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
August 3, 1999
Meeting Minutes
9 a.m.

Meeting Minutes

Committee Members Present:

Stephen Mahfood, Director, Department of Natural Resources
Marvin Brown, State Forester, Department of Conservation
Representative Bill Foster, Poplar Bluff
David Bedan, Citizen Environmental Conservation Group, Columbia
Earl Cannon, Deputy Director, Business Expansion and Attraction, Department of Economic Development
Jon D. Smith, Forest Products Representative, Mountain View
Senator Wayne Goode, St. Louis
Mark Garnett, Forest Products Representative, Brandsville
Emily Firebaugh, Forest Landowner, Farmington
Jay Law, Citizen Environmental Conservation Group, St. James
Sarah Tyree, Special Assistant, Department of Agriculture
David Day, Private property owner organization representative, Dixon

Interested Parties Present

Joe Garvey, Department of Conservation, Cape Girardeau
Gerald Bryan, University of Missouri Extension, Jackson
Tom Kruzen, Missouri Coalition for the Environment, Mountain View
Denise Vaughn, WP Daily Quill, Mountain View
Dave Mosby, Department of Natural Resources, Jefferson City
John McCammon, St. Louis
Robert Riesenmy, Hartsburg
John Wood, Westvaco, Wickliffe, Kentucky
Cory Ridenhour, MO Forest Products Association, Jefferson City
Tom Lange, MO Department of Natural Resources, Jefferson City
Ken Midkiff, Sierra Club, Columbia
Randy Crawford, MO Department of Natural Resources, Jefferson City
John Dwyer, University of Missouri, Columbia
Dusty Walter, University of Missouri, Columbia
Terry Finger, MO House of Representatives, Jefferson City
Dan Schuette, MO Department of Natural Resources, Jefferson City
Kathi Harness, Harness/Gallagher, Jefferson City
Mike Smith, Washington
Roy C. Hengerson, MO Coalition for the Environment, St. Louis
John P. Slusher, University of Missouri, Columbia
Greg Thorpe, Mill Spring
Steve Galliher, Willamette Industries, Piedmont
Caroline Pufalt, Sierra Club, St. Louis
Hank and Katie Dorst, MTFW, Elk Creek
Charles Hirt, Canal Wood, Jackson
Devin Scherubel, Heartwood, Columbia
Katie Auman, MCFE, St. Louis
Kan He, MORAP, Columbia
Llona C. Weiss, DNR, Jefferson City
Dennis M. Meinert, SWCP, Sullivan
Susan Kliethermes, Jefferson City
Krissy Krulj, Missouri Heartwood
Tim Duggan, Attorney General's Office

CALL TO ORDER

Steve Mahfood, Director of the Department of Natural Resources, and the committee Co-Chair, called the meeting to order at 9:18 a.m. He announced that the first order of business is the public comment period and called on Krissy Krulj of Missouri Heartwood.

Krissy Krulj: Last month we talked about the Forest Practices Act and made some recommendations to the committee. Ms. Krulj handed out legislation on FPA that is going on in other states. FPA is also called the Comprehensive Act. Kentucky and West Virginia have a Comprehensive Act. All of them have at least four major provisions. Logger licensing is mandatory in West Virginia, Kentucky. They also have mandatory BMP's. North Carolina and Georgia have voluntary BMP's. Those are mandated so if you don't comply you are in violation of the Sediment Control Act.

Kentucky's Act doesn't take effect until 2000. West Virginia has had their Act since 1992. West Virginia felt mandatory BMP's really helped them.

Pre-harvest Notification: West Virginia and Virginia have pre-harvest notification. Tennessee is working on it. It is so important for two reasons: It gives accountability. If there is no notification no one knows what is going on. If you have notification you can say the landowner followed BMP's. Missouri is in a unique situation. The proliferation of Chip Mills in the S.E. created these FPA's in other states. We have an opportunity before that happens here to have a preventive measure for protection down the road.

Logger Licensing Bad Actor Policy: Kentucky, West Virginia, Virginia, Tennessee all have logger licensing. The problem with it right now is the license process. The appeals take a long time. Kentucky and West Virginia are more than 85% privately owned. They include wording that make a landowner legally responsible for sedimentation from logging. Kentucky worked really hard in involving the public when they were enacting this legislation, and invited them to be involved as to how this legislation would come about.

Monitoring: The most important step in all of this process is monitoring. South Carolina has no regulation, voluntary BMP's, or logger licensing, but they have monthly fly-overs. They go door-to-door offering BMP information before harvest. North Carolina does extensive monitoring. Tennessee has a program called Southlings where they fly over chip mills and study the impact. It's hard to say what's sustainable and what is not when you don't know what is going on in the forest. They are working on mapping how the forest is changing so they can know if the cumulative cutting is sustainable.

Kentucky has an Environmental Education Council and funds are allocated to educate the public.

Tennessee is monitoring through inspections and wildlife researching. They also have severance taxes, allocating 80% to forestry and 20% to the county.

Landowner Incentives: There is hardly anything out there. There are conservation easements.

The first prerequisite for a sustainable forest economy is a property rights system. (As far as conservation, Missouri has a little over 3,000 acres.)(?) Education on your types of programs is really important.

I have been following this committee meeting for only a couple of months now. It is really important to remember that you have the power to make recommendations for proposing things that will protect the Ozarks in the future. It is so important to remember that it should be about prevention. Missouri has an opportunity to take a step forward and say, "we want to prevent it before it happens."

Steve Mahfood: Requested that Ms. Krulj provide a copy of her presentation.

Marvin Brown: Did you determine how a lot of these other activities were funded? Laws are in place and there is no funding to implement them.

Krissy: I can find that information out. How would the chip mills react to this legislation? In Kentucky and West Virginia the chip mill industry worked with the Forest Division.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

Steve Mahfood called for a motion to approve the minutes from the July 12, 1999 meeting. There was a correction to the minutes on page 3, paragraph 6, line 7. Instead of "Jay Law" it should read "Marvin Brown stated…" On page 4, paragraph one, line one instead of "Marvin Brown" it should read "Jay Law then said…"

Motion: Mark Garnett: That the minutes of the July 12, 1999 meeting be approved as corrected. Seconded and carried.

SATELLITE REMOTE SENSING PRESENTATION – Dr. David Diamond, MORAP.

Dr. David Diamond provided a summary of his presentation (attached) and thanked the committee for inviting him. Missouri Resource Assessment Partnership (MORAP) is located at the University of Missouri. They receive no funds from the University and are entirely funded based on partners. They operate on a project-by-project basis.

Dr. Diamond presented charts (attached) on the following:

Chip Mills and Forest Change

a. Potential use of satellite imagery to establish a base line.

b. Monitor the area of change in the Missouri Ozarks.

Remote sensing

Remote sensing data is still relatively new to many natural resource managers. Need to be sure you are using the remote sensing data that it is good for and come up with the answers for natural resource managers. There are limitations to remote sensing data and you need to know what those are.

Why the need for large-area forest change detection?

Basically the need for forest change detection is because of these new technologies that allow fast processing and harvest of forests, and of course there are markets. The perception is that there may be rapid change in forest landscapes because of these factors. Also there is the perception that some of the changes may have undesirable impacts, so we need to monitor the impacts and see what they might be.

Some questions that require remotely sensed data.

Are harvest rates actually increasing?

The forest inventory analysis data can also be used in this regard. This is the data that the Forest Service collects from about 5,600 points from forests and landscapes in Missouri. (The only problem about that is it's really not a picture, it's just data from funds.)(?) You are skating on thin ice because of the density of the sample. So there are a lot of differences between the kind of data you can get from a satellite remote sensing and what you can get from a forest inventory analysis. A forest inventory analysis is better for some things, not as good for wide, broad scale change detection.

Where in relation to other important features are these forest harvests occurring? Where are they in relation to public drinking water intakes, reservoirs, streams, public lands, cities, etc.? You can't know that unless you have a picture of it.

What is the patch size of the harvest and how is this impacting the overall character of the forest? A lot of animals need forest floor. Other animals and plants need forest edge. (People are worried about the traveling of population.)(?) That kind of question cannot be addressed other than if you have the actual location of where the clearings are in relation to each other and in relation to the remaining forest.

(How can cumulative impacts on a watershed be predicted? If you are going to do any sort of watershed base normally you have to know where the forest cover is, where the smokes are, where the screens are to become a watershed.)(?) A necessary input for watershed modeling is a picture of land coverage.

How and why will satellite Remote Sensing work?

The Forest Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service, has routinely used air photos for more than 60 years. Every private and public landowner is familiar with the release of ariel photographs. And that's a remote sensor because you are up in the air taking pictures. It's not a novel thing.

Satellite RS systems record electromagnetic radiation (EMR) from target objects.

The sensors are more sensitive than the human eye in terms of the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum that they can see. We only see in a visible range. A satellite sees outside the visible range. Some of these areas we can't see really respond differently to vegetation coverage. It's really important to be able to extend the human eye with these sensors.

The Thematic Mapper Sensor can see well enough to detect changes in forest cover with a high degree of accuracy. The needed data, cloud-free Thematic Mapper Satellite images, are not as easy to get. There is a lot of mist in the air in the Ozarks area. If we can get cloud-free data we can certainly detect changes in forest coverage.

Completion of MORAP land cover data.

MORAP is nearly finished with the land cover of Missouri thanks to the cooperation from the Missouri Departments of Conservation, Transportation, Natural Resources, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Ozark National Scenic Riverways, United States Environmental Protection Agency, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Mark Twain National Forest, and United States Geological Survey. These people served on an interagency steering committee. Staff helped us, and we are used to working in an interagency cooperative manner. We try not to get bogged down because we usually have a clear mandate from one or two agencies to do something, but we include input from the other agencies and let people know what we are doing.

Why use Remote Sensing for large-area forest change detection?

There is no substitute for a bird's eye view. You can get a snapshot in time where you can't do that on the ground. You can't instantaneously sample the entire southeast Ozarks. With satellite imaging you can capture that and analyze it later on. You don't have to analyze it immediately. You don't have to collect all your data in order to get data. It's quick and cheap, and a picture is worth more than a thousand words. Results can be combined with other spatial data in GIS for analysis. That's really important.

Thematic Mapper Satellite Data

The data we are talking about using has a 30-meter grain size, or pixel size. Therefore it's very fuzzy compared to what you can see with your eye. It is multi-spectral and collects information in 6 bands. Some are outside the range of the human eye so it is more sensitive than the human eye. These are big scenes, about 185 km on a slide, so it's pretty cheap to buy.

Satellites see beyond blue, green, red.

Picture example of the electromagnetic spectrum and the thematic range. Overview of land cover satellites see further out, especially in the infrared. It is very important for determining vegetation coverage.

Examples of Analysis of Remotely Sensed Data.

Showed pictures of an overview of land cover in a 30- to 60-mile radius. We don't know exactly where the two chip mill sites are, but we know what cities they are near so this picked up sensory.

Showed picture of 1986-92 clearing areas.

Presented forest and woodland by counties. The dark blue has more forests.

Southeast Missouri and the Ozarks have the most percentage of forest by counties.

Mill Spring 30-mile radius. The green is forest, the white is grassland, and tan is cropland. Within 30 and 60 miles of Scott City there is less percentage of forest than 30 and 60 miles of Mill Spring.

Forest Edge

Dark red colors are forested; light colors are not forested.

Additional pictures and charts were presented on the following:

Forest Interior
Core Forest
Watershed Analysis
Subwatersheds
Land Cover
Land cover by Slope Class
Land Cover by Soil permeability
Land Cover within 100 feet of streams
Ongoing Initiatives
Data Deliver
Remote Sensing and GIS
Land cover was discussed.

Senator Goode: Can you tell if there has been replanting or growth from sprouts?

Dr. Diamond: Not until a growth comes to a certain size.

Mark Garnett: Do we know where that was harvested?

Dr. Diamond: All we know is that it used to be forested and now it's not.

Jay Law: Can you determine trees of a certain height vs. trees of another height?

Dr. Diamond: We try to do testing so we can establish an index first to detect small changes in vegetation and detect little bits of regrowth. There is a lot of work we need to do.

Jay Law: Are you still using military analyzing imagery?

Dr. Diamond: This was satellite by the USGS.

Senator Goode: The agencies listed, are those your primary customers or partners?

Dr. Diamond: Yes. All of our partners are listed on this map and most are listed in the brochure in your folder.

Senator Goode: Are they doing anything with the data other than reproducing it and having it as something to look at. Are they doing anything with it that changes anything?

Dr. Diamond: They are using our data a lot for their revised 5-10 year plan. The map is an excerpt from the Department of Conservation's inventory we did on a region-by-region basis. We did the satellite sensing for that. Based on that, they established regional guidelines.

Senator Goode: So the public agencies are using it to make determinations as to how they are going to manage their land? How does it impact private land?

Marvin Brown: It allows us to have a better landscape picture.

Senator Goode: To the extent that private landowners work with you, do you use it to steer them in a given direction?

Marvin Brown: It is used as internal planning.

Senator Goode: What is the impact on the management and utilization of privately owned land in the total picture?

Marvin Brown: When we develop a program for bottomland forests, this data can tell us where to do that.

Sarah Tyree: Another project analysis in using this type of information was a proposal to address small drinking water reservoirs across the state concerning sediment and atrazine. It was helpful to find out exactly the number of acres we have and then using the census from USDA to actually put a proposal together.

David Bedan: How frequently do you update the information?

Dr. Diamond: We do it on a project-by-project basis. The data we used for this map was made in 1992.

David Bedan: The data is archived so you can go back over it the last 20 years? You could if you had the money?

Dr. Diamond: It doesn't go back quite that far.

David Bedan: Can this be made widely available for public use?

Dr. Diamond: Yes. It's just a matter of asking for it.

David Bedan: You mentioned a study going on in the Southeast, I would encourage you to get involved to the extent you can exchange technical data and ideas. I feel we should be part of that study because of bureaucratic boundaries.

Dr. Diamond: There is a 13-state study based on the boundaries of the EPA region.

Marvin Brown: Can you cover in more detail about what it takes to deal with a situation where you have 50,000 acres less forest. How do you know how much is pasture, how much is freshly harvested land and is in the process of regrowing into forest?

Dr. Diamond: You don't know. The only way you can do that is get an index thematic to measure things overtime. The only other approach you can use is to go and sample at random and get a statistical idea.

Marvin Brown: So in essence you can't really conduct a study that tells you X number of acres are being harvested? You can conduct a study that says X acres of forestland isn't forestland, you don't know if it is pasture harvested or regrown?

Dr. Diamond: Not without further information like on the ground sampling.

Emily Firebaugh: Does your agency, or is there an agency, that you can commission to go in and pinpoint to find out why it is showing blue instead of dark red.

Dr. Diamond: You can try to do a random sampling of all of the clearings. It would give you a percentage idea.

Senator Goode: How long would it take if you were going to allow land to grow back by sprouting? Are you familiar with enough of this to have an idea of how long it would take in years before that sprouting would show?

Kan He: Basically, if it grows back it will not happen in a year. We talk about environmental indexing based on the image, which actually tells us more information than we know about. It tells us the moisture content, and biomass content. If we are lucky enough to get the image we want we can analyze the moisture and biomass conditions.

Senator Goode: Using that data, how long after an area is cut and allowed to grow back by sprouting would you be able to determine without physically sampling?

Kan He: We can do a regression based on the theory and vegetation. Right now I do not have an exact answer. One year is not enough. After the cut, it is barren and then we can see brush coming out. Within at least two or two- and one-half years you can find something.

Senator Goode: At about three-to-five years you are going to see it.

Kan He: Five years is the best. (Inaudible)

Sarah Tyree: It seems like we are talking about something that is cut and after the fact. (Inaudible) How much land has been cleared? How much staff do we need to get to those landowners?

David Bedan: If land is clear-cut, can you detect temperatures?

Kan He: (Inaudible)

Dr. Diamond: (Inaudible) It is really hard to detect water quality changes.

Emily Firebaugh: Pertaining to wildlife and landowner education, is it possible for us to use this system to decide where wildlife really needs corridors? Then we can focus in on consulting foresters and landowners and say it is really important that you do not wipe out this corner or this section. Can you focus in and give us that kind of information?

Dr. Diamond: No. We can provide the input to a biologist. Within a county or an area or a watershed we can identify the average forest block size, the amount of productivity near a bunch of landscape matrixing. We can quantify, but the biologist would have to make those kinds of calls. All we can do is say what is on the ground. As far as judgments related to biology, that is for the biologist. (Inaudible)

Emily Firebaugh: How do you see that we can use this best in our decisions on what we are going to send to the governor?

Dr. Diamond: That is up to you. I see it as an input and have two main points:

Watershed and water quality modeling. Potential impacts on water quality within different watersheds, especially in relation to those watersheds that have public water intake. You can quantify the amount of change within a watershed. You need that kind of input.

The other thing is just the overall biota that means either forest core or forest edge.

You can determine how the forest is changing. Is there now more forest core? Is there less forest core? How is that related to the population of the animals?

Emily Firebaugh: Do you see it as a react that we can use instead of a prevention of a plan?

Jay Law: There was a project in Florida, I think it was called River of Green, and they did use satellite imagery to tie together their corridors that they needed to plan for wildlife movement in the Everglades. You could use that because it did show where there was an absence of a cover.

Senator Goode: These images that you have shown us here, are they all available on the web site?

Dr. Diamond: The web site contains the last two images shown. The partners have gotten a lot of these raw data to use for themselves, but not for the public. There are certain types of things they would want, and a certain type the public would want. We also thought about putting information on the web site on a CD for use at home.

Earl Cannon: If we want '99 information in a 30-mile radius what would that cost?

Dr. Diamond: With the new satellite that has gone up, we thought we were going to get those images for $900 each at a minimum, $2,500 at a maximum.

Emily Firebaugh: If we were to use one of these areas where the vegetation had been removed, it could also be an improved vegetation removal too. If I kept 33% of the tract and took out the culls it would show a bluer color wouldn't it?

Dr. Diamond: If it is blue it is clear-cut.

(Inaudible)

Steve Mahfood called on Mr. McFadden who had a public comment.

Kirk McFadden: (Public) Might want to look at Willow Springs. (Inaudible).

Steve Mahfood reminded everyone that this committee has to focus itself, and we want to focus on public comment period. We would love to hear from anybody in that period. Would appreciate it if you could stick to the public comment period.

Steve Mahfood called on Cory Ridenhour for the presentation on Landowner Education.

LANDOWNER EDUCATION PROGRAMS – Cory Ridenhour, MFPA:

Cory Ridenhour: The task force has met. Some of the things discussed was the need for a statewide education program for landowners. There was a need for industry-led programs. The biggest concern was raising the awareness of the landowner education program. Those programs are for those who already know about landowner education. We also came to the conclusion that landowners consider themselves to be environmentally conscious. We thought there was a need to start a pilot program to match the state program. It is important to have the involvement of local landowners in the program. Form a Landowner Council made up of landowners.

Introduced two programs that are up and going on a limited basis:

Master Tree Farm program presented by Joe Garvey, Cape Girardeau and Gerald

Briar, Jackson.

Joe Garvey stated that you carry out a management plan and you reach a person who has done well. Things break down at that point and the land changes hands. All the work he has done may or may not be carried on. We realized a long time ago that we have to start reaching people about what we are doing.

The last 20 years we have tried to do education programs with very improved success. I can't speak for the rest of the state, but in Southeast Missouri any time I put a program on, if Extension sends the word out I have people show up. We had fairly good luck during the 80's with one shot deals.

Back in 1994 the river basin was area of concern. They wanted more forest stewardship land. This was before all the chip mill controversy started. So we started concentrating some of our private land efforts in that area and started getting some work done. About September we signed up 15 landowners to go on a tour. We saw the interest the private landowners had in the land. In November of 1996 Gerald Briar came to us do a landowner education program based on the Master Gardner Program. The Master Gardner Program is a statewide program through the Department of Horticulture.

Information in the packet Gerald handed out is not just sent to our cooperators, this is sent to any landowner on the FSA, NRCS, University of Missouri mailing lists. The first class we had, we thought if we had 15 or so we would go with it. Sixty people wrote back that they wanted to attend We called it the Master Tree Farmer Program.

We chose that name for name recognition. (inaudible)

We started off with how a plant grows, tree I.D., how to get a tree out, forest types, land type, forest measurements, ariel photos, tree selection, protection, watersheds, urban forestry, urban sprawl, agriforestry, insects. We had three or four field trips.

One thing we stressed was that we are not telling you the way to manage. We present everything and you choose your options. We have had two classes. Gerald Briar's office has the Master Gardner Program in the fall.

We send information out to everyone, not just people in our files. Education needs to start now and is a very integral part of this. (Inaudible)

Gerald Bryan: We have formed a committee of private landowners, Extension NRCS, etc. We are looking at community forest initiatives to see how we can educate people on sustainable forest production like the Master Gardner Program. We want to extend that resource base and see how we can help revitalize the community. We are trying to secure a grant from the Ford Foundation. (Inaudible)

Jay Law: Is this the first year this has been done?

Gerald Bryan: This is the third year.

Jay Law: How many acres have you implemented.

Joe Garvey: Some had no land at all. They don't want any government people on their land. We tried to impress upon them to go out and talk to their neighbor. Above all, get some advice.

Gerald Bryan: We should have had that covered on our enrollment form. We had a good group there. We have had two follow-up tours. We found that people are coming in. They are learning and staying and asking questions. That is what we want to try to do through the education program.

Emily Firebaugh: I was in one of these classes. What I thought was the most interesting was that you reached two groups that I thought had never been reached before: The urban forester, and the people from Cape Girardeau. The most interesting was the gentleman and his wife who had retired and just bought some land at the northern part of our district. They didn't miss a meeting. I have to compliment your program. It took the fear out of what the government is going to do to the people from Festus.

Marvin Brown: Do you sense an interest of private landowners in marketing operations?

Gerald Bryan: We think there are a lot of marketing opportunities we can focus on. They may be harvesting a large tract of land in order to get a certain number of dollars. If they have some selective trees they were harvesting, the marketing opportunities may not be quite as good. One thing we thought of as a possiblity is smaller landowners, small lots, and going into electronic marketing. One landowner has been doing some marketing and had been able to increase his income 200-300% just from marketing. We are looking at the green timber possibility from sustainable forests. We are working with some community development specialists. It is something we think has potential.

Senator Goode: Compare for me how this differs from your more traditional landowner outreach to education landowner.

Marvin Brown: This tries to get people educated to the point of making decisions independently, and we do that by conducting a class. (Inaudible) Find out what they want and draw them a plan that will accomplish that.

Senator Goode: Is this being done in certain regions throughout the state?

Marvin Brown: We were developing a prototype to take around the state. We called it the Master Wood Program. We are developing a curriculum and corresponding outline.

Ear Cannon: How many other University Extension Centers exist out there now?

Gerald Bryan: 114. There is one in every county. The hard part is getting a state program. You need someone who is interested in doing it. If you have people who are interested they can run the program.

Jay Law: One of your successes is the mailing list and the work you have done through Extension.

Gerald Bryan: We got the most people through the Farm Service Agency and the landowner list.

Jon Smith: This is the kind of thing we agree is necessary to happen. Are there good ways to coordinate better and have a master plan in every county?

Marvin Brown: It is a matter of identifying places where there is an interest and doing it. We don't have all that many staff hours available to do it year-round across the state.

Senator Goode: Is Extension the lead agency?

Marvin Brown: Extension is the one who turns out the people. In Warrenton we were the lead agency.

Committee Member: Do you see this as being sort of a prototype as to what landowner education should be?

Senator Goode: Landowners are so different. You use different approaches to reach different people. This reaches one group. It reaches a group that is probably a little more educated, a little more attuned to ecology and environmental issues. Another program is being developed in Arkansas and is called "Top Dollar for your Timber." It reaches a group of people that are more traditionally agricultural type people. (Inaudible)

Jon Smith: When we talk about landowner education, do you see it as being different programs for different people, or do you see it as an overall landowner education program for all people? One agency being in charge of all of it?

Marvin Brown: I don't think one agency has to be in charge of it at all. I don't think one size fits all. At the other end of the spectrum is a group that is interested in the Forest Keepers Program. These are people who are interested in forests, and can do some monitoring for us. They might do that for a year or two and then be interested in being a Master Tree Farmer. One size doesn't fit all.

Gerald Bryan: Since we started the Master Tree Farmer Program, Extension has gone through a planning process. (Inaudible)

Cory Ridenhour: The Tree Farmer Program is not the same as the Master Farmer Program. The Tree Farmer Program is in its 50th Anniversary. It is a Long-term program sponsored by Missouri FPA. The association got together this committee to talk about Extension Service, USDA Forest Service, Farm Bureau, NRCS and other groups.

Emily Firebaugh: Most of us are in all of these things, and it has worked well for us. The one that brought in the newest blood was the Master Tree Program. I believe your department has a new program out now called The Steward Program. We also go to meetings on the federal level.

Cory Ridenhour: There are so many different agencies doing programs. Everyone has their own mailing list.

Emily Firebaugh: University Extension can reach people that are now living in urban areas and buying rural property. We need to get to those people to educate them about good management practices.

David Bedan: Does anyone have statistics as to what % of landowners are involved in these programs? 1-5-10-100%?

Cory Ridenhour: It is near 1%.

David Bedan: There needs to be a huge expansion

Marvin Brown: If a landowner is not interested in doing anything with the land, he doesn't need to be in a program. It is important to reach the landowners who are going to make decisions about resource management. We can backtrack through our files and draw GIS maps that show this is a stewardship property, etc., and you can see those things across the landscape. (Inaudible)

Marvin Brown: How do you position who is to be there at the right time? We don't like for a tract of land to be cut hard. When land changes hands they each have different objectives.

Jay Law: We are really talking about a cultural change, and a change in attitude and thinking. You finally get to that critical number and it changes.

There are bad actors out there.

Cory Ridenhour: We did that with logger education. Now we have waiting lists.

Sarah Tyree: Do you feel that the local realtors are reaching out to them?

Emily Firebaugh: You can go to any company and call a realtor. They will tell you how fast you can turn property around. I'm not so sure that your group, or some groups that we have, shouldn't go to a Missouri Realtors Convention. Ask them to drop the invitation to get with the Department of Conservation or a stewardship program.

Cory Ridenhour: That's what some states have done. They have provided education that provides contacts and easy to read books. The ignorance of not knowing what is out there is a hard hurdle to overcome.

The group took a break at 11:25 a.m. and reconvened at 11:30 a.m.

FACILITATION – Dr. Jerry Wade

Dr. Wade presented his agenda for drafting Chip Mill recommendations as follows:

Review July 12
Theme organization
Foundation Information
Process/Work Flow
Work Groups/Recommendation Topics
Organization of Recommendation Draft Teams

His recommendation for the committee is that the theme on "Freedom of Choice" not remain as an independent theme. It has been integrated with the recommendations and report through the other themes. There are two themes at the front: Education Training, and Professional Management. Those define the forest resource base.

He asked if that organization and flow at this point started to make sense and provide an imagery with the process that will be put together? Dr. Wade thanked Dr. Bernie Lewis of the School of Natural Resources for putting the picture chart together.

Dr. Lewis has made progress in organizing the foundation information, from all the input you have received so far, in a way that relates to these themes. This information was handed out.

The list begins with a listing of the information presentations and then Dr. Lewis is going to organize information from that within the framework of the six content themes. All of the foundation information is not equal yet. There is so much material.

Dr. Wade went on to share with the group how the process and workflow is going to go from here.

August 3

Preliminary identification of decision areas.

We are not today going to address the question of organization, but we are going to address what are the specific areas and recommendations the committee will need to make decisions about. Then we will organize the committee into teams to draft recommendations that will then become the basis for the debate, liberation and discussion the committee engages in during its decision process.

Organization of teams to draft recommendations.

Each person will be on two different teams working on two separate sets of recommendations.

Prepare recommendation drafts.

Dr. Lewis will complete foundation information.

The goal is to have foundation information to you in three weeks.

At September 14 meeting:

The committee will begin discussions and making decisions on specific recommendation drafts.

The two chairs will be co-equal participants.

Get conceptual agreements on recommendations that you have been working on and what those areas of recommendation will begin to do:

General agreement by the committee.

2. General agreement but with some minor disagreement.

Major disagreement.

Dr. Lewis will work through the recommendations and the next set of drafts assigned.

Jerry will work with recommendations.

October 12 meeting:

Final deliberation on recommendations from September 14.

Continue discussions on recommendations.

By end of October meeting:

Identification of recommendations with general committee concurrence.

Identification of recommendations with minor disagreements.

Identification of specific major disagreements. (Bernie and Jerry prepare specific

wording of recommendations with minor disagreements, getting to the point of

"can I live with it.")

Committee teams prepare recommendations for discussion on "major

disagreement" areas.

November 1 and 2 meeting:

Final approval on general agreement recommendations.

Decision on specific wording/content of minor disagreement recommendations.

Discussion and decision on recommendations on content on major disagreement

areas.

By the end of the November 2 meeting, committee agreement on final report.

Senator Goode: You are thinking in terms of three specific recommendations?

Dr. Wade: I'm thinking of two levels – areas of recommendations and specific topics.

Senator Goode: John Powell threw out his idea on a tax proposal to allow you to utilize a revenue source. It gets more specific and interrelated. How do you utilize that revenue and earmark it?

Dr. Wade: One draft team is already identified and that team will only have one topic they will work on between now and the next meeting. Everybody else will have two recommendations, and that is the financing team. They will address the issues of financing, revenue flows, and program support.

Steve Mahfood: How much time are we allotting for the last tier of issues?

Dr. Wade: The last two days of November.

Senator Goode: Asked a question of the two chairs: Is it your plan for the three remaining meetings to clear everything else off the agenda and the committee spend the bulk of the time working things out among ourselves?

Steve Mahfood: Yes.

(Inaudible)

Mark Garnett: On the issue of licensing loggers, we have not heard from any loggers yet.

Marvin Brown: We talked about it but we never got around to including it.

Senator Goode: No one can speak for the loggers?

Jon Smith: No.

Emily Firebaugh: At our Farmington meeting I tried to get two loggers to speak and they said they could not spend the day out of the field.

Mark Garnett: I am apprehensive about preparing something that affects someone's life and they don't have any input.

(inaudible)

Senator Goode: Our process has been as open and as public as you can do it. Most interested groups have been represented by someone.

Emily Firebaugh: It follows up on the fact that if I am going to make a recommendation to the governor on what I feel he should have as input, do I want to have another session that says "I'm sorry, your final recommendation should have all of these caveats to it."

Senator Goode: I think you would get that ahead of time.

Representative Foster: I think the only time you will get that kind of public comment is in the hearing room of the House and Senate. Right now we are just discussing what we are going to send to the governor.

David Day: As we talk about specifics, we have a comment period at the beginning and end of the meeting.

Steve Mahfood: I worked for 30 years for agencies that have had to make public input a part of everything they do. I just want to caution that once we do get a report, we have something that we know where we are going to go with it. The intensity of people involved will ratchet it up quickly, and we will start hearing from people we never heard of. We have a requirement to get this report in. Whatever comes out we are going to here it in the committee rooms.

Senator Goode: That concerns me about this next step – breaking into small groups and putting together ideas without more input. It's mislabeled and sets us back. I'm concerned about that process.

Marvin Brown: What Jerry said, this next step will list out all possible recommendations that fit under that category, and people can come back. I don't know what you do about it.

Dr. Wade: It is our job to frame the recommendations and discussion of the committee as a way of getting to the specifics on paper. I hope those do not become identified as ownership of framers.

Senator Goode: Instead of formalizing groups of two or three people, as an individual comes back with whatever ideas they want to lay on the table, some of us talk among ourselves and bounce ideas off one another as opposed to a more formal process. In a formal process people are going to pick that up as an idea of a committee rather than an individual.

Jay Law: I have been through one of these sessions with a larger group than this over complex problems. As a group we can bring it together. At this point I think we can go through this. I would rather see the group work closely and work this out. I think we will look for a solution as we go. I would like to see us stay together.

Dr. Wade: Doing it this way is separating the group. What you are doing is creating the decision agenda. Wording of the recommendations that come forth are not recommendations of individuals. This is a way of getting decisions addressed that leads to quality discussion for the drafting of the final report. Everyone is involved in doing the work of the committee. Everything else is done as the work of the committee as a whole. This is the last time at your meeting that you do anything in smaller groups. I don't sense the concern you are referring to - that there are some teams doing the initial framing of the recommendations.

Senator Goode: If that is understood by everyone involved and if that gets all the ideas on the table.

Dr. Wade: That doesn't preclude any other kind of input. My experience is that this process will work for you. The process you are proposing I don't think will result in the same focused quality.

Senator Goode: My experience comes from a different way of doing things.

Marvin Brown: It seems to me that a real key attribute of everyone is not to develop proposals but to develop a whole list of proposals.

Dr. Wade: That list of proposals will be done today, and identify recommendations and topics. They will have an assigned recommendation to write out.

Senator Goode: If anyone here has two or three ideas they want to have on the table for discussion, when is it on the table?

Dr. Wade: At the September 14 meeting there will be adequate opportunity for everyone to make sure everything they want addressed in this report is included.

Emily Firebaugh: I still agree that we sit here and throw it in the pot. I see two loopholes. Why should we do this month after month when someone can come in and say "I haven't made it to any other meeting so put this in.?" Why should I go home and write a draft on a proposition that I believe in and three other people will do it too?

Dr. Wade: The drafting will be assigned topics. The committee will decide whether it is thrown in or not. The committee will want to see that all the ideas are in.

Sarah Tyree: In negotiating text for a body to approve, people realize when the text is bracketed it is a loose text. It's the public's perception that it is in black and white. How do you get over that?

Dr. Wade: You have to get from where you are to where you are going some way. This path has the best potential in getting you where you want to go.

Steve Mahfood: Asked if there were any final comments anyone wanted to make.

David Day: Will we get to read the report before it is sent to the governor?

David Bedan: If we are not going to have a formal hearing outside this process, how is it going to get to the public?

Senator Goode: You get that with the beginning and ending public comments at meetings. Comments come as we go down through these next meetings.

David Bedan: It is going to be flawed from the start. We haven't made recommendation one yet.

Senator Goode: We need to start getting to specific recommendations.

Steve Mahfood: After the October meeting I think there is a way for us to quickly put the information together and make it available to the people.

David Bedan: Make October 12 the draft report.

The committee dismissed at 12:30 p.m. for lunch and reconvened at 1:45 p.m. to break into work sessions.

2:15 p.m. First Draft Team – Look at areas the committee needs to address as decisions and recommendations. Identify specific topics.

2:25 p.m. Second Draft Team – I am going to request that four members of the committee be established as a working team to develop a set of recommendations for committee consideration and issues of financing which runs through all those pockets in different ways. With your agreement I recommend the following people to make up that group:

Wayne Goode
Emily Firebaugh
Mark Garnett
Jerry McBride

I want the rest of you to find your partner, look through the recommendations on the board and pick out one you and your partner want to create a draft for the committee's discussion at the next meeting. Each of you will be on two different teams with two different sets of recommendations. The finance group may want to come together now and do some preliminary discussions about how you are going to do your work between now and the next meeting.

2:35 p.m. Wrap Up – Please understand this is not closed. There will be ample opportunity for individuals to put their ideas and suggestions in the recommendations. There will be opportunities to look at these and see if there are major topics that have not been addressed. These are not your proposals you are submitting for consideration. Each of the teams is doing work on behalf of the committee, and the committee will then address them.

The meeting was turned back to Stave Mahfood, Co-chair, who opened the meeting for public comment.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Robert Riesenmy:

The reason I suggested I speak was because I heard comments before the break that there has not been input from the logging sector. While I wouldn't consider myself to be representative of that industry, because of my forestry practices I have been involved with logging and loggers for the last 25-30 years. One of the men does the buying and scaling for MOPAC, a large conglomerate that buys most of the best quality timber we have in the state. We were talking about the whole issue that faces this committee. That is the issue of sustainability. The buyer for MOPAC has been twisting the arms of his loggers to get them to attend the certification sessions. When I asked him why, he said the writing is on the wall. We want to be the forerunners, and it is good for our credibility. The logger already says "I am a professional and I don't need this school." I really don't think it is any different.

When we were down to eleven deer in the State of Missouri in the 30's, the overwhelming sentiment of the public was against conservation regulation. The fact remains we would not have a deer in this state if it were not for those regulations. Speaking as a practicing agri-forester, it has to leave us something with teeth in it. You can educate the public all you want, but what you cannot do is convert a greedy person into a magnanimous person. You have to control greed. Greed is what causes the clear cutting practices. Chip mill operators don't even approve of the agreement. The person who buys logs for MOPAC makes the point that the reason the 14-inch stump winds up in the log yard is because the person wants another $20 while the logger is there. It doesn't matter that it is worth five times that much, he wants the money now. That is what we are all dealing with - the element of greed. I do not think you are going to see much real opposition from the logging community.

Katie Auman: As it was mentioned, there is a federal study being done in thirteen states, and Missouri has not been included. The study is being done by Fish and Wildlife, EPA, TVA, and Forest Services. We do not overlap in those regions. I would like to ask that you recommend to the governor that Missouri be represented in this larger study. I think not having Missouri a part of it is really to a disadvantage in that it's not going to present an accurate picture of the chip mill and forestry issue. Canal is not being included in the study either.

(Inaudible)

Earl Cannon: We have heard about this before. Is there a date?

Katie Auman: They are just now starting. You could be included if you act now.

Sarah Tyree: It didn't fall under the jurisdiction of the Executive Order.

David Bedan: By implication it does because you need to manage resources. Being involved in the study would simply be another way of getting information. That's a big part of the S. E. forest study; we are really part of the same Heartwood forest. It is a bureaucratic accident that we are not in it. I don't know what we would have to lose.

Katie Auman: I think it would continue the work you have started. It would help Missouri compare what is going on in other states. It would give a comprehensive view of what is going on.

Committee member: Is there a cost involved?

Jay Law: Federal agencies are spending money to do this. It is a matter of our being able to want to join it, I think the whole North Central group would have to agree.

Steve Mahfood: I thought there was an informal request to allow us to be in the study.

Llona Weiss: We did make that request and we were turned down.

Marvin Brown: All that study is going to do is find out what information Missouri has and put it in the study. It is not going to contribute anything to what we are doing now. Whatever we do is going to be available to anyone else. It will not improve what we are doing here.

(Inaudible)

Hank Dorst: It looks like what we are looking at is some combination of five items:

Education
Incentives
BMP's
Harvest Notification
Funding – how do we pay for it?

Steve Mahfood asked if there was anything else to come before the committee.

NEXT MEETING: Tuesday, September 14. Hosted by the Department of Economic Development at the Jefferson City regional office off West Main Street.

The meeting adjourned at 2:55 p.m.