Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br />regarding the existence of a qualifying market for the limestone <br />from these deposits. However, as MCR has not attempted to mine <br />and sell any of the in-place limestone to anyone, the BLM has <br />determined that there is no present need to investigate the <br />validity of the Calcite claims. For this reason, the BLM <br />concluded that it would be premature to contest the validity of <br />the seven Calcite claims. Instead it wrote its February 25, <br />1994, letter to MCR to warning it not to sell any of the waste, <br />common variety, limestone or any of the uncommon variety <br />limestone for anything other than a "qualifying locatable-grade <br />end use." <br />In their SOR, the appellants take the position that all <br />of the processed mineral materials within the quarry are the <br />property of Pitkin. For the reasons expressed below, the BLM <br />submits that this position is incorrect as a matter of law. The <br />appellants also appear to argue, however, that the material in <br />all of the stockpiles, including the waste stockpile, is an <br />uncommon variety of limestone subject to location undeF the <br />mining laws and that it may sell all limestone, regardless of <br />grade and market, found within the boundaries of the Calcite <br />claims. If this is MCR's position, its appeal raises disputed <br />questions of fact, and the Board may conclude that this matter <br />must be referred to the Office of Hearings and appeals for the <br />purpose of conducting a hearing. <br />With the above in mind, the BLM submits the following <br />as its Answer to the appellants SOR. <br />3 <br />