Laserfiche WebLink
~ \ <br />Mike Long <br />page 2 <br />This proposal should he approved with the imposition of a completion deadline <br />of six months following approval of Che permit. If the applicant is willing <br />to amend the application to include such a decline commitment it would then <br />be unnecessary to include such a stipulation within the findings document. <br />Subsidence Evaluation: <br />~. <br />The amended application includes a brief subsidence projection and <br />evaluation, including a Wilson method pillar stability calculation based <br />upon testing of coal compressive strength. The calculation determined a <br />pillar stability factor of safety of approximately 1.3 under the heaviest <br />applied overburden thickness loading above the proposed underground workings. <br />The applicant indicates that no structures or renewable resource lands, <br />other than grazingland, erist within the area of possible subsidence affects. <br />If you concur with this opinion, no further information would be required <br />to comply with Rule 2.05.6(6). Roy Cox should be able to assist you in <br />judging the accuracy of this assertion by the applicant. <br />If you concur with the applicants' opinion of no structures or renewable <br />resource lands above the workings, t(re application would be acceptable as <br />it exists. Zf you do no concur with the applicants' opinion, the applicant <br />will have to develop an appropriate subsidence control plan or subsidence <br />survey evaluation with monitoring proyram. In either case the applicant <br />would have to include an expanded discussion of worst possible consequences <br />of subsidence occurrence and more detailed subsidence projections. <br />cc: Ed Bischoff <br />