Laserfiche WebLink
w V <br /> Yet ' .�` :�ra.{°•,s <br /> 104 <br /> y _.• s <br /> CMC's past practices when filling Area H (using "clean" but not "structural" fill) fail to <br /> meet the more stringent requirements for structural fill only to be used in Area H under Amendment <br /> No. 4. That failure invalidates the assumption used by CMC when it calculated(and barely passed) <br /> the factors of safety, and invalidates the assumption regarding safety factors relied upon by the <br /> Board when approving Amendment No. 4. The first 200 feet of the buttress wall have not been <br /> completed as required or promised, as the area was filled under Amendment No. 3 standards, not <br /> Amendment No. 4 standards, and it is too late to reverse course. <br /> IV. FAULTY COST ASSUMPTIONS USED FOR AMENDMENT NO. 4 - NEW <br /> EVIDENCE <br /> At the hearing CMC promised the Board that all of the fill needed for Amendment No. 4 <br /> was available on site and would not need to be acquired and transported and,therefore, related costs <br /> to acquire, transport and handle the additional fill need not be considered in the bond calculation. <br /> Finding No. 22 of the Order indicates that"Applicant estimated needing 3.7 million cubic yards of <br /> material to complete AM4's reclamation plan and testified that all of the necessary fill material is <br /> on site." The only evidence of the availability of that material on site was CMC's unsupported <br /> claims. And those claims changed repeatedly during the review process. In the initial submittal for <br /> Amendment No. 4, CMC asserted that "fill material will come from imported material, grading of <br /> slopes throughout the site and removal of granitic materials from the upper portions of the quarry <br /> 6 <br />