Governor's Advisory Committee on Chip Mills

Governor's Advisory Committee on Chip Mills
Department of Natural Resources
Elm Street Conference Center
Jefferson City, Missouri
May 3, 1999

Meeting Minutes

Committee Members Present

David Bedan, Citizen environmental conservation group, Columbia
David Day, Private property owner organization representative, Dixon
Earl Cannon, Deputy Director, Business Expansion and Attraction, Department of Economic Development
Emily R. Firebaugh, Forest landowner, Farmington
Jay R. Law, Conservation Federation of Missouri and environmental, St. James
Mark Garnett, Forest products representative, Brandsville
Marvin Brown, State Forester, Department of Conservation
Representative Bill Foster, Poplar Bluff
Representative Jerry McBride, Edgar Springs
Sarah Tyree, Special Assistant, Department of Agriculture
Senator Doyle Childers, Reeds Spring

Interested Parties Present

Becky Kilpatrick, Department of Economic Development, Jefferson City
Bernie Lewis, University of Missouri Forestry, Columbia
Bill Bryan, Attorney General's Office, Jefferson City
Bill Moore, Canal Chip Corporation, Conway, SC
Carolyn Barbour, Department of Economic Development, Jefferson City
Carolyn Pufalt, Sierra Club, St. Louis
Charles Hirt, Canal Wood, Jackson
Chris Leonard, Columbia Tribune, Columbia
Dan Schuette, Department of Natural Resources, Jefferson City
Dave Mosby, Department of Natural Resources, Jefferson City
Dennis Meinert, Department of Natural Resources, Sullivan
Dr. Jerry Wade, Facilitator, University of Missouri, Columbia
Eric Peters, Missouri Forest Products Assn., Jefferson City
Greg Thompson, Mill Spring Chip, Mill Spring
Hank and Katie Dorst, Mark Twain Forest Watchers, Elk Creek
Jack Slusher, UMC, Columbia
John Sickmeier, Sickmeier Wood, Birch Tree
John Wood, Westvaco, Wickliffe, KY
Ken Midkiff, Sierra Club, Columbia
Kirk McFadden, Commercial Pilot
Llona Weiss, Department of Natural Resources, Jefferson City
Lynn McClure, MFPA, Salem
Martha LeMond, Department of Economic Development, Jefferson City
Mike Smith, Washington MO
Nancy Gibler, Department of Economic Development, Jefferson City
Rachel Young, Columbia Missourian, Columbia
Randy Crawford, Department of Natural Resources, Jefferson City
Robb Jacobson, USGS, Columbia
Roy C. Hengerson, Missouri Coalition for the Environment, Jefferson City
Scott Brundage, Missouri Consulting Foresters Association, Columbia
Skip Stokes, MFPA, Stella
Soren Ericksson
Steve Galliher, Willamette Industries, Piedmont
Tom Kruzen, Missouri Coalition for the Environment, Mountain View
Tom Lange, Department of Natural Resources, Jefferson City
Tom Petzoldt, East Perry Lumber Co., Frohna
Tony Goodwater, Bourbon

Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 9:10 a.m. by Co-Chair Marvin Brown. Mr. Brown informed the committee that Steve Mahfood, Co-Chairman of the committee was not able to attend the meeting due to illness. Also Jon Smith and Senator Goode would not be able to attend. Earl Cannon stated that he would have to leave the meeting at 1:00 p.m. to attend another meeting, but that he would return around 2:30 p.m. Mr. Brown also reminded the committee of the resignation of Deirdre K. Hirner as of April 9, 1999. He then introduced Mr. Jay Law of the Conservation Federation of Missouri at St. James, as her replacement on the committee. Since Mr. Law might not be familiar with all of the committee members, Mr. Brown introduced the other members of the committee.

Public Comment

Co-Chair Brown then asked the audience if there was any public comment. Tony Nenninger Goodwater stated that he had given a hemp presentation at the previous meeting, and discussed the book, The Emperor Wears No Clothes, by Jack Herer. He would like to communicate to the committee that he can not donate the books to them, but that they would be available to the committee for $15.00, although he is asking for $25.00 a book to help put bread on his table. He thanked the committee for their interest in the book, and said the committee had shown more interest than some of the other government bureaucracies. He then referred to his correspondence sent to the committee on April 20, 1999 referencing hemp. Mr. Brown stated that if any of the committee members wanted a copy of the book to contact Mr. Goodwater at the break. Mr. Goodwater stated that he would have to leave the meeting for awhile, but that he would return later in the afternoon.

Hank Dorst stated that he was attending a conference which occurred later in the week after the March Chip Mills Advisory Committee meeting, and Dr. Jim Guldin, a forestry researcher from Arkansas briefly conducted a session on chip mills in Arkansas. He passed around to the committee information on a cut north of Van Buren, being done by a local lumber company. Mr. Brown stated that the written part of Dr. Guldin's report was one of the early reports given to the committee, but if anyone needed a copy he could get them another one.

David Bedan mentioned that he had heard Dr. Guldin's report also, and that he thought it was a pretty significant report. He is definitely a professional in his field, his findings may be more relevant than others the committee has heard from, and he was wondering if maybe he could be invited to talk to the committee. Mr. Brown said that maybe they will work it into the revised schedule for completion.

Mike Smith owner of approximately 300 forestry acres in Iron County, and a cabinet maker by trade, and uses a lot of old lumber, watched a lot of forest harvesting taking place around his area over the last 20 years. One of his concerns is that the 300 acres cleared near him was our future saw timber, had it been managed properly. There is a loss of value of the real estate there, not necessarily monetarily, but as recreational areas near the Black River. He and his family do not even desire to go there anymore on weekends. There are knee deep ruts in the mud, and this is his main concern. Mr. Brown stated that the committee will be visiting this site on their field tour in June.

Mr. Brown then thanked the public for joining the committee for the meeting, and suggested the meeting then go ahead as scheduled. He mentioned that there would be time also for public comment at the end of the meeting, and for anyone who would like to comment then would be more than welcome to.

Minutes of 4-5-99 meeting

Marvin Brown, the Co-Chair then brought up the subject of the minutes of the April meeting. The minutes were distributed at the beginning of the meeting. They are approximately thirty something pages long, so instead of the committee taking up time to read them all now, it was suggested that they read them and discuss them either at the end of this meeting or at the next meeting.

Facilitation - Dr. Jerry Wade

Dr. Wade then approached the committee. He stated that the committee started a process at the last meeting of beginning to clarify its focus on at least two of the components that may be included in the report. He then went on to say that he would like to talk about the first component which would be Private Property Rights. David Bedan, David Day and Bill Bryan have been doing some work on this component. He went on to say that there is not in the minutes or in the discussions, a clear sense of the purpose that a statement on private property rights needs to fulfill to be a part of the report. It seems that is the first step, because that will frame the kind of statement that needs to be entered. Obviously that is a broad, huge controversial issue, and needs to be in the final report, because that statement performs a very specific purpose in regard to the reason this report is being done. He would like to hear the committee spend some time discussing what that purpose needs to be, and see if they can begin to emerge a shared sense of that purpose, so that there is a framework to know exactly what kind of a statement needs to be addressed, and it can hopefully be as short and focused as possible. He asked the committee to open up a discussion on what the purpose of such a statement needs to accomplish.

Emily Firebaugh asked if Dr. Wade had received the letter she sent. Dr. Wade asked if the letter went to the committee? Ms. Firebaugh said no; she sent it to Dr. Wade. In that letter she had stated that she had read and studied the committee's commitment, and does not believe the committee was requested, required or mandated to make a statement on private property rights. She said she was that abrupt with the letter, but she does believe that this is a political issue that should be handled by the individuals, and is going to defer to David Day on the subject that Farm Bureau champions very well with legislators throughout the United States and especially in Missouri, and would like to hear from the rest of the committee on whether we should or should not take part in this. She then stated again that she did not think the committee should handle that statement at all.

Earl Cannon agreed with Ms. Firebaugh. What we should do is probably recommend some kind of respect for the Private Property rights.

David Day questioned whether the Governor's Executive Order allows the committee the right to make recommendations on how the people that timber harvest on their land and if it would affect property rights. A lot of the people around this state don't think it does, and if that is the case we should have a statement about property rights. If we are not going to do anything to infringe on property rights, then no, we don't need it.

David Bedan agreed the committee needs to respect the rights of property owners. His concern is that if the committee makes some kind of statement as to what this is all about they need to come to some reasonable balance, and that statement should reflect the balance.

Senator Childers stated that they should not let one issue drive the whole thing. They should get the information together, and then look at how it all applies, rather than come out with individual components before they make a final decision.

Mark Garnett said that early on it was the desire of the public to encompass timber harvest as a whole. Once you do that you are infringing on property rights. You have to be very narrow focused, or you look at all the factors involved.

Marvin Brown commented that going back to the question; it only has a purpose once we start talking about some of these other alternatives. Representative Foster stated that he is trying to visualize what the discussion is going to be like on the House and Senate floors. If we want to have any kind of input, at some point this committee is going to say that legislators are going to discuss something totally different than what we discuss.

Earl Cannon replied that just to follow up on what has been said, it sounds like maybe the solution to the problem is to deal with the harvesting methods on private property. So there is no doubt that the private property owners are involved. He commented on balance. If you have issues, it is not always black and white, there are areas of gray which requires a balance or a compromise.

Jay Law stated he hasn't had a chance to review the notes on property rights, so he can't speak from that perspective, but agrees with what Senator Childers said.

Emily Firebaugh commented that once again following what the committee was commissioned to do from the Governor's Executive Order, she thinks they should respect private property rights, but agrees with Representative Foster and the rest of the committee, that the private property rights will be an important issue, but will be more politically discussed in the Senate and the House, lobbied by Farm Bureau and other groups, but the committee needs to make a statement of private property owner responsibility in dealing with chip mill companies, loggers, etc. On an intelligent and informed level, she reads the Executive Order more in that vein than she does in making a statement of a political situation of private property rights, which is more of a legal status.

Sarah Tyree agreed, but stated what also is very important, we all should think of how we can communicate with land owners in Missouri, how to implement good practices, and think of it in terms that our outcome is to have clean water and everything else like that, so whatever is framed from this committee needs to taken into consideration someone who is a land owner. In the areas of chip mills, how is he or she going to read whatever comes out of it, that is very important.

Mark Garnett, in reply to Representative Foster, stated that if we don't pay close attention to private property rights, and we come out with a recommendation that has nothing to do with private property rights - and somehow infringe on these rights, is there a chance of something passing anyway at this point? Representative Foster replied that as another committee member stated, it will probably turn out to be a political position anyway. If the committee has something to say that will direct legislators, at least you have your opinions on record as to what this committee deals with on private property rights.

Senator Childers stated that if we come out with a strong statement, whether it be on property rights or anything else, probably certain groups in the legislature are going to write us off immediately. Balance is important, so get as much info as possible, get all the facts and present it to them.

Dr. Wade commented that he has been working through a process on how the committee can perhaps come to an agreement. First of all he hopes that we can set a framework that what is in the report isn't necessarily a consensual agreement of everyone on the committee. He does not personally agree with the consensus model. He thinks that is a pretty poor way of making decisions, because that is just not how the world operates. He hopes that at the July meeting the committee can spend some time in a working session that gives the frame, the context of the report and the process that this committee will use to get to a final report, and hopes to have a process to work with the committee whereby they will begin to identify those areas in which there is common ground already. Those areas in which there seems to be mild disagreements, but that perhaps they can live with kind of conditions, could be found in those areas in which there is strictly contentions. In the areas of contentions, the various pieces need to be a part of the report as opposed to various statements of what is truth, and begin to set values of working framework from here on until the subsequent report at the July meeting. He summarized what he is hearing on the private property discussion. Because the report is going to address a range of issues, potentially major issues, that involve both issues of private property and the interest of the community, the statement that needs to be in the report is a statement that provides the framework that the committee works within, the rights and the responsibility of the private property owner and balanced with the relationship to the communities' rights and responsibility. The framework that the committee is doing can both be set and shared, but that will not necessarily be a political statement on a position on property rights, but simply a statement of the relationships that are being addressed with various opinions on the committee. That is a fair reflection of what he thinks captures the discussion. Now that begins to frame the purpose of that statement which is: to provide the context that the committee will attempt to work through its recommendation. He captured the essence of why we need to address this simply because it's got the context of the rights and responsibilities of all the pieces of both the private property owners and the communities.

Emily Firebaugh stated to Dr. Wade that she has not gotten to that bridge yet to burn it down. He is putting it into concrete where she has not even affirmed that is what she is here for under the Executive Order. If she is going to get into property rights and responsibility, private or public, probably the only issue that she has formed is to make sure that logging on a major scale be kept out of public land. As where it comes to private property rights, she still thinks it is the responsibility of the private property owner. She doesn't know that she would put it into the political category of private property rights. That is where she is on the question that Dr. Wade just asked.

Dr. Wade replied, saying to let him restate. Where he meant for the emphasis on this to be - which is the context on this issue that the committee evolved. He agrees that we are not ready to accept that now, and so the content can not be specified. He thinks what he did hear the committee saying is that we should be prepared to make sure that the context of that balance in that relationship needs to be within the committee, where we can see the specific issues that the committee reports on. He didn't mean to put it into concrete. Marvin Brown stated that what Dr. Wade is saying is that we all, for the most part, anticipate that the issue of private property rights should be set off to the side, and when we get to the point of making those recommendations, then that is where we incorporate what the plus's and minus's are.

Dr. Wade stated that he would try to keep up with the discussion that is going on so far in this meeting. He thinks that discussion is a very healthy preliminary to what will have to be dealt with when we do the framing, and he would encourage that discussion with the three people that have taken the responsibility, and to continue that as it appears necessary. He will let the two David's (David Day and David Bedan) respond to that. He thinks the committee has made a significant contribution, and is getting close to being able to address this issue when they get the final report. He doesn't want to begin now to push it to any kind of conclusion. Jay Law suggested that we not identify this as an issue. He thinks that this is a test at the end of the recommendation finding, and looks at it to find out how private property rights might be affected. He doesn't believe it is an issue for this committee. His feeling would be that it would be something in the outcome that you need to be responsive to, but it is sort of a test, and not an issue.

David Day responded that he thinks if you make recommendations on how someone can harvest timber on their land, it WILL be an issue. If we are going to make those kinds of recommendations, and we probably will, we need a statement of property rights, to acknowledge the other side of it. We shouldn't make a statement that simply states that we are not going to do anything on regulation of private property, however, at the same time we shouldn't say that we are going to discard private property rights, and make recommendations. That is why you have to look at both sides of the situation.

David Bedan thinks it should be one of the tests of a recommendation. It will be a balancing of things that will assist the landowner in exchange for some agreement to do things in a certain way. Recommend some educational things like Eric Peters had talked about - some training for people in the industry, tax incentives to help landowners manage their forest exchanges - because it is very hard to manage a resource which has a long term payoff in a world that wants quick turn around on investments. Maybe recommend some sort of actual subsidy for people willing to get into long term forestry. All these things are helpful and large numbers of landowners may respond to these positive offers of assistance, but not all of them will. There will be a need for some basic management practice requirements. We are going to need some basis for regulations. From what he is hearing from everybody, he doesn't think we really need to regulate activities.

David Day replied that there are laws in place now. He feels that if you are going to limit how someone can earn money from their land, then any recommendations that come out of this committee, should show that person should be compensated. David Bedan commented that he thinks David might have a point. There is a forestry exemption, and we need to hear more from the agencies. David Day said if he is doing something within the law now, and this committee makes a recommendation that he cannot do x, y and z from now on, he should be compensated for that, this is his thought. David Bedan's understanding of the law is that it is almost non-existent in Missouri. Timber harvesting in Missouri is about as unregulated as you will see. Emily Firebaugh stated that she will go along with David 100 % on that. And to add to that, to say somebody will be on your doorstep, if you do something wrong, we all know the only time that DNR comes out to correct a situation downstream, downhill, (whatever), wherever it rolls - it is after the damage has been done, so we are going to have to consider that in our final recommendation. If we are not careful what we are going to do as far as private landowners themselves are concerned, we may be saying, "yes, you may come in and log on my land", which is exactly what you are going to do, and she is talking about herself. The other thing that she needed to address is the fact that when we talk about educating the landowner, she spoke at Rotary Club where there was nothing but guys who came off of the tractors, and dropped their chainsaws, to come to the meeting, etc, and she asked every one of them, these people she has known for 30 years, that had set out in the fields, and out in the barn for 30 years, they have never been approached by the Department of Conservation, or anybody else on educational formats. If it weren't for soil conservation, and those departments which have been moved, consolidated, etc., (we don't even have them in our areas anymore,) they wouldn't know half of the things like no-till and all of the programs that were available. If we didn't reach them in the last thirty years, we are not going to reach them in time for the heavy logging that is planned at this time.

Senator Childers responded that he still would like to think that if we go to such a counter productive attitude that landowners might say, "timber is not what I want to do", then we end up with less timber. It has to be something that landowners feel is worthwhile to do, because land is not cheap anymore in Missouri, at one time it was - it is not anymore. The thing is, that if we don't have some balance there, then we are actually doing the opposite of what we wanted to do. So it is important to have that balance in there, make sure that people stay with timber, and produce more timber, which is the final effect we are all interested in. So if you look at the balance factor, what really works is to have the best timber resources that we can possibly have, and that is what he sees as the bottom line.

Emily Firebaugh agreed that if the legislature passes something new, people don't spend the time watching their follow-up on what they do, so who is going to educate the other people out there who aren't working at this day and night? Then we all know also that with new regulations we have the least control of harvesting.

Senator Childers agreed with her completely. The thing is that the education component is just as important, because if you have the best program in the world, and no one knows about it, it is not very productive.

Mark Garnett stated that he thinks that private property rights will be the test.

Dr. Wade summarized that he thinks the conversation has come to a conclusion. He thinks that what the committee did was informally agree with themselves where that issue fits and how it is going to be a part of this committee. He thinks the committee has created a shared position on that. The other thing that we need to get back to is the follow-up to the Business Incentives presentation. He asked if that group has anything to share with the committee?

Earl Cannon mentioned that Bill Bryan had drafted a paragraph, and DED is working on that paragraph. Earl shared with the committee a few observations of what DED is doing at this point. He first re-introduced Nancy Gibler, who helped out at the last meeting. She represents the Incentives section. He then introduced Becky Kilpatrick, the attorney with DED, who has reviewed the draft from Bill Bryan. There are three or four observations Earl would like to share. First, DED is typically in agreement with the concept of what the committee is trying to do. DED is trying to work with good companies that are creating more and better jobs in Missouri. Also chip mill owners and operators should be treated the same as other companies in this respect. One concern following the challenge that we have is that we have to figure out how to determine the environmental history of the company. Unfortunately we haven't found a source that we can go to, that would first of all identify what kind of environmental history we are talking about, and also identify the history of a company. There are a lot of areas of gray that Becky is trying to distinguish and agree with. For example, some companies might do a real good job of hiding pollution and environmental things that have been done. On the other hand, companies that have been given a "bad rap" actually haven't been that bad. To get down to the bottom line, DED is in agreement with the concept of what the committee is trying to do, but we need to figure out how to deal with environmental impact of companies that we deal with.

Becky Kilpatrick stated that she also feels that something like this needs to be done, but is not sure how we are going to go about doing it.

Emily Firebaugh made a reference to Mr. Bryan's letter - let us make sure that the responsible chip mill companies are treated with respect.

Sarah Tyree informed the committee that Proctor and Gamble has expanded their operations in Cape Girardeau, and is getting their fiber source from Canada and Brazil. The committee should look at their environmental record and timber in general.

Emily Firebaugh suggested that one way the committee could look at this problem that would make it easy, is that the EPA fines large corporations who are not responsible. What we are trying to do is, if someone is coming into the state, and dragging trash cans with them, let's look into them, and say we need to set boundaries. Why are we commissioned to look at a company that the state of Missouri invited to come in, and provided $300,000 to help them come into the state, and then all of a sudden we look at it and say, "wait, I don't know about this". Let's make sure that kind of an attitude won't happen again, and let's see what we can do to prevent that.

Mark Garnett asked Mr. Cannon if DED can discriminate legally against such things happening? Ms. Gibler explained that a lot of DED programs are formula based so as to avoid discretion. Becky Kilpatrick stated that DED has set guidelines in this situation. David Bedan said it seems like the committee is not clear on these discretion views. The legislature has given a number of mandates saying they must consider in giving assistance. The question is, should we recommend that legislature have environmental records as part of that? Does DED have the authority to discriminate on companies with good or bad environmental records?

Mr. Cannon stated that he would like to have DNR and the Attorney General's office make suggestions as to how we could deal with discretionary situations. They would have access to a better database to handle these environmental records.

Mr. Law said that his concern is that when you allow benefits or incentives, are there agreements that the companies have to make when they apply for these benefits or incentives? They state the number of employees they might hire, and then don't, are there penalties then? Maybe that is what we should be looking at.

Mr. Cannon replied that DED has the right to implement the clawback provision in agreements. Questions could be built into the application process.

David Day stated that one of the problems you run into when you allow companies to handle hazardous waste in Missouri, is that though they may be in violation in another state, they wouldn't be here in Missouri.

Mark Garnett replied that the problem with that is there is almost always a veto power regarding information from DNR. If the companies aren't going to get approval from DNR, they are not going to get incentives from DED.

Emily Firebaugh asked Mr. Cannon the question - doesn't DED have a regulatory basis for allowing these companies to come into Missouri? She doesn't understand how the state can finance a company (chip mills) to come into Missouri, and then discriminate against them. She said as a chip mill committee member, to be cautious of this situation, because the Governor can't keep appointing these committees.

Mr. Cannon said that his response would be - hindsight is always better than foresight. The request that came to DED from Canal Wood in 1997 was before the chip mills concern had reached the extent that it has now.

Emily Firebaugh asked if DED is not wanting an industry to come into Missouri for growth.

Dr. Wade replied that his sense is that DED needs to address the question on incentives and report back to the committee.

Earl Cannon suggested that DNR, DED and DOC get together in the next month and come to the July meeting with a modification.

Emily Firebaugh commented that she thinks Representative Foster brought up something very important. Let's make it so that we don't run every industry out, and that she wants to emphasize within the committee, that they do not discriminate and keep someone from coming into Missouri.

Dr. Wade then thanked the committee for their participation.

Legislative Update

Co-Chair Marvin Brown suggested the committee go on with the next item on the agenda - the legislative update. Representative Foster opened with discussion on the Forestry Incentives Bill. This bill has not changed much from the past. A bill introduced last week by Wayne Crump, states that if Federal government buys any land in the state of Missouri, it will have to have 2/3 approval by the house and senate. Federal government has put a sizable amount of their budget to buy land from Missouri residents especially along the river, and many Missourians are getting very nervous about this.

Emily Firebaugh asked then how are you going to limit Federal government when Department of Conservation in some areas of this state have been just as able to buy up land?

Presentation of "Logger Training"

Co-Chair Marvin Brown introduced Eric Peters, as the Director of Missouri Forest Products Association, and turned the presentation over to him. Eric Peters reminded the committee that landowner education and logger training come up periodically at these meetings, and thanked the committee for inviting the association to come and speak at this meeting. He then informed the committee as to how the association got into the "logger training" program. The Board of Directors endorsed SFI, (Sustainable Forestry Initiative); a voluntary program ran by the American Forest and Paper Association to promote sustainable forestry within the industry. Regulation is getting a lot of attention and education does also, but the solution for all the committee has much more to do with education and training than regulation. If those that spend so much time trying to regulate, would spend half of that time educating and training, that is where you will see the progress. He then introduced the logger trainers, Skip Stokes, Soren Ericksson and Lynn McClure.

Skip Stokes began the presentation with an introduction on training. She then gave an overview of her background. When defining her program initially in working with loggers, she has identified some solutions in working with them that would work very well in solving the problems of the committee. 1) Anytime you have a problem, involve the people working on the ground in the problem solving process, and they are going to become more cooperative. 2) when you make them part of the solution, they have some ownership in the whole problem, and therefore they have some ability as a small company to make a difference.

She went on to say her training program is divided into two segments: Forest Management - first segment of logger training. She then showed slides of a sample harvest. Segment two is Best Management Practices - loggers are taught to help solve erosion problems. Her slides consisted of - sites of skid trails, planting of winter wheat, use of water bars, use of streamside zones, training in erosion potential, control sediment runoff, dying trees, spacing and leaving of trees for wild life, control of visual trails by buffer strips, etc.

To summarize her presentation, Skip then said you need to get feedback from the loggers going through training. The needs for the future will be to recognize loggers who are trying to do things the right way. The peers should set the example for the rest.

Mark Garnett asked how many people have been trained in her program so far? Skip Stokes responded that it was close to 200. He then asked, of those 200 what would be the demographics as to why they took the training. Skip told him that you usually find that there is a core group of high-quality loggers who start talking to their peers and other people in the region they come from.

Skip Stokes continued stating that training was a very complex web. Ideally the best situation would be a landowner interested in soil conservation, the forester that goes out and practices their field at marking the timber to get the desired effect, and certainly a logger willing to bend over backwards and use all the best management practices at his disposal. You have to recognize that 5% of timber sales conducted in the state utilizes the forester of in kind - why is this? Basically some landowners just don't want anyone coming in on their property, or they just don't know any better. We need to educate the landowner on how a properly conducted timber sale should transpire.

Jay Law asked the question on registration and licensing of loggers. Stokes replied that you need to put teeth in the program to formally certify loggers, however, when she has said that, people have told her of the extra paperwork, the extensive cost, etc.

Eric Peters then thanked Skip Stokes for coming and doing her presentation for the committee. He then introduced Lynn McClure.

Lynn McClure briefly described his background and training with Missouri Forest Products. He stated that we are all here because we are concerned about the Missouri Woodlands. The logger training is one step in that direction. It is a voluntary program, and industry supported program. He said he wants to share experiences and give some examples of things that have happened to him, and people he has dealt with.

He continued saying that Jim Privitt has a logging crew in Salem. His loggers have been logging a long time, and utilize best management practices. He convinced Jim to sign up for the course, and he participated with his son. After about the third session, Jim wanted more applications because he had a class scheduled in Salem to send the rest of his logging crew. Jim paid for the safety equipment, salary, and the course costs. Mr. McClure also met Joe Counts who was on his fourth or fifth session. He was very interested and promoted the course. Joe developed a reputation as someone who cares for the land, and was approached by landowners who had seen his careful consideration of the land. Steve Spencer, after taking the course, sent a logger through the course so that he would do his logging in a safe manner. He went on to say that the Missouri Wood Industry Trust is now offering a base rate of 20% of workmen's compensation to loggers who have completed their training course, or who have made a commitment to complete the course. Prior to the logging training, this was a 40% to 50% base rate for workmen's compensation. This is a significant savings and certainly helps promote the program.

He said most loggers want to do a good job. Obstacles to this are: loggers knowledge of what is good or correct, landowners objectives, landowners knowledge of the options, and what to expect. He believes this is an important program that will benefit Missouri landowners, Missouri timber industry, and Missouri woodlands.

Eric Peters then introduced Soren Ericksson. Mr. Ericksson stated that professionalism comes with a good training program for young people. He started cutting wood in 1951. In 1961 he was asked to be an instructor. He then started a college for loggers. He also stated that there should be training for landowners and loggers at the same time.

Jay Law asked Soren if the training is excellent, that is what is needed, but does registration or licensing help? Soren thinks it definitely helps. Eric Peters stated that even though the Missouri Forest Products Association, the board, and the education committee has not wanted to be seen as forcing certification on loggers, it does issue a certificate, a wallet sized laminated card to show they have gone through training.

David Day commented that he thinks training is great, and needs to be promoted as a logging tool. What can be done to achieve this? Eric Peters responded that there is a role the (committee) can play in promoting training. The association sends out press releases to all rural and metropolitan newspapers, to let them know about the program. As the committee comes to decisions to assure money that comes from Department of Conservation and the (association) as an industry puts into the program, that the training continues, so that they can promote the program.

David Bedan asked what percent of total loggers in the state have gone through training? Mr. Peters replied that there are approximately 800 loggers in Missouri, the majority are good citizens. Soren tries to keep the logging classes around 12. Soren stated he sees people coming in to Ohio from other states. The reason workmen's compensation is so low there is because the association sets a very high standard from the beginning.

Marvin Brown stated that he wants to clarify that the AFAPA (American Forest and Paper Association) as an organization does not require all their members to be trained loggers, that is an anti-trust violation, and the SFI requires AFAPA members to report what percent comes from trained loggers.

David Bedan said that Skip had made the comment that there needs to be some teeth in the training programs, and he agrees with that, but doesn't know where this should be coming from. It should come from some organized body or government.

Emily Firebaugh commented that in Madison County (where the committee will be touring in June), loggers that have come in have been from Memphis TN, and could care less what practices were used or what the land is left to be. The landowner is the one who as a third time speculator bought into it and said, " cut this, I don't care how you cut it". Then there is the "corporate" cut, where they brought in their own loggers to clear cut to their fashion. So you can use all the best management practices, but there isn't any way that you can get back to that as a county, but we can educate these landowners, so that the next time somebody comes through with a checkbook and says they will give them the best price they ever had, they will know what can be done with the land after it has been clear cut.

Soren Ericksson replied that he doesn't have a solution to that problem, but twenty five to thirty years ago in Sweden they had so many regulations that they couldn't cut anything on their own land without the permit. He then left Sweden, and came to the U.S. for twenty years, he went back several years ago, and found that almost all regulation was gone. The government made a training program for everybody. A logger, or forester could do the training.

Kirk McFadden commented that in addressing good and bad management practices, maybe the government should take away the loggers license if they are found to be using bad management practices. He asked Skip Stokes if her training addressed bad management practices.

Skip replied that they try to tell the loggers what is good and what we would like for them to do. They try to tell them what best techniques should be used.

David Day asked Eric and Skip about the size of their classes. Do they try to keep them around 12 people a class, and do they have any trouble filling a class.

Eric Peters replied that with the rare exception of Chillicothe and Hannibal, it is harder to get people to fill the training classes, because there is not as much logging in that area.

Eric Peters then thanked the committee for the opportunity to speak to them, and encouraged them to set in on their training program anytime.

Marvin Brown then commented that he would like to follow up on the previous presentation. The Department of Conservation is committed to keeping their grant going, and the department has announced their intention by July 2000 to use only trained loggers on timber harvested on public land. They are doing this in order to stimulate the development of more trained loggers. The MFPA has provided a proposal on how they can expand their activities to meet the demands of DOC.

David Day then asked Marvin Brown if he was aware of any companies that pay a premium for trained loggers, or for timber harvested in certain ways.

Jay Law stated that in Indiana the only thing they had was that you were in a classified course.

Representative McBride commented on the possibility of making training mandatory - can we require these loggers from out of state to being licensed?

Eric Peters replied that if it would be a law within the state, then obviously a corporation has to abide by the law.

Marvin Brown then announced that the committee would break for lunch. The meeting was then adjourned for lunch at approximately 12:15 p.m.

The meeting reconvened at 1:10 p.m.

Presentation of "Water Quality and Soil Issues"

The next item on the agenda, changed from the original agenda, was a slide presentation by Dr. Robb Jacobson, Research Hydrologist with USGS in Columbia, MO., entitled Downstream Effects of Timber Harvesting in Ozarks.

Dr. Jacobson opened the presentation with an explanation of the USGS, (United States Geological Survey) organization. The organization provides science information with the cooperation of state and federal agencies. The program he is doing today is in cooperation with Missouri Department of Conservation, USGS program, National Park Service, and some funding from the US Army Corps of Engineers. The program was started in 1990 and addresses generally how land use effects have been felt by streams in the Ozarks. The issue came up mainly at the request of the Department of Conservation in looking at how land use has affected fish habitat. In general the Ozarks of Missouri and Arkansas do not have the sort of instrumental quantitative database that we would like to have to qualify these effects. There are some things in these studies that transfer very well to the Ozarks.

Some of the subjects on the slides he presented were as follows:

Downstream effects and sustainability

Graph showing the effect on evapotranspiration

Runoff on Little Piney Creek in Phelps County

Storm flow responses to timber harvest (1955-1990)

Analysis of the hydrologic record effects of roads - volume effect and timing effect

Relative effect of roads and silviculture in timber harvest sediment yield

Roads, runoff, and sediment supply

County level land use history - Current River

Hickory Point - Little Piney Creek

Little Piney Creek channel recovery

Excess gravel source - Ozark stream channels

Channel-network controls on sediment routing

Changes in positioning of Little Piney Creek

Stream bank changes

Landscape hysteresis

Downstream effects of timber harvest in the Missouri Ozarks

High capacity Chip Mills and downstream effects of timber harvest

Cumulative downstream effects

At the conclusion of his presentation a question and answer session followed.

Emily Firebaugh then asked Dr. Jacobson when he studies these things, does he study the natural way the stream has been treated, or does he also study the impact of, for instance, hog farm overflow or saw mill contamination.

Dr. Jacobson replied that within the context of the broad land use, one of the differences is that his group is looking at large basins and trying to understand the cumulative impact downstream, rather than the effect of an overflow or something comparable. Any one of those particular things can have an overwhelming effect over a short period of time in a small place. He is trying to look over the broader areas.

Earl Cannon posed the question to Dr. Jacobson that sometimes it is important to measure sediment yield. In Missouri the last four years, there has been a major effort to increase stream monitoring. Do the Missouri stream teams have the ability to do the types of analysis that you are talking about here? Dr. Jacobson replied with: Unfortunately no. Because there is a difficulty measuring the effects. Especially because most of the sediment that is transported is during large floods, and people cannot go out there and sample it.

David Bedan then asked: In your study on the Little Piney, did you come across any place where they had rafted ties on the stream? Dr. Jacobson replied: Yes the Little Piney was rafted extensively, and through their studies they have talked to people who were related to people who rafted ties down through that area.

Emily Firebaugh commented that a piece of equipment that can go into a ridge - it doesn't make any difference if that road was built for clear cutting or for selected harvesting - that road can do the damage no matter which way it is going in.

Marvin Brown then thanked Dr. Jacobson for his excellent presentation. He commented that the committee will plan to spend the next hour talking about three things, one is the field trip, second is the future meeting activities, and third, Dr. Wade will be talking about the future framing of the committee's report.

Revised schedule for the field trip

Marvin Brown stated that everyone should have a copy of the proposed agenda for the field trip. It starts Sunday and goes till late Tuesday, June 6-8. He hopes everyone can stay all three days. There will be individual and various stops. One question he would like to present to the group, should we have a signup for the public who are going on the tour?

David Bedan asked if there are any places on the tour where we would have to know how many signed up? Marvin replied that there are several places where it would be helpful to know what number we are expecting.

Jay Law questioned the transportation and parking problems at the sites.

Marvin Brown replied that transportation of the public will be on their own, and transportation for the committee will be consolidated. Brian Brookshire said there will be parking problems, and safety requirements also.

David Bedan asked if he was saying there should be limitations? Marvin Brown replied no, just registration, so that we will know how many to expect. David Bedan asked if there would be safety hats, etc. provided, and use of different vehicles for the terrain? David Bedan asked what was the deadline for signing up? Llona Weiss stated that probably by the 15th of May. She will provide sign up sheets at the registration desk for those wanting to sign up for the trip.

Emily Firebaugh had several questions on the different sites to be attended. She also raised questions on Canal Wood. Co-Chair Brown replied that the committee would have to go into closed session to address that. She then addressed Bill Bryan on the issue. Bill Bryan replied informing the committee on their legal rights.

Llona Weiss asked whether when the committee gets to Farmington, and then ends up north of Sikeston, are there any logistics with their vehicles?

Brian Brookshire recommended that they could cover all the logistics with the community, in the meantime the committee could get everyone organized on whether they want to drive or whatever.

Llona Weiss suggested the committee members let the staff know, so that they can make sure they are taken care of.

Emily Firebaugh stated that she would like to bring up again the issue of a closed session to discuss whether they would be allowed to visit Canal Wood.

Bill Bryan reminded the committee that to go into a closed session under the Sunshine Law, you have to state a specific reason to go into closed session. One of the specific reasons is under Section 610.021 (1) to discuss legal, confidential or privileged matters. You need to submit a motion to cite that statutory section, and just incorporate what he has said here.

Emily Firebaugh said she has no problem with carrying this in an open session, she was just asking if the committee should do it in closed session.

Co-Chair Brown stated that if Canal Wood has refused the committee a specific site visit, would that serve as a session? Bill Bryan replied that if you want legal advice about something, that is understandable for closed session, if you just want to talk about facts or the way things have developed, then it is not necessary to go into a closed session.

Emily Firebaugh said she will open a discussion on why there is the possibility that if we have NOT been invited to tour a facility that was invited to come into the state of Missouri, and receive indirect funding of $300,000, and then ask the committee to review such things, why we are not going to view this facility?

Co-Chair Brown replied that he is assuming this is o.k. Ms. Firebaugh replied the $300,000 is the tax payers money! Co-Chair Brown stated they had made the determination last time, that if the government wants this tour, that it has to comply with the Sunshine Law. If we are going to tour a facility, that there will have to be a typical reason that the public is going to join us. We asked Canal Wood to view the facility, Canal felt like for reasons of safety and security that they could not allow the public to view the facility.

Emily Firebaugh then asked why they, (Canal Wood) took a group of "ordinary" citizens from Madison County to tour the facility, because they are "public".

Co-Chair Brown replied that we cannot speak for them, they felt the reasons were for security.

Bill Moore informed the committee that Canal Wood would be happy for any member of the committee to tour the facility, but because of safety, security and other reasons, they are not able to accommodate a large group. They have never accommodated a group any bigger than ten or twelve people.

Emily Firebaugh then thanked Mr. Moore for his comments. She agrees with him wholeheartedly. Emily then addressed her question to Bill Bryan - if she wanted to tour a facility, let's say the execution chamber at the Potosi prison, she knows that everyone cannot go in there with her. So regarding Canal Wood, there has to be some way we can get our group in there.

Bill Bryan commented that as the gentleman from Canal Wood indicated, any member of the committee is free to arrange a tour of their facility. The only way that he can think of to be assured that they are not violating the Sunshine Law would be to do it in a way that wouldn't constitute a public meeting. If you as individuals would go into the facility, and if you are on your own, that is not a meeting.

Bill Moore stated that it was his understanding that as long as no business is conducted, a tour itself does not constitute a violation of the Sunshine Law.

Bill Bryan reminded the committee that is subject to interpretation; the Sunshine Law says any meeting in which public business is discussed. And if public business is discussed - in the eyes of a particular judge in a lawsuit that we have been in a public meeting, and if we haven't allowed the public any opportunity to participate it is a violation of the Sunshine Law.

Emily Firebaugh stated that the point that we made at the last meeting was that (Canal Wood) may not invite us, Canal Wood has been more than gracious to invite us, and as a member of this committee, I would really like to see this facility.

Co-Chair Brown stated that he thought as an individual Emily can do that. Bill Bryan commented that in addition, the committee is not obligated to follow his legal advice.

Emily Firebaugh then made a motion that as a committee they view this facility that has been funded by $300,000, as we invited Canal Wood in, they have invited us - and that we not conduct any business while on this tour, but she thinks it is essential that we tour the facility. David Day seconded the motion.

Mark Garnett asked if the committee is going to be able to do all that is necessary in just two days?

Bill Moore commented that he wanted to say that he will offer individual tours, if someone calls him, and set it up in the time frame of the tour, he would be happy to accommodate.

David Bedan recommended that the committee follow the counsel's advice, and if Canal Wood doesn't want to work with the committee, then let that be known.

Emily Firebaugh stated that she would like to know why the committee is going to Pioneer Forest on the tour.

Sarah Tyree added that she would like to see maybe adding another day to the tour. This is such a great schedule, but it is agreed that maybe another day would be necessary.

Earl Cannon stated he has seen the Westvaco Fiber Farm, and wonders if the tour of the Farm might not really add that much to the problem they are trying to address. Co-Chair Brown said it really doesn't affect the routing schedule, but thinks the Fiber Farm presents some opportunities related to the fiber market, and this is one way of looking at land use.

Emily Firebaugh just could not believe that the committee is going to pass up a chip mill infusion of funding, directly or indirectly, when we are commissioned by the Governor of the state, and we are not going to go look at "state money"? We have the invitation from Canal Wood. I just don't understand why this committee is being penalized and not being able to go to the site.

The committee then voted on Emily's motion that the committee view the Canal site, which was seconded by David Day. Those voting in favor of the motion were Emily Firebaugh, David Day, Earl Cannon and Mark Garnett. Those voting against the motion were David Bedan, Sarah Tyree, Jay Law and Rep. Bill Foster. Rep. Jerry McBride abstained (he would not be on the trip). Motion failed.

Facilitation - Dr. Jerry Wade

Dr. Wade thanked the committee for their discussion on the report. They have gone from gathering information to starting to frame the report. The committee will build some special time into the July 12 meeting to start to frame the report, which is dealing with tons of information on a thousand issues. All this has to come together as very high-quality and useful information. He will try to focus the committee's attention on some broad questions, that he will be going through at this time, which he will review, and follow up with a letter. The questions are:

If the work of this committee were to be developed into a report that had outcomes to your wildest hope in twenty years, what would the outcomes have been?

For those outcomes to occur, what would be the major themes that you think would have to be addressed?

In these major themes, what specific topics would be important to have in the report?

Given all the information you have been exposed to, all of the experts that you have been exposed to, as you look at that, is there additional specific information that you think you are going to have to have to do a quality job?

There will be three major areas of topics:

Common agreement

Disagreement, but generally an interactive framework

Considerable disagreement, which then will become the framework, for what then will be the public and political discussion that has to be worked out in terms of policy for the future.

That is his concept of how we move forward and he would like to see the framework and the start of the discussion at the July meeting, and hopefully that will let them move into the process to end this quality report by the December deadline. This discussion will probably take at least three to three and a half hours.

Emily Firebaugh asked that when we structure our framework, do we do it in a mandate, or how do we approach our language on this. Do we make suggestions?

David Bedan stated that the committee is an advisory council. We are making recommendations to the Governor, but one of our recommendations is that they mandate it.

Dr. Wade replied that the committee is NOT a legislative body. The committee may find there are areas in which they disagree on what they would recommend. His bias is not to do a consensual model, but find those areas where there is general opinion that everyone is in the same ballpark, and frame those issues.

Emily Firebaugh posed the question that when the committee gets down to the nitty-gritty of making their recommendations, how much input will the committee be getting from the public at that time. Will the committee then be through with the public input, and can get to work as a commissioned group. Do we have to have the recommendations approved by the public?

Co-Chair Brown stated that what we have been trying to do all along is incorporate the public's view into the committee's, so the committee will have a good sense of what the views are out there, (public). He also said the committee will probably draft up some recommendations that will show the public's comments.

Dr. Wade replied that his recommendation is to gather the information, get the public input, create a working draft, and at that point you really want to have the public input, and then come back and put the final draft together. His experience is such that many times the public analysis is from a broad range of perspectives. You need to add information that allows you to improve quality - you are not asking the public to approve it - but you are asking them to critique it. The public review process always improves the draft.

Co-Chair Marvin Brown thanked Dr. Wade for his facilitation. He mentioned that the committee has had discussion about a variety of topics, some of which will also be discussed on the upcoming tour. He then suggested that the draft minutes, which were extra long this time from the April meeting, be reviewed on everyone's free time, since it would take too long to review them and vote on them now. The approval of the minutes was tabled until the July meeting.

Public Comment

Co-Chair Brown then suggested they have about thirty minutes for public comment.

Kirk McFadden stated he is still unclear on security concerns. Co-Chair Brown said he understands his concerns, but that they can't go into that at this time.

Emily Firebaugh asked if anyone had any comments on the guest list that she put together. She tried to get a variety of people that she has heard from through phone calls throughout the area.

Kirk McFadden suggested that maybe we could get someone from North Dakota. North Dakota just passed industrial hemp, so the state of Missouri just lost that opportunity to be on the leading edge of industrializing hemp. He just would like the committee to know that, in light of the presentation at the last meeting and rebuttal.

Emily Firebaugh commented that maybe we could ask Senator Howard from the Poplar Bluff area, if he could set in at the next meeting, because he did speak before the Missouri Legislature on a bill approving industrial hemp in Missouri.

Carolyn Pufalt, a Sierra Club member and a member of the forestry committee of the Conservation Federation, asked who did Emily say is the forester coming on the tour? Emily Firebaugh replied it was Chris Whittom, he is from Steelville, Illinois, and the reason she is asking him is because he is dealing with a chip mill company that has clear cut land in Illinois.

Kirk McFadden said the public has asked him if the committee could make recommendations to the Governor and the legislature to outlaw clear cutting.

A lengthy discussion followed by Carolyn Pufalt, Kirk McFadden, and Jay Law regarding clear cutting involving land use change, and the final stages of removing the wood. Mr. Law summarized the discussion by saying the problem is that we have been over the land so many times that there is nothing left but poor trees.

Kirk McFadden commented that there has been a lot of discussion about professional foresters, we have heard a lot of that from the MFPA, etc., and he would like to point out to the committee that there are in fact "bad actors" within the frame of professional foresters. US Forestry Service just recently terminated a professional forester by the name of Pepper Martin, and he wants to ask Marvin Brown that if they had received his resume, and if he has asked for a job, if the Department of Conservation has any plans to hire Pepper Martin. He would like to ask Mr. Brown on behalf of concerned citizens, to please not hire Pepper Martin.

Emily Firebaugh requested to address something to the private landowners. She then stated that there is one thing very difficult about being a liberal, and a democrat. You need to be very careful with what you want to regulate, because what you are going to do to private landowners like herself is the same thing that we have done to agriculture throughout the years. She knows this because that is exactly what happened to her in the newspaper business. Just be very cautious of what you want, because you might get it, because of the fact that if you over regulate, you put the small business person out of business.

Roy Hengerson, of the Missouri Coalition for the Environment, stated that the problem with chip mills is the liquidation sector of chip mills if they proliferate on our forest.

Tom Kruzen, of the Missouri Coalition for the Environment, said he did not think environmental regulations were the problem, but the large corporate money and global market pressure that are driving the situation into Missouri.

Emily Firebaugh just wanted to say to be cautious of what you regulate.

Co-Chair Marvin Brown then said if there are no further comments from the public, we will adjourn for the day. He thanked everyone for coming, and the meeting adjourned at 3:15 p.m.