## Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under

EO 13563	and 12866	Interagency	Review.		Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

1 **Interagency Comments on U.S.**  **Environmental Protection Agency’s draft final rulemaking** **, “ Regulation**  **of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Identification of Additional Qualifying Renewable Fuel Pathways under**  **the Renewable Fuel Standard Program ”**  Invasive Species Several interagency reviewers recommend ed that giant reed (Arundo donax) and napier grass not be approved as energy production pathways u nder RFS . The commenters reference EO 13112 co ncerning the responsibility of federal agencies to control invasive species . The commenters state that Executive Order 13112 requires agencies not to authorize, fund, or carry out actions that it believes are likely to cause or promote the introduction o r spread of invasive species. It defines “invasive species” as an alien species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health directly. The commenters also suggest that EPA conduct further analysis for these invasive plants in order to fully consider the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of controlling and monitoring these plants , and included the following points for discussion

. If an invasive biofuel crop plant persisted and spread beyond where it was originally cultivated, taking no containment and control actions is not a sustainable option. Left unaddressed, invasive plants and the environmental and economic damage they cause increase in both scale and intensity. Control and monitoring ope rations will have to be conducted over long periods, and they may only partially mitigate the negative impacts. Control operations can include: repeated herbicide applications, increased mowing or tillage, hydrological and/or soil alterations, frequent bu rning, mechanical removal with heavy equipment, and the release of biological control organisms. These operations kill standing invasive biomass and in some cases kill non

-target species as well. They may also have additional indirect environmental impacts on soil and water quality. Control measures are required to avoid greater damage caused by the invasive plants themselves. Certain invasive plants can exclude native plants and the animals that depend upon them from natural areas, and other invasive p lants reduce crop production. For example, Arundo donax currently occupies less than 10 percent of its potential range, but the structural, environmental and control costs have already exceeded many millions of dollars. The Invasive Species Advisory Comm ittee (ISAC) , a non -federal advisory group that provides advice to the members of NISC and the federal agencies that they oversee, including U.S. EPA, issued a whitepaper entitled Biofuels Cultivating Energy, Not Invasive Species (August 2009) 1

. The guidance document c ontains nine recommendations to reduce the risks associated with biofuel production from invasive biomass. On page 9 of the rule, EPA sta tes that the focus of this rule making is the lifecycle analysis for the product ion and use o f biofuels . EPA also asserted whether or not these crops will be grown as biofuels will be decided by market factors and are outside the scope of this analysis. The reviewers on this issue however, feel that giant reed and napier grass could have unfores een long

-term economic and environmental consequence s, as is the case with kudzu. Kudzu was first introduced by the Natural Resources Conservation Service, formerly the Soil Conservation Service, for soil stabilization but it now blankets lands from Flori da to Ontario. Over seven million acres are infested in the southeast alone,

1 http://www.invasivespecies.gov/home_documents/BiofuelWhitePaper.pdf

## Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under

EO 13563	and 12866	Interagency	Review.		Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

2 spreading at the rate of 150,000 acres annually. The consequence has been lost production on crop lands, loss of wildlife habitat, loss of rare and endangered species, restorati on costs to parks and recreational facilities and increased infrastructure maintenance cost s on roads, railways and utility corridors. There are numerous examples of former ornamental and crop plants that have escaped cultivation and are now classified as invasive species. The cost/benefit analysis currently used by EPA appears to be based upon data for a native species, such as a native perennial grass, and do es not include factors characteristic of invasive plants. The spread of invasive plants and th e increased need for on

-going monitoring and control operations are likely to have both direct and indirect impacts on green house gas emissions and cause additional environmental and economi c damage. EPA’s cost and greenhouse gas analysis should consider the monitoring and control efforts necessary to prevent escape and establishment outside of production areas. There is no menti on in the rule of monitoring the off

- site movement of giant reed and napier grass

. On page 20 of the draft rule , EPA states that they are “

... committed to monitor whether actual production is consistent with assumptions in this analysis” for greenhouse gas emissions. There is an equal an d important need to monitor off

- site movement of these species and document associated costs and increased GHG emissions associated with these management efforts. The interagency commenters making these points believe that the inclusion of two invasive species as valid components of greenhouse gas reducing renewable biofuel pathways will also establish a precedent that could encourage the importation and planting of invasive species that are not currently in the U.S., and petitions to consider them as biofuel crops. It will divert interest away from clearly non

invasive alternative biofuel sp ecies. Candidate biofuels often share growth characteristic s with invasive species such as, high growth rate and ease of establishment. If this rule passes as written, other known invasive species may be considered for biofuels in the future. It is most appropriate to assess this risk before widespread production is authorized or encouraged. The commenters assert that only at this initial stage is it appropriate to examine the full array of potential economic and environmental impacts. The designation as a biofuel is tacit approval and therefore constitutes a federal action and might be subject to NEPA. Some commenters also stated a concern that t he introduction or spread of these species will lead to conflicts with other federal laws such as: the Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird Act and enabling legislation of federal land management agencies which mandates maintenance and restoration of biodiversity, on public lands. Almost half of the Threatened or Endangered species are at risk du e to the spread of invasive species in the United States

. Arundo donax, one of the species designated in this rule, invades wetlands and now dominates waterways of Texas, New Mexico, and California. Napier grass has been designated as an invasive specie s in Florida. The draft final rule as written relies on other laws, policies, local, state and federal agencies to manage the invasive risk, stating that invasive species are controlled and regulated under various existing federal and state guidelines. Using NISC members’ program and technical experts and ISAC expertise with invasive plant science and policy could greatly augment the cost/benefit analysis associated with these invasive species. The Office is encouraged to include parameters associate d with an invasive species wit hin their analysis of the green house gas emissions from an invasive plant

- based biofuel pathway. Below are a few more specific recommendations from interagency reviewers on this issue :

## Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under

EO 13563	and 12866	Interagency	Review.		Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

3 1. R emove scientifically determined in vasive species from consideration as biofuel feedstocks until a risk assessment for each invasive species is developed. a. Examine the factors used in GHG emission analysis and ensure that direct, indirect and cumulative energy costs, both on

- and off

-site are included. Analyze the greenhouse gas emissions for an invasive species , taking into account factors associated with spread, persistence, control, monitoring and the economic and environmental harm that are characteristic of a non

- native invasive plant and its control. 2. P repare a summary of current laws, regulations and policies that are germane to biofuels and invasive species i n coordination with member agencies of the National Invasive Species Council. a. Determine if collectively there are federal laws, regulations and policies that would preclude or prevent the consideration of known invasive species as biofuels. b. Determine if there are perceived gaps or conflicts in existing law, regulations and policies as they pertain to biofuels and invasive spec ies. c. Development of other energy sources requires implementation of mitigation measures; bonding and oversight. Determine if like measure can or should be instituted for biofuels. 3. D evelop a notification process for affected parties, federal agencies, states, tribes, counties, county agents, conservation districts, local NRCS offices, border provinces o f Canada and states of Mexico that invasive species have been designated as appropriate biofuels and may be under consideration for cultivation. Other Technical Comments from One or More Interagency Reviewers :

• Pg. 18, Section I(B) 1

– As noted in the preamble, biofuels from camelina are expected to have no direct land use change impact, as the crop will be grown during fallow periods on previously cult ivated land. However, what would happen when EPA periodically reevaluates LCA GHG emissions from camelina, if the crop becomes sufficiently successful commercially? If the crop is successful enough, could EPA conceivably remove its eligibility from the program? It could be argued that the r ule would create the potential that producers might have the perverse incentive to ensure camelina is only grown as a complement to another crop; that is to make sure production is not too successful so that it might di splace some other crop. This may create considerable uncertainty for c amelina growers insofar as any individual grower has no control over whether the pathway will continue to qualify for the RFS. Has EPA considered reviewing camelina as if it were a pri mary crop, evaluating indirect land use factors if appropriate and providing certainty as to whether this pathway would still generate advanced biofuel credits under cha nged circumstances? Could EPA describe criteria for the conditions that would trigger a review of the camelina pathway if circumstances changed?

• One commenter recommended that t he amount of acres of wheat planted be updated. NASS shows that wheat acres fell to 53.59 million acres in marketing year 2010/2011 (with similar acres in 2011/20 12). Camelina could replace other crops where there is a market or interest in establishing camelina. The acreage of wheat planted is an indicator of farmer/market preference and result of market demand/needs. Yearly acreage planted varies due to previous year’s storage. This could impact the assessment of how many acres camelina could be grown on.

• We understand that there is a natural logic to expect yields to increase over time (especially for newer crops), but to continue with this comment, we would like the rule to note that jet fuel contracts and the BCAP programs play a very important part in determining the amount of camelina planted , and

## Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under

EO 13563	and 12866	Interagency	Review.		Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

4 therefore interest in increasing yields. The aviation industry has shown greater interest in the use of bio

- aviation fuel , and thus more interest in establishing contracts for fuel production. Driving factors for this include rising costs of traditional aviation fuel and needs to reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions. As this industry moves towards the inclusion of bi ofuels, this commenter feels that the establishment of crops such as camelina is vital to ensure long

-term supply of biomass for fuel production. The commenter also has more general comments on the attention that should be given regarding how the curren t problems of increasing camelina acreage (to the projections in the rule) can be solved.

• We would caution that all yield estimates in the rule are based on trials, which have historically not translated to the same yields in plantings. Trials are conducted by agronomists with the expertise and resources to successfully plant, maintain, and ha rvest the crop of interest. Yields may vary from trial estimates due to farmer experience with the crop, resources available, land

-type, and management practices.

• Around page 17, it would be helpful to provide a definition of fallow land as something t o the effect of cropland that is periodically not cultivated. Otherwise, the reader may interpret fallow land as land that has not previously been cultivated, and may then have concerns with GHG emission implications of bringing new land into production.