Governor's Advisory Committee on Chip Mills

Final Draft Report

INTRODUCTION

The Issue of High Capacity Chip Mills in Missouri

Forest resources are an important part of Missouri's natural landscape. Almost one-third of the state is covered by forest land, and the Eastern Ozarks are two-thirds forested. The state's forests are a source of a wide range of values, including timber production for wood products, reservoirs for wildlife populations and habitats, water and watershed protection, tourism and other recreational activities, as well as scenic amenities and aesthetic appreciation. In a variety of ways, therefore, the forests of Missouri are an important resource for all citizens of the state.

Within the last several years Missouri has witnessed the arrival of two high-capacity chip mills in the southeastern part of the state. Willamette Industries, located in Wayne County near Mill Spring, Missouri, and Canal Wood Corporation, situated within Scott County in Scott City, Missouri, are currently producing hardwood chips; and their combined expected output exclusive of any overtime hours will be more than one-half million tons of chips per year. These operations expect to procure wood from within sixty to eighty miles of their mill sites. Timberlands account for about three-fifths of the land base within this area around Mill Spring and one-third of that area around Scott City, although not all of the latter area is within Missouri. A third chip is also operating in the state, although it is not a high capacity processing plant. Ozark Chip Company has been operating for some time in southwest Missouri, producing less than 100 thousand tons of chip per year from sawmill residue. It should also be noted that Westvaco Corporation does purchase approximately 200 thousand tons of wood per year out of Missouri, three-quarters of which is chips purchased from sawmills.

On a statewide basis, almost 85 per cent of Missouri forest lands are controlled by more than 300 thousand nonindustrial private forestland owners. Moreover, between 70 and 80 percent of lands within the aforementioned source areas surrounding the two high capacity chip mills are privately owned. Thus it is evident that the majority of wood that will be procured by these mills will come from nonindustrial private forestlands.

Pulpwood cut for a chip mill can be generated in several ways. Pulpwood has generally been regarded as low quality material that in the past has either been left behind in the woods because loggers had no incentive to remove it or harvested and sent to pallet or blocking mills. In this light, some view chip mills as an opportunity to market low quality trees and ultimately provide space in the forest for growing high quality trees in the future. Others, however, are concerned that demands generated by chip mills will encourage irresponsible harvesting or liquidation of stands for short-term financial gain to the detriment of long-term sustainable forest management and, depending on how practices are conducted, ecological sustainability. These latter concerns are enhanced by the fact that at present less than one-tenth of all private forestland owners in the state are receiving any professional advice or assistance whatsoever when harvesting timber from their lands.

All of the above suggests an intricate relationship between demands for chips generated by the mills and practices conducted on nonindustrial private forestlands. The ultimate impacts of high capacity chip mills on long-term ecological and economic sustainability of Missouri forests depend in large part on the quality of forest management they encourage (or discourage) by forestland owners in the state. In this sense, the chip mill ‘issue' is closely linked to the broader issue of the management of Missouri's nonindustrial private forestlands in general.

Governor's Advisory Committee on Chip Mills

In response to uncertainty regarding the potential short- and long-term impacts of high capacity chip mills on the ecological and economic sustainability of Missouri forests, Governor Mel Carnahan issued an Executive Order on September 18,1998 which, among other things, established an Advisory Committee on Chip Mills. The Order is comprised of a justification for the Executive action, the establishment of the Advisory Committee, and a description and its purposes and specific charges.

Such orders generally begin with a series of ‘wheras' clauses justifying the Governor's taking this action. For this order, such clauses include :

  1. A definition of a chip mill as the central focus of the order; and several reasons for its promulgation, including:
  2. Forest resources are vital to Missouri citizens.
  3. The state supports forest-based economic enterprises.
  4. Best management practices on Missouri forests are in the public interest.
  5. There have been concerns voiced in other states about adverse environmental impacts from chip mills.
  6. Chip mills in Missouri have led to citizen concerns.

In light of the above, the order established a Governor's Advisory Committee on Chip Mills to be comprised of the following members:

  1. Four state departmental directors or their designees : Department of Conservation; Department of Natural Resources; Department of Agriculture; Department of Economic Development;

  2. Four state legislators appointed by leadership of the respective chambers : 

    • 2 state senators and 2 state representatives ;

  3. Two forest products representatives;

  4. Two representatives from citizen conservation groups;

  5. One representative from an organization representing private property owners; and

  6. A forest landowner.

The Committee was to operate on a very modest budget of approximately $20,000 pooled from among the participating agencies.

The Executive Order also mandated that the Advisory Committee undertake a study to identify the impact of chip mills and associated harvest practices on the ecological and economic sustainability of Missouri forest resources. The study was to include, but not be limited to, an analysis of the experiences of other regions of the country with chip mills and related harvesting practices; as well as the economic, social, and environmental impacts of existing and new chip mills in Missouri and neighboring states -- including potential environmental impacts related to soil erosion, sedimentation, water quality and watershed protection, habitat loss, biodiversity, and outdoor recreation and tourism. Other required foci of the study included the sustainability of Missouri's forest resources under current timber production levels and the capacity of those resources to sustain increased chip mill production levels, as well as a consideration of the impact of chip mills on value added industries and high value forest products. Finally, the study was to include an analysis of the long term profitability of private forests and it was to address alternative forest resource management and protection standards.

Overall Process and Groups Involved

In carrying out its mandate, the Advisory Committee held a series of monthly hearings beginning in November 1998 and extending through November 1999. From November ‘98 to August ‘99 the Committee focused on gathering facts pertinent to the issue. The Committee heard 21 formal presentations during that time from a variety of sources. Each meeting also included an extensive period allotted to public comments. The June ‘99 meeting was conducted in conjunction with a field trip to Southeast Missouri, on which the Committee visited several sites exemplifying both good and poor forest management practices.

The field trip was a learning experience for all who participated. The Committee first visited a site that had been clearcut in a fashion with little regard by best management practices associated with good forestry. The Committee then visited the site of another clearcut that had been under the supervision of the Missouri Department of Conservation, and the difference between the presence and absence of the guidance of best management practices was striking. Contoured within the landscape, it displayed little if any of the rutting, debris, and other evidence of poor forestry practices seen at the first site. The Committee also visited the site of a landowner who was adopting a strategy of uneven-aged management for her lands, and was impressed by the condition of the site and the standing timber it thereon.

The latter part of the July and August meetings were devoted to beginning the decision processes described below. From September through November, the meeting were devoted primarily to discussion and debate of various potential actions the Committee might take in carrying out its assigned tasks. The public comment periods were continued throughout this entire process.

Input to the Committee was obtained from a variety of individuals and group representatives. These included actors involved in the central process of wood flows from private forest lands to the chip mills -- i.e., private forest landowners, loggers, and representatives of the chip mills and other wood products firms. In addition, those indirectly involved in this central process -- i.e, professional foresters, natural resource (and other) agency representatives, and scientists and technology transfer professionals -- also provided input to the Committee. Finally, representatives from groups that had particular economic, environmental, and political interests in the key issues involved were also important sources of information for the Committee. The Committee heard testimony -- both in formal presentations and via the public comment process from all of these actors.

Committee Decision Process

The process through which the Committee moved towards decisions in response to its tasks as spelled out in the Governor's Executive Order began in earnest during the July and August meetings. As a first step, the Committee was asked to envision the kind of outcomes it would like to see have resulted from its work when viewed twenty years from now -- i.e., in the year 2019. Members of the Committee identified 24 possible outcomes that, if viewed in retrospect twenty years from now, they would like to see have resulted from the Committee's work in 1999.

The group was then asked to organize those 24 outcomes, several of which were interrelated and/or overlapped to varying degrees, into a smaller number of themes or thematic areas. Seven themeswere identified through this process : education and training; professional management; sustainably managed resources; increased forest resource base; jobs/sustainable economic impacts; environmental sustainability; and freedom of choice.

These thematic areas then served as a basis for the generation of proposals and/or possible courses of action by Committee members that would address its required tasks. Subsequent discussion and debates centered on ideas generated from this conceptual format.

Return to Table of Contents