by Caroline Pufalt
Ozark Chapter Conservation Chair, ExCom
I usually do not like sports analogies, but this one did seem to fit, the ball is indeed in our court with regard to chip mills in Missouri. In this case the “court” includes the public, state legislature, and state agencies. The “ball” is the issue of how our state will respond to the advance of high capacity (industrial size) chip mills in Missouri. How will we protect our forests, watersheds, wildlife and local economies?
How did the ball get in our court? After nearly two years, two draft reports, and one short circuited “final” report, the Governor’s advisory committee on chip mills released its final report at the end of July 2000. That report was not much different than the draft report described in a previous issue of the Ozark Sierran (July/August, 2000).
The report calls for voluntary actions, more education, more study, and recommends only one regulation. That regulation would require best management practices when timber is cut on forested lands of 40 or more contiguous acres and over half the overstory is removed. The report does call for a two year chip mill study. That study would be funded by the state and would involve the University of Missouri.
At the final meeting of the chip mill committee MDC Director Jerry Conley recommended that landowners be required to submit a preharvest notification. This, Conley said, would assist his agency in at least keeping statistics on the amount of logging in Missouri and would provide a contact point with landowners. But that proposal was defeated. Conley and his predecessor on the committee, Marvin Brown, had, to put it mildly, not been much of a progressive force on the committee; thus his last minute effort at this requirement was somewhat unexpected. But it might be something on which to build.
The report itself includes much useful material and analysis. And it represents lots of hard work by the committee and especially agency staff, primarily through DNR. We can be grateful for their efforts and will be able to use the report as a reference.
The lack of concrete recommendations coming out of the report was a disappointment. The committee included some hard core property rights advocates who seemed to want to avoid even the smallest step forward. MDC representation was generally not helpful and some state legislators seemed cowed by fear of constituent backlash. Some did not attend often. The presence of a few good environmental advocates was not enough to overcome what turned out to be a majority of those favoring no action.
The committee also strayed far from its original mission, which was to look at the chip mill issue and thus the chip mill industry. Instead, it focused too much on forestry practices in Missouri. While it should have addressed those issues to an extent, it lost sight of options for regulating the high capacity chip mill industry. Thus the final report includes a lot of material related to general forestry practices in our region. It does point to the need for further action on many fronts.
Some of the items the committee considered, such as mandatory best management practices, mandatory logger certification, and preharvest notification were criticized as placing too big a burden on individuals. However, what they really represent is an effort to upgrade forestry in Missouri, upgrade the skills of loggers, provide for better communications between loggers and landowners, and provide for better information about Missouri’s forests. With the help of agency personnel, state legislators, and interested individuals already involved in forestry and logging, these ideas could be presented to Missouri citizens in a thoughtful, rational way that would enable a similar response. This is clearly an effort that will take communication, involvement, and feedback. And it will also take leadership; something that is often hard to find.