|
] ~,
<br />F..
<br />•
<br />•
<br />~-3.Ir 94-4~1
<br />results, pa_*ticularly whe_2, as n?~, P.I.f~, took only two saimles trrzn ~'~_
<br />fines sto:.lc~ile, and a total of only fog sannles frsn the rh-ee stook-
<br />D~leS, Q_Sp=t~ tf'L Jt_,IfiL° p` irate_ial ~`IV,1 Ved. We *~L°_m=o±r. Set a51'Y~
<br />' the Decision insofar as it declares the tli^. sto.3c:ile to be subject to I~
<br />disposition Drily pursuant to the Coa[rtr: Varieties Ac*_. HiM has stated ~
<br />that A*~s > marts a*~e autho ~ze3 to aua^}• and ramve locatable grai ] ;,+,o-
<br />stone and to naricet i t for quali_`y~-ng uses, a*~d that *his au..l~r_' zatian
<br />encosoasses the locatable grade *++~n=+~~ i-s two stodmiles. S= HIS7 letter
<br />of February 25, 1994. ~ the record before us, we conclude trot the anttL-
<br />rization msst exten3 *_o the third sto,~mile as w=? ].. Ps to that t_h~~-d
<br />stocl~ile, although it is arnue3 trot t2 fines have "isnrediate sale vlue
<br />k*1LCL'7'1t f•,.L--ther prpcessi*sg" (SOR at 2), we obse_-ve that ~apellan*_s do not
<br />aver that the fines can be sold for a qualifying end use, an3 as noted, the
<br />record suggests the opposite cors:lusion. We hold t*~at Appellants nt3}' dis- I~
<br />pose of mi Hera 1 trate_rial from any or all of the stoGmiles , provided th_=y
<br />can show to 3II~!'s satisfaction that they can market it fo< qualifying end-
<br />uses. In these cimanstances, we find it unnecssary to decide whether
<br />the prsni.se of t^~s ai;ho=itatiat is trot th=_ stocimiles rarGir~ Pi:}:;n' s
<br />pers~al pra.,z-~~ after statutory a.'-an~~nt, or that M~ subsequently
<br />locates the Calcite mining claims, and accortengly, we do not reach the
<br />~r-its of o`,.he_ a_*atmmts advancea b~• Aauellants.
<br />i2} Ps to the pit desig:satign, tYL Materials Act c°_ 1947, 30 U.S.C.
<br />• § 601 (1994) , authorizes the Seaztary to prescibe Hies for the disposi-
<br />tion of mine_~al mate__als not subject toaisposal tm~ar the Gen>.r~l Min-
<br />ing Laws or other saw. Une mss of disposal established by regulaticts
<br />is the desig:,atior. of a can[unity pi*_. 43 C.F.R. § 3604.1. P1*houc$s HIM
<br />rosy not dispose of ~nA*•a! mate_-d.al frt:n public lanes where the_-s are arn•
<br />unnatented mining claims which have not beers ran^eled by appr~riate legal
<br />proceedings, 43 C.F.R. § 3601.1-1(a), r>_n fi,rthor proceedings are r~n,;ra-i
<br />when a mi.-sing claim has becgc[e a?-+~n~~^~ and voi3 for failure tq pay th_
<br />rental fee. See Ursited Sta*_es v. ?six, 136 ISLA 377 (1996) ; United States
<br />v. 3allas, 87 raT? 86 (1985) . 2Yser~efore, upon aband.°sm~nt of the Lian arxi
<br />Lyrix claims, the land `hP„a,n becaire open to the establishnslst of a cannai-
<br />ity pit, just as it also became subject to the locatia2 of MCP,'s new
<br />claims.
<br />Appellants contend that a stocl~ile is not a "deposit" subject to
<br />designation as a ccznna~ity pit. (S~t at 6.) TYse Canvas Varieties Act
<br />provides that "[n]o deposit of camnn varieties" is subject to location,
<br />30 U.B.C. .§ 611 (1994). C35 the other hand, the Materials Act, 30 U.S.C.
<br />§ 601 (1994) authorizes the Secretary to dispose of "m;naral ~teria7,s;~
<br />the word "d_~posit" does not aTTR=1PaT in that prevision. ~ Given our dispq-
<br />sition of this appeal, however, we leave for another day the QIIPCtion of
<br />whether a stockpile can constitute a "deposit."
<br />J DeCartmerstal regulation 43 C.F.R. § 3604.1 (a) provides as follows:
<br />"Ncas-exclusive m,n°rai msterial sales and free use under permit rosy be made
<br />• frtm the sarre deposit within the area designated by the authorized officer,
<br />and consistent with o, t,ar pzwisians of this part. '?hese desiggnated can-
<br />mmity pit sites or casrs~r use areas are not limited in size."
<br />148 ISIA 378
<br />
|