Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
RES 061 Draft 02 2016-2018
vMtY%�F N1+r�`. ��Jiyi COUNTY OF HAWAII STATE OF HAWAII RESOLUTION NO. 61 17 (DRAFT 2) A RESOLUTION URGING THE HAWAII STATE LEGISLATURE TO APPROVE SENATE BILL NO. 656 AND HOUSE BILL NO. 481 TO ADDRESS THE THREAT OF THE LITTLE FIRE ANT. WHEREAS, the continued spread of the invasive species known as the Little Fire Ant (LFA) threatens native biodiversity, alters tropical ecosystems, impairs human health, impedes tourism, diminishes agricultural productivity, mars horticulture sales, and blinds pets; and WHEREAS, Senate Bill No. 656 and House Bill No. 481 in the 2017 session of the Legislature will fund a project administered by the Hawai`i Department of Agriculture to address the spread of LFA; and WHEREAS, a December 2016 article published in the Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society ("Exhibit A") chronicles how LFA has become established on Hawai`i Island, and how periodic infestations have been addressed on Kaua`i, O`ahu, and Maui; and WHEREAS, LFA concentrations can reach 20,000 per square meter, or nearly 1,900 per square foot; and WHEREAS, a March 2015 article published in the academic journal "Ecological Economics" ("Exhibit B") models the growth and spread of LFA on Hawai`i Island and estimates that an increase of$8 million to manage the ant during the next two to three years would save $5.496 billion in reduced control costs, $538 million in economic damages, 2.161 billion human sting incidents, and 762 million pet sting incidents over the next 35 years; and WHEREAS, the "Ecological Economics" article states that"In the next 35 years the cost of Little Fire Ant under current management will balloon to $6.1 billion. With efforts to suppress Little Fire Ant populations, under least cost management, net costs drop to $51 million, a substantial savings to the local economy"; and WHEREAS, Hawai`i County has continued treating sites infested with LFA at County parks for the benefit of residents and visitors; and WHEREAS, Hawai`i County's efforts have been funded by the Hawai`i Department of Agriculture, the Hawai`i Tourism Authority, and the Hawai`i Invasive Species Council; and WHEREAS, Hawai`i County continues to seek support to continue funding LFA control operations; and WHEREAS, the "Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society" article proves that multi-agency collaboration and funding are crucial for a biosecurity plan to contain the spread of LFA throughout the State; and WHEREAS, the Hawai`i Department of Agriculture's project includes the distribution of coupons for pesticide treatment and a mapping of all LFA sites in the County of Hawai`i; now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAII that the House and Senate are urged to approve Senate Bill No. 656 and House Bill No. 481 to address the threat of the Little Fire Ant in Hawai`i. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the County Clerk shall transmit a copy of this resolution to the Honorable Governor David Y. Ige, the Honorable Senate President Ronald D. Kouchi, the Honorable Speaker Joseph M. Souki, the Honorable Senator Jill N. Tokuda, the Honorable Senator Donovan M. Dela Cruz, the Honorable Senator Mike Gabbard, the Honorable Senator Gil Riviere, the Honorable Representative Sylvia Luke, the Honorable Representative Ty J.K. Cullen, the Honorable Representative Chris Lee, the Honorable Representative Nicole Lowen, the Honorable Representative Richard P. Creagan, and the Honorable Representative Lynn DeCoite. Dated at Kona , Hawai`i, this 22nd day of February , 2017 . INTRODUCED BY: -40111P' .400010 ,air.' IL MEMB Y O' HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL ROLL CALL VOTE County of Hawai`i AYES NOES ABS EX Hilo, Hawai`i CHUNG X DAVID X I hereby certify that the foregoing RESOLUTION was by EOFF X the vote indicated to the right hereof adopted by the COUNCIL of the KANUHA County of Hawaii on February 22, 2017 X LEE LOY X O'HARA X ATTEST: POINDEXTER X RICHARDS X RUGGLES X 8 0 1 0 Reference: C-88.2/GREDC-2 COUNTY CLERK CHAIRPERSON&PRESIDING OFFICER RESOLUTION NO. 61 17 (DRAFT 2) 2 EXHIBIT A PROCEEDINGS OF THE HAWAIIAN ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY(2016) 48:39-50 39 The History of Little Fire Ant Wasmannia auropunctata Roger in the Hawaiian Islands: Spread, Control, and Local Eradication Casper Vanderwoude',Michelle Montgomery,Heather Forester, Ersel Hensley,and Michael K.Adachi Hawaii Ant Lab,Pacific Cooperative Studies Unit,University of Hawaii at Manoa, 16 E. Lanikaula St Hilo,Hawaii. 'Corresponding author: casperv@hawaii.edu Abstract.The islands of Hawaii have been the battleground for successive"inva- sion waves"by exotic ants for over a century.The arrival of Pheidole megacephala (Fabricius)(the big headed ant)in the late nineteenth century,was followed in 1939 by Linepithema humile(Mayr)(the Argentine ant)and Anoplolepis gracilipes(fr. Smith), (the longlegged Ant) in 1953.The most recent arrival is the little fire ant (Wasmannia auropunctata Roger) which was first recorded in 1999. This paper chronicles the subsequent spread of W.auropunctata through the Hawaiian archi- pelago. Initially introduced and spread via the import and sale of nursery plants, W. auropunctata is now well-established on the island of Hawaii. Ubiquitous on the windward side of Hawaii island, W. auropunctata are now being transported not only via nursery plants but also via non-agricultural products.The prevention, detection and response to W. auropunctata introductions is addressed by infor- mal and ad hoc partnerships between a number of agencies,each contributing to preventing and reducing spread of this species. The draft Hawaii Inter-Agency Biosecurity Plan recognizes and strengthens these partnerships and will contribute positively to Hawaii's biosecurity system. Key words:invasive ants,Hawaii,Wasmannia auropunctata,biosecurity,biologi- cal invasions, Pacific, little fire ant Introduction et al. 1990).The number of new ant species Native ants are thought to be naturally has accumulated steadily over time to 47 absent from the islands of the eastern (Krushelnycky et al. 2005),with the cur- Pacific, including those of the Hawaiian rent number of species a little higher due archipelago(Wilson and Taylor 1967).All mostly to taxonomic revisions. ant species currently recorded in Hawaii Of these,four ant species are especially are widespread cosmopolitan tramp spe- noteworthy due to their ecological and cies that have been introduced by human economic impacts worldwide, featur- travel and commerce(Krushelnycky et al. ing prominently in the IUCN list of the 2005).The biota of Hawaii has evolved in world's worst invasive species (Lowe et the complete or nearly complete absence al. 2000). The bigheaded ant (Pheidole of ants, which most likely resulted in an megacephala (Fabricius)) was first re- ecological predisposition to invasions by corded in Hawaii as early as 1879 (Smith exotic ant species along with increased 1879), at which time it was already well impacts such invasions may cause(Reimer established. In the years that followed, EXHIBIT A 40 VANDERWOUDE ET AL. entomologists lamented the dearth of na- between 1999 and 2016 and discuss likely tive Coleoptera wherever P.megacephala introduction pathways. had become established (Perkins 1913). Their association with mealybugs and Methods and Materials other common plant pests caused crop We used published and unpublished losses,especially in pineapple(Beardsley literature as well as personal commu- et al. 1982,Jahn and Beardsley 1994). In nications and observations from others the 1939,the Argentine ant(Linepithema involved with the response to this intro- humile (Mayr)) was detected on the is- duction to document the spread of W. land of Oahu(Zimmerman 1940,Reimer auropunctata from the date of the initial 1994). Primarily considered a nuisance detection to the present(2016). species, Argentine ants spread quickly to the neighboring islands. The ensuing History of Introduction battle for territory between L. humile and Spread and P.megacephala saw the new invader The state of Hawaii is located in the restricted to higher elevation habitats central Pacific Ocean, approximately where it caused considerable impacts to between longitudes 154-160° west, and native ecosystems (Medeiros et al. 1986, latitudes 19-22° north. It is made up of Cole 1992, Krushelnycky and Gillespie eight separate islands, of which, six are 2008).In 1953,a new invader,Anoplolepis accessible by the general public: Hawaii, gracilipes (fr. Smith) (the longlegged ant, Oahu, Maui, Kauai, Molokai, and Lanai. also known as the yellow crazy ant) ar- Since the initial discovery in 1999, W. rived at the US Naval base, Pearl Harbor auropunctata has become established on (Clagg 1953). A shade-tolerant species, the four most populous islands (Oahu, A. gracilipes thrived in shaded lowland Hawaii,Maui,and Kauai).The spread,to environments, preying on birds and in- and within,each island,is detailed below. vertebrates (Gillespie and Reimer 1993). Hawaii island. In 1999, Conant and Capable of episodic population explosions, Hirayama (2000) reported the presence A. gracilipes forms dense super-colonies of W. auropunctata at 13 locations in the that drive out other fauna and at some South Hilo district on the island of Hawaii locations,can cause the collapse of plant (the Big Island).Initially,W.auropunctata communities (O'Dowd et al. 2003). was observed on three infested proper- In 1999, the little fire ant (Wasman- ties in Hawaiian Paradise Park south of nia auropunctata Roger) was detected Hilo. Soon thereafter,additional infested on the island of Hawaii (Conant and locations were discovered at Kapoho Hirayama 2000). This ant species has a and Paipaikou. Most infested locations native range that includes South America were commercial nurseries or agricul- and the Caribbean (Wetterer and Porter tural properties that had recently planted 2003), but has invaded many Pacific windbreaks of Caryota sp. (fish-tail islands, West Africa, Australia, Florida, palm) (P. Conant pers. corn). Subsequent and Israel (Wetterer 2013). Genetic corn- public outreach, e.g. Gruner (2000), and parisons with material from native and surveys revealed that W. auropunctata introduced locations suggest Florida is the infestations were more widespread than putative source of the Hawaii introduction first estimated, likely spread through the (Mikheyev and Mueller 2007,Foucaud et sale and movements of infested potted al.2010). Here,we describe the spread of plants. Despite this challenge and a lack this species through the Hawaiian islands of resources, the Hawaii Department of EXHIBIT A HISTORY OF WASMANNIA AUROPUNCTATA IN HAWAII 41 60 N f 50 d 0. o 0. 40 a a 30 c 9- O 20 H L j C) .0 E 10 0 ..--, , _..._..._..... • • ..---- 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 year Figure 1.Number of known locations infested with Wasmannia auropunctata on Ha- waii island between 1999 and 2007. Data sourced from Conant and Hirayama(2000); Motoki et al. (Motoki et al. 2013), P. Conant (pers. corn.) and informal reports from Hawaii Department of Agriculture. Agriculture (HDOA) responded by treat- et al.2010).New infestations continued to ing all known infested properties with be detected beyond the original Kalapana- baits.Between 1999 and 2007,the number Laupahoehoe area and now include most of separate known infestations increased of the west side of Hawaii island,Waipio from an initial 3 properties to 56 by 2007 Valley,Hawi,Kapaau,Holualoa,Naalehu, (Figure 1). These properties were scat- Captain Cook, and Waimea. In districts tered between Kalapana (30 miles SE of with lower rainfall, W. auropunctata are Hilo) and Laupahoehoe (25 miles NW of limited to favorable microclimates near Hilo) (Figure 2) spanning some 55 miles homes and other structures that feature to an elevation of 1,500 ft a.s.!.. However, artificial landscaping and irrigation (CV. the actual number of infested properties pers.obs.).This concurs with the observa- within these boundaries was probably tions of Vonshak in Israel (Vonshak et al. much higher(P.Conant,pers.corn)as the 2010).By end 2010,the estimated number number of known sites was a reflection of of infested properties island-wide had survey effort, increasing levels of public exceeded 4,500, growing to an estimated awareness and actual spread. 6,400 by end 2012(Lee et al.2015).Figure The widespread and mostly unknown 3 shows areas on Hawaii island currently distribution of W. auropunctata, along infested with W. auropunctata. with an inability to treat colonies estab- Kauai. At about the same time as the lished in the tree canopy (Souza et al. initial detection (October 1999), plants 2008),resulted in the continued spread of from an infested nursery on Hawaii had this species.By early 2010, W.auropunc- been shipped to the island of Kauai.These tata had spread to several locations on the plants were infested with W. auropunc- west coast of Hawaii island(Vanderwoude tata colonies. The plants and adjacent EXHIBIT A -t? VANDERWOUDE ET AL. s� ...., -„, , ---,. ,,APs - , Laupahoehoe Legend L ti rrr-�,rt Ninole • �-,� i�i� t, n=ate N. �d ' '1) Papaikou r "' Hilo Walakea , Hawaiian s / - . y , Paradise Park �t z Mountain View _ z , '` ` ; ,. . °g Kapoho ` s.--'' Kalapana { '' 7 r :n Iif+ did Figure 2.I.,ocation of properties infested with Wasmannia auropunctata in January 2007 prepared by Hawaii Department of Agriculture. areas were immediately treated with acres and had encroached onto an adjoining baits to prevent further spread within property(see Figure 4).The site was treated Kauai(Conant and Hirayama 2000).This with granular baits followed by ad hoc infestation was assumed eradicated.How- retreatment and periodic surveys through ever, W.auropunctata were recorded in a to 2012.During these years,the infestation follow-up survey at the site four years later spread mostly westwards eventually span- in September 2003 (Null and Gundersen ping 12 acres and extending down a steep 2007). The infestation now covered five escarpment to Kalihiwai beach. EXHIBIT A 43 1 HISTORY Of- WASMANNIA AUROPUNCTAIA HAWAII IN 170: A',,,,,rflikviA 1. * 46% n,,:,,:6. 1,0, 441,--,v,'P-•',;fi;5ir44.4-K: 1-',--Y ,-'5,..-'!,•,!;-'--' 1, , ,7,.,-;:re-, -. . -,,, • I „lit';,,,,,,,,:it,t,I= - • : , --1-4,4* .',i•, ., '.-4. -,- t„.,„,. ,.. , ,, • , \ ': •1;ill ,•it -, ''.1ity,,,,,,•;',2:•i:• .,..-4.-Wil:-.1;,- .'2,,:..!fif'1' t A•-,,.'-,,-. , a,:.-- ,`V,,„1,1;,,,,;',.....•t. -,•,., ',; 0 ,,,,,., '4ct Ilik--' ..'*,.. 2o mite-% • 41 ly infested with infested). 1 • • land currently infested are of Hawaii is haded section larger s Figure 3. Areas properties in the all (2016). (Not Wastnannia auropunctata 41 ,e * 47 4..wo, 4 - 7?mug: S . 7:„„(, * .14 2,4. - , tt,*,,,,-....,,,, • '.‘,.....ma,- 1,,,,,,, ,,},...• • -vt.,--, .,..„------,-",:;;:i--#41x, 4 4•e-V -..,,,,„i 4-124, ,,,vr • -.. -;. ,•,•,„„-.044,- A , .,•,.,,f .,.., ''' '--,,:.---tt,'..--7,;:lte',..#.glt•-;:t'..r,--..'”..,',. .V.,jp:- .., :. -4,--,...'A., --.-;•-'An.-;-.1.:...:-...;';',;,;!:''''''.:;,,,',-,' •''„.. ,.., ';:.,,;,-_:- ,,,,,,,:- ., _,„,,,,:,, ,0,..,,ie- ,,,,.- ; ..-_,' •,.- s. ,-.'ti -,z,-; --- •;;,-/-'/„..,'-',-,A(' 1,,,.; - ;• .,,,-4'tb, ''`A^4,,, /I ...,074,, .1:;0%s• ..aV*., ' '••:::, , ,.,P44,-, .•••••,-,i,,., A , ';'" ie° ,'"-,' A pff '0,. -,-:'!---., . V ;',..„;--..,,i4.4. -`,.:-:-/4,"•,,,,, 44'1_-,Iff ,...,,,,,,,,,7_,r, .,.„,, s4,..4,, s...... ....i. .,. ex <, , 1 I i 5ae-:1Ume • natittia aurop * ' infested by Was! • showing Map ant frees Figure 4. siteis putatively Currently this untata(2012). of Kauai . location EXHIBIT A 44 VANDERWOUDE ET AL. o . - 4' OW "Allik .. , L. _ Scale 20 miles Figure 5.Locations of all known sites on Maui infested with Wasmannia auropunctata. In late 2012, a second eradication at- resident reported receiving painful stings tempt was implemented. At this time,the from small ants on her property.Samples critical issues of bait efficacy(Hara 2013, of these ants were submitted to the HDOA Hara et al.2014,Montgomery et al.2015) entomologist who confirmed it was Was- and arboreal treatment(Vanderwoude and manilla auropunctata. An inter-agency Nadeau 2009) had been largely resolved. taskforce was established, consisting of Due to the complexity of the site and staff from the County of Maui, Maui regulatory issues,this attempt was divided Invasive Species Committee (MISC), into two phases: initially focusing on the HDOA, US Geological Survey, Univer- readily accessible areas and later address- sity of Hawaii, and the Hawaii Ant Lab ing the escarpment and taller vegetation. (Hawaii Department of Agriculture 2009, To date (late 2016), results are encourag- Vanderwoude et al. 2010). Together they lug.The entire site is putatively free of W. formulated an eradication plan which in- atiropunctata with only a single known eluded treatment,outreach and delimiting active colony detected beneath a taller elements (Vanderwoude et al. 2010).The tree.Monitoring of this site and treatment ants were restricted to a single property of the known small colony continues, and an island-wide delimiting survey of Maui. Wasmannia auropunctam have probable high-risk sites did not find addi- been detected multiple times on the is- tional infestations.The Waihee infestation land of Maui (Figure 5). The first LFA was officially eradicated in April 2014. infestation detected on Maui was located In December 2013, a Maui resident, in Waihee.immediately west of the main alerted by various outreach programs i m- city of Kahului, in September 2009. A plemented by MISC,found W.auropunc- EXHIBIT A HISTORY OF WASMANNIA AUROPUNCTATA IN HAWAII 45 tata on a hapuu log (Cibotium sp., a tree to allow treatment staff access. This re- fern) purchased from a local landscaping suited in the HDOA taking the unusual supplier.The discovery prompted a larger step of obtaining a court order (Hawaii investigation by HDOA who discovered Department of Agriculture 2016),and later that several shipments of hapuu logs,origi- declaring a quarantine on the property nating from the Big Island,were infested in order allow the eradication program (Hawaii Department of Agriculture 2013). to continue at this site. The delays to These shipments and subsequent distribu- treatment activities have allowed W. au- tion to retailers were located and inspected ropunctata to recover and spread further by quarantine officers. A number of into this property,necessitating additional these also had W. auropunctata. These treatment effort. were either destroyed or treated in situ. The site at Waihee, which had been Two additional nascent infestations were ant-free since 2010,was surveyed repeat- found in south Maui (Wailea area)during edly between 2010 and 2014. In 2016 the first half of 2014 and these have been another survey was conducted at this site. eradicated by HDOA and MISC. W.auropunctata were again detected in an In September 2014,MISC field workers area immediately adjacent to the original were stung by small ants while conduct- treatment area. It is possible that some ing other activities in Nahiku(near Hana, infested plant trimmings may have been Maui).These ants were later identified as moved there before the original detection LFA and subsequent surveys found high in 2009.Only spanning an acre or so,this density LFA in challenging rainforest ter- site is now being treated again to ensure rain on both sides of the Hana Highway, no live ants remain. extending 11/2 miles along a drainage to Oahu. The detection of infested ship- the ocean.Four properties were involved. ments of hapuu in Maui prompted HDOA The infestation appeared to have spread to investigate other shipments from the downstream from an initial upstream same supplier destined for Oahu and establishment point to the ocean. The Lanai. Some of these were also infested, speed at which W. auropunctata spread and as a result,HDOA staff systematically downstream was substantially faster than surveyed the retail stores that received normal lateral spread, most likely facili- these items. Several of these retail stores tated by the movement of infested debris also had become infested,and these were during periodic flooding events. Due to systematically treated by HDOA staff the challenging nature of this infestation, (Hawaii Department of Agriculture 2013). agencies collaborating on the response The increased publicity surrounding (HAL, HDOA, Maui County and MISC) the infested hapuu led to the discovery formulated a containment and aggressive of two well-established infestations on control plan, first removing LFA from Oahu, each covering approximately five locations from which it would be likely to acres (Figure 6). One of these was lo- spread,then to later assess the possibilities cated in abandoned agricultural land in for a more comprehensive approach.This Waimanalo and another in a suburban plan is ongoing. area of Mililani. Eradication plans were Another LFA discovery was made developed for each site and baits were in Huelo in January 2015. An eradica- applied repeatedly to both sites over the tion plan has been developed and partly course of one year.One year after the last implemented. Activities at this site were treatment was applied (2016), both sites hampered by the refusal of one resident are putatively free of LFA. EXHIBIT A 46 VANDERWOUDE ET AL. 44 ,,`-`1t((ii �y.- tea:_ ��<a' t, t = 'Wtx ., el ',7,";`. . f .;', ., toroloyo„, J J 3e'�''+ Taj �, `�_j - „,, ���� I1"'3 FNail � / �I: .i,... .,:,.. ..1:::,7 ;..,, ,..:,..,,:,,,,_ ,,,,,,,i., ,... 7 4100. „,:,,,,n r-.,...- IL:1.--1.4. .,,,,;,,i i ill II!p Scale.20 miles • S Figure 6.Locations of known sites on Oahu infested with Wasmannia auropunctata. (currently the infestation in Mililani and the original infestation in Waimanalo are putatively ant-free) The movement of W. auropunctata to Discussion Maui and Oahu identified critical gaps in The worldwide spread of invasive ants the biosecurity system. On Oahu, these began at least as early as the 16th century gaps were addressed by implementing an (Gotzek et al.2015). By the beginning of ongoing island-wide survey of high-risk the 20th century, the ecological impacts entry sites that began in January 2015 and caused by these invasions were becom- continues to the present. This program ing apparent as entomologists lamented was designed to complement existing the paucity of other invertebrate fauna regulation and inspection systems, with in locations invaded by ant species such a goal to detect and eradicate infestations as Pheidole megacephala (Tryon 1912, while small. During the past two years, Perkins 1913).These invasions are widely this program has detected 16 nascent regarded as a consequence of human com- infestations at Oahu nurseries which were merce (Wilson and Taylor 1967, Passera systematically treated.In late 2016 a large, 1994,McGlynn 1999,Holway et al.2002), 4-acre infestation was also discovered in and in this regard,the recent introduction Waimanalo (not linked to the original and spread of W. auropunctata is no ex- detection in the same district). Without ception. this early detection,such infestations will Queens and males in invasive W.auro- grow too large to manage and become a punctata populations are mostly produced source-point for jump-dispersal to new through thelytokous parthenogenesis locations (Suarez et al. 2001). (Fournier et al. 2005). Clonal reproduc- EXHIBIT A HISTORY OF WASMANNIA AUROPUNCTATA IN HAWAII 47 tion allows global invasion pathways of have been much more rapid. However, at this species to be accurately reconstructed least some of the multiple infestations de- (Foucaud et al. 2010).Thus,the origin of tected on Maui and Oahu are not linked to W.auropunctata in Hawaii can be attrib- the nursery trade in any way.For example, uted to W.auropunctata from Florida,as no links between the purchase of potted one population is a clonal subset of the plants and infestations in Nahiku, Huelo, other(Foucaud et al.2010).Further,there Waihee and Mililani could be found. is an unambiguous connection with the The majority of ant-infested agricul- nursery trade as the original vector, both tural commodities shipped between Ha- for the initial introduction and subsequent waii Island and other islands is detected early spread within Hawaii island. and prevented from arriving by means Potted plants are an ideal vehicle for of a thorough and careful system of the movement of this species.The spaces regulation and inspection implemented between the potting medium, plant roots by HDOA. Inspection systems are based and the wall of plant containers are on a risk-management approach that convenient nesting sites, and forms a utilize available resources to optimize moisture gradient that optimizes brood risk reduction. However, not all infested development(Holldobler and Wilson 1990 commodities are (or can be) detected at p374).W.auropunctata colonies are small, the border. As W. auropunctata become interconnected and typically possess a increasingly ubiquitous on Hawaii island, worker:queen ratio between 250 and 500 the variety and proportion of infested (Ulloa-Chacon and Cherix 1990). This cargoes increases beyond simply"nursery virtually assures every plant within an plants" to include non-agricultural items infested nursery houses a viable W.auro- such as general cargo, household items punctata colony which can remain largely and vehicles. A percentage of infested undetected.Further,by their nature,plant plants and other non-regulated material nurseries are effective distribution points. will continue to arrive as a result of slip- Together, these factors contributed to the page (Whyte 2006)—infested goods that rapid spread of this species within Hawaii bypass regulated pathways,escape detec- Island, mirroring the historical spread of tion or are in commodity categories that this species through southern Florida via are not inspected. the movement of potted plants and balled By its very nature, slippage is difficult citrus seedlings (Spencer 1941). to quantify,and occurs in four commodity The pathways for movement of W. classes: those that bypass the biosecurity auropunctata between the Hawaiian system,false negatives (infested material islands have become more diverse as this inspected and cleared), commodities ex- species became increasingly ubiquitous. eluded from inspection and commodities After the initial discovery in 1999,HDOA that do not fall within the HDOA man- further regulated the movement of plants date (Government of Hawaii 1973). Not and propagative plant materials between all pathways are adequately regulated. islands. Regulatory intervention included Air passengers carrying plants and other a requirement for exporting nurseries to propagative material between islands are be certified by HDOA, or for each ship- not inspected due to a lack of resources. ment to neighbor islands to be inspected The rate of false negatives is likely to be before shipment. Without this increased very low, but remains largely unknown. watchfulness, the inter-island movement Hawaii Administrative Rules(Hawaii Ad- of W. auropunctata would undoubtedly ministrative Rules 2012)limit commodity EXHIBIT A 48 VANDERWOUDE ET AL. inspections to "plants and propagative (Lee et al. 2015). Continued prevention, material."The rules also acknowledge that early detection and response to new incur- HDOA has legislative authority to inspect sions on islands other than Hawaii island a wider range of commodities such as foli- is an invaluable investment in the future age,cut flowers and produce,but self-limits of the unique and fragile ecosystems that activities to "periodic random inspec- Hawaii has to offer. tions." Finally, there are no systematic inspections of other commodity classes Acknowledgments (used vehicles, machinery, household ef- The Hawaii Department of Agriculture fects etc.) because HDOA does not have and Hawaii Invasive Species Council pro- legislative authority to do so. vide ongoing funding to the Hawaii Ant Detection and response to these intro- Lab. The authors sincerely acknowledge ductions demonstrates the complementary the contributions of HISC, HDOA, For- roles of prevention through regulation est and Kim Starr the various Invasive and inspection; early detection through Species Committees, University of Ha- increased awareness and surveillance,and waii, the Counties of Hawaii, Maui, and rapid response through multi-agency col- Kauai, City and County of Honolulu, the laboration.These elements of the Hawaii US Geological Survey, Department of biosecurity framework are performed by Lands and Natural Resources,the Pacific different and sometimes multiple agencies Cooperative Studies Unit and all other (Kraus and Duffy 2010) often through agencies and individuals that contribute semi-formal or ad hoc collaborations.Re- to the management of Wasmannia auro- gardless of the multitude of funding part- punctata in Hawaii. We thank P. Conant, ners,agency governance issues,obstacles N. Reimer, K. Onuma, D. Arakaki, C. to data sharing, complex legal consider- Kaneshige and others who provided vital ations,and the often difficult operational anecdotal information. impediments,these collaborations can be startlingly effective, as evidenced by the Literature Cited rapid detection, response, and treatment Anon. 2016. Draft Interagency Biosecurity of multiple W. auropunctata infestations Plan for Hawaii. Page 81. State of Hawaii, Honolulu Hawaii. throughout Hawaii. Of the eight infesta tions on the neighbor islands of Oahu, Beardsley,J.W.,S.Tsong Hong,F.L.McE- wen, and D. Gerling. 1982. Field inves- Kauai and Maui, five sites are putatively ligations on the interrelationships of the free of W. auropunctata and the remain- big-headed ant,the gray pineapple mealey- ing three are contained and continue to bug,and pineapple wilt disease in Hawaii. be treated.A biosecurity plan that brings Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological these agencies closer and recognizes these Society 24:51-67. collaborations, is currently being drafted Clagg, C.F. 1953. Notes and exhibitions: by the State of Hawaii (Anon 2016), and Anoplolepis gracilipes. Proceedings of the will serve as a blueprint for biosecurity Hawaiian Entomological Society 15:282. activities in the next decade. Cole,F.R.,A.C.Medeiros,L.L.Loope,and W.W.Zuehlke. 1992. Effects of Argentine As Wasmannia auropunctata spread ant on arthropod fauna of Hawaiian high through the islands of Hawaii, the eco- elevation shrubland.Ecology 73:1313-1322. nomic and ecological impacts are likely to Conant,P.,andC.Hirayama.2000.Wasmannia be catastrophic. The predicted economic auropunctata (Hymenoptera:Formicidae): costs to the island of Hawaii alone are established on the Island of Hawaii.Bishop likely to exceed $100 million annually Museum Occasional Papers 64:21-22. EXHIBIT A HISTORY OF WASMANNIA AUROPUNCTATA IN HAWAII 49 Foucaud,J.,J.Orivel, A. Loiseau,J.H.C. Hawaii Department of Agriculture. 2013. Delabie, H. Jourdan, D. Konghouleux, Stinging ants found on plants sold at Oahu M. Vonshak, M. Tindo, J. Mercier, D. and Maui garden shops. HDOA Press re- Fresneau,J.Mikissa,T.McGlynn,A.S. lease NR-13-17. Honolulu,Hawaii. Mikheyev,J.Oettler,and A.Estoup.2010. Hawaii Department of Agriculture. 2016. Worldwide invasion by the little fire ant: HDOA serves waarant to gain access to routes of introduction and eco-evolutionary Maui property infested with Little Fire Ants. pathways.Evolutionary Applications:1-13. HDOA press release NR16-09. Honolulu, Fournier, D., A. Estoup, J. Orivel, J. Fou- Hawaii. caud, H. Jourdan, J. Le Breton, and L. Holldobler,B.,and E.O.Wilson. 1990.The Keller.2005.Clonal reproduction by males Ants.Springer-Verlag,USA. and females in the little fire ant. Nature Holway, D.A., L. Lach, AN. Suarez, N.D. 435:1230-1234. Tsutsui,and T.J.Case.2002.The causes Gillespie, R.,and N. Reimer. 1993. The ef- and consequences of ant invasions. Annu. fect of alien predatory ants (Hymenoptera: Rev. Ecol.Syst. 33:181-233. Formicidae) on Hawaiian endemic spiders Jahn,G.C., and J.W. Beardsley. 1994. Big- (Araneae: Tetragnathidae). Pacific Science headed ants,Pheidole megacephala: inter- 47:21-33. ference with the biological control of gray Gotzek,D.,H.J.Axen,A.V.Suarez,C.S.H., pineapple mealybugs.Pages 199-205 in D. and D.D.Shoemaker.2015.Global invasion F. Williams, editor. Exotic ants: biology, history of the tropical fire ant: a stowaway impact and control of introduced species. on the first global trade routes. Molecular Westview Press. Ecology 24:374-388. Kraus,F.,and D.C.Duffy.2010.A successful Government of Hawaii. 1973.Chapter 150a. model from Hawaii for rapid response to Plant and Non-domestic Animal Quarantine invasive species. Journal for Nature Con- and Microorganism Import.Chapter 150a. servation 18:135-141. Gruner,D.J. 2000. Distribution of the Little Krushelnycky, P.D., and R.G. Gillespie. Fire Ant Wasmannia auropunctata(Roger) 2008.Compositional and functional stabil- in Hawaii: A partnership of K-12 schools, ity of arthropod communities in the face the University of Hawaii, and the Hawaii of ant invasions. Ecological Applications Department of Agriculture. University of 18:1547-1562. Hawaii at Manoa.Hawaii,USA. Krushelnycky, P.D., L.L. Loope, and N.J. Hara,A.H.,K.L.Aoki,S.K.Cabral,and R.Y. Reimer. 2005. The ecology, policy, and Niino-Duponte.2014.Attractiveness of gel, management of ants in Hawaii. Proceed- granular, paste, and solid formulations of ings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society ant bait insecticides to the Little Fire Ant, 37:1-25. Wasmannia auropunctata(Roger) (Hyme- Lee,D.J.,M.Motoki,C.Vanderwoude,S.T. noptera: Formicidae). Proceedings of the Nakamoto,and P.S. Leung. 2015.Taking Hawaiian Entomological Society 46:45-54. the sting out of Little Fire Ant in Hawaii. Hara,A.H.,K.I.Aoki,S.K.Cabral, and R.Y. Ecological Economics 111:100. Niino-DuPonte. 2013. Attractancy of bait Lowe, S., M. Browne, S. Boudjelas, and insecticides to Little Fire Ant, Wasmannia M. De Poorter. 2000. 100 of the World's auropunctata (Roger) (Hymenoptera: For- Worst Invasive Alien Species: A selection micidae).Proceedings of the 2013 Imported from the Global Invasive Species Database. Fire Ant Conference:26-35. The Invasive Species Specialist Group Hawaii Administrative Rules. 2012. Plant (ISSG) a specialist group of the Species and non-domestic animal quarantine, Survival Commission (SSC) of the World Plant intrastate rules. Page 15 in Hawaii Conservation Union (IUCN)„ AUckland, Department of Agriculture, editor. Ch72 New Zealand. 6(4),Honolulu. McGlynn,T.P. 1999.The worldwide transfer Hawaii Department of Agriculture. 2009. of ants: geographical distribution and eco- Little Fire Ants found on Maui. HDOA logical invasions.Journal of Biogeography press release NR-09-13. Honolulu,Hawaii. 26. EXHIBIT A 50 VANDERWOUDE ET AL. Medeiros,A.C.,L.L.Loope,and F.R.Cole. Thos. Blackburn in the Sandwich Islands. 1986. Distribution of ants and their effects Journal of the Linnean Society of London on endemic biota of Haleakala and Hawaii 4:674-685. Volcanoes National Park: a preliminary Spencer,H. 1941.The small fire ant Wasman- assessment. Pages 39-53 Proceedings of nia in citrus groves - a preliminary report. the Sixth Conference of Natural Science , Florida Entomologist 24:6-14. Hawaii Volcanoes National Park Coopera- Suarez, AV., D.A. Holway, and T.J. Case. five National Park Resources Study Unit; 2001.Patterns of Spread in Biological Inva- University of Hawaii,Manoa. sions Dominated by Long-Distance Jump Mikheyev, A.S., and U.G. Mueller. 2007. Dispersal: Insights from Argentine Ants. Genetic relationships between native and Proceedings of the National Academy of introduced populations of the little fire ant Sciences of the United States of America Wasmannia auropunctata. Diversity and 98:1095-1100. Distributions:1-7. Tryon, H. 1912. The naturalization of an Montgomery, M.P., C. Vanderwoude, and exotic ant (Pheidole megacephala, Fab.). A.J.L. Lynch. 2015. Palatability of baits Queensland Naturalist 9:225-229. containing (S)-methoprene to Wasmannia Ulloa-Chacon,P.,and D.Cherix. 1990.The auropunctata (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) Little Fire Ant Wasmannia auropunc- Florida Entomologist 98:451-455. tata(R.)(Hymenoptera:Formicidae).Pages Motoki,M.,D.J.Lee,C.Vanderwoude,L.J. 281-289 in R.K.Vander meer,K.Jaffe,and Nakomoto,and P.S.Leung.2013.A bioeco- A. Cedeno,editors.Applied Myrmecology nomic model of Little Fire Ant Wasmannia A World Perspective.Westview Press. auropunctata in Hawaii. 168,Pacific Coop- Vanderwoude,C.,and B.Nadeau.2009.Ap- erative Studies Unit,University of Hawaii, plication methods for paste bait formulations Honolulu Hawaii. Report number 186. in control of ants in arboreal situations. Null,W.,and K.Gundersen.2007.Little Fire Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Ant Wasmannia auropunctata:Its Presence Society 41:113-119. on Kauai.Kauai Invasive Species Commit- Vanderwoude,C.,K.Onuma,and N.Reimer. tee,Hawaii,USA. 2010.Eradicating Wasmannia auropunctata O'Dowd, D.J., P.T. Green, and P.S. Lake. (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) from Maui, 2003.Invasional"meltdown"on an oceanic Hawaii:The use of combination treatments island. Ecology Letters 6:812-817. to control an arboreal invasive ant.Proceed- Passera, L. 1994. Characteristics of tramp ings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society ants. Pages 22-43 in D.F.Williams,editor. 42:23-31. Exotic Ants: Biology, Impact and Control Wetterer, J.K. 2013. Worldwide spread of of Introduced Species. Westview Press, the little fire ant,Wasmannia auropunctata Boulder,Colorado. (Hymenoptera:Formicidae).Terrestrial Ar- Perkins,R.C.L. 1913. Being a review of the thropod Reviews:173-184. land fauna of Hawaiia. Fauna Hawaiensis Wetterer, J.K., and S.D. Porter. 2003. The 1:xv-ccxxviii. Little Fire Ant,Wasmannia auropunctata: Reimer, N., J.W. Beardsley, and G. Jahn. distribution,impact and control.Sociobiol- 1990. Pest ants in the Hawaiian islands.in ogy 41:1-41. R.K.Vander Meer,K.Jaffe,and A.Cedeno, Whyte, C. 2006. Science and biosecurity - editors.Applied myrmecology:a world per- monitoring the effectiveness of biosecurity spective.Westview Press,Oxford. interventions at New Zealand's borders. Reimer, N.J. 1994. Distribution and impact Royal Society of New Zealand, Miscel- of alien ants in vulnerable Hawaiian eco- laneous series 67:27-36. systems. Pages pp 11-22 in D. F.Williams, Wilson, E.O., and R.W. Taylor. 1967. The editor. Exotic Ants: Biology, Impact, and ants of Polynesia.Pacific Insects Monograph Control of Introduced Species. Westview 14:1-109. Press,Boulder. Zimmerman,E.C. 1940.Argentine Ant in Ha- Smith,F. 1879.Descriptions of new species of waii.Proc.Hawaiian Entomol.Soc. 11:108. aculeate Hymenoptera collected by the Rev EXHIBIT B Ecological Economics 11112015;,100-110 Contents lists available at Snwence,Dtrect • ' .,°`; Ecological Economics Aro journal hometpage; ei:,ealer.corn,loCatu,`erolecon Analysis Taking the sting out of Little Fire Ant in Hawaii CmsnMerk Donna J.Lee a,* Michael Motoki b, Casper Vanderwoude c, Stuart T.Nakamoto d,PingSun Leung e Dept,el-Natural Resources&Environmental Management,College of Tropical Agrwutture and Human Resources,University of Hawaii at Manna,OIL Economic Consulting.2442 Kahle Ave. Honolulu,HI 96815,USA °Dept.of Natural Resources fa Environmental Management,College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources,PubticAdministration Program.College of Social Sciences,University of Hawaii at Manna,98-459 Pono Street,Awe,HI 96701,USA Hawaii Ant Lab,Pacific Cooperative Studies Unit,RCUII.University of Hawaii,16 East Lanikaula Street Hilo.HI 96720,USA °Dept.of Human Nutrition,Food fr Animal Sciences,College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources.University of Hawaii at Monon,1955 E-W Rood,Honolulu,H196822,USA Dept.of Neutral Resources fr Environmental Management.College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources,University of Hawaii at Marva,3050 Maite Way,Gilmore 111,Honolulu, HI 96822,USA ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Article history: In the 1990's,Little Fire Ants(LFAs)found its way to the island of Hawaii most likely traveling with a shipment of Received 8 June 2014 potted plants from Florida.These plants were subsequently sold to consumers along the east coast of the Island, Received in revised form 1 S January 2015 along with Iittle Fire Ant colonies living in the potting medium.ISA is now thriving and continues to spread.Fif- Accepted 22 January 2015 teen years after the initial detection in 1999,LEA has spread to over 4000 locations on the island of Hawaii and has Available online xxxx been found in isolated locations on Kauai,Maui,and Oahu Islands.Current efforts are expected to contain the in- Keywords: festatinns on the other islands but significant additional investment is needed to halt the rapid spread of LFA on Bioeconomic modeling the island of Hawaii. Invasive species Increased management expenditures can suppress infestations;reduce spread between sectors;and decrease Socio-economic impacts long-term management costs,damages,and stings. tvianagemeni • An immediate expenditure of 58 million in the next 2-3 years plus follow-up prevention,monitoring,and mit- Wile Fite Ant Wasmannra aarapunctota igation treatments will yield$1.210 billion in reduced control costs,5129 million in lowered economic dam- ages,315 million fewer human sting incidents,and 102 million less pet sting incidents over 10 years. • Over 35 years,the benefits include$5.496 billion in reduced control costs,5538 million less economic damages, 2.161 billion fewer human sting incidents,and 762 million fewer pet sting incidents. (0 2015 Published by Elsevier B.V. 1.Introduction young.They also sting cats,dogs and other domestic animals in the eyes, blinding them over time(Theron,2005).Humans are also stung by this 1.1.Problem Statement species,both indoors and outdoors.The sting typically causes an intense burning sensation and painful itchy welts.Human habitats provide ideal Wasmannla auropunctata(roger),known as the Little Fire Ant(LFA), niches for Little Fire Ant growth and survival (Krushelnycky et at. threatens native biodiversity,alters tropical ecosystems,impairs human 2005).Human activities disperse Little Fire Ant quickly and widely. health,impedes tourism,diminishes agricultural productivity,mars horticulture sales, and accordingly ranks among the world's worst 12.Research Statement'` invasive species(Lowe et al.,2000),Little Fire Ant will sting endangered reptiles and birds,interfering with reproduction,nesting,and survival of The purpose of this research is to assess the long term impacts of Lit- tle Fire Ant in Hawaii and to ascertain the economic and social benefit from greater public investment in prevention and control. We developed a multi-sector, dynamic, stochastic, bioeconomic • Corresponding author, model to simulate LFA spread,human response,economic damages, E-mall addresses;DJLDonnaJLee rrrail.com(DJ,Lee),matoki.ms@gnwil.com (M.Motoki),fasperV Hawaii.edu(C.Vanderwoude),SNakama'8ihawaii.etha (S.T.Nakamoto),PSLeuisg@nawaii.edu I€'.Leung). Abbreviations used in this article:LEA,HDOA, hap:;clx.doiorg,-1 D,i 01&j.eeolecaa.2013 01.010 0921-8009,/C 2015 Published by Elsevier B.V. EXHIBIT B DJ ilea di i frologrcal Economies 111(2015)100-110 tin and social impacts.We parameterized the model with government data, several years lose their sight(Thei.on,2005).Little Fire Ant infestations primary survey data,and information from experts and practitioners, put agriculture crops and workers at risk(Fahres and Brown. 197)). We specified several levels of management and simulated outcomes When Little Fire Ant is present, aphid populations explode due to with Microsoft Excel using Frontline Risk Solver PlatformC. mutualism(Fasi et al.,2013)and farm workers are stung repeatedly. Plant nurseries can and have gone out of business due to lost productiv- 1.3.Background ity, high treatments costs, and a reluctance by consumers to buy infested stock.Wild honeybee hives in Hawaii have been swarmed Ants were first introduced when the Europeans settled the islands, and destroyed by LFA. in the 18th century,Hawaii is now home to 47 introduced ant species Once established.Little Fire Ant can occupy their habitat at an ex- (Krushelnycky et al,2(105);with the recent introduction Little Fire Ant traordinarily high density.Souza et al,(2008)estimate that total popu- W.auropunctata regarded as potentially the most destructive.USDA- lation size can exceed 200 million ants per hectare with worker:queen ARS(2010)estimate that total damages,losses and control costs attrib- ratios of approximately 400 (Ulloa-Chacon and Cherix. 1990).This uted to invasive fire ants in the United States is$5,6 billion per year. equates to a density of 20.000 ants per square meter,of which 40 will Little Fire Ant arrived on the island of Hawaii most probably in the be queens. 1990's and by the time the infestation was detected in 1999(Conant Best-practice mitigation activities for affected residents and busi- anti Hirayama.2000),Little Fire Ant had spread to 13 separate locations. nesses comprise a regular(six weekly)application of granular baits to Aggressive control actions were undertaken immediately, however exterior areas combined with the use of residual pesticides both inside Little Fire Ant continued to spread(Conant.2002)and by 2004,infested and on the exterior of structures.The Hawaii Ant 1.2b(University of 31 locations(Fig.1).In the years following its initial detection,Little Fire Hawaii).with a staff of five people,provides research,outreach,educa- Ants have spread to three other islands in the Hawaii archipelago:Maui, don,training,advice and limited mitigation activities for all invasive ant Kauai(Vanderwoude et ai.,201N and Oahu in late 2013. issues in the state of Hawaii including maintaining a website 2 with in- The source of Little Fire Ants found in Hawaii is most likely Florida formation on impacts and remedies.The Big Island Invasive Species USA.Little Fire Ants have an unusual form of reproduction.In intro- Committee provides education and outreach on Little Fire Ant and duced populations,almost all female reproductive offspring are geneti- other invasive species on the island of Hawaii. tally identical to the parent female and males are genetically identical to In modeling invasive species management,Mumford and Norton the male parent.This clonal form of reproduction allows the source of (1984)applied Bayesian decision theory to determine the timing and new Mvasive populations to be traced to the source population with a level of management as a function of the invasive species population high degree of certainty.Foucaud et al.(2010)determined that the clon- density.Eiswerth and Johnson (2002 i and Eiswerth and van Kooten al lines of Little Fire Ants in Hawaii are identical to those of introduced (2002)incorporated dynamics to model population growth and uncer- populations in Florida USA, tainty to allow for weather variability.To obtain closed-form solutions Due to the severity and extent of impacts,LFA is considered among to the optimal invasive species management problem.Burnett et al. the world's worst invasive species(Lowe et al.,2000),In homes,schools, ',2007). Carrasco et al. (2010l, Mehta et al, (2007), Taylor and lodging,and parks,Little Fire Ant will sting adults,infants,children and Hastings (2004), and Olson and Roy (2003) assumed a continuous pets.The reaction to stings varies from person to person.Some people rate of spread and employed optimal control modeling. Leung et al. experience a severe reaction with a great deal of pain and large raised (2002)modeled discrete invasive species spread employing stochas- welts that itch for a week or more.Babies can receive numerous stings tic dynamic programming. within a few minutes of exposure.Pets are stung in the eyes and over Prevention management including monitoring invasion pathways associated with trade,transport and travel and inspecting potential vectors was modeled by Perrings (2005). Olson (2006) modeled epee re... Hawari invasive species introduction as a random variable and included pre- ‘t Area Map vention as a means to reduce the probability of introduction. Leung ' sisay.11Vea.,‘"4", ei al.;,2002)specified prevention success as exponentially distributed and diminishing with effort.Mehta et I.(2007)indicated that preven- -000A1,' ..,,l,•.‘s,e.-- tion may do little to stop spread when the probability of introduction is '';,,l'., - al e.alizzake4tillike.l4a givaa,", small or when the number of invasion pathways is large,and modeled detection as a means of locating new introductions before they have . 4.AVV;0'4:-',7`,.,';4,',--- "..,,,,,,, :,:k:':0•Vi".; ' had a chance to spread.where the probability of detection increases with the level of effort. I New New introductions and established infestations require mitigation treatment in the form of chemical,mechanical,and manual means to re- duce or eliminate the infestation.Treatment effectiveness as a stochastic process that decreases with effort was modeled by Feder(1979:a The , , effectiveness of successive treatments was modeled with a cumulative 0..7,etoR... . probability distribution by Lichtenberg and Zilber man(1986).OlsonWP,4,;:, ' and Roy(2003) used dynamic programming to determine the condi- '' --•"'44'W AY50';''?a:',',:':ala;',;..*'"' tions under which eradication, mitigation, and no mitigation are optimal. „4:•::';;;aaael 'e!:',:-Xil_''' . a,– The marginal cost of invasive species management was modeled as a linear function that increased with the size of the infestation by Hastings ,4,1‘44ktiltpi* 0.— et al.(2006)and Burnett et,sl 2007 as a convex function by Olson ' 411!**4?;' mni...... usi a...ea N. (2006); and as a budget constrained function by Taylor and Hastings gm 9004-8404 im 4 (2004;,and Hastings et al. (2006).The marginal economic damage 14451 caused by the infestation was modeled as a linear function that Fig.I.Regions 0014waii Island with one or more infested locations(red),(For interpre- tation of the references to color in this figure legend,the reader is referred to the web version of this article,,', 2 Www.fittketireatIts.com. EXHIBIT B 102 D.J.Lee et at/Ecological Economics 111(2015)100-110 increased with the size of the infestation by Gutrich et al.(2007);as a damage,and start producing new colonies that can be transported to quadratic function by Burnett et al.(2007);and as a non-linear function other locations. by Olson(2006)and Haight and Polasky(2010). Leung et al. (2002), Burnett et al. (2007),and Eiswerth and van 2.1.4.Original Contribution Koote.n(2002)modeled invasive species population growth up to a car- In previous models of invasive ants,spatial spread was forecast using rying capacity over discrete time using a logistic function. Lee et al. radial and cellular specifications. Our approach is novel in that we (2007)modeled invasive species growth and spread overtime using a model LFA spread within and across economic sectors over time.On transition matrix to forecast the probability of uninfested locations be- the island of Hawaii,LFAs are transported unintentionally by humans coming invaded,and then tracking that status of the infestation from in- with the movement of infested soil,produce,and other goods;mecha- cubating,to propagating,to spreading to other locations.Carrasco et al. nisms which do not follow a radial or cellular pattern. Further,LFA (2010),Leung et al. (2002),and Burnett et al.(2007) simulated short nests are tiny compared with the area they can impact; several tiny distance dispersal via colony budding using a reaction-diffusion walnut-sized nests can disrupt the activities of an entire household or model. Suarez et al. (2001), Souza et al. (2008), and Wilson et al. farm.Thus rather than units of length or area,we use discrete locations (2009)modeled unlimited carrying capacity and long distance human as our unit measure of"space",e.g.a home,a school,a farm,and a park. mediated dispersal.Nathan et al.(2003)used gravity models to quantify One unit represents one location.This pseudo-spatial approach pro- human-mediated long distance dispersal.Hastings et al. (2005),and vides us with a compact way of specifying and simulating the joint rela- Bossenbroek et al. (2001) used commerce and traffic flows to model tionships between economic activity, LFA movement, LFA impacts human-mediated dispersal pathways.Carrasco et al. (2010)assumed (economic and social),and management response.Our second contri- outward dispersal via a random walk process and used diffusion bution is an accounting of the number of LFA stings and a comparison models. Eiswerth and van Kooten (2002), Kot and Schaffer (1986), of the Pareto tradeoff between economic impacts and stings. Hastings et al.(2005),and Law et al.(2003)employed a probabilistic transition function3 to model dispersal. Scanlan and Vanderwoude 2.2.Model Scope and Detail (2009)modeled dispersal using a stochastic cellular automata. Our model includes ninety thousand locations on the island of 2.Materials and Methods Hawaii within seven economic sectors i E(nursery,agriculture,lodging, residential,parks,schools,and all others).Of the ninety thousand loca- 2.1.Model Framework lions,4581 locations are infested initially.Our model simulates infesta- tion 35 years t E(0...35)into the future.The number of locations per We simulate future spread and impacts from LFA on the island of sector and initial LFA infestation is shown in Table 1. Hawaii using a bioeconomic model comprised of three integrated sub- models:impact,management,and spread.Control variables determine 2.2.1.Impacts the level of effort allocated toward LFA detection,spread prevention, Impacts from LFA comprise economic damages,management costs, and mitigation treatment and human and pet sting incidents. 2.2.1.1.Economic Damages.Economic damages are sector-specific and 2.1.1.Impacts vary with the size and extent of the LFA infestation.For example,in The impact sub-model quantifies economic impacts (economic the residential sector we include the impact of LFA on property values damage and management expenditure)and social impacts(the number when homes are sold.In the lodging sector we include reduced reve- of human and pet LFA sting incidents)per sector over time.Economic nues from decreased room occupancy and cheaper room rates.The eco- damages are sector dependent and vary with the size and extent of nomic damage per sector location is based on estimated mean economic the infestation.Management expenditures are based on best manage- impacts from LFA and is assumed to increase with the number of ment practices and current technology and vary with management infested locations and overall level of infestation.The economic damage goals,management effort,and the cost of labor and materials.Sting in- in sector i at time t is: cidents are based on the number of infested locations in each sector, human population,pet population,demographics,and employment in each sector.A sting"incident"may involve multiple LFA stings. D c amRg,Ne`rabtish2 = i Nmax (1) 2.1.2.Management The management sub-model quantifies the effect of management decisions on LFA survival,growth and dispersal.Management activities Table 1 include detection,prevention,and mitigation treatment.Detection al- Little Fire Ant infested locations on the island of Hawaii in 2012. lows new infestations to be treated before they become established. Sector %Infested Infested locations Total locations Prevention reduces the likelihood that LFA will be transported to anoth- Nursery 22.5% 170 757 er location by humans.Mitigation treatments reduce the intensity and Agriculture 4.0% 186 4650 extent of infestations. Lodging 0.2% 1 468 Residential 7.0% 3648 52,216 Parks 3.9% 6 152 2.1.3.Spread Schools 1.2% 1 84 The spread sub-model simulates LFA survival,growth and dispersal Other 1.7% 568 32,547' as follows.When LFAs are initially introduced to a new location their Total 5% 4581 90,874 chance of surviving is low.If they survive,they go unnoticed for several From Motoki et al.(2013'.b years during which they have time to establish and increase in number. ' Hawaii Island is 2.58 million acres.With our 6 major sectors we account for 23 million The first year after introduction,LFAs are comparatively easy to eradi- acres.Our sector"other"consists of 0.28 million acres and 81,556 parcels(according to tate.Once they establish,they are difficult to eradicate,begin causing 2010 tax records).To scale the model,we represented the"other"sector with 32,547 locations. b Using data from the Hawaii Ant Lab;information from the 2007 Census of Agriculture, 3 A transition matrix is a kernel without a functional form,matrix elements denote the the 2011 Visitor Plant Inventory.City-datacom,and the State of Hawaii Data Book,and probability of transitioning between states or spatial locations. 2013 PCSU Technical Report#186. EXHIBIT B D.f.Lee et aL/Ecological Economics 111(2015)100-110 103 Here L;°`"°$e is the average economic damage at locations where where fi,.=1/(1 +r)t is the discount factor,r is the annual discount rate, LFA has become established, N•rblish is the number of locations and i indexes the seven economic sectors:agriculture,nursery,resi- where LFA has become established in sector i at the end of time t: dences,schools,lodging,parks,and all others. N"1°"is the number of locations in sector i that are susceptible to LFA. Thus,when sector i becomes fully infested,Ne sttablah=N;"°"and annual 2.2.1.4.Social Impacts.LFA stings cause extreme pain,high anxiety,and damage is emage N;"°'.4 itchy welts.While other species of fire ants nest solely outdoors and For agricultural impacts we estimated yield loss to untreated crops. on the ground,LFA will enter houses,nest under kitchen counters and Agricultural damages are$600 per farm.For nursery impacts we esti- in bedding,and crawl beneath clothing to sting people in their homes. mated revenue losses due to banned exports.Nursery damages are Outdoors,LFA can nest in leaf litter,in bushes,and in trees dropping $9000 per farm.For residential impacts we estimated reduced property onto people who happen to brush by.Each encounter with LFA may en- values when the homes are sold.Residential damages are$1000 per tail multiple stings.Domestic animals and pets are particularly suscepti- property.For lodging impacts we estimated revenue losses due to re- ble to LFA stings. In infested residential areas,LFAs have repeatedly duced visitation and lowered rates.Lodging damages are$183,000 per stung cats and dogs in the eyes inevitably blinding the animals over property.For park impacts we attempted to capture ecosystem produc- time. tivity losses due to destruction of wild bee hives and increased chick We used Census data(DEBDT,2012a)and forecasts(DEBDT,2009) mortality of ground nesting birds.Using cost transfer methods,park to estimate human population at home and at work(DEBDT,2012b) damages are$2300 per acre.For"other"sector impacts we surveyed by sector.We used tourism authority data to estimate daily visitor landowners and businesses to find out the most they would spend on counts(HTA,2012).We used U.S.pet statistics to estimate the popula- LFA mitigation."Other"sector impacts are$500 per locations tion of domestic pets(cats and dogs)on the island of Hawaii(AVMA, 2012).We combined human and pet population data with our spread 2.2.1.2.Management Expenditures. Management cost parameters are model infestation rates to compute sting incidents to adults and chil- based on current technology,best management practices,and current dren at home and at play,adults at work,children at school,and visitors costs for materials and labor.Total management expenditure is a func- at lodging and at play.Using infestation in the residential sector,we es- tion of management goals,management decisions,and size of the man- timated the number of sting incidents to domestic pets in homes. aged area.Management activities include prevention,detection,and The number of LFA sting incidents per year Six is dependent on the mitigation. N"7 Prevention expenditure is proportional to the number of infested human population Pop;1,the level of infestation, ,and the daily locations.Prevention expenditure cPfeV `"is a function of unit cost probability of being stung in an infested area Arg,multiplied by the „preve"` number of known infested locations N;`°°`"°and prevention ef- number days per year: Ffort d?aeVPAf as follows: establish reventt = Pi Prevent Ni.knownt di.t Prevent (2) Shuman _AsnngNestablisht it .Ia0Pi.t)365. (7) t t 117 Detection(monitoring)expenditure is proportional to the number Over 35 years,total human sting incidents is: of uninfested locations.Detection expenditure is a function of the unit cost of detection per location paftect,number of uninfested locations 35 7 (N"'°"—Nk"°mn),and detection effort dfirct as follows: Total human sting incidents= E51,1.irtm. (8) r=o i-1 detect detect/ max knownl detect ( ) Ci,t =Pit Nt Ni. t di.t (3) conditions and land-use characteristics are all used to de- termine the sting incident rate A;°ng.For example,nursery workers expenditure c`"i°gatP is a function of unit cost of mitigation p"'i`ig°`e num— ber of infested location N;O1°`',and mitigation effort dri7in$°`e as follows: quently than hotel workers.Sting incident frequency increases with the extent of LFA infestation.We quantified LFA sting incidents to humans Cmitigate= PmingateNknowndmingate (4) based on estimated number of human sting incidents that would occur at homes,at work,in parks,at lodging,and at schools.We used Expenditures for mitigation treatments,prevention,and detection population data on residents,work force,and visitors. are summed to obtain total management expenditure in sector i at The number of pet sting incidents per year is dependent on the num- time t as follows: ber of domestic dogs and cats Pop'3 ,pet sting incident frequency per day AP'and level of infestation in the residential(homes)sector: revent detect minga[e etablish CAr +C11 + C;t (5) ger=hpetspoppetsNe`tablish("1.stmax •365. (9) i ) 2.2.1.3.Total Cost.Economic damage D;,1 and management expenditure LFA human and pet stings are a major social concern.For this study, M;,1 are discounted and summed over time t to obtain an expression of we enumerate the number of sting incidents without monetizing them the present value future total cost associated with LFA infestation: to allow the frequency of stings to be considered separately from eco- nomic impacts 357 Total Cost =ESt(E D t+M;1 (6) 2.22,Management Decisions t-0 \i-1 Based on level of infestation,management goals and constraints,we use the model to determine investment in prevention,detection,and mitigation by sector and time period.Investment in detection increases 4 The form or this equation is similar to Mehta et al.(2007). the likelihood of finding LFA at newly introduced locations before the s About 550/acre per year. infestation becomes established.Investment in prevention reduces the EXHIBIT B 104 D.J.Lee et at/Ecologieai Economics 111(2015)100-110 50% �--Akt sectors 4791 45% 35% _ — 33% C 03 3f1°� 279 '4,1,12, it X Q 2095 __...__ _ _._.._..._._.. 19°F ` i o _�.._._. �' , ° : ' F4:.: ,:.:',:',�3c 15% -- 13%- - ! �. .._. ._ 1096 10% „fail 2 'A( "lam” 0% ,9 5 10 20 35 ®Least test mLCurrent management Year RReduced management Fig.2.Linke Fire Ant infestation by management type and year across all sectors. probability that LFAs are transported between locations,Investment in Detection investment or is in units of person-hours per sector per mitigation reduces the level of infestation at established locations, year and lira (.0d,7 Lr 1. 2.2.2.1.Decision Variables.The decision(control)variable,do.",deter- Mitigation reduces the number of infested locations within a sector. mines the level of effort in prevention,detection,and mitigation in Here mitigation effort is measured in terms of the number of insecticide each sector i at each time period€.Prevention and detection activities applications drr`t °te per sector per year.` Each application eradicates are non-negative and unbounded,i.e.,der "1- ddre"?0.Mitigation LFA with probability,gym"g"e such that treatment is nonnegative and bounded where 0 5 d7 °° S 4. mitigate rnattgate,d,'" ''" 2.2.2.2.Effectiveness.LFAs are elusive and as a result management actin- 6'` =I (1 �,r i 13) } ities are imperfect.The annual probability that any management activity and lint dm � a eLi nLiid6mre1 = (prevention,detection.or mitigation)will succeed is less than one.We model management success with a geometric distribution.Where A is Management effort effectiveness parameters are derived from rec- the probability of success(e.g.preventing a new infestation at one loca- ommended best management practices and expert opinion. tion),Ford�1,the probability of success is 0=0,ford� I,and the probability of success is: 2.2.3.infested Locations and Spread d The initial infestation N� is set equal to the number of LFA infested d=1—(i—A) (10) (established)locations in 2012 as shown in Table 1.The spread where 0< _<1 and U b 1. sub- model simulates the survival,growth,and dispersal of LFA over time Prevention encompasses efforts to thwart new infestations by re- within and between economic sectors With this pseudo-spatial repre- ducing movement of LEA between locations.Prevention effectiveness sensation.we simulate LEA spread as occurring with the movement of }prevenrde ends on theprobabilityof stopping spread ewe'and the in- goods and people over time within and across sectors.With information ppp g p on acres per unit(location)and units per sector,we estimate infested vestment in prevention d(r': acreage over time as follows:at each newly infested location the status / �P„ transitions from"introduced"to either"uninfested"or"incubating"' eweu= 1...._11—>tP "t� (11) and then to"uninfested"or"incubating"or"established."The model l tracks the number of locations N in sector i at time t for each state of Prevention investment dr'rei'° Es.(0,°)is in units of person-hours infestation(...) as given by N;I'a whole number value that cannot per sector per year and lim (Ort. a`� �_ 1. exceed the number oflocationsper sector defined here as: Ni,r' ax .a 0 and E NP t'S P1j . Monitoring for LEA increases the likelihood that newly introduced .) LEA colonies are found before they can establish,grow,and spread.De- tection effectiveness Of'depends on the probability of detecting an 22.3.1.Incubation,Detection,Mitigation.During incubation,LFAs repro- LEA infestation Ade°'°and investment in detection or-'. duce but do not spread.The number of locations with incubating popu- lations equals the number of locations infested from other sectors tes t�) ererr=I_ 1_Adieterr o"" m rtroauced plus the number of locations infested internally N °"&' tea While incubating,LEA can be detected with effectiveness Ede .The a Insecticide application frequency is limited to 4 times per year per the manufacturer's °This formulation of early detection is a modification of the functional form put forth by instructions. Carrascoetat(20t0;, a Nascent. EXHIBIT B D.j.Lee et at I Ecoirgicat Economics 111(2015)100-110 105 number of locations with newly introduced(w=1)incubating infesta- Table 2 tions that escaped detection is defined: Little Fire Ant Infestation by sector in years 5 and 35. �__.........____.�_.._ Year Year Nnnt,wtrte,mk — i iLnroduced I NArrn—vS,t 1_(dt a 35 14 rt Reduced Current nt Reducrd Senor feast coat .._ ..,- 1cWisest management man ment ma ',.MCnt , t Ag The number of newly introduced incubating infestations that have Lodging been detected(w= 1)is defined: Nur4e`1 Other Ninrubate Ninrraduced t Nara wth detect 15 Nx ldenawt e t.t,w = d,t it-t i.t ) ,r a , srhons .,€irk , .._F 4': ,ww__'. �-_, Percent infested. Incubating infestations can be destroyed with probability A 1,so the decision to eradicate is d=(0,1).If drzadr`°°= 1 then the Nx W,r're '0 If d€rodecnte 0 the number of known locations with incubating papula- Of the incoming propagules only a proportion NI"'survive to become tions is defined: Incubating infestations become established after newly introduced infestations: 3 years.The number of locations with established LFA populations is defined: N:Mr i.trcxha-f.d_AsurrineNin� (22) i. Nimtibaa _ Incubate 1 .derndzeute) (1 fi) t,t=ti,rvkl ,,l.w is 22.3.3.Intrinsic Growth.For our model,we define intrinsic growth as vi- ash ersh uare ntu1100,ung)NYstbbliw N,sr"hli_7 � N;trttbr_,� �Niit__��1 (l7) able ant colonies crawling from one location to another.For LFA,the rate of intrinsic growth A ,aw ,is slow.!°We simulate intrinsic growth as in- All established infestations are assumed to be"known"infestations creasing in the number of established locations A and de- due to the damages they cause and are thus candidates for mitigation creasing as the sector approaches full infestation. The number of treatment. The effectiveness of treatment O'"i"gtfe is defined in locations newly infested from intrinsic growth is defined: Eq. (13),The number of locations with established LFA colonies is ` eunnit5h. defined: ernwrh growth establish Nr,r N t =A N,,t 1— N"'a ). (23) I Nestabiisht t.t=Neuaitsh7 (1—omitIF%gate), (13 i, - The number of infested locations in each sector i is: 3.Management Scenarios "final _"establish "incubate }..Nirxubate(unk), i 9,) To assess the potential economic damages from Little Fire Anton the r.t , — ,.r ;,t island of Hawaii and potential benefits from managing Little Fire Ant. we evaluated a current management(status quo)scenario and two al- 2.2.3.2. Human Transport, Through human movement(to and from ternate scenarios:reduced management(a reduction in public manage- work,school,and outdoor recreation)and goods exchange,live viable ment efforts to contain infestations and prevent spread)and least cost ant colonies are dispersed among and between sectors. (a theoretical Pareto optimum that assumes perfect knowledge and Viable ant colonies transported out of one sector to another sector is full cooperation;the sum of management costs and economic damages termed an Outgoing propagule.The number of Outgoing propagules Is minimized), N')r is proportionate Ary"'"a to the number of infested locations Current public management is led by the Hawaii Ant Lab(University N `°bi'P less the effectiveness of prevention efforts Or— and is of Hawaii).With a staff of five people,the Lab provides research,out- expressed as follows: reach,education,training,advice and limited mitigation activities for all invasive ant issues in the State of Hawaii including maintaining a t estdbtesh utvarian/ �p event' website"with information on impacts and remedies.The Big Island In- N ru =Ni,t Ai 11—�i.t )' (20) vasive Species Committee provides education and outreach on Little Fire Ant and other invasive species on the island of Hawaii. Viable ant colonies transported into one sector from other sectors For the current management scenario,we assumed that residents are termed Incoming propagules N;?r_ Incoming propagules are the and businesses with LFA infestations treat periodically to mitigate sum of Outgoing propagules Kr transported from all other sectors local impacts but not sufficiently to eradicate LFA from their property i i,defined as follows: or halt the spread to other properties.Treatment occurs when infesta- tion reaches 20%,then control effort is proportionate to the level of in- " \ NVrwu festation. In the Park and School sectors, LFA infestations remain N11 ... (Elii "Tit �1_ �rar ). (21} r2 untreated. For the reduced management scenario,we assumed a cut in public The matrix K captures the commerce on the island likely to transport funding for mitigation treatment,prevention,detection,outreach and education which would result in a faster rate of spread.Residents and ant colonies between sectors.The matrix elements Icy,are nonnegative businesses with LEA infestations treat periodically to mitigate local im- 0 5 k, < 1 with values that sum to one ikj.i==1,Uninfested and less pacts but not sufficiently to eradicate LFA from their property or halt 3 the spread to other properties.Treatment occurs when infestation infested sectors are assumed more susceptible to incoming propagules than heavily infested sectors hence inclusion of the factor (1--Nemo1. 10 Ten meters per year. www_littlefireant .coru. f. Az present,infested public schools and parks are being treated for LFA.However,when this study began.schools were not treated due to lack of funding and parks were not treat. 4 Termed"base rate invasion probability"(Leung et al.,2002). ed because use of anticides was not permitted. EXHIBIT B 106 D.J.tee et at 1 Erntogicai Economies 111(2015)100-110 120 ,-- — Allsectors 107. c100 -....., r m.,.w,... -,,-w..__ ___ Q = ski E /9 xxtit Fil ms a. m ys fr ti. . cs C 60 "53 . �o '" Fc 40 > M { r TM i� zfive 20 ` f ,i E'f 5 10 20 3S 1 a Least cast at Current management Year •Reduced management Fig.3.Little Fire Ant human sting incidents by management type and year across all sectors. reaches 20%,then control effort is proportional to the level of infesta- expenses and $1 1 million in damages. Mitigation expenditures are hon.In the Park and School sectors,LFA infestations remain untreated. greatest in the agriculture and school sectors.Prevention expenditures For the least cost management scenario,we assumed that treatment are greatest in the residential sector. Detection expenditures are decisions in all sectors were made to benefit the whole island without greatest in the lodging sector.Over 35 years,the total number of Little regard to distributional effects. Fire Ant sting incidents involving children,adults and visitors is We applied simulation modeling to determine the long-term im- 94 million. pacts from current management and reduced management." We applied optimization modeling to determine the cost minimizing deci- 4.3.Reduced Management sions and long term impacts from least cost management. The model was run on Microsoft Excel using the Frontline Risk Solv- Under reduced management,in the coming 5 years,Little Fire Ant er Platform. will spread more quickly on the island of Hawaii infesting 53%,66%, 71%, and 54% of the nursery, lodging, park, and school sectors. In 4.Results 10 years,infestation will reach 57%,71%,74%in the nursery,lodging, and park sectors.Mitigation expenditures are greatest in the agriculture, 4.1.Current Management park,and school sectors.The number of sting incidents is highest in the residential sector. In 35 years,the present value total cost including Under current management in the coming 5 years,Little Fire Ant will management expenditures and economic damages from Little Fire Ant spread on the island of Hawaii infesting 31%,50%,60%,and 52%of the is$12.9 billion.Over 35 years,the total number of Little Fire Ant sting in- nursery,lodging,park,and school sectors.In 10 years,infestation will cidents involving children,adults and visitors is 2.8 billion. reach 42%and 54%in the nursery and lodging sectors.In 35 years,the Simulation model results for infestation over time by sector and present value total cost from Little Fire Ant is $6.1 billion based on management type are illustrated in Fig.2 and Table 2. $5.536 billion management expenditures and$549 million in economic Simulation model results for human sting incidents over time by sec- damages.Costs are greatest in the agriculture,park,and school sectors. tor and management type are illustrated in Fig.3 and Table 3. Over 35 years,the total number of Little Fire Ant sting incidents involy- Simulation model results for total cost over time by sector and man- mg children,adults and visitors is 2.3 billion. agement type are illustrated in Fig,4a-c. 4.2.Least cost Management 4.4.Management Tradeoffs To achieve least cost management,Little Fire Ant is suppressed with We conducted a multi-objective analysis to evaluate the tradeoff be- early mitigation treatment;prevention and detection in all infested sec tween management focused on reducing rhe monetary cost of an LFA tors.Under least cost management in the coming 5 years,Little Fire Ant infestation(management expenditures and damages)versus manage infestations decrease to 5%and 24%in the lodging and school sectors, merit focused on reducing the number of human sting incidents.If drop to 2.5% in the nursery and lodging sectors, and sink to I% or cost reduction is the primary objective,a least cost management strate- lower in the remaining sectors.Over 35 years,the present value total gy will yield a PV total cost of$51 million and 94 million human sting cost is$51 million based on an estimated$40 million in management incidents over 35 years.This outcome is a clear improvement over current management.14 as both cost and human sting incidents are reduced.This outcome is"efficient"because in order to further reduce " We applied simulation modeling.For interested readers,a comparable problem solved with constrained optimization would minimize LFA spread subject to a public budget of $200k to depict current management and minimize LFA spread subject to an annual bud- 14 Under current management PV total cost is$6.1 billion and total human sting inci- get of$'t00k to depict reduced management. dents is 23 billion over 35 years. EXHIBIT B D.J.Lee et at.I Ecological Economics 111(2015)100-110 107 Table 3 over 35 years.This outcome is a clear improvement over current man- Little Fire Ant human sting incidents by sector in years.5 and 35. agement,as both cost and human sting incidents are reduced.This out- come is"efficient"because in order to further reduce sting incidents -, ts , Current Reduced costs would have to rise.For example,reducing human sting incidents Sector L''''''''''' managemem management L'''''''''' management inanagemeni to 22 million will cost$140 million over 35 years for a marginal cost Ag41:11 '''' k'it:I' ..,, i,, ,;?*:. of$3 per human sting incident avoided.Reducing human sting incidents ....ea,..0'....., 'N, =‘ . '*a' ciAtr;g1,4 to 6 million will cost$944 million over 35 years for a marginal cost of L'alvax :Si; ' ' " -...'341,Atzti ,,,,,,,ery ,*-„,t'$'4...:1-.1, -' i".'''?",-',• '-n'N--.14,, $306 per human sting incident avoided.Additional numerical results 411-re-ii ''''4/74 from the multi-objective analysis can be seen in Table 4. :\i"?'Ali'l' -''';‘,:l'f': If society places a high value on avoiding sting incidents,Le.not get- , ',,,,,tA,,,•, - ,,z:0-'1634"'-'' ting stung,they may be willing to invest more in LFA management and Million sting incidents, treatment,Information on marginal costs can help individuals deter- mine their preferred level of LFA control.At higher costs,individuals may prefer to be stung rather than pay for the additional management. costs, sting incidents would have to rise. If reducing human sting Efficient alternatives for the island of Hawaii range from$2 to$306 per incidents is the primary objective,a least sting management strategy avoided sting incident.Values are displayed in Table 4 and illustrated in will cost$91 million and reduce human sting incidents to 73 million Fig.5. a All sectors $9 ,, $8 , --c-' Sa '/------------------ $7 , CD $6 - 1415,1 .''''.- l Qkir'e $5 '',CP',,'V ,...--..m -5 ,..a.,,i.....i. a ....7:......,,...7 ", Z 4-27.,A -- "'. E , a VD S2 - ' A2011:41 2 ,.., no 1 ,..; oire4ciA 2 $1 •Y----'' ge44n-L1 — ! – $0 $0 .4-:"4" so so i Ar,,,,,,,, --- e Least cost management 1 2 3 It Current management Year NRettaced management .. ... b $300All sectors $2114 $275 $260 $247 $250 --- 5 ..2228.‘ . ,o ..— E- $200 $161 , -.- %!. ,i ei>',..,', " - cp $150 fr -,•: . $134 ra " 4-. el 0 V $100 . • , . . 15 IIII I— $50 -- - -, - ,,, , , , Z:',1" ;'"'"""-'-.,"';'*"'•".l ;5,1,',. SO ' 5 10 20 35 ia Least cast management I 'Current management Year c 1 ,vs Reduced management ---- Fig.4.a.Early management expenditures by year and management type.b.Economic cost to society by year and management type,c.Little Fire Ant total economic cost over 35 years by management type. EXHIBIT B 108 Di.Lee et at/Ecological Economics 111(20155)100 110 C 512,680 Hwy' . ":4,,011 $51 st�:uat Current manager,st itedu+ted Management Fig.4 (continued). 5.Discussion of Results detection through use of peanut butter sticks,visual observations,or receiving stings(Imperfect information). Our model results showed that an increase in funding over current • Infested businesses may treat for LFA but be unwilling to report their management will be needed to prevent rapid and widespread infesta- infestation to avoid repercussions such as loss in customers,ban on tion of Little Fire Ant on the island of Hawaii, sales,lost certification,and quarantine(Asymmetric information). The benefits from increased management effort include: • Neighborhoods,communities,and businesses within the same indus- try• Improved quality of life for residents,children,and pets. can share information,treatment methods,and costs,and benefit as a group from managing LFA collectively.Coordinating a group effort • Savings to homeowners from less frequent treatment of LFA in and requires a lot of communication,time,and willing volunteers(Infor- around the home. oration costs,scale economies,positive externalities). • Protection to agricultural and nursery farms from large increases in expenses and potential economic losses due to yield decline,treat- ment costs,lost sales,and reduced export volume. • Protection to visitor industry businesses from large increases in ex- 6.Conclusions penses and potential economic losses due to visitor sting incidents on Iodging property and at popular outdoor recreation areas. On the island of Hawaii,Little Fire Ant infests over 4000 locations. • Reduced risk of spread from the island of Hawaii to other islands in the Current management includes ant species identification,response,pub- State, lie information and assistance,technology development,public aware- ness and education.Our findings show that current management is Technical challenges in managing little fire ant on the island of slowing Little Fire Ant spread but will be insufficient in preventing Little Hawaii include: Fire Ant from rapidly spreading within the island of Hawaii.Reducing efforts to control Little Fire Ant will lower costs in the short term com- • Newly developed bait formulations and application methods are pared with current management, but lead to more sting incidents, proving effective in controlling LFA populations.However their use in commercial agriculture is banned except for a few food crops. • LFAs are thriving in beach parks,but until recently no chemical op- Table 4 tions were pernussible for use at infested locations near water. Total cost and total human sling incidents over 35 years. PV total cost Human sting incidents Marginal cost per avoided sting incident' Economic Challenges and Opportunities s mil mil 5 • Treating a widespread infestation of LFA will require a high level of 551 73 52 cooperation from all agents including property owners,farms,busi- 5140 22 53 nesses,and multiple levels of government In our model,we assumed $153 15 54 full cooperation,but in reality that is not be the case.We've heard sev- $154 17 $5 eral complaints from distressed homeowners and farmers about LFA 174 $ 15 s0 $174 14 57 infestations on neighboring properties that are left untreated. 5183 13 59 • At the private level,individual households and businesses will pay to 5194 12 512 control LFA on their own property hence benefiting their neighbors, $207 12 516 however since they do not share in those additional benefits,they 5225 11 $24 will then tend to underinvest in LFA control, perhaps not treating 5300 10 541 5300 9 556 the periphery of their property or otherwise leaving more ants than $351 s 553 optimal to reproduce and spread(Positive externality). 5944 6 $306 • The location of new infestations is difficult to predict To a large extent, < Marginal cost is calculated as increase in total cost i Reduction in sung incidents from the State relies on an observant public to report new infestations— the row above.For example $91 —Si) {94—73)=$2. . ..ter., EXHIBIT B D.J.Lee er at;Ecological Economics 111(2015)100-110 109 $350 -, or $300 i 5250 --i- > n. $200 .i-r-_ 5150 - - - MOM Marginal cost u 5100 .-__._ p $50 -F-- _ 'Y ` 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 d a "* Total human sting incidents in millions Fig.S.Marginal cost per avoided human sting incident. higher costs and larger damages in the longer term,Results indicate that8ossenbroek J.M.,Kraft CE,Nekoi.o J C_200E Prediction of long-distance dispersal using an increase in management effort is economicallyand sociallywarrant- gravity models:zebra tnnsel invasion of inland lakes,Ecol,Appl.11(6`,„1778-1788. gBurnett,K.M.,Kaiser.BA.,Roumasset,JA_2007.Econctuic lessons from control efforts for ed as the island economy would realize net benefits of$5 billion in total an invasive species:Micomo cahescens in Hawaii.),For,Econ.13,151-167. cost savings including a reduction in economic damages of$540 million Carravco,LR-,Baker,R.,MacLeod,A.,Knight,J.D.,Mumford,J.D,2010,Optimal and robust and avoidance of 2.1 billion human stingincidents over 35 ears, control of invasive alien species spreading in homogeneous landscapes.J.R.Soc.in- and Y terLtce 7,529-5-k). Conant,P.,2002.Draft plan for Dale Fire Ant(LFA)Local Eradication Containment of Using BIISC Personnel(Sep 30,5 pp.Received as a f"ax Jan lii20121, 7.Summary Conant,P.,Hirayama,C.,2000.Wnsmannic auroptincmta 1.Hymenoptera:Formicidae : established on the island of Hawaii,Bishop Mus.Occas,Pap.64,21-22. Management effort has a significant impact on Little Fire Ant infesta- DBEDT Department of Business,Economic Development&Tourism,2009.State of Hawaii, tion over time.Under current management,Little Fire Ant infestation economic forecasts,population and economic projections http:;dbedt.hawan.gov' economic.`data.,reports 2040-long-range-forecast(2014 weblink). will continue to rise in all sectors eventually becoming established in DBEDT Department of Business,Economic Development&Tourism.2012a.State of all sectors and in all developed locations on the island in 15 years.By in- Hawaii.Hawaii census Data,htlp;census.hawaii.gowhome population-estimate,' creasing management effort through monitoring,spread prevention, (2014 weblink). DBEDT Department of Business,Economic Development&Tourism,2012b.State of and mitigation,Little Fire Ant spread can be slowed and populations Hawaii,current data book labor force,employment and earnings.hit)/recards.co. eventually suppressed.Under least cost management,Little Fire Ant in- hawaiihtusWeblinkx 1 tol'_776t,'Row(asp.(2014 weblink). festations are suppressed over the course of 27 years. Eiswerth,ME.,Johnson,WS 2002.Managing nonindigenous invasive species:insights pp from dynamic analysis.Environ.Resour.Econ.23,319-342, Management effort has a significant impact on the number of Little Eiswerth.M.E.,van Kooten,G.C.,2002.Uncertainly,economic and the spread of an inva- Fire Ant sting incidents,Under current management,people on the is- sive plant species.Am.).Agrle.Econ,84,1317-1322. land of Hawaii will suffer 2.3 billion sting incidents over 35 years. Fabres,0.,Brown Jr.,W.,1978 The recent introduction of the pest ant Wasmnnnia attropnncRuo into New Caledonia.J,Aust EntamoL Stu 17,139-14'2. Their pets will endure 0.9 billion sting incidents over 35 years.With ef- Fasi.J.,Brodie,G.,Vanderwoude,C.,2013.Increases in crop pests caused by Wasrnannia forts to suppress Little Fire Ant populations,under least cost manage- auropunctatainSolomonIslands subsistence gardens.).Appl.Fntomot.137,580-588. ment during the next 35 years people and pet will suffer fewer sting Feder,G..1979.Pesticides,information,and pest management under uncertainty.Ant. incidents,down to 94 million for people and 9 million for pets. 1-u,J„Drivel, veln.61(t),97-A,Ue(abie,J.H.C.,Jourdan,H,Konghouleux,D.,Vonshak,M., Management effort has a significant impact on costs and damages.In Tindo,M.,Mercier,J,Fresneau,0..Mikissa.J„McGlynn,T.,Mikheyev,AS.,©ettler,J., the next 35 years the cost of Little Fire Ant under current management Estoup,A,2010.Worldwide invasion by the little fire ant:routes of introduction and will balloon to$6.1 billion,With efforts to suppress Little Fire Ant pop- au-evolutionary pathway,,Evert.Appl.l-f 3. Gutrich,J.J.,VanGelder,E.,Loope,L.L.,2007.Potential economic impact of introduction ulations,under least cost management,net costs drop to$51 million,a and spread of the red imported fire ant,Soknopsis invicta,in Hawaii.Environ,Sci.Pot- substantial savings to the local economy. icy 10,685-696(hap::Ww•w.souedu!envirostudie rgutrich2.pdf). Haight,R.C.,Polasky,5,2010,Optimal control of an invasive species with imperfect infor- mation,aboutthe level of infestation.Resour.Energy Econ,32.519-533. Acknowledgments Hastings,A,Cuddington,K„Davies,K.F.,Dugaw.CJ.,Elmendorf S.,Freestone,A..Harrison, S.,Holland,M.,tambrinos,J_,Malvadkar,U.,Melbourne,B.A.,Moore,K.,Taylor,C., Thomson,D.,2005,The spatial spread of invasions;new developments in theory This research was supported in part by the Tropical and Subtropical and evidence.Ecol.Lett.8(1),91-101.tittp3',dx.doi.org/10,1111;,31461-0248.2004, Agriculture Research(TSTAR)Program(Award Number 2010-34135- 00687.x(Retrieved from). 21228),the National institute of Food and Agriculture(NIFA),U.S.De- Hastings,A,Flail,R.J,Taylor,CM.,2006.A simple approach to optimal control of invasive species.Theer.Popu1,Biol.70,431--435. partment of Agriculture(USDA).We graciously thank all the people HTA Hawaii Tourism Authority.2012.State of Hawaii,average daily census by island who generously responded to our request for help:our collaborators 2009-2010 htrp:;rwww.hawaiitourismauthoriiy.org.default%assets;File iresearcly and cooperators; and the people who took the time to answer ques- historical-d to 20I.2'120Arrivats,t2Oby%20lsland.xls(2014 weblink). Kot,M.,Schaffer,WM„1986,Discrete-time growth-dispersal models.Math.Biosci.80 tions,respond to our questionnaires,and provide us with insight and in- (1) 109-136.hap:;r:dx.doi.org 10.1016/0025-5564f 86190069-6(Retrieved from), formation.Listed alphabetically by first name we thank:Chi Ming Chan, Krushelnycky.P.D.,Loope,LL,Reimer,N,J.,2005,The ecology,policy,and management of Christy Martin.Dave Lau,Diki Short,Eric Loeve,Herve Bassin,Jean-Yves ants in Hawaii.Proc.Hawaiian Entomol.Soc.37,1-25(Retrieved from hrtp✓%hdl• Meyer,Judy Schilling,J. Kenneth Grace, Kimberly Burnett,Lissa Fox handlc.oer10125!103). Law,R„Murrell DJ,Dieckmann,U„2001 Population growth in space and time,spatial Strohecker,Lloyd Loope,Maryline Simon,Michelle Montgomery,Page logistic equations,Ecology 84 ll 1.252-262. Else,Pat Conant,Robert La Mont, Rogerio Menescal,Rudolph Putoa, Lee D.J.,Adams ci.c.,Rossi,F..2007,Optimal management of a potential invader:the case Steve Shropshire,Teya Penniman,and Tina Yamaki.We are grateful of zebra mussels in Florida.J.Ag .Appcon.39(2),fig-81. Leung,B„Lodge,D.M.,Finrtoff,D,Sici,f.. hogren,JF.,Lewis,MA,Lamberti,G.,2002.An ounce for the comments and suggestions from two anonymous reviewers of prevention or a pound of cure:bioeconomic risk analysis of invasive species.Biol. which helped us improve the clarity of the article. Sci.269(1508),2407-2413(Retrieved from http:ilwww.jstor.org;stabie/3558671). Lichtenberg,E..Zitberman,0.1986.The econometrics of damage control:why specifica- tion matters.Am.J.Agric.Econ.68(21.261-273. References Lowe,S.,Browne,M„Boudjelas,S.,De Poorter,M.,2000.100 of the world's worst invasive alien species.A selection from the Global Invasive Species Database.Published by The AVMA American Veterinary Medical Association.2012.Pet ownership calculator.htrps:; Invasive Species Specialist Group(1S5G1 a Specialist Group of the Species Survival 55W crisis op KB/Revoiircev/Si.siisilcsPag 13S-pet-ownership-caliulatoi.aspx, Commission(SSC)of the World Conservation Union)IIJCN)(12 pp.First published EXHIBIT B 110 D.J.Lee et aL/Ecological Economics 111(2015)100-110 as special lift-out in Aliens 12,December 2000.Updated and reprinted November Souza.E.Follett,P.A.,Price,D.K.,Stacy,E.A.,2008.Field suppression of the invasive am 2004.http://www.issg.org'database'speciesrreference files,.'100English.pdf). Wasmannia auropunctaro(Hymenoptera:Formicidae)in a tropical fruit orchard in Mehta,S.V.,Haight,R.G.,Homans,F.R.,Polasky,S.,Venette,R.C.,2007.Optimal detection Hawaii.).Econ.Entomol.1068-1074. and control strategies for invasive species management.Ecol.Econ.61 (2-3), Suarez,A.V.,Holway,DA.,Case,T.J.,2001.Patterns of spread in biological invasions dom- 237-245 (Retrieved from http:-/www.sciencedirect.corn/science/article,'pii; Mated by long-distance jump dispersal:insights from Argentine ants.Proc.Natl. S092'800906005568). Acad.Sci.U.S.A.98(3),1095-1100(Retrieved from http:/www.jstor.org stable/ Motoki,M.,Lee,D.J.,Vanderwoude,C.Nakamoto,S.T.,Leung,P.S.,2013.A bioeconomic 3054327). model of Little Fire Ant Wasmannia auropunctata in Hawaii.Pacific Cooperative Stud- Taylor,C.M.,Hastings,A.,2004.Finding optimal control strategies for invasive species:a ies Unit Technical Report#186 (89 pp.Accessible at http:Ilmanoa.hawaii.edu/ density-structured model for Spartina Alterniflora.J.Appl.Eta 41 (6),1049-1057. hpicesu,'techrlt 86rdel:ult.htm). Theron,L,2005.Hypothese dime keratopathie lief!.a Wasmannia auropunctata.le modelle Mumford.J.D.,Norton,G.A.,1984.Economics of decision making in pest management. polynesien.Masters.University de Liege. Annu.Rev.Entomol.29,157-174. Ulloa-Chacon.P.,Cherix,D.,1990.The little fire ant Wasmannia auropuncmta(R.)(Hymn- Nathan,R.,Perry,G.,Cronin,J.T..Strand,A.E.,Cain,M.L.,2003.Methods for estimating noptera:Formicidae).In:Vander meer,R.K.,Jaffe,K.,Cedeno.A.(Eds.),Applied long-distance dispersal.Oikos 103(2),261-273.http:'dx.doi.org'10.1034 1.1600- Myrmecology:A World Perspective.Westview Press,pp.231-289. 0706.2003.12146.x. USDA-ARS,2010.Areawide Fire Ant Suppression Final Report (16 pp.http://www.ars. Olson,L.,2006.The economics of terrestrial invasive species:a review of the literature. usda.gov/sp2Userfiles!Place!66151015;docs;areawide finalreport 2010.pdf). Agric.Resour.Econ.Rev.35(1),178-194(Retrieved from http://ageconsearch.umn. Vanderwoude,C.,Onuma,K.,Reimer,N.,2010.Eradicating Wasmannia auropunclata(Hy- edu/bitstream/10181:1!35010178.pdh,ti20A820GlA20Review.pdQ, menoptera:Formicidae)from Maui,Hawaii:the use of combination treatments to Olson,L.,Roy,S.,2003.The economics of controlling a biological invasion.Working Paper control an arboreal invasive ant.Proc.Hawaiian Entomol.Soc.42,23-31. No.03-06. Wilson,J.R.,Dormontt E.E.,Prentis,P.J.,Lowe,A.J.,Richardson,D.M.,2009.Something in Perrings,C.,2005.Mitigation and adaptation strategies for the control of biological inva- the way you move:dispersal pathways affect invasion success.Trends Ecol.Evol. cions.Ecol.Econ.52,315-325. 24(3),136-144(Retrieved from http:Iwww.sciencedirect.com;science;article!pii Scanlan,J.C.,Vanderwoude,C.,2009.Modelling the potential spread of Solenopsis invina S0169534709000202). Buren (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) (red imported fire ant) in Australia. Aust. J.Entomol.45,1-9.