Governor's Advisory Committee on Chip Mills

Governor's Advisory Committee On Chip Mills
Department Of Natural Resources
Elm Street Conference Center
Jefferson City, Missouri
March 1, 1999
Meeting Minutes

Committee Members Present

Stephen Mahfood, Director, Department Of Natural Resources
David Bedan, Citizen Environmental Conservation Group, Columbia
Earl Cannon, Deputy Director, Department Of Economic Development
Senator Doyle Childers, Reeds Spring
David Day, Private Property Owner Organization Representative, Dixon
Mark Garnett, Forest Products Representative, West Plains
Emily Firebaugh, Forest Landowner, Farmington
Representative Bill Foster, Poplar Bluff
Deirdre Hirner, Citizen Environmental Conservation Group, Columbia
Representative Jerry Mcbride, Edgar Springs
Sarah Tyree, Special Assistant, Department Of Agriculture

Interested Parties Present

Mike Smith, Washington
Tony Nenninger (Goodwater), Bourbon
Mike Hoffmann, Department Of Conservation, Jefferson City
Llona Weiss, Department Of Natural Resources, Jefferson City
Scott Brundage, Missouri Consulting Foresters Association, Columbia
Shelby Jones, Forest Resource Advisory Services, Jefferson City
John McCammon, The Nature Conservancy, St. Louis
Doug Ladd, The Nature Conservancy, St. Louis
Eric Peters, Missouri Forest Products Association, Jefferson City
Charles Hirt, Canal Wood, Jackson
Donna Homan, Department Of Conservation, Jefferson City
Tommy Petzoldt, East Perry Lumber Co., Frohna
Tom Lange, Department Of Natural Resources, Jefferson City
Bill Bryan, Attorney General's Office, Jefferson City
Hank And Katie Dorst, Mark Twain Forest Watchers, Elk Creek
Terry Finger, Missouri House Research, Jefferson City
Dan Schuette, Department Of Natural Resources, Jefferson City
Brian Brookshire, Department Of Conservation, Jefferson City
Katie Auman, Missouri. Coalition For The Environment, St. Louis
Pam Duncan, Department Of Conservation, Jefferson City
Dennis Ballard, Conservation Federation Of Missouri, Sturgeon
Dennis Meinert, Department Of Natural Resources, Sullivan
Tom Kruzan, Ozark Riverkeepers, Mountain View
Steve Galliher, Willamette Industries, Piedmont
Scott Freeburn, Willamette Industries, Portland
Greg Thompson, Mill Spring Chip, Mill Spring
Ron Mcmillin, Attorney, Jefferson City
Carolyn Pufalt, St. Louis
John P. Slusher, University Of Missouri, Columbia
Don Scott, Department Of Natural Resources, Jefferson City
Sarah Bantz, Heartwood, Columbia
Dave Mosby, Department Of Natural Resources, Jefferson City
John Dunn, Environmental Protection Agency, Kansas City, KS
Bill Moore, Canal Wood, Conway, SC

Call to Order

Steve Mahfood, Director of the Department of Natural Resources and committee co-chair, called the meeting order at 9:25 a.m. He welcomed everyone to the meeting, and noted the committee will have two public comment periods, in the beginning and the end. He also noted he will be leaving the meeting between noon and 1:00, and cochair Marvin Brown is also out. Sarah Tyree accepted the role of chair for the afternoon.

Public Comment

Under public comment, Doug Ladd, Director of Science for the Missouri Chapter of The Nature Conservancy (TNC) gave a presentation/slide show on the ecology of the Ozarks. He explained that TNC is solely focused on biodiversity - making sure that all the plants and animals that are a native component of this earth stay as self-replicating sustainable components of the earth in the future.

Because of the importance of the Ozarks ecologically, and to the overall international mission of TNC, here in Missouri it is the single largest focus of our conservation efforts. It is important to realize that biologically the Ozarks are one of the most unique places on the face of the planet, and its fate is in our hands. Biologically, the largest part and many of the most unique aspects of the Ozarks are within the borders of Missouri, and that's why it's important we think about decisions impacting their future.

The Ozarks are unique for a lot of reasons. The landscape is probably the oldest pieces of dirt on the earth surface that have never been covered by ice or oceans for the last 225 million years, and a lot of unique species evolved. In addition, less than 10,000 years ago there were massive sheets of ice not too far north of Missouri, and that ice influenced the climate tremendously. Millions of years before that, there were huge oceans flooding much of the interior mid-continental south of North American, creating a very hot, humid, moist climate. We have plants and animals throughout the Ozarks that have very special relationships to the landscapes around them. There are numerous plants and animals found almost exclusively or no where else in the world but here in the Ozark highlands. The fate of these plants and animals are totally dependent on the fate of the Ozarks.

Another important biological attribute of the Ozarks today is that its one of the last intact large blocks of forest in mid-continental North America, and it's a major population production center for a lot of migratory songbirds. For a whole nexus of critical bird species, the Ozarks are a critically important landscape to think about.

The Ozarks also offer big waters like the Current River, and smaller waters like the Pristine Chilton Creek Hollow just east of Peck Ranch on TNC lands, one of the most rare plant studded watersheds in the landscape. Many of these watersheds are among the highest quality watersheds in the mid continental US, and many are model watersheds for water quality. The integrity of these watersheds is vital to maintaining the integrity of the Ozark ecosystem.

Today we have many overgrown stands in what were once Ozark woodlands. When the earliest travelers went through the Ozarks, they reported a very different landscape than we see today - they are portrayed as being very sparsely timbered and very grassy in some places. There is a compelling body of evidence to show that the original Ozark woodlands were very different than the closed forests we see in many places today. The reason is because there have always been people in this landscape manipulating it according to their needs and abilities. One of the most powerful tools available to the pre-European cultures in the Ozarks was the use of fire.

A very special Ozark ecosystem component that we've essentially lost from the landscape, but which many organizations (the USFS, the Dept. Of Conservation, TNC) have a high priority of restoring is the pineland systems. Some 4 million acres of the central part of the Ozark region were dominated by shortleaf pine. During a logging boom that started in the late 19th century and ended in the early 20th century, these pines were essentially logged out. There are some surviving pine ecosystem remnants left that can be linked into a large scale pineland environment indicative to the pinelands once occurring in this landscape, and bring back the full array of pineland species. When we talk about Ozark woodlands, we're talking about more than just a woodland ranging from mixed hardwood forest (which were relatively rare and in small extent in the large bottomlands) all the way up to the million of acres of once pine- dominated uplands.

As a context for understanding the system, we need to realize that the Ozarks are home to vast amounts of citizens, often making an economic sacrifice to live there because the other attributes of the landscape. In Missouri we have a compelling moral and practical mission to sustain the outputs of that landscape in order to sustain the livelihood, provide those life benefits, and to sustain for future generations the unique ecosystems that are part of the Ozarks.

Key Points:

  1. The Ozarks are not just another large block of Midwestern forest.
  2. The Ozarks are a unique biological attribute with scientifically documented high concentrations of unique species and natural communities.
  3. We can never have a "hands-off" management approach to Ozark woodlands, and we need to integrate this to provide the fiber, recreational, scenic, and biological attributes that are required.

Dave Bedan asked for a brief definition of the Conservancy's lower Ozarks project and what TNC is trying to accomplish. Mr. Ladd stated that TNC has acquired and co-oped with the MDC approximately 80,000 acres from the Kerr-McGee Corporation. On this 80,000 acres, TNC identified a 5,600 acre piece (north of Van Buren and west of the Current River), with a disproportional number of endangered species, an extremely high water quality, and some unusual terrestrial woodland integrity. TNC is going to use that 5,600 acre piece - the Chilton Creek Preserve - to try to test some of the ideas that are coming up in the scientific community about the role of fire on a large scale in the woodland ecosystem environment to restore the full diversity of Ozark woodland environments. On a small piece, TNC will probably be looking at testing some different timbering alternatives and seeing their effects on the biodiversity of woodland systems. The results from that will be ongoing and there will be payoff initially, but it will be 10, 20, 30 years before we have a lot of the answers.

Mark Garnett asked if TNC has interest in some conversion back to pine. Mr. Ladd noted TNC's interest is converting back to native pine. Mark also asked if native pine would be better for songbirds, and Mr. Ladd stated that he thinks there is a whole suite of pineland birds which are not supported by dense, deciduous tree systems, and there is a whole suite of what are called woodland interior birds, which do not do well in open pinelands. It depends on what you have in the beginning, the capability of that ecosystem type, and what your goals are for that landscape.

Emily Firebaugh asked if the Gypsy Moth and some of the other predatory insects that are coming in could influence the studies, and Mr. Ladd responded that it could, but we have to work to sustain as much as we can of what's here because we can't anticipate what's coming. Mr. Ladd added that the more diverse, high quality system you have which has most of the original pieces in some functional rate, the better buffer that system would be to resist shock.

David Bedan asked for Mr. Ladd thoughts on large-scale/long-term monitoring of the Ozarks so that we really know what's going on across the entire Ozarks, and if there is some program that this committee should be recommending? Mr. Ladd reported that monitoring is something that can occur at many different scales, and the first thing you have to ask yourself is "what are the questions that we need answered with monitoring?" Mr. Ladd suggested that the committee be looking at the aggregate Ozark landscape in terms of woodland cover, rates of removal, and rates of replacement, to ensure we are maintaining a co-hort of age classes in these woodlands, in particularly the older age classes which some of the more sensitive species are dependant on. Mr. Ladd added that one of the challenges facing us is we don't want huge amounts of the Ozarks to be clearcut, with more and more evidence on the ecological effects on large-scale clearcuts.

Minutes of February 1, 1999 Meeting

The minutes were reviewed, and the following changes were discussed:

Mark Garnett noted that on Page 15, 6th paragraph, he believed he asked that if we have a forest practices act, does that affect existing industry as well as everyone else, and Mr. Banbury answered that "Yes, it would have to affect everyone in the industry". Mr. Mahfood responded that the record would be reviewed, and the minutes could be approved pending review.

Mr. Garnett also stated that on Page 7, first paragraph, Hank Dorst may not have made that statement, and Mr. Dorst agreed that he believed it was Steve Galliher's statement.

Mr. Mahfood noted that change. Mr. Dorst also stated that the 7th paragraph on that page, the minutes read that they are not on the scene quicker than mom and pop, but it should say they are on the scene quicker than ma and pop. Mr. Mahfood also noted that change.

A motion was then made and seconded to approve the minutes with those changes. Motion carried.

Leglislative Update

A report was given on House Bill 908, Representative McBride's bill on a proposed addition to the State Forestry Law entitled Forest Conservation Lands which provides a state income tax credit for lands enrolled as forest conservation lands. Brian Brookshire explained that the bill, as it reads now, is a 25-year sign up. The recommendation early on was five years, with a roll over every five years, but that was changed to 25 years. That is in development and is in addition to Forest Cropland. Forest Cropland, as the bill reads now, stays identical.

Emily Firebaugh stated that the change to 5 years would be an advantage if you were into forest land as a profitable business, but not if you're into it for protecting and doing selective harvesting - there are too many people who will duck into FCL. Five years is not enough time to give the land any benefits, but it would give the tax pocket a benefit. Ms. Hirner asked if Ms. Firebaugh's recommendation would be to stay with 25 years, and she responded that If you're for the forest land protection it would be. If you're into it for profit, and a quick buy and sell kind of thing, as an investor in properties, it would be more profitable. She added that she's into it for the long haul, but if she were coming out of St. Louis into rural Missouri, the 5 year would be more enticing, but it would not be more protective of the land.

Senator Childers stated that a staggered system in which you increase the amount based on a time period might make it a little more productive (10 or 15 years versus the 5 years), so it was stepped up as an incentive to try to maintain it for a longer period of time. Mr. Brookshire reported that it's written that there is an increased tax advantage every five years. It starts out at $3/acre for the first five years, $3.50/acre for the second five-year period, $4/acre for the third period, and $4.50/acre for the fourth period. Mr. Brookshire also reported that there are currently 158,000 acres of private land enrolled in FCL, and that has been declining steadily over the last 10 years because the property tax advantages are not there like it used to be.

Terry Finger, House Research, reported that the bill was referred to Representative McBride's State Park and Natural Resources Committee for review, and a hearing on the bill has been scheduled for Wednesday at 2:00.

Private Property Rights

A presentation was given by Mr. Ron McMillin, an attorney with the firm Carson and Coil. Mr. McMillin reported that Farm Bureau is one of their clients, but the main reason he was asked to present was because of a case he handled in which he represented the property owners along the Katy Trail. This case was successful in securing compensation for his clients, but that issue is still being fought in front of the Claims Court in St. Louis as to how much that compensation should be. He stated that if you take the full linear mileage of the MKT trail, it's worth a lot, but if you take each individual land plot, then it's not worth much. His involvement in the property rights issues of MKT helped him gain a lot of knowledge that confirmed how difficult the private property rights issues can be.

He further reported that there is a case now pending before the US Supreme Court, argued in October of 1998, the City of Monteray vs. Del Monte Foods. The Court is again trying to address what the standard of review is of the governmental body that is making the decision relating to an accommodation to be made for property rights vs. some other environmental/ ecological or other statutory goal. A particular governmental body determines the zoning of C3's an appropriate thing, then the courts aren't going to second guess what those governmental bodies decide unless there is not reasonable basis for that decision. That's a hard test for an opponent of a decision like that to overcome. Should the judicial law take a closer look at and actually inject some of its own opinions and thoughts and judgement on those matters that the governmental body decided? That is the ultimate issue that, under the current law, will be something that will determine how much the courts will actually get involved in trying to override the decisions made by the governmental entities, the state legislature or through individual cities, municipalities, and counties.

Mr. Bill Bryan, Assistant Attorney General, State of Missouri, Environmental Protection Division, reported that he is here to serve as counsel to the committee to address specific questions about takings law as they apply to recommendations made.

There are two types of takings: the physical occupation of property or a categorical taking. However, there are a few things that you can look at and know it's a taking:

  1. Does this regulation substantially advance a legitimate government interest.
  2. Does the regulation deny the owner an economically viable use of his or her property.

There are a couple of exceptions:

  1. If the regulation prohibits a property use that previously wasn't permissible. For example, it's not permissible to cause water pollution. If your regulation prohibits water pollution, it's probably not a taking.
  2. Is the only impact a mere diminution in value of the property - does it take the property or prevent an economically viable use for that taking.

Mr. Bryan stated that this is a very serious issue, an issue that the committee is going to have to deal with when it comes to making recommendations. There is not a cut and dry law. For instance, if someone's land was already enrolled in FCL, or had been at some point, and we made a regulation that now restricts the way that they can use that land under the program, it could be a taking, but since it's something that's already been regulated, it's very hard to say. Without the specifics of what those changes are, and how they're going to impact, how they're going to reduce property values, we really can't say, but there's always some potential it can be considered a taking.

Ms. Hirner asked if the trend is to look at the corridor and not the 600 acre parcel, as in the instance of the MKT case. Mr. Bryan reported that there are numerous federal court of appeals cases looking at the property in that context, and there has been one Supreme Court case where the justice addressed that question in a footnote. Ms. Hirner also asked if in other states that have forest practice acts that regulate forest use, do some of them very strongly regulate the activities which a private landowner can conduct on his or her property, and if so, have any of those forest practice acts ever been challenged as adversely impacting private property rights? Mr. Bryan stated that on the first question, he hasn't done any research on what all the different state forest practices acts are. On the second question, he has done some research to try to determine whether there has been litigation over whether forestry practices acts have caused takings, and has been unsuccessful in finding cases like that - there may be some out there they just may not have made it to the court of appeals or recorded. He added if he becomes aware of any decisions like that he will inform the committee.

David Day asked Mr. Bryan and Mr. McMillin that if he purchased a tract of land with the intention of harvesting the timber off of it, and a regulation was put in place that limited how he could harvest the timber or if he could at all, is that considered a taking? Mr. Bryan reported that would certainly be possible. Mr. McMillin added that if they already had the regulation in effect and you want to harvest timber, it's too bad. Mr. Bryan added that the 5th Amendment only prohibits taking of land without just compensation, and if the government has the legitimate social purpose it thinks overrides a particular landowners interest, it can do that - it's not popular in today's society but it's certainly legal.

Ms. Firebaugh reported that at the first meeting, she asked if the State of Missouri could legally keep a chip mill from making a profit here or could prohibit property owners from making a profit off their land. Past experience with the Natural Streams Act proves Farm Bureau and the citizens of Missouri don't want anyone coming out to the land and telling them what to do if we want to make a profit on it, etc. In the 400,000 acres that are being affected by the chip mill industry in the state of Missouri, of the 30,000 owners, less than 10% take part in the FCL program or in the use of forest practices. She added that she doubts that we're going to reach those people on how to deal with chip mills. Mr. Bryan agreed that the failure of the Natural Streams Act said what people think of over regulation of private property rights.

Mr. Garnett asked that in the event that there someday is a forest practices act which restricts timber harvesting in some manner and revenue is lost, who will actually pay for that? Does the taxpayer pay, or the landowner? Mr. McMillin reported that the taxpayers would pay if the action was a governmental action, as opposed to a mere nuisance by private landowners, in which case that's just a mere civil action between two neighbors.

Ms. Tyree asked if the recent ruling by the Supreme Court on the right to farm law has any bearings, and Mr. Bryan noted that the case was whether the county had authority to zone farm structures, so that's a separate legal question. Ms. Hirner further asked that in zoning, you can zone a municipality, county or whoever, but you can't zone so as to "zone out". Mr. Bryan responded that yes, you can exclude businesses from certain parts of town if you could determine that a certain business doesn't belong in your community, and you'd probably have a lawsuit to fight, but you could do that right away.

Ms. Firebaugh stated that regarding forest practices, she understands that when a company or individual clearcuts, after 50 acres they have to seed some kind of groundcover to eliminate erosion. If the rain washes away the seeding before it could take hold, are they required to reseed until the groundcover takes hold? Mr. Bryan stated that he did not know the answer to that, but when we have cases that require reseeding, it's always been a requirement that the reseeding be successful, if it requires two or three reseedings. Mr. Brookshire added that he is not aware of a seeding requirement in the FCL program, and Mr. Bryan stated that's something that could be considered for this industry as part of the FCL law. Shelby Jones added that it is part of the Sustainable Forestry Initiative Guidelines.

Ms. Carolyn Pufalt from St. Louis then asked if you look just at the burdened portion, do you put the value of that burdened portion as an isolated section, or do you consider its value in connection with the whole piece of land around it? Mr. Bryan stated he did not know how you do that. Senator Childers also asked if the relative value of that piece of property, it might be an access that gives you access to real value, it might be the most important portion of it, like the scenic view or scenic area, how does the value of that one piece compare to the entire parcel. Is it 1/10th of the value? Mr. McMillin stated that yes, that comes up all the time in condemnation cases, like for highways. He added that it is true that you give evidence that shows that "this is the only way I can get to my pond", and that impacts the ultimate value placed on the taking.

Ms. Tyree inquired about water quality, and if you do a harvest and there's a massive rainstorm, you have sedimentation going into the streams, could it be that we'll emphasize that that's a violation of water quality, and turn around and say no, we don't want you to log? Mr. Bryan stated that under the Clean Water Law, if a person engages in activities that cause pollution, they are subject to suit, though it's never been used in this scenario.

Ms. Hirner stated that since the Clean Water Law came about, there have been a number of different practices, like homebuilders who are building a new subdivision, they now have practices that they put into place in order to lessen the runoff from their sites. Mr. Mahfood stated that there are regulations in place requiring them to do that. Ms. Hirner further asked if that would mean that if there are practices that a real estate developer and a highway construction crew can put into place to keep runoff or minimize run off, in those same types of conditions could it be applied to timber harvest. She asked if that could be a part of a forest practice act to impose that kind of regulation, and Mr. Bryan noted it could be.

Ms. Firebaugh noted that was what she understood the Natural Streams Act did not put into place in Missouri - that a private landowner, 50 acres or 500 acres, if they want to harvest, they can without regulation on watershed, etc. She stated that if you were considering as a committee putting that into place for a chip mill harvester, what if he has someone cutting for him off of someone like me, a private landowner, you've got a "catch 22" - that isn't going to catch the chip mill, and then you're going to alienate the Missourians who were not for the Natural Streams Act. She stated that the Natural Streams Act did not work against the private landowner in the state of Missouri, but the DNR and the EPA may have water regulations that catch it, but it still lets the private landowner slip away from strict confining regulations on that.

Mr. Garnett asked if agriculture and forestry are exempt right now from storm water runoff, and Mr. Mahfood stated that no, there is a little bit different restrictions, there is some tailoring that's been done. Ms. Firebaugh stated that it's not very restrictive at all, and if she were to say to a chip mill company "I will have somebody harvest 500 acres for you", the chip mill industry will profit from that, but it still lets the private landowner profit on the property. Ms. Hirner stated that if you look at what Hank Dorst said last month in his presentation, if it were to go into place, this is about timber harvesting, whether its going to pallets or whether its going to sawlogs or a chip mill, the rule would apply to harvest practices and not to the recipient of the wood product. A clearcut is a clearcut whether it goes to a chip mill, a sawmill, or pallet plant.

Ms. Firebaugh stated that you're going to run into Farm Bureau and the people in outstate Missouri who say "it's our property, it's a taking". Mr. Garnett asked how a landowner proves it's a taking, what steps to go through, and if he can prove that, how does he get compensated. Ms. Hirner stated that should go through as a lawsuit.

Mr. Bedan stated that it sounded like there isn't anything for us to do - are we just going to accept the Ozark streams and springs turning turbid like the northern Missouri streams? Ms. Firebaugh stated that the forestry practices for MDC have been there since the 1930's. There are 400,000 acres out there owned by 30,000 private landowners, and MDC has less than 10% in FCL. She added that she does not feel that MDC could come out and educate somebody like her fast enough, let alone the people who aren't in the FCL program.

Mr. Bedan added that he thinks the fear of a lot of people is that the type of highly-mechanized industrial forestry that the chip mills are encouraging will become the norm, that everybody will go out and buy these gigantic machines that have much more impact on the landscape than a couple guys with a chainsaw and a truck. The pace of it would be so fast, that it will make these educational approaches mute. He added that he thinks we have to go back to what both Mr. McMillin and Mr. Bryan said - this property rights business is very complex. It's not clearcut. Property ownership is a bundle of rights, and you have certain restrictions that you are not free to do anything you want. As a property owner, you can't do anything you want to on your property, and our job is to figure out what is a reasonable balance of protecting the property owner and protecting the environment.

Ms. Hirner stated that she thinks we do the same thing with any industry that comes to Missouri - look at the automotive industries that have built new plants here. They come to Missouri and many of them are given economic incentives to come to Missouri, but at the same time, there are limits placed on their activities. They are not free to do whatever they want to even though we've given them economic incentives to come to the state.

More discussion ensued, and Mr. Mahfood noted that this group was put together because of some of the experiences we've had with the very large hog farms and some of the other experiences we've had with developments in the state. We have some experience to know that we intended to do this, and here's one instance where we better at least take a look at this pretty closely before we decide on what we do and how we do it. Senator Childers followed up with why would anyone want to continue if it would be come overly restrictive - what is reasonable? If we become overly restrictive on timber practices, most people are going to say there are better ways to use their land. They will either go into pasture, gradually clearing a little a time, and change the whole usage of it, destroying the resource just as realistically as if you said you're not going to harvest it. There has to be some point there that says if you want to keep this as a timber resource, then we as the citizens of Missouri are going to award that in some way. There are a number of different incentives we could use. Or are we going to say the landowner can do it, but under such restrictions that are recognized as reasonable and don't destroy the value of what they've developed over generations.

Mr. Day added that he's more excited about the idea of putting incentives in place, saying if you don't harvest this many feet or yards near a stream then we will give you this incentive not to do that. The Natural Streams Act probably would have been met with a little better reception were incentives in place rather than mandates. No one wants to take care of that land any more than the landowner. I think if you put incentives in place, saying if you don't harvest this close to the water, we will pay you this incentive, would be a lot better way to handle it than mandate it.

Mr. Mahfood responded that part of the discussion of where this all started off is more to support that part of our economy because we know that people who make their livelihood directly on a piece of property or live there are going to be those kinds of stewards. Then you come back to the juggle between no matter who it is, a company, an individual, what is it when you start imposing restrictions? Where does that end? The only thing that he can see that's different is that we haven't had the opportunity very often to convene this kind of a group of people to try to guide how we do something like this.

Mr. Day stated that you've got to educate the landowner. He added that the state of Missouri can't put an incentive out there that would equal the dollar amount that the chip mill offers, but nevertheless, if you educate and put some kind of incentive out there, he feels people would be pretty receptive to that.

Mr. Bedan added that he feels we need to be a little careful that we not start viewing that there is some kind of inherent right to pollute, and that the public has to then pay somebody not to pollute. We've gotten on the verge of that in other industries sometimes, as if industry has a right to dump in a stream, then the public has to pay that industry not to pollute. He feels we're verging on that in some of these discussions. Mr. Bedan also stated that he feels there is a great deal that we agree on as far as incentives, education and training, technical assistance, etc. However, he doesn't see any of these non-regulatory things taking effect fast enough or broadly enough to prevent the situation we fear. Maybe regulation is the last recourse when everything else fails. We have the potential for something changing very quickly, and will these non-regulatory incentives and assistance be enough? Ms. Firebaugh noted she did not feel education will be enough.

Rep. Foster stated that he agrees, and it's a good idea to develop some standards to say we're going to reward you if you abide by these standards that we've created. But he's not sure that's not going to create just a bidding contest as we offer them incentives to abide by these standards - people who want the timber will have to bid more for the timber, and we'll have to offer larger incentives, then they'll bid more, etc. Ms. Firebaugh added that she believes that's why we need to keep them out of federal and state land so that the price will be higher on the individual landowners property. If you can't cut 80 acres in the state forests, then that would make the private landowner's 80 acres worth more.

Ms. Tyree added comments about agriculture, and one of the things that they mentioned around incentives, education, and training. She explained that if you're on I-70 going to St. Louis or Kansas City and you look at the crop fields, you'll see buffer strips, contour farming, and folks implementing best management practices. She stated that this is without regulation - this is through education, incentives, and training. She understands the concern about if you do education it takes a long time, if you do incentives it takes a long time, but the national buffers incentive is no more than 2 or 3 years old.

Mr. Bedan then asked if those incentives included the soil and water cost sharing program? Ms. Tyree noted that yes it does, and CRP practices. Mr. Bedan continued to say that the soil and water cost sharing program is big bucks ($38M a year), and if you use incentives, you better be prepared to come up with big bucks.

The group then heard comments from Tom Kruzan. Mr. Kruzan circulated copies of some photographs, explaining that they were taken February 14th and the 27th in Iron County on the Funk Branch Road (about a 1 ½ mile southwest of Annapolis). This is 300 acres owned by Mr. Dennis Maxwell - an absentee owner - who has been selling the timber to Willamette. The owner is into it just for the money, cut and run. He also distributed copies of the West Plains Quill series on Karst.

Eric Peters of Missouri Forest Products also commented that government and private industry have tried to educate the public on a number of things through the years. One of the things MFPA has done is the logger training program, and he would hate to see the committee sell short voluntary actions that the industry can take. One of the most difficult aspects of the logger training program was getting the logger interested, but they do it a lot more quickly and effectively if they do it on a voluntary basis rather than being made to do it.

Ms. Firebaugh reported that she took the extension program, MDC's master tree farmer class, goes to all the seminars, etc., but seldom, if ever, is the word clearcut mentioned in a positive manner. No matter what the education is going on, they are still not teaching the private landowner how to work successfully with a mill company in a positive manner. Mr. Peters agreed that clearcut needs to be addressed.

Mr. Mahfood then asked Alice Geller to give a summary on what they heard on the private property rights issue. Ms. Geller's summary is attached.

Finalization of Inventory

Ms. Geller reviewed her notes taken from the January meeting, explaining that the notes include the seven points that are in the Governor's Executive Order, and a summary of what she understood the committee's direction or intent with the research was. In addition, as Llona got into various sources between the January and February meeting, Ms. Geller went through all the sources that she had at that time, read the abstract and the conclusions, and put them in at the points in which they seemed to fit. Mr. Mahfood asked if that was what the "other sources" part was, and Ms. Geller stated that yes, that's the sources part, just to give the committee an idea of the material that they had collected to date, where they fit in with all the questions that the committee wanted answered. Mr. Mahfood also noted that the committee will probably be adding sources to that. It was agreed that when someone sends in annotated material they specify what area it fits into in the summary.

Facilitator/Coordinator/Editor

Mr. Mahfood noted that he wished he had better news on the search for a Facilitator/Coordinator/Editor, but we are having trouble making progress. Mr. Andy Raedeke dropped out of contention for performing that role. There have been a few other changes to people's status who we were considering. He stated that if it was okay with the other committee members, if we can find somebody that we think pretty much fits the bill, we'll try to get that information out right away, and unless we hear some response back, we will have somebody at the next meeting. Mr. Mahfood added that we're getting way behind here on having this person on board, and getting this report done is going to be tough. The group agreed that it would be okay to try to get somebody, get that information faxed out to everybody, and unless we hear opposition, we'll try to have that person on board by the next meeting.

Lunch

Mr. Mahfood asked if we could return from lunch at 1:00 instead of 1:30 as reflected on the agenda. Mr. Bryan stated that under the Sunshine Law and because they have discussed all the morning's agenda items, the group must come back at 1:30.

Schedule For Completion

Ms. Tyree called the meeting back to order to discuss the next agenda item. She asked if everyone had the handout for the schedule for completion. She stated that at the last meeting, the group had discussed agenda items that needed to be covered in the next couple months, and staff put together this summary. The committee reviewed topics and dates for the upcoming meetings and a revised schedule is included at the end of the minutes.

Subcommittee Report on Literature Review

Ms. Tyree noted the next item on the agenda was the literature review, and asked Mr. Cannon to update the group. Mr. Cannon thanked the other subcommittee members. He reported the group had met and John Dwyer joined them to discuss bibliography. He distributed a document on the review. The committee's recommendation is that we do contract with the University of Missouri, Dr. John Dwyer, School of Natural Resources, to prepare an annotated bibliography. Mr. Cannon explained that if we look at the beginning of the draft on the 2nd page, look at objectives, three major things would be done for us. First of all, it would conduct a literature search of states that have had experience with the chip mill industry. Secondly, it would review and summarize the various reports that have been issued and write summaries of each publication in the bibliography. Third, write a final report summarizing the social, economic, biological impacts of chip mills.

The subcommittee agreed they liked the proposal by the university, but wanted to emphasize a few things they felt were pretty important. The first item would include those states that have had experience with chip mills, and would include reports from various federal and other authoritative sources to deal with the topic. Secondly, the bibliography should include those things pertinent to the Governor's Executive Order. We want the university to use their best judgement in identifying publications that are based on fact, and publications that are from reliable authoritative sources. In addition, the committee wants to see some publications that deal with definitions that are generally accepted in the industry. The committee wanted to be sure that in the annotated bibliography, the summaries and findings of the authors are included, and they didn't want the university to make editorial comment.

Since the project will be starting later than the university had proposed, they may or may not be able to accomplish that. The subcommittee wanted to include an incentive to encourage them to include that final report. The committee felt it would be very desirable to have that summary report. Mr. Cannon further stated that the subcommittee is hoping that if the rest of the group approves, they could have a signed contract by March 15th, and get underway later in March, with the due date no later than the 31st of May.

The budget is pretty much the way the University had proposed it with a modification for the incentive bonus - the bonus would be paid in the event that the University completed that third final report. The total budget is $5,125, assuming that all three components of the report would be finalized. If not, then it would be $4,625.

Senator Childers suggested that under Point 5, the summary not include editorial comment. He added that it might be useful to know who commissioned the article and where it came from, and background information would be helpful. Mr. Cannon agreed that this was a good point.

The review process was then discussed. Senator Childers commented that the one thing about peer review is that is a filter that almost becomes a politically correct judgement on the authors as it goes through the academic circles.

After further discussion, Ms. Firebaugh suggested just take #3 out. Mr. Garnett stated that Dr. Dwyer, or whoever is contracted to do the study, there is nothing that says he's going to look for things he might think are pertinent to Missouri. The study could have something to do with Alabama or Georgia, but it may have very little to do with our state. Mr. Garnett asked how do you pick what's pertinent to us and what's not, and how do you make that determination? Ms. Hirner noted that they will have to put some degree of faith and confidence in the person they are hiring to do the job. She stated she felt Dr. Dwyer would not give a biased report.

The group discussed the possibility of getting an unbiased report from a researcher, and Mr. Bedan noted that how the academic community deals with that is they have peer review by people with a lot of different biases, and the theory is all the biases will iron everything out. Senator Childers agreed that he has more confidence in a review by a qualified researcher then he would have in a peer review. He added that he has seen some very good reports that have came out of people that have sat down and were given free rein to draw all the information in.

The motion made by Ms. Firebaugh to do away with Objective #3 was seconded by Mr. Cannon. Ms. Firebaugh also made the motion that in Objective #1, insert the word "Missouri", and the research is on what happened in the past and not ongoing. Mr. Cannon seconded the motion, and the motion carried.

Mr. Cannon further reported that since they're not going to do objective #3, then they could just strike the $500 bonus out of the budget and it could become $4,625. Ms. Firebaugh seconded that motion, and the motion carried.

Ms. Weiss then reported that she had sent a proposal to all committee members from John Dunn, EPA, and wanted to know if that was to be included. She also noted that on Objective #2, it talks about where you summarize reports, and it only lists government, state agencies, and educational institutions, and asked about other organizations or groups out there. Ms. Firebaugh noted she did not think they should have other groups because then they're going to get in to corporate-sponsored things. She added that with government, state agencies, and educational, we can keep as neutral as possible with this list, the least amount of bias. Ms. Hirner stated she felt we should include both views - they both exist - include and summarize them both. Senator Childers agreed, and added that you can follow up and get more details.

A motion was made to leave Objective #2 as it reads, and seconded. Mr. Bryan amended the motion by suggesting the contract would be "subject to approval as reviewed by legal counsel". The motion carried as amended.

Next Meeting

Ms. Tyree reported that the next meeting is April 5th at the DNR Jefferson City Regional Office.

Public Comment

Public comment was received by Mr. Scott Freeburn of Willamette Industries. He explained that he is the individual most closely related to the environmental permitting needs of the Mill Spring Chip Mill. He noted his support of the committee and their activities, and offered his assistance in providing information about their operations or permits and other environmental matters that might effect the committee's deliberations. He added that he hopes the committee continues to review information and look at the broadest possible spectrum, putting weight on scientific analysis.

He explained that it was Willamette's intent to build a facility that would be at that location for the long haul - the Mill Spring chip mill. They did a lot of research in locating the facility to assure that the resources would be there for decades into the future. The Mill Spring mill was designed to support a paper mill in Kentucky, a mill that has been in operation for more than 20 years. Therefore, it is Willamette's intention to support Missouri forestry and manage their Missouri forest land for continued production, not of pulp wood only, but of sawtimber and whatever products may be reasonable for the Missouri timber market.

He added that Willamette is pursuing training of loggers as quickly as they can. They have taken part in the MFPA program, and have been an active participant in leading the charge in the training program for loggers. They are working to support the continuous improvement of both utilization of wood products and also the forestry practices in Missouri.

He further reported that Willamette currently uses a lot of mill residuals at the mill in Kentucky - approximately 60% of the input to the mill actually comes from chips made from residuals at the various facilities that support the mill. They have mills in Willamette's company that run on 100% chips from residuals from sawmilling operations, and would look forward to a larger supply of those.

He commented that it was suggested earlier that we never hear good things said about clearcutting. There are circumstances when clearcutting is a desirable option when it comes to the production of trees. Missouri has a lot of acreage that, for lack of a better term and subject to high grading, where high quality trees are no longer present on the site. Most people don't want to start a garden using culls and poor quality plants is the given point. Under those circumstances you need to make a decision - we think one of the practical decisions is to remove bad trees that are going to make a bad crop in the future to allow an even-aged stand to develop, and natural competition to selected trees for the future of Missouri forests.

Finally, Willamette is a company that fully supports the Sustainable Forest Initiative, which is an industry-wide set of standards for how they conduct business, how they conduct forest practices. Oregon has a Forest Practices Act that is quite stringent, as does California, Washington, and a few other states. Mr. Freeburn added that Willamette's best management practices are built largely on those types of requirements that are mandated in those states, and they are enhanced and modified depending on forestry practices and requirements in other areas where we operate.

Representative McBride then asked if Willamette owns timber ground in Kentucky, and Mr. Freeburn stated it did not own a lot in Kentucky. He added he did not know how far in the field they're going for residual chips, they may be going into TN and other states for residual chips - what in the past was considered waste products. Rep. McBride asked if 60% of the operation there is from residuals, is the other 40% coming from the operation here in Missouri? Mr. Freeburn stated that it was not only Missouri but also Tennessee and soon North Carolina. Rep. McBride asked why, since Kentucky was not a state without trees, do they find it more feasible to haul from Missouri to Kentucky. Mr. Freeburn stated that they haul high quality chips from here to Kentucky - we have the more valuable product.

Mr. Bedan asked if in Willamette's contracts, when they contract with a logger and/or landowner, do they require the loggers and landowners to practice sustainable forestry. Mr. Freeburn stated it is encouraged but not required. Mr. Bedan further asked if Willamette would support the passage of a Missouri Forest Practices law, and Mr. Freeburn stated they are used to operating under those kinds of laws and regulations, but that he would be loathed to say that a forest practices act is the right solution for this state.

Ms. Firebaugh asked if there is some kind of an insurance incentive, like a reduction in workman's comp or reduction in health benefits on the insurance level, as financial reward for trained loggers. Mr. Freeburn stated that it is their intent to have master loggers operating - they are trained in and receive additional environmental and safety training. He added that it benefits Willamette and the environment, and it's the first line of defense in dealing with these issues that surround forest harvest practices.

Mr. Garnett asked if Willamette contracts to buy timber, do they have a contract between them and the landowner for the timber, and if so, is there a stipulation for using best management practices? Mr. Freeburn responded yes, they use standard Missouri best management practices.

Ms. Tyree noted the next person up for public comment is Mr. Tony Nenninger. Mr. Nenninger noted he is a resident of Crawford County, Missouri. He stated he came here today to try to make arrangements for a time to speak about hemp, and that has been noted for next month's meeting.

He distributed some literature to the committee to review before next month's meeting, stating that his main focus is that the hemp issue is probably one of the biggest regulatory schemes of private property control, and he'd like this committee to advise the Governor to encourage the lifting of hemp prohibition.

He asked that the Department of Public Safety also be invited to the next meeting to discuss this issue since the issue of how to discriminate between hemp and marijuana will be a major factor.

Ms. Tyree thanked Mr. Nenninger for his input.

The next public comment was from Mr. Mike Smith of Washington, Missouri. He commented that the feeling that deforestation practices due to timber stands being high graded is very misleading. He added that these stands that have been high graded could be thinned, which has been done for a very long time to improve that forest for future production.

Comment was then received from Mr. Tom Kruzan, Ozark Riverkeepers. He stated that in viewing the valley that was cut (pictures were circulated at the beginning of the meeting), there were abnormally high concentration of white oak trees, some small, but medium growing stock, that could be thinned. He disputes the fact that this was probably high graded and degraded land - the land just immediately down stream is nice woodland that need 30 more years so it will grow up into good trees. He added that he will be getting pictures of that surrounding land.

Ms. Sarah Bantz then commented that she is with Missouri Heartwood, and had two concerns of issues talked about today. The first one is the issue about the study or the literature review and the bias. Ms. Bantz' take on that is that it's not really a question of bias or not bias, but her understanding is that Dwyer is in forestry, and what she sees a lot of times is people in forestry representing the biological economic and social concerns, but she's not sure if you can get an unbiased researcher or expect a forester to clearly understand and see the social, economic, and biological impacts - they haven't studied those disciplines.

Her other concern relates to the conversation this morning about private property rights and best management practices, incentives and regulations. She noted she felt incentives and regulations are good ideas.

Ms. Tyree thanked everyone for attending the meeting, and stated there is a video that will be showing after the meeting adjourns on voices of the forest relating to the chip mill issues in Alabama and Tennessee, and it was sent by the Dogwood Alliance. She added it is available to committee members and interested parties.

A motion to adjourn the meeting was then made and seconded, and the meeting was adjourned.