PERMFILE116919

• Permit No: M1987027
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 3/4/1987
• From: BLM
• To: COLO QUARRIES
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

..

The General Mining Law of 1872 declared all public lands not othenaise
restricted to be open to entry and Location of claims for valuable mineral
deposits. There have been several modifications to that law since its
inception. The most significant modifications affecting volcanic ash and
other similar materials are the Material Sale Act of July 31, 1947 (61 Stat.
681) and the Multiple Surface Use Act of July 23, 1955 (69 Stat. 367). These
acts authorize the Secretary of Interior to sell common varieties of sand,
~s:6~on'e~ gravel, pumice, pumicite, cinders, clay and other materials. The act
of July 23, 1955 specifically prohibited the further location of common
variety minerals stating that such common varieties were not valuable mineral
deposits under the 1872 Mining Law and therefore not locatable. Claims
located for common varieties prior to July 23, 1955 were not affected by the
act if a discovery of a deposit which was marketable on that date could be
proven. In addition, the claimant must also demonstrate that the market for
that material continued to exist from July 23, 1955 to the present with only
minor interruptions allowed. The term "marketability" has been defined in
numerous legal opinions and decision and is generally as follows:
...Must show by reason of accessibility, bona fides in development,
proximity to market, existence of present demand, and other factors,
the deposit ie of such value that !t can be mined, removed, and
disposed of at profit.
If a discovery of a marketable mineral deposit did not exist on the date of
passage of the July 23, 1955 act, the claims must meet the much stricter
standards imposed on post July 23, 1955 claims. In such circumstances the
material must meet the marketability standard, and in addition, must be proven
to be an uncommon variety. The courts have defined an uncommon variety of
mineral material ae follows:
1. There must be a comparison of the mineral deposit in question with
other deposits of such minerals generally.
2. The mineral deposit in question moat have a unique property.
3. The unique property must give the deposit a distinct and special
value.
4. If the special value is for uses to which ordinary varieties of the
mineral are put, the deposit must have some distinct and special value
for such use.
5. The distinct and special value must be reflected by the higher
price which the material commands in the market place, or by reduced
cost or overhead so that the profit to the claimant would be
substantially more.
It would be our opinion that either the marketability or the uncommon variety
requirements would need to be met to allow this deposit to be mined under the
authority of general mining laws. If such requirements are not met, it would
be our opinion that continued mining of this deposit would he in trespass
unless an appropriate materials contract were negotiated with the BLM. It
would be necessary, based on current regulations, to obtain temporary
relinquishments of any applicable claims before such a materials contract
could be negotiated. '