Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />001535 <br /> <br />Table 5-1 provides a description of the percentage amount of tree <br />canopy on each parcel, and column seven provides a description of the <br />parcel's distance from the theoretical central location of a farm <br />equipment warehouse. The remaining columns in Table 5-1 describe any <br />adjustments that were made to preliminary repayment capacity to <br />reflect each parcel's characteristics. <br />Parcel A18, consisting of 32 net acres, was judged suitable for <br />the alfalfa, malt barley cropping pattern that maximizes net returns <br />for climatic zone D (Table D.3, Animas and Florida Watersheds Task D <br />and E Report, Draft No.2, Boyle Engineering Corporation, May, 1986.) <br />Its tree canopy cover is less than 10 percent, and its location is <br />within five miles of a theoretically placed central equipment <br />warehouse. Therefore, the only repayment capacity adjustment made for <br />parcel A18 was a three dollar minimum land clearing charge for brush <br />and grass removal. That charge reduced the preliminary repayment <br />capacity by three dollars, but the parcel is still classified as <br />potential PIA. <br />Parcel A36, consisting of 109 net acres, was judged not suitable <br />for alfalfa and barley production because of its 4A land <br />classification. Based upon the results of the agronomic study, class <br />4A lands are suitable only for native hay production. As a result, <br />the preliminary repayment capacity for Parcel A36 was reduced by one <br />hundred fifteen dollars to reflect the lower on-farm returns that <br />would result from native hay production, (The basis for that <br />calculation is described in Appendix B to this report,) That <br />reduction, combined with a three dollar annualized clearing cost, <br /> <br />8 <br /> <br />~ - <br />