From: Benjamin Wagner <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>




  • May 2, 2017 at 6:29 PM


To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

CC: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Dear Mr. Blum,

Electronic Review for the Environment, Inc. has reviewed the document and has the following comments:

1) P17. Bullet 3: It is understood here that grassland and shrub-land acreage is low in the unit compared to the guideline objectives from 2000. This plan should increase efficiency in grassland management methods for new early succession areas to fix the issue of inadequate resources available to maintain the former grassland areas. Former grassland areas should also be evaluated in order to upkeep the forest ecosystem community biodiversity. Since the Northern Chenango Forest birds such as black-billed cuckoo, blue winged warbler, ruffed grouse, are becoming scarce the issue of causality the grasslands and early successional forests in this unit should be considered for further study.

2) P32. The report holds survey data on birds and mammals, but it lacks a recent statistics on reptiles and amphibians. The data on reptiles and amphibians is more than 15 years old. In addition, the report does not have further objectives to run a survey to keep track of the change of population trend. Please provide explanation on this issue about the position of agency for the survey of the population of reptiles and amphibians. The report points that the wetland provides “biological diversity” (P28), which is the habitat for reptiles and amphibians. To confirm the preservation of biodiversity,a survey should be conducted . Please move forward with the gathering of data for reptiles and amphibians.

3) P84. Please introduce a new action plan for plum trees which once grew on Otselic river. It is a beneficial choice as a food source and native plant. This could be an experimental plantation or in the wild.

4) P74. Goal 1 (particularly Objective 1.7) recommends various goals and actions to increase the area of specific AND desired forest types. The unit management plan does not discuss potential impacts of future climate change on the success of the proposed strategies. As outlined in the "Strategic Plan for State Forest Management" future climate change is expected to reduce the areas that provide suitable habitat for some of the forest types in the unit management plan. Please consider whether or not their proposed forest management objectives are consistent with future climate change and revise them if appropriate.

5) P85. Consider utilizing volunteers as part of the ecosystem management plan, especially invasive plant species management. Prospective volunteers could train in PRISM- Partnership for regional invasive species management and utilize the IMAP Invasive’s Database. That would be a cost-effective management strategy for landscape management. Specific projects should be assigned in grassland and early successional forest/shrubland areas for integrity maintenance.

Please send me a copy of your responses to comments via Email.




Benjamin Wagner

Project Manager

P.O. BOX 2756