Laserfiche WebLink
noted that reclamation to this level maintains the road prism, and that utilization of the road foot- <br />print in the future by the public is not necessarily prohibited. You also noted that the Forest <br />Management plan is currently being revised, and that there is some potential that these roads <br />could be open for motorized use. However, any change to the plan would not take effect until <br />late 1999 or in 2000. Therefore, the Forest Service prefers that reclamation as previously <br />described by accomplished. <br />Regarding the Lamp House, I mentioned that the Division believes the reclamation plan requires <br />that all structures on the mine property be eliminated during reclamation. You noted that you <br />would not be adverse to leaving the Lamp House in tact, provided that funds be provided from a <br />third party for the purpose of accomplishing needed repairs of the structure, and for future <br />maintenance. We both agreed that it would be inappropriate to use reclamation funds for this <br />purpose. If the Lamp House became property of the United States, the Forest Service would <br />prefer that the structure be demolished if repair and maintenance monies were not made available. <br />Thank you for your time discussing these reclamation issues. Please feel free to contact me if you <br />have questions or comments. <br />Steven G. Renner <br />Project Manager <br />cc: Michael Long <br />David Bucknam <br />Cheryl Linden <br />