Robinson State Park: Questions for Russ and Michele   Michele Wilson
  Oct 18, 2006 14:11 PDT 

At the moment, I will offer two comments:

1. I have not set foot on RSP since 1978 or 1979 when I was on the CFI crew
for the State back then. Since I have not set foot out there, I would be
hesitant to make commentary! However, I am sure that the State's management
forestry team has been careful in their approach to marking a silvicultural
treatment out there and with it in mind that there exists a strong general
public's interest regarding their beloved hiking grounds... sometimes we
don't know how much of a public interest on a publicly owned piece of earth
until some event happens, such as a forester heading out there and spotting
trees to be cut with paint, and then all hell breaks loose... sometimes that
hell is based on a lack of seeing the bigger picture and basic ignorance of
what the implementation of real live forestry can accomplish over the long
term, notwithstanding associated problems with invasive species and, as you
had mentioned to me, some unknowns regarding archeological interests. Once
the hell breaks loose, we can all only move forward and deal with it as best
we can. It seems to me from what I have heard that the State is striving to
deal with the fallout from the general public. As we discussed, it seems
obvious that an improved statewide public relations campaign is on the
docket so that future planned harvesting on "heavily noticeable" state lands
doesn't get so held up by having to constantly explain the basics to folks,
a very costly endeavor, to note. Instead of sinking zillions of buckaroos
into other methods, perhaps the state should pay for a full page education
campaign in every single major newspaper statewide explaining how most
foresters approach their projects with a wide berth of mindset in place, and
do such a campaign 4x a year for 5 years or some such schedule to insure
that many, many folks out there will simply already know that just because
one is cutting a tree doesn't mean that a beloved mountain biking or hiking
path and aesthetic buffer alongside will be wrecked. My goodness! One
would think in this day and age that we would've all come much farther than
this...

2. Assuming the soils/drainage growth sites matrix where the mixed oaks are
prevalent is suitable for favoring oaks over other species, if one wants to
grow more oak, well then, one better thin it out and then some! You
mentioned no regeneration, so the solution at this moment in time seems
obvious to me! If there are nearby seed sources for red maple, well then,
that species will pop up but the mixed birch sources you mention will likely
pop up more so and sooner simply because they are already right there. The
prolific nature of red maple's ability to sprout and seed in will have
influence, of course, but the main issue at this time, from what you mention
for that piece(s) of the forest, seems to simply be to prompt mixed oak
regeneration. Period. So thin the forest!
Michele

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Leverett" <dbhg-@comcast.net>;
To: <ENTST-@topica.com>;
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 8:13 AM
Subject: Questions for Russ and Michele


 

Russ and Michele,

   I'm trying to understand the role of red maple in Robinson State Park
and arguments surrounding its potential spread in preparation for the
4th Annual Forest Summit. I intend to address the "red maple threat" at
some level, even if it is only to pose research questions in need of
investigation. One would think that I could draw from past research, but
my opinion of recent studies of red maple expansion to include the one
from Penn State, as applied to the Northeast, is that the authors have
been too timid in addressing the role of poor forest practices. Their
timidity may be obscuring the true nature of the problem. However, I do
believe that members of the Forest Stewards Guild are apt to be willing
to address the unsavory aspects of the problem.

   I'm accustomed to stomping around in mature 2nd-growth forests and in
the old growth where red maple populations are low, often very low. The
only areas I see in which red maple is abundant are in younger forests
that have returned from old fields and in areas that have been recently
logged. In at least some of the latter cases, red maple was obviously
left as an undesirable species to spend energy cutting and hauling out.
I presume that red maple will proliferate in these areas, now being the
primary seed source. However, I am unsure of what the future
representation of red maple will be in mature areas of Robinson SP that
are presently dominated by large red, black, and white oaks, a light
scattering of smaller black and white birch, and virtually no
regeneration of any kind. What are the ecological processes and lines of
succession here? What are the likely primary sources of mortality for
seedlings? My assumption is deer and too much shade for a new crop of
oaks - thus the reason that DCR wants to thin. However, sooner or later
one of the big oaks will come crashing down and leave a big hole in the
canopy. What is the most likely scenario for filling the gap? Any
speculations either of you would care to share would be mightily
appreciated.

Bob



Robert T. Leverett
Cofounder, Eastern Native Tree Society
Back to Michele   Robert Leverett
  Oct 19, 2006 10:48 PDT 

Michele,

Thanks for taking the time to respond in detail. We're accustomed to
brief e-mails from you.

I wish the situation were as simple as you make a case for. Perhaps it
could be, but it isn't, in Robinson. The problem with public education
by governmental agencies is that the message often gets over-simplified
to reach a wide audience. This definitely happened in Robinson SP. DCR's
original message was that they would be removing only dead, dying, and
diseased trees. But they marked a good deal more, which quickly became
apparent to citizens against the timber sale. DCR also stated that a
primary reason for the planned harvest was to remove hazard trees, but
they suggested trees far from any trail were dangerous, such as the
dying, skinny red pines that are in the middle of old plantations, well
off trail. Again, they over-simplified.

   I've spent a good deal of my time over the past several weeks
interpreting for DCR to the Friends Group. It has finally paid off.
Yesterday, we agreed to work as a group, i.e. DCR, the Friends Group,
and ENTS. Perhaps now we can cooperatively solve a number of problems
including the removal of invasives. BTW, DCR had no plans to treat for
invasives nor distribute logging slash. The former would have been
disastrous, the latter ugly. But, as a consequence of yesterday's
meeting, control of invasives will be a cornerstone of future management
actions.

    Most of the Friends Group opposed to the timber sale are not opposed
to cutting trees for what they can accept as worthwhile purposes. So, in
the Robinson SP situation, we may be able to establish a model for
dealing with similar urban-suburban forests. That is the ENTS message
and it seems to be sticking.

     With respect to the red maple issue, I believe that DCR is overly
worried about red maple in Robinson. It is not at all abundant in the
areas of mature forest. But the DCR fear seems to be that a huge storm
will sweep in and knock down all the big trees and red maples will
quickly become established in the gaps - even in places where red maple
is just barely present, if at all. This is why I am asking questions
about red maple propagation of you and Russ and anyone else with an
understanding of the conditions under which red maple is most
aggressive.

    As a final point, the Friends Group has been understandably doubtful
of DCR's motives. They ask: "Why is it that DCR wants to grow more oaks,
if they are not looking to Robinson as a place to manage the forest for
timber?" Some of the most visually pleasing areas of Robinson are
dominated by large, mature oaks, but those trees still have 60 to 120
years of life left in them. Some thinning may make sense to insure a
substantial oak presence in the future, but DCR has to be careful that
they do not drift into a timber-driven mindset when they've clearly
stated that not to be the case. If it is, then DCR needs to be up front
about it. However, knowing the DCR people involved, I don't think that
is the case, but given the mixed signals and over-simplified messages
from DCR, convincing the Friends Group has turned into a real challenge.
        

Bob