2002-05-28_REVISION - M1976020

• Permit No: M1976020
• IBM Index Class Name: Revision
• Doc Date: 5/28/2002
• Doc Name: Rationale for Approval Recommendation
• From: DMG
• Type & Sequence: AM1
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

Rationale for Approval Recommendation May 20, 2002
Four Comers Materials, Inc.
AM-O7. Thomas Pit. Permit No. M-1976-020
the capacity of the floodplain and reduce peak flood flow as a result of the excavation
and removal of material from the floodplain.
The application demonstrates compliance with the performance standards of Rule
3.1.513-, which requires all grading to be done in a manner to control erosion and siltation
of the affected lands, to protect areas outside of the affected land from slides and other
damage.
7. Wi// future in-stream mining activities adversely impact the pond proposed in
AM-O 1 ? (Dan Jamesl
Future in-stream mining activities will occur in accordance with permit conditions and the
Act and Rules. Permit conditions define the boundaries within which alluvial materials
may be extracted, the depth of extraction, method of extraction, and the grade of the
channel bottom which must be maintained throughout the extraction area. Mining and
reclamation activities must also comply with the performance standards of Rule 3.1. The
conditions of the approved permit and requirements of the performance standards of the
Act and Rules appear sufficient to ensure that future in-stream mining activities not result
in adverse impact to the pond proposed in AM-01.
8. Comments regarding the app/icanYs right to utilize Animas Consolidated
Ditch water for uses other than agricultural purposes. (Ott-AO0OJ
The applicant has clarified that water, necessary to support mining activities, will be
procured from sources other than the Animas Consolidated Ditch.
9. Comments indicating a history of water rights being adverse/y affected b y
mining activities at this location. Adverse impact to Wa//ace irrigation ditch from
previous operator. /Ritz, Mayo1
DMG records do not support these allegations.
DMG has not received notice from agencies with jurisdiction to enforce water rights, of
adverse effects to water rights resulting from previous permitted mining activities. DMG
has investigated the operation in response to citizen complaints, specifically regarding the
Wallace irrigation ditch. DMG determined that adverse impact to the Wallace irrigation
ditch could not be attributed to permitted mining activities. Therefore, DMG had no
jurisd+ction in the issue.
DMG has received conditions for approval of AM-01 from the Office of the State
Engineer, Division of Water Resources (DWR-. The applicant has affirmatively stated that
7