Laserfiche WebLink
ISIA 94-421 <br />power station as a sulfur dioadde scrubbing agent. MCR's Coal Mining Basin <br />Ca~lex ceased operation in January 1991 and the c~Y filed for bank- <br />ruptcy in 1992, <br />The State of Colorado sought to foreclose on the casp~any's recla- <br />mation bond for the coal mines, which was secured by the deed to the <br />Carbondale rvc}c dust plant. ~/ When the claims were a: a:,d.x,ed for fail- <br />ure to pay the rnntal fees, the Area Manager beca~re concerned that the. <br />abandm~ed claims would be relocated by another party with no interest <br />in supplying the plant. He believed that if this source of limestone <br />thereby became unavailable, it would devalue the ~,-w,.,~iaie rock dust <br />plant that secured the reclamation bond. By establishing a ca~minity pit, <br />BIM believed a source of supply for the rock dust plant could L~ assured, <br />with the expectation that the bond for reclamation would r'a[ain secure. <br />The background of this case can be found in a letter fran SLM to MCR <br />dated June 3, 1987. In May 1987, SIM had discovered that MCR was selling <br />"a small fraction of [MC12's] undersized waste material generated by the <br />[~niching and screening of the pit-run limestone for the size fraction to <br />be shipped as scnil~bing agent." BLM had confinred that this "waste' mate- <br />rial was sold to the County for use in road beds. The issue thus posed by <br />this discovery was frai[ed as follows: <br />With regard to the legality of such non-rnialifying end-use <br />sales under the mining laws, a review of the applicable case law <br />reveals that no siirect lecral precedent exists on the~uestion of <br />be disposed of for canron variety pusnoses. This situation has, <br />however, been examined by the * * * Regional Solicitor's Office <br />and they have advised us to allow "pit nm waste material frzzn <br />l rv~~tahlc li'racf-~nc r,rrvoccai fnr rni~iif~ri nrT c~lcc * # ~k to ib <br />otherwise valid." To further clarify this, two points mist be <br />made emphasized [sic]. First, the validity of the claim(s) mLSt <br />be maintained solely on the mining and marketing of locatable- <br />grade limestone for an aclmocaledged locatable end-use. Second, <br />3 Appellants contend that BI.M is in error in stating that the State is <br />set to foreclose on the bond, at least as the statement may relate to the <br />quarry. (Statement of Reasons (SOR) at 4.) Appellants note that the <br />reclamation bond to which the Area Manager referred was not the bond for <br />the quarzy, but the bond for MCR's coal mines. The recla¢stion bond for <br />the g„*n, is secured by a senior trust deed to the Cdale Industrial <br />Park. Appellants note that their quarzy permit is in "good standing," that <br />the quarzy is not being reclaimed, and that no order to begin reclatsiation <br />has been issued. Id. We agree that the bond that concerns BLM is not the <br />4~Y ~d- <br />148 IBLA 373 <br />