Laserfiche WebLink
'~ ~.. <br />.. <br />to volunteer establishment from adjacent seed :>ources. Shrub <br />densities appear to be well below the 1000 stem per acre standard. <br />Possibilities I mentioned to increase sagebrush density were <br />implementation of a grazing program, or herbicide treatment and <br />subsequent shrub planting/seeding within several patches throughout <br />the site. Rick thought the grazing program might be worth <br />considering, although he didn't sound enthusiastic. He said he did <br />not intend to do any seeding/planting which wou:Ld re-start the <br />liability period. <br />He of course mentioned the possibility of a land use change to <br />pastureland, with the elimination of any shrub density standard. <br />I said that if the site was designated by DOW a;s severe winter <br />range for deer or elk (which it probably is), I doubted that they <br />would support a land use change. I said they might: be more likely <br />to support elimination of the shrub standard if the land use was <br />not changed. He said he would check into that, acid might discuss <br />the possibility of eliminating the standard with DOW. He said if <br />elimination of the standard did not appear to be approvable, he <br />would prefer the "do nothing approach", recognizing that the bond <br />liability period would continue indefinitely. I was non-commital <br />about this, but for us to recognize that success standards will <br />likely not be achieved in the foreseeable future, Bind not push for <br />some type of augmentation or management to enhance success seems <br />somewhat irresponsible. On the other hand, I can't: get to excited <br />about defending a 1000 stem per acre standard to the Board on a <br />relatively small, previously reclaimed site such a.s this. If DOW <br />would sign off on elimination of the standard, I would not be <br />offended. <br />Let me know what you think. <br />cc: Larry Routten <br />Bill Carter <br />