Return to Practicum

Carl J. Petrick

The Ocala National Forest located in north central Florida contains one of the largest remaining fragments of the globally rare and rapidly vanishing sand pine scrub ecosystem. This ecosystem is critically important for biodiversity conservation. It has been estimated that 40 to 60 percent of this ecosystem’s species are endemic to include: 35 plants, 5 vertebrates and 45 known species of arthropods. The Ocala’s sand pine scrub ecosystem also supports the largest population of the federally threatened Florida scrub jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens coerulescens).

Scrub jays and many other rare scrub species require early successional sand pine scrub which lacks a developed sand pine (Pinus clausa var. clausa) canopy and has a low shrub layer with open patches of bare ground. Historically, these conditions were created by catastrophic stand replacement wildfire events that occurred infrequently during times of drought and high winds. When these conditions occurred, lightning caused fires spread from other adjacent pine habitats into the sand pine scrub. Once in the sand pine scrub, these fires moved rapidly and were extremely difficult to extinguish as evidenced by the 1935 wildfire that burned 14,000 hectares (34,594 ac.) of the Ocala National Forest in just 4 hours. These fires typically killed the mature sand pine trees, burned the shrub layer back to ground level, reduced the accumulated fuels on forest floor and caused the serotinous cones of the sand pine to open releasing their seeds.

Since catastrophic wildfires can no longer be allowed to operate within the modern day landscape and managing stand replacement prescribe burns is extremely difficult and in most cases poses an unacceptably high risk to human health and safety, other means have been explored to manage large portions of sand pine scrub ecosystem. The Ocala National Forest has been creating early successional scrub jay habitat by mechanically harvesting mature sand pine and altering the structure of the shrub layer by roller chopping or using prescribed fire after the sand pine is harvested. This creates suitable scrub jay habitat for a period of 3 to 15 years after the mature sand pine is harvested. A series of clear cuts have been strategically placed within the scrub ecosystem to ensure that 45,000 to 55,000 acres of suitable habitat is available for scrub jays. Although clear cutting has been controversial and contested throughout much of the United States, the clear cutting of sand pine scrub is accepted by the environmental community as a legitimate means to create early successional scrub jay habitat. This is evidenced by the Florida chapter of the Sierra Club’s award to the Ocala National Forest for its scrub jay management efforts.

On Labor Day weekend in 2004, Hurricane Frances made landfall near Stuart, Florida. The storm track took Frances south and west of the Ocala National Forest, which is located in north central Florida just east of the city of Ocala (Attachment 1). The forest experienced hurricane force winds resulting in significant damage to its timber resources. Before damage assessments from Hurricane Frances could be completed, Hurricane Jeanne made landfall on September 25 again near Stuart, Florida following almost an identical storm track as Frances. Jeanne’s hurricane force winds also reached the Ocala causing additional damage to the Ocala’s timber resources.

These storms had the greatest impacts on mature sand pine stands 65 years of age or older due to a combination of factors. Sand pine does not possess the sturdy tap root typical of other pines such as longleaf (Pinus palustris), slash pine (Pinus elliottii), or loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). Because of its relatively shallow root system it is more prone to blow down during wind events. Also as sand pine matures; it becomes susceptible to red heart fungus (Phellinus pini), which weakens the inner core of the tree making it more prone to breakage during wind events. Sand pine stands that are 65 years of age or older on the Ocala National Forest have a high incidence of trees infected with red heart fungus. The taller height of the older sand pine trees and their canopy characteristics are also factors that likely make these older trees more susceptible to storm damage.

Prior to these two hurricanes, the Ocala National Forest contained 9,808 acres of mature (65 years of age or older) sand pine stands that were not within designated Wilderness Areas. These areas were scattered throughout the sand pine scrub ecosystem which is oriented north to south through the center of the forest (Attachment 2). After the storm passed it was apparent that a significant amount of the mature sand pine stands had widespread tree damage with many trees either broken or blown over. Initial estimates were that over 5,000 acres of the 9,800 acres of sand pine stands 65 years of age or older suffered 50% or greater tree damage.

This presented a host of leadership challenges to the Ocala National Forest, the Forest Supervisors Office and the Regional Office. There were obvious concerns that the dead and dying sand pine would create excessive fuel loads resulting in extremely high wildfire risks if the sand pine was not harvested. Sand pine deteriorates much faster after it is killed or damaged than other southern pines therefore it retains its’ merchantability for a shorter period of time (5 to 6 months compared to 9 to 10 months typical with other pine species). Sand pine also does not possess the fiber strength of other southern pines so it is mainly utilized as pulpwood. It therefore has a relatively low stumpage value and is not in high demand as a timber product. Consequently, if these damaged sand pine stands were not harvested before the damaged timber lost its merchantability the Forest Service would lose the economic ability to effectively reenter and harvest these stands in the future. This could adversely affect scrub jays since we would likely lose the ability to create the early successional habitat that the scrub jay requires in these stands. The only practicable solution for retaining the ability to manage scrub jay habitat in these damaged stands in the future was to harvest by clearcutting all the stands with 50% or more damage before the timber lost its merchantability. If the salvage timber were not sold along with the standing timber there would not be enough living trees remaining in these areas to provide an economically viable sale in these stands in the future.

Conversely, concerns were also expressed that harvesting all the damaged sand pine stands may have long-term impacts to scrub jays. More precisely, would this create a habitat bottleneck for scrub jays in 15 years when all the harvested stands were no longer suitable for scrub jays?

In addition to these problems there were a number of issues involving the administration of active timber sales that were sold prior to the storms based on the value of the undamaged timber. Some of these sales had been partially harvested while others had not yet been harvested. Since the storm reduced the value of the timber, a legally acceptable method had to be determined for reappraising the value of the damage timber. It was crucial that whatever the method chosen that it be the most time efficient and least labor intensive as possible.

In addition to the 1,900 acres of damaged stands under existing sales there was an additional 3,500 acres of damaged timber stands that were not planned for harvest that had not been assessed under the National Environment Policy Act (NEPA). A decision had to be made to determine the best approach to take to comply with NEPA that would be expedient enough to allow the timber to be harvested before it lost its value.

A strategy to address all of these issues had to be developed that could be clearly articulated to and supported by, 3 different organizational levels within the Forest Service. These 3 levels being: 1) District Rangers and their staff on the Lake George and Seminole Ranger Districts of the Ocala National Forest, 2) the Forest Supervisor and support staff in Supervisors office in Tallahassee, Florida and 3) the Timber Management Director and support staff in the Regional Office in Atlanta, Georgia.

I developed a Situation Assessment (Attachment 3) to help identify the key parties, their interests in the issues and their roles and responsibilities. This helped me develop a Process Plan (Attachment 4) and strategy for resolving the issues.

Given the time constraints we were working under, it was imperative that a storm damage assessment be completed as soon as possible to quantify the extent of the damage and decide on an appropriate course of action. This effort was hindered by the many trees that had fallen across and blocked roads making access to damaged areas difficult. To expedite the process a helicopter was ordered which would allow for a more rapid and safer method to assess the degree of impact to timber resources. On 17 September, I flew with two of the Ocala’s timber management staff to assess the damage to active sales. We carried paper maps and aerial photos of the sale areas and made ocular estimates of the percentage of canopy trees that were damaged. A second flight was conducted on the 18^th to assess damage to other areas not under active sales. The highest priority was to estimate the volume of damaged timber in the active sale areas so that a price adjustment could be made for the damaged timber and the sales, which were halted, could proceed. We passed along information from our storm damage assessment to the Regional Office to keep them apprised of our situation and to put them on notice that we may require their assistance.

Normally damaged pine stands are cruised or sampled by forest technicians who physically walk through the stands and take a variety of measurements to calculate the volume and corresponding value of the damaged timber. Based on the sheer number of acres effected, the low value of the timber product and its limited shelf life, and the extremely dense and dangerous condition of our damaged stands, we felt that a nontraditional approach was needed to estimated damaged timber volume. Since these sale areas were cruised prior to storm and their total volume was calculated and they were originally proposed to be clear cut, we felt that we should be able make an ocular estimate of the damaged timber and make a deduction to the sale based on the volume of damaged timber. We realized that this would require special authorization from the Timber Management Staff in the Regional Office.

Usually when pine stands are damaged, timber volumes are calculated for each of the damaged products (pulpwood, sawtimber, poles, etc.) and a volume and price for each product is determined. Individual trees are typically marked with tree marking paint to ensure only the damaged trees are harvested. However, sand pine is typically sold as one product, pulpwood. Unfortunately, Forest Service policy states that any tree with a diameter of 9.6 inches or larger will be sold as sawtimber. This policy was written mainly for other pine types and really didn’t take into account the uniqueness of sand pine. This is understandable since Ocala sand pine has a limited range and Florida is the only National Forest in country that sells sand pine. Nonetheless there were no exceptions to this policy as it was written. We realized that we needed an exception to this policy from the Timber Management Staff in the Regional Office.

In order to obtain the authorizations and exceptions we needed, we invited Kathy Andregg the Regional Mensurationist and Randy Smith the Regional Contract Administrator from the Regional Office Timber Management Staff to tour the damaged areas on 22 September so they could better understand and appreciate our unique situation. After touring the damaged timber stands we meet back in the Seminole Ranger District office to discuss the issues further. In addition to the regional staff several employees from the Forest Supervisors Office, the Lake George Ranger District and the Seminole Range District of the Ocala National Forest were invited to attend. We felt that it would be beneficial for the district staff to hear what the regional staff had to say directly and to include them in the decision making process. Present at the meeting were: Carl Petrick, Ecosystem Staff Officer, Richard Shelfer, Timber Program Manager, Skip Griep, Forest Wildlife Biologist, Dave Harris, Forest Planner, and staff from Ocala National Forest to include: Jim Thorsen, Seminole District Ranger, Gordon Horsley, Timber Management Assistant, John Bronson, Timber Sale Administrator, Dave Record, Timber Sale Administrator, Frank Brandt, NEPA Coordinator, Ray Willis, Archeologist, and Bob Wuestenhagen, Forester, Janet Hinchee, Silviculturist and Mike Williams, Forest Technician.

At the outset of the meeting, the district staff was mainly concerned about timeframes and wanted authority to use the most expedient methods possible to resolve issues involving the active timber sales and initiate efforts to salvage the other damaged timber. Their preference was to fly over the damaged stands with a helicopter and/or drive around the stands to make ocular estimates of damaged timber volume without having to physically reenter each of the damaged stands to calculate the volume of damaged timber. The Regional Office while not unsympathetic to the District’s needs, were mainly concerned about deviating from established Forest Service policy and ensuring that whatever was done was within the limits of the law. During facilitation of the conversation it appeared that compromises could be made.

The staff from the Regional Office gained a better understanding of the issues and the uniqueness of our situation from touring the damaged stands. They quickly realized that recruising the damaged stands would present a serious safety risk to the field technicians. However some method was required to estimate the volume of the damaged timber. The group agreed on three alternatives as a compromise. The preferred alternative was to fly over the damaged sale areas with a fixed wing aircraft equipped with digital camera to photograph the damaged sale areas. This would allow for a comparison of pre and post storm damage photography interpretation using change detection computer software. If the change detection software did not work out than we would manually compare pre and post storm damage photography. If something prevented or delayed the acquisition of the post storm damage aerial photography (plane breakdown, pilot unavailable), then the Regional Office would authorize the forest to use ocular estimates using helicopter flights or windshield cruises.

The second objective for the meeting on 22 September was to determine a strategy for harvesting the damaged timber in areas that were not currently under a sales contract. These areas had not been cruised prior to the storm damage so their timber volumes had not been calculated. The Regional Office staff realized that cruising these areas would also pose an unacceptable safety risk. Fortunately, the Ocala National Forest had been harvesting sand pine for decades and the district staff realized that there was little variation in sand pine volumes per acre between equal age stands. Given this we requested the authority to estimate the sand pine volume in each of the damaged stands that were not previously cruised based on historic sales data. We would then use the same protocol described previously to estimate the volume of damaged timber and determine the percentage of damaged timber volume verses standing timber volume. A price for each of these volumes could be determined within each stand. However since these volumes were only estimates the regional office required a method to determine the actual amount of timber that was harvested. They suggested using weight scaling. The volume estimation of timber per acre in the damaged area was of 14.7 ccf. per acre. A conversion factor for converting sand pine volume to weight revealed that 3.3 ccf. of sand pine equates to 1 ton of sand pine. A ccf. is the abbreviation for 100 cubic feet. This would allow us to issue weight scale tickets to loggers so that the weight of each load of sand pine could be determined which could then be converted to the actual volume amount. Price adjustments could then be made for each cutting unit within a sale area.

The third objective of the 22 September meeting was to determine the best approach for complying with the National Environmental Policy Act in order to salvage the damaged areas not originally planned to be harvested. There were several options that could be pursued but each had their pros and cons. It was critical that whatever the method chosen that it comply with the law, be acceptable to a wide rage of publics, and be timely enough to allow the timber to be salvaged before it lost its’ merchantability. I knew that there would be some debate on the best approach to take. Before we ventured into all the NEPA options I wanted to make sure that the team fully understood and were supportive of our proposed purpose and need for action. I drafted a white paper to state what we knew about the current situation and to identify objectives, information gaps, potential issues, and potential solutions and alternatives. This helped focus the group on the issues at hand.

One concern that I had going into this meeting was that by harvesting all of the damaged sand pine stands with 50% or greater damage, we may be creating a habitat bottleneck for scrub jays. I was concerned that there may not be enough mature sand pine habitat remaining in 15 years to allow us to create more suitable scrub jay habitat once the areas we were treating now became unsuitable to scrub jays. I posed this question to our district Foresters, Biologists and Geographic Information Systems Administrator so that they would be able to evaluate this and have an opinion when we met on 22 September. I met with this small group on the 22^nd prior to the larger meeting to review their GIS maps and analysis. Their work revealed that there would be plenty of mature sand pine remaining after the salvage cuts to perpetuate scrub jay habitat. By having done this pre-work in advance of our meeting we were able to conclude that this was not an issue.

After we resolved the issues pertaining to the administration of active timber sales and salvage sales, I outlined our options for complying with NEPA. A couple of these options involved the use of Categorical Exclusions (CEs). A CE is an action that will not result in significant impacts on the environment and therefore normally does not require further analysis in either an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement. The Forest Service had recently been granted the use new Categorical Exclusions (CE) for limited timber harvest and for treating fuels to reduce wildfire risks. The Forest Service was anxious to use the new CEs since a lot of work was invested in their development and approval. The agency also cautioned against misusing these new CEs.

The NEPA options that I presented to the team for discussion were:

1. To utilize the newly created CE number 13 for limited timber harvest
2. To utilize the newly created CE number 10 under the Healthy Forest Initiative and Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFI/HFRA)
3. To prepare a standard Environmental Assessment (EA)
4. To prepare a streamlined EA under the 9 December 2002 guidance from the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) related to the HFI/HFRA

During the course of the conversation the team identified a 5^th option, which was to request alternative NEPA arrangements from the CEQ.

After I briefly presented the options it was clear that the District staff was leaning toward the first option (CE number 13) because it was the fastest and easiest to implement. This CE was written specifically for "Salvage of Dead and Dying Trees" however it had an acreage limitation of 250 acres. Most of the damaged sand pine stands were less than 250 acres however the total amount of acreage that the CE would be applied to would be over 3,300 acres. This would constitute using the CE at least 13 times.

When the Forest Service first proposed this new CE several respondents expressed concern over the number and location of categorically excluded limited timber harvest activities that could be implemented within a given area or a limited timeframe. Some respondents raised concerns that the Forest Service could misuse the CEs by segmenting larger projects into sizes that qualify under the CEs. These same respondents recognized that this would be in violation CEQ regulations. The Forest Service responded to this by stating that segmenting a larger project into smaller projects in order to meet the acreage requirements and be considered under these CEs is contrary to Forest Service guidance. This information was published in Volume 68, No. 145, page 44604, on Tuesday, July 29 2003 as a notice in the Federal Register.

This was not universally understood by all the team members and presented a challenge during my facilitation of the meeting. Some team members interpreted my cautioning against misusing this CE as a lack of support for the project on my part. I quickly sensed this and made a statement to the team that there was not a person in the room who did not understand or support the purpose and need for our proposed action. I stated that it didn’t matter how fast we left the starting blocks if an error on our part meant we couldn’t finish the race. Fortunately a copy of the Federal Register was on hand containing the cautionary language against segmenting larger projects into smaller projects. Those wanting to use CE 13 quickly realized that this would be inappropriate and this option was dropped from further consideration.

The second option that was discussed was to utilize the newly created CE number 10 under the Healthy Forest Initiative and Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFI/HFRA). This CE allows up to 1,000 acres of mechanical treatments however the treatment areas must be in specified fuel types, and within wildland-urban interface areas. In addition treatments should be identified through collaboration. The areas we were proposing for treatment (salvage) were smaller and scattered within the sand pine ecosystem. Some areas were within the wildland-urban interface and others were arguably not. Also, our limited time frame did not allow time for extensive public collaboration so this option was dropped.

The third option that was discussed was to request alternative NEPA arrangements from the Council of Environmental Quality. The National Forests in Florida had never done this before so I decided that a conference call involving key members of the Regional Office and our team would be beneficial by providing more guidance and advice on this alternative. This was very helpful. The team learned from the call that alternative arrangements from the CEQ had only been sought a couple of times in our region (Region 8) in response to large and unusual storm events with corresponding large salvage operations. The alternative arrangements were for the salvage of 1 billion board feet of timber across 500,000 acres of National Forest lands in Arkansas due to an ice storm and the salvage of 90 million board feet of timber across 103,000 acres of National Forest lands in Texas due to a windstorm. In comparison, the amount of storm damage on the Ocala was much less significant in terms of acreage impacted (5,400 acres total with only 3,300 acres not already under a signed Decision Notice).

Significant impacts to human health and safety is another reason for requesting alternative NEPA arrangements from the CEQ. Even though we had concerns about the heavy fuel accumulation most areas were not in the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) areas. Based on the relatively small acreage involved and their distance from the WUI areas we concluded that our situation did not warrant requesting a NEPA exemption from the CEQ.

The fourth option discussed was to prepare a standard Environmental Assessment (EA). Most members felt going into the meeting that this was not a desirable option because of the historically long time frames it typically has taken our agency to prepare EAs. These timelines are influenced by primarily two major factors: the information content of the EA and how focused the ID team is on completing the EA. Regarding content, CEQ regulations specify that an EA need only contain a proposed action and need for the proposal, alternatives considered, environmental impacts of proposed action and alternatives, and a list of agencies and persons consulted. Our tendency however has been to produce encyclopedic EAs that may include non relevant issues and too much elaboration especially when describing the Affected Environment. This is often done to make EAs "bullet proof" from appeals when in reality it does not have a great bearing on whether an EA is appealed or not. Typically these EAs are written by an interdisciplinary team and several authors are involved in writing different portions of the document. The ID team members typically are managing multiple priorities and other duties so if leadership does not identify priorities and timeline expectations of the ID team, the EA development process can drag on for years.

The fifth option, which was the option the team selected, was to prepare a streamlined Environmental Assessment (EA) using the 9 December 2002 guidance from the CEQ related projects supporting the HFI/HFRA. This reduces the EA timeline development process by 30 days by combining the "scoping" with the "notice and comment period" and authorizes the Forest Service to implement the project before the 105 day appeal process is completed. This reduced timeframe satisfied most of the concerns that the District personnel had about using an EA versus a CE. The group realized that the 63 day timeline for preparing an abbreviated EA for a large, emergency timber salvage sale was very realistic since we recently completed a similar EA in 60 days for salvaging timber killed by the Impassible 1 Wildfire on the Osceola National Forest this past spring.

The chart below compares the average EA development timeline for a routine, large timber sale to the abbreviated EA timeline for an emergency timber sale.

* Development of new alternatives is a possibility but is unlikely.

** The project can proceed even if it is appealed

After deciding the best NEPA approach to take and resolving all of the issues pertaining to the administration of the active timber sales and the salvage of new sale areas, we had accomplished our objectives and had a clear strategy to follow. We reviewed the action items and ensured that someone was assigned to each action item. We concluded our meeting and began to implement our plan.

Hurricanes Frances and Jeanne caused considerable damage to mature sand pine stands on the Ocala National Forest. Damage occurred to stands that were sold prior to the storms as well as stands that were not scheduled for harvest in the near future. Some of stands that were sold were partially harvested prior to the storms. Over half of the damaged stands were not sold nor had they been assessed under NEPA. Prompt salvage of storm damage timber was essential in order to regenerate scrub habitat for the scrub jay before the timber lost its merchantability. A number of issues had to be resolved to include: estimating the volume of damage timber in active timber sales and adjusting the price for those areas already cut, estimating the volume of stands that were not sold or cruised, and determining the most expedient method for complying with NEPA. A strategy had to be developed for resolving these issues, which could be supported, by 3 different organization levels within the Forest Service (District, Supervisors Office and Regional Office).

The process plan (Attachment 4) that I developed helped us put together a strategy for resolving the issues. Keeping the Regional Office informed as we gathered information from our storm damage assessments and making them aware of potential issues was crucial. Since we had kept the Regional Office informed they were aware of our potential issues and were poised to respond to a request for assistance. The one day meeting on 22 September with key staff from the Ocala, the Supervisors office and the Regional Office proved to be an effective method for resolving our issues and developing a strategy. The white paper I prepared in advance of the meeting helped ensure that everyone had a common understanding of the issues, and outlined some of the options for resolving these issues. During my facilitation of the meeting I made sure that everyone in attendance had an opportunity to participate by asking questions, voicing concerns, and offing recommendations. I captured the information and helped the group stay on focus. I also facilitated a conference call with the Regional Directors during the meeting, which helped us eliminate the request for alternative arrangements from the CEQ as a viable option.

The meeting on the 22 September proved to be very successful. The members felt energized and realized that they all played a valuable role in the meeting. The district staff realized that the Supervisors Office and the Regional Office were interested in and supportive of the work at the District. The Supervisors Office felt that they helped to resolve the issues in a timely and cordial manner. Staff from the Regional Office gained a better understanding of the issues and challenges the District staff and Supervisors Office faced and were able to provide increased flexibility to the Forest. It was apparent that the RO’s willingness to provide the Forest increased flexibility was in large part due to the relationships and trust developed long before these storms made landfall.

Attachment 1