2022-02-08_REVISION - M2008078

• Permit No: M2008078
• IBM Index Class Name: Revision
• Doc Date: 2/8/2022
• Doc Name: Adequacy Review Response
• From: Brannan Sand and Gravel Company, LLC
• To: DRMS
• Type & Sequence: SO4
• Email Name: SMS
• Email Name: AME
• Email Name: MAC
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

(static) and 1.3 (pseudo-static) for critical structures. The resulting safety factors of 2.96
(static) and 2.20 (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 6-1 -The resulting safety factors of 1.39 (static) and 1.17 (pseudo-static) during a
rapid drawdown condition exceed the minimum required MLRB safety factors of 1.3
(static) and 1.15 (pseudo-static)for non-critical structures. The resulting safety factors of
2.60 (static) and 1.97 (pseudo-static) during a full reservoir condition also exceed the
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.
' West Farm Gravel Pit Expansion
Slope Stability Analysis
Page 8