INSPEC43433

• Permit No: C1981044
• IBM Index Class Name: Inspection
• Doc Name: Citizens Request for Inspection ‎(Rule 5.02.5)‎ ‎(E-mail)‎
• From: Ray Barker
• To: DMG
• Inspection Date: 2/1/2004
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

Binns, Janet
From: Ray Barker [[e-mail]]
Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2004 6:27 PM
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Barker Property
Janet -
Below are my fathers thoughts in regazds to the reclamation ongoing, attached aze exhibits he refers to.
Also, I was incorrect when I told you we had not heazd from I2AG. After we talked, our lawyer informed us
that Cory had left her a message late Wednesday night. Hopefully they will be connecting via phone Monday
Thanks for all your time. See below for Brad's comments.
Janet
The purpose of this communications is to express to you my concerns about what RAG International is doing currently in
the form of a partial reclamation operation. My information is based solely on pictures I have received of their ongoing
operations, maps that you have supplied me, and the reclamation requirements. I hope that the attachments supplied and
my letter will allow you to understand my concerns.
Several sections in the reclamation documents referred to the fact that the Mining Company must use the best possible
mining practices in order to do the least damage to the surface property. In my understanding that means that the
property should be restored, if at all possible, as close as can be to what it was prior to the mining operation. Exhibit A.
clearly shows that a portion of the property in front of the mine mouth was at one time used as cropland, and the land
adjacent to it rises only slightly according to the elevation lines. If I read the documents properly it clearly states that all of
the land disturbed, with the exception of the haul Road is to be restored to its original character. This means that at some
future date the buildings will be removed, the tracks and the railroad ballast will be removed and all of the land will go
back to meadow, as it once was.
All of the maps as well as aerial photographs and satellite photos show that the portion of my land which is located in the
Williams Fork River Valley, was atone time part of the alluvial plane (meadow) the original elevations are shown on the
original permit map, exhibit C. I understand that reclamation requires that the Mining portal be closed, I also understand
that all reclaimed land must be contoured to the proper slope to prevent erosion and allow for new foliage to grow.
However what I see in the photographs that I have received from Colorado shows a quantity of fill far in excess of
anything that would be required to close the opening to the old mine. It appears to me that they are projecting a 1 to 2
slope starting at the elevation of the existing haul Road and the working pad of the mine. It is my understanding that upon
final reclamation the pad area will be lowered to the original Valley floor level, this would require projecting the slope even
further out in order to maintain the required grade. The net result of this partial reclamation of the permit area would
create a loss of considerable usable ground for me.
The enclosed map, Exhibit D and exhibit A. shows that the haul Road does not extend to the mine mouth, which means
that the area beyond that of the haul Road is to be at Valley floor level after reclamation. If the intentions of RAG
international are to create a completed reclamation of just the Barker property so that they no longer are required to
access our property, they are doing it in such a manner that it destroys the value of the property far beyond what a normal
and complete reclamation of the area would be. In addikion I feel that they are simply using our property as a place to
dispose of excess materials that they ultimately will be required to remove from the Valley floor.
I hope you understand that the Contour and usability of that portion of our property located in the Williams Fork Valley is
very important to any future utilization of this property by us. This is the only portion of our property which has direct
access to the highway and as such will in the future form the access corridor to the rest of our property.
Understanding that the goal of your agency is to prevent damage to the land while protecting the rights of both the
property owners and the mining companies I would ask you to take a close look at what RAG is doing, as well as the
situations that have brought us to this point. Is the damage that they are doing to the property, by turning more of it than
2/3/2004