Laserfiche WebLink
energy fuels coal, inc. ~ <br />southfleld mine post oHlce box 459 Florence, coloratlo 91226 (719) 784.6395 <br />Mazch 29, 2005 RECEIV€D <br />Mr. Kent Gorham -Reclamation Specialist APR 0 8 2005 <br />Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology <br />1313 Sherman Street -Room 215 <br />OWielon of Minerals end Geology <br />Denver CO 80203 <br />RE: RATON CREEK MINE -Permit No. C-82-055 <br />GRAZING PLAN/GRAZING PRACTICE <br />Deaz Kent Gorham: <br />This letter is to express concern regarding the actual grazing practice compared to the <br />Approved Grazing Plan for the Raton Creek mine reclamation project. In your Inspection Report <br />dated December 8, 2004, you report that Mr. Iuppa stated he had put three cow calf pair and one <br />bull on the reclaimed site about November 1 and removed the cattle on or about November 25. <br />Mr. Iuppa had told me approximately the same thing - -that the cattle grazed the reclaimed site <br />only a short period of time, that forage had dried so they removed the cattle. <br />While Iwas at the reclamation site on December 14, 2004, the cattle entered and grazed <br />through the site. Mr Iuppa was present at the time. Again, when I was at the site on February 22, <br />2005, cattle were on the site and it was evident the entire site had been grazed. Of particular <br />impact was the stockpile footprint and the sedimentation pond area where the cattle ingress/egress <br />and have compacted trails to and from the central portion of the reclaimed area. <br />Energy Fuels purchased ample amounts of baled hay for Iuppa's to feed their cattle <br />through the winter (2004 - 2005) as well as the previous winter (2003 - 2004). The intent of <br />course, was to appease Mr. Iuppa's complaint of the length of grazing time designated per the <br />`approved' Grazing Plan (8 Animal Unit Months; =two months) for the 2004 season. Regardless <br />of the purchased hay, the site was heavily grazed as well. <br />Having lack of control concerning grazing and use of the reclamation site and the lack of <br />cooperation from the landowner as evidenced, meeting the goals of the vegetation criteria and the <br />subsequent bond release request, the results for the project are thereby impaved. Energy Fuels <br />submits that these factors should be considered when evaluating the conclusion of the project. As <br />you know, Mr. Iuppa continually expresses that his preference is for Energy Fuels and the <br />Division to be off his property and that he be free of the ensuing regulation of the reclamation <br />project. <br />Sincerely, <br />~v i ~~~ <br />~V. Patterson "--- <br />Gen Mine Mrg <br />