Laserfiche WebLink
to or diminution of reasonably foreseeable use of structures and <br />renewable resource lands could occur: <br />The application shall include a determination of <br />whether subsidence, if it occurred, could cause <br />material damage or diminution of reasonably foreseeable <br />use of such structures and renewable resource lands. <br />In this instance, since subsidence was not predicted to occur, <br />Basin determined, under State Rule 2.05.6(6)(b)(i), that <br />subsidence could not cause material damage or diminution of <br />reasonably foreseeable use. Since Basin had determined that no <br />material damage or diminution of reasonably foreseeable use could <br />occur, State Rule 2.05.6(6)(b)(ii), quoted below, required Basin <br />to monitor for subsidence, in accordance with State Rule <br />2.05.6(6)(c), in order to verify the accuracy of the <br />determination that no material damage or diminution of reasonably <br />foreseeable use would occur: <br />If the description of worst possible subsidence <br />consequences, prepared in accordance with Section <br />2.05.6(61(b)(i), determines that no material damage or <br />diminution of reasonable foreseeable use could result <br />in the event of mine subsidence within the permit and <br />adjacent areas, and if the Division concurs with that <br />conclusion, the application shall include a monitoring <br />program designed to determine the accuracy of that <br />conclusion, as described in Section 2.05.6(6)(c). <br />As stated by DMG on page 2 of its response, Basin was required to <br />include a subsidence monitoring plan in its application. Under <br />the Colorado program, Basin would have been required to submit a <br />subsidence survey and/or a subsidence control plan only if the <br />worst possible consequences analysis determined that material <br />damage or diminution of reasonably foreseeable use could occur. <br />See State Rule 2.05.6(6)(b)(iii). <br />31 <br />