ENFORCE34866 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

IBLA 94-421 results, particularly where, as here, HIM took only two samples fmn the fines stoc)~ile, and a total of only four samples frrxtt the three stock- piles, despite the volume of material involved. We therefore set aside the L7ecision insofar as it declares the third stoc}~ile to be subject to disposition only pursuant to the Cattton Varieties Act. HLM has stated that Appellants are authorized to quarry and rempve locatable grade lime- stone and to market it for qualifying uses,. and that this authorization encompasses the locatable grade mineral in two stockpiles.- See HIM Lett of February 25, 1994. On the record before us, we conclude that the autly rization msst extend to the thizd,stoc]~ile as well. As to that third { stoci~ile, although it is argued that the fines have "imrediate sale value without further processing" (SOR at 2), we observe that Appellants do not aver that the fines can be sold-for a qualifying end use, and as noted, the record suggests the opposite conclusion. We hold that Appellants may dis- pose of m;nea~ material frrxn any or all of the stocl~iles, provided they can show to HIM's satisfaction that they can market it for qualifying end- ures. In these circwnstances, we find it unnecessary to decide whether the premise of this authorization is that the stockpiles r~;n~ Pitkin's personal property after statutory abandonment, or that MCR subsequently located the Calcite mining claims, and accordingly, we do not reach the merits of other argiments advanced by Appellants. [2) AS to the pit designation, the Materials Act of 1947, 30 U.S.C. § 601 (1994), authorizes the Secretary to prescribe rules for the disposi- tion of m;neral materials not subject to disposal under the General Min- ing Laws or other law. One means of disposal established by regulation is the designation of a cat~nuLity pit. 43 C.F.R. § 3604.1. Although BLM may not dispose of mineral material fran public lands where there are any unpatented mining claims which have not been canceled by appropriate legal proceedings, 43 C.F.R. § 3601.1-1(a), no further proceedings are requirEd when a mining claim has beCC~ abandoned and void for failure to pay the rental fee. See United States v. Hix, 136 IBId: 377 (1996); United States v. Wallas, 87 IBLA 88 (1985). Therefore, upon abandonment of the Lson and Lynx claims, the land therein became open to the establishment of a ccmnui- ity pit, just as it also became subject to the location of MCR's new mining claims. Appellants contend that a stoGq~ile is not a "deposit" subject to designation as a cainnuLity pit. (SOR at 6.) The Camnn Varieties Act provides that "[n]o deposit of caimon varieties" is subject to location, 30 U.S.C. § 611 (1994). On the other hand, the Materials Act, 30 U.S.C. § 601 (1994) authorizes the Secretary to dispose of "mineral materials;" the word "deposit" does not appear in that provision. ~ Given our dispo- sition of this appeal, however, we leave for another day the question of whether a stockpile can constitute a "deposit.' J Deparnlrsital regulation 43 C.F.R. § 3604.1 (a) provides as follows: "Non-exclusive m;ner~l material sales and free use under permit may be made fran the same deposit within the area designated by the authorized officer, arxi consistent with other prrnri.sions of this part. 'These designated ccm- na.-rL;,ty pit sites or caimsi use areas are not limited in size." 148 IHLA 378