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. Any 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.

Since its creation of the National Invasive Species Council (NISC) by Executive Order 13112 in 1999, 

NISC members’ agencies have focused upon reducing the pathways of invasive species spread and 

introduction. Biofuel production using invasive plants is a serious pathway that could lead to the widespread introduction and establishment of invasive species1

. 

Invasive species, such as A. donax, that alter both the biological and physical/chemical components of 

the environment have the greatest impacts. They transform entire ecosystems to benefit their own 

growth. Without extensive control efforts, this results in a near total displacement of other plants and 

prevents regeneration2. Arundo donax reduces stream flows which increases flooding and hinders 

downstream water delivery. It is an intensive “water-using” plant that pulls water from sediments. 

Arundo donax is tolerant of burning and increases the occurrence of wildfires, and it does not provide 

good wildlife habitat. Additionally, dense stands of A. donax impede law enforcement efforts by

obscuring sightlines. The Department of Homeland Security and the USDA are working together to 

remove A donax along the U.S. and Mexico border3. It is 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. Texas4has identified 

in A. donax in State Law as a noxious weed. California rated as highly invasive5. 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 Innovation. 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-arundodonax-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 Virginia6. The IUCN has identified A. donax as one of the world’s 

worst 100 invasive species.7

The USDA Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)8estimates that about 57 percent of the 

U.S. is suitable for the establishment of A. donax (Fig. 1). Currently, A. donax is in 25 states, Puerto 

Rico and the Virgin Islands8. It is not listed as Federal Noxious Plant, because a species must be “not 

widely distributed” to be officially listed as a Federal Noxious Weed. Although too widespread to be a 

Federal Noxious Weed, APHIS estimates A. donax currently only occupies a small proportion of its 

potential habitat8. 

Fig. 1 Predicted distribution of Arundo donax. Map insets for Hawaii, and Puerto Rico are not to scale8.

 

6

http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural_heritage/documents/invlist.pdf http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgibin/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 areas8. 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 testing 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. There is concern that the planting of A. 

donax will spread it to additional trust 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 monitoring and control costs. This view is consistent with the USDA Weed Risk Analysis8

and the views of many scientists 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 invasive9. A species may also be a new 

genetic construct such as a hybrid between two species. Voucher specimens (in cases where a specific 

variety/hybrid is being petitioned for consideration variety/hybrid specimens) must be collected, 

submitted for authoritative taxonomic identification, and stored in reference herbariums. Rule making 

should refer specifically to those legally-referenced voucher species and/or varieties. 

STEP 2 - Preliminary Analysis: 

An authoritative identification allows for a preliminary analysis to determine the status of the species. 

Plants listed as Federal Noxious Weed cannot be imported into the U.S. or moved between states, 

without a special permit. Federal Noxious Weeds should be rejected as biomass crops. 

 

9

Invasive Plant Research and Partnerships with Ornamental Horticulture and Natural Resource Management Workshop 

Report. 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.

There may be little to no reliable information for some species, especially those that are new to the U.S. 

or are new genetic constructs. Additional information and in some cases primary research maybe needed 

before these species can be evaluated. 

Certain plants may have been identified by plant 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 analysis 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 elsewhere11. 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 analysis

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 Authorized Pending Pest Risk Analysis or 

NAPPRA category for the importation of plants for planting12.

STEP 4 – Mitigation:

High risk species require risk mitigation. Traits, such as high biomass production and hardiness, that 

make a plant potentially 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 costs1. 

However, risk mitigation may not 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 sequestration, and 

other ecosystem functions that directly and indirectly impact green house gas levels. 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 determined that the benefits of the action outweigh the potential harm. 

Thus, conservation/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 Council. 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 (ISAC) have 

recommended several overarching risk mitigation steps applicable biomass crop production1.

A highly effective approach to risk mitigation is Hazard Analysis 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, these control and evaluation measures reinforce each

another. Pilot-scale testing may also greatly reduce risks. However, even the most effective prevention 

efforts will not stop all introductions. Early detection and rapid response (EDRR) efforts increase the 

likelihood that invasions will be halted while still localized14. Participation in EDRR networks further 

reduces the risk of invasive species spread. Plans 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 species15.

 

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 Approaches for Certification, Verification 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.

Noninvasive alternative 

ACCEPT for Further 

EPA Review

Federal noxious weed

DENY

Little information 

State Noxious Weed Reported to be invasive found, Research

3. Weed Risk Assessment

High Risk, mitigation not 

feasible DENY

Mitigation Required for 

EPA RFS inclusion 

Unacceptable Risk Compared 

to Benefits with Mitigation 

E.O 13112 DENY

Risk Mitigation & Pilot Scale Testing 

2. Preliminary Analysis

Risk Mitigation Required for EPA RFS 

Possible Biofuel Species

1. Voucher & Authoritative identification

4. Risk Mitigation

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