Laserfiche WebLink
IBLA 94-421 <br />arrniac, the stOClCpiles accreted to the realty and reverted to the United <br />States. (Answer at 11.) <br />Eecause the Lion and Lyme claims were located after July 23, 1955, <br />they were subject to the Multiple Use Mining Act of 1955, also called the <br />Ca[[mn Varieties Act, Pub. L. No. 167, 69 Stat. 367, section 3 of which <br />provided as follows: <br />No deposit of caimon varieties of sand, stone, gravel, <br />pumice, pumicite, or r~nAarc * * * shall be deemed a valuable <br />deposit within the m=_aning of the mining laws of the United <br />States so as to give effective validity to any mining claim <br />hereafter located under such mining laws: Provided, however, That <br />norh;^g herein shall affect the validity of any mining locati~ <br />based upon discovery of sore other minaral pc~g jn or Zn <br />association with such a deposit. "Caimrai varieties" * * * does <br />not include deposits of such materials which are valuable because <br />the deposit has sore Property giving it distinct and special <br />value. <br />30 U.S.C. § 611 (1994). <br />[1] The regulatory definition of "cUTmlCdi varieties" provides, with <br />respect to lurestone, that "[l]imestone suitable for use in the manufacture <br />of ceirent, metallurgical or rfianical grade limestone, gypsum, and the like <br />are not `camnn varieties."' 43 C.F.R. § 3711.1(b). Although a deposit of <br />limestone may have physical properties that maloe it amenable to those uses, <br />it will still be considered a comnn variety if it is marketable only for <br />use in the same way that ordinary varieties of the m;nA,-ai are used. See <br />United States v. Lease, 6 IBLA 11, 79 I.D. 379 (1972). <br />Appellants deny that the stockpiles were selectively mined from a <br />larger section of nonlocatable limestone and waste rock as SLM alleges in <br />the October 1993 Mesrorar~un to the State Director faun the Area Manager, <br />at 1. Specifically, Appellants state that the "screened fines are the <br />product rs[raiiiing after screening of the locatable quality limestone for <br />qualifying purposes. The laraar sizes of qualified limestone stockpiles <br />in the quarzy were extracted fran a locatable deposits [sic]." (SOR at 4.) <br />In their Reply, Appellants state that the stockpiled material is "silly <br />a smaller size ca~gxaient of the locatable pmchict mined which, because <br />of moisture content, partial soil conta-nination, or for other reasons is <br />screened out of the primary product and has an ;mmx~;ate sale value without <br />r,~rrhar processing." (Reply at 2.) However, Appellants fi~rrfior contend: <br />[W]here ownership is gained by extraction of a product from a <br />qualified claim * * * meetincr the marketability test, it is not <br />the function or prerogative of the BIM to follow disposition <br />of the entire product to its end use and digf7-im;nate between <br />qualified and non-qualified sales. This is not a situation of <br />mingling high grade and loea.grade product to prpd<ice a locatable <br />148 ISLA 376 <br />