## Presidential Documents 6183 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 1999 / Presidential Documents

Executive Order 13112 of February 3, 1999



### Invasive Species

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq .), Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990, as amended (16
U.S.C. 4701 et seq .), Lacey Act, as amended (18 U.S.C. 42), Federal Plant Pest Act (7 U.S.C. 150aa et seq .), Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974, as amended (7 U.S.C. 2801 et seq .), Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq .), and other pertinent statutes, to prevent the introduction of invasive species and provide for their control and to minimize the economic, ecological, and human health impacts that invasive species cause, it is ordered as follows:

Section 1. Definitions.
(a) ‘‘Alien species’’ means, with respect to a particular ecosystem, any species, including its seeds, eggs, spores, or other biological material capable of propagating that species, that is not native to that ecosystem.

(b) ‘‘Control’’ means, as appropriate, eradicating, suppressing, reducing, or managing invasive species populations, preventing spread of invasive species from areas where they are present, and taking steps such as restoration of native species and habitats to reduce the effects of invasive species and to prevent further invasions.

(c) ‘‘Ecosystem’’ means the complex of a community of organisms and

its environment.

(d) ‘‘Federal agency’’ means an executive department or agency, but does not include independent establishments as defined by 5 U.S.C. 104.

(e) ‘‘Introduction’’ means the intentional or unintentional escape, release, dissemination, or placement of a species into an ecosystem as a result of human activity.

(f) ‘‘Invasive species’’ means an alien species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human
health.

(g) ‘‘Native species’’ means, with respect to a particular ecosystem, a species that, other than as a result of an introduction, historically occurred or currently occurs in that ecosystem.

(h) ‘‘Species’’ means a group of organisms all of which have a high degree of physical and genetic similarity, generally interbreed only among themselves, and show persistent differences from members of allied groups of organisms.

(i) ‘‘Stakeholders’’ means, but is not limited to, State, tribal, and localgovernment agencies, academic institutions, the scientific community, nongovernmental entities including environmental, agricultural, and conservation organizations, trade groups, commercial interests, and private landowners.

(j) ‘‘United States’’ means the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and all possessions, territories, and the territorial sea of the
United States.6184 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 1999 / Presidential Documents

Sec. 2. Federal Agency Duties . (a) Each Federal agency whose actions may affect the status of invasive species shall, to the extent practicable and permitted by law, (1) identify such actions;
(2) subject to the availability of appropriations, and within Administration budgetary limits, use relevant programs and authorities to: (i) prevent the introduction of invasive species; (ii) detect and respond rapidly to and control populations of such species in a cost-effective and environmentally sound manner; (iii) monitor invasive species populations accurately and reliably; (iv) provide for restoration of native species and habitat conditions in ecosystems that have been invaded; (v) conduct research on invasive species and develop technologies to prevent introduction and provide for environmentally sound control of invasive species; and (vi) promote public education on invasive species and the means to address them; and
(3) not authorize, fund, or carry out actions that it believes are likely to cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive species in theUnited States or elsewhere unless, pursuant to guidelines that it has prescribed, the agency has determined and made public its determination that the benefits of such actions clearly outweigh the potential harm caused by invasive species; and that all feasible and prudent measures to minimize risk of harm will be taken in conjunction with the actions.
(b) Federal agencies shall pursue the duties set forth in this section in consultation with the Invasive Species Council, consistent with the InvasiveSpecies Management Plan and in cooperation with stakeholders, as appropriate, and, as approved by the Department of State, when Federal agencies are working with international organizations and foreign nations.

Sec. 3. Invasive Species Council . (a) An Invasive Species Council (Council) is hereby established whose members shall include the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Transportation, and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. The Council shall be Co-Chaired by the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Secretary of Commerce. The Council may invite additional Federal agency representatives to be members, including representatives from subcabinet bureaus or offices with significant responsibilities concerning invasive species, and may prescribe special procedures for their participation. The Secretary of the Interior shall, with concurrence of the Co-Chairs, appoint an Executive Director of theCouncil and shall provide the staff and administrative support for the Council. (b) The Secretary of the Interior shall establish an advisory committeeunder the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., to provide information and advice for consideration by the Council, and shall, after consultation with other members of the Council, appoint members of the advisorycommittee representing stakeholders. Among other things, the advisory committee shall recommend plans and actions at local, tribal, State, regional,and ecosystem-based levels to achieve the goals and objectives of the Management Plan in section 5 of this order. The advisory committee shall act in cooperation with stakeholders and existing organizations addressinginvasive species. The Department of the Interior shall provide the administrative and financial support for the advisory committee.

Sec. 4. Duties of the Invasive Species Council . The Invasive Species Council shall provide national leadership regarding invasive species, and shall: (a) oversee the implementation of this order and see that the Federalagency activities concerning invasive species are coordinated, complementary, cost-efficient, and effective, relying to the extent feasible and appropriate on existing organizations addressing invasive species, such as the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, the Federal Interagency Committee for theManagement of Noxious and Exotic Weeds, and the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources;6185 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 1999 / Presidential Documents

(b) encourage planning and action at local, tribal, State, regional, and ecosystem-based levels to achieve the goals and objectives of the Management Plan in section 5 of this order, in cooperation with stakeholders and existing organizations addressing invasive species;
(c) develop recommendations for international cooperation in addressing invasive species;
(d) develop, in consultation with the Council on Environmental Quality, guidance to Federal agencies pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act on prevention and control of invasive species, including the procurement, use, and maintenance of native species as they affect invasive species;
(e) facilitate development of a coordinated network among Federal agencies to document, evaluate, and monitor impacts from invasive species on the economy, the environment, and human health;
(f) facilitate establishment of a coordinated, up-to-date information-sharing system that utilizes, to the greatest extent practicable, the Internet; this system shall facilitate access to and exchange of information concerning invasive species, including, but not limited to, information on distribution and abundance of invasive species; life histories of such species and invasivecharacteristics; economic, environmental, and human health impacts; management techniques, and laws and programs for management, research, and public education; and
(g) prepare and issue a national Invasive Species Management Plan as
set forth in section 5 of this order.

Sec. 5. Invasive Species Management Plan . (a) Within 18 months after issuance of this order, the Council shall prepare and issue the first edition of a National Invasive Species Management Plan (Management Plan), which shall detail and recommend performance-oriented goals and objectives and specific measures of success for Federal agency efforts concerning invasive species. The Management Plan shall recommend specific objectives and measures for carrying out each of the Federal agency duties established in section 2(a) of this order and shall set forth steps to be taken by the Council to carry out the duties assigned to it under section 4 of this order. The Management Plan shall be developed through a public process and in consultation with Federal agencies and stakeholders. (b) The first edition of the Management Plan shall include a review ofexisting and prospective approaches and authorities for preventing the introduction and spread of invasive species, including those for identifying pathways by which invasive species are introduced and for minimizing the risk of introductions via those pathways, and shall identify research needs
and recommend measures to minimize the risk that introductions will occur. Such recommended measures shall provide for a science-based process to evaluate risks associated with introduction and spread of invasive species and a coordinated and systematic risk-based process to identify, monitor, and interdict pathways that may be involved in the introduction of invasive species. If recommended measures are not authorized by current law, theCouncil shall develop and recommend to the President through its CoChairs legislative proposals for necessary changes in authority.
(c) The Council shall update the Management Plan biennially and shall concurrently evaluate and report on success in achieving the goals and objectives set forth in the Management Plan. The Management Plan shall identify the personnel, other resources, and additional levels of coordination needed to achieve the Management Plan’s identified goals and objectives, and the Council shall provide each edition of the Management Plan and each report on it to the Office of Management and Budget. Within 18 months after measures have been recommended by the Council in anyedition of the Management Plan, each Federal agency whose action is required to implement such measures shall either take the action recommended or shall provide the Council with an explanation of why the action is
not feasible. The Council shall assess the effectiveness of this order no6186 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 1999 / Presidential Documents

less than once each 5 years after the order is issued and shall report to the Office of Management and Budget on whether the order should be
revised.

Sec. 6. Judicial Review and Administration . (a) This order is intended only to improve the internal management of the executive branch and is not intended to create any right, benefit, or trust responsibility, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity by a party against the United States, its agencies, its officers, or any other person. (b) Executive Order 11987 of May 24, 1977, is hereby revoked.

(c) The requirements of this order do not affect the obligations of Federal agencies under 16 U.S.C. 4713 with respect to ballast water programs.

(d) The requirements of section 2(a)(3) of this order shall not apply to any action of the Department of State or Department of Defense if the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Defense finds that exemption from such requirements is necessary for foreign policy or national security reasons. 

# œ–

THE WHITE HOUSE, February 3, 1999.
[FR Doc. 99–3184

Filed 2–5–99; 8:45 am]

Billing code 3195–01–P

### 1 November 20, 2012



### The Honorable Lisa Jackson

Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW

Mail Code: 1101A Washington, DC 20460

Dear Administrator Jackson,

This letter is to summarize my research experience with growing Giant Reed ( Arundo donax ) for multiple uses over the last 14 years, with special reference to its yield, carbon sequestration and invasivity. By way of introduction, I have spent 25 years conducting research with numerous potential cellulosic biomass/energy crops, including switchgrass, and 14 years with Giant Reed. My work with Giant Reed h as been focused on both its potential benefits as a biomass crop for multiple uses, including liquid fuels, electricity, pulp and paper, and pharmaceuticals, and its potential to

become invasive in the eastern United States. These st udies have involved detailed scientific research, as well as careful on-the-ground surveys and observations.

Unfortunately, much of the information available on Giant Reed has been posted on the internet, but most of this information has absolutely no scientific basis at all, and mu ch of it is not correct. Even federal agencies are guilty of providing seriously misleading information. For example, the USDA has published a map with a title of ‘Distribution:

Arundo donax’ http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=ARDO4 which suggests that over half of the United States is invaded by Giant Reed. Of course, this amounts to extr eme exaggeration. A more scientific approach would be to place a dot on the map for the location of each acre occupied by unwanted Giant Reed. If this were done, the reader

would find it difficult to find where Giant Reed is located , except perhaps for along the Rio Grande and in Southern

California.

Yield

I have recorded the biomass yield of Giant Reed from small research plots (about half an acre) for 13 years at the Auburn University E. V. Smith Research and Extension Center in south-central Alabama. Results have recently been analyzed and included in a PhD dissertation. Specifi cally, average biomass yield for switchgrass was 10.46 dry tons/acre/year, while that of Giant Reed was 15.79 dry t ons/acre/year, some 51% higher. In addition, Giant Reed received no fertilizer during this time, while switchgrass had to be fertilized with nitrogen, and the quoted yields were achieved with no irrigation. Finally, drought conditions in Alabama during 2000 and 2007 were among the worst on record, but they had virtually no negative impact on biomass yiel d of Giant Reed, while yields of corn in most of the state were so low that the crop was not worth harvesting. Clearly, this result demonstrates the exceptional drought

tolerance of Giant Reed. Since bioma ss yield and the need for fertilization are the most important factors that determine profitability of a biomass crop for farmers, our resu lts show that Giant Reed is substantially superior to switchgrass, which is the ‘model’ biomass crop chosen by the US Department of Energy.

Carbon Sequestration

Soil carbon sequestration is critically important for two pr imary reasons: it reduces greenhouse gases, thus mitigating climate change, and it substantially improves the productiv ity of soils by increasing water holding capacity and the ability to retain plant nutrients. Our research showed that Giant Reed sequestered 22.4 tons of carbon/acre in the soil,

### 2 which was 8 times (800%) that sequestered by switchgrass. In addition, soil content of the key plant nutrients, phosphorus (P) and potassium (K), were increased by Giant Reed, but these nutrients were depleted by switchgrass.

Invasivity and Fire

It is true that Giant Reed has colonized riparian areas along the Rio Grande and in southern California. However, this is due to the total lack of management, and the fact that these watersheds are very different from those in the eastern United States. In particular, they are essentially in desert regions where the native vegetation is not competitive, and the rivers in question flood for a few months each year, ser iously excavating their banks, and then subside to no more than a trickle for the rest of the year. When banks are excav ated, Giant Reed that should never have been planted there, is also excavated and spread out dow nstream where it forms new colonies.

In contrast, our rivers in the eastern United States are pere nnial, with a steady flow of water year-round, and are lined with highly competitive woody vegetation. Therefore, ev en though Giant Reed has been widely grown as an ornamental in the eastern United States for well over a century , there is absolutely no evidence at all of it becoming invasive in this region. I believe that the main reason for this is that Gian t Reed does not grow well in shade, and therefore is not competitive with our forests in the east, in cluding those that occupy riparian areas. Fourteen years of experience with multiple research plots of Giant Reed that are up to 30 acres in si ze, indicates that plants in these plots

have not moved at all. While this is largely due to competition from native vege tation, it is also because the plant is sterile, producing no fertile seed. In addition, unlike bamboo that produces long (up to 20 ft) underground rhizomes, Giant Reed rhizomes are very short and continue to die off as new ones are produced, thus eliminating the possibility of spreading. Therefore, its potential to become invasive is almost zero, provided it is pr operly managed. Furthermore, based on our experience, it can be eradicated eas ily by plowing and application of Roundup.

Claims are also made that Giant Reed is a fire hazard. Th is may be the case in the West at certain times of the year when it is dry, but it is definitely not true for the East. We have specifically tried to burn our Giant Reed research plots in Alabama, to avoid having to cut them by hand, but our re peated attempts to set them a light with blow torches have totally failed.

Conclusion

In conclusion: 1) there is absolutely no evidence that Giant Reed is invasive in the eastern United States; 2) even in the western states, if it is planted away from riparian areas and properly managed, the risk of it becoming invasive is close to zero; 3) it can be easily eradicated; and 4) it can play a major positive role in carbon sequestration, reclamation of disturbed sites such as surface mines, being used to produ ce electricity, liquid fuels or pharmaceuticals, and providing

much needed income for farmers. Results and observations from research on Giant Reed conducted by colleagues at Virginia Tech and USDA at Tifton, GA, are consistent with ours in Alabama. In short, this plant could play a major role in advancing the emerging biofuel and bioproduct i ndustries which promise to provide jobs, improve rural

economies and enhance the environment – more so than switc hgrass or miscanthus. Therefore, in my opinion, it would be a disservice to the United States to deny this plant the same opportunity as switchgrass to contribute positively to

our future.

Please do not hesitate to contact me at (334) 844-3935 or bransdi@auburn.edu if you need more information.

Sincerely,

David I. Bransby Professor, Energy Crops and BioenergyFebruary 11, 2012

Air and Radiation Docket

Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0542

Environmental Protection Agency

Mailcode: 6406J

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.

Washington, DC 20460

To whom it may concern,

I have had a chance to review the negative comments relating to the use of Arundo donax in “Regulation

of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Identification of Additional Qualifying Renewable Fuel Pathways Under the

Renewable Fuel Standard Program”. These documents reflect a concern that Arundo donax has known

invasive properties, having been documented in ripari an ecosystems, coastal waters and floodplains. As

a component of our current research efforts focus on the vegetative reproduction of Arundo donax , the

potential for invasiveness of this crop is something we have thought about.

Arundo was originally introduced in the U.S. during the 1800’s for erosion control along drainage canals.

Unfortunately, this use for soil stabilization in a quatic regions reflected early human mismanagement

and lack of knowledge regarding the plant, and has contributed to the current invasiveness issues.

Problems have arisen due to the ability of Arundo to propagate vegetatively from rhizomes and stems,

and the plantings in riparian habitats, where high environmental disturbances/soil erosion conditions

caused by flooding, flowing rivers, etc., have cata lyzed the fragmentation and transport of the plants

from one location to another. However, while numerous studies of Arundo donax have focused on

riparian habitats, this riparian focus also suggests th at for terrestrial habitats, invasiveness is much less

an issue. This was also indicated from result s obtained during a recent weed risk assessment 1

.

The objections did not comment on the fact that Arundo donax shows a widely-reported lack of seed

and seedling production 2,3 , which may be due to disruptions in both ovule and pollen developmental

pathways 3 . Hence, inability to produce seeds represents a significant inhibitory mechanism to plant

dispersion, and is not a contributing factor to the spre ad of the plant in the natural habitat. This is a

positive trait for this plant, unlike other described weedy invasives. In a study of Arundo donax

spreading inside and outside of flood zones, Boland 4 indicated that movement via fragmentation,

rhizomes and layering occurred in the flood zone. Howe ver, it was also noted that in drier sites outside

of the flood zone, Arundo spreading was less dynamic, with slow expansion and similar stand

appearances from year to year. These results furt her suggest that the invas ive characteristic is

dependent on site, and if careful site selections are made to avoid riparian zones, and sites are

managed, invasiveness can be avoided.Due to concerns regarding riparian habitat coloniza tion, efforts at control and eradication have been

made. Arundo control can be mediated vi a stem cuttings and whole plant excavation 5 and herbicide

treatments, such as 3%-5% glyphosate foliar sprays, are efficient and consistent methods for the killing

of Arundo 6 . Reports on the use of insect biocontrol agents have also generated promising results 7

.

In assessing the objection documents, and additional scientific literature, I believe that the concerns

expressed about invasiveness, while relevant for riparian zones, are over stated for other sites. It is

apparent that the indiscriminate plantings carried out in the past have negatively impacted on the

beneficial uses and potential of this crop for the development of U.S. energy self-sustainablility. We

would expect that Arundo growers, like other farmers, would need to assess their site for suitability to

grow the crop. Riparian habitats would be design ated as inappropriate and high risk for the crop.

Furthermore, best practices for management, as requ ired by the growing States, which would eliminate

risk of spread if followed. Furthermore, and worst case, the evidence is present that the plants can be

killed by herbicide, or a combination of cutting with herbicide. The recent report by Virtue 1 , while

stressing the weed risk of Arundo donax in riparian habitats, also indicated that in non-flooding areas,

Arundo has minimal lateral spread and humans represent the highest dispersal agent threat. He also

provided several guidelines to be used for risk management 1 , which should allow manageable

containment of Arundo, and the development of a viable Arundo donax industry. Some of his key

guidelines include:

Location of plantings outside of riparian habitats;
The establishment of containment and buffer zones; A survey for and control of any escapes; and Adequate harvest, transport and processing checks.

Adherence to proposed guidelines would facilitate th e growth of Arundo as a low-risk weed bioenergy

crop in terrestrial habitats.

Sincerely,

Barry Flinn, Ph.D.

Director – Institute for Sustainable and Renewable Resources

Institute for Advanced Learning and Research

Danville, VA 245401 Virtue JG, Reynolds T, Malone J, Preston C, Willia ms C. 2010. Managing the weed risk of cultivated

Arundo donax L. Proceedings of the Se venteenth Australasian Weed s Conference, pp. 176-179.

2 Bell G. 1994. Biology and growth habits of giant reed ( Arundo donax ). In NE Jackson, P Frandsen and S

Douthit, eds. Arundo donax Workshop. Riverside CA. pp. 1-6.

3 Mariani C, Cabrini R, Danin A, Piffanelli P, Fricano A, Gomarasca S, Dicandilo M, Grassi F, Soave C. 2010.

Origin, diffusion and reproduction of the giant reed (Arundo donax L.): a promising weedy energy crop.

Ann Appl Biol 157:191-202.

4 Boland JM. 2006. The importance of layering in th e rapid spread of Arundo donax (Giant reed).

Madroño 53(4):303-312.

5 Lowrey J, Watson J. 2004. Tamarisk and Arundo control on Cache Creek. In Proceedings of the California

Weed Science Society. San Jose, CA: Calif ornia Weed Science Society, pp. 82-83.

6 Spencer DF, Tan W, Lio P-S, Ksander GG, Whiteh and LC, Weaver S, Olson J, Newhouser M. 2008.

Evaluation of glyphosate for managing giant re ed (Arundo donax). Invasive Plant Science and

Management 1: 248-254.

7 Wood M, Flores A, McGinniss L, Peabody E. 2007. La ssoing wicked weeds of the west. Agric Res 55: 16-

19.

### Feb	12,	2012

The	comments	regarding	the	use	of	certain	species	for	bioenergy	production (via

the EPA	ruling) has	raised	concern	regarding	the	promotion	of	potentially	invasive species,	which	would	be	in	violation	of	Executive	Order	13112. The	damage	caused by	invasive	species	is	well	documented	and	should	not	be	overlooked	when considering	bioenergy crop	selection	and	production.	However,	it	is	my	opinion	that use	of	known	invasive	species	should not	be	allowed in	areas	where	they	are	known to	be	problematic	(eg,	kudzu	in	the	Southeast),	but	that	outside	of	those	areas	the issue	becomes	much	more	comp lex.	Below	I	specifically	address	the	issue	of g iant reed	( Arundo	donax ,	hereafter	Arundo),	but	the	same	principle	applies	to	all	species.

Arundo is	a	state	listed	noxious	weed	in	Texas	and	California.	However,	several

other	states	consider	Arundo	to	be invasive,	or	potentially	invasive	(eg,	Tennessee).

T he	distinction	between	the	two	listing	types should	be	clarified : noxious is	a regulated	taxon	in	that	state,	whereas	any	other	listing,	such	as invasive ,	is	an	un

regulated	listing	by	an	unofficial	listi ng	organization	(unofficial	in	the	sense	that	the state	does	not	recognize	that	listing).		For	example, the	Tennessee	Exotic	Pest	Plant Council	lists	Arundo	as	an	invasive	species,	but	this	listing	does	not	carry	any	legal

restrictions	on	trade	or	control. This	is	not	to	say	that	the	listed	“invasive”	species	is not	causing	economic	or	ecological	harm,	but	that	it	is	not	regulated	in	that	state.

Weed	Risk	Assessments	(WRA)	have	been	conducted	for	Arundo in some parts	of the	US,	including	Florida,	which	ha ve	generally	resulted	in	“ reject ” ,	which	means	it has	a	high	risk	of	invasion .	However,	it	should	be	noted	that	the	current	WRA

system (Pheloung	et	al	1999) has	no	way	of	distinguishing	different	climates, regions,	or	ecosystems,	which	will	have	varying	le vels	of	susceptibility	to	risk (Barney	and	DiTomaso	2008)

. The	“high	risk”	or	“reject”	outcome	for	Arundo	is driven	by	the	presence	of	invasive	populations	in	California	and	Texas ,	where Arundo	is	displacing	native	flora	and	have	negative	ecosystem	impacts along riparian	corridors. For	example,	the	same	WRA	result	of	“ reject ”	would	be	found	for

Arundo in Texas ,	where	it	is	a	state	listed	noxious	weed,	and	Maine,	where	it	is	not known	to	occur.	Therefore,	WRA	results	should	be	interpreted	in	the	context	of	t heir

limita tions.	Additionally,	the	WRA	was designed	as	a	pre

- introduction	(ie,	the	plant is	not	in	this	country	yet)	screen,	which	of	course	is	not	the	case	for	Arundo. My

2008 (Barney	and	DiTomaso	2008) paper has	been cited	as	an	example demonstrating	th at	Arundo	is	a	high	risk	in	Florida,	which	was	a	result	of	the	WRA.

That WRA	analysis was	done	as	a	first	step	in	evaluating	the	risk	of	three	bioenergy crops,	and	should	be	interpreted	in	the	context	of	the	screening	process	we

propose d ,	of	which	the	WRA is	only	one	component	(Barney	and	DiTomaso	2008).

WRA s are	good	first	steps	in	evaluating	invasiveness,	but	should	not	be	used exclusively	without	the	insight	of	field	tests ,	which that	paper,	and	others,	argues

.

It	should also be	noted	that	invasiveness is	not	a	universal	character,	and	that species	are	not	invasive,	rather	populations	of	species	are	invasive. Also,	a ll populations	of	an	“invasive	species”	are	not	invasive.	For	example,	kudzu	is	a

### harmful	invasive	species	of	the	southeast,	but	populations in New	England are	not invasive	or	threatening	to	become	invasive.	Additionally,	Arundo	is	harmful	in California	and	Texas	almost	exclusively	along	riparian	corridors	where	it	makes

mono

- clonal	stands (Ahmad	et	al	2008) .	However,	in	the	drier	uplands	of	b oth

states Arundo	is	less	abundant.	Arundo	spreads	exclusively	via	vegetative	fragments (stems	and	rhizomes),	which	are	primarily	water	dispersed.	Therefore,	upland populations are	far	less	likely	to	spread. The	ability	to	spread	when	growing	along	a ripar ian	area	is	far	greater	than	when	growing	in	a	field	far	from	a dispersal

corridor (Boose	and	Holt	1999)

.

As	stated	above,	invasiveness	is	not	exhibited	by	all	populations	or	in	all	locations within	a	taxon.	Arundo	was	actively	planted	along	riparian	cor ridors	of	California

for	bank	stabilization and	erosion	control (Boose	and	Holt	1999) ,	just	as	kudzu	was planted	along	roadsides	in	the	Southeast.	The	active	cultivation	along	dispersal corridors	led	to	the	large

- scale	spread	of	both	species.	In	contrast, the	active cultivation	and	management	of	a	bioenergy	crop	within	field	boundaries	will dramatically	decrease	the	likelihood	of	unintentional	escape.	This	is	especially	the case	for	Arundo,	which	does	not	produce	seeds,	and	is	therefore	relegated	to dispers ing	via	vegetative	fragments,	which greatly	reduces	the	probability	of moving	offsite,	especially	when	far	from	a	riparian	area.

All species	present	a	non

- zero	risk	of	becoming	invasive.	The	vast	majority	of species	present	a	very	low	risk ,	but	that	risk is	still	not	zero.	For	a	successful invasion	to	occur	several	components	must	be	present:	an	introduction	event(s),	a susceptible	habitat ,	an	available	(favorable)	microsite,	and	sufficient	time (Theoharides	and	Dukes	2007) .	Management	of	bioenergy	crops	w ill	include	best practices	to	minimize	several	of	these	components	to	reduce	the	likelihood	of

invasion (NC	BC 2011)

.

Lastly,	several	of	the locations	where	Arundo	is	being	discussed	for	cultivation	is	far

outside	of	the	warm	climates	where	Arundo	is	cur rently	problematic.	Cold

- tolerance is	largely	unknown	in	Arundo,	and	it	should	not	be	assumed	that behavior	exhibited in	one	region	represents	eventual	behavior	everywhere. Much	research	must	be done	of	Arundo	biology	and	ecology	in	these	cooler	climates.

In	conclusion, while	I	fully	recognize	the	dramatic Arundo invasions	in	California and	Texas,	and	the	consequences	on	native	species	and	ecosystem	properties, it

should	not	be	assumed	that	Arundo	will	become	invasive	in	all	circumstances	and

locations.	Ne arly	all	research	on	Arundo	has	been	conducted	in	California	and	Texas,

and	we	know	little	about	Arundo	in	the	Southeast or	many	other	regions

. The intentional	planting	of	Arundo	along	riparian	corridors	was	also	likely	its	downfall

, which	should	not	be	th e	case	for	bioenergy	production .	The	precautionary	principle would	advise	us	against	using	Arundo	or	similar	species,	but	the	potential	benefits must	be	weighed	against	the	risks	(known	and	unknown). We	have	learned	much about	how	Arundo	spreads,	and	can	u se	this	information	to	guide	best	management practices	to	reduce	the	probability	of	unintentional	escape.

### I	am	certainly	in	favor	of	reducing	the	promotion	of	invasive	species	in	any	context,

and	am	interest ed in	protecting	our	natural	resources.	I	am	argu ing	for	invasiveness to	be	viewed	in	the	context	of	each	species	and	location.	Invasions	are	an	extremely complex	phenomena,	and	due	diligence	should	be	done	to	protect	our	natural resources	while	also	supporting	bioenergy	production.

Respectfully,

Jacob Barney,	PhD Assistant	Professor	of	Invasive	Plant	Ecology Department	of	Plant	Pathology,	Physiology,	and	Weed	Science Virginia	Tech Blacksburg,	VA	24061

Ahmad	R,	Liow	PS,	Spencer	DF,	Jasieniuk	M.	2008.	Molecular	evidence	for	a	single genetic	clone	of	in vasive Arundo	donax in	the	United	States.	88:	113

- 120.

Barney	JN,	DiTomaso	JM.	2008.	Nonnative	species	and	bioenergy:	Are	we	cultivating

the	next	invader?	BioScience	58:	64

- 70.

Boose	AB,	Holt	JS.	1999.	Environmental	effects	on	asexual	reproduction	in Aru ndo

donax .	Weed	Research	39:	117

- 127.

North	Carolina	Biofuels	Center.	2011.	Voluntary	best	management	practices	for energy	crops:	Minimizing	the	risk	of	invasiveness.

Pheloung	PC,	Williams	PA,	Halloy,	SR.	1999.	A	weed	risk	assessment	model	for	use

as	a biosecurity	tool	evaluating	plant	introductions.	57:	239

- 251.

Theoharides	KA,	Dukes	JS.	2007.	Plant	invasion	across	space	and	time:	factors affecting	nonindigenous	species	success	during	four	stages	of	invasion.	New Phytologist	176:	256

- 273.

### February 9, 2012

Ms Delane Richardson

Director of Research

Chemtex International Inc 6951 Ridge Road Sharon Center, OH 44274

Dear Ms Richardson

Pursuant to our phone conversation this morning, I have reviewed the document “Voluntary Best Management Practices for Energy Crops

– Minimizing the Risk of Invasiveness” published by

North Carolina State University, the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and the Biofuels Center of North Carolina, and agree that the practices they propose for a) information gathering, b) planting and field management, c) harvesting, d) transportation, a nd e) storage, are feasible for

the commercial cultivation of Arundo donax as a biofuel crop. These practices minimize the chance of Arundo donax escaping from cultivated plantings.

I have conducted experimentation in Ohio with Arundo donax for three years and have some experienc e regarding it biology; namely: (i) Arundo donax has a high yi eld potential ( up to 20 tons/ac under ideal conditions ) , and as such, has potential for use as a biofuel crop in Ohio. (ii) Arundo donax has been used widely as an ornamental species throughout Ohio, but has not been observed or documented to have “escaped ” from these plantings. Although we have not measured the response of Arundo donax to cold temperature, I believe the cold winters in Ohio are a significant factor in preventing the dispersal of Arundo donax that is observed and reported in south ern USA states

. (iii) I have a 1⁄4 acre nursery plot of Arundo donax in Columbus Ohio that is approximately 12 years old. This area grows within 50 feet of a stream

, but is separated from the stream by a regularly mowed grass buffer strip . We have not measured nor observed any spread of

Arundo donax plants from this nursery area into the stream

. (iv) Arundo donax produce s short rhizomes, however we have not observed spread of plants by more than 2 feet per year. This rate of spread makes it unlikely t hat Arundo donax will escape managed stands. (v) Although Arundo donax produces a spectacular flower head, we do not see any evidence of seed production from these seed heads, nor have observed any propagation of seedlings from seed. I believe this sp ecies is sterile.

Yours sincerely

Dr David Barker Associate Professor, Grassland Ecology



## Department of Horticulture and Crop Science

226 Kottman Hall Phone: (614) 247

- 6258 

### 2021 Coffey Road Fax: (614) 292

- 7162


### Columbus OH 43210

- 1086 E

- mail: barker.169@osu.eduWeed risk management ofArundo donaxplantationsDr John VirtueNRM Biosecurity Unit, DWLBCSA Weed Risk Management SystemComparativeWeed Risk =Invasiveness(0-10)×Impacts(0-10)×Potential Distribution(0-10)Feasibility ofContainment =Control Costs(0-10)×Current Distribution(0-10)×Persistence(0-10)Weed risk ofArundo donax•Assessed for two land uses:1.Riparian•river, creek and lake systems,including standing/flowing water,banks and adjacent floodplains2.Terrestrial native vegetation•native vegetation remnants in thelandscape that not subject to floodeventsWeed risk ofArundo donax•Establishment•Tolerance toroutine weedcontrol•Reproduction•Natural spread•Human spreadINVASIVENESSRiparian Terrestrial4.7 3.3-likes bare ground-no seed set, justreproduces vegetatively-greater establishment &dispersal in wet areasWeed risk ofArundo donax•Regeneration•Dominance•Biodiversity•Movement•Health•EcosystemchangeIMPACTSRiparian Terrestrial6.8 2.1-low moisture & nutrientsand lack of waterdispersal limitsA. donaxdensity in terrestrial areas-monoculture potential inriparian areasWeed risk ofArundo donax•Climate match•Soil tolerancesPOTENTIALDISTRIBUTIONRiparian Terrestrial6.0 0.5-wide climatic range-native habitat isessentially riparianFeasibility of control ofA. donax•Detection•Accessibility•Treatment•LandholdercooperationCONTROL COSTSRiparian Terrestrial4.7 2.7-quite easy to find-generally accessible-treat with glyphosatesprayFeasibility of control ofA. donax•% of landuseinfested•Pattern ofdistributionCURRENTDISTRIBUTIONRiparian Terrestrial0.9 0.9-rare-scattered throughoutregionFeasibility of control ofA. donax•Ease of kill•Time toreproduction•Propagulelongevity•OngoingdispersalPERSISTENCERiparian Terrestrial3.6 1.8-glyphosate sprayeffective-no seed-short-lived rhizomefragments-still grownWeed Risk vs. Feasibility of controlFEASIBILITY OF CONTROLRiparian Terrestrial16 4WEED RISKRiparian Terrestrial192 4FEASIBILITY OF CONTAINMENTWEEDRISKNegligible>113Low>56Medium>31High>14Very High<14Negligible<13LIMITED ACTIONLIMITED ACTIONLIMITED ACTIONLIMITED ACTIONMONITORLow<39LIMITED ACTIONLIMITED ACTIONLIMITED ACTIONMONITORMONITORMedium<101MANAGE SITESMANAGE SITESMANAGE SITESPROTECT SITESCONTAIN SPREADHigh<192MANAGE WEEDMANAGE WEEDPROTECT SITESCONTAIN SPREADDESTROYINFESTATIONSVery High>192MANAGE WEEDPROTECT SITES& MANAGE WEEDCONTAIN SPREADDESTROYINFESTATIONSERADICATE ALERTTerrestrialA. donaxFloodplainA. donaxContaining non-riparianA. donaxConsider the following measures:•Declaration under NRM Act and use permitsto allow cultivation and movement thatstipulate certain management conditions•No planting within areas prone to flooding(e.g. River Murray Flood Zone)•Plant a minimum of 20 m from naturalwatercourses and constructed drains,•10 m buffer zone around plantings tocontain any vegetative spreadContaining non-riparianA. donaxConsider the following measures (cont’d):•Pre-planting survey ofA. donaxalreadypresent in the vicinity•1km land radius, 5km drainage lines & roads•Annual surveys to detect and remove anynew plants•Hygiene procedures for harvest, transportand processing to minimise inadvertentspread of vegetative fragmentsConclusion•Cultivation ofArundodonaxaway from riparianareas poses a low weed risk•However, ongoingmeasures would need to betaken to prevent spread toriparian areas1 

### McClafferty, Ryan

From: Quinn, Robin on behalf of Columbus, R. Timothy

Sent: Friday, November 02, 2012 2:44 PM

To: Fialkov, David Subject: FW: A donax weed rating according to Sth Australian study

From: Delane.Richardson@chemtex.com [mailt o:Delane.Richardson@chemtex.com]

Sent: Monday, October 15, 2012 6:59 AM

To: Columbus, R. Timothy Subject: Fw: A donax weed rating according to Sth Australian study

Fyi

From : Virtue, John (PIRSA) < John.Virtue@sa.gov.au > To : Richardson, Delane SHC; peter.rowe@polygenomx.com < peter.rowe@polygenomx.com > Sent : Mon Oct 15 05:58:47 2012 Subject : RE: A donax weed rating according to Sth Australian study

Dear Delane and Peter,

Thanks for your email. I have read the Voluntary Best Mana gement Practices for Energy Crops document and it aligns well with the proposed risk management procedures for Arundo donax in Australia, as outlined in the RIRDC document and the associated Australasian Weeds Conference paper: https://rirdc.infoservices.com.au/items/10-215 http://www.caws.org.au/awc/2010/awc201011761.pdf

The weed risk assessment done for A. donax in Australia (ref er above documents) shows majo r differences in risk of the plant in riparian vs. non-riparian situations. In the absence of seed production, the fundamental requirement for A. donax to disperse, invade and form monocu ltures is flowing water. Provided it is grown distant from waterways (with measures in place to prevent human mediated movement of fragments to such waterways, whether accidental or deliberate), then I consider it to be a manageable risk. Note that the document recommends a regulated approach under a jurisdictions noxious weed laws.

Kind regards

Dr John G. Virtue Manager - NRM Biosecurity Biosecurity SA (a division of PIRSA)

Postal address: GPO Box 1671 Adelaide SA 5001

Location address: Building 1, Soil & Water Environs, Entry 4, Waite Rd, Urrbrae SA

Phone: 08 8303 9502 Mobile: 0428 112 943 Fax: 08 8303 9555

Email: john.virtue@sa.gov.au Web: www.pir.sa.gov.au /biosecuritysa2 From: Delane.Richardson@chemtex.com [ mailto:Delane.Richardson@chemtex.com ]

Sent: Thursday, 11 October 2012 11:58 AM

To: peter.rowe@polygenomx.com ; Virtue, John (PIRSA) Subject: RE: A donax weed rating according to Sth Australian study

Thank you very much for the introduction Peter. Dr Virt ue, we are opening a 20 million gallon per year bio ethanol facility in Crescentino Italy, using Arundo Donax as a purpose grown feed stock. We began our Arundo research in 2006 and have an Arundo “library”in Italy of 89 different eco types we have gathered from around the world. The economics for us as well as the farmer are heavily dependent on the great yields we see with Arundo. We are trying to get our Arundo pathway permitted in the United States, howe ver fear of invasiveness may keep this great feedstock off the table for us in the US. Would you consider endorsing ou r use of Arundo in some way? The attached best practices are to be incorporated into our purchase contracts. A lette r from a renowned weed expert such as you, stating your belief that the best practices would cont ain Arundo, would go a long way in helpi ng us get the approval we need. Could you review our best practices an d let me know what you think? Thanks in advance for your time

Delane Richardson Vice President Proesa Technology

Chemtex International

From: Peter Rowe [ mailto:peter.rowe@polygenomx.com ]

Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 8:09 PM

To: john.virtue@sa.gov.au

Cc: Richardson, Delane SHC Subject: FW: A donax weed rating according to Sth Australian study

John

Hi. Thanks for being available when I called yesterday – it was a lucky break to catch you between sessions.

To keep this email on the issue, I’ll send you background on PolyGenomX separately as we are not the point of this

communication.

You’ll see below, from the request from Delane Richardson, VP for PROESA at Chemtex in the US, that she would very much appreciate any objective balance that you may be able to instil into the discussion that she is presently involved in with regulators in her area about the use of A. donax as a biofuels feedstock.

Delane will now make direct contact with you and I’ll le ave you two to have that conversation in more detail.

Regards

Peter Rowe Managing Director

Level 4, 130 Bundall Road, Bundall Q 4217
PO Box 6566 Gold Coast MC Q 9726 Australia3 P +617 5510 3166 | F +617 5510 3544 | M 0408 844 000

Web: www.polygenomx.com Skype : PolyGenomX

Follow PolyGenomX on:

This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by legal, professional or other privilege. If you are not the intended recipient you should not store it, copy it, re-transmit it, use it or disclose its contents, but should return it to the sender immediately and delete your copy from your system. Please note that w hile we scan all e-mails for viruses we cannot guarantee that any e-mail is
virus-free.

From: Delane.Richardson@chemtex.com [mailto:Delane.Richardson@chemtex.com]

Sent: Thursday, 11 October 2012 1:54 AM

To: Peter Rowe - PGX Subject: RE: A donax weed rating according to Sth Australian study

Thanks again for your time Peter and I forwarded the inform ation to Michaela Roati, who will follow up with you from Italy. On the report below, this could be very helpful to us in our immediate need to get Arundo approved. Do you know the author well enough that perhaps he might send a letter on our behalf summarizing his findings? This is a very poltical issue for us just now and we co uld use some support very quickly. Delane

From: Peter Rowe [mailto:peter.rowe@polygenomx.com]

Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 7:15 PM

To: Richardson, Delane SHC

Cc: 'Steven Burke' Subject: A donax weed rating according to Sth Australian study

Delane

Hi. It was great to meet with you, Steven, Mark and John yesterday and to scope out what you and we are doing and to explore a little of the potential overlap and synergy.

I tripped over the attached study when searching for somethin g else in our vast archive of material, and thought it may have some marginal relevance for you.

I’ll look forward to talking further when you have some cl arity around the management issues and strategies for donax in a large scale setting.

Regards

Peter Rowe Managing Director

Level 4, 130 Bundall Road, Bundall Q 4217
PO Box 6566 Gold Coast MC Q 9726 Australia P +617 5510 3166 | F +617 5510 3544 | M 0408 844 000

Web: www.polygenomx.com Skype : PolyGenomX

Follow PolyGenomX on:

This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by legal, professional or other privilege. If you are not the intended recipient you should not store it, copy it, re-transmit it, use it or4 disclose its contents, but should return it to the sender immediately and delete your copy from your system. Please note that w hile we scan all e-mails for viruses we cannot guarantee that any e-mail is
virus-free.