New Study Links Habitat Destruction to Ethanol Production

by Jordan Lubetkin (National Wildlife Federation) Millions of acres of wildlife habitat are being lost to crop production, according to a new peer-reviewed study published today in the journal Environmental Research Letters, which found a strong link between the location of corn ethanol refineries and the conversion of wildlife habitat and other land types into crop production. In total, researchers found that more than 4 million acres had been converted to agricultural production within a 100-mile radius of ethanol plants between 2008 and 2012, the years immediately following passage of a federal mandate to produce ethanol to be blended into gasoline.

“Our analysis shows an undeniable connection between corn ethanol production and habitat destruction,” said study co-author Ben Larson, senior manager of forestry and bioenergy for the National Wildlife Federation. “This massive loss of wildlife habitat is happening under the radar of the public and many policy makers—even though the impacts are enormous. These data are a wake-up call that EPA needs to rethink its implementation of the Renewable Fuel Standard while Congress enacts meaningful reform.”

Researchers from the University of Minnesota Duluth, University of Wisconsin, and the National Wildlife Federation assessed satellite imagery and land classification data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to determine conversion rates from non-farmland into farmland in the years following passage of the federal Renewable Fuel Standard, the federal mandate to blend corn-based ethanol and other renewable fuels into gasoline. The study builds on a previously published analysis by researchers at the University of Wisconsin that found 7 million acres nationwide were converted to crop production during the same period, and that corn was the most common crop planted after conversion.

The results show that grasslands and other habitats closest to ethanol plants suffered the highest rates of conversion to crop production, and that conversion rates declined as the distance from ethanol plants increased. The loss of millions of acres of wildlife habitat occurred despite a section in the Renewable Fuel Standard that prohibits fuel from crops produced on converted land from being used to comply with the blending requirement.

“This research demonstrates the Renewable Fuels Standard’s devastating impacts on wildlife habitat. Despite the law requiring that EPA only allow biofuels from lands in production before 2007, this report clearly shows that more than 4 million acres near ethanol plants were converted from wildlife habitat to crop production since 2008. Right now, Congress and EPA can adopt bipartisan, common-sense solutions that protect wildlife habitat and water quality, while promoting sustainable fuels to power America,” said Collin O’Mara, President and CEO of the National Wildlife Federation. “We look forward to working with Congress and the EPA to adopt reforms that will help recover impacted duck, pheasant, songbird, and monarch populations and restore our nation’s treasured grasslands that have borne of the brunt of the RFS’ unintended consequences.”

The failure of the Environmental Protection Agency to enforce the prohibition on clearing land has led to the loss of important wildlife habitat, particularly in regions critical for monarch butterflies, ducks and other ground-nesting birds, and many other species. It has also resulted in deteriorated water quality and harmful algal blooms in places like Lake Erie as a result of increased farm runoff. NWF documented many of these impacts in a report late last year, titled Fueling Destruction: The Unintended Consequences of the Renewable Fuel Standard on Land, Water, and Wildlife. READ MORE (E&E News) and MORE (Environmental Research Web) and MORE / MORE / MORE (Public News Service) and MORE (Washington Examiner) and MORE (Ethanol Producer Magazine/Renewable Fuels Association) and MORE (Energy.AgWired.com) and MORE (Sentinel Source) Abstract (Environmental Research Letters)

Excerpt from Ethanol Producer Magazine/Renewable Fuels Association: To test the NWF study’s theory regarding “pockets of conversion” around ethanol plants, we examined USDA county-level cropland data for the 180 counties where 199 grain ethanol plants were located in 2016. We relied on data that is mandatorily reported every five years by the farmers and ranchers who actually live and work on the land, not data collected by satellites that struggle mightily to distinguish between alfalfa hay, idle cropland, managed pasture, and native grassland.

Not surprisingly, our findings contradict the allegations made by the new NWF paper. The USDA data reveal that consistent with the national trend, the overwhelming majority of counties with ethanol plants witnessed reductions—not expansions—in cropland between 1997 and 2012. Specifically, we found:

--Cropland in the counties with ethanol plants fell by 2.02 million acres, or 3.5 percent, between 1997 and 2012.

--Between 2007 and 2012 specifically (i.e., encompassing the period examined by the NWF study), total cropland in counties with ethanol plants fell by 454,000 acres, or 0.8 percent.

--On an individual county basis, 2012 cropland levels were below the levels recorded in 1997, 2002, or 2007 in the large majority (84 percent) of the counties with ethanol plants. The reduction in cropland for these 151 counties averaged 11.8 percent when compared to the highest level of cropland from 1997, 2002, or 2007.

--For the small minority (16 percent) of counties with ethanol plants where 2012 cropland was higher than the amount of cropland recorded in 1997, 2002, or 2007, the increase in cropland was minor (3.1 percent on average) and coincided with reductions in Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) land and pastureland.

--Most of the counties with ethanol plants where 2012 cropland exceeded 1997, 2002, or 2007 levels are located in the heart of the Corn Belt, not the western fringe where undisturbed grassland is more common. This provides more support for the argument that expanded cropland in these counties replaced land with previous agricultural history (such as CRP or pasture)—not prairie or other native lands.