Laserfiche WebLink
SECTIONS FS REQUIRED AM NO. 4 AN II NO, 3 PERCENT <br /> BY BOARD REDUCTION <br /> P''OLICY 3 TO 4 <br /> y y= >1.5 1.41 2.39 41�n <br /> Z-Z' >1.5 1.44 2.85 49% <br /> 43%Average <br /> The chart above compares the factors of safety between the two plans, using the <br /> determinations of Zach Trujillo in his Memo of February 19,2019,to Tim Cazier. CMC ultimately <br /> convinced CDRMS to increase the factors of safety to 1.5,the minimum required,by promising that <br /> all fill to be used would be structural fill and compacted at one-foot intervals. But the factors of <br /> safety for Amendment No. 4 remain substantially lower than under Amendment No. 3. Allowing <br /> the substitution of a less safe reclamation plan was an error,especially in light of CMC's last-minute <br /> Amendment to the plan to change the ultimate use of the site from wildlife habitat to recreation. <br /> The factors of safety should be substantially increased, not decreased, based on that change of use. <br /> The Board wrongly believed it could not require CMC to honor its commitment to reclaim the site <br /> using the much safer and wiser Amendment No. 3 plan, because the Amendment No. 4 plan, after <br /> much effort, squeaked by the minimum factors of safety. The Board misunderstood its actual <br /> authority and its proper role and responsibility. <br /> The final decision rests with the Mined Land Wvio Board, iN hich should keep in <br /> mind: <br /> RULE 6.5(3): THE MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE SAFETY FACTORS WILL <br /> BE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE OFFICE, ON A CASE-BY-CASE <br /> BASIS, DEPENDING UPON THE DEGREE OF CERTAINTY OF SOIL OR <br /> ROCK STRENGTH DETERMINATIONS UTILIZED IN THE STABILITY <br /> ANALYSIS, DEPENDING UPON THE CONSEQUENCES ASSOCIATED <br /> WITH A POTENTIAL FAILURE, AND DEPENDING UPON THE <br /> POTENTIAL FOR SEISMIC ACTIVITY AT EACH SITE. <br /> 3 <br />