Laserfiche WebLink
IBLA 228, 232 (August 5, 1994). A detailed discussion explaining <br />why OSM-AFO was correct in its determination is provided below. <br />a. Violation 1 of 3 <br />Concerning the alleged failure to conduct a subsidence <br />inventory pursuant to State Rule 2.05.6(6)(a), DMG showed that <br />Basin had conducted a subsidence inventory and that the inventory <br />included the Tatum property <br />DMG submitted documentation to <br />support that assertion. <br />Concerning the alleged failure to properly conduct a <br />subsidence survey, subsidence monitoring plan, and subsidence <br />control plan, DMG showed that, under the Colorado program, Basin <br />was not required to submit a subsidence survey or subsidence <br />control plan. DMG further showed that Basin had, in fact, <br />submitted a subsidence monitoring plan and had properly conducted <br />subsidence monitoring according to the terms of its permit. As <br />provided at State Rule 2.05.6(a)(i), if the initial subsidence <br />inventory reveals that no structures or renewable resource lands <br />exist on or adjacent to the permit area, no further information <br />on subsidence needs to be provided under the Colorado program. <br />If the initial inventory does reveal the presence of structures <br />or renewable resource lands, however, State Rule 2.05.6(6)(b)(i), <br />as quoted below, requires the operator to conduct a "worst <br />possible consequences" analysis to determine if material damage <br />30 <br />