2020-12-08_REVISION - M2008078 ‎(27)‎

• Permit No: M2008078
• IBM Index Class Name: REVISION
• Doc Date: 12/8/2020
• Doc Name Note: Part 3 of 6
• Doc Name: Request For Amendment To Permit
• From: Prowers Aggregate Operators, LLC
• To: DRMS
• Type & Sequence: AM2
• Email Name: AME
• Email Name: MAC
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

minimum required MLRB safety factors for non-critical structures. The proposed setback
of 50 feet from the edge of the conservation easement is satisfactory.
Case 6-2 - The resulting safety factors of 2.31 (static) and 1.82 (pseudo-static) during a
rapid drawdown condition exceed the minimum required MLRB safety factors of 1.5
(static) and 1.3 (pseudo-static) for critical structures. The resulting safety factors of 3.85
(static) and 2.68 (pseudo-static) during a full reservoir condition also exceed the
minimum required MLRB safety factors for critical structures. The proposed setback of
75 feet from the edge of the canal bank is satisfactory.
Case 7-1 - The resulting safety factors of 2.40 (static) and 1.92 (pseudo-static) during a
rapid drawdown condition exceed the minimum required MLRB safety factors of 1.5
(static) and 1.3 (pseudo-static) for critical structures. The resulting safety factors of 4.38
(static) and 3.05 (pseudo-static) during a full reservoir condition also exceed the
minimum required MLRB safety factors for critical structures. The proposed setback of
150 feet from the electric/gas lines is satisfactory.
Case 7-2 - The resulting safety factors of 1.58 (static) and 1.32 (pseudo-static) during a
rapid drawdown condition exceed the minimum required MLRB safety factors of 1.5
(static) and 1.3 (pseudo-static) for critical structures. The resulting safety factors of 2.99
(static) and 2.23 (pseudo-static) during a full reservoir condition also exceed the
minimum required MLRB safety factors for critical structures. The proposed setback of
80 feet from the edge of the canal bank is satisfactory.
Case 8-1 - The resulting safety factors of 3.15 (static) and 2.39 (pseudo-static) during a
rapid drawdown condition exceed the minimum required MLRB safety factors of 1.5
(static) and 1.3 (pseudo-static) for critical structures. The resulting safety factors of 5.42
(static) and 3.55 (pseudo-static) during a full reservoir condition also exceed the
minimum required MLRB safety factors for critical structures. The proposed setback of
145 feet from the electric/gas lines is satisfactory.
Case 8-2 - The resulting safety factors of 1.61 (static) and 1.33 (pseudo-static) during a
rapid drawdown condition exceed the minimum required MLRB safety factors of 1.5
(static) and 1.3 (pseudo-static) for critical structures. The resulting safety factors of 2.93
(static) and 2.19 (pseudo-static) during a full reservoir condition also exceed the
minimum required MLRB safety factors for critical structures. The proposed setback of
60 feet from the electric line/poles is satisfactory.
Case 8-3 - The resulting safety factors of 2.21 (static) and 1.77 (pseudo-static) during a
rapid drawdown condition exceed the minimum required MLRB safety factors of 1.5
(static) and 1.3 (pseudo-static) for critical structures. The resulting safety factors of 3.79
(static) and 2.70 (pseudo-static) during a full reservoir condition also exceed the
minimum required MLRB safety factors for critical structures. The proposed setback of
75 feet from the edge of road is satisfactory.
West Farm Gravel Pit Expansion
Slope Stability Analysis
Page 8