Advisory Committee on Chip Mills-Meeting Minutes 10/12/99

Governor's Advisory Committee on Chip Mills

Governor's Advisory Committee on Chip Mills
Department of Natural Resources
1738 E Elm – Conference Center
Jefferson City, Missouri
October 12, 1999
9:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m.

Committee Members Present

Sarah Tyree, Special Assistant, Department of Agriculture
David Day, Private property owner organization representative, Dixon
David Bedan, Citizen environmental conservation group, Columbia
Senator Wayne Goode, St. Louis
Senator Doyle Childers, Reeds Spring
Stephen Mahfood, Director, Department of Natural Resources
Jerry Conley, Director, Department of Conservation
Jay Law, Conservation Federation of Missouri, St. James
Emily Firebaugh, forest landowner, Farmington
Representative Bill Foster, Poplar Bluff
Jon D. Smith, Forest Products Representative, Mountain View
Representative Jerry McBride, Edgar Springs
Earl Cannon, Deputy Director, Business Expansion and Attraction, Department of Economic Development

Interested Parties:

Tom Kruzen, Missouri Coalition for the Environment, Mountain View
Tim French, Missouri Society of American Foresters, Jefferson City
Pam Duncan, Department of Conservation, Jefferson City
Mike Hoffman, Department of Conservation, Jefferson City
Scott Brundage, Missouri Consulting Foresters Association, Columbia
Jack Slusher, University of Missouri, Columbia
Greg Thorpe, Mill Spring Chip Mill, Mill Spring
Tom Lange, Department of Natural Resources, Jefferson City
Shelby Jones, Private Consulting Forester, Jefferson City
Debbrah Neff, Department of Natural Resources, Attorney General's Office, JC
John Wood, Westvaco, Wickliffe, KY
Dennis M. Meinert, Department of Natural Resources, Sullivan
Robert Riesenmy, Wood Woman, Hartsburg
Vince Henry, Missouri Pacific Lumber Co., Inc., Fayette
Bernie Lewis, Department of Forestry, University of Missouri, Columbia
Hank and Katie Dorst, Forest Watchers, Elk Creek
Russ Sewell, Audubon, MO
Roy C. Hengerson, Missouri Coalition for the Environment, St. Louis
Dennis Stinson, Department of Natural Resources, Jefferson City
Dan Schuette, Department of Natural Resources, Jefferson City
Dan Cassidy, Missouri Farm Bureau Federation, Jefferson City
Michael Stansfield, Department of Natural Resources, Jefferson City
Cory Ridenhour, Missouri Forest Products Association, Jefferson City
Charles Hirt, Canal Wood Corp., Jackson
Llona C. Weiss, Department of Natural Resources, Jefferson City
Jay Wunderlich, Harness-Gallagher, Jefferson City
Steve Shifley, U. S. Forest Service, University of Missouri, Columbia
John Dwyer, University of Missouri, Columbia
Dr. Jerry Wade, Facilitator, University of Missouri, Columbia

Call To Order:

The October 12, 1999 meeting of the Governor's Advisory Council on Chip Mills was called to order at 9:28 a.m. by Steve Mahfood, Director of the Department of Natural Resources and Co-Chair of the Committee.

Mr. Mahfood asked the committee members if there were any comments in the call to order period. It was announced that Dan Witter would make a report to the group right after lunch at the request of the committee from the last meeting.

Mr. Mahfood proceeded to the public comment portion of the agenda.

PUBLIC COMMENT

TIMOTHY FRENCH:

I am here today representing the Society of American Foresters. I am a member of the Society. I am also a member of the National Certification Review Board for the certified forester program nationally. Mr. French distributed some handouts. My purpose today is to provide some general background for the committee on the national status of registration, licensing and accreditation of foresters, and also the Society of American Foresters position on the subject.

Just a few general comments about the Society of American Foresters. The Society has about 18,000 members nationwide and approximately 200 in Missouri. It's the national organization that represents all segments of the forestry profession in the United States. It includes public and private practitioners, researchers, administrators, educators and forestry students. The Society was established in 1900 and next year will be celebrating their centennial year.

The mission of the Society of American Foresters is to advance the science, education, technology and practice of forestry; to enhance the competency of its members; to establish professional excellence, and use the knowledge, skills, and conservation ethic of the profession to ensure the continued health and use of forest ecosystems and the present and future availability of the forest resources to benefit society.

The Society is also the accreditation authority for professional forestry education in the United States. I have a copy of a position statement on credentialing of foresters. It's the second page. I am going to highlight a couple of points in that statement. This is the position of the Society. The Society of American Foresters supports the establishment of state programs to credential foresters. Collectively, these programs are often referred to as licensing, registration or certification. Such programs benefit the public, individuals who may seek the services of a forester and themselves. It states that currently 15 states (and that's incorrect, it has been updated and there are now 17 states) have some form of credentialing program. There are 17 states that have programs that affect who may provide forestry services to individuals and, in some cases, the nature of the services they can provide. Several other states are considering implementation of such programs, but not without some degree of controversy about need, type of credential, and specific requirements.

SAF administers a national certified program; however, it is not broadly understood within the profession that this program may supplement but does not substitute for state programs to register for licensing foresters.

In the background section in the position statement, it discusses various requirements of state credentialing programs, such as the levels of education, years of experience, hours of continuing education, and whether a test is required. I'll leave you to review this information as you wish, but will note here that there is a great deal of variation in program requirements between states. The details of individual state program requirements are published by the Society of American Foresters in a 1996 publication on the certification of foresters in the United States.

Society staff is currently serving state programs and will be updating this publication in the near future. For your information, I have included a table from the publication that will be helpful in comparing state programs, and this table is a yellow sheet in your handout. It's the current status of licensing, registration and certification of programs for foresters. The table has been updated with survey information that was collected. One state was not listed and that is Minnesota, although they have a registration or licensing law, they do not have a program up and running yet.

Also included in your packet is some background information on the Society's certified forester program, which is a voluntary program and open to all qualified forestry professionals and not just Society members. Information is provided on the program requirements and the fee structure. As a comparison, I have also included the certified forester program requirements at the bottom of the table with the other states' program requirements.

In closing, and as you consider the recommendation to establish some type of forester credentialing program in Missouri, I urge you also to include representatives from the Society of American Foresters on any future process to establish the standards, requirements, or rules for the program. Several Society contacts are listed at the bottom of your first page as future information sources. Thank you.

Steve Mahfood asked if there were any questions from the committee.

Committee Member: What are some of the fees charged for these various states for registration?

Timothy French: They vary quite a bit around the country. I believe Arkansas has one of the smallest fees. I think they have a $15-$20 annual fee. Most states have an application fee. In Arkansas' case it may be $35.00. The average fee across the United States is about $40-$50. California has the highest fee structure, and their application fee and annual fee is roughly $200.00.

Earl Cannon: At the last meeting, some of you may remember I had offered to touch base with our Division of Professional Registration regarding a licensing form for licensing loggers. In discussing this with them, they thought there may be some opportunities to have one board to license foresters and loggers at the same time. Are you familiar with any other states that do this, or do they have a separate board for foresters and loggers?

Top

Timothy French: I believe, at least in the legislation, I'm not sure exactly how the boards are run, but I believe there are at least two states that have credentialing for forest practitioners or forest logging supervisors, and for the loggers themselves. I think that's Connecticut's program. I do have additional information about that, and will be glad to provide it to you later on.

Mr. Mahfood asked if there were any other questions. There being none Mr. Mahfood called on the next speaker, Scott Brundage.

SCOTT BRUNDAGE:

Just a brief follow-up to some comments I made to you at the end of the meeting last time. Since that time, in early September the Missouri Consulting Foresters Association had our fall meeting to discuss this issue of licensing, registration, whatever. We're not sure what it will be called yet. As Tim pointed out, it kind of goes by three different names. I sent a letter of our position to both Steve and Jerry. I wasn't sure exactly of the communications, plus I wanted to check on any question.

The position of the Consulting Foresters Association is, by all means, by unanimous vote, we are interested in pursuing licensing and registration of professional foresters here in Missouri. Shelby Jones is the chair of that committee. Shelby has been attending these meetings on a number of occasions. Actually, the chair of this committee started last February, I think that's when we had the spring meeting. So we are gathering a tremendous amount of information from a number of these other states, and getting ourselves in a position where we will come up with a recommendation for the Consulting Foresters. We will be planning to have a meeting in my Society for foresters in D.C. and discuss what we have come up with at that point in time. From our standpoint, we eagerly look forward to having foresters registered or certified and think it's to our advantage and also the state's advantage.

Mr. Brundage asked if there were any questions.

Emily Firebaugh: To follow-up on Earl Cannon's point, do you see any conflict between having loggers and foresters licensed under the same board? Isn't that what you mentioned Earl?

Scott Brundage: I'm shooting from the hip right now because I haven't put that much thought into it. We'll both be under our own set of regulations and requirements. Quite frankly, just on the spur of the moment, I can't see why that would be any problem. We've got apples and oranges there. Whoever makes up the board is going to be rendering decisions on the apples and if something comes in on the loggers. Quite frankly, I think we both need to be regulated in some way shape or form. Why have two different boards? You can over-government the world at times. From my standpoint, without checking the members and just trying to use common sense, I can't see where there would be any problem.

Mr. Mahfood asked if there were any other questions. There being none, Mr. Mahfood called on the next speaker, Tom Kruzen.

TOM KRUZEN:

I am with the Missouri Coalition for the Environment, Sierra Club, and just about any other green group you can find in Missouri or the United States. Mr. Kruzen handed out a comment from the president of the Society of American Foresters. I do want to say thank you for being so open. We are having a great forum. It's always good to have faces to go with names and positions. It is interesting that there are dialogues happening here across traditionally tortured lines.

I do want to give you more handouts. This is legislation from Tennessee. It is not yet law but may be someday. It's hard for me to put the last few weeks in perspective, but I have been all over the Eastern United States and have seen three national forests. I was in Brevard, North Carolina this past weekend, the cradle of American forestry. I didn't have time to get into the particular reason why that is so. There are a lot of trees there. There is a lot of clear cutting going on. Some very steep slopes – steeper than anything we have here. I did happen to listen to NPR this morning, and there is a possible great book for all of us to read called My Common Friends by Jim Newton. He knew Harvey Firestone, Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh, Thomas Edison. He had a rare opportunity to be a real estate developer in Ft. Myers, Florida and got to know those folks as people. I thought it was real interesting that Mr. Newton taught Lindbergh how to fly.

One of the things that came out of that discussion this morning was that Lindbergh indicated to Mr. Newton that he thought business and science needed to be tempered with moral and spiritual guidance. I thought that was a highly remarkable statement from Mr. Lindbergh so long ago.

To tell you the truth, I was really depressed at the last meeting. By the end of the meeting folks had nixed everything that was on the board. We go to our meetings and put things on our board, and some of those things were things we thought about. I would ask you now before lunch that you consider everything that is still on the table, and that you don't throw the bath water, the baby, and the tub out, and somehow come out with something inspirational. We all have our self-interests, but we also can all circumvent those self-interests by looking at the interests of the greater good for the State of Missouri. I think we are all here for that.

As I left the state the other day, I counted logging trucks, and I had 23 of them by the time I hit the state line in Charleston. These were the big ones with whole logs going down the highway. I didn't see that many in North Carolina or Tennessee. I would just encourage you to do the best you can, and am so glad to be able to talk to you before lunch as opposed to after lunch.

Mr. Mahfood asked if there were any questions. There being none, Mr. Mahfood called on Robert Riesenmy for comment and announced that Hank Dorst would follow him. That will be the end of the public comment.

ROBERT RIESENMY:

I wear a lot of hats, and I am a small business person. Sometimes I am an administrator, sometimes I'm a wood splitter, and sometimes I'm a minister. But this hat, I have been wearing this hat since they first came out. I bought this one in 1983, and I've averaged about 900 hours a year wearing it for the last nine years. Prior to that I probably averaged more like 2000 hours a year wearing it. There is usually a saw in association with this hat.

I want to tell you about my last month or so as briefly as I can. I'll start you out at Wapello, Iowa about a month ago. I was there to speak on sustainable agriforestry and related topics. There were about 32 or 33 attendees. Of those, 13 were loggers. I had a chance to find out why they were there. They had to pay to come. They were there because they cared. A little later, the following weekend, I had to go to Piedmont because the weekend before, when I was supposed to be in Columbia, I was in Iowa instead. So I was at Piedmont with Skip Stokes for the day. There were 12 loggers that day. There were 8 no-shows. Of those 12 loggers, you could tell one of them didn't really want to be there. I don't know why he really was there, but he certainly maintained his negativity the whole day. I had the opportunity to learn that the reason the rest of them were there was because they cared. They all had their own individual selfish motivations too – realistic selfish motivations – but the principle reason they were there (and I would like to remind you that they had to pay to be there) was because they cared.

A couple of days later I was in Renick for two days. We had 15 people attending with 8 no-shows. I was the only non-logger there. When I say non-logger, what that means is that I don't log full time. I know all about logging. I do it periodically every year. But I wouldn't consider myself, by any stretch of the word, to be a professional or ongoing logger. But I can tell you this about those loggers, everyone of them was standing there, and also today, with their mouths gaping wide open in wonderment for what they were learning. They were thrilled with what they were learning. I had several of them tell me that the course was worth ten times what they were paying for it. There were no dissenters in that group.

I want to tell you about one of the no-shows, because I happen to know this person. He was doing logging for me this summer. I remember vividly the day he told me this, that the only reason he was going was because MoPAC was insisting that he go. A part of him was just thinking about getting out of the logging industry rather than going to this course. He opted not to show. I have learned just recently what he has really done is procrastinate for a year. He has decided he will go next year. Well – we'll see.

That discussion came up in Renick among us people who work in the timber. What about these no-shows? What about these guys that don't feel they have anything to learn from this program? They are going to fall by the wayside. Any time you incept change there are those who fall by the wayside. Our attitude, which may sound arrogant, is let ‘em. Let ‘em fall. Let the chips fall. We are all going to pay our dues and get certified because we care.

I want to say two other things about Piedmont, where I spent all day with Skip Stokes. One is that we had to give her an evaluation – a so-called honest evaluation. I asked her if it was ethical or not for me to show her my evaluation. She said: "no, I can see it." So I showed it to her. I can report to you that what I said about her was that she was outstanding. The other thing I had to say is that I didn't learn a thing. I'm glad to be able to report that because I go out and teach this stuff. I better know what I am talking about.

That does bring up one point, and I have heard it addressed here, but I am going to reinforce it slightly. I have an extensive, good education, but I don't have an hour in the school of forestry. I have been doing this for almost 30 years. I have been teaching people best management practices; I have been teaching them sustainable forestry; I have been walking the walk and I have been talking the talk. Obviously, I think I am all for regulation. I really want to see good, viable regulation. But I also hope you remember those of us who fall through the traditional cracks and grandfather us in with the opportunity to stay in practice.

I have two closing things. I understand Sorensen has been here and talked. Unfortunately, I wasn't here. I got missed on the loop initially. I know he told you many wonderful, valuable things. But I would also encourage you to have him again as you formulate what you are going to do. I think we all know that Sweden, among other countries, is way ahead of us in this issue. I think he can really help you or recommend regulation and enforcement that will have some realism behind it.

Top

I want to direct your attention to one last thing, and that is this journal of which many of you are aware. It's a timber processing industry publication. I was getting ready to go to Willow Springs the other day and decided to catch up on my periodical literature. I opened the front cover of the latest issue of Timber Processors, and the editor wrote an article entitled: Enough is Enough. He opens with: It is with great discomfort I have come to the conclusion that SFI is a failure and it is time for prescriptive state laws regulating timber harvesting. I'm just highlighting here. Some loggers are now boldly contending that the industry routinely fudges on SFI compliance. The Forest Products Industry needs stronger laws, really, to protect it from itself. This is no easy issue. Here again I only highlight. In his closing thoughts: And let's be honest about something. If the industry really puts its resources together, we can lobby for and achieve balance to slightly pro-industry laws in timber producing states. We're fighting a loosing battle as we now stand. It's time to take the offensive and force the preservationists to the negotiating table.

I say this because once you have read all of it I'm sure you'll have to agree this is a pretty timely and ironic shift in position of the industry. I might suggest, also, that there are other editorials in this publication that are very salient to what you are here for. I thank you very much.

Senator Wayne Goode: You mentioned that the experienced logger who was there at that meeting said he walked away saying the cost of the program was worth ten times what it cost. Can you give us very quickly, like a 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, what did he walk away with that he didn't know when he came in there?

Robert Riesenmy: I'm talking about the timber part here. He had already learned best management practices. What we learned was to take a tree that's leaning over here and make it fall on the target, the significance being that you have much less collateral damage. Collateral damage is a huge issue in any logging operation. Sweden, for example, when the inspector comes in he checks every tree that you damage, and you have to pay for the damage on a pro-rated basis. They are very careful with their skidding practices. We learned something about those skidding practices. We learned something about the logistics of creating a situation that is minimally damaging. Maybe, much more important to the loggers, themselves, but not germane to this, would be safety. It's the number one dangerous industry in North America. The safety things we learned are incredibly valuable to anyone of us. Minimizing the damage is a huge issue.

David Day: What was the cost of these courses?

Robert Riesenmy: $155.00. Anyone can afford that, especially if they are making $10,000 a week dropping timber.

Committee Member: How many of those weeks do you get out of a year?

Robert Riesenmy: I have to think they are averaging forty if they are in a good patch.

Mr. Mahfood asked if there were any other questions. He then called on Hank Dorst as the final commentor.

HANK DORST:

I just want to make a few brief comments. I apologize for missing the last meeting, but by reading the minutes I see that you had some really substantive discussions. I encourage you to discuss specifics, but I also heard from the last meeting that there was a lot of disagreement about those specifics. By addressing you as a committee, I urge you to agree on whatever specifics you can agree on, and then make a statement that says you endorse the development and implementation of legislative and administrative solutions or approaches. In other words, continue the process and carry it on. That's very important because, as you all know, this is going to continue in the legislative, administrative, and social/political forum.

From back in the Ozarks I want you to know that the search for timberland is continuing at a rapid pace. Areas are being scoured for available timber. Rumors about chip mills continue to fly. This weekend I heard a rumor about one over in the Ava area, west of Ava. I told the person who told me that, that it was a little far from the timber base. Two thousand acres on the Bryant was recently bought in Douglas County by an Oregon man who is cutting it all down in small diameters – in fact he is doing something I have never seen done; he is having his loggers pull trees with the tops up to the landing. He is cutting everything out of the tops which I have never seen. He has small diameter tops real twisted setting there that he can't sell.

Another development you should know about that I have mentioned in the past is LEDC. The Southern timber company has purchased 10,000 acres, maybe more by now, in the South Central Ozarks and is exporting pine logs out of Willow Springs. They have recently managed to finance and begin construction of a railroad spur out of Willow Springs Industrial Park.

Two years ago there was a series of articles about this, and their spokesman stated they would probably be able to double production for export. They are not building anything, they are just taking logs to southern mills.

I see Mark isn't here, but I would be remiss if I didn't point out that in the newspaper series two years ago, Mark has stated previously that he is a business partner in a chip mill in Arkansas. Mark stated that he would like to move his operation up to this industrial park and utilize the railroad spur and maybe move his production up 50,000 to 100,000 tons. Small by chip mill standards, but a notable thing. I would like to ask Mark at some point where he is standing on that now.

I think the Timber Processing editorial is really notable because is reflects that doing pro-action things now is good for them. This is representative of the fact that there is political will to address these problems. I would use logger training as an example of how that is an industry driven program, an FPA presented program, an FPA administrative program. It is in their best interests and an advantage to the industry to get this going on the ground.

I would suggest to you that one minor, specific thing that is probably fairly doable, is to suggest legislation that would require mandatory logger training to be phased in over a period of a few years. The LEDC is doing this on state lands, requiring loggers to be trained within a year or so. That could be right there all you can manage. But that could be the building block of an inspection program and could be tied to the logger training. The inspectors could be hired by USPA(?), they could be financed by EPC(?), they could be a combination of consulting foresters, MDC foresters, whomever. They could be people from the logger training program, itself, and go out to do representative inspection. Do a representative sample so people out there know they might be looked at and their work might be inspected. Sorensen, himself, mentioned that putting teeth in a logger-training program in the form of an inspection component is a very necessary element to the success of the logger-training program on the ground.

Finally, I would like to second Robert's comment about certified foresters. Those of us who have determined to become forest practitioners, and those of us who are forest practitioners, are concerned that we not become criminalized for practicing forestry because we are not certified foresters. Of course, we are not representing ourselves as certified foresters. That's very clear. But I have no problem with certified foresters. One thing we need to realize is that they cost money. Unless it is provided by MDC, it is an expensive proposition, especially for small landowners. That's one reason their services are not used more broadly. Part of the whole thrust here that everyone agrees on is educating the landowner, to get that information out there that is not being provided by the forestry establishment in a commercial context. In fact, some of these other states have looked into it. I think a Tennessee committee suggested looking into development of some sort of forestry apprenticeship program or practitioner program. I would urge you to consider something like that so that the expertise is made more widely available. Thank you.

Steve Mahfood asked if there were questions.

David Bedan: I was wondering if some of these other states, in dealing with the problem of people who don't have forestry degrees but are doing forestry work, is there some way of going through a program and testing out the requirements? I'm kind of nervous about grandfathering wholesale without any requirements. Is there a way of making sure that people have some competence?

Hank Dorst: That makes perfect sense – testing out. I am not certain there actually is a state that has a program in place, but I have read that some have been proposed. That would certainly be one approach. I don't really see this as a problem as it exists now. It's just that if we got into a strict situation it could be conceivable.

Steve Mahfood: Asked a question of Timothy French. Just for curiosity, you had a list of states in here. Are there provisions to deal with Hank's issue? I think it's a good issue. How have other states dealt with this?

Timothy French: Right now, only one state that I know of has a test in lieu of education or experience. Most states have a combination of experience and the test. I believe it may be Connecticut, but that is their only requirement.

Hank Dorst: I would just like to say I like the experience angle.

Top

Rep. McBride: I think my concern might be the definition of a logger. I think when we got down to it we may have more trouble in that area. Am I a logger if I cut a little firewood? Am I a logger if I cut cordwood periodically when I'm not working at something else? Just where does the term kick in? Has anyone given any thought to that?

Hank Dorst: I know you have expressed this concern before, and I share your concern because there are people who do a little bit of everything. I would say do it on an income percentage. How much of your income comes from preparing forest products?

Steve Mahfood asked if there were any other questions. There being none, Mr. Mahfood asked the committee what kind of a time commitment he had from the members. It was agreed to meet until 3:00 p.m., including public comment. Jerry Conley will co-chair the meeting in the afternoon.

MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 4, 1999 MEETING:

Mr. Mahfood commented that they were extremely lengthy and that there were problems with the microphone system.

Earl Cannon felt there was some good discussion at the last meeting and that as much of it as possible should be included. There were words missing from the tape so he added what he felt was meant.

Corrections to Minutes:

Representative McBride should not be on the present list.

Mr. Mahfood asked if the committee members would be more comfortable approving the minutes at the next meeting so they would have time to read them.

It was the consensus to wait until the November meeting to approve the September 14, 1999 minutes.

FACILITATOR PRESENTATION – DR. JERRY WADE:

Dr. Wade: I can understand why perhaps Mr. Kruzen may feel a little bit depressed after the last meeting. I had a very different kind of reaction to it. I found the meeting to be very productive, a lot of information. I think what we will provide the committee with, the substance of what may be the most critical decisions you have to make, is the nature and the basic concept underlying the report that you are getting ready to put together. I think there was perhaps some disbelief when I was asked if this report was going to be ready on time. My answer was an affirmative yes. I would hope, also, that the committee will find that it will be a report with a substantial substance to it.

Let me suggest what I hope the agenda will be that we can work through today. We need to begin with, and this is what I think will be the critical decision, a preliminary decision on the framework of what the basic concept of the report is going to be. When that is accomplished we need to take a look at the economic proposals. We need to look at the Bedan/Brookshire proposal, which I think actually has within it a whole series of areas and issues covered. And then a discussion of the section on financing with the proposal we will have before us, and then, hopefully, we will be able to review the items for actions laid out several meetings ago, look at the ones which we have not directly addressed as proposals, and see if there are some that are unique enough that we need to address, or if, in fact, they are actually being addressed in light of the content already.

To share with you, Bernie and I have prepared for you what we believe is a framework with some narrative of the report. I want to pass that around, do a quick walking through it with you, what the sections are, what they encompass, and then talk about the decision that I think you need to discuss and come to address the basic concept and nature of the report you are going to do.

The structure that we have put together has five sections in it. Please understand there is some narrative here, but it is primarily structure that you are looking at, although there is material for each section. One of the things you are looking at in the outline, the background information material that Bernie provided you at the last meeting, is Section 4. If you have that with you and want to put the pieces together, that will go in Section 4.

What I would like to do is to give you a couple of minutes and let you read the introduction that we have drafted to the report, and then let me walk you through the purpose of each section and how they build. After I have done that I will lay out for you the decision I think you need to make on the concept of the report.

At this point time was given for the committee members to read the introduction.

Dr. Wade continued by going through what each of the sections would be if this were the framework and concept of the final report. It's obvious that a primary concern to the committee is that we address very directly the charge from the governor to this committee, and the second section would be an analysis of that executive order. This narrative would then provide a road map for all of the specific issues of the governor requested. The information and data will be located in the report so that it can be seen very quickly that the charge, in very specific terms, is being met.

The other thing that emerged from this is the analysis that would also indicate to us that at least one recommendation probably needs to be included since there is an area of information we aren't able to meet; that there is some research recommendation that needs to be made so that information can become available.

That would be followed by laying out the committee's vision of the ideal outcomes for Missouri forestry as you developed in the July meeting, and the thematic organization that resulted from those visions as a structure for addressing the content and the information of all the data we gather, and the framework for the recommendations. The booklet called Background Information would then provide the specific information from the research that you gave the committee from the presentations organized in the thematic framework, ending in what I'm calling The Arenas of Potential Action in which I have done a slight reorganization of those thematic areas into four that came from the vision, plus the financial. This is all right now very interim writing. One is sort of the framework for that section. The other is beginning to try to organize and identify, in an understandable form, the wide-ranging discussion from the last minutes on those action recommendations.

If this kind of concept and structure is where you would go, then Bernie and I will, between this meeting and October 22, convert all of this into narrative draft so that by October 22 we will be mailing out to you a draft report to the governor. The November 1 and 2 meeting will be spent in detailed analysis of that draft report which will allow us to put the draft report into final form and will meet the requested deadline and the charge.

With that as background, Section V- Arenas of Potential Action would be in each of those areas. The narrative would focus on laying out the range of choices in public policy and programming that this committee has identified. So the concept that would be behind the report is that, in its advisory capacity, the committee's report would lay out the range of choices on a wide variety of issues and challenges that have come before this committee. That's a very different concept and orientation of the report than, for instance, what Tennessee took. In the general area of public policy, right now, there's a shift to focusing especially at the beginning stages on the evolution of public policy to what is called the Choices Framework.

One of the things that became very clear to me at the last meeting was that the richness and strength of this committee came from its incredible diversity. If the product of the committee is built on that diversity, with an emphasis on doing an honest presentation of the public policy choices that exist, that's in stark contrast to I think the model of an advisory committee's report that Tennessee did which I think will end up using the diversity of this committee as its major weakness. The diversity of this committee is either its weakness or its strength, depending on how the committee decides to use that.

What happened at the last meeting I think very clearly was that if the diversity of this committee is used to propose what the specific public policy and programming should be, we will end up with a report that advises nobody about anything. But I think that this committee has the potential of bringing an incredibly strong report. This is not a policy-making committee, this is an advisory committee. I think you have an opportunity, because of the diversity and because of the strength you have shown to this point, to provide the policymakers with a solid base of the range of choices of public options in the policy and programming that exist. But those are two very different kinds of reports, and very different kinds of decisions the work of this committee has to do. If you take the approach, asTennessee did, to propose what the policy should be, then we are in for a long, difficult set of battles. And I don't think, personally, from my observation, will not do much to inform quality policy in the forestry and chip mill industry in the State of Missouri.

If you take the other concept, which is to provide a broad framework of choices, then the responsibility of the committee then becomes to make sure that the diversity of this committee is expressed in the report by the various choices being honestly presented before the policy makers to build their legislation on which state agencies can build their programming and decisions.

As I tried to analyze the responsibility of the committee and the results from the last meeting, I came to those two paths. I think the committee now needs to make the decision of which path it's going to take. This is one point at which I am obviously not unbiased. I have clearly laid out what I think will result in the highest quality product in this area for Missouri, but the decision is the committees'.

Top

Senator Wayne Goode: Before we get to that question, just on the structure of the report here, the first page of 3 and 5 look a lot alike. In 3 you would go into a discussion of A through D and then in 5 you would lay out options? Is that what you are saying?

Dr. Wade: In 3 we will lay out those themes in terms of the visions that you all created that are a part of them.

Senator Wayne Goode: That would be kind of a pros and cons discussion?

Dr. Wade: No, that is not a pros and cons discussion.

Senator Wayne Goode: What is it?

Dr. Wade: The visions as they are made up here are generally accepted by the group as visions for the future.

Senator Wayne Goode: Where you want to be 20 years from now?

Dr. Wade: Where you want to be 20 years from now, and that's an area that there was a high level of concurrence. What's clearly obvious is that the disagreement comes in how we get where we want to be. That's followed by the data and information which also is not a discussion of the options and rationale. That, then, all takes place in 5. Those themes are laid out in terms of the various actions and questions you all identified need to be addressed, and what you identified as the different action potentials within those. So it's 5 that becomes the choices section, with the rest of this being the foundation that those choices lay on.

Senator Doyle Childers: Would it be feasible to combine like 3, and whatever comes out of 3 as a pre-statement into portions of 5. When you look at that you have to go back and see where we are and then come back to this part. We use this as part of our background, but it is actually incorporated also by those statements.

Dr. Wade: My notion right now is that the combination would be 3 and 4. Three then sets the framework for four.

Senator Doyle Childers: I understand that. What I am saying is that when you get over to 5, if someone else is reading this who hasn't gone through this program, if you actually combine like a pre-statement on A on 5 as whatever we come up with on 3 so you actually have a continuity. You read what the statement was.

Dr. Wade: Yes. That can easily be done. It would involve some repetition, but it puts it all in context together. I would be more than willing to do that.

Jon Smith: What the final report would look like would be a statement of this vision that we all agree to plus a list of options to get to that vision?

Dr. Wade: It will be more than a list. It will be a narrative of the choices about the various actions that will be taken to move toward that vision done in a way that, hopefully, is respectful of the wide range of ideological and conceptual positions represented around the table.

Jon Smith: Is it sort of an admission that we are not going to be able to agree on specific policies to recommend to the governor?

Dr. Wade: I don't think it's necessarily an admission of that, I think it's a recognition that these are hard, difficult issues, and that the committee's best contribution is to provide the policymakers the clear framework of choices that they have to address the issues in. My personal opinion is that I think it actually ends up representing a stronger document.

Earl Cannon: You were talking awhile-ago about two choices to make specific recommendations like Tennessee, or provide a range of choices. It would be really nice to provide the range of choices, but then if there were some things we did agree to, list those too. Maybe kind of plan for the vision to cover those things that we agreed to. I heard a lot of agreement that we need more education and training, but then there were discussions and disagreement on how we pay for it and how we get there.

Dr. Wade: There is a very strong one that there is a general consensus on, which is some kind of forester/logger training program associated with licensing or training. Yes, that would be there with a clear indication that this is a strongly supported action area.

What I want to be sure is that in those areas in which there is major disagreement, that the report is a fair and respectful presentation of that range and variety of positions as opposed to forcing the committee, before it's ever into the public arena, into a polarized war zone.

Steve Mahfood: Earl was right on target with what I was thinking about. I think if we do have agreement, where we have agreement that we strongly state that.

Emily Firebaugh: I was following along with some of the other thoughts that have been coming along with the discussion. If there is some way when you write this report and give back to us that we can have it listed in importance of what should be the vision that becomes an actual potential and yet some things that are not generally accepted. For instance, if we all agreed that education should be one of the priorities, put that in green. If there is one that says education in outlying areas, put that in yellow or blue so we know the consensus along with the potential.

Dr. Wade: You want to somehow code it so that you can quickly see where there is strong consensus, and where there is a range of choices that have to be considered.

Emily Firebaugh: Yes.

Dr. Wade: There are several ways we can do it. Part of the problem in printing in color is the cost.

Bernie Lewis: I would just add that hopefully the final report will identify the issues or the aspects the committee feels are important, and with those the pros and cons in terms of who supported one aspect versus another. However, if there is general agreement, it would be mostly pros and no cons. So all the items on which the committee is in general agreement would fit within that pro-con frame. There would be very few on the con side.

Dr. Wade: A slight correction. I would want the report to represent the range of options when there is disagreement on the committee but not attributing the positions to individuals. I want to make this a committee report as opposed to an individual position report.

Emily Firebaugh: I would like to say that I think it would be important for the governor to see that a landowner objects lets say to a severance tax. I would like for the governor to see that perhaps a chip mill company or a large forest products company would object to an export tax. I think that would be important – not the names, but the hats that we are wearing as we serve on this committee. Do you feel that way? Does everybody else feel that way?

Senator Wayne Goode: I feel just the opposite. I think we have a report of a committee, we don't have a report of segments on anything.

Emily Firebaugh: Okay.

David Bedan: I agree with that. I wanted to say that when I started this process I had the expectation that we would come up with policy recommendations. Some people said our purpose is not to make policy. No, of course not, it's to recommend policy. That's one of the stated purposes of the committee. However, one other major purpose of the committee is to do a study and look at various practices and provide information. That's a big thing in itself. If we don't have a consensus on strong policy recommendations, I don't think we should get into minority reports and objections. I felt real encouraged after John Powell spoke to the group. It seemed to be there was some consensus forming about a combined regulatory incentives program. But after the last meeting, it seems there is not much hope of additional revenue or additional tax incentives. I think I support the proposal that Jerry is making somewhat reluctantly because I think we could have done more. But in any public policy debate you have to go through a series of steps, and maybe we're just not ready to go as far as some of the expectations of a year ago. I think it would be a very valuable report if we take Jerry's concept, and I don't think we should list a whole bunch of objections. Actually it would be in there in some of the testimony in the minutes. It's not totally lost. I would rather see a positive report that says these are possible options. What this does is shift the continuing debate to the agencies and to the legislature. Maybe we could have done more, but I don't think the consensus is there, so I would rather see what you are proposing here.

David Day: Just a question. You said that in November we would, in essence, fine tune. Will we see that report again before it is sent to the governor?

Dr. Wade: Yes. One of the things that will have to be decided at the November 2^nd meeting is if the committee gives the two co-chairs the right to say this is final after everybody has had a chance to look at it and see if there are any other revisions. That would be my notion.

David Day: The other question I had is of the senators and representatives. They see reports all the time. Will this report have any meaning to you? Do you prefer specifics?

Top

Senator Wayne Goode: I am not used to spending a year on something and not coming up with some pretty specific recommendations. We work in a role where that's kind of the objective. Certainly, at the last meeting it was pretty obvious to everyone that there wasn't a great deal of consensus. So maybe you're right, Jerry, this is the only way we can do it. I would caution though. Let's not try to do it both ways in the report. After you say that, then several will comment let's lay out those things we agreed to. When you do that, then the other ones are ones you didn't agree to. I don't think that's a good way to end up because you got to where you didn't want to go inadvertently. You either do it where we try to agree, or we do what you want to do, which is lay out the options.

David, as far as the legislature, we get recommendations both ways. Laying out workable options is not necessarily a bad way to do it. I have been part of studies that have ended up doing that, and those are good, meaningful options worth support. Not breaking down the committee on support, but support from different segments of those that are involved in this. That's doable. And maybe that's the only way we can go. If we do a good job of laying out those options where someone can take it from there and work with them, maybe that's alright. Maybe that's the only way we can go. Like David, I thought I saw some consensus building when John Powell came here with a recommendation, which I thought was fairly reasonable, and wouldn't put a big financial burden on anybody. But there doesn't seem to be a lot of support for that.

Senator Doyle Childers: I tend to agree with both sides. If we put out statements that are actually very brief and concise and we let the members of both the House and Senate know these are our recommendations, I think that will be what will guide a lot of them. A number of the members are not going to spend the time that we spent going through a large amount of information. That's why the Commission was formed. We mentioned earlier showing the amount of agreement with specific items. Otherwise you will have members of the legislature saying, oh, what about this. I think it's important to show that we considered that and either was in agreement, disagreement, or maybe mixed. It occurred to me that you could do it with three statements: 1) that there was a high amount of agreement, 2) a mixed amount of agreement, or 3) widely diverse views. That gives some guidance back to the legislature to know how the Commission looked at it, and you don't identify who, what, or where. It just shows that there was disagreement or agreement on those particular points.

Emily Firebaugh: I like that.

Jerry Conley: I think from a state agency standpoint, the idea of a report that we had a feel for having participated in the process that we can take back to our commission, that says there seems to be strong support for more work on private land for example. We need to start thinking in terms of orienting our programs to be able to handle the private land demand as the committee saw it and the future needs. Those are really important things. There has to be a general agreement, but once that's reached, the specifics can be handled by state agencies. They can really get at a lot of the heart of the problem. You can't do anything about changing the overall state direction that the governor and legislature sets, but there is a lot we can do within that. It may end up being some of the more dramatic things that come out of the whole process.

Brian Lewis: On specific subjects that the committee thinks are important, it's possible to describe them in terms of alternative perspectives. There may be a question of mix. There may be two alternative perspectives on that issue. It's possible to say that there was a little more agreement on one versus the other without getting hard and fast into numbers on who was for and who was against. Phrase it as a view of the committee, and that will provide the perspectives that the agencies and legislature can use and work on.

Steve Mahfood: We had a question directed at our Representatives and Senators. Representatives Foster and McBride would you care to respond?

Representative Foster: I really agree with Senator Childers. We do need to communicate. Once we get out on the floor with 163 legislators trying to make amendments to whatever bill we have, we need to communicate to those people what we have looked at, to what degree we agree on. I think it has a big impact on those amendments and how they are handled on the floor when they know how much agreement we, as a committee, have. Somehow we need to address that if we can.

Representative McBride: When we first met and started this thing, probably the first statement out of my mouth was that instead of some fuzzy, feel-good ideas, I wanted to see something specific. Basically, I don't have all the answers, and I like to see some proposals. I think it's easy for Senator Childers or Senator Goode or Bill to set down and poke holes in ideas. That's a lot of our job. I think that's helpful. Maybe on the report, I just tried to listen, and I think I know where you are coming from to have this vision and whether that's stated. Maybe outcomes might not be a good word there. But I have no problem in seeing most of the things that you have all worked on or discussed. I think they all have possibilities.

If I were in the industry, I may have some real concerns about seeing something like that in the report. Probably while I'm there, though, the bottom line, the way this process works, if Senator Goode works on this bill in the Senate, his colleagues are going to rely on him heavily as to what his thoughts or ideas are. They may not spend as much time on this whole process as what we do today, and probably will not. So, from the very beginning I've never been worried about input. That's probably why I've said very little as we go along, because I know in the process of things, if anything is actually done we will have that input.

What I would really like is a true consensus of how much support is out there. In the legislative process, the fellows from the industry and the environmental groups alike impact the system. So it's kind of good to know where we are going. When you get down to this area of potential action, that may be the area that the committee can really agree on, or at least have more than half of us agree. Maybe that's the area we should say I don't care if it's nothing but one or two things. The bottom line, if it helps the overall picture out there, if it keeps the saplings from being cut and the people in the products end of the thing a future supply, then we have helped that. If we have enough trees out there to supply good oxygen we have all benefited.

I think we have already been a success in the amount of publicity that has been given this thing, and the general public out there. That's not a lot of help, but I think you have heard good ideas from both sides. I think to open it up totally, like Senator Goode and some may suggest, without putting a curtailment on the end of it is going to make some people nervous. To say that surely looks like this is what we are suggesting. I think if you can carry the two ways, I have no problem with it being broad-based.

Dr. Wade: As I have listened to the various comments, I do think I hear being expressed a general agreement that is two-fold. Let me say that the general feeling of the committee is to take the approach of the report as laying out the choices in terms of public options and programs and policy, but that it be done in a way so that on those range of policy options and actions that we do express what the general feeling of the committee was using the three layer explanation that Section C list out: 1) I agree, 2)sort of, 3) highly disagree.

Senator Goode: When the legislature reads the report, they will know we considered those areas, so that they don't come up with a bright idea that we should consider this when it actually was considered.

Senator Childers: It kind of gives a list of things that were tossed out so people know those were looked at. That was the thought I was thinking. There needs to be something that gives us an overall idea without going back and reading through all the minutes to show where we traveled, and then I think with where we agree I'm thinking of three levels of things. Level 1 is high agreement. That may be the recommendation. 2. These things are partial agreement, and the third category is that there is no agreement – widely diverse.

Senator Goode: If you do that, aren't we closer to the type of report that you were not recommending?

Dr. Wade: I don't think so, because what you are still doing is laying out the range of choices. The other kind of report basically eliminates the range of choices or makes it a divisive division process. This I do not see it would be a divisive division process. Even those areas in which there are tri-levels of disagreement. Those still represent a range of choices, but fairness is in all of those choices being fairly presented. That's where I see the difference.

Emily Firebaugh: When we go back to our minutes of April or May when we first adopted you as our facilitator, it was voted on at that time that we put in things that were not by majority rule. At that time, it was put in and was very important to all of us, and then, and I like the way that Senator Childers has said that we do it, with a sliding scale. I believe in that form we're making a report, and I don't believe we should set it in concrete. I think we should present it to the governor so he can take the choices that he wishes to work with and then, when it comes to the legislators, and when the lobbyists groups come to you, and industry comes to you, then you will have something to discuss with them. That way I don't feel like we've mandated what has to be done. It's a guideline for the governor and legislators to work with.

Top

Senator Childers: My thought on putting it that way is to get away from minority reports, or people refusing to sign off on the report, or anything of that sort. Everyone's views can be incorporated, and you show that maybe those particular views were not accepted by the commission, but yet they're there. I was thinking of it from that standpoint.

Dr. Wade: Is there then general acceptance of that concept and that structure?

There was general consensus.

David Bedan: I would agree with that if you think we have time to do it that way.

Dr. Wade: What's going to be critical is our drafting between now and the 22^nd. We are committed to doing that. You all will then have a sense of how well we've done that when we come to the November meeting.

David Bedan: That leads to a second related issue. I assume that by the next meeting, or by the 22^nd you will pull together all these pieces

Dr. Wade: One report.

David Bedan: Three or four months ago we had a discussion of how we have public review of our work product and talked about that recently. I guess I would encourage, once you have that product on the 22^nd, that there be a mechanism for getting that out also to the public ahead of time so that when they comment at the last meeting they have seen your integrated document. Is it possible to mail that out?

Dr. Wade: We will provide a draft report to the co-chairs of the committee. What happens then becomes their action.

David Bedan: Is it possible, Steve, to mail that out to the general public?

Steve Mahfood: I would imagine it would be a requirement from the Sunshine Law and other requirements. It may not be a requirement to send it out, but a requirement to make it available. I would think that, given the list we have, I think it would be very appropriate to have the report sent out at that point.

David Day: Can you put it on the web site also?

Steve Mahfood: We'll look into it. That's a very good point.

Dr. Wade: I do hope that people will be gentle in finding grammatical errors. I think it's important that people understand that this is not, at that point, a final document. It's a draft still in process.

Steve Mahfood: All my experience with these kinds of reports, we would do, what I have seen in other documents is large DRAFT across the cover. Every page will have a notation so that it cannot be taken out of context in any way. I think the more widely circulated it is the better off we will all be. I think that's what will be important for that last meeting.

Emily Firebaugh: Following up on David Bedan's idea that this not be presented as a tomb (?) of paper, that we just present the idea or the suggestion and not the argument pro or con.

Sarah Tyree: One of the reports from the Congressional Research Service on chip mills towards the beginning, was a really nice format. It just laid out the issue. Do you all remember what I am talking about? It was the Congressional Research Service, and it was an issue brief on chip mills. It was about one of the first things we got. When you were talking about how it would be set out, it would be like someone saying "I don't know anything about the issue. Hand me something that would give a summary of pros and cons." What different sides would say about it. That's what I thought you were talking about – that we would be presenting the options as opposed to making recommendations. Now I'm confused. Could we put the pros and cons?

Emily Firebaugh: Not in my suggestion. You wouldn't put the arguments in, you would put the divisions turned into options on a scale like Senator Childers had mentioned.

Dr. Wade: This would not be a total choices document. For instance, in areas where there is strong general agreement, such as in the area of logger training/certification, there would be very little time talking about what the options of doing that would be. What my vision of it is that it reflects the policy positions and choices as reflected in this committee. It's a slight variation on the pure choices kind of document.

Steve Mahfood: There's one part we haven't talked about in here that could be very crucial, and that is the Executive Order requirement. An analysis, assuming as you go down, the pieces that you have on number 2 of the Executive Order, we are going to be talking about the issues that Sarah was eluding to. Here are the issues related to the topics we were supposed to address. Is that right? We would have to lay out those issues because the Executive Order asks us to. It doesn't relate to the vision directly, or the recommendation, or the vision in an area of potential action, or our thinking, but the Executive Order requirements of laying out that we address these issues. I assume we'll be laying out the issue.

Dr. Wade: I think you are correct. Our notion, though, is that they are laid out in sections three through five. What that number two would do would be to take the Executive Order requirement and show how it's addressed and what the issues are and connect those Executive Order requirements to the rest of the document so that it's an integrated document.

Steve Mahfood: Let me take it one step back on how we deal with this. For example, we are supposed to address in the Executive Order the potential environmental impacts

of, as you have listed here A through H. To me that requires not a decision, not a judgment in what the range of options may be in dealing with it, but it does take some discussion. What are the impacts on soil erosion? We need to have some discussion that is not judging, but we need to have some document discussion that says this is what the potential impacts are on soil erosion, or water quality, or watershed protection. That's in the Executive Order.

Dr. Wade: All of those will be directly addressed in this. This was given out two weeks ago. What that section two will do will be to detail where each of those are addressed and where we cannot have data to adequately answer your question.

Steve Mahfood: For the committee's consideration, trying to get our staff to put together the facts and background information on some of these issues, we are not making recommendations or provisions, but just what we deal with. Where does that enter in? Should that be a part of this document?

Dr. Wade: Our notion now is that it would be part of this foundation and information.

That lets us make the bridge and connection between the structure and details of the Executive Order and the structure and details of this full committee report so that they're all interconnected.

Dr. Lewis: With respect, for example, to your environmental example, some of the information requested in the Executive Order was provided to us in the presentation. So the first strategy is to note the presentations for everything we can get. Some of the questions and items weren't really talked about. We are going to try and get as much supplementary information from Parks and Recreation, DNR, etc. as much as we can to at least say something and address the fact that the governor asked for information.

Steve Mahfood: We have not discussed in any great detail the outdoor recreation and tourism issues, which are high dollar, high impact issues for this state. My concern is that in furiously trying to assemble, we have a state parks division who has a lot of people who know what the heck is going on in this field, and I'm pushing hard to try to have some contribution. Hopefully we'll be able to help frame those issues. Again, not making decisions about problems or impacts, but we need and can discuss how these issues affect recreation and tourism.

Dr. Wade: We are anticipating that there will be at least one, if not two or three, of those kinds of questions to where we will propose that you suggest information was not adequately available and that this is an area the state needs to address in terms of available information and data. There may be one or two of those. As we find those, then we will bring that before the committee and suggest that needs to be a part of the report as well.

Senator Childers: I think on page 2, item 5-B probably is what our recommendations come under. It says: "Reviewing forest resource management and protection standards, policies and processes in Missouri and other jurisdictions to identify alternatives for assuring economic and environmental sustainability." That basically is the recommendations, as I read it, it will bring in tourism. That will bring in all these other factors, because you look at environmental sustainability, we're really covering about as broad a spectrum as you can cover under our charge from the governor. That's just my thoughts on it.

Top

Dr. Wade: Does the committee feel there is adequate agreement that you can agree and we can move to the next agenda item? Those two days in November are absolutely critical days, and I do hope as many of you as possible will have your calendar clear and available for a lot of intensive work. My intention is that at that meeting we will begin with Section I and just begin to walk you through it. I hope we quickly get into Section V because that is where a great deal of the discussion items will be.

Senator Childers: Just a logistics question, would this room be available if we wanted to work into the night? We are going to be here. I would just as soon extend on into the night.

Steve Mahfood: Yes.

Dr. Wade: Is it the committee's agreement that we can move on to the next agenda item?

It was the consensus to move on to the next agenda item.

Dr. Wade: There was a set of proposals that dealt with a trio of economic issues and passed those out to the committee for discussion.

PROPOSALS THAT DEAL WITH ECONOMIC ISSUES

RELATING TO JOBS AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS - EARL CANNON AND JAY LAW

COOPERATION WITH CORPORATIONS AND COMPANIES – SARAH TYREE AND REP. BILL FOSTER

FORESTS AND RECREATION AND BUSINESS GROWTH – SARAH TYREE AND REP. BILL FOSTER

RELATING TO JOBS AND ECONOMIC IMPACT:

Earl Cannon: Jay Law and I addressed four issues in our proposal and they are highlighted in the four paragraphs you see there. These were based on discussions we heard at previous meetings. First, there was some discussion at previous meetings that there may need to be some help given to small- and middle-sized companies in the purchasing of some types of equipment, like chippers for example, things that might be conducive to providing a resource that chip mills and others might need.

There are programs now, both financing programs and tax credit programs, that are in place and wouldn't require a lot of extra legislation, and maybe no legislation. I think by participating in this group it raised my consciousness level, and the Department of Economic Development's consciousness level, to be on the lookout for small- and medium-sized companies as we meet with industries around the state that need some help in purchasing certain types of equipment.

There are, for example, loan guarantees, there are low-interest loans available from several different agencies. This first paragraph talks about making a special effort for our department to identify some of these companies and those that have certain types of financial needs, to make them aware of existing programs.

Going on to the second paragraph, this deals with awarding of incentives, especially discretionary incentives. One thing that we can do, and it wouldn't take legislation. And here again, to follow up on what Jerry Conley said, there are things we can do on our own. For example, in dealing with industries like the chip mill industry, we could provide lists when they apply for discretionary incentives. In our review of the situation we could provide lists of loggers, for example, whether or not the state approves licensing and certification of loggers, we at least know, for example, the loggers who have gone through the training program of the Missouri Forest Products Association and others. We could make those lists of loggers available to companies or other forest products industries as lists of loggers we know who have been trained in best management practices. We can also ask for companies that come to us for incentives to provide the name of a professional forester that they have employed to supervise the harvesting of their timber and their operations. You could ask that on the incentive application. That's kind of what paragraph two is dealing with.

Thirdly, this will probably require legislation. There will be a proposal coming forth from the Department of Economic Development dealing with many of our incentive programs. Right now we have about 40 some different incentive programs that the legislature has provided for us in past years. What we find, especially in the tax credit legislation, there are a lot of diverse definitions. We will have a proposal coming forward to clean up some of these definitions; definitions that will provide some uniformity and clarity to help us better administer some of these incentive programs.

There might be the possibility for directing certain types of incentives to certain key target industries for example. In the last four or five years in the Department of Economic Development, we have identified the Forest Products Industry as one of our target industries. It is an industry, as everyone knows, that reflects a large natural resource in this state. It might be that in some of this reformed legislation we are starting to develop now that we could include some of the things that this group recommends there.

In the last paragraph, there were some concerns in previous discussions about our trying to make an effort along with DNR, when we do have a chip mill coming forward to do some investigative work as best we could to see how well that company has complied with environmental laws, other tax regulations, in other states in the past. We would try to do that working cooperatively with DNR as best we could.

That summarizes the four recommendations.

Senator Goode: I read this as four paragraphs on how to help future chip mills. I think that's just the opposite direction we want to go. I think there is an awful lot of people upset with your department for having something to do with chip mills that came in here in a very hidden way. Now, I don't have any objection to writing these four paragraphs where there would be incentives for the wood products industry in a meaningful way to bring in companies that are going to use wood products in Missouri, to make something in Missouri, and to employ people to do that. I think that's the kind of incentives we want, but to put incentives into chopping up wood and taking it down the river and exporting it to Japan is not what we want to do. The idea of incentives is fine, but lets do it to develop a labor-intensive wood product in Missouri, not to cut chips.

Earl Cannon: I appreciate the comments, and maybe I kind of misrepresented what we intended here. The incentives, for example the loan guarantee referred to in the first paragraph, what's intended is to have a broad application. For example, a flooring operation like Jon Smiths', and identify a need for a chipper. It was intended to address that.

Senator Goode: Everyone of these paragraphs comes up talking about an incentive to help chip mills. We all know that chipping is an incidental part of any mill, and I don't think anyone has a problem with that, but I don't think we should put anything in here that looks like we are encouraging future large-size chip mills. I certainly don't think that's what the public wants.

David Bedan: Following on that, it would seem if the state is going to provide discretionary incentives we would have the right to require the folks that get the incentives to use best management practices. I thought the second paragraph was going in the right direction, but it didn't go far enough - not just encouraging them, but say if you are going to use state money you have to use best management practices, or something to that effect.

Jon Smith: I'll jump on the bandwagon. I agree with Senator Goode. Also, one thing that we heard from other states was that in order to get incentives for industries coming into the state they had to prove some sort of sustainability. I would like very much for that to be part of this recommendation too. It may be difficult to come up with standards as to what is sustainable and what is not, but it's my understanding that one of the chip mills is in Missouri because they could not prove sustainability in another state. I think if we are going to give incentives to industries coming in they need to be able to prove that they can be a good citizen and be a sustainable industry.

Jay Law: I think we spoke to that in paragraph 4. I think that was our intent there was to link DED and DNR in the assessment of records. That was under compliance of state statutes and regulations, to award incentives. I think we have to say something about future chip mills in the state. We will at least have that connection between DNR and DED. I don't want to re-do the process, but I think that the incentive granted by DED to the chip mill was based on a request by a community.

I think paragraph 2, whether it is required or not, is not something at this point in our discussion we would say we should require.

Top

Senator Childers: I think that some of the concerns expressed are in the first three lines of that first paragraph where it says: "We should make special efforts to get small-to-mid-size forest products companies located in Missouri for our chippers." I think that would clearly say we are not looking at chip mills, we are looking at the other forest products companies to utilize a wasted resource. I believe that covers part of what our concerns are. I agree with the concerns that were expressed, I think that paragraph helps clarify that.

Then down in the third paragraph: "Conditions for providing incentives to chip mills…" I think the key there – that wording provides the general coverage of what we want to do, it's just that I think we are saying we want to spell out in more detail as to what these conditions might be. Am I reading that correctly from what Wayne and some of the others mentioned here a little bit ago?

Representative McBride: I think you are probably reading it correctly. I would tend to agree with Wayne and David, too. If you're not really analyzing I think we need to be clear. This whole concept began from hearing from the Forest Products Association. I heard from them, and also the environmental groups, basically asking us to stop chip mills into the state. I think we want to make it clear.

Senator Goode: I think if you would take out chippers that would take care of itself. Part of our mission is chip mills, and part of our mission is a long, sustainable forest products industry. What you would want to supply, I would think, or subsidize if anything, is machinery that is used in the forest products industry in those areas of the forest products industry that are labor intensive, that build jobs in Missouri, and make products that can be sold inside Missouri and outside Missouri. But something that some labor can go into. Very little labor goes into the chip mill process. We all know that. Incentives ought to go for the desired result, which is to build a sustainable industry.

Committee member: Would that do what you want it to do?

Senator Goode: Well yes, basically taking out the chip mills – the incentives should be towards the sustainable industry. Chipping the waste will probably take care of itself. I don't have a problem with chipping the waste; it's chipping the good saw logs and not making the best use out of it.

Dr. Wade: Let me summarize what I hear and see perhaps how much further this discussion needs to go.

We need to build in BMP's in the second paragraph. Enhance in these that support sustainability of providing clearer and stronger support for building high, value-added forest products in Missouri with less attention to incentives for high capacity chip mills in the future, and clearly keeping that last paragraph that provides the more investigative departmental review.

I heard a very strong sense of agreement around the table with that. If that's a fair statement, I wonder if I can ask Earl if, in the next couple of days, he might do some redrafting with those and quickly get it to me.

Senator Goode: I think there should be no incentive for high capacity chip mills. I think if this report came out saying anything other than that we are all pretty poor.

Dr. Wade: Emily would like to add to the discussion.

Emily Firebaugh: On paragraph one I was really pushing, and I talked to David and Earl about this. I was really pushing, too, that the paragraph would read that DED make a special effort to help small- to mid-size forest products companies located in Missouri acquire chippers and other equipment. The purpose of this is to get rid of our cull count in the State of Missouri. When we toured Willamette's chip mill company, they are not taking a large percent of our culls. If we had a guy making minimum wage at an established mill that is already on ground in the State of Missouri, some guy, if he got $200,000 from DED to put a chipper on there, won't have a minimum wage guy taking our culls in Missouri through there to take to Willamette chip mill company. That was the purpose of that. Steve, are you in agreement with that?

Steve Mahfood: I don't want to start word smithing. I just had a problem, as it has already been stated, with putting the chippers in, which we talked about the forest products industry. I am not for eliminating wanting to locate in Missouri, but I wanted to have them located in Missouri first.

Emily Firebaugh: For the purpose of getting rid of this large percentage of culls, Willamette is not going to work with that many culls.

The other one is on paragraph 2. I know it would be good to have obtained their timber supplies from loggers trained in BMP. Since the lawsuit says that we cannot keep track of Gatewood, (I am going to ask Earl, and Jay and perhaps David), how are you going to track it? How are you going to know that we have not had outside logging companies come in, buy a tract of land, cut whichever way they want to, and then take it to a chip mill? What is the theory on this?

Jon Smith: One thing, you can't do it through the permits is what they are saying. It could possibly be done through another type of permit, through another agency, or another selection. The only thing that lawsuit says, it can't be added on to the existing permit.

Emily Firebaugh: Right now there is no way that you can stop an existing company from coming in and clear-cutting except hickory, etc. etc. If you would work on strengthening and clarifying that, I would appreciate it.

Dr. Wade: Earl, Jay, do you feel you have the kind of feedback from the committee to do a quick redraft and get it to us so we can build it in the final report?

Earl Cannon: We will be glad to do that.

Dr. Wade: Would the committee then be willing to move to the Tyree/Law proposal?

FOREST RECREATION BUSINESS GROWTH

Sarah Tyree: With our discussion it seemed like different agencies, Agriculture, Conservation, and DED already have ongoing programs to address these issues. Wouldn't it be great if they all got together to form a task force and come up with a pamphlet covering these different issues? Then, when you disseminate it, not use the traditional dissemination, but maybe even target the dissemination within the 100 mile radius of the two operating chip mills like some of the things we were talking about with the information we have had, and with education targeted within specific areas where it seems to be a concern instead of – well let's just do it statewide.

Jay Law: I think we looked at other ways of disseminating information. The Missouri Board of Realtors and Farm Bureau were two that we discussed briefly here that have not been traditionally used. I think a great deal of this is just getting information out to landowners. It's just like the best management practices, I think we said about encouraging. I think a lot of people haven't even heard about it. I think if they hear about it – it's just like any other agricultural practice. Today you look at farmers terracing their land and all that sort of practice. They heard about it before and now it's tradition. I think what we are trying to do is build some traditions here in form and management that are positive.

Emily Firebaugh: Sarah and Jay, I was a participant in hunt-leasing. I have been going around the state talking about hunt-leasing for over ten years. In 1995 Springfield, Missouri had one of the most interesting programs. It was a daylong seminar, everything from hunting, ginseng to hunt leasing. It was really a good program. From ATV's, to hunting, to walking paths, etc. etc. I'll get some of that information to you guys if you don't have it readily available, and I notice that they are doing it again. Then the whole purpose of the hunt-leasing program, which I have even gotten to Iowa to talk about, was for extra income when your timber costs are low. The University of Missouri Extension is the one who really promotes this. They are the ones who have invited me to several different counties to do that. And the University Extension are the ones that can put on those programs readily available. They also have printed material that is readily available that's really good in all of those areas. It's in place, we just need, like you said, to shove it into the areas where the impact of the chip mills is. That's what we're not doing. That's a very good point that you make.

Sarah Tyree: There are great presentations and great ideas, but again, get it targeted. You talk about education, and a lot of it is nuts and bolts. You have the GIS system, go to the Courthouse and find the records, do the mailings, do the outreach.

Jay Law: I don't know how we can put that in there, but Sarah and I discussed this, and there's about eighteen counties in southeast Missouri. Again, in keeping with the initial charge about the chip mills, that's where we should focus. Whatever happens legislatively will probably have to apply statewide, but there's education should be a focus. I figured out there were two Department of Conservation districts down there and a couple of RCandD units. We're really not talking about every county in Missouri, and I think when you think about that, with limited resources, we can focus in there and do something. If you use the mean Joe Green approach, you tackle everybody and then you throw them away until you find the guy with the ball. I think we should grab those 18 companies down there and provide our educational effort on them.

Top

Dr. Wade: Regarding participation from the University Extension and suggestion on the assessors. Sarah and Jay could you within the next couple of days add those in here and get that to Bernie and me please?

Can we move to Tyree and Foster?

Earl Cannon: I want to clarify one thing. I mis-spoke awhile ago. Actually David Day and I worked on that proposal.

COOPERATE WITH CORPORATIONS AND COMPANIES – SARAH TYREE/BILL FOSTER:

Sarah Tyree: One of the things that came out was that we want the folks that are in the business to remain economically viable. Not only just the value-added forest products, but actually the landowners too. Then Emily had mentioned that the University Extension has already developed seminars to assist landowners in learning how you go about bidding. That seems to be a need. It's one thing maybe to tie in with this and the previous statements we were talking about. The landowners will know when they are selling their land or their timber to find people to do bids.

The next one talks about the marketing aspect of it. There are already marketing efforts under the Department of Agriculture and Economic Development to assist in exports and also value-added. A lot of it seems to be the need for marketing. We are seeing that a lot in production agriculture too. We have people who are phenominal at producing crops and livestock, but maybe the marketing aspect of it and how to be more entrepreneurial. I know that the Department of Agriculture is looking at ways on how to beef up what we do. The wood product industry falls really nicely into that as well. A lot of it is teaching people new ways of doing business.

Steve Mahfood: I don't know if there is a connection, but is there some way that this and the first one we talked about – the jobs and economic impacts – don't those all kind of fit together. If we are going to incentivise on one hand, isn't part of that helping the marketing side? When we go in to help, shouldn't we also be talking about the marketing part? Aren't these in essence one piece, or would they not be able to be melded together?

Emily Firebaugh: Under the Department of Agriculture, I know Sarah and I have talked about several of these parts where she could help the landowners. But one of them under the bidding and sale of timber was using a consortium point of view.

Sarah Tyree: If they wanted to form a co-op, HB 888 which was passed last year, provides opportunities for processing. If a bunch of landowners got together and formed a co-op to build a processing operation they could apply for tax incentives to entice that type of cooperative thinking it would be the landowners owning the processing, owning the value-added.

Dr. Wade: Sarah, could you add a paragraph laying that out in this? Then I think in response to Steve's comment, I don't have any trouble meshing those.

Senator Goode: I think these are good. I don't think they go quite far enough. I think a useful tool in state government, whether it is overlapping jurisdiction of departments, is to request or ask the departments to enter into interagency agreements to deal with it. On these two that are before us here, I think in the last one the Department of Conservation should be involved in there. They have the constitutional authority to deal with forestry as a whole, and I would think they would welcome the help of the other two departments. If there's a mission to be accomplished, doing it through an interagency agreement, which kind of keeps it on an ongoing basis, is a good way to do that. I would think on the second one, the last one add Conservation to that.

On the next to the last one, probably you don't want Extension going off and doing their own thing by themselves, I would think you would want some sort of working agreement, at least between the Department of Conservation and Extension, on how to do it. Maybe DNR also, I'm not sure. I think that kind of approach helps more to get it done right in the long run. I would beef up those recommendations with that kind of approach.

David Day: One of the things that I've heard a lot of timber folks talking about while I have been out in the country, and I don't know if it would fit in this area or not, is a potential check-off like a lot of these others have and use that money like the others do for promotion, education, for their product. Would that fit in this area – letting the producers vote on a check-off?

Emily Firebaugh: David, explain the check-off system.

David Day: In beef, every time I sell a cow, calf, a bull or whatever, a dollar goes to the Beef Industry Council. Then they use those funds to promote beef, "It's what's for dinner" and all those adds. It's for education and things. It might be a way to get some funds to help promote better forest management. I've also always said, and I may be wrong, once you get the landowners to look at timber as a crop, like they do a calf crop, corn, beans, they are going to start managing it. That might be a first step, to get them to look at it as a source of income.

Emily Firebaugh: What's the difference, then, between your check-off and a severance tax.

David Day: Probably the big difference is the producers vote on whether they want to have it. It's not mandated. I'm not in favor of a voluntary check-off. You're either going to have it or you're not. The person that sells the gazillion board feet of timber here is going to request their money back at the end of the year to deplete the funds. That's the nuts and bolts of it. Is this an area where that might fit in? I don't know.

Dr. Wade: I have a question that might help, I don't know. In the check-off, don't the producers also have a say about the use.

David Day: Right. In the Beef Industry Council, the producers that are registered to vote elect who sits on that council.

Senator Goode: It's not state money. It's association money.

David Day: Yes, but someone has to put it together.

Senator Childers: Private Industry is really what's doing it.

Jon Smith: Is it mandatory if that was voted in that everyone participate?

David Day: In beef it is. I can't speak to the others.

Sarah Tyree: Different check-offs do it different ways. For example, one of the newest ones I'm familiar with is the Grape and Wine Industry. They got together and initially they were going to say that the check-off dollars would only come from the larger wineries because they thought they didn't want to burden the smaller wineries with it. The smaller wineries said no – we're going to be big soon. We want to be on board too. So it really is up to the Forest Products Industry on how they want to set it up.

David Day: There are some that say if you sell under a certain amount you don't pay into it. Some of the check-offs that are voluntary, at the end of the year you will request your money back. Again, I am not a fan of that, but that's up to the industry.

Committee Member: How do you enforce it?

David Day: If I sell you a cow, I already know who I would send the check to. Through sale barns, they just keep track of it. They know they sold 40,000 head so they have $40,000 going to the Beef Industry Council.

Dr. Wade: I think the critical question that David has just put on the table is, does the committee want to request of Tyree and Law that they build in the potential of developing a check-off as part of this proposal?

Sarah Tyree: That we would support the industry if they so desire to.

Senator Goode: We could look at the recommendation. I think that is something we should look at. All we would be doing is giving a tool to the industry to utilize if they want to do it. We can afford that option.

David Day: It's their call whether they do it or not. That is somewhat put together through the Department of Ag as far as getting the balance out and that sort of thing.

Dr. Wade: Would you all build in another recommendation into this and that will get it up on the table?

Jay Law: One other thought that has come up in the discussion with some others, would it be favorable to have a forest council in the state which might oversee the education and put together things that would be a legislative decision. That they establish this and establish a membership, and have them report. The people in these agencies could work on education by interagency agreements, which I don't disagree with. I'm just asking the question because other states do have forest councils/advisory councils.

Senator Goode: I don't know in Agriculture and these other areas like soybeans, etc. where you have check-offs if that's an act of law. The check-off is so you get some enforcement, but as far as how a council is structured, I don't know if that is by statute.

Sarah Tyree: The check-off like the Grape and Wine statute, the apple, peach too.

Senator Goode: Is the question of the council part of the statute too?

David Day: I can speak to beef, and it is. The Beef Industry Council, MFA has to nominate someone, Farm Bureau has to, and Cattlemens have to.

Senator Goode: I would think we offer up as an option whatever is consistent with the way it is done in the rest of the agriculture industry.

Jay Law: I'm sorry I missed that. I wasn't talking about the check-off, I was talking about education. We have an education advisory committee in the state, and they would deal with things like training, etc. In other words, put the nuts and bolts together and see that it happens.

Top

Senator Goode: What I was saying is that in other areas of agriculture, are those established by statute? If they are, then that's probably the way you should look at it in this aspect of agriculture.

David Day: I think, Jay, what you were speaking about is if they did get the check-off then I think that council, through those funds, would probably be able to do all of that.

Jay Law: I'm looking at a broader responsibility for a council. They may address what we were talking about, the interagency agreement rather than have those agencies in this council.

Senator Goode: No – a different agency. Every agency is in agreement among the agencies to try to do what the agencies can as far as marketing, etc. This is altogether different from that. All I was saying, if we are going to recommend it here it ought to be done in a way that is consistent with how it is done in the rest of agriculture. I'm not all that familiar with it, but these folks are.

Senator Childers: One of the things I think would be really important is to look at, where we are talking about the different groups that would be involved, there are two or three things that I can see. I just went through some economic studies at one of the meetings I was at here recently in which the study shows that most of your economic activity is relatively within the Midwest. Then you have the East Coast and the West Coast. It is becoming much more regionalized where most of the trade takes place.

I would like to see us on the part where we say export, I would like to say something that also recognizes research within our own state and area. I think that's really important to incorporate the local. We're buying products from out of state. We ought to look at that. One source of that is the school of forestry, the school of natural resources in the state, to incorporate that also into part of this group. Their expertise would give us some research capability that may not be available. A lot of small producers are not going to have research capability. But by utilizing those schools, and I'm sure there are a number of them around the state, the University of Missouri probably is the most well known one, but by incorporating the educational institutions for this research that would be another useful tool to use. That is something I would like to see added.

Jay Law: What I am talking about is a forest council to do these things.

Sarah Tyree: Am I understanding correctly, besides export, develop the culture of buying locally?

Senator Childers: Buying locally, or utilizing within our own state. In the future that's going to be the big markets. Because of transportation the big trade areas are going to be much different regions. That's just something that might be of some importance.

Dr. Wade: We need to be bringing this to an end as quickly as possible.

Jon Smith: I just want to say briefly that I would definitely support having the opportunity to at least look at a check-off if that takes place. I think the industry would at least like to have that option.

Jerry Conley: I just want to follow up on Wayne's thought. In the Department of Conservation we are probably understating our involvement in all of these areas being brought up. I've not taken the time to have Brian or others stand up and tell you about a whole lot of things we've been into for a long time. They exist out on the ground; people have been trained, product utilization is a big part of our program. We've given grants to universities. I hope people here understand by not taking the time to give you this detail that we are not giving you the impression we are not in all of these areas, we are.

Emily Firebaugh: I've worked with DNR and MDC for 20 years at least, and Jerry, you are right. Your guys are out there on the ground level, and I think we take you for granted. But they are there for the individual landowner.

On the bidding and sale of standing timber on your project, MDC, DNR has contracts, but I think they need to be updated. That could be distributed to the small landowners when we are out there working also with someone who is buying our timber.

The other thing is, when we went on the tour in June and we were in Iron County at the MDC cut or DNR cut, the forester there did a bartering for the sale of that from an $8,000 to a $28,000 bid. If those departments could work with the landowner on selling timber at an increased rate like that that would be something I would like to see both departments encourage.

Committee Member: I'm not sure DNR is really into that at all.

Emily Firebaugh: I got the report from Tom and that's the way it was reported because I ev

Governor's Advisory Committee on Chip Mills

Governor's Advisory Committee on Chip Mills Department of Natural Resources 1738 E Elm – Conference Center Jefferson City, Missouri October 12, 1999 9:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m.

Governor's Advisory Committee on Chip Mills
Department of Natural Resources
1738 E Elm – Conference Center
Jefferson City, Missouri
October 12, 1999
9:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m.