==============================================================================
TOPIC: Robinson State Park - An Oasis Saved
http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees/browse_thread/thread/be4d4318213d67fd?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 8 2008 3:52 am
From: "Joseph Zorzin"



----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Leonard
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 7:04 PM
Subject: Robinson State Park - An Oasis Saved


A Review of the Proposed Commercial Timber Harvest at Robinson State Park
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

April 7, 2008

To The Friends of Robinson State Park

Thanks for leading a tour of DCR's proposed commercial timber harvest in Robinson State Park. After reviewing the marked trees, the wetland resource areas, and the various forest stands I must conclude that this proposed timber sale was highly inappropriate for the following reasons:

********** For one thing the 2006 audit by the green certification people said: "By the 2007 surveillance audit, BOF should provide for appropriate oversight on decisions made by management foresters about where to plan harvest operations, in all districts." But instead, the program supervisor for the mgt. foresters is a GPS expert. He may be the world's best GPS pro, but he ain't no expert on management of large scale public properties.

1. There wasn't any Resource Management Plan in place PRIOR to the initiation of the Forest Cutting Plan. Supposedly there is an old Forest Management Plan that was done in the 1980's but nobody seems to be able to find it.

********** Then the BOF denied it ever existed- that is, they rewrote history by denying that plan ever existed.

If it had expired, then a new one should have been done (just like a Chapter 61 recertification for example). To prepare a Forest Cutting Plan prior to writing a Forest Management Plan was inexcusable especially for a park like this.

2. Title XIX, 132A Section 2B says there should be no commercial timber harvesting in state parks and clearly this was to be a commercial timber harvest. I was told that DCR's Chief Forester James DiMaio said it wasn't a commercial timber harvest, but the approved Forest Cutting Plans indicate both shelterwood regeneration cuttings and commercial thinnings. Since a total of 134.5 acres were to be cut with a volume of 310 MBF and 370 cords I think almost any forester would agree that this was to be a very significant commercial timber harvest.

********** To say it isn't a commercial harvest is Orellian in the extreme. "war is peace" "310 mbf is not a commercial harvest"- and for many years, the BOF's red permit sign called every single high grading job a "FORESTRY OPERATION".

3. The Forest Cutting Plan did not account for the vernal pools and the filter strips and did not abide by the mitigation recommendations of the Natural Heritage Program.

In excess of 50% of the basal area was marked around at least one vernal pool we looked at which is a violation of the "Best Management Practices" required by Chapter 132. In addition some trees were marked within the vernal pool and there were not supposed to be any new roads near the vernal pools.

Some of the proposed skid trails were on already eroded old trails and some of them were within a filter strip along a stream. It is required that no logging equipment operate in a filter strip unless it will reduce environmental damage, or at a stream crossing, or if on a pre-existing road. This skid road would have caused significant sedimentation and erosion into the stream so should not have been approved. The other eroded trails would have been eroded further by heavy logging machinery.

Veronica Brook was labeled an intermittent stream when clearly it's a perennial stream.

In addition, a skid trail was marked right at the top of the spring where Veronica Brook originates.

********** We can only wonder why the cutting plan was approved. The service foresters are supposed to review and approve cut plans on state land just as private land. Many of the errors that Mike points out would have been caught on private land by service foresters.

In terms of silviculture, some of the marking looked all right but I would question why some big multiple leader oaks had only one stem marked

********** Such as one where the 2 oaks seperated 3-4' off the ground- leaving one is a bad idea- either leave both or take both. The stump of the cut one will infect the remaining one.

and why disease free beech was marked.

********** Certainly all diseased beech should be marked, but healthy beech don't need to- perhaps up on the mountains where beech is very common, even some healthy young beech should be cut- but in a park? It appeared that the goal of the silviculture was to convert the stand to mostly red oak- not a bad plan in a commercially managed forest up in the hills, but in an urban park where people like to see many species?

In addition the nice white pine stand near the vernal pools should have been marked much lighter. Why were there trees marked on the highly eroding ledge and why would you have a skid road go anywhere near that ledge?

********** At least one of the marked trees had already fallen as the bank eroded. Getting within 50' of that eroded steep bank along the Westfield River is absurd.

I was told that one of the reasons the timber sale was expanded beyond the declining red and white pine stands at the entrance and the small red pine stand towards the east end (which was the original reason for this timber harvest because some of the dead and dying pine trees were deemed to be a public hazard) was because there wasn't enough merchantable volume in those areas to attract a bidder. I'm not sure if I believe this because the volumes for each stand aren't itemized. Since the housing market has collapsed and many landclearing companies are now looking for logging jobs I'll bet one could have been found to thin those pine stands for nothing.

4. Robinson State Park is highly susceptible to being overrun by non-native invasive plants especially Oriental bittersweet, and also by multiflora rose, Japanese barberry, honeysuckle, and Japanese knotweed (all of which were present along the roads). Most of the park is free of invasives but there were some marked areas that had very significant infestations. Logging would have only spread the invasives further. An invasive control program should have been put in place PRIOR to any thought of a commercial timber harvest.

If you drive along the Westfield and Connecticut Rivers, you will find much of the riverine forest overtopped by Oriental bittersweet. The rivers are a major conduit for the spread of this devastating plant. Once established, it is extremely difficult to control.

5. Robinson State Park has an incredibly diverse forest consisting of 53 different tree species. It has some of the finest stands of tulip poplar I've seen and could contain some very rare tree species as well (black maple for example). It has many bird and animal species that depend on this forest. A Resource Management Plan would have documented this great diversity which most likely would have said commercial timber harvesting would be a bad idea here.

6. Robinson State Park is located in the second most densely populated area of the state. This beautiful state park is like an oasis for the poor blue collar people who live around here. For this reason alone, this park should be added to the Forest Reserves that are now being delineated.

I would like to congratulate the Friends of Robinson State Park for their perseverance and how incredibly hard you worked at getting all of the documentation, etc. in stopping this inappropriate timber sale.

One final thought: can DCR get BOF Service Forester Dave Richards to go back to the park and spray brown paint over all those ugly blue and yellow markings?

********** That paint can last for many years. I recently marked a stand that I had marked 30 years ago- I found several trees that were not cut in that harvest in the '70s, the paint was still on the trees. So, it's only reasonable that Dave and maybe his boss should have to unpaint those trees. Sure, that would be a lot of work, but otherwise the recreational value of the park is severely damaged.

With all that colored spray paint which will last for years and years, it looks like the park has been vandalized.

********** The proper way to manage such a park would be to have a small full time crew with chain saws, a small farm tractor and cart- they could spend all year maintaing trails, cutting hazzard trees, doing very, very light thinning in some areas emphasizing aesthetics but with some long term silvicultural consideration and in their spare time they could continue to document the ecological values of the park.

Mike Leonard, Consulting Forester
North Quabbin Forestry
35 Leighton Road
Petersham, MA 01366
978-724-8822

http://www.northquabbinforestry.com  

PS: I took a lot of pictures which I will upload at a future date.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 8 2008 7:12 am
From: "Joseph Zorzin"

Of course Mike Leonard and I will be considered traitors to the forestry party line for having such contact with "tree huggers" who are often viewed as naive obstructionists when in fact they are more often far more sophisticated than forestry's leaders.

And for those that don't know- Mike and I have applied to be on the state's Forest Stewardship Council. We can be assured that the party line leaders will now be working overtime to prevent us from being appointed by the governor to that Council.

Between Mike and I we have about 60 years experience in the forestry world and we have shown that we have great concern for the proper protection of our wonderful state parks. Mike has helped his state politicians write several very progressive forestry laws.

I have been deconstructing the propaganda of the forestry world for decades- a forestry world so unsuccessful that barely 1 out of 7 acres is under traditional forest management and very little forest land currently protected for the long term. Meanwhile, the forest industry is rapidly dying off. In 2006 my client, Gould Farm of Monterey, in the Berkshires, was designated a Guild Model Forest for its 3/4 of a century of exceptional forest management and protection- almost half of that under my direction.

In 2004 the past Chief Forester, Warren Archey, said that my criticism of his testimony to Congress was "forbidden". In an email to consulting forester Mike Mauri, a few years ago, Chief Forester James DiMaio warned Mr. Mauri "to not have erroneous thoughts".

This is the time for major reform. Mike and I can help push along that reform. Foresters with a progressive vision and from the western part of the state must be appointed to the Council for it to have a full appreciation of the problems and solutions for the future rather than just being fed propaganda by the party line.

Mike and I will be happy to meet with Commissioner Sullivan, the Governor and other state leaders at their convenience to discuss further why we should be appointed to the Council. You can reach me at 413-212-0518 and Mike at 978-724-8822. We await your calls.

Joe Zorzin
Licensed Forester #261