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   Home