahu and Kauai, which is .028
percent of the total land area of the state. The populations are fairly discrete. A few sites on
the island of Hawaii have population densities that are high, but they occupy only a few
acres. A large majority of the reported sites have a very small number of frogs (less than
10). Most of these sites are located at residences, hotels and business establishments.
Most, and possibly all, populations of Caribbean tree frogs are susceptible to eradication
because numbers are still low at most sites and because males can readily be targeted for
removal, thereby halting reproduction (Kraus et al. 1999).
Carribean Tree Frog Control and Eradication
8
Table 1. The number of verified and reported locations of Caribbean tree frogs for each island as of
June 2002.
Hawaii Maui Oahu Kauai Total
Co ui Fro >200 40 22 6 268
Greenhouse Fro * 43 1 13 2 59
*Green house frog probably more widespread than originally reported due to their low audio detectability
VI Authority for Invasive Species Management
Hawaii Department of Agriculture (HDOA) The Plant Quarantine program regulates the
inter-island movement of plants infested with the coqui frog under section 150A-2, Hawaii
Revised Statutes (HRS), and sections 4-72-3 and 4, Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR).
Section 150A-2, HRS, defines pest as an organism that is potentially harmful to agriculture
and public health or has an adverse effect on the environment as determined by the Board of
Agriculture. Subsection 4-72-3(a), HAR, states that plants and propagative plant parts shall
be inspected prior to transport between islands, and subsection 4-72-4(b) states that a
commodity infested with a pest shall not be transported between islands unless it has been
treated to exterminate the pest. The Board officially declared the coqui frog,
Eleutherodactylus coqui, a pest on September 27, 2001.
The Plant Pest Control Branch derives its authority to control pests from section 141-3, HRS,
1 which lists examples of pests as "insects, mites, diseases, noxious weeds, or other pests
injurious to vegetation of value." The program's authority to control or eradicate pests is
further defined in chapter 4-69A, HAR. Section 4-69A-2, HAR, defines other pests as any
invertebrate that is harmful to agriculture or vegetation of value. Based on this definition, the
Plant Pest Control program does not have authority to control or eradicate frogs or other
vertebrate animals, nor does it have the authority to enter private property to control or
eradicate these animals.
Importing states and countries determine whether an organism is regulated as a pest on
commodities exported out of the State. No other entities have declared the frogs as pests,
thus far.
College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, University of Hawaii (CTAHR)
The College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources is an integral part of the
University of Hawaii at Manoa's Carnegie I Research Institution designation and is the Land
Grant College of the University of Hawaii and Hawaii. CTAHR is federally mandated to fulfill
the University's threefold Land Grant mission of instruction, scientific research and outreach
to address State needs. The Morrill Land Grant College Act of 1862 initiated giving public
land to each state to endow a college that emphasized practical education in agriculture and
engineering. The Hatch Act of 1887 provided funds to each state agricultural college to
operate an experiment station that promotes the use of scientific research to solve
agricultural problems. In fulfillment of these acts, The Hawaii Agricultural Experiment Station
was established in 1901. Six years later (1907), the College of Agriculture and Mechanical
Arts of the Territory of Hawaii was founded, marking the beginning of the University of
Carribean Tree Frog Control and Eradication
9
Hawaii. Through a cooperative agreement with the United States Department of
Agriculture, Cooperative States Research, Education and Extension Service, the University
of Hawaii receives funding through the Special Grants Program. The Tropical and
Subtropical Agricultural Research Program (TSTAR) Special Research Grant is administered
through regulations established by the following federal regulation, primarily 7 CFR Parts
3015 and 3019 Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Other Agreements With
Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Nonprofit Organizations" .
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services (APHIS-WS) The Wildlife
Services program of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S.. Department of
Agriculture is the Federal agency authorized to manage wildlife that threaten natural
resources, agriculture and human health and safety. The primary authority WS is the Animal
Damage Control Act of March 2, 1931, as amended 46 Stat. 1468; 7 U.S.C.426-426b and
426c), and the Rural Development, Agriculture, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of
1988 (P.L. 100-102) and the FY 2001 Agriculture Appropriations bill.
Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) All species in the Order Anura are
listed as Injurious Wildlife in HRS Title 13 Chapter 124. This designation makes it unlawful for
anyone to release these organisms into the wild, transport them to areas where they are not
currently established, or export, them from the state. Exceptions are granted.via a DOFAW
permit for a one-time personal use export or export to a known research institution.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) The Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42), administered by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, prohibits importation into the United States or any U.S.
territory or possession and shipment between the continental United States, the District of
Columbia, Hawaii, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any possession of the United
States of certain categories of animal species determined to be "injurious to human beings,
to the interests of agriculture, horticulture, forestry, or to wildlife or the wildlife resources of
the United States." Wildlife and wildlife resources are defined broadly to include all wild
animals and "all types of aquatic and land vegetation upon which such wildlife resources are
dependent." Id. § 42(a)(1). The statute gives the FWS the,authority to export or destroy any
injurious species at the expense of the importer, id., although permits may be issued to allow
importation of otherwise injurious species for specific purposes, id. § 42(a)(3). Regulations
listing species found to be injurious under the Lacey Act are in 50 CFR parts 16.
VII Compliance with Federal Laws and Court Orders
Several Federal laws regulate wildlife damage management. The following Federal laws are
relevant to the actions considered:
National Environmental Policy Act Environmental documents pursuant to NEPA must be
completed before actions can be implemented. NEPA requires that Federal actions be
evaluated for environmental impacts, that these impacts be considered by the decision
maker(s) prior to implementation, and that the public be informed.
Carribean Tree Frog Control and Eradication
10
Endangered Species Act. It is Federal policy, under the ESA, that all Federal agencies
shall seek to conserve endangered and threatened species and shall utilize their authorities
in furtherance of the purposes of the ESA (Sec.2(c)). Section 7 consultations with the
USFWS are conducted to use the expertise of the USFWS to ensure that "any action
authorized, funded, or carried out by such an agency.... is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of any endangered or threatened species. Each agency shall use the
best scientific and commercial data available" (Sec.7(a)(2))
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). FIFRA requires the
registration, classification, and regulation of all pesticides used in the United States. The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for implementing and enforcing
FIFRA. All chemical methods integrated into any selected program as implemented by
APHIS-WS or other cooperating agencies must be registered with and regulated by the EPA
and the HDOA, and used' in compliance with labeling procedures and requirements.
Animal Damage Control Act and the Rural Development, Agriculture, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act. The Acts authorize and direct APHIS-WS to reduce damage
caused by wildlife in cooperation with other agencies.
Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risks (EO13045).
Children may suffer disproportionately from environmental health and safety risks for many
reasons. The Carribean tree frog eradication plan as proposed would only involve legally
available and approved damage management methods in situations or under circumstances
where it is highly unlikely that children would be adversely affected. Therefore,
implementation of the proposed action would not increase environmental health or safety
risks to children.
Impacts on minority and low income persons or populations (Environmental Justice
and Executive Order 12898) EO 12898 requires Federal agencies to make Environmental
Justice part of their mission, and to identify and address disproportionately high and adverse
human health and environmental effects of Federal programs, policies and activities on
minority and low income persons or populations. All activities are evaluated for their impact
on the human environment and compliance with EO 12898 to ensure Environmental Justice.
Invasive Species (EO 13112). The Invasive Species Executive Order directs Federal
agencies to use their programs and authorities to prevent the spread or to control populations
of invasive species that cause economic or environmental harm, or harm to human health.
Lacey Act (16 U.S.C. 3371 et seq.) The Lacey Act has implications for regulating
introductions of invasive species. This law, administered by the Secretaries of the Interior,
Commerce, and Agriculture, generally makes it unlawful for any person to import, export,
transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase (or attempt to commit any such act) in interstate
or foreign commerce any fish, wildlife, or plant taken, possessed, transported, or sold in
violation of any Federal, tribal, State, or foreign law. !d. § 3372 (a)(1), (2), (4). Thus, while the
statute does not substantively grant authority to regulate the importation, transportation,
exportation, or possession of any species, violation of another Federal, State, tribal, or
foreign law governing these activities would become a violation of Federal law and subject to
Carribean Tree Frog Control and Eradication
11
particular civil and criminal penalties. See id. 3373, 3374. The Secretaries of the Interior
and Commerce have the authority to enforce laws involving fish and wildlife, while the
Secretary of Agriculture has the authority to enforce laws involving plants.
Texas FOIA Decision The U.S. District Court in Waco, Texas issued a judgment on
September 30, 2002, enjoining APHIS-WS from releasing any personal identifying
information in violation of the Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act. This decision has
implications to WS NEPA procedures. Names and locations of cooperating agencies and
actions will be redacted from any APHIS-WS NEPA document when presented to the public.
International Agreements and Authorities
The World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and
Phytosanitary (SPS) Measures, 1995. The SPS Agreement is a supplement to the World
Trade Organization Agreement. It provides a uniform framework for measures to protect the
health and lives of humans, plants, and animals. Sanitary and phytosanitary measures are
defined as actions whose goal is to: 1) protect human, animal, or plant health from the entry
or spread of pests, disease, or disease carrying organisms; or 2) prevent or limit other
damage from the entry or spread of pests. The SPS Agreement has chosen the international
standards, guidelines, and recommendations of three organizations - International Plant
Protection Convention (IPPC), Codex, and Office International des Epizooties (OIE) as the
preferred measures for adoption by WTO members
South Pacific Regional Environment Program (SPREP) Convention, 1990 Article 14
states that the Parties shall take measures to protect rare or threatened ecosystems and
species within the region. In 1999, SPREP produced an Invasive Species Strategy for the
Pacific Islands Region. The Strategy promotes efforts of Pacific Island countries to protect
their natural heritage from the impacts of invasive species through cooperative efforts and
capacity building.
VIII Hawaii State laws
Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 124 Injurious Wildlife All species in the Order Anura
are listed as Injurious Wildlife in HRS Title 13 Chapter 124. This designation makes it
unlawful for anyone to release these organisms into the wild, transport them to areas where
they are not currently established, or export, them from the state. Exceptions are granted via
a DOFAW permit for a one-time personal use export or export to a known research
institution.
Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 150A Plant and Non-Domestic Animal Quarantine
"Hawaii Plant Quarantine Law" gives the Department of Agriculture responsibility to keep the
State free of imported agricultural pests and allow the department to receive gifts to assist in
preventing entry of brown tree snakes into the State.
Carribean Tree Frog Control and Eradication
12
Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 343 Environmental Impact Statements Hawaii's EIS
law requires an environmental assessment be prepared for certain actions. The actions that
are being analyzed in this EA would typically be subject to Chapter 343 EA requirement if
they are done within the following land designations: 1) any land classified as conservation
district by the state land use commission, 2) any shoreline management areas as defined in
section 205A-41, 3) any historic site as designated in the National Register or Hawaii
Register as provided fro in the Historic Preservation Act of 1966, PL 89-665, or chapter 6E.
However, according to DLNR, controlling frogs can be carried out on state lands without an
EA, as defined in section 5 Part 5 of the DOFAW approved exemption list. This exemption
applies when the management activity takes place over relatively small areas.
IX Carribean Tree, Frog Control and Eradication Campaign
The distribution of Carribean Tree Frogs is increasing but they remain in fairly discrete
populations that can be eliminated if aggressive action is undertaken immediately. An
additional delay of one or two years may close the window of opportunity to eradicate these
invasive species from Hawaii. Elements of the frog control and eradication campaign are
presented below.
1. Enforce current rules that prohibit the spread of frogs to other parts of
the state. Responsible agency: Hawaii Department of Land and Natural
l Resources (HDLNR)
The transport of frogs around the state is an illegal activity. Current
Department Land and Natural Resources rules establish that the
Eleutherodactylus frogs are injurious wildlife and make it illegal to 1) release
injurious wildlife into the wild; 2) transport them to islands or locations within the
state where they are not already established and living in a wild state; 3) export
any such species, or the dead body or parts thereof, from the state (Hawaii
Administrative Rules, Title 13, Subtitle 5, Chapter 124, Section 3d).
Action: Assign state officials to work with the plant industry and public to stop
the spread of the frog and enforce current HDLNR rules.
2. Establish a quarantine, treatment and certification program for movement
of plants from commercial nurseries. Responsible agencies: Hawaii
Department of Agriculture (HDOA)
Action: Continue implementation of a quarantine of all infested plant material.
Develop better treatment and certification protocols through compliance
agreements with commercial plant nurseries. Increase the number of
inspectors on the island of Hawaii to enforce compliance and to inspect plant
material being moved through non-commercial sources through interisland
ports. Identify and register more pesticide products that are available to
nurseries for use in the control of frogs.
Carribean Tree Frog Control and Eradication
13
I
3. Conduct research to develop control methods. Responsible agencies:
National Wildlife Research Center (NWRC) and University of Hawaii College of
Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources (CTAHR)
Action: Continue development of cultural, mechanical, chemical, and bio-control
techniques to control frogs in the wild and on nursery products.
4. Inform and educate the general public, industry and government leaders
on the problems caused by the frogs and the need to stop the spread of
the frog and how to implement control measures on incipient and
established populations. Responsible agencies: WS, HDOA, CTAHR
Action: Develop a variety of media to inform the general public, neighborhood
associations and community groups, commercial nursery growers, and retail
outlets about the frog problem and how to control populations.
5. Prepare environmental analysis of proposed frog eradication campaign to
comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Responsible
agency: Wildlife Services (WS)
Action: NEPA document in progress. Anticipated issues in implementing the
ISMP is the impact to humans and secondary hazards to the environment.
6. Implement the control of incipient populations in cooperation with
neighborhood and community associations, state and county agencies.
(Oahu, Maui, Kauai, Hawaii). Responsible agencies: WS, NWRC, HDOA,
HDLNR, Counties
Action: Control incipient populations of Caribbean tree frogs on Kauai, Maui,
Oahu and Hawaii. USDA-Wildlife Services has the legal mechanism to work on
private residential and commercial property with the owner's permission. Sites
will be prioritized and selected based on consultations by WS and cooperating
agencies, neighborhood boards, community groups and associations, and
industry. Wildlife Services will coordinate with state and county officials and
interested groups to initiate treatment plans. Operations will be conducted
based on ease of access, proximity to sensitive areas, state, county or owner
approvals, and available resources. After every operation, WS and NWRC will
evaluate treatment efficacy and determine whether follow-up actions will be
needed. As populations are eliminated, resources will be shifted where
needed.
7. Implement control of high density populations with control teams (Island
of Hawaii). Responsible agencies: Wildlife Services, NWRC, HDOA, CTAHR,
HDLNR, County of Hawaii
USDA-Wildlife Services, HDOA and CTAHR will work with nursery growers that
Carribean Tree Frog Control and Eradication
14
are known or suspected sites of frog dispersal through the commercial plant
trade. Growers would be required, through a quarantine program, to treat
infested plant products using available methods to obtain frog free certification.
USDA-Wildlife Services would assist in treating areas surrounding commercial
operations with the permission of the landowners. The purpose of assisting
commercial operations in the control of frogs is to reduce the chance of
dispersal through commercial plant products.
USDA-Wildlife Services will work with federal, state and county agencies on
public lands having high densities of frogs. The areas occupied will be
identified and pesticides applied to stop the spread of the frog. The action may
require the clearing of vegetation to provide better access for treatments, and
will be the responsibility of the appropriate land management agency. After
every operation, Wildlife Services and NWRC will evaluate the potential
secondary impacts, and determine if actions are needed to improve efficiency
and effectiveness of kill.
v
Carribean Tree Frog Control and Eradication
15
Table of Cost Estimates
Element (lead agency) FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
NEPA Compliance (USDA) $350,000
Enforcement (HDLNR) $150,000 $150,000 $150,000
Certification and Treatment $300,000 $300,000 $300,000
Compliance (HDOA)
Research (NWRC, CTAHR) $500,000 $500,000 $500,000
Information/Education, Community $200,000 $200,000 $200,000
Action (HDOA)
Control Incipient Populations on $915,000 $951,600 $980,200
Oahu, Kauai, Maui (USDA)
Control High Populations on the $1,459,800 $1,503,594 $1,548,700
island of Hawaii (USDA)
TOTAL $3,874,800 $3,605,194 $3,678,900
Carribean Tree Froa Control and Eradication
X Interagency Coordination and Public Involvement
Personnel from the following agencies and companies have been consulted or participated in
the development or review of this plan.
William Pitt, Ph.D., Research Scientist
Robert Sugihara
USDA APHIS WS
National Wildlife Research Center
Hawaii Field Station
Larry Nakahara, Manager
Kyle Onuma, Entomologist
Plant Pest Control Branch
Division of Plant Industry
Hawaii Department of Agriculture
Arnold Hara, Entomologist
Cooperative Extension Service
University of Hawaii
College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources
1 Mike E. Pitzler, State Director
Tim Ohashi
Shayne Veriato
Hawaii Guam and Pacific Islands
USDA APHIS WS
Lyle Wong, Ph.D., Administrator
Division of Plant Industry
Hawaii Department of Agriculture
Carribean Tree Frog Control and Eradication
17
VI Bibliography
Campbell, E.W. 2001 a. Dermal toxicity of selected agricultural pesticides, pharmaceutical
products, and household chemicals to introduce Eleutherodactylus frogs in Hawaii -
Draft NWRC, USDA-APHIS-WS, Fort Collins, CO.
Campbell, E.W. 2001b. Field efficacy trials of the directed spray application of caffeine
solutions for controlling introduced Eleutherodactylus frogs in flouriculture and nursery
crops in Hawaii - Draft. NWRC, USDA-APHIS-WS, Fort Collins, CO.
Hawaii Agriculture Statistics Service (HASS). 2000. Statistics of Hawaii Agriculture 1999.
Honolulu HI
Hawaii Export Nursery Association. 2001. Proposed Plan for Controlling the Spread of
Caribbean Tree Frogs.
Hawaii Department of Agriculture. 2001. Pesticide Trials for Coqui Frogs. August 20, 2001,
Plant Industry Division, Honolulu HI
Hawaii Department of Agriculture and Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources.
2001. Request for Specific Exemption Under Section 18 of FIFRA to Allow Field Use
of Caffeine to Control the Coqui and Greenhouse Frogs in Floriculture and Nursery
Crops, Residential Areas, Parks, Hotels, Resorts and Forest Habitats in the State of
Hawaii.
Kraus, F., E.W. Campbell, A. Allison, and T. Pratt. 1999. Eleutherodactylus frog
introductions in Hawaii. Herp. Rev. 30:211-25
Carribean Tree Frog Control and Eradication
18
Verified and reported Carribean frog
(Eleutherodactylus spp.) locations
on the Island of Hawaii
Hawl
P
't« S v '1~X~ d'tt c t
_ , Sh * Y f H
~ ^S Hllo
s ~ ~ 'F^Mx ~,,?i espy •
ge,
t `
Kailua-Kona
ar
1954
34w i Pahoa
~_v n Naalehu
r
M 1
® E. coqui (n = >200)
® E. planirostris (n = 43)
Major Roads
N
Updated June 2002
30 s~ Kilometers Hawaii Field station
National Wildlife Research Center
USDA/APHIS-WS
Hilo, Hawaii
Verified and reported Carribean frog
(Eleutherodactylus spp.) locations
on the Island of Oahu
r.
ti ~k
1~ 1 f ~ g
'd 1~4 r k i ~ f
Y 4y.~ g (j)f
~ rz 1 17
r ~
r ~s~ N ? " R
Kailua
jj 4' t r ~ 4
T -'G ~ , r * t C y a+er r
« a fr •
Kapolei
Honolulu
it E. coqui (n = 22)
® E. planirostris (n =13)
N Major Roads
10 0 10 20 Kilometers
Updated June 2002
Hawaii Field Station
National Wildlife Research Center
USDA/APHIS-WS
Hilo, Hawaii
All verified and reported Caribbean frog
' (Eleutherodactylus spp.) locations
on the Island of Kauai
PRINCEVILLE
; ull
igg"
r kV~o nt f t!'~
~jyL
WAILUA
rr ~xts o r
"k, Eve
~ r bA
I r pa f~ .:-tr *T 'LIHUE
J47 I
ELEELE
POIPU
• E. coqui (n = 6)
A E. planirostris (n = 2)
Major roads
L~
N
10 0 10 Kilometers
Updated June 2002
USDA - National Wildlife Research Center
Hawaii Field Station
Hilo, Hawaii
Eleutherodactylus Frog Eradication - State of Hawaii
Invasive Species Management Plan
l
Prepared by:
United States Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Wildlife Services
3375 Koapaka Street, Suite H420
Honolulu, Hawaii 96819
ph. 808 861-8577
fax 808 861-8570
Email: mike.e.pitzler(o)usda.gov
Hawaii Department of Agriculture
Division of Plant Industry
1428 S. King Street
Honolulu, Hawaii 96814
ph. 808 973-9535
fax. 808 973-9533
Email: lwongpi(LDyahoo. corn
Ver. 8/25/01
I
Summary
Proposed Action: Invasive Eleutherodactylus Frog Eradication in the State of Hawaii
Lead State Agency: State of Hawaii
Department of Agriculture
Plant Industry Division
1428 South King Street
Honolulu, Hawaii 96814
State Official: Lyle Wong, Ph.D.
Administrator, Plant Industry Division
ph. 808 973-9530, fax 808 973-9533
Email: Iwongpi@yahoo.com
Lead Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Wildlife Services
3375 Koapaka Street, H 420
Honolulu, Hawaii 96819
( Federal Official: Mike E. Pitzler,
\ State Director Hawaii/Pacific Islands
USDA APHIS WS
ph. 808 861-8577, fax 808 861-8570
Email: mike.e.pitzler(usda.gov
For Further Information
Contact: Tim J. Ohashi
Program Wildlife Biologist USDA APHIS WS
P.O. Box 786
Volcano, HI 96785-0786 Ph. 808 985-7275
Email: tohashi@lava.net
Wildlife Services and its cooperators the Hawaii Department of Agriculture and the University of Hawaii Cooperative Extension Service,
College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, are proposing to implement an emergency Eleutherodactylus frog eradication
campaign within the State of Hawaii. The coqui frog (Eleutherodactylus coqui) and greenhouse frog (E. planirostris) are considered to
be invasive pests that have the potential to severely impact floriculture and plant nursery products industry, other private commerce,
native ecosystems, and the quality of life in Hawaii and other Pacific Islands. In early 1998, eight occurrences were reported, but two
and a half years later, over 85 occurrences were documented and another 65 were reported but unconfirmed. The coqui frog is now
firmly established at about 150 sites on the island of Hawaii and about 40 sites on Maui with a growing number of sites on Oahu. The
tree frogs can reach densities greater than 20,000 individuals per hectare. The calls of male ooqui in such high numbers can be a severe
nuisance problem. The distribution of Eleutherodactylus frogs is increasing but they remain in discrete populations that can be eliminated
if aggressive action is undertaken immediately. An additional delay of one or two years may close the window of opportunity to eradicate
these invasive species from Hawaii.
Wildlife Services and the Hawaii Department of Agriculture have prepared an Invasive Species Management Plan to Eradicate
Eleutherodactylus Frogs in the State of Hawaii. The campaign would involve strict enforcement of existing state rules; quarantine,
treatment and certifcafion of plant products, research to develop control methods, public information, control of high densities of frogs
on the island of Hawaii and Maui and eradication of incipient populations on Kauai and Oahu. The plan would begin in fiscal year 2001
and continue for an additional three year period. Research has identified an aqueous caffeine solution that is highly effective in killing
frogs. The Hawaii Departments of Agriculture and Land and Natural Resources have applied for a Federal Insecticide Fungicide and
Rodenticide (FIFRA) Section 18 specific emergency exemption to use the solution to control the frogs in Hawaii. The application is
being reviewed by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Tests are also being conducted on broad spectrum pesticides containing
ti... synthetic pyrethroids that have shown promise in killing the frogs. Wildlife Services would play a lead federal role in the eradication
campaign, working closely with the Hawaii Department of Agriculture and other agencies, the floriculture and nursery products industry
and community groups. Wildlife Services has begun the process of complying with National Environmental Policy Act requirements.
I Introduction
This Invasive Species Management Plan (ISMP) was developed to eradicate Eleutherodactylus frogs in the State
of Hawaii. It incorporates a previous plan for controlling the frogs that was produced by an ad hoc working
group consisting of the Hawaii Department of Agriculture, Hawaii Pest Control Association, Wildlife Services
National Wildlife Research Center, hotel industry representatives and the County of Hawaii (Hawaii Export
Nursery Association 2001, see Appendix 1). This ISMP was further developed after discussions and reviews by
the County of Hawaii, the University of Hawaii Cooperative Extension Service, PBR Hawaii, the Hawaii
Department of Agriculture, the National Wildlife Research Center and industry representatives.
The Eleufherodactylus frogs are native to the Caribbean and have recently become established as an alien
invasive species in the State of Hawaii. The coqui frog (Eleufherodactylus cogw) and greenhouse frog (E.
planirostris) are considered to be pests that have the potential to severely impact agriculture, private commerce,
native ecosystems and the quality of life in Hawaii and other Pacific Islands (Campbell 2001).
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is authorized by law to protect American agriculture and other
resources from damage and conflicts associated with wildlife. The primary authority for the USDA Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Wildlife Services (WS) program is the Animal Damage Control Act of
March 2, 1931, as amended (46 Stat. 1468; 7 U.S.C.426-426b and 426c) and the Rural Development,
( Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-102). Executive Order 13112 further
\ directs Federal agencies to use their programs and authorities to prevent the spread or to control populations of
invasive species that cause economic, ecological, and human health impacts. All WS activities are conducted in
cooperation with other federal, state, and local agencies, and private organizations and individuals.
II Background
Eleutherodactylus coqui and E. planirostris are two relatively recent invasive species introductions to Hawaii
(Kraus, et.al. 1999) which does not have any native amphibians or reptiles. Unconfirmed reports of one or more
of Eleutherodactylus frogs were first reported in Hawaii as early as 1988 (Kraus et. al. 1999). Both frogs are
native to the Caribbean, although one or both have become established in the states of Florida, Louisiana, and
Alabama (Kraus et.al. 1999). The frogs are believed to have entered Hawaii on contaminated nursery plants.
In early 1992, there were only sporadic sightings of Eleutherodactylus frogs on the island of Hawaii. In early
1998, eight occurrences were reported, but two and half years later, over 85 occurrences were documented and
another 65 were reported but unconfirmed (HDOA and HDLNR 2001). Eleutherodactylus coqui is now firmly
established at about 150 specific sites on the island of Hawaii and at about 40 sites on Maui (Appendix 2-5).
Eleutherodactylus planirostris is reported at a number of sites on Kauai, Oahu, Maui and Hawaii. The
established sites for both frogs include commercial plant nurseries, retail garden outlets, residential areas, resorts
and hotels, public parks and sites within forests. One of the most impressive concentrations of Eleutherodactylus
frogs occurs at the entrance of Lava Tree State Park near Pahoa Village where the frog densities are high and
the vocalizations of males has been described as deafening.
The frogs are being spread to additional sites on infested plant material primarily from commercial nurseries and
greenhouses from East Hawaii island (Kraus et.al. 1999). In addition, there are reports of deliberate frog
dispersal by individuals (HDOA and HDLNR 2001). High densities of Eleutherodactylus frogs in residential
areas have become a noise nuisance due to the male's loud calls which can reach 90 decibels. Vendor and
public concern over purchasing plant material infested with frogs is beginning to have serious adverse impacts
on the floriculture and nursery products industry. Grower sales of Hawaii's floriculture and nursery products
totaled a record $75.4 million in 1999. Hawaii island, with $41.6 million in sales, ranked number one in 1999 with
most of the nurseries in East Hawaii (HASS 2000)
There is great concern that these frogs pose a threat to the native forest ecosystem, including many endangered
species. Eleutherodactylus frogs have the potential to be a serious threat to native insects (Earl Campbell pers.
comm.) and birds (Kraus et al. 1999). An analyses of the stomach contents of Eleutherodactylus frogs collected
on the island of Hawaii indicate that they consume native insects (E. Campbell pers comm). Eleutherodactylus
frogs could, therefore, exert tremendous predation pressure on a wide variety of native arthropods, many of
which may already be stressed to the edge of extinction due to the establishment of other non-native predators
and parasitoids (Kraus et al. 1999). The majority of native birds are partially or wholly insectivorous.
Eleutherodactylus frogs could indirectly effect some populations of these birds (HDOA and HDLNR 2001) if the
frogs spread to native forest bird ranges. None of the known sites are inhabited by endangered species but
there is potential for the frogs to enter areas where threatened or endangered species are present (HDOA and
HDLNR 2001).
In its native range on Puerto Rico, coqui populations can reach densities greater than 20,000 individuals per
hectare and consume an estimated 114,000 prey per night per hectare (Kraus et al. 1999). Since Hawaii's
climate is similar to that of Puerto Rico, it is expected that Eleutherodactylus frog densities will also reach these
densities in Hawaii (HDOA and HDLNR 2001). At one collection site on the island of Hawaii, 105 frogs were
collected from a 50 m2 area in 50 minutes (Kraus et al. 1999). Based on this collection rate, the population
estimate for this site is believed to be ten times that reported for coqui in unmanipulated native rainforests in
Puerto Rico (Kraus et al 1999).
Actions Taken
Laboratory tests were conducted to evaluate various chemicals for use in controlling Eleutherodactylus frogs
(Campbell 2001 a). The study found that dermal exposure to caffeine and water caused 90% or greater mortality
to both the frogs. Field efficacy trials subsequently were conducted to test the application of caffeine solutions
for controlling the frogs in floriculture and nursery crops in Hawaii (Campbell 2001 b). These trials showed that a
single. spray application of 2 percent concentration caffeine solution caused a 100% decline in the relative
abundance of Eleutherodactylus frogs (Campbell 2001 b). Concentrations down to 0.5 percent were tested with
similar success depending on the density and type of foliage (HENA 2001).
As a result of the caffeine tests, the Hawaii Department of Agriculture and the Department of Land and Natural
Resources have applied for a Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Section 18 Specific
Emergency Exemption to treat up to 1,200 acres with caffeine to control the Eleutherodactylus frogs in order to
protect the native biota (Appendix 6). The application was sent to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on
June 1, 2001. If the Emergency Exemption is granted, the authority for use will be for one year. It is expected
that EPA will request additional data to support the use of the caffeine solution beyond the one year period. The
application may be amended to request a quarantine exemption to protect the floriculture and nursery plant
industries which are beginning to experience negative economic impacts from the sale of infested plant material.
Eleutherodactylus Frog Eradication Plan 3
Experimental work is also being conducted by the State of Hawaii Department of Agriculture and the University of
Hawaii - College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, to identify a broad spectrum pesticide that can
be used by the public, without a commercial pesticide license. Likely candidates are products that contain
pyrenone or other synthetic pyrethroids (HDOA 2001). The use of such products may be applicable to
nurseries and wild areas adjacent to nurseries where the frogs have become established in dense colonies.
Additional work is required to further evaluate additional chemicals to control the frogs.
The application of hot water at 45 degrees C (113 degrees F) to plants for 3 minutes was found to be lethal on
Eleutherodactylus frogs on potted tree seedlings (Arnold Hara, pers. comm. An apparatus was developed by
the University of Hawaii at Hilo, the Cooperative Extension Service and the Hawaii Division of Forestry and
Wildlife at the tree nursery in Hilo in which potted plants move under a conveyor belt through the hot water
treatment. The treatment can be applied to commercial nursery operations.
The transport of frogs around the state is an illegal activity. In a letter to the floriculture and nursery plant
industry dated June 28, 2000, the Department of Land and Natural Resources reminded the industry that
spreading the frogs was illegal and asked the industry to ensure that frogs were not spread through their trade.
Despite this warning, frogs are still being dispersed through the potted and cut plant trade.
Informational and planning meetings have been held with key officials from federal, state and county agencies
and with stakeholder associations in Hawaii. An initial control plan was developed by the Hawaii Department of
Agriculture and presented to the Hawaii Export Nursery Growers. A protocol for inspecting, sanitizing and
modifying habitats was distributed to the nursery industry by the Hawaii Department of Agriculture (Appendix 7).
Hawaii Department of Agriculture is considering the implementation of a quarantine of plant products that are
infested with frogs.
There is virtually no control.or management of the frogs being implemented by either government agencies or the
industry. Frogs are being caught by hand at sites on Oahu and Maui by volunteers. Hand capture can be an
effective method of controlling male coqui frogs when they are first detected in anew area. While females are
more difficult to control because they do not vocalize, the removal of males will suppress breeding potential. A
large-scale and site specific control program would require the development of control techniques and the design
of an integrated pest management system to control and eradicate the frogs.
III Eleutherodactylus Frog Eradication Campaign
The distribution of Eleutherodactylus frogs is increasing but they remain in discrete populations that can be
eliminated if aggressive action is undertaken immediately. An additional delay of one or two years may close the
window of opportunity to eradicate these invasive species from Hawaii. Elements of an Eleutherodactylus frog
eradication campaign are presented below.
M. 1. Enforce current rules that prohibit the spread of frogs to other parts of the state.
r~ Responsible agency: Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources (HDLNR)
Eleutherodactylus Frog Eradication Plan 4
The transport of frogs around the state is an illegal activity. Current Department Land
and Natural Resources rules establish that the Eleutherodactylus frogs are injurious
wildlife and make it illegal to 1) release injurious wildlife into the wild; 2) transport
them to islands or locations within the state where they are not already established and
living in a wild state; 3) export any such species, or the dead body or parts thereof, from
the state (Hawaii Administrative Rules, Title 13, Subtitle 5, Chapter 124, Section 3d).
Action: Assign state officials to work with the plant industry and public to stop the
spread of the frog and enforce current HDLNR rules.
2. Establish a quarantine, treatment and certification program for movement of
plants from commercial nurseries. Responsible agencies: Hawaii Department of
Agriculture (HDOA)
Action: Implement a quarantine of all infested plant material. Develop treatment and
certification protocols through compliance agreements with commercial plant nurseries.
Increase the number of inspectors on the island of Hawaii to enforce compliance and to
inspect plant material being moved through non-commercial sources through
interisland ports. Identify and register existing pesticide products that are available to
nurseries for use in the control of frogs.
3. Conduct research to develop control methods. Responsible agencies: National
Wildlife Research Center (NWRC)
Action: There are currently no cost-effective techniques to treat frog infestedsites on a
large-scare. Similarly, there are no techniques commerciallyavailable to treat frog
infested plant material. There is an urgent needto rapidly develop cost-effective
techniques to assist WS Operations andother entities with the control of tree frogs.
Research on biologicallysound cultural, mechanical, chemical, and bio-control
techniques needs toexpanded or initiated immediately. In addition to in-house research,
NWRCstaff (in coordination with local agencies) will develop cooperativeagreements
with local research facilities to conduct collaborativeresearch.
4. Inform and educate the general public, industry and government leaders on the
problems caused by the frogs and the need to stop the spread of the frog and how
to implement control measures on incipient and established populations.
Responsible agencies: HDOA, CTAHR
Action: Develop media to inform the general public, community groups, educational
institutions and stakeholders about the frog problem. A video is necessary and will be a
valuable teaching aid when snaking presentations to community groups and will be in a
ems, format suitable for television programming. Radio announcements will be produced
and aired on the island of Hawaii to inform the public in an effort to prevent the
deliberate spread of the frog to other parts of the island and the state. Neighborhood
Eleutherodactylus Frog Eradication Plan 5
watch groups will be assisted by agencies for early detection and control of frogs. The
existing Big Island Invasive Species Committee alien species hotline and GIS record-
keeping will be supported.
1. Prepare environmental analysis of proposed frog eradication campaign to comply
with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Responsible agency: Wildlife
Services (WS)
Action: NEPA document in progress. Anticipated issues in implementing the ISMP is
the impact to humans and secondary hazards to the environment.
6. Implement the control of incipient populations through use of control teams and
industry cooperation (Oahu, Maui, Kauai). Responsible agencies: WS, NWRC,
HDOA, HDLNR, Counties
Action: Using hand capturing, cultural methods, aqueous caffeine solution or other
available chemical products, control would be implemented immediately on incipient
populations of Eleutherodactylus frogs on Oahu, Maui and Kauai. USDA-Wildlife
Services has the legal mechanism to work on private property with the owners
permission. Sites will be prioritized and selected based on priorities developed by WS,
I" HDOA, and the counties. Wildlife Services will coordinate with state and county
officials and industry groups to initiate treatment plans. Operations will be conducted
based on ease of access, proximity to sensitive areas, state, county or owner approvals,
and available resources. After every operation, USDA Wildlife Services and NWRC
will evaluate the frog kill, secondary effects, and determine whether follow-up actions
will be needed. As populations are eliminated, resources will be shifted where needed.
7. Implement control of high density populations with control teams (Island of
Hawaii). Responsible agencies: Wildlife Services, NWRC, HDOA, CTAHR, HDLNR,
County of Hawaii
USDA APHIS WS may apply for a separate FIFRA Section 18 Quarantine Exemption
to allow use of an aqueous caffeine solution specifically and solely for WS operational
personnel. Using this caffeine solution, hot water or other available pesticide products,
control would be implemented immediately on incipient populations of
Eleutherodactylus frogs on the island of Hawaii.
USDA-Wildlife Services, HDOA and CTAHR will work with nursery growers that are
known or suspected sites of dispersal through the commercial plant trade. Growers
would be required, through a quarantine program, to treat infested plant products, either
with heat treatment (heating potted plants to 45 degrees Celsius for 3 minutes), an
aqueous caffeine solution, or with other approved pesticide products to obtain frog free
certification. USDA-Wildlife Services would assist in treating areas surrounding
commercial operations with the permission of the landowners.
Eleutherodactylus Frog Eradication Plan 6
USDA-Wildlife Services will work with federal, state and county agencies on public
lands having high densities of frogs. The areas occupied will be identified and
pesticides applied to stop the spread of the frog. The action may require the clearing of
vegetation to provide better access for treatments, and will be the responsibility of the
appropriate land management agency. After every operation, Wildlife Services and
NWRC will evaluate the frog kill, secondary effects, and determine if actions are
needed to improve efficiency and effectiveness of kill.
IV Table of Cost Estimates
Element (lead agency) FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004
Enforcement(HDLNR) $10,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000
Certification and Treatment Compliance $10,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000
(HDOA)
Research (NWRC, CTAHR) $50,000 $550,000 $550,000 $550,000
InfonnationlEducation, Community Action $25,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000
(HDOA)
Control Incipient Populations on $50,000 $915,000 $951,600 $980,200
Oahu, Kauai, Maui (USDA)
Control High Populations on the island of $50,000 $1,459,800 $1,503,594 $1,548,700
Hawaii (USDA)
TOTAL $206,000 $3,584,800 $3,580,194 $3,653,900
V Interagency Coordination and Public Involvement
Personnel from the following agencies and companies have been consulted or participated in the development or
review of this plan.
Eleutherodactylus Frog Eradication Plan 7
1
Earl Campbell III, Ph.D., Research Scientist
USDA APHIS WS
National Wildlife Research Center
Hawaii Field Station
Larry Nakahara, Manager
Kyle Onuma, Entomologist
Plant Pest Control Branch
Division of Plant Industry
Hawaii Department of Agriculture
Arnold Hara, Entomologist
Cooperative Extension Service
University of Hawaii
College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources
Yukie Ohashi, Environmental Planner (Volunteer)
PBR Hawaii
Mike E. Pitzler, State Director
Hawaii Guam and Pacific Islands
USDA APHIS WS
Margarita Hopkins, Director
Research and Development
County of Hawaii
Lyle Wong, Ph.D., Administrator
Division of Plant Industry
Hawaii Department of Agriculture
Plan Prepared By
Tim J. Ohashi, Program Wildlife Biologist
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Wildlife Services
P.O. Box 786
Volcano, Hawaii 96785
808 985-7275
808 985-7276 (FAX)
email tohashi(@,lava.net
Eleutherodactylus Frog Eradication Plan 8
VI Bibliography
Campbell, E.W. 2001 a. Dermal toxicity of selected agricultural pesticides, pharmaceutical products, and
household chemicals to introduce Eleutherodactylus frogs in Hawaii - Draft NWRC, USDA-APHIS-WS,
Fort Collins, CO.
Campbell, E.W. 2001 b. Field efficacy trials of the directed spray application of caffeine solutions for controlling
introduced Eleutherodactylus frogs in flouriculture and nursery crops in Hawaii - Draft. NWRC, USDA-
APHIS-WS, Fort Collins, CO.
Hawaii Agriculture Statistics Service (HA SS). 2000. Statistics of Hawaii Agriculture 1999. Honolulu HI
Hawaii Export Nursery Association. 2001. Proposed Plan for Controlling the Spread of Caribbean Tree Frogs.
Hawaii Department of Agriculture. 2001. Pesticide Trials for Coqui Frogs. August 20, 2001, Plant Industry
Division, Honolulu HI
Hawaii Department of Agriculture and Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources. 2001. Request for
Specific Exemption Under Section 18 of FIFRA to Allow Field Use of Caffeine to Control the Coqui and
Greenhouse Frogs in Floriculture and Nursery Crops, Residential Areas, Parks, Hotels, Resorts and
W"w Forest Habitats in the State of Hawaii.
Eleutherodactylus Frog Eradication Plan 9
Kraus, F., E.W. Campbell, A. Allison, and T. Pratt. 1999. Eleutherodactylus frog introductions in Hawaii. Herp.
Rev. 30:211-25.
Eleutherodactylus Frog Eradication Plan 10