My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE100394
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
100000
>
PERMFILE100394
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 9:55:08 PM
Creation date
11/24/2007 7:02:13 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977424
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
4/25/1975
Doc Name
GARRETT OIL SHALE REPORT
From
MARK A HEIFNER
To
NORMAN R BLAKE
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
• LORADO III I II I I I II IIII III • ~~ _l ~ LI Z~ <br />April 25, 1975 <br />T0: Norman R. Blake 7 J~ <br />FROM: Mark A. Heffner ~~/~~~ 1 <br />SUBJECT: Garrett Oil Shale Report <br />The report seems to cover most facets of the problem but is a bit weak <br />in some areas. Generally, it appears fairly complete considering the <br />nature of the operation, but I do have a number of questions. As is <br />generally true of most proposed plans the mining plan is much more <br />complete than the reclamation plan. <br />1. (on page 4) It would be helpful to have a more complete wild- <br />life study. For example, what constitutes "numerous hawks"? <br />(i.e, what species?) What are the population levels ~.t various <br />seasons. They indicate "seasonal or year-long basis." Which <br />species are which? <br />2. The vegetation and soils section is reasonably good although <br />poorly written. It would be nice to see the botanical names <br />used as these common names can be misleading to a botanist <br />(e.g. there are two species of Mormon Tea in Colorado. Which <br />one are they talking about?) <br />3. Reclamation Plan <br />A. Although I cannot propose an alternative approach I believe <br />their method of disposal of the "muck" is objectionable. <br />I can see where they will create similar land forms to what <br />occur in the area, but the appearance of the dumps will be, I <br />suspect, quite different. In a natural landslide, generally <br />weathered material falls and it does not appear too different., <br />from the present talus. But the "muck" would be fresh, un~rfieci~~r'Q" <br />rock and when dumped would he readily apparent. it would be <br />nice to have some data that indicates how the colors change. <br />with weathering and how Long it takes for the change to occur. <br />I am not saying this approach should not be taken but that the <br />public has a right to know how long it will be before the dump <br />would blend with natural areas. <br />B. I feel they are being terribly presumptuous in reasoning that <br />the presence of vegetation on present talus slopes proves that <br />the revegetation of their dump is possible. It amazes me that <br />they would assume such a fantastic thing. They present no <br />data to indicate present vegetation on talus slopes is more or <br />less than in the past, how long the plants have been there, or <br />the conditions under which such natural vegetation invades a <br />talus slope. It seems very naive to assume this can be done <br />without examining the long-term history of natural invasion on <br />talus slopes. Personally, I doubt it could be done, but would <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.