Invasive Species Public Policy:
Redcedar Management
Options/Consequences
Larry D. Sanders
Tracy Boyer
OCES Inservice
Oklahoma City
29 May 2013
1
Eastern Redcedar:
An opportunity or a Curse?
• Curse argument:
– A “weed” to
eradicate
• Opportunity
argument:
– Value-added
potential
•The political problem
•Private property rights
•Compensation
2
Redcedar management options (state or private funding?)
Graze-out
w/Goats (cost
Uncertain;
Unintended
Harm?)
Natural burn
(Wildfire;
Proliferation
issues)
Managed burn
(relatively low
cost; maintenance
cost)
Cut/remove
(costly;
Maintenance
cost)
Other
options?
Chemical
application
(cost
uncertain;
environmental
harm
uncertain)
Value-added
crop
(infrastructure
cost; market
uncertain;
inconsistent
stocks; cedar
proliferation
issues)
3
Renewable energy
Logs for heating
Process for bio-fuel
(state/feds may
support)
Natural
Pesticides
Few examples
of private
profitability;
public subsidy
likely
Aromatic oils
Shredded animal
bedding; Mulch
Redcedar
“potential”
benefits
Existence of
Value-added
acreage assures
Infestation of
other acreage
Construction
material
Furniture
Windbreaks/
landscape aesthetics
Habitat/hunting
--trade-off one
habitat for
another
Compensation
4
Land
opportunity
cost
Health
Concerns
Habitat
Compensation
Potential cost
of redcedar
existence
Spread to
other
land
Cost
to
manage
Wildfire
danger
5
Redcedar state policy
• The Eastern Redcedar Registry Board consists of 12 members as
outlined by the Eastern Redcedar Registry Board Act (HB2686 2010).
• Links interested land owners w/markets
– Landowners directory—about 250
– Harvesters directory—11
– Producers directory--18
• Current members:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Gary Bledsoe
Bruce Brown
Elmer Maddux
Paul Todd
Charles Battles
Salim Hiziroglu
Vacant
Jim Reese
Mike Thralls
Steve Thompson
Bob Thompson
Steve Glasgow
Chair
Vice Chair
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Governor Appointee
Governor Appointee
Speaker of House Appointee
Governor Appointee
Speaker of House Appointee
Senate President Pro Tempore Appointee
Senate President Pro Tempore Appointee
Secretary of Agriculture
Executive Director, Conservation Commission
Executive Director, Department of Environmental Quality
Executive Director, Corporation Commission
USDA - NRCS (Designee)
• http://www.forestry.ok.gov/ercregistry
6
2011: HB1486
Woody Biomass
Energy Initiative;
Fallin vetoed
Attempts at state
legislation
2012: SB1539
Use of state prisoners amended by Morrisette to
use for cedar removal on public lands;
Fallin signed May 2012
HB2695
OK Resource Reclamation Act;
Redcedar removal, esp. “abandoned” land
Failed in committee
2013: HB1656
Re-attempt at Woody Biomass bill
HB 1513
Inmate certification for harvest/eradication skills
HB1515
Re-attempt at OK Resource Reclamation Act7
Legislative update
• Morrissette ‘s 3 cedar bills passed through all committees; later
stalled in Senate or on procedural grounds.
• HB1513, to allow inmate labor to harvest cedar (in statute as a
result of a Morrissette amendment to SB1513-2012) & for
inmates to receive Career Tech certification post incarceration in
cutting/harvesting, framing/carpentry and livestock
management.
• HB1515, several aspects to include revaluation of lands infested
with cedar when tax assessment categorization falls to “TIMBER
WASTE”
• HB1656 Woody Biomass Energy Initiative: establish commission
to direct the development of biofuel from cedar biomass.
• The bills can be viewed in their entirety on line
www.okhouse.gov
8
Options to manage
redcedar
STATUS QUO
-limited
education/
research
-private choice
-unlikely
eradication
-
STATE ASSISTED VOLUNTARY
CONTROL
-Education/research/state aid
-slow reduction, if any
STATE-ASSISTED MANDATORY CONTROL
-Education/research/state aid
-Fines/penalties
-Assume major reduction
NO PUBLIC AID MANDATORY CONTROL
-Education/research low
-Fines/penalties
-Assume major reduction
Options to manage
redcedar & their likely
consequences…
STATUS QUO
-Benefits:
Landowner
choice
Cedar-based
habitat
Value-added
potential
-Costs:
Wildfire risk
Owner cost hi
Allergens
Uncertainty
STATE ASSISTED VOLUNTARY CONTROL
-Benefits: Cut fire risk/allergens; Gain some
water/land
Limit state cost; Some state aid
Costs: State cost up; Owner expense limited
Cedar habitat loss; Uncertainty
STATE-ASSISTED MANDATORY CONTROL
Benefits: Major cut in cedar threat/allergens/
fire danger; Gain water/land
Costs: Lose owner choice/Cedar habitat; State
cost limited; Owner cost hi; may limit valueadded
NO PUBLIC AID MANDATORY CONTROL
Benefits: State cost low; Major cut in cedar
threat/allergens/
fire danger; Gain water/land
Costs: Lose owner choice/Cedar habitat;
owner cost hi; may limit value-added
Percentage Cropland Acres Changed – 1992 to 2007
453
Lincoln
609
422
Creek
Payne
560
Rogers
% of
change
-91.3 - -30.6
-30.5 - -20.6
-20.5 - -11.6
-11.5 - -0.9
1.0400+:
- 18
Indicates counties
with change in number of
farms with 100
or fewer acres,
1992-2007
426
Ok.
436
McC.458
Clev
454
428
414 11
McCur.
Key Questions in Formulating/Implementing Redcedar
Management Policy
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Define success: Eradication? Reduction? Public/private land?
Exempt residences in city limits, and/or by size of acreage?
State license/supervision required for event?
Which methods acceptable/required: burn, chemical, cut? (who
pays?)
Re-infestation “insurance” for cooperators? (Regulatory “certainty”)
Cost exposure to state? (limit outlay, per owner/acre, liability)?
Nature of state assistance? ( funds, contract, public manpower)
Time frame for “successful level” of reduction?
Will state aid be on sliding scale dependent on specified owner
qualifications?
If state provides financial aid, which funding vehicles: lo/no interest
loans, tax breaks, cash, in-kind, other?
12
What to do about private property rights?
Research Needs
• Update field research on encroachment and management
strategies, including basic growth rates
• Threshold levels/triggers for cedar management outpacing
regeneration rates
• Assessment of “success” for private and public lands
• Habitat issues
• Wildfire impact on insurance
• Benefit-Cost analysis for public investment & private
management options
• Climate impacts on cedar
• Owner response to state incentives/disincentives
• Economic options for value-added production of cedar 13
Cedar expertise at OSU
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Terry Bidwell, Rangeland Ecology & Management
Dave Engle, Range Management
Don Turton, Forest & Rangeland Hydrology
Chris Zou, Ecohydrology
Rod Will, Silviculture
Karen Hickman, Rangeland Ecology &
Management
Sam Fuhlendorf, Rangeland Ecology &
Management
Salim Hiziroglu, Wood Products
Craig McKinley, Extension Forestry
Derrell Peel, Livestock Economics
Tracy Boyer, Environmental Economics
Larry Sanders, Policy Economics
14
Other sources of information
•
•
•
•
•
•
Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service
Eastern Red Cedar Registry Board
Aromatic Cedar Association
Oklahoma Department of Commerce
Oklahoma Department of Agriculture,
Food & Forestry
Oklahoma Department of Corrections
•
•
•
•
•
Oklahoma Conservation Commission
Oklahoma Association of Conservation
Districts
Economic Development, Business &
Industry Services, Career Tech
ARS, NRCS, other USDA
State Sen. Ron Justice & State Rep. Richard
15
Morrissette
Contact info for assistance…
• larry.sanders@okstate.edu
• 405-744-9834
• tracy.boyer@okstate.edu
• 405-744-6169
http://kfor.com/2013/03/05/commissionerannounces-plan-to-remove-red-cedars/
16