December, 1999, Chip Mill sub-committee summary

On Thursday, Dec. 9th, 1999, the Joint Subcommittee studying the impacts of satellite chip mills on Virginia's economy and environment met in Richmond. The setting was different in that the format was a round table discussion vs. the formal hearing room. The size of the room was much smaller so some folks had to sit in the doorways and hall. The majority the subcommittee was present (Day, Dillard, Kilgore, Trumbo, Braunworth, Bush, Cutler, Garner, Hileman, Parsons, Wenger, Landes, Van Yahres) and the majority the audience appeared to be industry oriented. Present from the Chip Mill Task Force: Shireen Parsons, Rupert Cutler, Gerry Scardo, and Nancy Gilliam. Rosemary Wallinger, Garden Club of VA, was also present.

The agenda: mediator Rich Collins (UVA) would provide a summary of his conversations with both environmentalists and industry people. In brief, he provided an overview of the increased demand of pulp expected in the South, proposed a definition of chip mills a la NC chip study, and touched on the issue of permitting. Mr. Collins attempted to find, for this session, areas of common agreement, leaving the more contentious topics till later.

He found in his discussions that all agreed something unprecedented is happening to our forests and deserves our concern. With the increase in the paper market, and decrease in resources, and less agency involvement on private forested lands, there are clearly concerns. Definitions of chip mills were discussed but not agreed upon. Barnie Day nixed the idea of studying forestry in general. Shireen Parsons asked that there be agreement on what is the definition of a forest.....some discussion occurred but, again, little agreement.

Then Mr. Collins directly asked the Dept. of Forestry pointed questions: What is the ability of DOF to function as it is committed to do? With increased responsibility, with personel down 25%, finances were discussed and agreement was made that additional funds should be recommended this general assembly session. Director of DOF, Garner was put on the spot when asked the % of sites his agency actually visits. He responded by saying they have data from only 2 counties and there, 50% of sites were visited. Only 50% of the loggers report their plans to cut. Delegate Dillard reinforced a serious problem exists with enforcement capabilities regarding water quality standards.

Further discussion ensued about the type of trees used for chipping. No one provided a strong argument that many times healthy trees are chipped for ease/profit. The argument that "we only use poor quality trees" seemed to prevail. Some discussion occurred around increasing funds for extension agents to assist land owners.

The Forest Legacy Program was discussed, where land owners can put easements and restrictions on their timber for tax relief. BMP compliance was touched on and penalties were delved into. Garner was not clear when I addressed the specific number of fines and % collected over the last 6 years. Finally, 2 industry folks read letters of support for the chip mills.

So simply put, there was only one agreement in the 2 hour session: that additional funds be suggested for the DOF. Some heated exchanges occurred as Shireen brought the committee up to date on the potential chip mill in Clifton Forge: Senator Trumbo became upset about the chip mill controversy and the need for increased jobs in his area.

Suggestions were made for topics at the next hearing: visiting a chip mill, environmental issues, preserving the land base, forestry practices for sustainable forestry. The overall tone was more civil for the day.

A Roanoke Times reporter was there and wrote a brief summary for the Friday paper.

On large paper taped to the wall, the assistant wrote:

NEEDS/IDEAS
monitoring (50% not monitored) (not every county has a forester)
education
enforcement
incentive/compensation for conservation
collection of more accurate information
technical assistance

Rich Collins did make several good suggestions in his last section:
Focus of Possible Actions: that we do need to gather more reliable info on VA chip mills and VA forest conditions; that we need to thoroughly evaluate the capability of DOF to do it jobs; need to clarify the power of state agencies to assure chip mills don't have adverse enviro impacts; that we need to consider landowner training and incentives; and evaluate studies/recommendation from other states as to their appropriateness to VA.