Laserfiche WebLink
Finally, on page four of the response to the TDN, DMG denied <br />that Basin had failed to provide a detailed operations plan of <br />the underground workings, as required by State Rule 2.05.3(2), <br />which was cited in violation 3 of 3 of the TDN. DMG, while <br />inadvertently referring to State Rule 2.05.3(2)(b) as State Rule <br />2.05.4(2)(b), nonetheless showed that Basin had submitted <br />detailed maps and narratives to satisfy the requirements of this <br />rule. State Rule 2.05.3(2)(b1 requires the applicant to submit <br />with the application <br />a detailed narrative and appropriate map(s), prepared <br />according to the standards of 2.10, sufficient to <br />describe all proposed surface disturbances to be <br />associated with the underground mining activities <br />within the permit area. Each operation plan shall <br />include a narrative, cross sections, map(s) and <br />timetable(s) sufficient to describe the areal extent of <br />the proposed underground workings and the stratum to be <br />affected. <br />DMG attached documents to the TDN response showing that Basin had <br />submitted the required documents. As stated by DMG: <br />Pages 2.05-2 and 2.05-4 [of the permit] contain a <br />narrative describing the surface disturbance. In <br />addition, Map 12, Surface Disturbance and Post Mining <br />Land Use, shows the surface disturbance associated with <br />the mine facilities. Map 3, Golden Eagle Mine Plan, <br />shows the areal extent of the underground workings, as <br />well as the timetable for future mining activities. <br />Finally, Map 6, Geologic Cross Sections, shows the <br />geologic cross sections and stratum to be affected. As <br />a such, we believe that the permit is in full <br />compliance with Rule 2.05.3(2)(b). <br />4. OSM Finds DMG's Response Appropriate <br />Because DMG's Response <br />Was Not Arbitrary and Capricious <br />28 <br />