Laserfiche WebLink
R <br />H / <br />fJ ~ • • <br />/^ <br />T~'A 94-421 <br />aYL7L1e5, the StO:~"7:1e5 d=CZ?t°:: t0 rh: realLV a']d i-vVe.-tcrn t;J L~7e Ltutec <br />States. (An-sw~-r at 11.1 <br />Because tze I_i~ an3 ',}Ta: claims wet located afro.- July =_ , ors <br />thry wE'Se subject to the Multiple Use Miring At'[ of 1955, also caile3 t~ <br />Cont[rs Va-ieties A.^t, Pub. i.. No. 167, 69 Stat. 367, sectiaz 3 of which <br />prmided as follows: <br />No a_wosit of co:nc~ varieties of sand, stone, gravel, <br />pumice, pumicite, e- cin3exs ~ * * shall be d_~e~i a valuable <br />d~oosit k~,.hin the mFan;ng of the miniIlg laws of the Unite3 <br />States so 2s to g~v2 effective valiaity to env mini,-fig claim <br />he_-eafter located un•iPr such mir ng laws: ~ri~~3, hcs.~Nr, 'Il~at <br />nothing inPTP;ri siali affect thhe validity of arty mining lo~..ation <br />baSB3 lSJOIl C?SCOV-~'V Of SCRE O`hpv mi nPral O^C1L^137g In Or In <br />asso^.iation with such a d_-posit. "Cam va*~ieties" does <br />not include aenosits of such materials which axe valuable because <br />the ~.aosit has sore prate-~• ai,=ng it distinc wad special <br />value. <br />30 U.S.C. § 611 (1999). <br />[11 ?!ie regulatory aefiritier. of "connnn varieties" p~~~aes, with <br />• t2so=ct to limestone, L'rat " [1] irrestone suitable for use in the manufacture <br />of cers~it, m?ta11u_-aicai or cius~tiical g2de liirestm~e, rn~osum, and the like <br />axe not ' cattt~ v-~ie;.ies . ' " 43 C . S .? . § 3711.1 (b) . nl`.:t~wg:. a deposit of <br />lirn?sto~ile ccay have physical pralr.sties u`~at m-~ke it am.r,a31e to those uses, <br />it wi-_1 stiL be consia_=_-~ a cearmn v~-iety if it is mi*~cetabLP a~ly for <br />use is th_ sacre way that orainaay varieties of tkL mi nP~-al are used. <br />United States v. Lease, 6 rota 11, 79 I.D. 379 (1972). <br />App_i ]ants deny ttat the sto^,.]~iles were s_lectively m; nxi frun a <br />laruer sectiaZ of nonlocatable 1i~stone and waste rock as PSM al_'eges in <br />the Octotr~ 1903 Merorandum to the State Director firm the Area Manager, <br />at 1. Specifically, Appellants state that the "screened fines are the <br />pxtrhict iwnaining after sc2eaLing Of the la^.atable quality limestone for <br />qualifying purposes. 'The larger sizes of auaLifie3 lirrestone stod~iles <br />in the quarry were extracta3 faun a locatable aeposits [sic1." (SOR at 4.) <br />In their Reply, Appellants state that the stockpiled material is "simbly <br />a snaller size caiponent of the locatable product mined which, because <br />of moisture amtent, partial soil amram;nation, or for other reasons is <br />srseened out of the primary pra>~ict and has an i~nrediate sale value without <br />fiirrhar pivicessing. " (Reply at 2.) Ho+~ever, A?~°l ]ants fi1TrhPT contend: <br />[W]here ownership is gained by extraction of a prtr2uct faun a <br />qualifies claim * * * tree*_ing the marketability test, it is not <br />the function or prerrogative of the BLM to follow disposition <br />of the entire t+zroduct to its end use and dis~m~n~te between <br />--• - qualified and non-qualified sales. 'This is not a situation of <br />mingling high grade and low grar~P prochict to produce a locatable <br />~: ~3 ~ _d~.: _ <br />:.. - - - ";;,~~~;;.:.;::_~..... 198 TRT.A 376 <br />.~~.,,,, ~ 7: a'K j,u .. <br />_ ~i_: <br />