Laserfiche WebLink
<br />the affected land, or which has a significant effect upon the approved or proposed <br />Reclamation Plan." <br />8. The Petitioner argued that there would be no additional off-site impacts caused by use of <br />the seep. The property where the seep is located is owned by the Petitioner. The access <br />road and the seep have been used historically by a mining company and by local fire <br />companies to fill fire trucks. That use would continue under the Petitioner's proposed <br />plan. <br />9. The Division argued that the use of trucks and other pumping equipment constituted <br />"affected lands" under Construction Materials Rule 1.1(6). Use of the seep could result <br />in other offsite impacts caused by water or fuel leaks. These factors indicate that the <br />Petitioner must file a permit amendment for the proposed change of water use. <br />10. On balance, the evidence suggests that any otf--site impacts will be minimal. The <br />property where the seep is located is owned by the Petitioner and has been used <br />historically for mining and fire suppression purposes. There will be no significant <br />disturbance as a result of the Petitioner's proposed use. It is therefore reasonable for the <br />Boazd to grant Petitioner's petition and order that the Petitioner's proposed use be <br />processed as a technical revision. <br />ORDER <br />Based on the foregoing facts and conclusions of law, the Boazd hereby grants the <br />Petitioner's petition and orders that the Petitioner's proposed use of water from a nearby seep be <br />processed as a technical revision, not a permit amendment. <br />Petition on Division Decision <br />Benson Bros., M-?005-071 <br />