Re. Project 2026-0041, Timber Harvest, LandVest
Aaron Ziemann
Project Review Officer
NYS Adirondack Park Agency
P.O. Box 99
Ray Brook, NY 12977
Dear Mr. Ziemann,
For the following reasons, we believe that Project 2026-0041, LandVest clearcut of more than 400-acres in Mayfield, Fulton County, should be directed to the full Agency for its review.
While the current challenges of maintaining a vigorous hardwood overstory are well explained and the reasons for the harvest plan appear adequately described, this appears to be one of the heaviest proposed clearcuts to come before the Agency in recent history. Since, as stated, the landowner has no intention of returning over the next twenty years to complete a seed tree cut, the plan is to avoid a light shelterwood harvest now and move directly to a final seed tree cut that is to leave just 5-15 square feet of residual basal area per acre of trees six inches DBH or greater. This extent of clearcutting would take place between two blocks of Forest Preserve, Shaker Mountain Wild Forest.
The remaining stems of maple, yellow birch, red spruce, hemlock, and white pine may prove very far and few between to provide the seed source required for adequate regeneration, well below the regulatory threshold of 30 square feet per acre of residual stockage of trees. Based upon previous Agency permits, forest industry post-harvest goals of retaining 450 stems per acre are unlikely to be reached.
While the goal of this project is to reach full canopy closure within 15 years with strong regeneration, the Agency should ask if that goal is possible given the extremely heavy cutting requested in this permit. With such a heavy cut, loss of soil nutrients may be extensive, and the wind firmness of the “leave” trees is also questionable. The number, species, quality, and vigor of the residual trees post-harvest could be better described to APA during permit review by the full Agency.
We also believe that the proposed 100-ft buffer around recognized trout streams should be extended to all perennial streams on the property to protect the riparian and ecological integrity and complexity of the site, and to allow more post-harvest tree retention and wildlife snag trees. The current harvest plan proposes to buffer perennial streams with just 25 ft. buffers.
We appreciate your requirement to identify and buffer all vernal pools with 100-ft. buffers but note that 100 foot buffers around vernal pools fall well below what has been commonly recognized by herpetologists necessary to preserve pool biological richness and diversity – approximately 700 feet of forested buffer on all sides.
In conclusion, we respect the private forest harvest team’s expertise, appreciate much of their harvest plan description, and acknowledge existing site protection afforded by the DEC, SFI, and FSC easements and certifications. However, for the above reasons this harvest clearcut appears especially extensive, with long-lasting consequences for the site and the landscape around it, including Forest Preserve. It merits bringing the application before the full Agency for further discussion, review, and possible modifications to achieve what may prove to be better silvicultural, carbon sequestration and storage, and ecological objectives, achieved in consultation with the landowner and consulting forester.
Thank you for considering our comments.
Sincerely,
David Gibson, Managing Partner
Adirondack Wild: Friends of the Forest Preserve
P.O. Box 9247
Niskayuna, NY 12309
www.adirondackwild.org
518-469-4081
Cc: John Burth, APA Deputy Director
Agency Members and Designees