Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />Bill Carter <br />Page 3 <br />February 6, 1997 <br />14. MCC said they did not want to remove reference to the possible refuse area, although they <br />have no intention to build it. Christine said a revision proposing a new refuse area to the <br />east will be in very soon. They said they would put language in the permit indicating that <br />no refuse pile would be built on the pasture area until vegetation success standards have <br />been established. <br />MISC. <br />Mike said his 1996 data indicated the pasture looked like this (1996 was a relatively dry year, <br />according to the NWS precipitation data): <br />Vegetative cover: 38% <br />Litter cover: 48% <br />Production: 1138 pounds per acre <br />Dominant species (by cover) were intermediate wheatgrass, smooth brome and Kentucky <br />bluegrass. <br />I am not familiaz with typical hay or forage production in the North Fork area. Based on what I <br />know of those numbers in the northwest part of Colorado, this is fair cover and mediocre <br />production. During a wetter year and with better management, the numbers for this pasture <br />might increase significantly. If they do, management practices as well as precipitation should be <br />considered as variables affecting vegetative production. Otherwise, if 1996 serves as the "dry" <br />yeaz, the data could be skewed towazd the lower end due to the fact that the pasture may not have <br />been optimally managed and the presence of a significant amount of bindweed. <br />cc: Mike Boulay <br />David Berty <br />c:\wpwin\010697 <br />