Laserfiche WebLink
IBLA 94-421 <br />[3l Appellants suggest that BIM may not establish a camunity pit <br />because the mining permit issued by the State of Colorado .,~„a;n~ in <br />effect. (Reply to Answer at 4.) However, after the abandcaarnnt of the <br />Licm and Lynx claims, MCR and Pitkin as CF&i's lessee and operator could <br />assert no greater right of use and occug~icy against the United States than <br />CF&S itself could assert. As Congress has the exclusive pacer under the <br />Property Clause to "dispose of and make all naar~f+,i Rules and Relations <br />respecting" public ].and, the fact that Pi.tkin may possess a mining permit <br />issued by a state gavenarent gives it no additional rights with respect to <br />the claims that BIM must rer Tn;ze. Because neither CF&S, NKR, nor Pitkin <br />could acquire any interest in the area claimed by any act short of making <br />a new location, they can assert no greater right than any other person who <br />could have located a new claim, and such.a right cannot relate back to a <br />time prior to the date of location. TtnLS, when BIM established the ccn[iun- <br />ity pit on October 21, 1993, it aid so on land for whiu'Z Ap~llarta could <br />no longer assert a valid possessory interest. <br />[4] AS we stated earlier, the Materials Act does not authorize the <br />disposal of locatable minerals on land subject to location, only commn <br />variety m;naral s, and thus the land subject to the CaRnuiity pit rx~n~; nar9 <br />open to location for uncamm~ varieties of limestone. Under 43 C.F.R. <br />§ 3604,1(b), however, "[t]he designation of a ccnmuzity pit constitutes a <br />superior right to rennve material as against arty subsequent claim or entry <br />of the lands," and therefore any rights arising fmn subsequently located <br />claims are suL~rdinate to the cannuiity pit. In Robert L. Mendenhall, <br />127 IBI,A 73 (1993) , anneal dismissed with ~reiudice, Civ. No. CV-S-93-912 <br />LDG-LRL (D. Nev. Sept. 17, 1993), we affirmed a SLM decision that disap- <br />proved mining operations by a mining claimant within the bolII'xiary of a <br />casm.uLity pit until the pit designation was terminated. BIM properly may <br />preclude a minim claimant fran conducting mining operations within the <br />area of the pit until the pit designation is tPn*+inated, and if mining <br />operations are allowed, BIIvI can re<-~iira the claimant to establish that <br />tj~ mineral mincr3 rntrcmcant to an apprL7Ved plan of Opel3ti.OnS 15 a lOCat- <br />able mineral and that sales will be to qualifying markets. <br />Therefore, rn~r'c~iant to the authority delegated to the Board of Land <br />Aprnals by rlk Secretary of the Interior, 43 C.F.P.. § 4.1, th= Decision <br />appealed fran is affirmed insofar as it authorizes Appellants to dispose <br />of material fran two stockpiles and is set aside insofar as it Aenies <br />Appellants' authorization to dispose of material fran the third stoc]cpile. <br />i /~~{"~ , <br />JP. Britt-~73. <br />~rimi ni Rtratj,~ Judge <br />I Concur: <br />Gr+~ <br />H. Kelly <br />Administrative udge 148 IBLA 379 <br />