| Robinson
SP |
Robert
Leverett |
| Jun
27, 2006 07:29 PDT |
ENTS,
This is the first of several
reports to ENTS on Robinson State
Park, Agawam, MA. The property merits special attention from
ENTS for a
variety of reasons.
Robinson is a small
state park bordering the West Field River in
Agawam, MA. The park encompasses about 900 forested acres and
ranges in
elevations from 100 feet at the Westfield River to a little over
200
above sea level above the surrounding banks. On Saturday, I
spent
limited time at the Park, but I did the best I could. I was
mainly
looking to gain a general impression to hopefully help in a
controversy
between DCR and local citizens against an impending timber sale
in
Robinson. I was also expecting to see some impressive
tuliptrees, and on
that theme, I did see several that made me wonder if I was
really in
Massachusetts. I had to keep reminding myself that I was in the
metropolitan area of Springfield, MA, not an area several
hundreds of
miles to the south.
My first objective was to
quickly assess the forest type that
characterizes the area. I saw several and it was apparent that
the soil
played a large part in favoring oaks in the drier areas. The
predominate
soil type that I saw is sand-silt-clay combination from the
former
glacial Lake Hitchcock. In the area I spent most of my time, the
clay
forms a prominent layer and may have provided clay material for
Indian
pottery making – but at this point that is not clear. However,
Robinson
State Park does have several Native American archeological
sites. The
full significance of the sites is unknown at this point,
although a
preliminary report from UMASS is promising. Unfortunately, UMASS
has a
mixed record in doing justice to the archeological sites in the
Connecticut River Valley and its tributaries. The archeology
department
at UMASS is perennially under-funded. As a consequence, planned
excavations are sometimes left hanging. But the department
doesn’t like
other groups coming in and stealing their thunder, so
archeological
input can be sporadic and with conflicting information. More
work needs
to be done to establish the role of Native Americans along the
Robinson
State Park stretch of the Westfield River and it needs to be
done sooner
rather than later. The existence of Indian burial mounds was
suggested
to me on Saturday as a possibility for the area, but at this
point, it
is just speculation. I saw none in my brief excursion, nor did
UMASS
identify any. Identification of burial grounds or potential
burial
grounds is always an emotionally highly charged subject that can
attract
fringe groups. The subject needs to be handled honestly, but
discreetly.
The impressive part of the
forest of Robinson State Park is mature
second growth forest. It is highly attractive second growth with
an
abundance of large trees that stands in sharp contrast to the
uninspiring appearance of younger woodlands. A few spots are
really
eye-popping. So far Matt Largess has identified 35 species of
trees,
including sassafras, elm, butternut, black gum, and tuliptree.
We did
see some black walnuts in an area of the Park we visited at the
end of
my trip. I presume the walnuts come from stock planted 60 to 100
years
ago, although distribution maps for the species do show a small,
disjunct population in the general area. Even if the area has,
or once
had, a small, disjunct population, I would believe that it
represents a
transplantation from post-colonial times –maybe even the 1920s
or 1930s.
I was told of substantial CCC activity. However, the native
range of
black walnut is not far to the west. Black walnut’s historic
range just
touches the southwestern corner of Massachusetts. Still, it
would take a
lot of convincing to get me to believe there is a remnant
disjunct
population that coincides with the disjunct shown on the species
range
maps from the U.S.D.A Forest Service.
None of the forests of
Robinson State Park that I saw, or expect
to see, is old growth. The area has a long history of human use,
Native
American, European, and modern American. This mix, especially
the
latter’s contribution, can bode poorly for the kinds of
natural
woodlands that attract my attention. Nonetheless, Robinson State
Park
offered up some nice forest treats, the principal one being a
small
population of native tuliptrees. The population came as no
surprise to
me. I had heard of it before, but had not seen it, and seeing it
is a
lot better than just hearing about it. I was happy with what I
saw. I
was hoping for new height records, but that can’t occur
because of the
clay in the soil. The clay forms a barrier to the free flow of
water.
Nonetheless, the tuliptrees are mighty handsome.
It is safe to conclude
that the existence of Liriodendron
tulipifera along the Westfield River points to past long term
Native
American land use. The species would otherwise likely not be
there.
However, tuliptree is basically a pioneer species and does not
compete
well in our woodlands. Based on what I saw, without some kind of
silvicultural intervention, the small tuliptree population in
Robinson
State Park will eventually disappear except for a few isolated
trees
along roadway corridors. As a consequence, I am in basic
agreement with
DCR that some silvicultural intervention is needed if we want
tuliptrees
to remain as a constituent part of the forests of Robinson State
Park. I
certainly want that and I was keenly aware that the folks who
had asked
me to look at the area would have preferred not to have heard me
say
that I favor some silviculture, but honesty is my policy.
You see, I was asked to look
at an area that is the site of an
impending timber sale by DCR. The sale is being resisted by a
coalition
of local citizens who regularly use the Park. The local citizens
have
had meetings with DCR representatives, but have not received
satisfaction. As a consequence, they are calling in experts, or
people
they hope are experts, to help them evaluate the pros and cons
of timber
harvesting in Robinson State Park. Some living on the border of
the Park
fear the compromise of the Park’s aesthetics. A question that
I kept
getting asked was: “Does this really have to be done?”
I really wasn’t
looking forward to getting into the middle of a
disagreement between the parties. I’ve been there and done
that too many
times. I had gotten some initial feedback by DCR on the trees
marked for
the timber sale, but I needed to see the area for myself. I
didn’t get
to cover the entire area marked for sale on Saturday. But the
limited
area that I did see was lightly marked and preserved the large
over-story hardwoods, as I had been told. I now need to see the
remainder of the area that is marked for timber harvesting
before
passing judgment on the likely impacts – especially toward the
maintenance of particular woodland habitats, forest types, and
forest
structures. But basically, the planned thinning that I saw left
most of
the large over-story oaks, maples, and tuliptrees to continue
growing.
As I would have expected, red maple and birch were more heavily
marked.
Some of the larger coppice trees and damaged trees were
understandably
marked, but the best trees were definitely left. That impressed
me. I am
so used to seeing the opposite in private woodlands. So, I
basically
left pleased with what I saw marked for cutting. However, again
I must
emphasize, I did not see the entire area to be logged. That will
be the
subject of a follow-on visit, hopefully with DCR personnel.
In another region of the Park that I
visited, an area of younger
forest which is not in the timber sale area, I saw lots of
invasive
plants. My companion Matt Largess from Rhode Island, an arborist
and
fellow Ent was all too familiar with them. The offending area is
a belt
between an access road and the Westfield River. Toward the end,
both
sides of the access road exhibited the more typical, younger,
non-descript, uninspiring woodland that I had expected to see.
With
respect to invasive plants, Matt Largess provided valuable
insight on
what he regularly sees happening in extreme southern New England
when
areas of closed canopy forest are suddenly opened up. Subjecting
the
mature areas of Robinson State Park to invasive species, under
the best
of intentions by DCR, definitely needs to be addressed with a
plan to
mitigate effects. What is the probability of invasive plants
getting a
foothold? What experience do we have elsewhere in the general
area with
invasive plants becoming established in areas where mature
timber has
been removed? These questions do need to be answered.
One of DCR’s stated purposes for
the impending timber sale is to
regenerate white pine in areas now populated by artificial red
pine
stands. Despite sympathy for the views of the local residents
who fear
any silvicultural intervention, I have no problem with the
removal of
the red pines. The old plantations are artificial to begin with
and they
are not diverse. I say good riddance to all the artificial
plantation
experiments in Massachusetts under the guise of good forestry,
be the
plantations red pine, Scotch pine, Norway spruce, or whatever.
So, from what I saw on Saturday, I
can basically support a
silvicultural prescription for Robinson State Park that
accomplishes
three objectives: (1) maintenance of a native tuliptree
populations, (2)
elimination of current red pine plantations, and (3) maintenance
of an
aesthetic woodland, suggestive of the pre-settlement mix of
species. If
some revenue is generated to offset the cost of this kind of
silviculture, there is nothing wrong with that. It seems to me
that the
three above objectives represent a proper role for silviculture
in
Robinson State Park. However, the above view is my own. It is
not
necessarily the objective of DCR. So, I would say that several
important
questions need to be answered about the long-term timber
management plan
for Robinson as well as the current impending sale.
1. What are the long-term silvicultural objectives for areas
targeted
for treatment?
2. What is the most likely outcome of the currently marked areas
in
terms of species mix and age structure in 30 years, 60 years,
120 years?
3. How do the present planned timber sale and the long-term
silvicultural prescriptions for Robinson State Park dovetail
with local
citizen use of the Park? The more urban a forested park is the
more this
must be an important consideration.
4. What steps will be taken by DCR to insure no invasive species
get
established in areas of harvesting?
5. What steps will be taken to ascertain the locations and
extents of
historical and archeological sites and to protect them?
6. What steps will be taken to insure that the aesthetics of the
hiking
trails corridors are not compromised by the aftermath of
logging? Given
the importance of Robinson to the local population as a place of
quality
hiking, enjoyment of nature, and forest meditation, there is
would be
no excuse for the kinds of logging violations that are so
typical in
private forests.
7. What steps will be taken to insure that logging is carefully
supervised and controlled?
Satisfactory answers may
have already been given by DCR
representatives to the above questions in public meetings that
have
taken place. I didn’t attend any of the meetings, so I am
unaware of the
proceedings. However, I’m clear in my own mind about one
thing. To
provide good advice to individuals and groups asking me for
advice, I
need help. Accordingly, Dr. Lee Frelich has agreed to lend me a
hand on
his October visit to western Mass. I will also seek help from
others to
include members of the Forest Stewards Guild who I would ask to
look at
the marked areas and tell me what they think the results will
be, given
the current composition, soil type, area invasive species, etc.
I have
no reason to doubt DCR’s interpretation, but expert, outside
opinions
are always useful in situations of public disagreement. My role
then
will be to bring outside expert opinion and present a report to
the
parties. The facts fall where the facts fall.
Where do I presently stand
– based on my very limited exposure? Do
I harbor biases that if not addressed would lead me to favor the
facts
in one direction or another? At the present, my biggest concerns
are
with insuring adequate protection for the archeological sites,
with
controlling invasive plants, and with controlling the adverse
impacts of
logging. That is where I come down at this point.
On a more general
theme, I would actually like to see various
types of silvicultural prescriptions applied in our state
forests in
areas slated for active management that re-establish prior
forest
compositions and structures. On the larger actively managed
sites, I
accept that DCR will usually have several management objectives,
but the
main one will often be on creating merchantable stands of
timber. I have
no problem with that. It is one function to be served by the
state
forests. We have the forest reserves as a counterbalance.
However, in
small places like Robinson State Park, the primary purpose
should not be
timber production (and I don’t think that it is), but
creation/maintenance of diverse/historic/aesthetic habitats.
Although I didn’t have much
time, I did manage to measure some
trees on Saturday, both in the planned timber sale area and
elsewhere.
For example, in the list below, the two sycamores and lone
pignut
hickory are outside the timber sale area. The big sycamore was
quite a
surprise. It was hidden from easy view , but one of the
participants
knew of its whereabouts. The pignut hickory was even more of a
surprise
for me. It is the most individually beautiful of its species
that I have
seen in Massachusetts. A full Rucker Analysis will be done of
Robinson
over the next several months. The results will be presented to
the
management forester of DCR. At this point I would estimate that
the
RH10 will be between 105 and 110 for Robinson State Park. It
could go
higher, perhaps 112 or 113, but that’s pushing it.
Species Number Height Circ
Northern Red Oak
104.6 7.3
102.1 8.1
97.9 11.1
Avg for Species 3 101.5 8.8
Pignut Hickory
117.6
9.4
Sycamore
109.4
17.1
106.0 11.0
Avg for Species 2 107.7 14.1
Tuliptree
122.6
8.3
120.6 9.0
119.4 8.9
118.5 11.9
115.1 9.2
111.2 8.1
109.5 9.9
Avg for Species 7 116.7 9.3
Avg for all trees 13 111.9 10.0
As a summary of impending actions,
my next steps include:
1. Discussing with the management forester of DCR the above
posed
questions,
2. Attracting additional individuals who can provide outside,
expert
opinions on:
a. the ecology of the area,
b. the Native American sites,
3. Introducing Will Blozan to the Park in his scheduled July
visit,
4. Doing a full Rucker Analysis of tree heights and diameters,
5. Writing a report and presenting it to DCR and local interest
groups.
Nothing in this five-step plan is meant
by me to suggest that DCR
has done anything wrong. The timber markings that I saw on
Saturday are
not problematic for me, and at this point, I believe that in the
area of
the tuliptrees, some thinning is needed to perpetuate the
tuliptree’s
existence. But I also respect the concerns of local citizens. It
is
their forest too. I will honor their request for input from me.
I will
equally honor the role of DCR and what I believe to be good
intentions
on their part. I will give to all parties to this issue the best
input
that I can provide. That will be my role.
Bob
Robert T. Leverett
Cofounder, Eastern Native Tree Society
|
| Re:
Robinson SP |
Fores-@aol.com |
| Jun
27, 2006 08:00 PDT |
Bob:
I have to work with tuliptree a great deal in WV as it is the
most common
individual tree species in the entire state.
Silviculturally, Liriodendron is extremely close to white pine
in terms of
what it needs to regenerate...lots of sun and very little
overhead competition
but I think it does better in loamy soils that white pine. I do
not know
how big any of the marked openings are but for thrifty
regeneration of poplar
some group selections may be necessary.
Also, invasives are killing us everywhere and my most important
advice,
especially for something like a Park is that the invasives
should be either
treated in advance of harvesting and a plan for continuing the
fight is
incorporated into the harvest plan...otherwise the native forest
will be lost.
I don't know what you have for invasives there but I would guess
that garlic
mustard, barberry, multifloral rose and honeysuckle could be
present. If
you have Japanese stiltgrass, Microstegium vimineum, then you
have one of the
first Massachusetts sites infected by the plant and making it go
extinct
should be a priority.
Russ |
| RE:
Robinson SP |
Robert
Leverett |
| Jun
27, 2006 09:19 PDT |
Russ,
Thanks. Given that there is so little actual tuliptree habitat
in
Massachusetts, I doubt that anyone in the state has much actual
experience growing/regenerating it. I'm sure all the DCR
foresters know
its general regeneration requirements, e.g. light loving, but
fine-tuned
specifics would likely be appreciated. As a former Massacusetts
forester, currently practicing forestry in West Virginia, you
bring
special skills and experience to the table. So any advice you
can give
will be appreciated. Do you plan any trips northward in the next
few
months? If so, could I interest you in looking at the tuliptree
area in
Robinson? I would contact DCR to see if they could be present.
BTW, I trust that it is clear from my e-mail
that I fully back DCR on
the regeneration of tuliptree in Robinson State Park, as well as
the
removal of the red pine. I also back them on improving the areas
dominated by black, red, and white oak. Areas that are marked
next to
hiking trails have been sensitively done, but virtually anything
marked
next to a trail generates controversy. Other than being extra
careful
around the Indian sites, the big challenge in my view is
insuring that
whoever does the logging is closely supervised/controlled. You
know the
story up here.
Bob
|
| Re:
Robinson SP |
Fores-@aol.com |
| Jun
27, 2006 09:58 PDT |
Bob:
I have marked several timber sales where the land was heavily
used for
recreation and have escaped a lot of the problems that normally
arise from such
treatments by always placing a major emphasis on what is being
retained and
attempting to identify aesthetic attributes that can be enhanced
through careful
cutting. In most situations I have found that placing the
emphasis on tree
retention is the easiest way to gain public acceptance.
I hope to get up there later this summer but I don't have
anything planned
yet. I will holler in advance and it would be good to look at
the park.
Russ |
| RE:
Robinson SP |
Phil |
| Jun
27, 2006 14:25 PDT |
Bob,
I've read about the RSP
harvest in the newspaper, as the headline
jumped right out at me. While I completely trust your opinion
and
knowledge, I'm leery of what may happen at RSP. I had Jim Dimaio
on a panel
of state officials sponsored by the citizens group I Chair, and
I was very
thankful to have him there. However, DCR botched (in my opinion,
and that
of other hilltown citizens and the officials of Chester) a
timber harvest at
the Blandford/Chester SF in the fall. They cleared a swath of
destruction
right along the road and the debris was still there this spring.
DCR told
the officials of Chester (where the harvest took place) that
they were only
thinning out as there was a fungal outbreak and the debris would
be cleared
up right after the harvest. The pictures in the paper and first
hand
accounts I've heard painted a different picture. I'm not saying
that DCR
isn't acting accordingly in regards to RSP, but once bitten
twice shy. I
don't blame the nearby neighbors for being nervous.
On another note, I've been
reading your posts lately and a lot of them
are being conducted in my "backyard". If possible I'd
love to get out in
the woods with you, as it's been a long time.
Phil
|
| Robinson
again |
Robert
Leverett |
| Jun
28, 2006 07:07 PDT |
ENTS,
The following communication went to the state
management forester
overseeing the timber sale for Robinson State Park. Any
comments,
advice, etc. that anyone can give would be most appreciated.
Bob
========================================================
Dave,
Thanks for touching base with me yesterday. I
really appreciate the
time you took on the phone to address the questions that I had
posed in
my prior e-mail and believe we are on the right track. For
convenience,
I list those questions below.
1. What are the
long-term silvicultural objectives for areas
targeted for treatment?
2. What is the most
likely outcome of the currently marked areas
in terms of species mix and age structure in 30 years, 60 years,
120
years?
3. How do the present
planned timber sale and the long-term
silvicultural prescriptions for Robinson State Park dovetail
with local
citizen use of the Park? The more urban a forested park is the
more this
must be an important consideration.
4. What steps will be
taken by DCR to insure no invasive species
get established in areas of harvesting?
5. What steps will be
taken to ascertain the locations and extents
of historical and archeological sites and to protect them?
6. What steps will be
taken to insure that the aesthetics of the
hiking trails corridors are not compromised by the aftermath of
logging?
Given the importance of Robinson to the local population as a
place of
quality hiking, enjoyment of nature, and forest meditation,
there is
would be no excuse for the kinds of logging violations that are
so
typical in private forests.
7. What steps will be
taken to insure that logging is carefully
supervised and controlled?
Let me say right off that I
am personally hopeful that the
management actions that DCR takes in Robinson State Park are
successful.
I continually emphasize to all parties that I support good
silviculture
and I would dearly love to see Massachusetts DCR's Bureau of
Forestry as
THE model. Good silviculture makes things so much easier for
those of us
who are seen principally as preservationists, but who also
recognize the
need for active forest management. I am often cast in the role
of a
behind the scenes negotiator and in that capacity I am
accustomed to
dealing with disparate points of view and different forest value
systems. In the current situation, I see my role as limited to
that of a
fact finder, public educator, and facilitator between
disagreeing
parties to the degree they want me to act in that capacity.
Dave, I am anxious to
get out into the woods with you so that I
can gain a better understanding of your silvicultural objectives
throughout the areas of the timber sale. As I have now stated
several
times, I support the planned removal of the red pines and of the
regeneration of tuliptrees. I had anticipated the oak
regeneration
objective, and from a historical perspective, it is also
acceptable from
my perspective. However, I'm not quite sure that I see the loss
of vigor
in the oaks in Robinson State Park as a serious problem -
certainly not
yet, but then truthfully, I wasn't looking very intently at that
aspect.
I'm sure you have a much better feel. But as you may know, I
generally
deal with forests which are comparable in age to much older than
those
in Robinson State Park. I could show you some oak stands in
Mohawk Trail
State Forest and Monroe State Forest that are between 100 and
140 years
old with isolated trees over 200 that are still doing extremely
well. In
some places the oaks are eye popping gorgeous. But as you might
suspect,
the generation of young trees in the understory is not oak. That
speaks
to what you might see as desirable in the way of silviculture,
were you
managing the area. Strictly from a silvicultural standpoint, if
continuance of oak were desired, something would need to be
done. The
practical side of me accepts that. But since the areas of oak
are on
steep slopes and within the proposed forest reserves, ecological
processes will be allowed to control what actually happens, and
that
will almost without a doubt, be a change of species. Still, I do
realize
that from strictly a timber perspective, or more properly, an
oak
perspective, as beautiful as these forests presently are, some
silvicultural intervention is suggested to retain a significant
component of oak.
I unabashedly admit
that I am a lover of oak forests and I want
to see their continuance in Robinson State Park, especially in
places
that have supported oak for centuries. Consequently, I would
like to
look at the areas of mature oak in Robinson through your eyes
and
visualize how you see the stands taking shape over the next 30
years
under two scenarios: (1) with the removal of the marked trees,
and (2)
without. Perhaps we could also make a 60 year visualization. But
guessing at this point, from the implementation of the cutting
plan, I
presume you visualize the future forest developing with say x%
of the
canopy trees being oak in a particular diameter and age class.
It just
helps me when I can see the forest through the eyes of another.
Dave, our conversation of
yesterday did leave me with two
concerns. The first is what I heard as the lack of a guaranteed
plan for
control of invasives. I hope you, Jim, and I can discuss this
issue. If
invasives are allowed to populate the areas that you open up, I
can see
some long-term problems for DCR's credibility that would best be
addressed now. Those of us who deal with native forests see
invasives as
a monumental problem. Silvicultural prescriptions intended to
keep a
forest natural should not add to the problem - regardless of the
source
of the invasives. This job can't be left half done without a
serious
loss of public confidence in DCR. However, continuing this
discussion
and further addressing the above seven questions can best be
done on
site. What does July 14th look like for you? Might it be
possible to
meet at Robinson on that day and walk the woods together?
The other worry that I
expressed in the e-mail, and to you over
the phone, is the integrity of the logging. You went a long way
toward
assuring me that sufficient controls will be in place. But what
DCR may
view as acceptable collateral damage that will eventually heal
itself,
local citizens who don't make their living off the forest can,
and often
do, find extremely offensive. It really can be a deal breaker in
terms
of future public support. For me, the model of excellent logging
has
always been Quabbin Reservoir, at least as it existed in the
past under
recently retired Bruce Spencer. I hope the forester that took
Bruce's
place will continue Bruce's legacy. But in less carefully
handled
logging jobs, the public's faith in forest practices on public
lands can
be destroyed. That is what we scrupulously want to avoid. To
punctuate
the point, I got an e-mail this morning from an ENTS colleague.
I
reproduce it below.
================================================
I've
read about the RSP harvest in the newspaper, as the headline
jumped right out at me. While I completely trust your opinion
and knowledge,
I'm leery of what may happen at RSP. I had Jim Dimaio on a panel
of state officials sponsored by the citizens group I Chair, and
I was very
thankful to have him there. However, DCR botched (in my opinion,
and that
of other hilltown citizens and the officials of Chester) a
timber harvest at the
Blandford/Chester SF in the fall. They cleared a swath of
destruction right
along the road and the debris was still there this spring. DCR
told the officials
of Chester (where the harvest took place) that they were only
thinning out as
there was a fungal outbreak and the debris would be cleared up
right after
the harvest. The pictures in the paper and first hand accounts
I've heard
painted a different picture. I'm not saying that DCR isn't
acting accordingly
in regards to RSP, but once bitten twice shy. I don't blame the
nearby
neighbors for being nervous.
Phil
=================================================
I'll conclude this e-mail by
observing that the late Karl Davies
(a private consulting forester) was a member of the Eastern
Native Tree
Society (ENTS). Karl, along with a number of other private
consulting
foresters, form a highly knowledgeable forestry group in ENTS
that helps
to balances the interests and orientation of the rest of the
membership.
I should point out that there are also arborists and landscape
architects in ENTS and academia and the government is well
represented
in ENTS. There are about 15 PhD foresters and forest ecologists
in ENTS.
Dr. Lee Frelich, the Director of the Center for Hardwood Ecology
at the
University of Minnesota is the vice president of ENTS. Lee is
one of the
foremost forest ecologists in the United States. Also Dr. Don
Bragg of
the U.S.D.A Forest Service Southeastern Experiment Station is
the
principal editor of the Bulletin of the Eastsrn Native Tree
Society. The
list of experts goes on, and hopefully, I can draw on this brain
trust
to help in the Robinson State Park in the debate between DCR and
the
public. I would see ENTS concentrating on the following
questions.
1. What are the on-going
ecological processes in Robinson State
Park and how would they shape the forests there in the future?
2. What can silviculture do to
maintain particular species
compositions within Robinson that are natural to the area as a
consequence of its long human history?
3. What are the threats to the
forests of Robinson that come from
different sources, such as:
a.
Plant invasives,
b.
Insect outbreaks and other forest pathogens,
c.
Actions of local citizens,
d.
Episodic weather events,
e.
Damage from poorly executed logging?
Well, this should keep me busy.
Hope to hear from you soon on a
joint trip to Robinson.
Best wishes,
Bob
=======================================================
Robert T. Leverett
Cofounder, Eastern Native Tree Society
|
| Re:
Robinson SP |
Edward
Frank |
| Jun
28, 2006 14:54 PDT |
Bob,
It was interesting to read about concerns by the locals on
timbering in the state park. This obviously is not an
unrealistic viewpoint. One of the objectives will be to remove
the planted red pines, and hopefully regenerate white pine
stands. That this might cause some concern can be contrasted
with a newsletter I recieved from the Saddler Woods Conservation
Association in New Jersey. http://www.saddlerwoods.org
The Summer 2006 newsletter reads:
"In June, ThinkGreen Inc., a contractor hired by the
Environmental Commission, was on site to clear a portion of
invasive shrub species behind the meadow area and invasive
Norway maple trees by the driveway to the Westmont Plaza. A
Norway maple and a Paulownia from the center of the woods by
Post #3 were also removed. Additional invasive species removals
and treatments are slated for the summer months. In addition, if
you walk in the woods, you may notice yellow and white flags.
These mark invasive Garlic Mustard and Japanese Stilt grass
plant communities. A GPS specialist from Princeton Hydro, also
hired by the Environmental Commission, was on site to capture
the global coordinates of the invasive plant locations. This
information is being processed by a GIS analyst in order to map
the invasive plant communities in Saddler's Woods. You may
recall that this process was also done this past winter, with
various color ribbons identifying Japanese Knotweed, Multilfora
Rose, Periwinkle, English Ivy, and Japanese Honeysuckle, as well
as invasive trees such as Ailanthus, Norway Maple, and Paulownia."
There was a photo of the company removing a Norway Maple. So
this Conservation Group of private citizens are gung-ho for
removing non native trees like Norway Maple from their woods to
make it better represent the native original environment.
Perhaps the locals with concerns could become involved in
documenting the invasive/or non-native trees and plants in the
park and in planning their removal.
Ed Frank
|
| RE:
Robinson State Park |
Robert
Leverett |
| Jul
18, 2006 11:26 PDT |
Michele,
My trip on Friday was very useful. My report
to some of those
involved in opposing the sales is reproduced below and speaks
for
itself.
Bob
=================================================
Kathy and Ray,
I returned to Robinson State Park on Friday, July 14th and spent
the day
with Jim DiMaio and Dave Richard. Dave showed me all the marked
areas of
timber sale and I listened to the reasons for the level of
planned tree
removal, individual tree choices, and observed the layout of the
logging
plan. Jim and Dave were extremely detailed and helpful in their
explanations. As you've probably gathered, I have the highest
regard for
Jim DiMaio and found Dave Richard to be extremely professional.
I recognize that the issues surrounding the timber sale involve
different value systems with respect to the roles that our
public
woodlands play in our lives. In this situation, basically, I see
my role
as educational. This role is consistent with my position as the
president of Friends of Mohawk Trail State Forest and what I
conveyed on
the walk we took together. It is in this spirit, I present the
following
analysis for your consideration with the desire to be a
mediating
presence in this situation.
From my perspective, the commonwealth has three overriding
responsibilities for Robinson State Park: (1) to maintain the
recreational features of the park, and (2) to maintain the
natural
habitats and historical-cultural features of the Park, and (3)
to insure
the overall health of the forest. Due to its urban setting and
relatively small size, timber management is not now, and should
not be
in the future, a priority. However, that does not rule out some
active
forest management toward meeting objectives such as eliminating
non-native species, insuring the presence of historically
important
habitats, and addressing legitimate forest health and safety
issues.
From the citizen's perspective, citizens have a right to enjoy
the
recreational features of Robinson State Park. They also have the
right
to enjoy the natural feature in a passive, non-destructive way.
While I
have no doubt that the great majority of Park visitors are
non-destructive, and certainly all of those of you whom I have
met, on
Friday, I saw some severe impacts from ATV and dirt bike usage
that I
think represents a real problem that to an extent clouds other
issues.
DCR should be taking action to curb illegal usage of dirt bikes
and ATVs
and local citizens concerned about the Park should be pushing
DCR in
that direction. Also, around some of the Park boundary, I saw
organic
debris dumped down embankments from surrounding homes. It is
clear that
some of the local citizenry are using the Park as their private
dumping
ground. The adverse impact at one embankment was substantial,
and
illegal dumping, along with dirt bike and ATV use, needs to be
addressed
by citizens concerned with the integrity of the Park's
resources.
Friends groups should insist that DCR protect the Park's
features. DCR
needs to enforce the rules. At present, it is clear that they
are not
doing this.
In terms of the planned timber sale, I looked carefully at the
trees
marked for cutting in all sale areas. As I mentioned on our
outing, I
see no substantive problems with what has been marked. It is a
light
marking that preserves an overstory of large trees. I say the
marking is
light coming from a background of having looked at the aftermath
of
timber harvesting on both public and private lands for over the
past 20
years in many eastern states. As a consequence, I feel confident
that
the overall long-term impacts of the Robinson State Park planned
harvest
will be aesthetically pleasing and ecologically positive from
the
standpoint of what DCR specifically wishes to accomplish,
namely:
(1) The regeneration of black,
white, and red oak and white pine in
those areas where it can be expected to do well,
(2) The removal of non-native tree
species such as red pine,
(3) The removal of the dying red
pine that will increasingly become
an eyesore and possible fire hazard,
(4) The creation of tulip poplar
habitat in those areas presently
exhibiting large, mature specimen trees.
The method of harvesting and the precautions being taken seemed
to me to
be very well thought out. So, the earlier logging concerns that
I
expressed to you all were adequately addressed by Dave Richard.
Having
said that, the appearance of a forest after a logging operation
is
seldom pretty, at least for a few years. But given the
precautions being
taken and the lightness of the cut, I am satisfied that the
logging will
not be a significant problem for those of us concerned with
aesthetics,
and the operation itself, will absolutely not be a problem from
a
biodiversity standpoint. To the contrary, it will have an impact
toward
increasing the biodiversity within the areas of planned logging
-
although, I personally do not place a lot of importance on that
argument. Over time, Nature tends to work out those details and
Robinson
State Park is already highly diverse.
So, to summarize my thoughts on the cutting plan, I would give
DCR high
marks for the way they have planned this operation and I would
emphasize
this point. Compared to the poor timber practices that I am
accustomed
to seeing on private lands in Massachusetts, there is very
little to
complain about here. Where loggers have been given full say-so
by
landowners, as they often are in operations on private lands,
the
results are seldom favorable to the forest and usually represent
high-grades, often severe ones. Basically, left unchecked,
loggers take
the best trees and leave the rest. This is not a local
phenomenon, but
is wide spread. The issues surrounding forest practices on
private lands
are admittedly complex and often pit property owners, and what
they
consider as their rights, against those seeking better forest
management. Over the years, State surveillance of logging
operations on
private lands has been inadequate despite the current statutory
provisions such as Chapter 132 - but not because state foresters
are
lazy. It is because our citizenry, as a whole, is disengaged and
does
not back strong controls over forest practices on private lands.
By
contrast forest practices on public land have a far better
record. On
the Quabbin Reservoir, forest practices have been exemplary. So,
logging
on public lands is a different story. It isn't perfect, and
mistakes
have been made, but it is far better than what occurs on private
lands.
So, for those accustomed to horror stories about logging, it
would be
unfair to allow fears about logging on private lands to carry
over to
the public woodlands. And from what I heard, Dave Richard plans
to stay
on top of the loggers throughout the operation. Given all the
controversy that this planned timber sale has generated, you can
bet on
it.
I initially observed that Robinson State Park isn't suited for
large
scale logging operations. There is no disagreement by DCR on
this point.
Certainly, the planned cut will not be a big money-maker for DCR.
I can
testify to that. The most valuable trees, by far, are being
left. But if
timber harvesting in Robinson isn't primarily for revenue
generation,
why exactly, does DCR want to do the timber sale? The reasons
given are
principally to maintain forest health and diversity and that is
a loaded
subject. So, let's put the spotlight on DCR's stated objective
because
DCR's forest health argument can be a red flag to people who
often
passionately believe that nature best controls forest health.
They
believe that Mother Nature is inherently better at balancing the
natural
forces that shape forest composition, structure, and age. But
let me
first address forest health and diversity from DCR's viewpoint.
I'll
begin with a view into the priorities of forestry with respect
to the
areas of mature forest in Robinson State Park that are subject
to the
timber sale.
All good ecologically sensitive foresters take long-term views
of the
forests they manage. When thinking about a forested site, they
look at
the soil type, the moisture regime, what is currently growing on
a site,
the condition the trees are in, what the past disturbance
history of the
site has been, what the future disturbance history is likely to
be, and
the current state of the regeneration. From these factors they
make
judgments about what should be done to insure balance and
survival of
the species they consider to be most valuable. That is their
job. If
they see an over-story structure that includes mostly mature
trees and
very little regeneration in the under-story, they commence to
worry
about the forest of the future. Again, that is their job.
Foresters like
to see valuable tree species well distributed in all age classes
with
some large semi-old growth specimens acting as seed sources, an
abundance of trees in the mid-diameter and lower diameter
classes, and
plenty of seedling regeneration. For them, this constitutes a
healthy
forest. They begin to worry when regeneration is sparse. But
where the
age distribution is broad and there are plenty of seedings,
saplings,
pole-sized trees, sawlog-sized trees, and a few very large
diameter
trees, they can then feel confident that if a large disturbance
strikes,
the forest will quickly rebound. So, good foresters are
constantly
looking at the status of the seedlings on the forest floor and
trying to
visualize what the forest will look like 10, 20, 30 years and
beyond
from what is currently growing. If the regeneration is very
sparse, they
worry. And that is what they see in portions of Robinson State
Park. In
particular, Dave Richard, the management forester for Robinson
State
Park, is concerned about the forest of the future in Robinson
and that
is why he has designed a silvicultural prescription to address
what he
sees as a lack of age classes and regeneration among oak, white
pine,
and in a few palces, tulip poplar. He also wants to insure the
survival
of existing white pine regeneration that will not survive
without some
canopy openings. Young white pines need plenty of light. That is
the
nature of white pine as a pioneer species. So, Dave Richard
would like
to see the drier sites populated with a good mix of oak and
white pine
of various age classes. He would like to see regeneration of
tulip
poplar in those areas where they are now growing, but losing
ground due
to the closed canopy of the forest. The tulip poplar, like the
white
pine, is also basically a pioneer species. There is also the
situation
of the non-native red pine that is surely dying. An objective of
DCR is
to remove non-native species to include the 1930s CCC pine
plantations.
From my understanding, these are the reasons for the planned
timber
harvest.
What are the counter arguments to the above? I am well aware
that there
are several good friends of mine who have serious reservations
about the
planned timber sale. I have the utmost respect for these friends
and
their opinions. There is an argument that I think they probably
make
that stands in opposition to DCR's view of forest health. I
understand
their line of thinking, and agree with it in a lot of cases, but
would
not invariably apply it. Disagreement with my friends may seem
incongruent for one who has been associated almost exclusively
with
protection of old growth forests, but I have good reasons for
being
flexible on the issue. In the case of Robinson State Park, I see
some
benefits to the silvicultural prescription developed for
Robinson. A
small woodland in an urban setting (like Robinson State Forest)
faces
threats that larger rural tracts of forest don't necessarily
face.
Larger rural tracts have a resiliency after large-scale
disturbance that
have no counterparts in small urban forests. Nature's favorable
forest
regeneration responses to the tornados/micro-bursts of the
Tionesta
tract in PA and the Five Ponds blow-down in the Adirondacks are
examples
of where ecological processes are working well to re-establish
long term
forest balances. Other examples could be cited for places like
the
Boundary Waters Canoe Wilderness in northern Minnesota. However,
the
aftermath of large scale disturbances in remote areas stand in
sharp
contrast to what happens in small, cramped, urban woodlands. The
severe
impacts of invasive species, insect outbreaks, and fungal
attacks in
urban woodlands such as Hutcheson Memorial Forest owned by
Rutgers
University are cases in point. Urban woodlands are always under
attack
from aggressive invasives introduced by those livining in
proximity to
the woodlands and there is every reason to believe the impact of
invasives will get worse with climate change. We simply can not
overlook
the impacts of the exotics that we have introduced. Reports by
forest
pathologists are absolutely scary. In fact, the focus on forest
health
for Robinson should include a clear call to control the invasive
species
and other problems previously mentioned. I can think of a no
greater
priority by local citizens concerned with the overall health of
the
Robinson State Park's forests than to push for:
1. The control of invasives,
2. Elimination of illegal dumping, and
3. Reducing the impacts of the dirt bikes and 4-wheelers.
If attention could be focused on the above three issues with the
same
force as the opposition to the silvicultural prescription,
substantive
progress could be made toward a safer future for Robinson State
Park's
forests. That would leave us to debate the merits of various
silvicultural prescriptions for Robinson to include clearly
identifying
areas that should be left alone and other areas that should be
considered for silvicultural prescriptions toward clearly
defined
objectives.
I will do my best to bring additional expertise into the
discussions and
present more information to all of you after I return from the
West.
I'll be gone from July 21- August 8.
Bob
|
| Robinson
State Park |
Robert
Leverett |
| Sep
18, 2006 07:33 PDT |
ENTS,
Yesterday,
Gary Beluzo and I went to Robinson State Forest. Our
purpose was 3-fold: (1) meet Ray Weber and checkout the maples
that he
has tentatively identified as black maple, (2) complete a Rucker
Index
for Robinson, and (3) meet with Matt Largess and a Rhode Island
botanist
who is donating some time to documenting important species in
Robinson.
The gentleman is an associate of activist Matt Largess who has
championed the cause of the local Friends of Robinson State Park
group
who oppose a planned timber sale by DCR presently scheduled to
take
place in November or December.
First to the black maple identification. I believe there is a
good
chance that we identified black maple in the Park yesterday
based on the
combination of leaf shape, winged seed shape, and leaf texture.
Ray
Weber has done a thorough job of researching the physical
characteristics of the black maple as distinguished from the
sugar maple
and presenting the evidence. Others have identified what they
thought to
be black maple in Robinson in the past. Black maple shows up on
species
lists. However, several trees that we first thought to be black
maple
turned out to be sugar maple. The black maple-appearing leaves
came from
the top of the tree, which, as Lee Frelich has often pointed
out, are
simpler and smaller. The leaves lower in the crowns of the trees
first
thought to be black maples had a distinct sugar maple
appearance. The
bark is typical of sugar maple. So, one must take great care to
distinguish the sun leaves from the shade leaves. And guess
which are
the first to fall on the ground? Yes, the sun leaves. But, it
seems that
the sun leaves of sugar maples resemble the shade leaves of the
black
maple, so one must proceed to other tests. At least for one
tree, other
criteria favor black maple. One way or the other, we will put
this issue
to rest. So, although, we are calling one particular tree that
we found
yesterday a black maple, we will seek additional input to be
certain
that our tentative identification has the approval of prominent
area
botanists. Thoroughness is the order of the day. My next step is
to get
retired Smith College botany professor Dr. John Burke to take a
look.
Burke is well-known in the Connecticut River Valley and his
input would
be extremely valuable in settling issues of species identity. It
would
be great to get John Burke and Lee Frelich together on Oct 26th.
Our second mission was to complete a full Rucker Index for
Robinson. We
succeeded. The fruits of Gary’s and my labors are shown below.
Species Height Circumference
Tuliptree 132.5 9.1
White Pine 126.7 9.4
Cottonwood 118.8 9.3
Pignut Hickory 116.7 9.4
Sycamore 109.4 17.1
American Beech 105.4 8.7
N. Red Oak 104.6 7.3
Black Birch 91 5.2
White Oak 87 8
Sugar Maple 84.8 8
Rucker Index 107.7
The list does not include the tentative Black Maple that we
measured.
It is 81.4 feet tall and 8.1 feet in girth, just missing the top
10.
With further searching in Robinson, we will almost certainly
raise the
sugar maple height to near 100 feet. I expect the RHI for
Robinson to
eventually reach 110 or 111. To reach 111, we would have to add
33 feet
of height to the top ten. That may sound like a tall order, no
pun
intended, but it is definitely possible.
As I have previously mentioned, Robinson State Park will be the
location of a field trip on Oct 26th for those who can make it
to
western Massachusetts a day early. Lee Frelich is making time
for a
visit and his input on the state of that forest will represent
an
important contribution. Lee will be part of the panel discussion
on
Robinson scheduled for the evening of Oct 27th. However, we
would like
to have others with forest knowledge and no ax to grind. This is
about
science.
Our 3rd objective of yesterday was to meet with the Rhode Island
botanist and we did. He stayed busy as he searched the area for
rare or
unusual plants. He has a report forthcoming. I think he found
several
rare plants although they weren’t all in the area of the
timber sale.
The botanizing phase of the Robinson State Park to include
review of
past surveys (they have to be located first) needs to continue
for at
least a cycle of the seasons. Brief concentrated searches over a
short
period of time are not likely to result in locating all rare or
endangered species or make absolute identifications. The mission
of the
botanists is to not only identify rare species but also to
carefully map
out where they occur. If the location of a rare or endangered
species
does not fall within the zone of the timber sale, then that
needs to be
understood and acknowledged.
A personal goal of mine is to insure that DCR receives a solid
scientific report on the fauna, flora, ecology, geology,
cultural
history, and climate of Robinson State Park. At present, I do
not have
the time to actively pursue such a mission, but that could
change next
year. I trust DCR’s Chief Forester James DiMaio to make
balanced
decisions on the management of the forest in properties like
Robinson
State Park – provided he has sufficient and reliable input.
However,
getting that input to him is no small task. DCR’s internal
staff is not
equipped to do the job. Nor can Jim DiMaio rely on the State’s
Natural
Heritage Program to fill the gaps. Natural Heritage perpetually
lives on
the edge of extinction, and in its present form, has been
largely
reduced to maintaining a database. One swipe of the
budget-cutting
pencil and Natural Heritage is gone.
It is unfortunate that the planned timber sale for Robinson
State Park
has generated an atmosphere of distrust that clouds efforts to
better
understand this little 890-acre State Park. We need to
understand its
origin, its current ecological state, its recreational role, and
as an
urban park, where it should fit in the greater scheme of
forests,
parks, and reservations. I have gone on record as not opposing
the
timber sale based on my understanding of the silvicultural
objectives
presented to me and provided that: (1) logging damage is
minimized, and
(2) sufficient invasive controls are put into place to prevent
areas of
the canopy that would be opened up from being colonized by the
abundant
invasive species that surround Robinson. I would not want to see
the job
left half done and subject to adverse outcomes that go counter
to the
silvicultural prescription –which I think began purely as a
forest
health and regeneration issue.
So I suppose that it is valid to say that at the very crux of
the
disagreement are competing concepts of forest diversity and
health. What
positions do the disagreeing parties hold on these issues?
A number of relevant forest health and diversity related
questions need
to be addressed and discussed for Robinson State Park. Some of
these
questions will be food for the Oct 27th panel discussion. Below
I have
presented a series of questions in no particular order. They are
straight off the top of my head. Some are detail-oriented and
some
pertain to big picture issues. I present them to get the
interested
parties to thinking about the panel discussion.
1. Is the lack of tree regeneration in certain areas of the Park
(partly
due to excessive deer browse) an indicator of declining forest
health?
2. Do prevailing ideas of forest health accept low levels of
regeneration in some areas if they are balanced by abundant
regeneration
in others?
3. Do areas of mature forest act as buffers against the
encroachment of
light-loving invasive species?
4. Is logging a significant vector by which invasive species
become
established in areas otherwise free of those species?
5. What defines forest diversity in the lexicon of:
a. Forestry professionals,
b. Forest ecologists and naturalists?
6. What defines forest health in the lexicon of:
a. Forestry professionals,
b. Forest ecologists and naturalists?
7. Where do non-commercial tree species fit into the picture of
forest
diversity and health in the minds of:
a. Forest professionals,
b. Forest ecologists and naturalists?
8. What actions are justified to thwart extirpation of a species
by an
insect invasion or a forest pathogen? The potential impact of
the
hemlock woolly adelgid is the test case for many Massachusetts
forests?
Suppose the Asian Longhorn Beetle were discovered in Robinson
State
Park. What actions would be called for?
9. Who is responsible for tracking and controlling invasive
plant
species in State Forests? What kind of track record do they
have?
10. Is the State aware of European and Asian earthworms as
undesirable
invaders of Robinson State Park?
11. Should we be concerned with which native tree species
dominate the
Forests and Park that are not designated as important for timber
management, but are also not part of the system of forest
reserves?
12. To what degree should weather anomalies figure in to forest
management? What is the likelihood of major weather events
occurring in
Robinson?
13. For what size properties can we think more at a landscape
scale than
at the stand level?
14. What kinds of management actions are justified for
properties like
Robinson State Park that attempt to retain historically present
species
like Liriodendron tulipifera?
15. What constitutes a legitimate tree safety concern in a park
like
Robinson?
16. Were there conditions prescribed for the use of Robinson
State Park
by the donator? If so, have these conditions been met?
17. What prior agreements exist between DEM/DCR, other state
agencies,
special state programs, and the local citizenry with respect to
Robinson
State Park?
18. What kinds of partnership should DCR be looking from members
of the
local community to help where the Park resources are inadequate?
19. What kinds of human threats to the ecological integrity of
Robinson
State Park exist? Who is responsible for addressing those
threats?
20. What is the status of the archeological sites in Robinson
State
Park?
Answers to these questions and others are pertinent not only to
Robinson
State Park, but other State forests and parks that are located
within
urban areas.
Bob
Robert T. Leverett
Cofounder, Eastern Native Tree Society
|
| Robinson
State Park |
Robert
Leverett |
| Mon,
18 Sep 2006 |
Thread-Topic: Robinson State Park
From: "Leverett, Bob"
To: "James DiMaio
Jim,
On Sunday, Gary Beluzo and I went to Robinson State Park to
look at Ray Webers evidence for Black Maple. Ray,
obviously, was there, and was accompanied by several members of
the local Friends group and a couple of people from Rhode
Island, Matt Largess being one. Representatives from the Sierra
Club came later and met with the group. However, Gary Beluzo and
I left before that meeting.
I'll get to the point. A strong case is building for Black
Maple being in Robinson State Park. But despite what we saw,
which seemed convincing yesterday, the presence of Black Maple
is not yet entirely conclusive. The strongest case for Black
Maple is a particular tree outside the zone of logging. More
tentative identifications occurred in the logging area, but I
stress, the evidence for both cases is not yet conclusive. So,
we must call on more expertise.
Beyond Black Maple, Ray Weber and other Friends members are
impassioned to identify any rare or endangered species in
Robinson that may have been missed anywhere in Robinson. With
the assistance of expert botanists, they will likely succeed and
some of the identifications will almost assuredly be in the
logging zone, though probably not most. In their searches for
rare and endangered species, I say more power to them. It is a
job that legitimately needs to be done and one that to this
point has gone wanting. I realize that Dave Richard was
dependent on the Mass Natural Heritage and Endangered Species
Program to steer him away from protected areas/species and I'm
sure he fully complied with the determinations that he was
given. However, it is beginning to appear more and more that
additional work needs to be done.
Despite my desire to limit my time in Robinson, there is
pressure building on me to go the other way. Based on what I've
seen to this point, I have reached the conclusion that we need a
more authoritative inventory of the fauna and flora within the
Park and that inventory needs to be accomplished by recognized
experts. The passionate amateurs have done their job, and are to
be commended, but they now need professional assistance. An
updated inventory accomplished by botany academics/professionals
needs to be completed and submitted in a formal report to DCR.
You need to know the precise locations of any rare or endangered
species, historically important plant assemblages, exemplary
trees or assemblages of trees(my contribution), extent of the
archeologically significant area, magnitude of the invasive
problem, etc. You also need a better delineation of what may
qualify as vernal pools. We might presume that sufficient
information in all these areas currently exists and has been
used, but it is by no means clear to me that this is the case. I
am aware that representatives of Mass Natural Heritage have
looked at Robinson in the past. If they had the personnel
available, I presume they would have revisited the site of the
timber sale when the political climate in Agawam heated up. To
my knowledge they weren't able to, presumably relying on
whatever they had in their database. However, there appears to
be a need to provide DCR with a little more help by calling on
independent scientific researchers whose objectivity and
credentials cannot be questioned.
I'm assessing my capacity to take on more responsibility
relative to collecting information in Robinson. If I can see a
way, I would work through FMTSF, proposing a formal study
charter to DCR, such as the one that FMTSF has for MTSF, i.e.
one that spells out the purpose and scope of the study, a
timetable, and the deliverables. I would not push forward unless
successful in lining up a team of scientists willing to donate
time to completing a plant inventory and mapping project in
Robinson State Park. I have no idea how long it would take me to
do that.
In the interim, I will continue soliciting help for DCR from
potentially interested parties capable of providing expert input
on a catch as catch can basis. That is not my preferred way of
working, but I think DCR does need some help. Accordingly, what
follows is an e-mail I sent to ENTS earlier this morning.
Although it is rather long, I have reproduced it in full because
I intend to circulate it among members of the
academic-scientific community who might be willing to help
update the inventory of Robinson State Park fauna and flora.
Such an effort would be in support of both the Natural Heritage
Program and DCR. The e-mail ends with a list of questions that
can be used to help us establish the panel discussion agenda for
Oct 27th though certainly not an agenda that can include
all the questions. The list is just to put some ideas on the
table.
Best regards,
Bob
|
| Robinson
State Park |
Ray
Weber |
| Mon, 18 Sep 2006 |
From: "Ray Weber"
To: "Leverett, Bob"
Subject: Re: Robinson State Park
Bob, great report. The only exception I can make is that the
tree that
showed the best Black maple evidence, that was measured on the
hill, is
in the cutting area. (edge of it). There are marked trees on the
slopes
behind it that continue to a very short distance from it.
I was sent a series of pictures today of black maples that
show both
3 and 5 point leaves, as we have seen, but the 3 points are
normally
smaller ones from the top. They are also known to have some
degree of red
coloration, but less so than sugar. Its a hard call as you have
said, but
the
one you measured, plus another large one discovered later are
the best
candidates. I've had a couple of outside opinions of the leaves,
on twigs
with seed, that were in the "most probable" catagory.
The drooping
leaves and that texture on the back are also high positive
clues. This
larger tree we just found has very dark leaves as well, and very
thick
leaves. That one needs to be measured, its over 100 ft. I have a
picture
of one of the "drooping" leaves that fell from a tree
near the river/brook
intersection. Bees are preventing much investigation there
however :)
Our other concern is the vernal pools that are present. They
were not
certified as I thought in the 1980's, and cutting is occurring heavily very
close to them (< 10ft.). Yes they aren't certified, but they
are pretty
clearly vernal pools. They have been seen in the spring in the
past.
29 were certified several hundred yards away across the river in
the West Springfield section of the park. None in Agawam.
Logging
around those will spell the end to them, so action has to be
taken
to give time to certify them. Only possible in Early spring. We
already
started the certification process.
Thanks all.
Ray
|
| Out
of the frying pan, into the fire |
Robert
Leverett |
| Oct
03, 2006 11:33 PDT |
ENTS,
The Robinson State Park timber sale scheduled
for December, if not
later, is an issue of concern to local citizens in the
Connecticut River
Valley and to the Department of Conservation and Recreation,
albeit for
different reasons. And guess who is squarely in the middle of
the
controversy? Both sides seem to be looking to yours truly and to
my
colleague Gary Beluzo, working as a team, to find a compromise.
At the
heart of the controversy is a planned timber sale in what is
basically
an urban woodland of 890 acres, bordering the Westfield River in
the
town of Agawam. State silviculturists are troubled by the lack
of oak
and pine regeneration in sections of mature forest. The
silviculturists
are also concerned over two dying red pine stands that were
planted in
the 1930s. So the DCR managing forest designed a silvicultural
treatment
to address what he sees as problems. Local opposition is
emotional. Both
sides have good points favoring their positions. One issue that
has
become important is whether or not black maple grows in the
park.
Several trees have strong black maple characteristics according
to some
tree identification sources, but are ambiguous in other sources.
A
second question has arisen and that is what is the best
silvicultural
treatment to insure the perpetuation of black maple (assuming it
exists). Should the areas be left alone? Is some cutting advisable?
The
Chief Forester of Massachusetts posed this question to me
earlier today
in an e-mail:
"I do have a question on black maple. As you are probably
aware that
this species is closely linked with sugar maple, often misidentified
as
well as hybridized with sugar maple. Black maple would be at the
edge of
the zone. Might not the project actually encourage and maintain
black
maple possibilities vs the non-management strategy which would
revert to
red maple and other late successional shade tolerant species
such as
hemlock, beech, etc.?"
Jim's observation that a non-management
strategy would cause a
reversion to red maple seems problematic to me. If there aren't
any
major disturbances and regeneration occurs through small canopy
gaps,
I'm of the opinion that red maple would not have an advantage
over other
species. By contrast, if there are large openings, I would think
that
red maple would gain an advantage. What succesional trajectories
favor
an over-abundance of red maple in a fairly diverse forest such
as
Robinson? Add deer to the equation and what balances are
changed?
Any thoughts on these subjects from ENTS
would be mightily
appreciated.
Bob
Robert T. Leverett
Cofounder, Eastern Native Tree Society
|
| RE:
Out of the frying pan, into the fire |
Joshua
Kelly |
| Oct
03, 2006 17:25 PDT |
Bob,
In a general sense, I agree that sugar maple is the most shade
tolerant of
the canopy maples in the east. I'm not sure about black maple. A
stand in
which I have previously identified maples as Acer barbatum
(questionable
det.) has those trees in the midstory under hemlock, indicating
that this
sister taxon of sugar maple is shade tolerant also. Folks from
the midwest
can probably give the most qualified input on this subject.
Josh
|
| Re:
Out of the frying pan, into the fire |
Don
Bertolette |
| Oct
03, 2006 19:46 PDT |
Bob-
Seems to me that an opportunity for research (if the stands are
large enough
to provide comparison study) might provide a nice compromise,
that both
sides might buy into, with interpretive displays to inform the
public...
By the way, just confirmed airline reservations for a November
3-9 trip to
Boston, in route to Anchorage (remind you of an old song about
going to LA
by way of Omaha?), anything going on in your neck of the woods
about then?
-DonB
|
| RE:
Out of the frying pan, into the fire |
Don
Bragg |
| Oct
04, 2006 06:18 PDT |
Bob--
According to my trusty silvics guide (available at
p://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/pubs/silvics_manual/Volume_2/acer/nigrum.htm),
the black maple is considered very tolerant of shade (more so
than red
maple), and should be able to produce seedlings under a closed
canopy.
However, even the most shade tolerant tree species need some
degree of
release to reach the canopy and be able to reproduce the
species.
Given what I read in the silvics guide, black maple will respond
in many
ways like sugar maple to management. I guess I would think that
depending on the proposed treatment intensity, red maple may do
better
than the black, although both may benefit from some type of
release.
The silvics guide also states that black maple in parts of New
England
is probably at a disadvantage to sugar maple due to the cooler,
moister
conditions of that area.
Don Bragg
|
| Re:
Out of the frying pan, into the fire |
Lee
E. Frelich |
| Oct
04, 2006 06:46 PDT |
Bob:
I doubt that black maple is a species--recent genetic analyses
don't
support that. However, it is an important variant within sugar
maple that
should be saved when it is encountered, because it is more
tolerant of
warmer climates which are on the way. It is similar in shade
tolerance to
sugar maple, and is more likely to be abundant on silty soils
than sandy
soils. Seedling abundance may be negatively impacted by exotic
earthworms.
Regarding red maple, in some areas it is very shade tolerant,
and in others
only moderately tolerant. In general it is not as shade tolerant
as sugar
or black maple, but that does not mean that it cannot outcompete
them.
Shade tolerance is only one factor that determines successional
pathways.
Sometimes early successional species are shade tolerant and
sometimes mid
tolerant or even intolerant species are late successional,
although there
is some correlation between shade tolerance and late
successional status.
Very often mid tolerant species like red maple, some oaks,
yellow birch,
and ash, become more abundant when stands reach the multi-aged
stage of
development (Oliver's misnamed 'Old growth').
I can't tell you how these factors will work in Robinson State
Park until I
see it.
Lee
|
| Re:
Out of the frying pan, into the fire |
Fores-@aol.com |
| Oct
04, 2006 06:55 PDT |
Bob
and Lee:
I have noticed that in portions of central WV sugar maple and
black maple
occur together and in many cases the trees are completely
indistinguishable
until you look closely at the leaves. I have encountered areas
where I thought
I had a very heavy stand of sugar maple only to realize it was
black instead.
One thing I have noticed though is that black maple seems to be
able to
grow in diameter faster than sugar maple and I have found some
black maples with
annual growth rings approaching 1/2 inch.
I hope that they are more heat tolerant.
During the heat wave of late July early August this year it
seems like a lot
of WV got hit with some severe ozone pollution. At
the conclusion of the
heat wave all the maples, sugar, black and red were left with
leaves that
appears burned with lots of spots and holes in them and now, as
we approach
foliage season a majority of the maples do not even have leaves.
Has there been any reports out there on hardwood tree damage
from the
extreme heat this summer?
Russ |
| RE:
Out of the frying pan, into the fire |
Robert
Leverett |
| Oct
04, 2006 07:13 PDT |
Don,
Thanks. The black maple controversy presently
going on here has many
more chapters. I don't worry too much about a light thinning in
the
area, but would worry about large canopy openings. If DCR cuts
back from
their present markings about 25% in the black maple zone, I
believe they
will be okay. However, that is just a gut feel. I'd like to get
independent input from a good silviculturalist.
Bob
|
| Re:
Out of the frying pan, into the fire |
Lee
E. Frelich |
| Oct
04, 2006 07:14 PDT |
Russ:
Our maples in southern MN are pretty tattered by the drought,
hailstorms,
and heat, and were unable to recover much even though the
drought ended
during September. The leaves of many turned brown and fell off a
few weeks
ago. I don't think we had any severe ozone episodes this
summer--we didn't
have any of those meso-scale convective complex thunderstorms
that have a
hundred lightning strokes per minute for several hours. Those
types of
thunderstorms really produce a lot of ozone.
The maples in northern Wisconsin seemed to fare much better, the
fall color
season there was spectacular, but of course the temperatures and
drought
were not as bad there as in MN.
Lee
|
| Question
for Lee |
Robert
Leverett |
| Oct
04, 2006 07:58 PDT |
Lee,
If you recall the widespread discussions of
several years ago about
the resurgence of red maple and of the various silvicultural
treatments
that were being proposed. One of the arguments that DCR has put
forward
for logging in Robinson State Park is the control of red maple.
I must
admit to being perplexed over their stance. Red maple is barely
present
in the areas of mature forest. It is most widely represented in
the more
recently disturbed areas. I would think that cutting would be
(or at
least could be) counterproductive to the aim of controlling red
maple.
How has the red maple issue sorted itself out in the upper
Mid-west in
the past several years?
Anyone else with a take on the red maple
issue would be appreciated.
Bob |
| Re:
Question for Lee |
Lee
Frelich |
| Oct
04, 2006 15:41 PDT |
Bob:
As I tell foresters here: learn to love red maple. It will be a
big part of
your future. In the Midwest it is taking over vast stretches of
the
landscape, and it increases in abundance after harvesting
(mostly
clearcut), because it is so abundant in the understory.
Logging might control it if there are a few large seed trees and
not so
many seedlings yet. If the understory is full of it, then any
harvesting
will probably increase its future abundance.
Lee
|
| RE:
Question for Lee |
Robert
Leverett |
| Oct
05, 2006 05:45 PDT |
Lee,
From your understanding, is it climate change
that is primarily
responsible for the surge of red maple? Across the Massachusetts
landscape, red maple's growing abundance seems to be more linked
to the
removal of valuable timber species while leaving red maple to
proliferate as opposed to the increasingly milder winters. I'd
be
interested in hearing what Russ Richardson, Michele Wilson, and
other
foresters on the list have to say about what conditions foster
the
expansion of red maple (natural versus human-induced). In past
discussions of this topic, i.e back in the days when Joe and
Mike were
on the list and waxing eloquent, we got the high grade side of
the
argument, but it was never clear to me how much the high grading
explanation could account for the overall eastern-wide growth of
red
maple.
Bob
|
| RE:
Question for Lee |
Lee
E. Frelich |
| Oct
05, 2006 14:41 PDT |
Bob:
Lack of fire during 19th and 20th centuries (compared to the
period before
that) combined with leaving red maple behind in logging
operations has led
to a threshold whereby the species has a massive enough presence
to take
over the landscape.
Its a great thing for tourism during October.
Lee
|
| Re:
Question for Lee |
Randy
Brown |
| Oct
06, 2006 07:38 PDT |
Bob
& Lee,
The state forests of Ohio are just starting up prescribed
burning
programs for just this reason.
"Since most of the saplings in the study are Carya spp.,
Acer rubrum,
A. saccharum, Nyssa
sylvatica, and others, substantial mortality is likely to be
associated with fire alone.
Seedling effects: Seedling health will be negatively affected
regardless of species. However, we
hypothesize that the greater sprouting capability of oaks will
give
them a competitive advantage over
maples, yellow-poplar, blackgum and other less desirable
species,
depending on seed crop dynamics. "
(page 13)
http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/delaware/4153/ffs/ffs_new.html#Top
I got to poke around a couple of these burn sites last winter
and saw
lots of burned out black gum and maple. From a quick look
around, I
noticed most of the maples under 6" dia. at the butt got
severely
damaged or killed outright. Once they get bigger than this the
bark
gets thicker and platy and they tended to do better. Most of the
overstory was oaks, which shrugged off the fire with just a bit
of
charred bark for their trouble. Oak seedlings/saplings were
notably
rare. I fact I saw hardly any. It
will be interesting to go back
and see if any new oak seedlings pop up this year.
In the flatter wet woods of NW Ohio where I grew up, oaks tend
to be
very common in the canopy, but with practically zero
regeneration in
the shade. Opening the canopy with selective logging doesn't
seem to
help either. Generally an understory of sugar maple is already
established, and only the basswood, ash, and elm are quick
enough to
get a foot in the door before the ground gets shaded over. Where
you
do see younger oaks is on the woodlot edges, and in the few
reverting
pastures that still remain. In fact Bob you might have notice
this
at Goll woods in between swatting the hords of mosquitos.
Here's a page full of presentation slides about fire affects you
and
others might find interesting (If a bit vague without the
speaker)
http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/delaware/4153/FireConfPdfs.html
- Randy
|
| Re:
Out of the frying pan, into the fire |
Kirk
Johnson |
| Oct
06, 2006 11:04 PDT |
Bob,
I've heard that too. Foresters who work in and near the
Allegheny National
Forest are wont to assert that inaction (non-management) on
certain ANF
lands would cause much of the acreage to move toward what they
call an
Upland Hardwood forest type made up primarily of red maple,
black birch, and
beech (the assumption is that hemlock will largely be lost upon
arrival of
the hemlock wooly adelgid). This forest type is typically looked
upon with
disdain. Many foresters advocate active management to perpetuate
a
significant component of red and white oak, black cherry, and
other shade
intolerant hardwoods. Red maple is generally predicted to end up
being the
dominant species in later successional stands around here. This
is what I
often hear, anyway.
Kirk Johnson
|
|