Laserfiche WebLink
sought to make that change by submitting a technical revision pursuant to Construction <br />Materials Rule 1.9. The Division denied the technical revision on the grounds that the <br />changes to the approved reclamation plan were significant enough to require a permit <br />amendment pursuant to Construction Materials Rule 1.10 rather than a technical revision. <br />The Petitioner appeals the Division's decision to the Boazd pursuant to Construction <br />Materials Rule 1.9.2 and Construction Materials Rule 1.4.11. <br />3. Prior to the Boazd's approval of the Petitioner's permit application in June 2001, the <br />Petitioner and the Division exchanged correspondence concerning changes to the post- <br />mining land use. In letters dated February 22, 2001 and April 5, 2001, the Division warned <br />the Petitioner that lining the proposed lakes and converting them into lined storage <br />reservoirs would require an amendment to the permit. The Petitioner acknowledged the <br />Division's position and respectfully disagreed, but also stated that the Petitioner would <br />"apply to the Division if lining becomes an option." See April 5, 2001 correspondence from <br />Petitioner to Division. <br />4. The Division recommends denying the Petitioner's appeal because the proposed changes to <br />the reclamation plan are significant enough to trigger permit amendment requirements and <br />because the Petitioner was forewarned that lining the proposed lakes would trigger the <br />amendment requirement. <br />5. Because the Division specifically warned the Petitioner that changes to the post-mining land <br />use in the form of lining the proposed lakes would require a permit amendment, and because <br />the Petitioner acknowledged the Division's position in correspondence prior to the <br />Division's approval recommendation, it is appropriate to deny the Petitioner's appeal of the <br />Division's decision requiring a permit amendment. The proposed modifications will have a <br />