Governor's Advisory Committee on Chip Mills

Revised Draft Final Report

G. A RECENT STUDY OF CHIP MILLS IN MISSOURI

In 1997, the Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) established an internal chip mill committee to assess the potential impacts on Missouri's natural resources of two new high capacity chips mills locating in Southeast Missouri. The nine member technical committee was comprised of representatives from the Department's Forestry, Fisheries and Wildlife, Natural History, and Outreach and Education Divisions. Committee members were assigned tasks from within their areas of expertise to compile an informational report to be submitted to the agency director for review. The report was to be used to determine how the Department might respond to the chip mill issue and to serve as a basis for further review and recommendations to the Conservation Commission.

The draft internal report was submitted to the Director and Deputy Director of MDC in December, 1998. This was shortly after the Governor had issued Executive Order 98-16 creating the Advisory Committee on Chip Mills. The internal report was tabled based on the logic that "the Governor's Advisory Committee on Chip Mills should take precedence over the Department's internal effort, and that it would be inappropriate to take any further action concerning the ‘chip mill issue' until the Advisory Committee had completed its report to the Governor" (MDC 1999c).

In December, 1999, following a request under the Open Record Law, the draft internal report was released to the public and, concurrently, provided to the Governor's Advisory Committee on Chip Mills. On January 20, 2000, the Governor issued Executive Order 00-01, which mandated that the Advisory Committee continue its operation until it had carefully reviewed the MDC Draft Internal Report on the Chip Mill Issue. Such a review was to included one or more public hearings on the report.

A public hearing on the MDC draft internal report was held on March 6, 2000, and written comments on the report were accepted up to that time as well. There was broad consensus both at the public hearing and at the Governor's Advisory Committee meeting in March that the MDC Draft Internal Report was a competent and professional analysis that contained relevant and useful information regarding the chip mill issue. There was also a fair degree of criticism of MDC, however, that the internal report had not been presented to the Governor's Advisory Committee in support of its mandate to gather and assess all relevant information regarding the ‘chip mill issue.'

Table 20 contains the conclusions and recommendations presented in the MDC internal Draft Report on the Chip Mill Issue. The table also includes a draft agency position statement formulated by the authors. However, since the report was tabled pending future actions by the Governor's Advisory Committee on Chip Mills, the information contained in Table 20 should not be construed as an official statement of policy by the Missouri Department of Conservation or the Missouri Conservation Commission (MDC 1999c). Some of the recommended actions (e.g., topics 1,3,4, and 9) have, however, already been implemented by MDC as separate policy actions.

Table 20. Conclusions and Recommended Actions of the Missouri Department of Conservation's Internal Draft Report on the Chip Mill Issue (completed December 1998)

_______________________________________________________

Conclusions

1. Natural resources and the extent and manner of timber harvesting, primarily on private land, constitute the "chip mill issue" in Missouri, not the chip mills themselves.

2. If private forest landowners use voluntary best management practices (BMP's) for timber harvest (Missouri Department of Conservation 1997) and regional annual harvest does not exceed regional annual growth, Missouri's forest resources can support a chip mill industry.

3. Landowner surveys reveal that most private forest owners have never consulted a professional forester, and fewer still have had a forest plan written for their properties. Acknowledging that BMP's are voluntary, there is a potential that any resultant increase in harvesting to support chip mills will result in increased runoff, sediment transport, nutrient leaching, and increased stream temperatures during the first few years following harvest.

4. Without a mechanism to accurately document and track timber harvests, we will remain unaware of the extent to which BMP's are being used on private land, and will lack the ability to monitor any short-term changes in forest resources attributable to the chip mill industry.

5. Age composition of private forests could change from one with a balance of mature and young trees to one with primarily immature trees if landowners meet the chip mill market by harvest- ing all stock as soon as it's marketable -- in this case, progressively younger stock.

6. Given the lack of landowner support for the state regulation of private forest land, effort should be increased on implementing existing private forest assistance programs and developing new incentive programs to conserve Missouri's forests.

Recommended Actions

1. Adopt (in 1999) an MDC policy (to take effect in 2000) that requires loggers who purchases timber on MDC land to implement and document use of BMP's and make it a prerequisite for the logger to have successfully completed the Professional Timber Harvester (or equivalent) Program. During the next year, work with industry to explain the policy and offer assistance in fulfilling requirements.

2. Encourage policies by timber companies in Missouri to require, track and document the successful use of BMP's on land where wood fiber is purchased, and require that their contract loggers successfully complete the Professional Timber Harvester Program.

3. Request that the Missouri Forest Products Association and other forest interests increase the emphasis placed on BMP's in the Professional Timber harvester program.

4. Commit the funds necessary to double the sampling intensity for the Ozark and River Border units of the Forest Inventory Analysis.

5. Propose an amendment to the State Forestry law that would sunset the Forest Cropland Program and, in its place, create a new, more effective and attractive program to increase landowner participation in appropriate forest management.

6. Develop and propose an amendment to the State Forestry law that would require landowners to notify MDC of pending commercial harvest of 20 acres or more and give MDC foresters the right to inspect. The proposed amendment would create a yield tax that would be distributed back to the landowners for implementation of stewardship plan objectives and best management practices.

7. Create a pilot project that focuses on the overlapping procurement zone for the Mill Spring and Scott City chip mills, where MDC would proactively encourage the development of stewardship plans for cooperating landowners

8. Support research funding to investigate potential water quality concerns and socioeconomic impacts within the souring areas of the Mill Spring and Scott City chip mills.

9. Seek out on-the-ground examples of good forest management practices by private landowners that have utilized the chip mill mill market and use them for demonstration purposes to encourage other private landowners.

Draft Position Statement

Chip mills exist because there is a market for paper products. The environmental impact of forest product industries in Missouri depends on whether best management practices (BMP's) are used during harvest and the total volume of wood harvested. Surveys indicate that most private forest owners do not consult a professional forester. Likely, BMP's are not being employed on the majority of private forest lands. MDC recommends that a coordinated, statewide effort be focused on dramatically increasing the technical assistance and incentive programs which would result in the effective use and monitoring of BMP's on private forest land. To accomplish this task, MDC will participate in the development of an incentive, technical assistance and legislative package to assist private landowners with forest management.

_______________________________________________________

Return to Table of Contents