McCall v. Andrus
| Citation | 628 F.2d 1185 |
| Decision Date | 10 July 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-1065,78-1065 |
| Parties | William A. McCALL, Sr., and the Estate of Olaf Henry Nelson, Deceased, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Cecil D. ANDRUS, Secretary of the Interior of the United States of America, John S. Boyles, District Manager, Bureau of Land Management; William J. Malencik, Chief, Division of Technical Services, Bureau of Land Management; E. I. Rowland, State Director, Bureau of Land Management; Curt Berklund, Director, Bureau of Land Management, being agencies of the United States Department of the Interior, United States of America, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
William B. Murray, Portland, Or., argued, Rex Jemison, on brief, Beckley, Singleton, DeLanoy & Jemison, Las Vegas, Nev., for plaintiffs-appellants.
Robert L. Klarquist, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., argued, for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court For the District of Nevada.
Before HUG and FARRIS, Circuit Judges, and McNICHOLS *, District Judge.
William McCall and the estate of Olaf Nelson appeal the dismissal on summary judgment of their suit seeking review of the decision of the Interior Board of Land Appeals that portions of their mining claims are invalid because not mineral in character. They contend 1) that the application of the so-called "ten-acre rule" by the Board was improper, 2) that the Board's decision is not supported by substantial evidence, and 3) that granting summary judgment was improper because there was a dispute concerning material facts. We affirm.
In 1953, McCall and Nelson filed an application for a patent to a group of mining claims in the Las Vegas valley, asserting that the claims were valuable for mining sand and gravel. They received patents for parts of five claims, known as Las Vegas Nos. 1, 2, 7, 18 and 27. In 1964, the Interior Department filed a contest complaint alleging that the remaining portions of these claims were not mineral in character. Applying the so-called "ten-acre rule," under which each ten acres of a claim must be shown to be mineral in character, the hearing examiner found that the challenged portions of the claims were not mineral in character and dismissed the patent application as to those areas. The Interior Board of Land Appeals, acting on behalf of the Secretary of the Interior, affirmed the examiner regarding the challenged portions of Las Vegas Nos. 7, 18 and 27, but reversed this determination as it related to Las Vegas Nos. 1 and 2. The Board directed that the challenged portions of those claims be added to the patented portions. United States v. McCall, 7 IBLA 21, 79 I.D. 457 (1972). McCall and the estate of Nelson (McCall) then filed this suit in district court and a magistrate heard and recommended granting the Secretary's motion for summary judgment. The district court adopted the magistrate's findings and McCall appealed.
McCall contends that the ten-acre rule is beyond the statutory authority of the Secretary and that, even if the rule is valid, the Board erred because it based its decision that the challenged areas were not mineral in character on the absence of actual mining on the tracts. McCall argues that absence of actual exploitation is irrelevant and that he need only show that a market existed for sand and gravel.
McCall did not raise his contention that the ten-acre rule exceeded the Secretary's authority in his opening brief. We will not ordinarily consider issues raised for the first time in a reply brief. See American Meat Institute v. Environmental Protection Agency, 526 F.2d 442, 459 (7th Cir. 1975); Mississippi River Corp. v. F. T. C., 454 F.2d 1083, 1093 (8th Cir. 1972). Further McCall did not object to the magistrate's recommendation that the trial court find the rule was neither discredited, unreasonable nor unsound in its concept. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Such a failure to bring the issue before the trial court bars McCall from raising it here. In any event, we find the contention to be without merit.
McCall's right to a patent for the claims is based on 30 U.S.C. § 22 which allows citizens to purchase lands in which valuable minerals are found. 30 U.S.C. §§ 35 and 36 restrict the maximum size of a placer mining claim to twenty acres per individual, up to 160 acres for an association claim. These sections do not provide, however, that land within a placer claim that does not contain valuable minerals can be purchased under § 22. The Interior Department has held:
Considering all the statutes relating to mining claims it seems clear that it was not their purpose to permit the entire area allowed as a placer claim to be acquired as appurtenant to placer deposits irrespective of their extent.
American Smelting & Refining Co., 39 L.D. 299, 301 (1910). The Department established a rule that, when challenged, the claimant must show that each ten-acre tract on his claim contains a valuable mineral. Id.; United States v. Bunkowski, 79 I.D. 43, 54-55 (1972). Since federal land is platted in ten-acre tracts, ten acres is a reasonable unit. "A court faced with a problem of statutory construction should give great deference to the interpretation of a statute by the . . . agency charged with its administration." Brubaker v. Morton, 500 F.2d 200, 202 (9th Cir. 1974).
The validity of a mining claim is established either by the granting of a patent upon application by the claimant or through contest proceedings initiated by the government. See Ideal Basic Industries, Inc. v. Morton, 542 F.2d 1364, 1367-68 (9th Cir. 1976). If the validity of the claim is contested, the claimant must prove that he has made a "discovery" of a valuable mineral deposit thereon. To do so, the claimant essentially must show that the mineral is "marketable" in that it can be mined, removed and disposed of at a profit. Verrue v. United States, 457 F.2d 1202, 1203 (9th Cir. 1972). Only one discovery per claim must be shown. 43 C.F.R. § 3842.1-1. However, if the character of the land is also challenged in the contest complaint, the claimant must show that each ten-acre tract contains a deposit of the mineral under the ten-acre rule. The rule does not require, as McCall argues, that a discovery be made on each ten-acre tract contrary to regulation. Proof of "discovery" requires a showing of an exposed mineral deposit on the claim while "mineral in character" may be proved by geological inference coupled with market availability. California v. Rodeffer, 75 I.D. 176, 180-81 (1968).
McCall's contention that the Board based its decision on the absence of actual mining is incorrect. The Board adopted the conclusions of the hearing examiner who stated:
It is only those tracts with a deposit which can be extracted, processed, and marketed at a profit in competition with other deposits that are valuable and mineral in character. The contestees believe that the caliche material can be blasted and processed at a competitive price at the present time. (The contestees) have received a patent for 230 acres which has over three and one-half million yards of sand and gravel in every ten feet of depth. If they had a market for this amount they would have a reserve supply for one hundred years.
The contestees offered no evidence to suggest that they had a market for any more than this amount of material either in 1948, 1953, or 1955. Without an expanded market it was not economically feasible to produce the material on the contested tracts. Consequently it had no value as a mineral prior to July 23, 1955.
This is a proper application of the test for determining whether land is mineral in character. The test is whether
(t)he known conditions at the time of (the patent)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCarthy v. Manson
...interpreting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and the specificity requirements of Rule 2, Local Rules for Magistrates). See also McCall v. Andrus, 628 F.2d 1185, 1187 (9th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 996, 101 S.Ct. 1700, 68 L.Ed.2d 197 (1981) (waiver of appellate review); Park Motor Mart, Inc. v......
-
Erickson v. Luke
...objections before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985); McCall v. Andrus, 628 F.2d 1185 (9th Cir.1980), cert. denied 450 U.S. 996, 101 S.Ct. 1700, 68 L.Ed.2d 197 (1981); Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School District, 708 F.2d 4......
-
West Coast Truck Lines, Inc. v. Weyerhaeuser Co.
...(judicial determination whether agency factual finding is supported by substantial evidence is a question of law); McCall v. Andrus, 628 F.2d 1185, 1189-90 (9th Cir.1980) (quoting Dredge Corp. v. Penny, 338 F.2d 456, 462 (9th Cir.1964) ("A judicial determination of whether a finding of fact......
-
Celaya v. Stewart
...U.S.C. ? 636(b)(1)(A) (objections are waived if they are not filed within ten days of service of the R & R), see also McCall v. Andrus, 628 F.2d 1185, 1187 (9th Cir.1980) (failure to object to magistrate's report waives right to do so on appeal); Advisory Committee Notes to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 ......
-
CHAPTER 5 EXAMINATION OF TITLE TO UNPATENTED MINING CLAIMS
...74 Interior Dec. 292 (1967). [111] 613 F.2d 224 (9th Cir. 1980). [112] Id. at 229. [113] 57 IBLA 167 (1981). [114] Id. at 210. [115] 628 F.2d 1185 (9th Cir. 1980). [116] Id. at 1188. [117] See Geomet Exploration, Ltd. v. Lucky Mc Uranium Corp., 124 Ariz. App. 60, 601 P.2d 1344 (1979), rev'd......
-
CHAPTER 14 CURRENT CHALLENGES TO OBTAINING EXPLORATION, MINING, AND ASSOCIATED RIGHTS TO PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LANDS
...Baker, 23 IBLA 319, 335, GFS (MIN) 9 (1976). [82] Baker v. United States, 613 F.2d at 229. [83] 57 IBLA 167, GFS (MIN) 278 (1981). [84] 628 F.2d 1185 (9th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U. S. 996 (1981). [85] 57 IBLA at 210. [86] Solicitor's Op. M-36984, "Excess Reserves Under the Mining Law......
-
CHAPTER 8 HOW WILL THE NEW 3809 RULES WORK IN THE FIELD?
...the claimant establishes by preponderance of the evidence that the claim meets the requirements of the mining laws. See McCall v. Andrus, 628 F.2d 1185 (9th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 996 (1981). ...