## Facts

- Holders of unpatented mining claims asserted rights to sand and gravel deposits on federal land about thirteen miles from Las Vegas, Nevada.
- The Department of the Interior initiated an administrative contest, asserting the deposits were not “valuable mineral deposits” because they were insufficient in quantity, quality, and market accessibility to constitute a valid discovery.
- A hearing officer initially ruled for the claimants.
- Rival applicants seeking the same land for non-mining uses under the Small Tract Act intervened and appealed; the Director of the Bureau of Land Management reversed the hearing officer.
- The Secretary of the Interior sustained the Director and rejected the mining claims.
- The claimants sought judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act; the district court granted summary judgment for the Secretary, and the claimants appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether intervention by rival Small Tract Act applicants in the Interior Department contest was improper or prejudicial.
2. Whether the claimants could obtain judicial review of an asserted procedural error where they withdrew, and did not renew, a request to inspect a confidential document used by a government witness.
3. Whether the APA’s “proponent” burden-of-proof rule required the government to carry the ultimate burden of persuasion in a mining-claim contest.
4. Whether the Secretary misinterpreted the mining laws by requiring proof of present market value rather than allowing prospective market value to establish a “valuable mineral deposit.”

## Decision

- The court affirmed summary judgment for the Secretary, leaving the administrative rejection of the sand-and-gravel claims in place.
- Intervention by rival Small Tract Act applicants was proper because they were interested parties with a competing claim to the land.
- The document-access argument was not reviewable because counsel withdrew the request and failed to renew it after the hearing officer indicated he would rule for the claimants if asked again.
- The Secretary correctly allocated burdens in a mining-claim contest: the government must first present evidence sufficient to make a prima facie case, after which the claimant bears the ultimate burden to prove a valid discovery by a preponderance of the evidence.
- The court found no basis on the record to overturn the Secretary’s determination concerning the “valuable mineral deposit” requirement, including the claimants’ present-versus-prospective value argument.

## Legal Principles

- Competing applicants for federal land under the Small Tract Act may intervene in Interior Department proceedings contesting mining claims as interested parties.
- A party that withdraws an objection and does not renew it when invited waives the issue for purposes of judicial review.
- In a mining-claim contest, the claimant is the “proponent” of the requested administrative order recognizing a valid claim; after the government makes a prima facie showing, the claimant bears the ultimate burden of persuasion.
- A mining claimant who has not met statutory requirements has not acquired title; until those requirements are satisfied, title remains with the United States.
- The “valuable mineral deposit” inquiry turns on demonstrated value and marketability considerations reflected in quantity, quality, and market accessibility, not merely speculative future prospects.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit upheld the Secretary of the Interior’s rejection of sand-and-gravel mining claims and confirmed that, under the APA, mining claimants bear the ultimate burden of proving a valid discovery once the government establishes a prima facie basis for contesting the claim.


Foster v. Seaton, 271 F.2d 836 (D.C. Cir. 1959)