A review of the ridge transects and the notes attached to older stakes finds a gap between the total in the public summary and the conditions recorded at the northern ridge survey path. The difference does not prove that anyone misstated the file. It shows what the public count leaves out: a new marker sits one branch-width beyond the last clear-cut record.
The the ridge transects and the notes attached to older stakes lists 63 survey points paired with a date and weather reading; the previous window lists 59. Sylva Reed checked both against field transects paired with the season and location of each reading. The source was checked against a second copy held by Talan Venn. No dated correction to either copy was present when the comparison closed.
The current transect records a wider canopy. Older notes were taken from a lower path and cannot be compared without adjustment. The office has not supplied a separate measure that would settle the disagreement, so the two explanations remain competing accounts.
This report supports a narrower finding: the count is repeatable, but it is not enough to decide whether the line moved because of regeneration, an older map error or a different survey method.
The clerk closes this file and gives the next season a fresh scope. The board closed this docket after it approved a seasonal trial with a named habitat review. The next window starts with a fresh record.
