Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	

EO13563	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 recommended that giant reed (Arundo donax) and napier grass not be 

approved as energy production pathways under RFS. The commenters reference EO 13112 concerning 

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 or 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 operations 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 burning, 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 plants 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 Committee (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 contains nine recommendations to reduce the risks associated with biofuel production from 

invasive biomass. 

On page 9 of the rule, EPA states that the focus of this rulemaking is the lifecycle analysis for the 

production and use of 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 unforeseen long-term economic and 

environmental consequences, 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 Florida 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	

EO13563	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, restoration costs to parks and 

recreational facilities and increased infrastructure maintenance costs 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 does not include factors characteristic of invasive plants. The spread of 

invasive plants and the increased need for on-going monitoring and control operations are likely to have 

both direct and indirect impacts on greenhouse gas emissions and cause additional environmental and 

economic 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 mention 

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 and 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 noninvasive alternative biofuel species. Candidate biofuels often share growth characteristics 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 the 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 due 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 species 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 associated with an invasive species within their analysis of the 

greenhouse 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	

EO13563	and	12866	Interagency	Review.		Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

3

1. Remove scientifically determined invasive 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. Prepare a summary of current laws, regulations and policies that are germane to biofuels and 

invasive species in 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 species. 

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. Develop a notification process for affected parties, federal agencies, states, tribes, counties, 

county agents, conservation districts, local NRCS offices, border provinces of 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 

cultivated 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 rule 

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 displace some other crop. This may create considerable uncertainty for camelina 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 primary crop, evaluating indirect land use factors 

if appropriate and providing certainty as to whether this pathway would still generate advanced biofuel 

credits under changed circumstances? Could EPA describe criteria for the conditions that would trigger 

a review of the camelina pathway if circumstances changed?

• One commenter recommended that the 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 

2011/2012). 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	

EO13563	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 biofuels, 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 current 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 harvest 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 to 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.