Robinson Forest - December 12 Meeting
  Dec 12, 2006 17:33 PST 
A statement was made to us tonight that if DCR doesn't do their work,
the park will lose its species diversity. Despite the fact that they
are virtually 100% cutting all the birch species, dogwood, and a
few others. If its left alone they say, its going to go downhill.
Seems to have gained this diversity due to it being left alone for the last
100 yrs or so in many parts. They say their concern is
age or other diversity

Any of you that have been there and seen the mature forest
have any input on that issue? It seems to us that the parts with the
least diversity are the ones that had forest management by the CCC
camps in the early days.

Re: Robinson Forest   Gary A. Beluzo
  Dec 13, 2006 10:24 PST 

Bob and I attended an important meeting with the Friends of Robinson State
Park and DCR last night. When the discussion of RESERVE was approached, DCR
argued that the size of RSP would preclude successional diversity in the
future because the parcel would not be large enough to be maintained by
natural disturbance. Do you believe that the RSP (850 acres along the
river) is large enough for wind disturbance (considering the intensity and
frequency of wind in the area) to maintain biodiversity of the landscape?

DCR argued that unless SILVICS are used in the PARK that the biodiversity of
trees (especially early successional and mid-successional species) will
suffer and the Park will end up as a long-term late successional forest. Of
course the forest at RSP is in various stages of seral development now so
the logical question was did *natural disturbance produce and maintain the
biodiversity of the area or was it the result of any silvics* *over the past
80 years or so?* No one could answer the question. I maintained that this
was a key question because if natural disturbances did not create the
current diversity of successional seres (because the silvics did) then
perhaps some limited silvics would be to maintain diversity of successional
types IF that is what the public wants. At least a few folks at the meeting
said that what they want is NATURAL regardless of the future trajectory of
the forest.

I know that you have done much research into landscape disturbance and how
the frequency, intensity, and severity of disturbance will vary according to
the forest size and geographical location. This really gets to the heart of
the issue of whether natural processes CAN maintain the natural trajectory
of a forest fragment the size of Robinson.

Another issue I brought up was whether forest fragments that have had their
successional trajectories augmented by anthropogenic disturbance in the past
could benefit from ecological restoration of some type? Your thoughts?

Re: Robinson Forest
  Dec 13, 2006 10:53 PST 
Just one point, I did verify with 2 of the older people that were there
as far back as the 1920's that there has been no active silviculture done
in the eastern 2/3'rds of the park in their lifetime. The only active
was done in the areas that the CCC camps inhabited and had their buildings
and other operations in. Those areas are part of our study as to why tulip
poplar is where it is, and not in any of those areas.

RE: Robinson Forest   Edward Frank
  Dec 13, 2006 16:19 PST 


To add my two cents to the discussion - Small scale disturbances such as
individual trees falling will maintain a some degree of openings in the
forest. These will be filled by plants springing up to fill the opening.
These early successional species may be suppressed or change in
percentage of the landscape, but they should not be lost to the system.

The second point I would make is so what if the park becomes a long-term
late successional forest? The forest in the surrounding areas subject
to logging operations are permanently in the early to middle
successional stage. We don't really need more of the same at Robinson.
If you want diversity on the landscape as a whole, then it would be
better to let a small piece of it, like Robinson SP, to become a
late-successional forest. It is like saying we should cut down half the
redwoods in Redwoods National Park because we don't have enough creosote
bushes growing there.

Re: Robinson Forest   Lee E. Frelich
  Dec 14, 2006 08:21 PST 

Reserves don't have to have all successional diversity in each reserve,
they only have to represent it among all reserves. Reserves of this size
have been an extremely commonly used strategy for conservation by many
public and private conservation agencies in the U.S., from Nature
Conservancy, to state natural areas in most states, and reserves natural
areas within national forests.

850 acres is large enough to show dynamics of small to medium scale wind.
Whether it is large enough to show all successional and developmental
stages after large scale wind is irrelevant. No reserve is that large
(except perhaps Adirondack State Park). Different stages resulting from
large scale wind should be represented among different reserves. Thus the
argument that either the whole thing will blow down or that it will all be
late-successional is spurious (and if they are worried that it will all be
late-successional, then why mark all the birch to be removed)? If the
whole thing blows down at once, or all succeeds to late-successional
forest, that's fine. That's why you have a number of reserves representing
each forest type scattered around the landscape, so that hopefully
large-scale disturbance will occur at different times and you will end up
with reserves in all stages of succession and development.

The biodiversity of the areas is mostly the result of the different
ecosystem types (areas with different soil types and topography). For
example, there are areas that support mesic forest and areas that support
dry forests of scarlet oak, river edge and upland, etc. The diversity is
also partly due to past disturbance, both human and natural. Within each
ecosystem type, large gaps >1000 square feet caused by windfall of several
trees in a group, harvests, and surface fires would allow persistence of a
few early successional species, and mid successional species like ash, red
oak, white pine and tulip tree. These mid scale disturbances are important
for maintaining that group of species, and they could be selection cuts, or
natural wind perhaps supplemented by prescribed fire if the area was a reserve.

Regarding your last question, I don't think it is necessary to do much
other than remove exotic tree species in the park and think about the
possibility of some small prescribed burns. Some of the areas where exotic
trees are removed might benefit by planting the appropriate species for the

Re: Robinson Forest   Gary A. Beluzo
  Dec 14, 2006 09:12 PST 

I am hopeful that the Friends group, ENTS, and DCR can arrive at a plan for
Robinson State Park which is best for the forest. To ensure that any
intentions that are stated by the group and that actions would be mutually
agreed upon, I am proposing the creation of an Ecological Restoration
Committee (notice the word management is conspicuously absent) through a
legal agreement which would require the entire committee to be involved with
the future trajectory of Robinson State Park forest. This could create
investment by all parties involved and mean that the Park would be guided by
ecologics (intention is ecological restoration and maintenance) rather than
silvics (traditional intention was to create a lumber-producing forest). I
believe that in order to create neutral ground, good intention, and trust we
need new language. There are negative connotations associated with words
like "harvest", "timber", "management", etc. Perhaps Robinson State Park
could be a new model for citizen, government, and scientific folks working
toward the re-establishment and maintenance of a pre-settlement forests in
areas intended for preservation. This would include human intervention but
only along eco-logical lines with ecological intention.

ENTS? Comments?

"Eco-logics" versus "Silvics"   Gary A. Beluzo
  Dec 14, 2006 10:49 PST 

The gaps would need to occur before the stand reaches the old multi-age
development stage. Also, the 0.04 hectare (400 square meter) gap is the
MINIMUM necessary to have successful regeneration. Liriodendron does not
appear to regenerate under its own canopy SUCCESSFULLY. Yes, you will get
saplings and perhaps some poles but ultimately the trees do not have the
strength to make it up into the canopy before others topple.

Fragmented forests, if not eco-logically maintained in some way, will
eventually lose many if not most of the native species to invasives. It is
unfortunately that we are dealing with a forest fragment but without the
context of landscape scale forest the dynamics are going to be completely
different and NOT natural, thanks to human manipulation in the past.

So, if we are willing to have a forest with late successional species only
then we should ask for a PRESERVE. If we want to return the forest to what
it may have been pre-settlement then we DO need what I call "ecologics" to
restore the balance. That will include limited prescribed fire, etc. Wind
disturbance does NOT maintain early-mid successional stages (read Lee
Frelichs book "Forest Dynamics and Disturbance Regimes"). So, if you want
the full diversity of successional stages and you therefore want fire
management then we ARE into an ECO-LOGICAL RESTORATION mode.

I am not advocating timber harvesting (commercial or non-commercial). I am
saying that IF you want to maintain the complete mosaic of stand development
and stand successional stages then you will need "ECOLOGICS". This term
perhaps will lead us away from the term "silvics" which for some folks has a
negative connotation and brings to mind the German Forestmeister
manipulating the forest for harvestable productivity. Essentially
silviculture IS a type of agriculture (that is why USFS is in the Department
of AG. We need new language so that well informed citizens can realize that
some intervention may be necessary and desired IF the intention is pure.
The intention of ecologics is to restore and maintain the ecosystem not to
create some rotational harvesting scheme.

Hope this helps.

Gary A. Beluzo
Professor of Environmental Science
Science, Engineering, and Mathematics
Holyoke Community College
Re: "Eco-logics" versus "Silvics"
  Dec 14, 2006 14:13 PST 

I am liking your coining of the phrase "eco-logics", at the very least
for its cleverness!
I am a little less excited about your seemingly whole-hearted dispatch
of the concepts of 'silvics', with little more than the logic of
'guilt by association' with the USFS, and its agency affiliation with
USDA. In the context of federal land management, your eco-tendencies
would fall more under the "preserve and protect" mandate of the
National Park Service (USDI). Unfortunately, very little is done by
the NPS in the arena of forest management per se, and only indirectly
through the NPS wildland fire management practices. As strong an
advocate as I am for restoration of more natural fire regime in
fire-adapted ecosystems, I find that the eco-nomics of wildland fire
management not that much different in theory or practice from best
management logging practices (silvics).
That said, I am not a slave to the USFS ways, I have not worked for
them since 1995. But I'd hate to see the decades of research and
investigations into forest species response to management activities,
so easily cast aside.

A quick last comment...when I was a forestry graduate student at UMASS
with a class trip to the Harvard Forest, there was an ongoing
experiment where the researchers there were mimicking 'wind events'.   
They used 'cherry pickers' to mimic the effects of wind, and then
studied the subsequent ecosystem response. I couldn't help but wonder
if conclusions from that study would have any benefit to your
discussion with Ray?

Re: Robinson Forest
  Dec 14, 2006 15:34 PST 

I have noticed in this thread, several comments about small prescribed
fires...have I missed prior threads where documentation of the role
that wildfire has played in the proposed reserve?
Re: "Eco-logics" versus "Silvics"   Gary A. Beluzo
  Dec 14, 2006 16:00 PST 

I would love to see "academic apartheid" go away and more cross
fertilization between various disciplines. How often does the College of
Natural Resources (i.e. Forestry) work with the College of Arts and Sciences
(e.g. Botany) at most universities. I see the role of foresters changing
(not just timber harvest but ecological restoration and invasives control)
just as I see the role of ecologists changing (e.g. urban ecology which used
to be an oxymoron). Unfortunately, many citizens cringe when they hear
words like "timber management" and "silviculture" because those terms are
often associated with vivid imagery of men walking through the forest,
nonchalantly splashing trees with bright paint and "old school" loggers
driving through wetland areas and scarring the remaining trees. I saw it
with my own two eyes one afternoon on the property abutting my Dad's land
last year. I stood puzzled over how in this day and age a forest could be
approached with such insouciance and carelessness. Of course it was the
greed of the logger.

In any event there is much work to be done in the forest, whether it be to
ensure preservation, ecological restoration, invasives control, or
sustainable harvests. Foresters and Ecologists are going to have their
hands full (this has been dubbed the "Century of the Ecologist") just
keeping what they have from being frittered away by urban sprawl,
fragmentation, and over 400 invasive species that affect trees alone. We
all need to work together and perhaps we DO need a new vocabulary so that
folks will trust that we have the right INTENT when we enter the forest.
The ways of the German Forestmeister may well become obsolete in the future
as we move increasingly towards ecological forestry. Silvics will still be
part of the mix of course but in addition many new ideas of how complex,
dynamic systems function will require new approaches.

If you read my previous post carefully you will note that I did NOT
denigrate or dismiss "silvics" or silviculture. I did say that for some
folks those words have negative connotations and that silviculture IS a type
of agriculture. When it comes to producing lumber efficiently from a forest
obviously the traditional forestmeister is best qualified. But, there may be
a place for ecologists and "ecologics" when it comes to restoring forest
systems and figuring out how best to preserve particular system states in
the context of more and more human interference.

BTW, I remember my first experience walking into a state forest long ago
with a tape measure and field book. The regional forester walked up to me
and asked me what I was doing there in a very authoritative tone, he said
that he liked to know what was going on in "his" forest. I thought at the
time his questions were very revealing. The reality is that there are many
qualified individuals that belong in the forest, not just the "harvesters".
Forestry is changing for the better and I suspect I would be received
differently in that state forest now. We all need to work together.

Re: Robinson Forest   Gary A. Beluzo
  Dec 14, 2006 17:39 PST 
Ed, et al:

I agree with your two points. It really depends on what the Friends of
Robinson State Park want. IF they want preservation of natural processes
that still occur there then that is possible through creating a PRESERVE but
unless small-scale ground fires are allowed to burn, the likelihood of
maintaining white birch, red oak, and white pine is rather dismal. Tulip
poplar can regenerate without fire but requires gaps at least 0.04 hectares
in which to do so. I do support a PRESERVE if that is what folks want
because as you said there are not very many late successional stands allowed
to persist in the Conn River Valley.

Wind disturbance is not affected by fragment size but fire that
would have to be a consideration. IF high biodiversity of tree species,
incuding early and late successional ones are desired, then FIRE is the only
disturbance that will keep some of RSP in those seres. Wind disturbance and
even harvesting tend to keep late successional in late successional or
advance the earlier seres to later ones. The only way you get early/mid
successional species coming into a hemlock/hardwood forest is by fire.

Of course the problem is that because RSP is a forest fragment that if it is
designated as a PRESERVE not all of the natural processes will be allowed (
e.g fire) because of nearby property, etc. SO a PRESERVE will mean the
advancement toward an all late-succession stage forest. I can live with


Re: Robinson Forest   Edward Frank
  Dec 14, 2006 19:34 PST 

It is important that the Friends of Robinson State Park understand their options. With Ray Weber participating in these discussions, and you, and Bob, that goal can be achieved. Late Succession isn't a bad option for recreational purposes - hiking and the like. Perhaps the questions should be what are the special or unique ecologic characteristics of the site? Can these characteristics be maintained through non-timbering processes, or do trees need to be removed to achieve these goals? In terms of trees, what seems to be special are the tuliptree populations (from the posts it seems that is the case). What are special about other species found in the forest? There has be lobelia identified, and I don't know what else. Maintaining the early and middle successional trees seems to my mind to be an unimportant side issue, compared to these other more critical goals if they can be achieved.

Ed Frank
Re: Robinson Forest
  Dec 14, 2006 20:30 PST 
Thanks Ed, and we are certainly trying to get a good handle on all of this.
DCR's cutting plan in many areas takes out most of the early and mid
successional, and favors the late as you likely know.

From the 1980's studies came a list of species other than trees in the
park that was rather extensive. Also a potential for over a dozen vernal
pools that were supposed to be worked on to be certified. Natural Heritage
has none of the work done in their database. They had only one eastern
box turtle report from a twenty year span, and that species can be seen
easily in most areas of the park if you look during the summer months.
I submitted 4 more sightings with pictures and GPS data after we found
out in late October that this was the case. We didn't really start any
work until then, so the majority of the species weren't able to be observed
due to the time of year. The vernal pools are all ready for certification
next spring. None are certified at Robinson, but yet 26 are certified
directly across the river. I did observe a couple of listed species but
wasn't able to get pictures, so they will have to wait till spring.

After a complete picture is available, a better idea of what is best can
be made. One thing is certain, the tree species diversity appears to
be matched by an incredible flora and fauna diversity as well.

ENTS certainly has shown an active interest in preserving what appears
to be a park well worth preserving. The citizens in the area certainly
appreciate the effort.

A quick field trip report also, I checked out the opposite side of the
river in the forest today, and found zero tulips there so far. I checked
quite a few ravines with similar habitat as those in Robinson, but
so far nothing. There have been a few sighted in an area that is
closed off for the winter. I may hike that later on when I have more
time, or wait for spring. Most of the forest I looked at today was
flood plain, with oak, white pine, hickory, and sycamore the most
common, with a few beech seen.

RE: "Eco-logics" versus "Silvics"   Robert Leverett
  Dec 15, 2006 10:12 PST 

Don and Gary,

   If I may jump into the discussion, knowing both of you well. Don,
Gary is aware of the accomplishments of "silvics" and respects the
wealth of species-based knowledge that is the domain of that honorable
science. I too respect the accomplishments of silviculture as a science.
Remember the great Adirondack debate, when I impishly bated our good
friend Charlie? The rest is history on that warm October evening at
Lewey lake, as David Kittridge heard Charlie's reservations about the
scienitific basis of silvicuture. You'll recall that Dave donned his
robe, emerged from his tent, and proceeded to energetically debate
Charlie - who as I recall, back-peddled pretty darn fast.

    The biggest problem that Gary alludes to, as we all likely agree, is
how silvics is applied in the field, and of course, the logging end of
the cycle where things often go amiss. Both Gary and I, and I think most
of the Friends Group, are interested in "ecologics" and its careful,
non-rushed application to Robinson SP. It is important that all
recognize that silvics enters the picture as the eco-logical partner of
ecologics. After all, silvics teaches us how each species regenerates -
knowledge that is absolutely essential to our understanding of what to
expect in Robinson for the most likely disturbance scenarios.

    To look back to where all this started, DCR's missteps have fueled
the controversy over Robinson. DCR got itself into trouble initially by
greatly oversimplifying the state of the forests in Robinson and relying
on simplistic justifications to the public for what was in fact their
long range plan to fold Robinson in under green certification as a
timber producer, though a fairly minor one - perhaps establishing a
precedent. The oaks in Robinson SP are presently very valuable and white
pine could become more so in the future by managing for white pine.

     From all appearances, the DCR plan was to get its timber foot in
the door in Robinson while concurrently taking care of some legitimate
problems inside the Park, namely the dying red pines, trail erosion, and
water quality issues. Revenue from the timber sale was to be applied to
correcting problem in these areas. However, DCR was not exactly honest
with the public. It got itself stuck on the theme of forest health,
public safety, fire danger, and major timber loss from a catastrophic
weather event. This standard pitch of 4 talking points has been repeated
almost verbatim in 2 other state parks and a state forest. The 4 points
are repeated by other resource managers in almost mantra like fashion
literally nation-wide. Although, I wouldn't want to generalize too much,
when we hear these big 4 points, we can feel pretty certain that someone
sees dollars on the stump going to waste and is looking to sell the
public on the idea of logging. I will tell you that I have hammered DCR
privately and somewhat diplomatically in public over their use of these
4 talking points. They are starting to listen.

    All this having been said, it would be a major mistake for any of us
involved with Robinson to discount the science of silvics. Neither Gary
nor I would do this. To the contrary, we want to call upon silvics for
Robinson, but toward establishing ecological trajectories for all
species as opposed to economic ones for a few species - the DCR plan. We
want the distinction between ecological and economic objectives to be
clear up front and Gary is experimenting with terms that will separate
the two in the ears of the public. We obviously have a ways to go, but
see no clear alternative to our direction.


RE: "Eco-logics" versus "Silvics"
  Dec 15, 2006 10:51 PST 

Great synopsis Bob, and I agree pretty much with all of it.

I've yet to see any of the plan proposed as a legitimate use
of silviculture to the best ecological ends for the park.
the current plans only serve to a future timber production end.

Clearly the friends group as a whole wouldn't object to any of the
ecologic suggestions that create some disturbance to propagate the
oak. However, DCR is cutting all the mid and early successional
as a means to apparently accomplish that. It may, at a possible
price to species in those areas and vernal pools that need canopy at
a certain level to function. Gary's solutions would accomplish a lot
more, but won't produce valuable oak, but are far better for the overall
ecologic health.

That's kind of a general non specific example, but it can be seen in a few

It those mid successional oaks are left to grow, and while at it provide
a canopy for the species that need it, what's the problem? Prescribed fire
could be applied at a later date if regeneration isn't occurring, but why
solve a problem that's not present yet?

I'm sure this can be debated for a while, but clearly there are many ways
to accomplish "forest health" at Robinson without cutting trees.

I think Dr. Frelich hit it on the head.

We cannot act slowly unfortunately. DCR has their plan looming after
10 more meetings, and the management forester clearly isnt in the
mood to wait. An agreement has to be in place by the next few meetings.


Re: Robinson Forest
  Dec 15, 2006 11:27 PST 

Dr. Frelich, since you have been onsite, how do you feel about the areas
around the vernal pools/wetlands that we visited, namely the
effects of them opening a considerable amount of canopy over them?

The one off the fire road isn't even marked as a wetland at the moment.
That's the area with a large percentage of the oak marked.

RE: Robinson Field Briefing 12/10/2006   P. I. Melville
  Dec 16, 2006 07:01 PST 

You don't want to forget the casualties on the way to the two! That is
just too incredible to contemplate. In state management plans, has DCR
stated protocol/procedures for removal from non-road/landlocked areas?
After all, instead of municipalities formerly recommending to follow
Vermont's, Massachusetts finally has its own road manual. 


RE: Robinson Field Briefing 12/10/2006
  Dec 16, 2006 07:13 PST 

Well I'm not familiar with their protocol for that, but the fact is,
there really isn't any management plan for this park as of yet.
It was supposed to be created over the next couple of years.

On the way to this particular stand is a nice stand of paper birch
that is virtually 100 percent marked. Its also all downhill to this
particular area.

DCR seems to be trying to come up with a plan cooperatively
with the friends group at this point.

Re: Robinson Forest   Lee Frelich
  Dec 16, 2006 12:23 PST 


Most vernal pools in old growth remnants have had gaps form nearby or
overhead periodically over the centuries (most trees live about 150-200
years and die at different times and fall all different directions when
they die) and some of those fell into the ponds, leading to more structural
complexity within the ponds, as opposed to hauling away the wood that would
otherwise have fallen in. Coarse woody debris in and around ponds,
including logs that are partly submerged, and partly in the pond and partly
out, as well as differences in amount of sunlight, are an important feature
of natural ponds and their use by a variety of animals and plants. The
ponds that I saw would all benefit from more structural complexity in and
around them. I would either cut a few trees and let them fall where they
may or just wait and let nature create these structures. You should see
some of the ponds in the Porcupine Mountains and Sylvania Wilderness Areas
in Upper Michigan, as well as the Ridges Sanctuary in Door County,
WI. They are incredibly complex and really give you an idea of what to aim
for in pond restoration.

Re: Robinson Forest   Lee Frelich
  Dec 16, 2006 13:29 PST 


We did not have a lot of conversation about fire in Robinson, but given the
scarlet oak forests, there must have been fires in the past. Fire
management is becoming complicated these days because of the earthworm
invasion, which changes the fuel characteristics of the duff layer, and in
the case of Robinson, being surrounded by houses.

Re: Robinson Forest
  Dec 16, 2006 13:45 PST 

That park has had numerous small brush fires usually one every year in some
small area. They of course are put out and never in my lifetime have they
threatened houses. Not that they couldn't, but normally they are detected rapidly.

Ray Weber
Re: Welcome back, Lee   Lee E. Frelich
  Dec 16, 2006 14:59 PST 

As for Robinson State Park, high conservation value forests (HCVF) are
supposed to take into account things such as landscape context, historical
and social uses, and ecological features, and representative ecosystems are
supposed to do just that--represent all the forest ecosystem types present
within the certified agency's land holdings. It seems to me that use of
Robinson as a neighborhood park, place to walk the dog, for kids to play,
for a scenic backdrop to several neighborhoods, etc., in a long, narrow
park surrounded by houses, pretty much precludes commercial timber
operations and makes a reserve the park's best use, with any harvests done
exclusively for ecological restoration (or as I learned in Annapolis, there
is no such thing now as restoration, but instead we have ecological
realignment, since the vegetation cannot go back to the little ice age, but
must go forward to a warmer climate). If there are not any other reserves
that represent riverine systems and the transition to upland, and upland
scarlet oak forests in that part of the state, then that would
automatically put Robinson in the reserve category to represent those
forest types. The park could serve as a HCVF and a representative ecosystem
at the same time. If you consult the the FSC guidelines for your part of
the country for specifics, you could probably come up with a dozen reasons
why Robinson should be a reserve.

My 2-cents on Robinson   P. I. Melville
  Dec 17, 2006 12:47 PST 

Hi. Did these questions come up, including what is put forth quoted
Is the logging demonstration area working, in great demand? A hindrance
to your goals? Part of DCR's "forest vision" thing?
How did Robinson benefit from the FY03 environmental bond bill?
Could Robinson be a DCR demonstration project along the lines of Hopkins
Forest at Williams, where nature takes its course?

Any empirical evidence or studies presented for plans/recommendations
for different successional areas?

"Decisionmakers must know which stand and harvesting variables affect
costs and benefits and understand how these variables interact for a
particular management plan. They must be able to develop a financially
sound plan that accounts for the short- and long-term effects of
individual silvicultural treatments. Finally, decisionmakers must be
abreast of logging technology, transportation networks, and transport
vehicles. The choice of logging equipment will constrain stand
management significantly."

"At least two remedial initiatives seem worthy of serious exploration.
The first would be a determination of priority areas where forest
protection and management could be undertaken on a region-wide rather
than ownership basis, including provisions for joint public/private
action. The case study of the North Quabbin
region (see below) is a vivid example of that approach in practice. The
second initiative to be considered would be some form of intervention to
secure those prime forestlands for the future.
Use of timber rights purchases or timber banking approaches would be
among the possible options. The state’s successful farmland preservation
(APR) program could be a useful model here."
Thanks for letting me join the discussion. Hopefully, a case of many
heads being better than one. Paula

P.S. Because the almighty dollar is what is going on here, I believe,
can we petition for a clothing tax? Only half-kidding!
Re: My 2-cents on Robinson
  Dec 17, 2006 13:22 PST 

The only demo plot done in Robinson was done quite a long time
ago. It wasn't particularly useful as any kind of demo for sure, its
all a mess in that area, not only that demo area, but the area that
was worked by the CCC camps. Heavily weeded and invasive presence.

The demo they did north of here looks horrendous from the pictures I've
That the one you are referring to?

Not sure what the FY03 thing is, Ill have to research that one.

That other site from what I know about it may require some different
measures due to the plantations at Robinson, and the invasives.

Not sure how much help all of this is.