Laserfiche WebLink
~. • <br /> <br />Mr. Jay Lucas <br />April 20, 1982 <br />Page 2 <br />The lower benches will be reclaimed in the same manner as the currently <br />approved quarry. <br />4. Please refer to Exhibit G and the additional information in the <br />attached !Dater Resource Consultants report. <br />Exhibit E - Reclamation Plan <br />~1. The source of fill shown on the bench cross section is from the <br />mining operation as explained above in D. 3. <br />,~2. This site will be retained in private ownership. The operator has <br />no plans to deed any portion of the site to any other person or govern- <br />mental agency. <br />,y~3. Please refer to Exhibit G and the additional information in the <br />.~' attached Water Resource Consultants report for methods to minimize <br />~i ~ impact to the hydrologic balance. <br />4. Internal drainage will be similar to the existing quarry. Any mois- <br />ture which would fall within the quarry itself would be expected to filter <br />downward out of the quarry through fractured rock or would be evaporated <br />over a very short period of time. No catch basins are contemplated other <br />than those shown as structure in the Water Resource Consultants report. <br />5. Water diversion structures will remain as a part of the reclamation <br />plan. <br />Exhibit G - Water Information <br />1. The state engineer has not been contacted regarding storage rights <br />since no storage is planned or contemplated. <br />Exhibit L - Reclamation Costs <br />The major difference between costs in amendment #1 and this submittal is <br />that the movement of overburden from newly disturbed areas will go <br />directly to the recently completed bench area as a part of the mining <br />operation as previously explained. <br />