Laserfiche WebLink
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT JUSTIFICATION <br />Trapper Mining, Inc. <br />Trapper Mine -Permit Number C-1981-010 <br />Notice of Violation # CV-2003-004 <br />Carl B. Mount, Conference Officer <br />The Notice of Violation (NOV), CV-2003-004 was issued on June 5, 2003. The NOV was issued for the <br />following problem: <br />• Failure to comply with the currently approved mine plan. Specifically, Overburden was being removed <br />from G Strike Pit which was located outside the currently approved mine plan. <br />On July 29, 2003, an Assessment conference was held at 1313 Sherman Street, Room 215, Denver, <br />Colorado, 80203. In attendance, in addition to the Conference Officer, were Ms. Janet Binns, representing <br />the Division of Minerals and Geology (Division) and Mr. Frank Self and Mr. Jim Mattern representing <br />Trapper Mining, Inc (Trapper). Janet Binns presented testimony outlining the details of the violation as <br />stated above. Trapper presented reasons for limiting the civil penalty of $1,250.00 initially assessed for <br />the violation. These reasons pertained to fault and good faith efforts conducted by Trapper to correct the <br />problem. <br />The Proposed Civil Penalty by the Assessment Officer for NOV CV-2003-004 was: <br />• History $0.00 <br />• Seriousness $500.00 <br />• Fault $750.00 <br />• Good Faith 0.00 <br />Total Penalty Proposed $1,250.00 <br />After hearing the testimony and considering the evidence presented, I have come to the following <br />conclusions: <br />Histo <br />No penalty is appropriate for history. <br />Seriousness <br />I agree with the Assessment Officer that no evidence of damage was presented. However, potential for <br />damage is moderate for possible blasting in that the DMG had not, at the time of the violation, evaluated <br />the potential impacts related to the mining/blasting as part of the permit renewalJrevision application. I <br />propose no change in the proposed penalty for this aspect of the violation. <br />Fault <br />I disagree with the Assessment Officer in the finding of a high level of negligence. After reviewing the files <br />and hearing Trapper's reasons for mining in advance of obtaining approval, I believe that Trapper was <br />moderately negligent in proceeding with removal of overburden prior to obtaining approval for the revision <br />that was in process. Therefore, I believe that a penalty of $500.00 is more appropriate. <br />