Laserfiche WebLink
<br />:. <br /> <br />All of the parcels exceeded the cover and production values <br />individually except for the 11.8 acre parcel which was lower than <br />the reference area in both cover (42$ to 50.20$) and production <br />(30.48 to 32.46) in year 1 and production (18.66 to 19.02) in year <br />2 and the 99.5 acre parcel which was barely lower than the <br />reference area (49.57$ to 50.20$) for the cover value in year one. <br />Sample adequacy was met for both years as a block. As one would <br />expectjmany of the individual parcels will not make sample adequacy <br />when calculated outside of the block. <br />Sfd---aQiweQ <br />The species diversity/ for Block D is: "No single species shall <br />exceed 75 percent relative production and perennial grass shall <br />provide at least 25 percent relative production. Also, no single <br />species shall exceed 75 percent relative cover". Block D meets <br />this diversity standard although lumping all perennial grasses <br />during sampling is incorrect under this standard (see 1/3/95 memo <br />for block c). <br />Although /all the param ters are successful, there are two issues <br />that are bothering me ith respect to approving bond release on <br />this par 1. <br />No. 1 is that the operator did not follow the proportional <br />allocation methodology for the entire block and the parcel that did <br />not receive proportional transects comes up a little short in <br />either the cover and production parameters in both years. I <br />suspect that if they had correctly allocated and sampled, the <br />results would not be significantly different from those submitted, <br />however, the methodology is incorrect. <br />No. 2 is that there is more than one landowner (per KAG) in the <br />block which goes against the Division's Bond Release Guideline <br />policy of not including more than one landowner in a block or <br />logical management unit unless previously approved. As I <br />understand it, this requirement may come under some attack prior to <br />final guideline approval, however, I used the guideline as it now <br />stands for this review. <br />So, although the block as a whole does meet or exceed the bond <br />release standards for cover, production and diversity, I recommend <br />denial based on the reasons stated above. As we have discussed, <br />this should be reviewed by ou, Dave, a~d the VTF for a consensus <br />decision. There may be some~iggle room on this block with respect <br />to the land ownership issue since th sampled it prior to our <br />guideline approval. <br />If you have any questions, please see me. <br />cc: David A. Berry <br />