Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />T 94-411 ;~:"; <br />"'!(~ <br />[3i Appellants suggest that BLM may not establish a coamsity pit <br />because the mining permit issued by the State of Colorado ~~n= in <br />effect. (Reply to Answer at 4.) Fiowew-, after ~~e aran~rm~,=.,t of tYL <br />. ." Lion ar3 Lvrix claims, MCR and Pi*_kir: as C_~«I's lessee and operatpr could <br />assert np greater right of use and octupancr against the [7nited States than <br />CF&S itself could assert. As Congress has the exclusive power under the <br />Pxopexry Clause to "dispose of and m<31ce all noa9fiil Rules and Regulations <br />respecting" public land, the fact that Pi*..kin ~y possess a mining pe-ndt <br />issues by a state gove..^ment giaes it no additional rights with respect to <br />the claims that BLM Host recognize. Because neither C~&I, MCR2, nor Pitltin <br />could aoa» *p any i nternst in the axp~ clai~red by any ac*_ short of na)dz~g <br />d neW location, th=v Can aSSeYt nO gry~Ler right Lhan aIIV Other DeZ5OY1 Who <br />cail.d have located a new claim, and such a right caiaiot relate t~eJc to a <br />tore pr_or to the date of location. 'Bois, whop HIM established the cttnnm- <br />1tV pit Gn OCtODeZ' 21, 1993, 1t did 50 On land fOr WY11C.~1 Appellants COUld <br />no longe_- asser~ a ;rat;d possessory interest. <br />_ [4] As we stated earlie=, the Mate_.ia1s ?pct does wt authori_e the <br />disposal of locatable ntz~"a].s on land subjec*_ tc location, only =amr,~n <br />~Tdr7.etV minas is, and rr~+,a the land subject to the cainur~i,at,.y~ pit '~~*~i <br />open to location for uncatnras va~eties of 1i~restone. ihu]e< 43 C.F.R. <br />§ 3604.1 (b) , ho<.rever, " [*_i he desianatian cf a cannsLi*_y pi*_ c~stitutes a <br />su~Yior right to r~rn~e material as against any subsequent claim or entry <br />of the "Lands," aw t.~^=fore anv :ignts a"ising fr,~n subsequently locat=d <br />claims are subor.,inate to the camnuity pit. Ir1 Rn}w+-t L. P+k?*]d_ann=i 1, <br />127 T-' n i3 (1°O3) , peal d? smisse3 with o'?ivdice, ~v. No. Cti-S-93-9?2 <br />~LRL (D. Nev. Sept. l7, 1993), We affi-med a BLM decisiaz that disan- <br />pzoved minim coe_rations by a mining claimant wittvSl tit boundary of a <br />c~msi~~ pit until the pit designation wzs te_-urinated. BLM prvper'ly aey <br />preclude a mining claim~it faun conaucting mining operations wit:^.in the <br />axes of the pit until the pit designation is terminated, and if mini'lg <br />operations are allv~aed, BIM can ~+,; --e the claiin3nt to establish t`sat <br />the rtrina~al mined pursuant to an appr.%ved plan of opezations is a locat- <br />able ~ a and that sales will be to aualifySng markets. <br />'Ihe2foxe, pursuant to the authori~~ delegated to the BQai4 of Land <br />Appeals by th_ Secetaxy of t',e Inter_cr, 43 C.F.R. § 4.1, the Decision <br />appealed faun is affirtred insofar as it authorizes Appellants to dispose <br />of mate^..al fran two stocl~iles and is set asiae insofar as it denies <br />Appe~3L1t5' author_zation to dispose of Hate-,~a1 frun the third stoclmile. <br />i <br />~ /, ' <br />~3'. Brit?--~i <br />Acaniriistrati.2 Judge <br />I concur: <br />H. ?Celly <br />Araninistrative edge 148 IBLA 379 <br />