Divisions and Programs Energy Center EIERA Environmental Quality     Air Pollution Control     Hazardous Waste     Land Reclamation     Solid Waste Mgmt.     Water Protection Field Services     Regional-Satellite Offices     Environmental Services Geology and Land Survey     Administration     Geological Survey     Land Survey State Parks and Historic Sites     State Historic Preservation Water Resources     Soil and Water Conservation

• Home Page
• Site Directory
• Help

• Forms and Permits
• Publications
• News and Public Notices
• State Parks
• Calendar

Search DNR

site state

• Air Information
• Broadcast E-mail Lists
• Commissions and Boards
• Contact Us
• Energy
• Environmental Issues
• Grants and Loans
• Land and Geology Information
• News Releases
• Online Services
• Organizational Chart
• Preservation
• Report an Environmental Problem
• Rules in Development
• Small Business Assistance
• State Parks
• Water Information

Governor's Advisory Committee on Chip Mills

Governor's Advisory Committee on Chip Mills
Department of Natural Resources
Jefferson City Regional Office
Jefferson City, Missouri
April 5, 1999

Meeting Minutes

Committee Members Present

David E. Bedan, citizen environmental conservation group, Columbia
Marvin D. Brown, State Forester, Department of Conservation
Earl Cannon, Deputy Director, Department of Economic Development
Senator Doyle Childers, Reeds Spring
David A. Day, private property owner organization representative, Dixon
Emily R. Firebaugh, forest landowner, Farmington
Representative Bill Foster, Poplar Bluff
Mark S. Garnett, Forest Products representative, Brandsville
Senator Wayne Goode, St. Louis
Deirdre K. Hirner, citizen environmental conservation group, Columbia
Stephen Mahfood, Director, Department of Natural Resources
Jon D. Smith, Forest Products representative, Mountain View
Sarah Tyree, Special Assistant, Department of Agriculture

Interested Parties Present

Katie Auman, MO Coalition for the Environment,
Dennis Ballard, Conservation Federation of Missouri, Jefferson City
Jeff Brinkmeyer, MO Safety and Health Consultation, Jefferson City
Brian Brookshire, Department of Conservation, Jefferson City
Bill Bryan, Attorney General's Office, Jefferson City
Karen Cass, Department of Natural Resources, Jefferson City
Dan Cassidy, Farm Bureau, Jefferson City
John Dunn, USEPA, Kansas City, Kansas
John Dwyer, University of Missouri, School of Natural Resources, Columbia
Jane A. Fitzgerald, Partners in Flight, Jefferson City
Steve Galliher, Willamette Industries, Piedmont
Jess Garnett, Garnett Wood, West Plains
Alice Geller, Department of Natural Resources, Jefferson City
Nancy Gibler, Department of Economic Development, Jefferson City
Tony Nenninger Goodwater, Bourbon
Roy C. Hengerson, MO Coalition for the Environment, Jefferson City
Shelby Jones, Forest Resource Advisory Services, LLC, Jefferson City
Tom Lange, Department of Natural Resources, Jefferson City
Jay R. Law, Conservation Federation of Missouri, St. James
Dr. Bernie Lewis, Report Writer, University of Missouri, Columbia
James L. McClure, Salem, Missouri
Lynn McClure, Salem
Dennis M. Meinert, Department of Natural Resources, Sullivan
Ken Midkiff, Sierra Club, Columbia
William Moore, Canal Industries, Conway, South Carolina
Lt. Moses, Highway Patrol
Eric Peters, MFPA, Jefferson City
Carolyn Pufalt, Sierra Club
Cielo Sand, Dogwood Alliance, Chattanooga, TN
Dan Schuette, Department of Natural Resources, Jefferson City
Steve Shifley, USDA Forest Service, Columbia
John Slusher, University of Missouri, Columbia
Greg Thompson, Mill Spring Chip, Mill Spring
Dr. Jerry Wade, Facilitator, University of Missouri, Columbia
Llona Weiss, Department of Natural Resources, Jefferson City
John Wood, Westvaco, Wickliffe, KY

The meeting was called to order at 9:07 am by Co-Chair Marvin Brown.

Public Comment

The first order of business was a period to ask for comments from guests. Mr. Brown welcomed everyone to the meeting. Brown also stated if comments came to mind as the discussions go on, these could be brought up during the public comment period at the end of the day.

No comments were received.

Minutes of March 1, 1999 Meeting

It was moved by David Day and seconded by Earl Cannon, and the Committee members approved the March 1, 1999 advisory committee meeting minutes.

Report Writing and Process

Co-Chair Marvin Brown stated there were two issues under report writing and process. The first thing was to introduce to the committee members and the audience Dr. Jerry Wade. Dr. Wade is from the University of Missouri-Columbia, Department of Community Development, Social Science Unit. Dr. Wade is working as a community development specialist and he has agreed to be the facilitator during the remainder of this process which will go through the rest of 1999. Dr. Bernie Lewis is to join the group later. Dr. Lewis has agreed to be the official writer of our report as we move along and have substance that we want to document, conclusions we want to make, things that the committee has discovered. Dr. Lewis' role will be to put that in writing as we go along. Dr. Wade's will deal with specific topics at each meeting. For example, at this particular meeting, we are talking about business incentives, alternatives for paper, and forestry statutes in other states. At the end of those informational sessions, Dr. Wade will facilitate the discussion of the committee members. His role is to see if we can begin to draw some conclusions from the things that we've heard. He is going to push us to have discussions to identify the things that will bring closure to our discussion and to perhaps suggest some recommendations that the committee would agree to. A write-up that briefly described the information that was presented to the committee on private property rights in March (Sarah Tyree proposed some draft conclusions) was discussed. Co-Chair Marvin Brown asked Ms. Tyree to describe the content of each of the paragraphs and requested that Dr. Wade facilitate the issues with the Committee.

Sarah Tyree stated: All conservation and environmental programs, laws and regulations must respect personal property rights. In recent years, an increased amount of litigation surrounding the just compensation clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution has increased the uncertainty for both the landowners and the regulators. Part of the discussion that we had last month was about the uncertainty there was with some of the different cases that were being heard on private property rights. For example, the one on the Katy Trail, the land or is it the whole trail itself or is it each individual parcel of land regarding private property rights. I tried to encompass that there is some uncertainty and that the laws and regulations, that is conservation and environmental programs, need to respect the personal property rights, but also understand that there is some uncertainty. The Governor's Advisory Council on Chip Mills recognizes the evolving debate over the need to protect the environment and conserve Missouri's natural resources and the extent of the landowner's obligations to meet these needs as a responsible member of the community, while at the same time ensuring private property rights. We heard last month there is an obligation for landowners to the community. They just can't do whatever they want on their land without respect to what is going to happen perhaps downstream or to their neighbors. These paragraphs are trying to encompass that concept--understanding that people have to be responsible, but not to go too far either. There has to be a balance. The committee recognizes the importance of landowner education to the long-term health of Missouri's forests. The committee would recommend more emphasis placed on education, outreach efforts and technical support to landowners on the importance of utilizing best management practices when harvesting timber. The committee supports incentive-based programs for natural resource protection with the ultimate goal of private/public voluntary cooperation to protect and enhance this resource. The committee supports the development of minimum forest practice standards which would emphasize these best management practices. Such a standard would include logger training, landowner training and education.

David Day questioned if the logger training and landowner training would be voluntary or mandatory.

Sarah Tyree stated there didn't seem to be a consensus from the discussion.

David Day stated he would personally like to see it voluntary, supporting voluntary incentive-based programs.

Co-Chair Steve Mahfood remarked that there was finally something on paper on an issue that could be dealt with. But, that it would be real hard for him to agree to anything at this meeting. He thought it was a good start, but more time is needed to really digest all this, because this is going to set the stage for everything else the committee does.

Co-Chair Marvin Brown asked Dr. Jerry Wade to join the committee to start the role of the facilitator.

Dr. Jerry Wade thanked the Committee and stated his role will need to evolve as they learn about each other and begin to zero in on the issues. At this point, his role will primarily be to help the committee identify the critical decisions that need to be made and what the steps toward those decisions are and to move as far as appropriate toward building the components in that final report. His assumption is that final decisions will not occur until there's a final report that has everything in context. From the discussion that the committee has had there will be a statement on private property rights integrated into the final report. The next thing will be to see if there are any specific reactions to any of the specifics in this report that people would like to add to that discussion. As Dr. Wade facilitates, all comments will then become data as Dr. Bernie Lewis and he work together and Dr. Lewis takes responsibility for the drafting that will be a part of the work for the final report.

Sarah Tyree stated she was hoping to see each month they would be seeing text as they went along, even if all the text is bracketed until we write the report in July.

Dr. Wade commented each month there will be new materials that get developed. Dr. Wade hoped the Committee could come to sort of working agreements without it being final agreements. Then they we can begin to put things to the side so that other content can be built to it.

Co-Chair Steve Mahfood stated conceptually it's at that report writing time that you start, for example, talking about what David Day brought up, the relationship of voluntary practices with whatever else that the committee comes up with. The Committee will have all the component pieces ready and then go back and work them over.

Dr. Wade stated affirmatively that pieces start impacting on each other. If you start dealing with too much of the detail as opposed to the general direction and framework, then you start having a lot of inefficiency in the work.

Co-Chair Marvin Brown stated they want to try to identify each month some of the issues related to the text that has been drafted as David Day brought up. Make note of those at this point but probably not necessarily say this is final.

Dr. Wade stated he would be very hesitant for the Committee to make final decisions at this point.

Co-Chair Marvin Brown clarified that hopefully some of the informational items discussed today would become some sort of text ready for next month to discuss.

Dr. Wade stated that type of activity keeps the Committee moving forward toward a draft report.

Mark Garnett agreed with David Day regarding voluntary, on the private property rights issue.

David Bedan commented he had a concern that this is really setting policy at a premature point, especially if it's going to change to say voluntary. Because in effect this would be a policy. There would not be mandatory or enforceable standards. Mr. Bedan stated he thought the committee was looking for some balance that maybe emphasizes voluntary participation, education, and so forth. But he questioned what we do with those who don't voluntarily participate? Mandatory standards? Mr. Bedan stated he was not willing to say we're not going to have mandatory standards. Property rights is a major policy issue of the entire Chip Mill Committee. Mr. Bedam further stated he thought a statement of private property rights would be put it in a legal context area. They are the basic rights. They are not absolute rights. Society has a right to regulate. Society has an obligation to compensate landowners in certain cases. Things like that is a statement of property rights. This is more of a policy statement of where the committee wants to go. Mr. Bedan requested to table this until a later date.

David Day commented he was not in favor of a program that was not voluntary. We have clean water standards and other things in place.

Dr. Wade stated his observation that perhaps the statement really had two pieces to it. The first two paragraphs really need perhaps more substance with perhaps a better legal base to that substance. And the last three paragraphs are just basically put on hold because they will be part of the policy issues and decisions that will be made in forthcoming meetings.

Co-Chair Steve Mahfood commented that the paragraphs really border on recommendations right now that need to be further discussed.

Jon Smith agreed. He stated the committee could possibly agree on the first two paragraphs and possibly put them in the committee's recommendation, and wait on the last part.

Earl Cannon agreed, and further commented that possibly the committee may decide on a policy statement later relating to incentives.

Co-Chair Marvin Brown stated he was kind of going along with what Co-Chair Steve Mahfood said about capturing some of the basic principals out of the paragraphs.

Jon Smith agreed that the first two paragraphs ought to be private property rights and the other three paragraphs may be general agreements that are reached.

David Bedan wanted to see a lot more discussion on the first two paragraphs about the whole idea of private property rights vetted in the Constitution and the Fifth Amendment. He stated property rights are not a simple thing; it's a complex mosaic of partial property rights that we all live under. What is the proper mix of different incentives, education, standards, and enforcement?

Dr. Wade recommended that the last three paragraphs be set aside and the first two paragraphs be fleshed out with a more adequate or extensive discussion of the personal property rights issues.

Co-Chair Steve Mahfood stated the Committee will find snippets and pieces that need to be kept and set aside for final discussion, kind of like a parking lot.

Dr. Wade stated issues come up that have to be dealt with, but are not appropriate for the present context. Items in the parking lot can be brought up later at an appropriate time. Dr. Wade will take responsibility for maintaining the parking lot and ensuring that those items are dealt with, in the committee's work, at an appropriate time.

Jon Smith queried if there are topics from earlier meetings that could be brought back into the discussion?

Dr. Wade asked the Committee for time to analyze the minutes and bring recommendations for the next meeting.

Co-Chair Steve Mahfood stated if there are particular issues that might be in past minutes, to send Dr. Wade notes.

Emily Firebaugh stated she wasn't sure whether or not the Executive Order commissioned the committee to rewrite environmental and private property rights. Also, as a private landowner, the last three paragraphs commission the private landowner to be cautious, to be weary, to be the one who is receiving the guidelines, etc. She came to the chip mill meetings thinking that the committee was commissioned to put the cautions, the restrictions, the guidelines on chip mills rather than the small landowner.

David Bedan stated it is a landowner and a chip mill problem.

Emily Firebaugh agreed, but didn't want the private landowner to be the one who is held totally accountable on the environmental impact.

David Bedan queried how to handle the situation since we don't have any control over out-of-state chip mills.

Emily Firebaugh wanted to keep the direction pointed more toward the new industry coming into the state rather than the landowner who has been here for decades and knows how to have sustainable forestry.

Jon Smith agreed on the need to keep the focus on the chip mills as much as possible.

Legislative Update

Representative Foster stated the bill that Representative McBride introduced, House Bill 908, went through committee and is on the way to the floor. Several possibilities were discussed in committee but came out with about the same thing as before, the 25 years. The committee discussed five years out, and finally decided they didn't want to go that way.

Representative Foster indicated the committee initially thought they would try to make a change to it, such as the longer you were in the program the more money you received. You could get out within five years or ten years, but you would be rewarded for staying longer. But, there were pitfalls to everything they tried to do, so they decided it was best to leave it alone.

Revised Schedule for Completion

Co-Chair Marvin Brown stated the next item of business was the Revised Schedule for Completion. The first item is the June field trip. The field trip involves discussion of a legal matter in which I'd entertain a motion from the Committee that we go into closed session to have that discussion.

David Day moved that the Committee go into closed session and Mark Garnett seconded.

Bill Bryan stated for the record that the motion was under Section 620.010(1) for legal advice.

The motion carried.

The committee adjourned to closed session at approximately 9:50 a.m.

Closed Session

The open meeting reconvened at approximately 10:50 a.m.

Co-Chair Marvin Brown stated the next item of business is to talk about the Revised Schedule for Completion--the June field trip and then more specifics on the panel that the committee wants to present in July. He asked if there were any questions on the proposed field trip?

Co-Chair Mahfood asked if the clear-cut site visits are sites that are supplying the chip mills?

Brian Brookshire stated the Committee will be visiting a clear-cut site on Westvaco property. There's been both merchandising of the saw logs with the sawmill and the smaller material with the chip mill. That site's about a two or three year old clear-cut that's been replanted.

David Bedan asked if the Committee is going to see sites that are supplying Missouri chip mills?

Brian Brookshire stated they were trying to go to both the good and the bad clear cuts, those implemented by professional foresters and those implemented with no professional guidance.

David Bedan talked about previous discussions about the contract between the mill, and the logger and landowner and how it may be important to understand that whole relationship.

Co-Chair Marvin Brown noted on the July 12 meeting date one tentative topic was chip mills and asking the company representatives to speak. That's where we elaborate on those issues.

David Bedan expressed concern about whether or not one chip mill has a better contract for assuring sustainable forestry than another. The gentleman from Willamette said last time that even though they have a sustainable forestry philosophy in the company, they don't enforce it through their contracts which seemed to be a loophole when most of their logs are coming from non-company property.

Co-Chair Marvin Brown stated the intent of seeing things is to see what foresters would evaluate as the worst examples and the best examples within the tight travel schedule. He stated those kinds of questions and the relationships between the landowner and the mills are good topics to incorporate at the July meeting if they are not satisfactorily addressed in the field trip.

Emily Firebaugh stated the site that she is providing is sustainable forestry that has been selectively harvested, and she would give logging reports from decades of harvesting on a selected site.

Llona Weiss stated that what they're trying to do for the committee is to compare apples to apples. In other words, if we showed the committee a ten year old clear-cut site done professionally we would also try to show you a ten year clear-cut site that was done unprofessionally. Plans are still in the tentative stages.

Emily Firebaugh stated there are some bad cuttings in Madison County. Perhaps the committee can view some of those sites that were done by local loggers ten years ago that weren't under supervision of the Department of Conservation or anyone else. She could also show the committee a site that was clear-cut badly ten years ago, and it is not related to a chip mill.

David Bedan questioned if the committee will see a fresh clear-cut?

Brian Brookshire stated the committee would see a clear-cut actually being performed. Also on Tuesday, June 8, there is scheduled a presentation by Canal. Charlie Hirt was under the impression from the last meeting he was requested to address the committee's concerns about contracts, etc.and he agreed to give a presentation.

David Bedan wanted to see the Maxwell site as well.

Steve Shifley stated probably 85-90% of all the timber harvested in that part of the state has been selectively harvested. Some state and other foresters can explain the results as far as productivity and future productivity, and why some people in the industry are proponents of clear-cutting some of these sites and starting back over to grow some better quality timber.

David Bedan questioned if the committee will see a site like Pioneer Forest which has been selectively cut for many years.

Emily Firebaugh stated she has some sites that have been in forest cropland since the forties.

Co-Chair Marvin Brown said it appeared the committee wanted to see the good and bad in terms of sustainability and impacts on soil and water resources, and also to gain some understanding of why certain recommendations are made.

David Bedan mentioned there has been some discussion about whether there should be an open meeting as part of the two-day event. Could that be worked in?

Co-Chair Marvin Brown stated the plan at this point is to identify our field trip areas today in order to make that information publicly available.

Emily Firebaugh stated she sent out a news release to six or seven area newspapers asking for people to contact her if they wanted to be a presenter at the field trip/meeting. She has received phone calls from people who say this hillside's being wiped out, etc. It's difficult to try to tag them down to a specific township, section, etc. She is establishing people who will come and testify if they are impacted by the industry. The only people that will not be directly involved are those interested in hunting, but they will also be a vital part of this discussion because of the wildlife impact.

David Bedan clarified his question if there was also going to be a little more structured discussion somewhere in a meeting room during the field trip? There may be people in the southern part of the state who could come for a public comment period, who cannot make to the meetings in Jefferson City.

Llona Weiss stated a public comment period could be incorporated in Sunday evening or Monday evening.

Co-Chair Steve Mahfood agreed that since it may be difficult for people of all backgrounds and interests to make the Jefferson City meetings that some time needed to be incorporated in the schedule for public comment.

David Day added that the public will want their comments in the record, and not necessarily as sideline discussion.

Emily Firebaugh suggested that it start before the church groups gather on Sunday night, possibly 4:00 or 5:00 p.m.

Mark Garnett questioned that a lot of opinions would be thrown at the committee and wanted to know who would present the scientific side of timber harvesting?

Brian Brookshire stated that the committee will receive a number of perspectives, because along the way there will be different forester presenters (Emily's, Department of Conservation, industry) in order to have the full representation.

Mark Garnett questioned how the committee would be able to delineate between the research/science and people's opinions?

Emily Firebaugh stated she would have records of cuttings for decades on her land to show how it has been re-cut, allowed to grow to a different diameter, etc., and how they have brought on different species. She would have facts and figures with hers.

Deirdre Hirner stated the science will depend upon who the scientist is that is presenting the information. There are scientists that say clear-cutting is bad and some that say clear-cutting is good. The best that anyone can ask for is to have the best information from both sides. There is no definitive answer. Then it is simply up to the people who make policy to choose which one they're going to select. But to say that there is a definitive answer is only fooling yourself.

Emily Firebaugh stated she interpreted the Executive Order to state the committee was to study sustainable forestry regrowth, commerce, industry, byproducts, etc. in the wood industry in the state of Missouri. On her land she will show that if you selectively harvest, you can bring a bad cut back to something that will come to fruition again. She has facts and figures to prove that you can make a living off of the forested land and still sustain the forest.

David Bedan expressed concern that there seems to be a great gap between foresters that think you can't have a healthy forest unless you clear-cut and those who think the healthiest forest is done without clear-cutting. He also wanted to hear the other far end of the spectrum where you have a commercial forest without any clear cutting at all, such as Pioneer Forest.

Brian Brookshire stated he could coordinate with Clint Trammel to come and speak.

Co-Chair Steve Mahfood stated he wanted to also look at the other part of the Executive Order concerning environmental impacts of what we do on the land; there's erosion, sedimentation, habitat loss, biological diversity. All the issues that are contained in the Executive Order also are part of the discussion in going out and looking at these sites. There's a lot of science to be talked about and thought about while on the sites.

Deirdre Hirner commented it appeared the plan was to not only have foresters at each of the sites, but to talk about the comprehensive impacts so that forestry is one component along with soil science and hydrology.

David Bedan expressed concerns if they would be looking at clear-cut sites that were not going to a chip mill.

Deirdre Hirner acknowledged that this type of information should be stated upfront.

Senator Goode queried how the decision process would move forward. The committee has gathered much information from presenters, they will receive more on the tour in June, and July would be full of information. At some point, the committee needed to have some lengthy discussions without a lot of additional input to see if there is consensus.

Co-Chair Marvin Brown stated that would be Dr. Wade's assignment as the committee's facilitator. Dr. Wade will go through the minutes of the previous meetings and start to pull out key points and present those to the committee as well as track the discussions from this point and begin to put things down on paper that can be developed into some sort of agreement among the committee members.

Co-Chair Steve Mahfood clarified for members who arrived later that Dr. Bernie Lewis will be focusing on the actual report writing and would be working closely with Dr. Jerry Wade.

Co-Chair Marvin Brown asked Brian and Llona if they can revisit the proposed field trip and address the concerns expressed at the meeting. At the July meeting we were working on having a panel of speakers that perhaps had some first hand experience in another state. Tennessee was suggested. He had contact with the state forester of Tennessee for names of potential speakers and asked if there were individuals to be recommended as speakers, to get the names to Llona.

Llona Weiss stated she received a request to change one other date on the schedule--October 4 to October 12.

Mark Garnett stated he would still like to hear from Ozark Wood Fiber, since they had a scheduling conflict for April.

Eric Peters stated the Ozark Wood Fiber people would be happy to talk briefly to the committee at another time, possibly August, if that worked for the committee.

Senator Goode wanted to make sure the committee had plenty of time in the August meeting to also work on the draft report.

Eric Peters stated he would talk with Ozark Wood Fiber and confirm with Llona.

Dr. Wade stated the importance of keeping a significant block of time in both the July and August meeting for work on the draft.

Co-Chair Marvin Brown called on Earl Cannon for the Business Incentives in Missouri presentation.

Earl Cannon started the presentation along with Nancy Gibler, the coordinator for incentives for the Department of Economic Development (DED). He talked about the importance of incentives to business location decisions, how DED uses incentives to try to cause new industries to locate in Missouri, and incentives to help existing companies and their expansions. Nancy Gibler, afterward, would review some of the incentives that a forest products company was most apt to utilize, and some specifics about the Canal Wood project. Mr. Cannon stated almost 81 percent of businesses consider the state and local incentives important to their location decisions. By comparison, environmental regulations/concerns ranked ninth. Incentives seem to have become more important since about 1985. Our state has been fortunate that the General Assembly has provided Missouri with many diverse incentives and tools to use to influence decisions that take place throughout the state. All projects DED works on are done in cooperation with the community or the local entity that's under consideration. Companies, community leaders, state legislators make these requests to try to influence the business to locate in their area. DED then conducts an economic impact or a cost benefit analysis. This involves utilizing a REMI model, Regional Economic Models Inc., to conduct an analysis. Next, DED in cooperation with the community, will prepare a proposal that includes not only incentives but also information on the site, the building that might be under consideration, the labor force, utility information, as well as environmental concerns and regulations. That presentation will then be given to the community. Existing companies that expand really get more incentives than new companies coming in. After the initial proposal is given to the company, then negotiation takes place. We have Community Development Block Grant monies that are used for infrastructure grants for low interest loans (loan guarantees). There are three kinds of basic incentives that are used--financing incentives, tax credits and job training incentives. Last year, about $61 million in incentives were put forward to try to acquire projects. Of the total projects that DED worked with last year, about 252 projects were put forward--about $61 million worth of incentives. And this resulted in about 15,400 new jobs for Missourians. If you figure the pay low of those jobs, it earns in about $336 million. Then if you count the investment that the companies made using the incentives, it's about 1.3 almost 1.4 billion dollars worth of investment. The benefit to the state in terms of new tax revenues was about 314 million dollars. So in terms of net benefit, it translates down to every 1 dollar in cost in terms of our budget and incentives, you can achieve 4.84 dollars worth of projected, estimated benefits to the state. There are essentially four purposes involved in using incentives. The first is to help Missouri compete better with the competition--the other states. Secondly, redevelopment programs to help develop properties in areas that would not normally develop unless there is an incentive to cause that to develop (the Brownfield program). There is also the distressed communities program that was enacted last session to help areas that would not likely otherwise develop. We have an entrepreneurial development incentives. This is where we have entrepreneurs start up new businesses. The fourth type is community development incentives that help communities develop infrastructure to serve economic development to future development. There are two kinds of incentives in terms of flexibility. Some are discretionary where we have leeway to apply incentives, money, grants, tax credits without a lot of strings attached. The other incentive we call formal, which are set by law enacted by members of the General Assembly.

Nancy Gibler then spoke on incentives that a chip mill or forest products industry would most likely use. Chip mills may be eligible for new business facility tax credits. Its purpose is listed as competitive and it is formula based; however, existing companies are eligible for this exact same tax credit. For every 100,000 dollars in new investment and two new jobs, they can earn a 100 dollar tax credit. New businesses to the state earn 75 dollars. They can claim that tax credit for the next ten years. Related to that tax credit program is the Enterprise Zone tax benefit. If a company locates within an approved Enterprise Zone, they can achieve up to 1600 dollars per new job created in tax credits provided that they meet all the requirements--hiring individuals who live within the zone, make the adequate job creation and investment requirements and a couple of other qualifications. That is also competitive but is formula based. The primary benefit of the program while it assists the company in providing training for their employees is that it pours out into the communities by providing them with already trained individuals. So maybe their skills might have been defined for this particular job but hopefully it will be transferable should something happen in the future where they decide to seek employment. The Community Development Block Grant interim loan used to be called the float loan. This is also discretionary for competitive projects. This is funded through the Community Development Block Grant program. It is a low interest rate loan but it is collateralized by a letter of credit. It will fund up to 5 million dollars on a project. The MDFB bonds are actually just general industrial revenue bonds available through the Missouri Development Finance Board (MDFB) or local industrial development authorities. These are also discretionary and it's also driven--it must be manufacturing in order to qualify for those bonds. The Community Development Block Grant action fund loan targets middle risk companies, companies that cannot get complete financing for their project. Missouri Development Finance Board--it's an infrastructure tax credit and we have used this on larger scale projects and also on projects where they were not able to obtain sufficient funding through either Community Development Block Grant infrastructure program, or if they were located in an ineligible area for one of our programs. It is discretionary and currently funding is not available under that program. Community Development Block Grant industrial infrastructure program participates primarily in publicly owned improvements and publicly owned industrial parks. The drive behind this program is to see jobs and investment created in the state. Distressed Communities is now called Rebuilding Communities and it offers tax credits and benefits to companies who are located in areas that are determined to be distressed communities. The department participated in the Canal Wood project in August 1997. This was done through the Community Development Block Grant industrial infrastructure program in August 1997. The original project involved a grant to Scott County. And the improvements were put in the SEMO Port Authority and the grant was approved for 312,000 dollars. The improvements that were funded by this infrastructure grant included a rail spur, a water well, street and some storm sewers. The city did participate in this project for 67,000 dollars because the water well system that they put in was going to flow back into the city to allow them to have access to additional potable water. As a requirement of this program, all of these facilities must be publicly owned and maintained. They are primarily put in publicly owned areas such as industrial parks or port authorities and they require the participation of a company or companies to create private investment and jobs. When this grant was approved, the program had three maximums under it--10,000 dollars per job, 30% of the capital investments made into the new project, or 500,000 dollars, whichever was less. Canal Wood had an original investment and commitment of 10.45 million dollars, a new jobs commitment of 20, and Riverport terminals at a little over 2.2 million dollars in commitment, and 31 jobs for this particular grant. The 31 jobs based on the 10,000 dollars per job under Riverport would have been sufficient for the grant but they also participated in another Community Development Block Grant funded program. So additional jobs were needed and the timing was right, and Canal Wood needed access to the water to keep their logs wet. So, they committed their jobs and investment and then Riverport committed a portion of those 31 jobs to meet the requirements for this part of the grant. The beneficiaries of these public improvements are all port tenants, all nearby industrial customers because this is now an intermodel port authority. They have rail, truck, barge, and an airport within driving distance. And also when their original grant was done, Dyno Midwest was committed to participate in the project but they withdrew. Private investment for this program is land, machinery, building and equipment--hard assets. It cannot be working capital. And all of the jobs that are required, the 20 for Canal Wood and the 31 for Riverport terminals, must be filled with 51% of low to moderate income individuals prior to hire. At this point, Canal Wood has met their investment and their jobs, and the grant is in the process of being closed out. The jobs that Canal created are located in the Scott County Port Authority.

There was an addendum to that grant that there were other jobs counted outside.

Tony Nenninger Goodwater questioned if there was anything in the formula or plan regarding the ecological integrity of the Ozark forest ecosystems.

Nancy Gibler stated that all projects they fund undergo an environmental review process, but just for the specific site.

Senator Goode questioned what kind of documentation was in the application regarding the input of raw product into chip mills as well as output?

Nancy Gibler stated this actual applicant was Scott County, and they provided information on the project and from the company on their operations.

Mark Garnett questioned whether Willamette used incentives on their project?

Earl Cannon stated the only chip mill that has been provided incentives is the Canal project.

Nancy Gibler stated the timing was right for a deal with Canal and the rail spur, which the port previously didn't have and the water well which benefited the city.

Bill Moore stated it was an ongoing grant application whenever Canal came into the picture.

David Bedan questioned if DED was required or even allowed by law to look at whether an applicant is a "good citizen." For example, if a company comes to DED and has a long list of violations of laws and regulations in other states, is that something they are able to factor into the process?

Nancy Gibler stated when they do the environmental review, there're several agencies such as EPA, DNR, that have to be notified about the project, along with a 30-day comment period. There are also other meetings DED holds to talk about current projects.

David Bedan asked if DED could look at issues other than just the environmental impact on a particular site?

Nancy Gibler stated yes.

David Bedan questioned if the economic model looked at secondary unintended consequences?

Earl Cannon commented that the REMI model asks for number of jobs, the payroll, investment, and the annual operating expenditures. Then it factors how that impacts other industries and businesses in the area.

Emily Firebaugh questioned if Canal Wood was the incentive to continue the infrastructure at that site.

Nancy Gibler stated in the affirmative. When the project originally started they had Dyno Midwest, and they weren't relying so much on Canal Wood for the jobs and investment because the timing was together. But Dyno Midwest pulled out and the jobs were needed because Riverport, who is actually the primary user of this rail spur, could not participate in two programs because that would be allowing double counting of jobs and investment. Otherwise Canal may not even have participated.

Deirdre Hirner clarified that when DED has the environmental review group looking at the companies that are participating in the project, they don't look at off-site impacts, but they look at performance records. So if a company had broken a number of regulations, they would look at that record, at violations; but it doesn't take into consideration off-site impact potentials. They only look at on-site impacts.

Earl Cannon stated DED concentrates primarily on seeing if the company is financially credible and has the wherewithal to accomplish the project.

Co-Chair Steve Mahfood stated it sounded like Mr. Bedan was talking about a bad actor clause or a bad actor review.

David Bedan stated there are three things from an environmental point of view. One, the impact on the site. Two, the secondary impacts resulting from that impact. Three, a bad actor.

Deirdre Hirner did not think any provision existed for secondary or cumulative impacts off-site.

Sarah Tyree questioned if Canal Wood would not have been there, would the area have been able to obtain DED incentives for infrastructure?

Bill Moore stated the area came to them for participation so they could obtain the block grant money. Had Canal not participated, there were several other new businesses that were coming into the SEMO Port as a whole, so the answer is yes, there probably would have been other businesses that they would have used to do that.

Dan Schuette commented that DNR reviews and permits facilities as the current law allows, and primarily in this perspective it is stormwater permits unless there's some wastewater that's associated with it. And possibly some air pollution issues. DNR looks at the site-specific areas in relation to that industry as is required by current environmental law. As far as reviewing the grants, DNR works with DED on Community Development Block Grants. When DNR gets DED's listing of grant applications for a particular area, DNR's review is a percentage of the total review for the whole grant package. Essentially what DNR reviews the projects for is if there is a high, medium, or low type of environmental need for this type of a project. A good example is a municipality looking for improvements to their sewage treatment plant. If we know that there has been some impacts or the sewage treatment plant is undersized or the infrastructure is fairly old, then the likelihood for environmental impact from not having that project go through is high. So DNR's recommendation would be a high need for the grant. As far as providing environmental concerns from a bad actor--unless there's already another facility located in Missouri, then probably DNR wouldn't have the information.

Senator Goode asked if Canal was an important part of the grant application?

Nancy Gibler stated that when the Port Authority approached Canal to participate, Canal was needed in order to make a complete project. Canal's participation and commitment was important in order to receive the funding at that level.

Deirdre Hirner asked if DED and DNR--under their review for the granting of economic incentives, in order for them to include environmental considerations—were put together in DED's program as a directive from the legislature.

Dan Schuette stated DNR's review has come about from more of a spirit of cooperation. DED and DNR are trying to be more cooperative in approaching new businesses moving into, or business expansions, within the state.

Cielo Sand commented that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) also might trigger an off-site review. Scott City has a NEPA permit. So there is a possibility to open up a review via the NEPA process. Second, Kentucky created a forest products council that looks at the sustainability question.

Dr. Jerry Wade asked the committee to think through and begin to identify what are the critical questions that the committee needs to address for the purpose of its charge as it relates to the general area of business incentives. What are the critical questions in terms of the charge on chip mills that this committee needs to think about addressing that might be a part of a report. Then, think generally about the question of business incentives and the committee's charge in terms of examining policy regs and program recommendations.

Senator Goode stated that when Economic Development evaluates applications for incentives, they should have the responsibility to look at the negative side--the downside of the economic development. In this case, does subsidizing chip mills in the long run have a negative impact on the sustainability of the timber industry in Missouri.

Dr. Wade summarized the relationship between business incentives and the charge of the committee--if there are requirements for eligibility for participation in state incentives including the minimum expected outcomes as it relates to chip mills and the forest industry—if that should be a part of the incentives program of the state. Are there criteria for participation both in terms of eligibility and minimum outcomes that need to be considered?

Co-Chair Marvin Brown then appointed Earl Cannon and Emily Firebaugh to work with Dr. Wade on this issue, along with Bill Bryan and someone from DNR.

The committee adjourned for lunch at approximately 12:20 p.m. and returned at approximately 1:10 p.m. to reconvene the meeting.

Co-Chair Steve Mahfood introduced Tony Nenninger Goodwater and Katie Auman to speak about Alternatives for Paper

Katie Auman stated she had asked Boyd Vancel to come and speak about kenaf being grown in southern Missouri, but there was some miscommunication and he could not attend. As far as alternatives to paper, there are viable options to be considered. Even things as simple as using cloth napkins, cloth towels, recycled content toilet paper can be done. She distributed a handout on kenaf

Sarah Tyree added that through the Department of Agriculture's value-added program for alternative agriculture products, people can apply for a grant, such as for kenaf.

John Dwyer commented they looked at industrial hemp as a possibility of an alternative crop for biomass. One of the things they looked at was kenaf, but not to an extremely high degree because there were a lot of up-front input costs--pesticide, fertilizer costs, etc.

Co-Chair Mahfood introduced and welcomed Dr. Bernie Lewis, who arrived. As discussed earlier, Dr. Lewis will work closely with Dr. Wade in production of the report and facilitation of the process.

Alternatives for Paper

Tony Nenninger Goodwater of Bourbon, Missouri addressed the committee. He discussed the book, The Emperor Wears No Clothes, by Jack Herer. The committee had previously received a copy of information from Mr. Nenninger Goodwater regarding production of hemp in America. The author states that if all fossil fuels and their derivatives as well as trees for paper and construction were banned in order to save the planet, reverse the greenhouse effect and stop deforestation, then there is only one known, annually renewable natural resource that is capable of providing the overall majority of the world's paper and textiles, meet all the world's transportation, industrial, and home energy needs while simultaneously reducing pollution, rebuilding the soil and cleaning the atmosphere all at the same time. According to the author that substance is cannabis hemp, or marijuana.

Mr. Nenninger Goodwater stated he has a pending order for additional copies of the book because he would like the committee to review the research behind this. He passed around several copies during his discussion. Mr. Nenninger Goodwater stated the purpose of this book is to present an authoritative, historical, social and economic perspective needed to ensure comprehensive legal reforms about cannabis hemp prohibition laws and save the earth's live systems. Mr. Nenninger Goodwater's theory is that marijuana prohibition didn't start because of dangers or concerns about marijuana but because timber and petro-chemical industries saw the competitive value of this plant. The author states that this plant is the most efficient for gathering the sun's light and converting it to cellulose that exists on the earth that can be grown on a climate wide basis. This issue is primarily political, not scientific. Mr. Nenninger Goodwater indicated that he didn't believe anyone in government has challenged the scientific validity of this claim.

Mr. Nenninger Goodwater stated the book summarizes the use for fiber and pulp paper and art canvas. Benjamin Franklin started a paper mill for cannabis hemp production early on. This is one example of the vast history. There are new technologies evolving for using the cellulose to make building construction materials. This book documents the trail of information between someone named Schlickton who invented a machine in the 1930s to separate the fiber from the pulp in the stalk. This invention made it a cost effective, competitive technology for fibers and now paper pulp because in the past the machinery was not available. They would just leave the hemp out in the fields to rot, the pulp part would rot away, and the fibers were then used.

Mr. Nenninger Goodwater indicated that the material the committee received earlier contained a note that a USDA bulletin in 1916 described that hemp could produce four times as much cellulose per acre as trees put on that same acre for pulp production. People were talking about saving the forest back then too, but there was an economic interest by the paper industry that had vast timber holdings and the petro-chemical industry who saw that this was a competitive way of producing alcohol fuels as well. They saw they could centralize the wealth much easier with the coal and petroleum reserves rather than letting farmers grow hemp and small communities produce the hemp products. Mr. Nenninger Goodwater commented that the book also addresses some of the medical, sociological and legal questions, as well as the scientific pulp and paper.

Mr. Nenninger Goodwater showed the film, Hemp for Victory. During World War II the Japanese cut off the United States' supply of Manila hemp from the Philippines and the Hemp for Victory film came out as a result to teach American farmers how to grow hemp most efficiently. He stated the point he wanted to get across is to challenge the political perception that it's unpatriotic to grow marijuana. We should consider whether or not it's worth doing here to save our Ozark forests.

Mr. Nenninger Goodwater stated he didn't know of a more comprehensive documentation than the book. The cost for each book is $25.00.

Mr. Nenninger Goodwater recommended that the Committee at least consider saving our Ozark ecosystem with this alternative.

Mr. Mahfood asked for questions and comments.

Carolyn Pufalt asked if there are different types of hemp and which kind would be appropriate for agriculture? Mr. Nenninger Goodwater stated there are a number of different varieties and agricultural hemp normally has a lower medicinal content. However, the argument from the Department of Public Safety has been that it would be very difficult for them to distinguish between medicinal and fiber varieties.

David Bedan asked how hemp and kenaf compare in terms of productivity and profitability and the impact on the soil? Are they similar? Mr. Nenninger Goodwater stated he couldn't give a specific answer but that Jack Herer claims that cannabis is the most efficient. The hemp plant does not have the insect and pesticide requirement and does not require the fertilization necessary for productive yields.

Emily Firebaugh stated that Senator Howard had introduced a bill last session. He has information on the volume per acre for growing a tree crop and a hemp crop.

Jon Smith asked what the difference is between kenaf and marijuana? Mr. Nenninger Goodwater stated they are two different, high fiber producing species.

Mr. Nenninger Goodwater invited the committee to contact him if they wanted to follow up on any concerns or had additional questions.

In response to a request from Senator Goode, Co-Chair Steve Mahfood ended the discussion and asked Lt. Moses, Missouri Highway Patrol, if he wanted to make any remarks.

Lt. Moses distributed a hand out which he briefly reviewed with the committee. He indicated that the Highway Patrol has concerns on three levels of the hemp issue. One is whether or not it is a valid crop. The second, of course, is the criminality issue, and the third is sending a message to our youth that might encourage drug usage. Claims are being made that several well known companies are using hemp, but when the Highway Patrol contacted those companies they were told that is not true. Lt. Moses said he has a copy of a video on legalizing hemp in Canada if anyone is interested in viewing it.

Dr. Wade stated the committee needed to decide whether or not it is going to spend time investigating the question of biomass production and alternative mechanisms and biomass for pulp products. He asked the committee members if they wanted to designate some way of getting information for future deliberations on whether or not to provide any input, as part of its final deliberations and report.

Emily Firebaugh stated this is a very political issue and felt it would be a waste of time for the committee to spend time researching it. Ms. Firebaugh made a motion that this be a moot issue.

Co-Chair Steve Mahfood noted that part of Dr. Wade's question was whether or not the committee wanted to look at other biomass alternatives. Ms. Firebaugh indicated she didn't think the committee had time for that.

Dr. Wade indicated there are two issues. The first issue is, are there a range of other cropping options for biomass and does this committee want any additional information on it? The second issue is whether or not the Department of Agriculture has a handle on what kinds of experimentation and programming is going on right now that could be provided to the committee, making it unnecessary for the Committee to pursue the issue any further.

Sarah Tyree stated the Department of Agriculture has information on new uses and alternative crops which is something that's important for the diversity of agriculture. However, that information deals with kenaf and its uses. The Department of Agriculture has given a grant to assist kenaf growers in developing a marketing study.

Emily Firebaugh commented that the Committee has a limited amount of time and can't develop and research a whole new industry. She suggested that the paper companies do that.

Senator Goode stated this is not the committee's issue and the committee needs to move along with what they have.

Co-Chair Steve Mahfood noted that the same is true for looking at recycling and developing markets for recycled materials. This committee doesn't have the time or the ability to do that.

David Bedan said he didn't see why the committee couldn't support some very broad statement that encourages the state (and the state's already doing it) to look at alternatives to using raw wood for paper products. We already have programs that encourage recycling and use of post consumer paper waste. We have agricultural programs looking at kenaf and maybe other things. The committee would have to spend a lot of time just to encourage the state to look at alternatives, but staying away from the things that are currently illegal. Mr. Bedan thought it would be appropriate to encourage the Departments of Natural Resources, Agriculture and Economic Development to look at these alternative ways of making paper.

Co-Chair Steve Mahfood asked Dr. Wade and Dr. Lewis to include in the final report wording that reflects Mr. Bedan's discussion and then the committee can deal with it at that time.

David Bedan stated he would, at the very least, like to commend the Departments of Natural Resources and Agriculture for working on these issues.

Senator Childers stated he was a little concerned about alternatives the industry is looking at because if that is going to affect what the committee does, that information should be available. He asked if staff could obtain information from the industry that would assist the Committee.

Dr. Wade asked if, from a process standpoint, staff could approach the paper industry and see where they are in terms of looking at alternatives. Co-Chair Mahfood stated that staff could contact industry and the people that are leading the research for the industry.

Existing Forestry Statutes

Co-Chair Steve Mahfood asked Marvin Brown to proceed with his presentation on Existing Forestry Statutes to the committee.

Co-Chair Marvin Brown stated that the assignment for this particular session was to look at other state's forestry practices. The committee received a copy of a report by Paul V. Ellefson, Antony S. Cheng and Robert J. Moulton that documents what kind of forest practices laws exist in other states. The report is a condensed version from a book that can be made available to any interested committee members. Co-Chair Brown reviewed the highlights of the report and showed slides during his discussion.

Currently, ten states have what Ellefson calls comprehensive forest practices acts. Most of those are in the northwestern United States, a few in the northeast and New Mexico in the southwest. There are 28 additional states that have limited forest practices acts. Most of those states focus on forestry and nonpoint source pollution control. And frequently they are wrapped up into a broader nonpoint source program that deals with agriculture and other things. In Missouri the Department of Natural Resources can investigate and take action on nonpoint source problems, including those resulting from a logging or forestry operation. But there are no required logging standards or forestry standards in Missouri to make all that happen.

Dan Schuette stated that if a state has delegated authority for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits it also has authority for nonpoint sources. However, it is an after the fact authority. If there is a problem in a stream, for example, the DNR can investigate.

Co-Chair Marvin Brown stated that twenty-eight states have taken that authority one step further and actually identified forestry and specific standards and actions that need to take place in order to prevent nonpoint source pollution. In looking at the comprehensive programs, they include administrative procedures, timber harvesting standards, transportation standards, tree forestation standards, sensitive resources and enforcement. Administrative procedures may seem basic at times but they are important. For example, we don't really have any way in Missouri to be notified when a harvest takes place; therefore, we just estimate the amount of harvesting taking place. So, one of the very first procedures in Missouri would be a required harvest notification and often times there's a requirement for a management plan. We've also talked about professional foresters becoming involved in developing plans for landowners. There's a review and appeal process because any time there is a regulated process, there's going to be disagreement, and variances/exemptions are also included. Land use conversion is another issue. An interesting question is if you have a highly developed forest practices act that in the end gets viewed by a landowner as a burden, are you in fact encouraging land use conversion. Or, are you going to include in that act some way not to allow land use conversion. But it's very possible that you could end up regulating a forest management program to the extent that landowners would view other land uses as more attractive if you don't have some way of upgrading that.

Co-Chair Marvin Brown then discussed timber harvesting standards. Some states limit the size and timing of clear-cuts. For example, if you have a forty acre clear-cut one year and another forty acre clear-cut adjacent the next year, then some people view that as an eighty acre clear-cut. Therefore, timing frequently gets translated into an adjacency rule whereby if you clear-cut an area one year, you can't deal with anything adjoining that area for a specified number of years until the tract has had time to green up and grow.

Silviculture is an issue on steep slopes. Slash and debris disposal are pretty basic logging terminology but those are regulated in some states. Felling, bucking and yarding standards can even be regulated in some states. For example, directional felling—trying to get all the trees to fall in one direction—eventually ends up with lower impact skidding.

Transportation standards are probably the one thing that is the most common when those 28 states deal just with the nonpoint source pollution. This is where most of the water quality and soil erosion issues are focused. Road designs, proper skid trails landings, other erosion control, and stream crossings can also be addressed. Maintenance and closure become important because even if there is a good road, it must be maintained so that it does not become a source of erosion. There must be standards on what is actually considered a logging road and when a logging road is considered fully revegetated so that it does not contribute to erosion problems. This is what we usually refer to as Best Management Practices (BMP).

Reforestation standards get to the question of timber sustainability as much as anything and minimum stocking means once you've left that site just how much regeneration, how much reforestation, is there to create the next forest. The kinds of methods are spelled out quite often in the south and northwest to get into site preparation and chemicals. But there are specific standards regarding bulldozing into rows and, if you do, what kind of rows, what distance from one another, what kind of chemicals are allowed, what kind of inspection and reporting are you going to do to see if that site has reforested. Are you going to go back just a year after the reforestation takes place? Are you going to go back five years after the reforestation takes place? This really deals with timber sustainability and ensuring a continuous supply of wood.

Protecting streams is a big issue in Missouri. Rare and endangered species also comes into play; sometimes not only the federally classified threatened and endangered species, but also state listed species. Wetlands and critical watersheds are issues in some parts of our state. For example, much of New York City's water supply is generated, filtered and improved but is managed as a watershed resource rather than as a purification resource.

And then there is enforcement. When you get into setting laws, what are you going to do about them? Progressive enforcement means going out and identifying the problem, then giving the offender an opportunity to fix it. If they don't fix it, keep tightening down on the penalties until they finally do something or you stop them.

I think the first thing to consider when writing laws that deal with forestry is to have a very clear understanding of what you're trying to accomplish. For example, it's one thing to set forestry standards that prevent soil erosion and protect water quality. Another issue is if you want to add in aquatic habitat and an even broader issue is protecting biological diversity and terrestrial habitat. Private property rights certainly become an issue. Most laws in states that have comprehensive forest practices acts have been tested at this point under the Constitution, but private property rights is a big concern and gaining public support to deal with forestry from this standpoint could be difficult.

Another issue is who will administer the law. Is it a water problem, or is it a terrestrial habitat problem, or a timber supply problem? Agency costs and funding are additional issues. Co-Chair Steve Mahfood can certainly attest to the fact that it's not cheap to be in a regulatory business. The regulation setting process itself is quite involved. Is this going to be a collaborative, negotiated process like in Washington? Is it going to be more of an agency sets the rules and then goes through a more traditional review and comment process? There are a lot of different ways to set the regulations themselves. There are definitely landowner and other private sector economic costs involved. Studies have been done that showed the cost of timber in regulated states increased from three percent to fifty-seven percent. So there are economic and landowner costs involved in regulation.

Co-Chair Steve Mahfood asked if committee members had questions.

Dierdre Hirner asked when the comprehensive forest practices acts were enacted in the states? Co-Chair Brown replied that most were passed starting in the late1960s and early 1970s and have been evolving since that time. Maine, for example, has been embroiled in a statewide initiative for about three years trying, through initiative petition, to change some aspects (basically clear-cutting) of their forest practices act.

Emily Firebaugh stated that she received a letter from the Department of Conservation in February of 1998 which explained the department was reviewing her forest cropland inspection for 164 plus acres. The letter went on to say that the state forestry law requires that in order to be eligible for classification, a tract of land must not be valued at more than $400 per acre and that the market value will be determined by comparing this land with recent sales of similar land in this vicinity. Ms. Firebaugh noted that since the chip mill industry has moved into her area, land value has gone up tremendously, even for land that has been clear-cut. She asked how a landowner like herself who wants to stay in the forest cropland program and has been dealing with land that values at about $225 dollars an acre can realistically, even with standing timber, stay in the program?

Co-Chair Marvin Brown stated that he hadn't talked about voluntary programs and Missouri's state forestry law is a voluntary program. The state forestry law is a strictly voluntary landowner incentive program. Legislation currently in the Missouri House of Representatives would update the forest cropland law and does not reference land values at all. It's a new program.

Emily Firebaugh stated if the draft legislation passed, and it does not have a land value in it, then she could still get into the program

Sarah Tyree asked Co-Chair Brown if, with his knowledge of other states programs, he could name a model one? Co-Chair Brown stated it depends on what you're trying to achieve. If you want to prevent soil erosion, protect water quality, aquatic and terrestrial habitat, biodiversity, and have sustainable timber products, then the state of Washington probably has the most comprehensive law. It addresses all of those things and does such regulation through a very collaborative, very negotiated, very highly contested and difficult process. It's a never-ending process. Right now they're trying to incorporate within those forestry standards the means to protect the salmon industry, and that has turned into a very contentious issue. If you are just looking at nonpoint source pollution, there's a much different set of standards and laws that could be passed. If it's a sustainable timber supply, then you need to be concerned about good silviculture.

Senator Childers asked if the value of the state of Washington's timber is high because of the type of timber and if any states with comprehensive laws have timber comparable to Missouri's? Co-Chair Brown said there are none within the eastern Ozarks (eastern hardwood deciduous forests—the old hickory forests) that have a comprehensive law. Connecticut and Maine definitely have different kinds of forests than in the northwest but their board foot prices can get pretty high. And our prices are going up all the time too.

David Day asked if a state has a limit on clear-cutting and the landowner planned another use other than forestry, how the regulations come into play? Co-Chair Brown indicated he would have to do some research but in most cases the landowner would probably have to get permission to convert from forestland into some other land use. Co-Chair Brown indicated that no net loss of forestland would be a part of the regulations.

Co-Chair Mahfood asked if Co-Chair Brown could check into that because other people probably have the same question.

Emily Firebaugh noted that the forest cropland program is the only incentive for a private landowner in Missouri to practice good forest management and asked if the committee could support the legislation currently in the Missouri House so that a no limit amount on the per acre value can be kept. This would encourage more private landowners to stay in the forest cropland program.

It was pointed out that by the time the committee finishes its recommendations, it would be too late for the legislation.

David Bedan noted this may be something for Dr. Wade's parking lot.

Co-Chair Steve Mahfood noted that the committee would now take a few questions from the audience.

Roy Hengerson noted that Co-Chair Brown's mention of the salmon issue in the state of Washington points out that when considering a law and regulations you can't just look at the cost. You also need to look at the benefits and there are a lot of benefits in Missouri. We have trout fisheries in certain areas that might be adversely impacted by bad logging practices in the surrounding watershed and Missouri has a large recreational industry.

Co-Chair Marvin Brown indicated he didn't mean to short change those issues but that again goes back to what it is you're trying to achieve. All the issues and concerns need to be spelled out and identified in order to develop appropriate legislation.

Attorney Bill Bryan stated that in many instances the states set up a separate entity (an agency, commission, etc.) to handle the forest practices act. It may not be something we want to do here, but other states have done this. Another thing that some states have done is to address the question of local controls. Can local communities have a voice in self-determination on what kind of forest practices are allowed in their area? There is a lawsuit now in the Court of Appeals over whether counties in Missouri can zone hog operations because of health and safety issues. The committee should at least think about whether there is a role for local control and, if so, what that role might be, when determining what kind of program we want to have, if we decide to adopt a forest practices act. Another issue is that the enforcement section of these laws is very different and we shouldn't necessarily be tied down to the strategy we have in other enforcement programs in Missouri. We should look at some of the enforcement statutes in other states' forest practices acts and see what works well for them.

Emily Firebaugh noted that in Missouri the rural landowners spoke out very loudly against the Natural Streams Act which has a lot of the same flavor and that attitude is still out there. She indicated that if you put a chip mill corporation lobbying against a Natural Streams Act attitude, the rural sector of Missouri would once again revolt.

Sarah Tyree noted from the handout (page 88) that Idaho had committees in specific watersheds and each committee developed water quality goals and site-specific best management practices for stream segments of concern that were located in the region. Once done, the committees monitored progress toward achieving water quality goals and commensurate interest in maintaining the balance between development and environmental protection. Ms. Tyree indicated she liked the idea of local involvement.

Dr. Wade commented that for the next meeting he will have a recommendation on how the committee can begin addressing the issues of the comprehensive forestry practices act that will give a forum for addressing these issues.

Tennessee Panel Study

Co-Chair Marvin Brown stated that the committee was pleased to have two people involved in the Tennessee study here today. Dr. Gary Schneider was the chairman of that advisory panel and he will provide the views of the study from his standpoint, and Cielo Sand, a member of the panel, will provide other views about the study.

Dr. Schneider stated he appreciated the opportunity to share with the committee the panel's experiences directed toward better forestry in Tennessee and how to get closer to that elusive sustainability question that we are all very much interested in. As chair of that panel, he struggled with exactly what this committee is struggling with--running out of time. There never was enough time.

The bill, Senate Joint Resolution 230, that created the Tennessee advisory panel, was passed and signed by the Governor in May of 1997. The process of selecting stakeholders or representatives was a rather lengthy one and took place from May to November when the Governor finally signed off as to who was going to be the representative of a large number of people that made up the panel. The Tennessee group numbered forty. Thirty-four of the forty represented stakeholders, real organizations that were impacted by things dealing with forestry. Legislative representation on the panel was the strongest input that made the panel as successful as it was. The legislators are the very individuals that the deliberations will go to and through. When the legislators have been a part of the process from the start, they can answer questions to their fellow representatives and senators, provide insight as to what the spirit was, etc. and make the process work.

Of the forty people on the committee, not everyone had voting status. The two state senators and the representatives couldn't vote and the chairperson for the Tennessee Forestry Commission couldn't vote. There were thirty-four legitimate votes possible.

The Executive Summary of the report has been distributed to the Committee. There is a larger document available if committee members are interested. The charge to the advisory panel was to evaluate and suggest policies and practices on forest resource management of state forests. Tennessee does not have a lot of state forests, maybe 153,000 acres. Yet this relatively small area in Tennessee has great visibility to the public and tremendous public reaction when anything takes place because a state forest is relatively close to just about anybody in their particular part of the state. So the advisory group wanted to look at state forests.

The second issue the advisory group looked at was programs and services for private forest landowners. Tennessee, like Missouri, has the largest percentage (more than 80 percent) of forestland owned by the non-industrial private landowner. That's over 250,000 separate owners and all the forest fragmentation.

In addition, the charge was to use as much science based information to come up with conclusions as they could. They knew they were dealing with very emotional, very value ladened things regarding their forest lands but needed to try to get authoritative, documented materials and visit actual sites. The group met monthly for two days beginning in November, 1997 and then every month in 1998 from January through October. They had eleven monthly meetings of the full committee. He mentioned also that no funds were allocated to defray expenses of anyone on the advisory panel. The idea was they didn't want anybody on the payroll of any kind. Of course state employees and people like Dr. Schneider were not nearly inconvenienced as folks that had to take two days off from work. They estimated conservatively that everyone on that panel put in 150 hours over the course of those eleven months. 150 hours and then staff time and others maybe another 150. At the end of each meeting, they used an evaluation process. They tried to also get input from the public, and he stated it wasn't that successful. Within forty-eight hours of each meeting, Dr. Schneider released a one-page press release to every newspaper in the state of Tennessee. There were about 178 of them, dailies, weeklies, monthlies. He tried to monitor through the Tennessee Agricultural Extension Service how many of these were popping up in the local newspapers and it was pretty small. If they had any success in this, he think they could attribute it to three things. Number one, they had an excellent facilitator. She kept them on task. The second was, they had some very talented staff people--state forestry, Ken Arney's group, Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Department of Agriculture. The other day he put all the things together that had been distributed to the full committee and it was two file drawers full of materials. Forest Service stuff, state, just everywhere and anything including books. He had kenaf but didn't have hemp. The final report should be viewed as a work in progress. It was not a final. It is a benchmark. In the Executive Report they identified sustainability, probably pretty much what the committee is using here. Basically it's just whatever you do to that forest land today, you are not going to compromise future generations from exercising their full range of options on that same forest land. You're trying to be good stewards, pass that on so the next generation has as many options open to it as possible. They identified that recreation, quality of life, economics and this ecosystem that keeps it all together, as the four extremely important benefits that we derive which we wish to continue. And from that they said in order to achieve sustainability and come close to enjoying those benefits, there really are goals. They hammered out 11 from 159 possibilities. From this they emerged with twenty-eight, what they called majority, recommendations. At the onset, they had twenty-nine people that could vote. If fifteen or more voted for a particular recommendation, it became one of the main recommendations. In parenthesis behind each recommendation is the actual vote. So they took the twenty-eight and put them into four broad categories. They were either education oriented, research oriented, partnerships or incentives. They also had minority opinions and they grappled for a while with how to submit a minority report. They put them all in one bound volume, the larger report. In the larger report there are twenty-two minority recommendations. So the legislature could see in a documented format, if the item didn't' get fifteen votes, it was a minority. Items with seven to fourteen votes were in the minority. They also included three others, with a vote of six, four, and three. So for the record, there were three people that voted for a particular issue that was near and dear to them. Once they came to their recommendations, it had to go to the Tennessee Forestry Commission first for a reaction. They couldn't change anything that was said. They had to then pass it on to the two House committees and two Senate committees and all the legislature. The green areas in the report are the Tennessee Forestry Commission's action plan. They wanted to put all of this in the same document rather than a third publication. The words chip mill came up but it never got to the majority. There are three minority recommendations dealing with chip mills. There were folks on the panel that would like to have seen them get to the majority but they didn't in this particular report. The minority recommendations were under the same four categories, education, research, partnerships and incentives. Minority recommendation two, there should not be a statewide chip mill impact study, got fourteen votes. However, minority recommendation five, there should be a statewide chip mill study, got ten votes. And then minority recommendation nine that got seven votes says declare a moratorium on granting new chip mill permits in Tennessee. The panel couldn't reach consensus on everything, but they found common ground on quite a few important things—one being education. The problems to think about--best management practices and whether they work or not. Forest practices if they work or not. Regulatory, private property rights. Landowner education. The panel hit that pretty hard recommending this and that with regards to what the State Forester could do. So, chip mills never became the issue that it is here. There are two major chip mills, higher capacity chip mills, in Tennessee. Champion has one, and Royal Blue in east Tennessee. Willamette has one in Centerville and then Bullwater has one. Tentico has one. Yuber has one at the site of their mills where as these others are satellite ones. North Carolina has a study pretty much like Missouri. It's going to run for about eighteen months. Fred Cubbage and others are a part of that and they are sharing with Dr. Schneider what they are finding, but it's very preliminary.

Co-Chairman Marvin Brown asked Cielo Sand to make her presentation.

Cielo Sand thanked everyone for the opportunity to speak. She is with the Dogwood Alliance. Her work is regional coordinator, which means she works to link the grassroots organizations. They have fifty-three community and environmental organizations that are part of Dogwood Alliance, linking them to federal and state agencies. Also, she is responsible for attempting to link different federal agencies with states, and even within federal agencies to link some of the different programs together. She's been with the Dogwood Alliance since its inception in 1997. She's met with EPA Region VII and has been over here and talked to the Department of Natural Resources on a number of occasions with regard to chip mills. One of the reasons she is interested in Missouri is she finds Missouri's awareness and alertness to the process being very right on. Missouri looked around, and saw that other states had been impacted and got to business. The Governor signed the Executive Order which is really a very well written order. She has been working on the chip mill issue since 1990, ever since they came to the Ten Tom Waterway in the Tennessee River. It's an ongoing process. She learned a lot during the Tennessee Governor's Forest Management Advisory Panel. The positive thing about that governor's forest management panel was the bridging that began, little by little, to take place between opposing sides. They began establishing relationships. The process that she had the most concern about with the panel was the consensus process. But only because it seemed like avoidance of controversy proved to be the founding tenant of this consensus process. She is very interested in process and looks forward to Missouri's next steps because we can't stop here, as Gary stated. She'd like to see Missouri start dealing with some of the contentious issues that created passion within. Their panel process had a short amount of time, too short and it had a set determined outcome. It had to make recommendations to the legislature. But it didn't get to the heart of the matter which is really what has to be done because there are serious issues to deal with. The chip mill issue got very little time given the nature of the challenge that they faced regarding chip mills. With chip mills, the issue is the rapid proliferation of a brand new industry. These are not loggers in plaid shirts with chain saws or axes. This is an industrial operation. The story is told in the field. The story is the radius of harvesting areas, where the cutting occurs. So think about the map of chip mill locations, and put circles, 75, hundreds of miles wide around each one. The Dogwood Alliance has done that. They made a circle map, which she brought with her; that circle map looks like spaghetti. The circle of influence is impacts. This map is not a static display. The industry is moving rapidly and unchecked because none of the states had an awareness of the chip mill industry coming to this degree, and that it was necessary to set up some sort of guidelines to protect our resources, our forest industries. If we don't manage sustainably, each one of us (the commodity, the people that use it for very valid reasons, as well as the entire ecosystem which supports that commodity base) is in trouble. One of the things that can be recognized by the map and the overlapping radiuses is that the industry crosses jurisdictional and political boarders. The chip mill at Mill Springs is here because of an expansion of a pulp and paper mill on the Ohio River in Kentucky. And with regard to economics and incentives, that particular pulp and paper mill received maybe a hundred million-dollar package to expand a six hundred million dollar facility. In that third phase of the expansion, we have Mill Springs--a chip mill in Missouri, and as far as four hundred miles away in Union Mills, North Carolina, and another Willamette chip mill to supply in Kentucky. Missouri is dealing with the folks comparable in Kentucky and in North Carolina, and the whole, entire sourcing area which is enormous (four hundred miles). The U.S. Forest Service has eight national forests in that sourcing area; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has about four regions; and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has about four regions that are all impacted by one pulp and paper mill. She went to bat for Missouri forests when that NPDES permit came up. My intention was to push the dialogue to try to get an off-site cumulative impact review with regard to that one NPDES permit in Kentucky. It didn't happen, but one keeps on trying and laying out the message. That is something they did no talk about with the panel in Tennessee. She wanted to bring that map in to the Tennessee panel, but felt afraid to do so. It was almost like heresy to talk about chip mills. She felt marginalized by her group representing the forests with regard to this particular issue.

There are two high capacity chip mills in their area in Tennessee. One is Champion's chip mill in Carreyville, Tennessee. It is enormous. In trying to address some of the questions that were provided by the committee, this chip mill represents one of the challenges. It's a four hundred thousand ton chip mill which sources about seven to ten acres. It's a very highly automated--as they all are--industrial chip mill capable of chipping up a million tons a year, if the demand and the resources are available. The enormous capacity demand therefore encourages clear cutting which produces more wood per acre for less cost than less damaging methods of cutting. The U.S. Forest Service data shows that hard wood chip harvests result almost entirely from clear-cuts. She received that information from the North Carolina chip mill impact study. Chip mills require continuous, large wood supplies and they threaten the solid wood segment of the industry by consuming large volumes of straight, small diameter hardwoods, which if left to grow, could make good saw timber in twenty or more years. A chip mill will use as much wood in one month as an average size saw mill consumes in one year. A second major threat to the solid wood segment of the timber industry is that sawmills are labor intensive. Chip mills are highly mechanized requiring six to ten employees. Solid wood firms employ about twice as many people as the pulp wood segment per unit of wood harvested, which means more jobs per trees.

Ms. Sand showed a slide of a chip mill in the woods and indicated this is starting to occur in Tennessee and other states. Some states don't even need permits for chip mills in the woods. Heavy equipment is really hard on the soil, but they can take up to fifty or more acres a day chipping right on site. What are they seeing in Tennessee? They're seeing increases in larger cuts and hard woods being cut. Hardwood forests and natural forests are being converted to fiber farms. The U.S. Forest Service data shows that soft wood has already been overcut by fourteen percent and that' s because the bulk of the fiber that comes to this industry has been using mostly soft woods. The industry is now using more hard woods than ever, and constructed lumber and paper. Both the U.S. Forest Service and the industry projects that within the next ten years removal of hard woods throughout the south will exceed growth. The trends are the second major concern. This is new data from North Carolina State University, the SETRS model, which shows the hardwood harvest distribution. It is projected over the next twenty years that the hardwood harvest in the south will increase fifty-six percent. Tennessee will carry a great proportion of the increase in that fifty-six percent. Tennessee is projected to double their cutting in just the next twenty years. The concern is that the Tennessee forest cannot sustain that. The first map on the slide showed the forest availability adjusted growth removal ratios in Tennessee, not all the trees that the timber model projected were available--legal restrictions, market conditions, operable constraints, landholder attitudes. There were complaints when the 1989 forest inventory data came out because it wasn't showing the true availability. So there's a report that is out called Assessing Timber Availability in Upland Forests that changes the ratio from a 2:1 growth to removal to 1:1. They believe that Tennessee's forests are already in decline in many counties. Ms. Sand showed slides which presumes outlining information that harvest or cutting follows inventories, and states that supposedly have more forest inventory. Those will be the areas within the next twenty years where there will be the greatest cutting occurring according to the model. She recommended using the SETRS model with the U.S. Forest Service data that Missouri has to get a projection of what's going on in Missouri. Missouri was not included in that model because it is not a part of the U.S. Forest Service, Region VIII. Softwood is declining about fourteen percent; there's just not as much available.

Ms. Sand mentioned a group called the Dogwood Alliance Forest Watch that is now out in the field. That group partners with water watch groups, or stream teams, economists from the University of Tennessee, and state and federal agencies. They are diagramming a small geographical area in Tennessee and will do a site-specific study. Ms. Sand is interviewing landholders in that area that are affected by industrial forestry. It is their hope that the study will be replicated throughout Tennessee and elsewhere in the southeast. The reason for the study is to provide to the state agencies legislative rationale if needed. The federal southeast forest sustainability assessment, which the four federal agencies just recently agreed to do, will also be helpful.

Cielo Sand then showed the committee a video. The video depicted an interview with a landholder who explained how an on-site chipper had trespassed and destroyed his property.

Ms. Sand stated that is where the bad actors policy first took place.

Gary Schneider stated one of the Tennessee panel's recommendations is the bad actor. He noted that the video situation is tragic but had nothing to do with the chip mill per se; it was a person. It would be grossly unfair to say that is what chip mills do.

Cielo Sand said the message is in regard to the harvesting law.

Gary Schneider then responded to the committee's questions. He stated that the Tennessee panel had forty people who could bring up anything they wanted and vote on anything they wanted. Chip mills were brought up and the panel had the opportunity to include it. He indicated that chip mills don't use wood. People use wood and it's a process like saw logging and saw milling. It's a process that can be abused like any other process. That is where care needs to be taken.

‘How do you think the introduction of high capacity chip mills in Tennessee impacted forest resource harvesting practices? Is there enough timber to support consumption?' Mr. Schneider's response was that right now with the kind of inventory they have from the Forest Service, all the indications are that there is ample wood. He thought every state has indicated that; but they've got to know what the inventory is in order to do the job right. But at the current rate of cutting, the ratio is 1:1 if not much higher than 1:1. For Tennessee it is 1.7:1 for the hard wood.

‘What type of wood size is utilized by these high capacity chip mills?' Mr. Schneider's response was low grade and sizes down to about four to five inches was the typical material. Most of it is very low grade, the result of past abuses on most of the land.

‘Is there more clear-cutting with the mechanized harvesting?' Response: More than likely. Yes; it's a pretty efficient way of removing that material.

‘Did the sourcing areas continually increase in size?' Response: This is in Tennessee now and of course we've only got those two chip mills and they've only been in existence for a couple of years at the most and we have not seen that yet. But as Cielo indicated with regards to the sphere of influence, the study by Dr. John Gray in Arkansas where those three chip mills are going in, not all the land is available. Owners have other objectives than cutting. It very likely might increase.

‘What are the trends in round wood consumption?' Response: Increasing.

‘How did the introduction of these mills impact other saw mills?' Response: Small saw mills have been going out of business. But when we look, they've been going out of business since 1950, 55, 60s. From thousands of them, I think in Tennessee it is reported down to 576.

I personally don't think that is directly related to chip mills. The ones that aren't so efficient any more are going out and the ones that are much more efficient are doing quite well. Was there more consolidation? Production from hard wood sawmills have gone up and numbers of mills have decreased. Impact on companies supporting mills have increased. More companies, more peripheral industries. The price the mills can pay for Tennessee timber. I think it comes right down to the landowner that wishes to sell. Cielo's video showed a blatant violation; but if an owner does not wish to sell he does not have to sell. Many of the panel members looked to give that landowner the best information and education possible, show him how to write a contract, do everything possible, but then that man or than woman has every right to sell the timber or do what his objectives are. Economics in your regions--more competition, more dollars to the landowners, more dollars to plow back in to being able to bring that land under better management. We hope that best management practices on a volunteer basis are going to take care of the environment, soil erosion, sedimentation, water quality, watershed protection. We've got a masters logger program that's working quite well. It's estimated by Ken Arney, our state forester, that better than sixty percent of all loggers have gone through that program . Socioeconomic concerns. Twenty, thirty, forty percent unemployment in some of our counties. Yet our state enjoys statewide less than four percent unemployment. But you can find counties that are better than twenty-five percent, pushing thirty and more. What is that bringing in? Talking with John Flynn who is the manager of the Champion site that Cielo talked about. They're estimating along with county government that thirteen million dollars is coming into their sphere of influence, a year. Thirteen million dollars that area didn't have any before. Some people might say you're selling the future or that it only goes back to the landowner and what he or she wishes to have done.

‘Tourism, has it had an impact?' Response: Too early to tell. I look at the Arkansas study by John Gray. He tried to approach that study as best he could, indicating that if you project out about twenty years from now, and all your operations are unsightly, tourism will be impacted big time. He estimated that it takes ten years tourism wise for an area to green up and thirty years to get fall colors back which people like to come in and see.

‘Would you have asked for more regulations on harvesting practices?' Response: No, and our majority recommendations indicate, in fact, chip mills are potentially more controllable. There can be more control over those the operators. But the bad actor will take care of that.

‘Would you have encouraged more landowner education?' Response: Yes.

‘Would you have changed anything if you'd have done it again?' Response: We don't know of anything.

‘With regards to value added products, do chip mills promote good forestry? Response: They could or they might not. And I think it all depends on the reliability of the operator and the whole system. That's where we come back to education. Tennessee's focus was on landowner education; we're looking at registering for professional foresters.

Co-Chair Marvin Brown thanked Dr. Schneider, and asked Cielo Sand if she had a chance to address the specific questions that were sent?

Cielo Sand stated some of the answers were addressed in the data that is based on the Division of Forestry in Tennessee and also U.S. Forest Service. One of the things she wanted to point out is that in pulp wood production in Tennessee, the lumber is plateauing and the pulp aspect of the timber industry is sky rocketing. She asked the committee to look at what's happening in many parts of Tennessee with regard to the loggers increasing in numbers in employment and value added in many places definitely in declining. She stated with Missouri using the NPDES process with regard to the Mill Springs chip mill, Missouri is attempting to understand what kind of cutting is happening. How much is happening now and how much into the future with regard to Willamette. There is not that ability in most of the southeastern states. In Tennessee, it's estimated by the Division of Forestry that close to 20,000 operations in Tennessee occurred over the last year and only 1,000 have been visited since 95. Now part of that is because the Division of Forestry and Department of Environment and Conservation doesn't have the staff or resources to get out there, and doesn't have the ability to educate landholders. The other part is that there's no notification. When the panel came up with what was considered to be a real positive majority recommendation, a bad actors policy, many on the panel, including some industry folks, decided that part of that bad actors policy which targeted the bad guys should include notification. But it didn't happen because the process was subverted by the state going ahead and coming up with their own policy, which isn't a law. She believed laws were needed with regard to bad actors and keeping accountability on an industry. She had other statements, but because of shortness in time, she would write them down and send to the committee.

Emily Firebaugh asked Attorney Bryan if there is any way that the state of Missouri, after having invested three hundred thousand dollars to assist in bringing a chip mill into the area, could put a moratorium on a chip mill industry in the state of Missouri? Attorney Bryan stated that as he understood it, a moratorium would be for new facilities. Other states have done that with a variety of industries. Ms. Firebaugh asked if that was the case even if it was totally supported by that individual without state subsidy? Mr. Bryan stated a moratorium would be separate from those already here. It would be about stopping a new industry even if they pay their own way. States are doing it, and Attorney Bryan was not aware of lawsuits challenging that.

David Bedan commented that Gary Schneider made a statement about a chip mill having the potential for giving the landowner more proceeds that he can put back into better timber management, better forest management. Mr. Bedan stated that we've heard that for years in Missouri. But do we really have any hard evidence to indicate what percentage of the landowners put money back into timber, and what percentage of acres, as opposed to the money just disappearing and the land being essentially abandoned from a timber management point of view?

Gary Schneider stated he didn't think anybody has a handle on that. What confounds it even more is that about seventy-five percent of all the private land, non-industrial, in the state of Tennessee, is under one hundred acres in size. So there are 100,000 people to deal with rather than a few large landowners. In the Tennessee Division of Forestry there are not enough staff and private landowners have to get on the list. So, it may take six months to a year before the landowner's request can be addressed.

David Bedan asked if the majority of these landowners are ever going to really get into forest management as opposed to one-time clear-cut, and then maybe worry about it thirty years from now if they don't sell it immediately.

Gary Schneider stated that the individual on Ms. Sand's video bought the land for his kids. That's a landowner objective, but he could conceivably see where that person would like to have a management plan to do some other things--turkeys, squirrels--which would require bette