GENERAL32200

• Permit No: M1982121
• IBM Index Class Name: General Documents
• Doc Date: 4/22/1994
• Doc Name: STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR APPEAL
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

"Community Pit" was improper and not warranted under the statute or
regulations.
This distinction is confirmed in United States v. Charles
Pfizer & Co., (1969) 76 ID 331.
30 USCS 612(b) includes, inter alia the following:
"Rights under any mining claim hereafter located under the
mining laws of the United States shall be subject, pzior to
issuance of Patent therefor, to the right of the United States
to manage and dispose of the vegetative surface resources
thereof and to manage other surface resources thereof (except
minerals deposits subject to location under the mining laws of
the United States). Any such mining claims shall also be
subject, prior to issuance of patent therefor, to the right of
the United States, it's permittees, and licensees, to use so
much of the surface thereof as may be necessary for such
purposes or for access to adjacent land: Provided, however,
that any use of the surface of any such mining claim by the
United States, it's permittees or licensees, shall be such as
not to endanger or materially interfere with prospecting,
mining or processing operations or uses reasonably incident
thereto:"
In the case of the United States v. Kenneth McClarty 17 IBLA
20,8110472 involving a contest as between locatable minerals vs.
Common Varieties claims it is stated at Page 474:
"Common Varieties of stone have not been locatable under the
mining laws since the enactment of the Act of July 23, 1955,
supra, 30 U.S.C. Paragraph 611 (1970) provides:" (Here the
statute is quoted).
The opinion continues:
"The enact (sic) of 30 U.S.C. Paragraph 611 affected only
common varieties but left the Act of August 4, 1892, 27 Stat.
348,30 U.S.C. Paragraph 161 1970), entirely effective as to
building stone that has some property giving it distinct and
special vaiue."
In the case, the Forest Service had made a withdrawal and
issued a permit under the Materials Act to a man named Pope and it
is stated at page 484:
"Pope's only demonstrated interest in the property in question
was by virtue of a special use permit issued to him by the
Forest Service under the Materials Act, supra. This statute,
however, provides that the only material which may be sold
under its authority is that which is not subject to disposal
under other statues, especially referring to 'the United
7