### Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under EO 13563

and EO 12866	Interagency	Review.		Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review. **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” , RIN 2060**  **- AR07**  Every effort should be made to find alternatives to A. donax given the significant and well - documented risk associated with this species. An y approval of a high risk invasive species as a biofuel should include biosecurity

measures that ensure that the federal government does not incur or cause additional monitoring or control costs by encouraging the spread of these species. This proposal outlines a protocol that can be applied to any plant proposed as a biofuel, including A. donax , and it is consistent with general invasive species methods that have been shown to be effective in a wide range of settings, the advice of Invasive Species Advisory Committee (ISAC), and scientific opinion . Sinc e its creation of the National Invasive Species Council (NI SC) by Executive Order 13112 in 1999 , NI SC members’ agencies have focused upon reducing the pathway s of invasive species spread an d introduction. B iofuel production using invasive plants is a seri ous pathway that could lead to the wide spread introduction and establishment of invasive species 1 . Invasive species , such as A. donax , that alter both the biological and phy sical/chemical components of the environment have the greatest impacts . T hey transform entire ecos ys tem s to benefit their own growth. Without extensive control efforts, this result s in a near total dis placement of other plants and prevents regeneration 2 . Arundo donax reduces stream flows which increases flooding and hinders downstream water delivery . It is an intensive “water - using” plant that pulls water from s ediments. Arundo donax is tolerant of burning and increases the occurrence of wild fire s , and it does not provide good wildlife habitat. Additionally , dense stands of A. donax impede law enforcement efforts by obscuring sightlines. T he Department of Homeland Security and the USDA are working together to remove A donax along the U.S. and Mexico border3 . Itis the target of extensive control efforts the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers , Bureau of Reclamation , U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, and other State and private land managers . Texas 4 has identified in A. donax in State Law as a noxious weed . California rated as highl y invasive 5 . It was also indentified

1 Biofuels: Cultivating Energy, not Invasive Species Approved by the Invasive Species Advisory Committee (ISAC) on August 11, 2009. 2 Csurhes, S. 2009. Weed risk assessment: Giant reed (Arundo donax). Biosecurity Queensland, Queensland Primary Industries and Fisheries, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Inno vation. Last accessed January 8, 2013, http://www.daff.qld.gov.au/documents/Biosecurity_EnvironmentalPests/IPA - Giant - Reed - Risk - Assessment.pdf 3 http://www.reeis.usda.gov/web/crisprojectpages/0411718 - pilot - test - of - insect - biological - control - agents - to - control - arundo donax - carrizo - cane - on - the - rio - grande - river - for - the - dept - homeland - security.html Last accessed January 8, 2013 4 http://plants.usda.gov/java/noxious?rptType=State&statefips=48 Last accessed January 8, 2013 5 http://www.cal - ipc.org/ip/inventory/pdf/Inventory2006.pdf Last accessed January 8, 2013

### Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under EO 13563

and EO 12866	Interagency	Review.		Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review. as invasive species in Nevada and Virginia 6 . T he IUCN has identified A. donax as one of the world’s worst 100 invasive species. 7 The USDA Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) 8 estimates that about 57 percent of the U .S. is suitable for the establishment of A. donax (Fig. 1 ) . Currentl y, A. donax is in 25 states, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands 8 . It is not listed as Federal Noxious Plant, because a species must be “not widely distributed” to be officiall y listed as a Federal Noxious Weed . Although too widespread to be a Federal Noxious Weed, APHI S estimates A. donax currently onl y o ccupies a small proportion of its potential habitat 8 .

Fig. 1 Predicted di stribution of Arundo donax. Map insets for Hawaii, and Puerto Rico are not to scale 8 .

6 http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural_heritage/documents/invlist.pdf http://www.ars- grin.gov/cgi bin/npgs/html/taxon.pl?4439 Last accessed January 8, 2013 7 http://www.issg.org/database/species/ecology.asp?si=112&fr=1&sts=&lang=EN. Last accessed January 8, 2013 8 USDA, APHIS 2012. Weed Risk Assessment for Arundo donax L. (Poaceae)

– Giant reed. 18 pages.

### Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under EO 13563

and EO 12866	Interagency	Review.		Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review. Arundo donax is particularly abundant along rivers, but can also grow in agricultural areas, coastlands, forests, rangelands, grasslands, scrublands and urban areas 8 . When supplied with ample water and nutrients and allowed to accumulate biomass over time, large amounts of biomass can be removed from A. donax dominated areas. This characteristic along with a current lack of insect pests (see footnote 3 concerning testin g and release of new biological control agents) has focused attention on this species as a potential biomass crop . Inclusion of A. donax as a green house gas reducing component of a biofuel production pathway

would encourage its widespread planting. The re is concern that the planting of A. donax will spread it to additional tru st resources where it will be increasing difficult and costly to monitor and control. State agencies, tribes , and private landowners are also likely to incur significant additional mo nitoring and control costs. This view is consistent with the USDA Weed Risk Analysis 8 and the views of many s cientists and policy makers who have expressed concern about the widespread cultivation of A . donax .

____________________________________________ ______________________________________ 

### Application of Standard Invasive Species Prevention: Protocols to Proposed **Biomass Crop Species** Invasive species prevention involves a series of coordinated steps. These steps as described below and laid out in Figure 2, when applied to biomass crops will encourage energy production while avoiding the spread of invasive species. STEP 1 - Authoritative Identification: The first step is obtaining authoritative identification of the species under consideration . Additionally , the expression of certain variety- specific traits ( e.g., a lack of viable seed production or increased cold tolerance ) can reduce or increase that variety ’s potential to be invasive 9 . A species may also be a new genetic construct such as a hy brid between two species. Voucher specimens ( in cases where a specific variety /hy brid is being petitioned for consideration variety /hy brid specimens ) must be collected, submitted for authoritative taxonomic identification, and stored in reference herbariums. Rule making should refer specifically

to those legally- referenced voucher speci es and/or varieties. STEP 2 - Preliminary

Analy sis: An authoritative identification allows for a pr eliminary anal ys is to determine the status of the species. Plants listed as Federal Noxious Weed cannot be imported into the U .S. or moved between s tate s , without a special permit . Federal Noxious Weeds should be rejected a s biomass crops . 9 Invasive Plant Research and Partnerships with Ornamental Horticulture and Natural Resource Management Workshop Repor**t** . June 2008. Workshop sponsored by U. S. National Arboretum, USDA Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, The Nature Conservancy, The American Nursery and Landscape Association, National Invasive Species Council **,** and Invasive Species Advisory Committee. Held March 3 and 4, 2008, at the U.S. National Arboretum, Washington, D.C. 30pp

### Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under EO 13563

and EO 12866	Interagency	Review.		Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review. T here may

be little to no reliable information for some species , especiall y those that are new to the U.S. or are new genetic construct s . Additional information and in some cases primary research may

be needed before these species can be evaluated. Certain plants may have been identified by p lant experts as suggested alternative biomass species/varieties (e.g., see USDA Plants Database) 10 . The availability of non - invasive alternatives is an important component of providing biomass cropping options and preventing the spread of invasive species. A preliminary

analy sis can determine if a petitioned plant has been identified as non - invasive alternative species . STEP 3

– Weed Risk Assessment: Predicting which species will be invasive is difficult; the best predictor is the invasive history of the species elsewhere 11 . Weed Risk Assessment processes have been developed to aid in identifying and ranking species . Species that have been listed as State Noxious Weed or those that have been reported to be invasive in the technical literature should be subjected to a Weed Risk Assessment prior to analy sis for their inclusion within a renewable fuel production pathway . This approach is similar to that used by the USDA Animal Plant Health Inspection Service’s Not Auth orized Pending Pest Risk Anal ys is or NAPPRA category for the importation of plants for planting 12 . STEP 4

– Mitigation: High risk s pecies require risk mitigation. Traits, such as high biomass production and hardiness , that make a plant potentiall y useful as a biomass crop may also increase its potential to be invasive. Effective risk mitigation can maintain the benefits of energy production while avoiding invasive species costs 1 . However, risk mitigation may n ot be possible or feasible for some species. A lack of or ineffective risk mitigation could allow an invasive biofuel species to spread and convert plant and animal communities into invasive plant dominated areas. This would undermine carbon storage, carbon sequ estration, and other ecos ys tem functions that directly and indirectly impact green house gas level s . Where risk mitigation is not possible/ feasible , the species should not be identified as a component of a green house gas reducing biofuel production pathway. For certain species risk mitigation is feasible . Executive Order 13112 requires that for a federal agency to authorize, fund or carry out actions that are likely to promote the introduction or spread of an invasive species, the agency must first deter mined that the benefits of the action outweigh the potential harm . Thus, c onservation/biosecurity plans must sufficiently reduce risks to levels well below the anticipated
10 http://plants.usda.gov/java/altCrops?entry=initial. Last accessed January 8, 2013. 11 National Research Coun cil. Predicting Invasions of Nonindigenous Plants and Plant Pests . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2002. 12 http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/plant_imports/Q37/nappra/index.shtml

### Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under EO 13563

and EO 12866	Interagency	Review.		Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review. benefits. This may include geographic restrictions on cultivation and the implementation biosecurity measures. The non - federal members of the Invasive Species Advisory Committee (I SAC) have recommended several overarching risk mitigation steps applicable biomass crop produc tion 1 . A highl y effective approach to risk mitigation is Hazard Anal ys is Critical Control Point or HACCP 13 . HACCP examines each phase of an invasive species pathway to identify risk reduction steps. Applied within a coordinated HACCP strategy or plan, the se control and evaluation measures reinforce each another . Pilot - scale testing may also greatl y reduce risks. However, even the most effective prevention efforts will not stop all introductions. Earl y detection and rapid response (EDRR) efforts increase the likelihood that invasions will be halted while still localized 14 . Participation in EDRR network s further reduces the risk of invasive species spread. P lans that implement HACCP and EDRR risk reduction strategies are the most protective of environmental resources. There are no established verification mechanisms for biomass crop biosecurity plan implementation. However, independent verification mechanisms have been developed for other species 15 .

13 http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/pdf/HACCP%20Training%20Manual.pdf 14http://www.invasivespecies.gov/global/EDRR/EDRR_documents/Guidelines%20for%20Early%20Detection%20&%20Rap id%20Response.pdf 15 Thompson, J. P. (2009). New A pproaches for Certification, Verificati on or Recognition of Clean Stock and Non - weedy Stock in the Horticultural and Crafter Industries. Washington DC: ANLA HRI .

### Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under EO 13563

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

No ninvas ive al

ternat ive **ACCEPT** fo r Further EP A Review Fe deral no xio us weed **DENY**
Li ttle in fo rmat io n fo und, Research State No xio us W

eed Repo rted to be inva sive 

### 3. W eed Risk Assessmen t High Ri sk, m

it ig at io n no t feasible **DENY**

Mit ig at io n Requi red fo r EP A RFS i nclusio n Unaccept able RiskC om

pared to Benefit s wi

th M it ig at io n E.O 131 12 DENY Risk Mi tigat io n & Pilo t Scale Te sti ng 

### 2. Pr eliminary Analysis

Risk Mi tigat io n Requi

red fo r EP

A RFS Possi ble Bio fu el Species 

### 1. Vo ucher & Authoritative identification

4. Risk Mitig ation

Fig. 2 . Representation of Biomass Crop Species Review Process.