Governor's Advisory Committee on Chip Mills

Final Report
August 1, 2000

D. ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

The idea of sustainable forest management in Missouri embraces the notion that forestlands in the state are functioning ecosystems that must be sustained as such in order to ensure the sustainable social and economic well-being of Missourians. In this capacity Missouri's forests provide a wide range of ecological services. They protect soil, ensure quality water, store carbon, and provide habitat for wildlife. In addition to yielding a wide array of wood resources, they also provide a setting for many Missourians to pursue their recreational interests, whether they involve sporting ventures like camping, hunting and fishing, or more 'non-consumptive' activities such as hiking, birdwatching, or enjoying the aesthetic amenities of forested settings.

Earlier it was noted that the impacts of the chip mills in Missouri will be felt primarily in how their demands for wood are interpreted by and acted upon by landowners. This obviously depends on what motivates landowners with respect to their holdings, their knowledge of forest management and where to acquire needed expertise, and so on. It also depends on the actions taken by the mills themselves in broadcasting their demands. It has been demonstrated that sustainable forest management is possible on private lands, and that both even-and uneven-aged management regimes can be viable management tools if employed in situations warranting their use. It was also found that, at least in the case of a small study in Arkansas, most landowners did not practice sustainable forest management in selling their wood to the mills. Although both even- and uneven-aged management practices may be conducted poorly, given the far more extensive site disturbance associated with clearcutting, the environmental effects of improperly conducted 'even-aged' harvesting practices can be especially severe. Hence the concern that has been voiced by some regarding the potential for adverse environmental effects resulting from ill-advised or improperly conducted clearcuts on private lands in response to demands for chips emanating from the mills.

This section looks at some of the relevant factors that contribute to environmental sustainability and considers some of the possible environmental effects of harvesting conducted to supply the chip mills, along with certain additional measures designed to encourage sustainable forest management while at the same time fostering environmental sustainability. It is structured in terms of several environmental factors specified in the Governor's Executive Order that focus on possible environmental impacts from harvesting on private lands to supply chip mills in Missouri.

Soil Erosion and Fertility

Sustainability of the Ozark forest ecosystem is directly related to management of the system's soils and nutrients. Improper forest management practices can increase soil erosion and deplete soil nutrients. To understand the potential impact of chip mill operations on the long-term sustainability of the Ozark forest ecosystem, it is important to consider Ozark forest soils in context to their formation, past use and erosion, and present fertility.

Forest soils of the Missouri Ozarks. Most Missouri Ozark forest soils formed from multiple parent materials, including residuum (weathered rocks of local origin), loess and hillslope sediments. Loess is wind-blown silt-sized material of glacial origin. It is very erodible and was deposited as a veneer of two to three feet in thickness over much of the Ozarks after the last glaciation (about 12,000 y BP). Prior to European influences in the landscape, some of the loess was being eroded and differentially moved. Much of this loess was incorporated into hillslope sediments by geomorphic processes and events. Hillslope sediments are the materials that move slowly downslope as a consequence of the combined effects of water movement and gravity. Most Ozark forest soils have veneer of hillslope sediments.

Most Ozark forest soils are extremely old, and have been subject to intense leaching under warm temperatures for many hundreds of thousands of years. Leaching removes nutrients from soils. As a consequence of this weathering, many Ozark forest soils are classified as "Ultisols," the diagnostic feature of which is a high subsoil clay concentration with low nutrient status.

Soil Erosion. Most of the forested Missouri Ozark terrain has undergone accelerated soil erosion within the past 150 years. Much of this is attributable to extensive timber harvests and land clearing during the late 19th century and early 20th century. Erosion has been most severe where timber harvest was followed by row-cropping on steep slopes, and over-grazing of forest regrowth by cattle and hogs. Accelerated erosion has removed much of the remaining soil that was most capable of supplying nutrients and water.

Evidence of the past erosion is obvious to trained field soil scientists as a lag-gravel deposit, or stone line, at or near the surface of the current soil. The stone lines developed as a consequence of erosional removal of fine-textured soil particles with a resulting concentration of the rocks at the new soil surface. Some recent stone lines are now under younger deposits of hillslope sediments that have eroded subsequently from higher landscape positions. This phenomenon has been described by Hammer (1997) and is well documented on Missouri Ozark Forest Ecosystem Project (MOFEP) lands. A soil science graduate student from another state recently referred to soils on the MOFEP site as "the soils that crunch" because of the abundance of surface rocks. Well established stone lines help to inhibit further soil erosion. The rock cover inhibits soil particle detachment, which is the necessary first step in soil erosion. An abundant forest soils literature documents that soil erosion as a consequence of timber harvest is usually limited to the time required for vegetation to re-establish. If soils are not severely compacted or rutted during timber harvest, re-vegetation can be rapid and extensive.

One poorly documented kind of soil loss in the Ozarks is slumping, mud flows, debris slides and other mass movement events. Evidence is extensive that these kinds of events were common in the distant and recent past. Timber harvesting can greatly increase the likelihood of these kinds of erosional events if steep slopes are completely harvested and the harvest is followed by prolonged or dramatic wetness. The mass movements are exacerbated by the loss of vegetation to buffer the impact of falling rain and the death of plant roots that hold the soils in place.

Of greater importance from the perspective of forest "sustainability" is the loss of organic matter from the forest floor (organic debris over the mineral soil) and the soil A horizon following timber harvest. This is the portion of the soil profile within which minerals are rapidly released by microbes and made available for vegetation. The process is called "mineralization." The pool of minerals in the forest floor and A-horizons is relatively small, but is disproportionally important because of the biological speed and persistence of the process.

Much material eroded from Ozark forest soils in the past did not leave the landscape, but was deposited in concavities in lower slope positions and on floodplains. As a consequence, the relative fertility of Ozark forest soils is quiet heterogeneous and is very site-specific. Wise forest management will inventory the attributes and distributions of the soil resource, place the soils in the context of their landscapes, and will design timber practices with soil-landform attributes as one framework of the management strategy.

Soil Fertility. Forests are regarded as a "renewable resource" but the extent to which forest composition and growth can be maintained is a function of the abilities of individual forests sites to provide nutrients to forest species. Discussions of the impacts of chip mill operations in Missouri generally have been in the context of water quality, soil erosion, aesthetics, and forest genetics. Little dialogue has addressed the impact of forest harvest on soil fertility. Soil fertility is classically defined as the ability of the soil to provide the necessary nutrients in the proper proportions and the proper quantities.

Most soils in Missouri Ozark forests are very weathered and previous episodes of soil erosion have removed most of the soil that was capable of supplying nutrients. As a consequence, nutrients in most Ozark forest soils are in very low abundance. Three very important macro-nutrients that are generally in very low abundance in Missouri Ozark forest are phosphorus (P), calcium (Ca), and nitrogen (N).

Phosphorus in Ozark forest soils was recently studied by King (1997). Her results showed that plant-available P is extremely low. The primary sources of soil P is primary minerals (principally apatite). Apatite is not common in the sedimentary rocks common to the Ozarks. Phosphorus complexes easily with oxides of iron (Fe) and aluminum (Al) below pH 5.5. Ozark soils are acidic and have Fe and Al in large concentrations, so what little P is is present in these soils is occluded (bound) to the Fe and Al. Most of the biologically available P in Ozark soils is in the organic matter and biota. Improper timber harvesting will remove the P in biomass and will expose the soil organic matter to oxidation and erosion.

Calcium is limiting in Ozark forest soils because the limestone weathers by dissolution. The Ca is leached, and the limestone impurities, principally iron and aluminum remain behind as soil material. Unpublished research by G. Henderson (University of Missouri) showed positive root responses of oak (Quercus spp.) to Ca additions in soil cores. Most of the plant-available Ca is in the forest floor and soil organic matter. Long-term calcium supplies in Ozark forests are of particular concern because oak requires large quantities of calcium in its structural tissues. Additionally, much of the weatherable calcium-enriched bedrock is deeply buried. The abilities of tree roots to penetrate to depths that will allow calcium uptake is problematic if harvest rotations are shortened.

Nitrogen in forest soils comes from the atmosphere. It is "fixed" or brought into the forest ecosystem by soil organisms and certain kinds of plants and is stored in the soil and soil organic matter. Nitrogen is generally limiting in most forest ecosystems as well as in Ozark forests. Improper timber harvesting removes too much N stored in biomass and will expose the soil organic matter to oxidation and the soil to erosion.

Forest management practices in relation to soil erosion and fertility. Timber harvesting can adversely affect soils and long-term nutrient supply if done improperly. Nearly 90 percent of the erosion from timber harvesting is traced to the logging road system, which can exceed 17 tons per acre per year (USEPA 1973). Tolerable soil loss in the Ozarks may be one to three tons per acre per year (USDA-NRCS). The extent of soil loss depends on precipitation amounts, the type of road surface, the road grade, length of road segment between grade breaks designed to drain the road surface, and the amount of cut and fill done during road construction.

The forest regeneration method of clearcutting has received considerable attention by the public. However, clearcutting in the Ozarks can be a proper regeneration method if practiced carefully. The term "clearcutting" has different meanings for the professional forester than for other audiences. The professional forester thinks in terms of stand regeneration when planning a timber removal of any kind. This approach includes an awareness of the site-specific attributes of the forest and its soil-landscape setting. As with any other improperly conducted harvesting practice, clearcutting can increase the risk of soil erosion. However, if done properly, erosion rates are similar to undisturbed forests (Johnson 1997). Erosion losses of 0.05 to 0.10 tons per acre per year were recorded in West Virginia for both undisturbed and clearcut forests (Patric 1977). Even where erosion from harvesting exceeded pre-harvest levels, soil losses usually reach pre-harvest levels after 2 to 5 years (Patric 1976).

As discussed above the term "clearcutting" has a different meaning to professional foresters than to others. It is important to distinguish between "clearcutting" as a forest management harvest practice and "clearcutting" as the indiscriminate tree removal for the value of the timber without consideration of forest regeneration or post-logging ramifications either on or off the site. Good forest management is not indiscriminate and requires planning for forest regeneration, and protecting soil resources from erosion and nutrient depletion.

Harvesting causes some nutrient losses from soil erosion. Nutrients are also lost in other ways. Timber harvesting exposes leaf litter and soil organic matter and increases their decomposition and mineralization. Mineralization releases nutrients, allowing them to be leached from the site. Harvest practices that increase the total area of exposed soil surface increase the amount of litter and organic matter decomposed and subsequently increase nutrient losses. Nutrient losses by organic matter mineralization and leaching can be substantial immediately after timber harvesting but return to pre-harvest levels within three to five years as sites become re-vegetated (Iseman et al. 1999; Kimmins 1997; Romanowicz et al. 1996).

Nutrients are also removed from the site in the harvested timber biomass. Although the amount of nutrients removed through timber harvesting in the Missouri Ozarks is unknown, most investigations conducted elsewhere show that sawlog harvests over medium to long rotations (80-120 years) pose little or no threat to nutrient availability (Johnson et al. 1998; Kimmins 1997). However, increasing the total biomass removed from the site during a harvest, and shortening the rotation age may deplete soil nutrients faster than they can be naturally replenished.

Chip mill operations do have the potential to affect forest soils and nutrient management in ways dramatically different than any timber harvesting or land-clearing activities previously or currently practiced in the Ozarks because they provide markets for smaller, younger, or lower-quality trees. Some potential effects of chip mill operations include: 1) shorter harvesting rotations, and therefore, shorter intervals between nutrient removals in timber biomass; 2) greater nutrient removals because more trees are removed from the site per harvest; 3) more extensive tree (and nutrient) removals over larger tracts of land and more total area than other timber harvests in the past several decades. All of these accelerate nutrient depletion and can accelerate erosion where cutting occurs over large areas on steep slopes. Erosion and nutrient losses will be exacerbated if the forest is not allowed to regenerate and is cleared for development or pasture.

In summary, Ozark forest soils have a limited capacity to supply nutrients and are vulnerable to nutrient depletion. Care must be taken so that forest management practices foster the long-term productivity of Ozark forest soils. Ozark forest soils have been subjected to erosion and weathering for thousands of years. Consequently, major plant nutrients, P, Ca, and N are in low quantities. Timber harvesting, especially if extensive or improperly applied, can increase soil erosion and will exacerbate the shortages of these nutrients, and will limit species distributions and tree growth in subsequent rotations. Long range forest management practices should consider soil erosion susceptibility and soil fertility and their variation in the landscape if predictions of future forest productivity are to be based in fact rather than speculation.

Water Quality, Sedimentation and Watershed Protection

The concept of sustainability in forestry practices generally includes the desire to restrict offsite, downstream detrimental effects to some level acceptable to society while maintaining long-term productivity of forest products. This understanding of sustainability motivates the need to understand how timber harvest affects streams, how far downstream the effects extend, and how long effects persist.

Timber harvesting practices inevitably cause some measure of downstream effects. These effects can be categorized in terms of alterations of :

  1. hydrologic characteristics : water yield and storm flows
  2. water quality characteristics : dissolved load (biogeochemical) and suspended sediment
  3. sediment budgets.

The Ozark region lacks any long-term, instrumental record of hydrologic, water quality, and sediment responses at scales relevant to timber harvests. Hence, current understanding of possible timber harvest effects must be developed from research conducted elsewhere. Timber harvest has been one of the many land uses in the Ozarks over the last 160 years. The combination of past and present land uses also potentially lowers thresholds of stream disturbance and therefore may increase the disturbance effects of present-day timber harvests.

Changes in evapotranspiration resulting from timber harvesting will generally result in an altered water balance and distribution of water between baseflow and runoff. Changes in biomass uptake and soil conditions will interrupt nutrient cycles. Any disruption of the ground surface by skid trails, roads, or traffic will disrupt hydrologic pathways and provide opportunities for soil erosion at greater than natural rates. The combination of these changes can alter water yield, peak flows, water quality, and sediment yield.

Among the above factors, sedimentation induced directly or indirectly from timber harvesting is perhaps the most pressing concern in terms of potential ecological sustainability. Changes in sediment budgets can result in onsite degradation from soil erosion or offsite effects measurable in terms of aquatic habitat degradation, accelerated channel erosion, or excessive sedimentation. Whether timber management activities contribute to any of the above depends on many factors, including geologic and climatic context, intensity of harvest, design of access roads and skid trails, accumulated history of landscape disturbance, timing of harvest, and spatial arrangement of harvest patches in the landscape.

From a watershed perspective, the spatial pattern of timber harvest within a drainage basin -- how much is harvested at what rate, in which drainage basin, in what pattern, etc. -- can be an important determinant of the magnitude and downstream cumulative effects of harvesting (Grant and Swanson 1991). Although sediment delivery from an individual harvest may be modest, the delivery from other harvest tracts within the basin and at different times may be additive. The cumulative response of stream habitats to timber harvests scattered through time and space may also be governed by thresholds of irreversible change. On an overall basis, present-day timber harvesting in the Ozarks occurs within a system that has undergone historical destabilization and which probably has surpassed important thresholds of change. Additional marginal stress from hydrologic or sediment yield changes associated with timber harvesting may be capable of maintaining instability and preventing recovery. In summary, a number of conclusions may be reached regarding the potential impacts of timber harvesting -- whether motivated by a response to chip mill demands or otherwise -- on water quality,

Table 11 . Overview of state of knowledge regarding downstream effects of timber harvesting in the Ozarks (Source : Jacobson 1999)

A) What is known(with some confidence)

- Timber harvest generally increases water yield and enhances base flows

- Timber harvest has the potential to increase storm flows

- Timber harvest effects on dissolved phase water quality appear to be minimal

- Timber harvest has significant potential to increase sediment yields through direct soil disturbance and storm flow erosion of stream beds and banks

- In general, the most important factor in increasing storm flow and sediment yield is the design and density of trails and haul roads

- The geological history of the Ozarks is such that deposited gravel-rich sediments have been deposited near streams where disturbance can deliver sediment rapidly

- Streams in the Ozarks have been much more sensitive to riparian land-use changes than upland land use changes

- Cyclic timber harvest probably has less downstream effects than alternative agricultural land uses

B) What is not known

- The importance of spatial scale and pattern to downstream cumulative effects

- The degree to which low-order Ozark streams have recovered from historical disturbance

- The importance of transient fine sediment impacts and thresholds of stream biota

- Quantitative understanding of sources and rates of sediment yield associated with timber harvesting and forest roads

sedimentation, and watershed protection (Table 11). At the same time, there is much that is not known about how streams in Missouri and elsewhere in the Midwest will respond to hydrologic, water quality, and sediment stresses from timber harvesting. The concept of sustainable forestry seems to encompass the idea that timber harvesting will be planned to impose minimal and acceptable levels of environmental degradation downstream. Improved understanding of downstream effects of timber harvesting (and other land uses) in the Ozarks will require investment in long-term, detailed, quantitative assessment of responses at the drainage basin and watershed scale.

Biodiversity and Species Conservation

Missouri is home to a diverse array of plants, animals and natural communities. More than 5 thousand species of plants and at least 20 thousand animals occur in almost 200 recognized communities across the state (Biodiversity Task Force 1992). The great geologic age and physiographic diversity of the Ozarks has made it by far the most biologically diverse region in the state, and one of the most significant centers of biodiversity in North America. Many unusual communities, both terrestrial and aquatic, are endemic to the Ozarks, and many others have their only Missouri location here. Ozarks fens are the only fens known from unglaciated North America, and they provide habitat for many plant species whose normal ranges occur far to the north. Ozark caves and springs are home to many rare or unique species. The most extensive glades in the Midwest are found in the Ozarks; many plant species are endemic to Ozarkian glades and several desert-adapted animals occur there. The largest savanna and forested landscapes in Missouri are found in the Ozarks. In short, the Missouri Ozarks is truly a diverse and outstanding natural region in both the state and on the North American continent.

Biodiversity may be defined as the variety and variability among living organisms and the ecological complexes in which they occur (U.S. Office of Technology and Assessment 1987). The term encompasses not only all species everywhere, but the variations in the composition, structure, and functional process of the ecosystems in which they live. Biodiversity is often described in terms of three levels or dimensions. The first pertains to the number of species that exist in an area. This measure is often referred to as species richness, and it may be subdivided according to how localized the particular place of interest is (e.g., the number of species in a single locale; the difference in species composition between two neighboring habitats; and the combination of these two. The second measure of biodiversity is habitat diversity, which measures differences in species composition in terms of the different habitats in a landscape (e.g., a slope and a ridge). Finally, genetic diversity is a measure of the differences in genetic composition of individuals in populations or populations in a species over a broad geographical area. It is evident from the above that the multidimensional nature of biodiversity reflects a scale of biological and ecological organization ranging from the gene through the species (or population of species members) to communities or ecosystems and, ultimately, local and regional landscapes. Each level of organization demands a different way, or scale, of thinking about nature (Scott et al. 1999).

With respect to species richness and species of conservation concern, it should be noted that rareness or rarity is a natural phenomenon. The more rare or uncommon a given species is, the higher probability of its becoming extinct. The obvious management guideline in such a case is to avoid allowing species to get into situations where they become rare when otherwise they are not.

Succession is the process that occurs in natural systems when they have gone through a disturbance. One of a sequence of patterns that occurs in communities recovering from a disturbance involves biomass accumulation. When the focus is on biomass as timber, it is generally desirable to harvest a stand when its biomass reaches a point where it does not increase, e.g., a stand age of 60 to 80 years. However, when considering species that inhabit an area, species richness continues to increase beyond the point where the biomass accumulation has leveled off, e.g., up to 150 years for Eastern forests and 300 years for Western forests. The management implication here is that in managing forests for biodiversity, it is desirable to try and increase the amount of mature and old growth forests, for species richness continues to increase through those ages.

There are over 950 species on the Missouri Department of Conservation's 'list of conservation concern' in Missouri. Table 12 depicts the kinds of forested habitats in Missouri and the number of species of conservation concern associated with each. The number of species of conservation concern is much greater in mature forests than younger ones, although they occur in both kinds of habitats.

Table 12 . Forested habitats of Missouri and the number of species listed as species of conservation concern

Habitat type

Species of Conservation Concern

Forest-field edge 14
Immature hardwoods (poles/saplings 3-9" dbh) 7
Oak-hickory regeneration (0-3 yr.) 6
Oak-hickory regeneration (3-10 yr.) 6
Shortleaf pine reproduction (0-3" dbh) 5
Mature oak-hickory (9+" dbh, open understory) 14
Mature oak-hickory (9+" dbh, dense understory) 20
Oak-hickory old growth 16
Mature shortleaf pine 14
Shortleaf pine old growth 12
Swamp 22
Wooded riparian and bottomland forest 27

The Missouri Department of Conservation searched its Heritage Data base for species and natural communities in an 18-county area in Southeast Missouri encompassing the combined source areas for the Mill Spring and Scott City facilities (MDC 1999a). A total of 269 records on natural communities on private lands were found (38% of all community records), but only 36 are privately owned forest communities that could likely be logged (the remaining are wetland and open land communities). With respect to individual species, there were occurrence records for 149 state rare and 180 state endangered species. A total of 199 plant species in the 18-county area are classified as state rare or endangered, with 31 of the plant records pertaining to species cited only on private lands. Most such plants are found in habitats that are not likely to be logged. However, some habitats (e.g., fens, swamps, etc.) can be degraded through erosion and water quality changes triggered by adjacent timber harvests. Finally, there are 14 federally threatened or endangered species in the18-county area recorded at 248 locations. Twenty-eight wildlife, fish, and insect species within the area are recorded only from private lands, with 23 of these classified as state rare or state endangered (MDC 1999a).

The preceding sketch suggests that conservation of biodiversity is a multifaceted challenge that extends across a hierarchy of ecological scales from gene to landscape. Conserving species richness (and their genetic diversity) cannot succeed without conserving the habitats and landscapes -- i.e., the ecosystems -- in which the former are embedded. When attention is focused on ecosystems as habitats for maintaining biodiversity, and in particular on the forested landscapes of Missouri as distinctive habitats for a wide range of species, the challenge is further complicated by the widespread phenomenon of forest fragmentation.

Forest Fragmentation

Habitat fragmentation is not a unitary process : it consists of a number of different mechanisms, of which the most important are the loss of total area from the habitat and its fragmentation into a system of smaller patches. A primary example involving Missouri forests is the current situation with neotropical migratory songbirds, i.e., birds that migrate to the tropical forests of Central and South America for the winter. Ornithologists throughout the United States have become concerned about the overall decline in abundance of a large number of once common woodland bird species. In some areas where bird populations have been monitored over the last 40 years, the density of some songbird species has decreased by as much as 50% (Dobson 1998). A number of mechanisms have been suggested to explain these declines. Biologists have noted that a number of these declining species can still be found in large, contiguous tracts of forestlands in the United States, but that the bird populations are most impoverished in smaller, isolated tracts.

At the same time, due to changing agricultural practices, there has been a large increase in the range and population size of the brown-headed cowbird. Cowbirds parasitize a range of songbird species by laying their eggs in the nests of those species. The true offspring may starve while the larger cowbird offspring monopolize the food brought by the parents. Since many neotropical migrant species only produce one brood of young in any breeding season, they are especially susceptible to brood parasitism by cowbirds.

The success of the cowbirds has been considerably aided by the fragmentation of forests into smaller patches. Because the cowbirds prefer to feed in open agricultural areas, they tend to penetrate only several hundred yards into the forest when searching for host nests to parasitize. Nests at the center of forests that are larger than a kilometer in diameter are relatively safe from parasitism. In a highly fragmented landscape, however, most woodlots will be small and without any substantial core area. A wood thrush population that would be mostly unmolested by cowbirds in a heavily forested area will have more than70% of its nests parasitized once the percentage of land covered by forests falls below 40%

Moreover, birds nesting in smaller woodlots are not only more susceptible to cowbirds, but also to nest predation by racoons, blue jays and crows. The higher rate of predation and parasitism around the perimeter of forests is termed an edge effect. Forests edges are brighter and warmer, as well as drier and windier, than the forest interior; and they shelter more shrubs, vines and weeds. It has been found that edge-related increases in predation (in addition to parasitism) may extend from 300 to 600 meters into the forest.

Neotropical migratory birds are the focus of one of the largest international conservation efforts ever for non-game, not-yet-endangered wildlife (Robinson 1995). The forests of the Missouri Ozarks support 70 species of neotropical migratory birds, many in large numbers. Equally important, the Ozarks may serve as a bird source for a vast area spanning the Central Hardwood Region and covering forests of several neighboring states (Thompson et al. 1995). This directly reflects the high quality habitat provided by Missouri Ozark forests, and the birds' reproductive success allows them to populate other areas of the Midwest that no longer possess sufficient breeding areas.

The dynamics of core and edge areas, and the decline of the former as a consequence of forest fragmentation, also point to the increasingly important role of public lands in the maintenance of larger, contiguous blocks of forestlands that may serve as core areas for the variety of area-sensitive wildlife species in Missouri. The relatively large area administered by the Mark Twain National Forest (10 % of the state's total timberland area) does offer some opportunity for preserving core habitat areas. This task is, however, somewhat more difficult for the Missouri State Park system.

Many of the natural values and functions of state park forests are linked to providing large areas of native natural forested ecosystems that are not manipulated for consumptive use. Usually, however, Missouri's state park lands are much smaller parts of a much larger forested landscape. In this light, privately-owned forestlands surrounding state parks may perform a valuable function as buffers protecting vulnerable core areas within park boundaries. Continuing fragmentation of forestlands within these buffer zones is obviously not conducive to such an end. A 1992 study by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources voiced concern over the ecological impacts of land-use changes occurring around state park boundaries. The study noted 60 instances of ecosystem degradation, with half of the sources traced to land use changes. Concerns centered on ecosystem fragmentation and isolation with resultant unnatural concentrations of wildlife, interruptions in travel corridors to nearby habitats, and populations diminished and/or genetically isolated (Missouri DNR 1992). Together these reflected an overall concern that certain parks would lose the buffer and protection of being part of larger natural landscapes, with concurrent potential for species loss. Ultimately the parks' ability to function as preserves of native species living in their natural habitats would diminish.

The problem of forest fragmentation, particularly for a state such as Missouri in which more than 85% of the forest resource is under nonindustrial private ownership, has been occurring for some time, well before the arrival of the chip mills. Again the potential environmental concerns which link the mills to forest fragmentation and effects on species such as neotropical bird populations derive from one potential scenario which may, but not necessarily will, result from the effects of mill demands on Missouri private forest management. In that scenario, if the increased demand for timber resources resulting from chip mill operations contributes significantly to increases in the size and total acreage of clearcuts, or even if it simply leads to decreased rotation lengths for lands which include substantial blocks of timber; by accelerating fragmentation even further, this could have an impact on bird communities that would be regional, and actually international in scope. Suitable habitat for birds which require more mature timber, and especially those species which are area sensitive and require larger expanses or core areas of timber, could be expected to decline.

Given the pattern of land ownership in Missouri, the long-term sustainability of biodiversity of the state's flora and fauna is indeed a difficult challenge. According to the Biodiversity Task Force (1992), this will require identifying and protecting the state's ecosystems, as well as maintenance of ecological structure, function, and composition in the region. Core areas need to be maintained that contain a mosaic of communities, especially those that are currently threatened. Such areas should:

With respect to private lands, education and incentives encouraging landowners to understand and recognize the ecological roles of their lands in a broader landscape should be an important ingredient in any integrated education and technical assistance efforts.

Recreation and Aesthetic Amenities

The 1997 report "Outdoor Recreation in the United States" stated that 94.5% of Americans sixteen years of age or older participate in some type of outdoor recreation activity (U.S. Forest Service 1997). One of the most popular activities is sightseeing, with over 100 million participants nationwide. The report also noted that it was unlikely that the popularity of sightseeing as a base activity of tourism would decline while numbers of retirees continue to increase. It was also stated that 98% of respondents surveyed in this region of the country felt that the quality of scenery at a recreation area was a moderate to extremely important attribute in making that area an ideal recreation setting. A 1995 survey of visitors to state parks and historic sites found similar results (O'Connor and Partners et al. 1995). Although traditionally a difficult aspect of resource 'utilization' in terms of valuation, the aesthetic experience of forest-based amenities is certainly a significant 'output' of forest lands, both nationally and in Missouri.

In part this reflects the trend noted earlier that nonconsumptive recreational activities such as birdwatching, wildlife photography, etc, are increasing at an average annual rate which exceeds all other wildlife-oriented recreation (Knight and Gutzwiller 1995). At present, on an annual basis, approximately 62 million people undertake outdoor recreation activities to view wildlife, in contrast to about 19 million people who participate in hunting activities (U.S. Forest Service 1997).

Enjoying the aesthetic amenities of forested settings as part of a recreational experience in effect engages all of the environmental characteristics of the forest considered thus far -- trees, topography, wildlife, waters, soils and geology, and so on. It is basically experiencing the ecosystem in its full range of characteristics. Any impairment of these environmental components will, therefore, reduce the quality of the amenities experienced. Thus it is not surprising that the linkage of chip mills to nonconsumptive experiences of private forest lands will be mediated by the practices adopted by private landowners in response to demand for chips by the mills. Thus, for example, depending on its frequency, size and other variables, the visual effect of clearcutting in viewsheds around and leading to recreation sites in the Ozarks could have a significant impact on the total recreational experience of visitors.

Such effects are, unfortunately, notoriously difficult to quantify. Thus, for example, the authors of the Arkansas study of export chip mills discussed earlier did not feel confident in declaring some sort of definitive effect of the harvesting stimulated by the mills on tourism. They did, however, suggest that the location of harvests, perhaps as much as their total area, was a critical factor in terms of their ultimate impacts on the nonconsumptive aspects of the tourism experience (Guldin 1999).

Standards and Permits to Ensure Environmental Sustainability

When considering the linkage of the chip mills to environmental sustainability in all its various components -- i.e., soil fertility and prevention of erosion, water quality and quantity, biodiversity and ecological integrity, recreational activities, or the appreciation of forested landscapes for their scenic beauty -- a common connection emerges. Bad harvesting practices degrade all of the above simultaneously; effective forest management can help sustain all of them simultaneously. The chip mills are linked to these components of environmental sustainability through the kinds of forest practices undertaken by landowners in responding to the markets for chips created by the mills.

History plays an important factor in this overall process as well. Missouri's nonindustrial private forestland owners have on the whole been guilty of poor forest management for years. Thus even had no chip mills arrived in the state in the late 1990's, there would still be concerns about the impacts of forest practices on private lands upon the various components of environmental sustainability considered earlier. The concern with the chip mills, therefore, is not that they will suddenly transform a perfect situation -- i.e., a situation where forest management across the state is being conducted so well overall that environmental sustainability is not a concern -- into an environmental catastrophe; but rather that the increased demand for wood generated by the chip mills will exacerbate a longstanding pattern of poor forest management and in the process contribute an additional threat to environmental sustainability.

Different perspectives have emerged as to whether this is likely to happen. Some see an opportunity for the utilization of an extensive amount of cull material in Missouri forests and a concurrent opportunity for improving growing stock through better forest management, thereby contributing to environmental sustainability. Others look at the past history of poor forest management and see little that the increased demand for chips will likely do but give landowners another excuse to continue managing their lands poorly, in the process doing nothing to enhance environmental sustainability and very likely weakening it. Thus the essence of the issue involving environmental sustainability lies in the avoidance of a possible scenario occurring -- it might be called the "Bad Scenario" -- not necessarily as an exclusive result of the chip mills, but to which the chip mills would contribute, and possibly exacerbate (Table 13).

Table 13. A scenario involving the chip mills with negative implications for environmental sustainability ("Bad Scenario").

Demand for wood    -->   Increased unsound       -->                 Decrease in
  including chips              harvesting practices            environmental sustainability

a) Increased demand for wood by chip mills is responded to by landowners.

b) In meeting this demand, landowners continue to practice poor management as they have in the past.

c) The management practice employed is clearcutting, since this is by far the easiest way to meet chip mill demand.

d) Increased clearcutting to meet demand may be manifest in either :

- Larger clearcuts (but not necessarily so)
- Shorter 'rotation' lengths --> As soon as total volume on site becomes great enough (with no attention paid to stand structure, composition, etc.), then it is cut to generate income by supplying chips. Increased cutting at, for example, stand age of 30 years implies less timber reaching sawlog size.

e) The combined effects of the above clearcutting activities result in any or all of the following :

- Increased erosion
- Decreased soil fertility
- Impaired water quality -> Both for humans (drinking) and as habitat for biota
- Negative impacts on biodiversity via, among other things, accelerated habitat fragmentation
- Negative impacts on aesthetic values as a primary motivating factor in consumers served by the outdoor recreation and tourism industries

* The combined effects of the above --> Decrease in environmental sustainability

In terms of public policy, the critical questions that need to be addressed would therefore seem to be: a) how to encourage a good scenario and avoid the bad scenario; and b) how to deal with cases (particularly severe ones) of the "bad scenario" -- i.e, the question of 'bad actors.'

In Missouri, two public agencies are principally involved in efforts to ensure environmental sustainability of the state's forest lands -- the Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) and the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). Part of MDC's responsibilities include encouraging sustainable forest management on the state's privately-owned forest lands. A major responsibility of MDNR lies with ensuring water quality and quantity (i.e., streamflow) under the auspices of the federal Clean Water Act. Both agencies attempt to encourage landowners to practice forestry in an environmentally sustainable way through the issuance of standards and guidelines which together comprise a set of "best management practices" for timber harvesting. In addition to educational programs directed towards private landowners (see Section E), MDC has issued a document outlining watershed protection practices, which is essentially a set of voluntary management guidelines focused on stream protection during timber harvesting activities. MDNR approaches its task in the context of its role in preventing "nonpoint source pollution" (NPSP) of Missouri streams, rivers and other bodies of water. One potential source of such pollution is improperly conducted silvicultural practices. The roles of these two agencies are considered further below.

Best Management Practices. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) was enacted in 1972. The goal of this act was to control water pollution which was categorized as point source or nonpoint source. Point source pollution comes from single identifiable source, such as a drain pipe. Nonpoint source pollution (NPSP) is harder to trace, and includes runoff from agriculture, forestry, urban development, or mining. Section 208 of the FWPCA mandated that states develop and implement a water quality plan that included addressing nonpoint source pollution. The plan was subject to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approval.

In 1977, the 1972 FWPCA was amended to exempt normal silvicultural and agricultural activities from the permitting requirements under Section 404(f). Also, construction and maintenance of farm and forest roads were exempt when accomplished in accordance with approved best management practices (BMPs). These are a practice, or a combination of practices, that are determined by a state after problem assessment, examination of alternative practices, and appropriate public participation to be the most effective, practical means of preventing or reducing the amount of pollution generated by nonpoint sources to a level compatible with water quality goals (Tennessee Valley Authority et al. 1993). BMPs address preharvest planning, truck haul roads, log landings, skid trails, streamside management zones, site preparation, woodland grazing, and revegetation.

In 1987, the FWPCA was amended once again. Section 319 said that nonpoint source pollution was still a problem and required states to develop a specific water quality management plan that was to be implemented and evaluated for compliance by 1992. The states responded with a variety of strategic plans. The state of Missouri issued a draft revised version of its "Nonpoint Source Management Plan" in June of 1999. The plan contains a comprehensive set of objectives, implementation strategies, and evaluation measures designed to accomplish three broad goals : a) water quality assessment, monitoring and prioritization; b) water quality improvement and protection; and c) state nonpoint source program management.

Two aspects of MDNR's role complicate its efforts to carry out its mission. The first is its primary focus on water in accordance with its role as the state agency through which the federal Clean Water Act is implemented. Although ensuring water quality certainly involves many other on-site resources, particularly soils and topographical considerations, it is not quite the same thing as focusing on forests per se as the primary resource of concern. A second factor complicating MDNR's task is that it exercises its enforcement role in ensuring water quality primarily on a complaint-only basis -- i.e., after the damage has been done, so to speak. Then the agency must also frequently deal with nonpoint pollution problems in which the source may be some distance removed from where the problem is actually reported (e.g., a sub-watershed within a larger watershed, etc.). At present the agency has limited means of addressing these kinds of problems from a more preventive or 'before-the-fact' posture.

The Nonpoint Source Management Plan does contain a section (Appendix E) concerned with silvicultural practices and their relationship to water quality. It is condensed from an earlier report on Missouri silvicultural and watershed protection practices produced by the Silviculture and Watershed Protection Practices Committee in 1987, which was convened and chaired by MDC (Missouri Department of Conservation 1987). The appendix considers effects of silvicultural practices on water quality variables such as temperature, dissolved oxygen, nutrient losses, turbidity, suspended solids, and sediment; and it briefly discusses methods for decreasing nonpoint source pollution from silvicultural practices, with particular attention given to erosion control.

The above appendix, and the direction for its compilation by the Missouri Department of Conservation, reflects that agency's lead role in encouraging environmental sustainability on the state's nonindustrial private forestlands. In this regard, the agency has produced a booklet for distribution to landowners entitled "Missouri Watershed Protection Practice" (MDC 1997), which contains a set of management guidelines for maintaining forested watersheds to protect streams. Among the best management practices described therein are guidelines pertaining to topics presented in Table 14.

The combination of the silvicultural appendix to the MDNR's Nonpoint Source Pollution Plan and the guidelines for watershed protection published by MDC represent the core of existing 'best management practices' for nonindustrial private forestlands in Missouri. In accordance with its mission of providing guidance to private forest management in Missouri, MDC has provided the primary impetus for their development; while MDNR has incorporated these within the course of its mandate to ensure protection of the quality of the state's waters.

Historical evidence leaves no doubt that harvest and harvest-related operations have the potential to impact water quality and have done so on many occasions in the past. While there is no guarantee that the application of BMPs will protect water quality, many recent studies emphasize that the adverse effects can be greatly reduced by skilled planning and compliance with forestry BMPs (Curtis et al. 1991). The Governor's Advisory Committee strongly endorses the use of BMPs for all timber harvesting operations conducted in the state and encourages the agencies involved to continue to encourage this becoming a reality.

Table 14 . Best management practices described in MDC booklet for private forest landowners : Missouri Watershed Protection Practice (1997)

- Maintenance of streamside management zones (SMZs) -- SMZs are an area on both sides of the banks of streams where extra precaution is used in carrying out forest practices in order to protect bank edges and water quality.
- Construction of stream crossings

- Access roads and their construction :

- Location              - Road beds              - Water bars              - Seeding for bank
- Grades                 - Culverts                  - Water turnouts              stabilization
- Curves                 - Dips                        - Shaping cut and fill slopes

- Timber harvesting :  - Log landings          - Practices to avoid
                                            - Site preparation    - Prescribed burning and fire lines
                                            - Reforestation        - Chemical treatments

At the same time, the historical legacy of poor forest management on the majority of the state's nonindustrial private forestlands remains. The question of how best management practices may become routine management practices conducted by Missouri forestland owners continues to be a topic of debate. In looking for guidance to other states that have addressed this problem, a mosaic of approaches may be found. Three general approaches to promoting the use of BMPs on private lands may be identified -- mandatory, contingent, and voluntary.

At present, 38 states have at least one program that regulates the application of forestry practices on private forestlands (Ellefson et al. 1996). Ten states -- including the three states on the West Coast and three in the Northeast -- have incorporated mandatory best management practices within comprehensive forest practice laws. These states have developed detailed rules that spell out permit application procedures and forest practice performance standards, including provisions for enforcement and penalties for violations. Other states have instituted mandatory BMPs, but not necessarily within the context of forest practice laws as comprehensive as those noted above. For example, Kentucky recently adopted mandatory BMP's on a statewide basis. The enactment of the requirement is accompanied by an adjustment period in which loggers are given the opportunity to receive training in the use of BMP's. By mid-2000, the state Forestry Commission will assume jurisdiction, and that agency will be responsible for inspecting logging sites for BMP compliance. The Kentucky Forest Industry Association supported that bill.

In the Kentucky example, loggers have understandably voiced their discontent about the new arrangement. This also happened, however, in Arkansas and Alabama where forest industry encouraged voluntary logger compliance with BMP's. Loggers did not like it then either. A representative from one of the chip mills in Missouri who addressed the Committee during the hearings described his experience with the imposition of BMPs in the above states by noting that now they (i.e., BMPs) have become a way of life for the loggers, they have found out that, with a small amount of planning as they go along, the requirements are really not that burdensome. Many of the required practices are simple to do -- a skidder can accomplish them; and if the loggers finish an area -- i.e., close it out as they are coming out of a sale -- it actually doesn't take that much time.

Other states have adopted what may be termed as a contingent regulatory model with respect to the adoption of best management practices. In Montana, Virginia, Vermont and New Hampshire, state acceptance of voluntary application of BMP's is conditional on their widespread use by landowners and timber harvesters. If the state's lead forestry agency concludes that voluntary use of BMP's is unsatisfactory, penalties for noncompliance may be levied on those who are in violation of established forest practice standards. Some states, such as North Carolina, provide exemptions from NPSP laws if and only if forestry activities comply with "voluntary" guidelines (Deforest et al. 1989). Sentiment for this approach often occurs due to uncertainty over whether voluntary use of BMP's by landowners and loggers is sufficient to protect ecosystem values; a threat of regulation may be needed to ensure the application of such practices.

Most other southern and eastern states rely largely on non-regulatory means, i.e, voluntary BMPs, to control nonpoint source pollution from forestry practices. Voluntary BMP's and education are viewed as the best way to approach the problem by most firms in the wood products industry. However, some within the industry have accepted mandatory measures -- if not willingly, at least understandingly-- provided they are applied consistently to all who harvest timber. The concern here is that all loggers are treated in an equitable fashion , whether they're hauling to a sawmill, to a chip mill, or to a pulp mill.

States that adopt voluntary approaches to BMP implementation generally construct guidelines to aid landowners in applying such practices. The content and scope of such guidelines does, however, vary considerably. Thus, for example, Minnesota has adopted a comprehensive, user-friendly set of guidelines that is divided into two levels. The first is a set of 'general BMP guidelines' which are common to many forest management activities. These include such activities as conducting a site inventory; maintaining filter strips; managing riparian areas; protecting cultural resources; managing equipment, fuels and lubricants; protecting the normal flow of wetlands and streams, as well as wetland inclusions and seasonal ponds; retaining leave trees; providing coarse woody debris; and post-operational activities and follow-up visits. The second set is a collection of 'activity-specific BMP guidelines.' These include such practices as forest road construction and maintenance; timber harvesting; mechanical site preparation; pesticide use; reforestation; timber stand improvement; fire management; and forest recreation management (Minnesota Forest Resource Council 2000). The 450-page web-accessible voluntary guidelines does serve as a reminder of the need for continuing reexamination and improvement of both the content and form of any repertoire of best management practices.

All of the above suggests that there is indeed great variability between states and regions in terms of the mechanisms used to encourage implementation of best management practices on private lands. In most states BMPs include such things as streamside management zones, wetland access systems, and proper harvesting and regeneration techniques. Many include limitations in the size of clearcuts. Like all states, the options in Missouri range across a spectrum that includes voluntary, contingent and mandatory approaches. The Governor's Advisory Committee has voiced support throughout its discussions for an emphasis on feasible voluntary approaches towards addressing problems involving the management of private forestlands. Education and training are obviously critical here (see Section E). But acknowledgment of the historical disinclination towards management on the part of the state's private forestland owners, as well as the ongoing need for refining Missouri's BMP repertoire, has led to some possible alternative courses of action being suggested. One potential action would involve establishing a forestry BMP board or commission to oversee and review BMP's and to aid in the development of a package which encourages environmental sustainability by considering the complete array of practices including, but not exclusively linked to, water quality. To varying degrees, such a board could also oversee the implementation and enforcement of such standards. Contingent BMP's constitute another possible option in this regard.

Other considerations pertain more directly to the enforcement aspect of the above. Paramount here is the question of dealing with landowners who, for various reasons -- particularly those grounded in interests tied to land speculation -- are simply unwilling to respond to any incentives that encourage the use of BMPs, or to anything, for that matter, that might add any costs to their speculative endeavors. One option here is to follow the lead of Tennessee and establish a "bad actor" designation -- in this case focused on loggers -- with civil penalties for operations which repeatedly violate, for example, water quality laws. Recommended by Tennessee's Forest Management Advisory Panel, this was instituted through a memorandum of understanding between the Tennessee Departments of Agriculture and Environment and Conservation. The former is to provide technical assistance to the Department of Environment and Conservation to promote full enforcement of these cases. The policy was endorsed by both the Tennessee Conservation League and the Tennessee Forestry Association.

A number of states have variations on the above approach, all of which represent potential alternatives for the above kind of policy. Some state agencies have felt it is critical to have the capability to suspend ongoing operations that are in gross violation of water quality laws. Other states allow for a reduction of penalties if remedial measures are taken immediately or within a certain time frame. In some states -- e.g., Kentucky and West Virginia -- landowners can be held legally responsible for allowing harvesting of their lands in ways that contribute to stream sedimentation or turbidity. Other options include establishing a tracking system for known violators or requirements that the state be notified before a 'bad actor' begins working.

Whether any or none of these options are pursued cannot be fully decided without consideration of the variety of economic incentives (section C) and voluntary education and training efforts for landowners and loggers (section E) that might be employed to encourage use of BMPs on private lands. As noted above, voluntary measures with a realistic chance of being successful are preferable to regulatory mechanisms, which serve as a means of last resort. At the same time, the need to continually assess the content of the state's best management practices as to whether they are making a difference or simply serving as symbolic tokens of good will remains. Are current BMPs really working as designed? To what degree is their voluntary nature adequate, or should they be required by some means? Is on-the -ground monitoring adequate; otherwise how can anything even be said on the subject? Such questions are ongoing and no one has suggested that answers come easily. Yet it is only through satisfactorily answering these that the broader question of ensuring the environmental sustainability of Missouri's forest lands can be adequately addressed.

Return to Table of Contents