8 IBLA 407 (1972). We recognize that the Board of Land Appeals has authority to reverse the fact findings of a Judge; however, where, as here, the resolution of a case depends primarily upon his findings of credibility, which in turn are based upon his reaction to the demeanor of witnesses, his findings will not be lightly set aside by this Board. State Director for Utah v. Dunham, 3 IBLA 155, 78 I.D. 272 (1971), and cases cited therein.

The contestees argue on appeal that all of their claims should have been validated in toto. Contestees assert that the Judge gave too much weight to the testimony of the mineral examiner, Robert B. Wilson, who testified on behalf of the contestant. The Judge found, and his finding is supported by the record, that the mineral character of the land embraced within the claims in issue was only established in connection with the stone found on the quarry which extended at most into the two 10-acre subdivisions of both the Arizona Picture Rock No. 2 and the Arizona Picture Rock No. 5. Wilson testified that neither by physical exposure nor by geological inference could it be determined how far the stone extended laterally from the quarry, although it did extend to some degree. As noted in the decision of the Judge, this testimony was uncontroverted. Thus, we are of the opinion that the Judge properly found that contestees had not established a discovery except on those portions of the claims. which the Judge validated. We dis

agree with the argument made by contestees that the Judge gave too much weight to the testimony of the mineral examiner. Contestees' argument is subject to the same rationale set forth above. State Director of Utah v. Dunham, supra; Forrest B. Mulkins, supra.

The decision of the Judge is supported by the preponderance of the substantial and probative evidence Nevertheless, the following excerpts of testimony are set forth, since they particularly buttress our findings.

Robert B. Wilson, the mineral examiner called by contestant, testified as followed on cross-examination by Lee Chartrand:

a

[Tr. 12]

Q. It is stated in this report that it's common variety of sandstone over [sic] wide occurrence.

Do you say that this stone is found other places?

A. Well, the Coconino sandstone formation is exposed in northern Arizona from, I suppose, from around Holbrook as far west as Seligman, that's a matter of 150 miles or so, all along the Rim, and places in Gila County and it's been

quarried in a great many places. I'd say

it was a widespread occurrence.

Q. Would you say this particular color and design in stone is widespread?

A. This particular coloring, I call it a kind of a-some of it has almost a purple cast in the coloring, has a tendency to cross the bedding rather than be along the bedding, and that type of coloration is, well, it's not does occur in other places. It's not widespread, no. This particular pattern of coloring is not particularly widespread.

[Tr. 138]

A. I don't know about the percentage but I believe I testified when I was on the stand before that this particular type of coloration does occur in other places. Where the outcrops have been deeply weathered, it does occur.

Q. Is it your testimony that this similar type of coloration occurs generally throughout the flagstone deposits in Arizona?

A. No, no, only in those places where the rock has been exposed to weathering for a long time and certain minerals are necessary to produce this type of coloration.

Q. Is this then, a common phenomenon or an uncommon phenomenon throughout the flagstone deposit?

A. This type of coloration is relatively throughout the Coconino

uncommon

sandstone.

Q. What is the reason it is relatively uncommon?

A. That I couldn't say.

The testimony of the witnesses called by contestees was, as could be expected, even more favorable on the issue of the uniqueness of the stone in question. We are of the opinion that all of the testimony on this issue supports the finding of the Judge that the particular type of Coconino sandstone on portions of the Arizona Picture Rock Nos. 2 and 5 possesses a unique property. While most Coconino sandstone occurs in solid shades of one color or another, the stone in issue not only occurs in variegated bands of several shades of color but the colors also occur in veins which are characterized as being vertical, i.e., generally running upward and crossing

the bedding rather than running parallel to the bedding. The occurrence of both of these properties in the same deposit of stone, as is evidenced by Contestees' Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J, gives the stone a unique property.

There was a considerable amount of testimony to support the finding of the Judge that the stone in issue commanded a higher price in the marketplace than other stone used for similar purposes.

Gage Keith Fink, whose business was the quarrying of different kinds of building stone, testified on direct examination by Lee Chartrand:

[Tr. 92]

Q. Did you ever try any sales of this stone on your yard?

A. Yes, we had one load of this stone in our yard. We sold one stone about the size of this larger one you split here today for $75, and we got a premium price out of all of it. All the stone we had we got a premium price.

On cross-examination by counsel for contestant, Fink testified:

[Tr. 96, 97]

Q. Now, what would the price in the stone yard be for ashlar veneer?

A. You just sell the stone *** I'd say this stone would probably sell for - it would have to be tried in that area, but we are getting $50 for many stones that are not as near as pretty as this.

On examination by the Judge, Fink testified:

[Tr. 99]

Q. What is the significance in the marketplace of the swirling-type coloring that's displayed in this flagstone? A. Its beauty.

Q. What does it do price-wise; how does it compare price-wise?

A. Oh, if you were to have an entrance put in a home and it would be the same as laying, almost, just laying cement, or laying something colorful, like laying a plain tile or a real decorative tile.

Q. I can appreciate that but what do people pay for one or the other? Is there a difference in the amount that they pay?

A. Definitely, definitely. In stones like this where we were selling retail at our yard flagstone at two cents a pound, we get five and six cents for this.

Q. Have you sold this type of stone for five or six cents a pound?

A. Oh, definitely, definitely.

Q. Whereas, you normally sell the solid-colored flagstone for two cents? A. Two cents.

Q.

*

[Tr. 101, 102]

* when this stone was shown to me I acquired some samples and immediately I sold it to some of my contractors * * * I contacted two or three of the people I knew * * * and one man *** had an interest in a stone yard up in that area, [Pacific Northwest] he was in that area on a sales trip and he immediately looked me up and he wanted an exclusive setup to handle this stone in his area. He told me at the time that price really wasn't any object. He said that at that time that normal regular Coconino flagstone, which a good bit of it moves out of Drake-Seligman-Williams area,

Finally, Hal Butler, whose primary business was in lumber, testified as follows on direct examination by Chartrand:

[Tr. 108]

*

A. *** [Chartrand] had taken me out to the quarry, and being a salesman all my life I was immediately sold on what I had seen at the quarry. I went so far as to take samples of it *** and on my calls to the customers in the lumber industry I would display, show them this. I didn't have a customer that I called on that didn't want truckloads of this rock.

So, on the basis of that I advanced Lee $5,000 to get me out some rock because I could sell it nearly everywhere I went.

Q. At the time I first showed you this and you contacted a few buyers, what did you give me an order for on this stone, how much did you give me? What order did you give me first?

A. I told you to get me out 100 ton immediately, that I had it sold, and it would bring approximately $55 to $60 a ton quarried, f.o.b. quarried.

It is conceded by contestant that a general market for stone exists in the area of the claims. Contestees, furthermore, presented receipts at the hearing showing actual sales of the stone. While these receipts only total between $250 and $300 the rec

ord discloses that contestees had several tons of stone sorted and piled but were thwarted in their attempts to market the stone because someone blocked the access road which extended from the claims to the highway. It was uncontroverted at the hearing that the road was blocked by a timber contractor. The real

bone of contention was whether the Forest Service authorized the blocking. In any event, we are of the opinion that the Judge properly found that the stone in issue could be marketed at a profit.

Although the Judge made no express finding that the land embraced within the validated portions of the claims was chiefly valuable for minerals under 30 U.S.C. § 161 (1970), we are of the opinion that such a finding is implicit in his decision. The only evidence presented by contestant on whether the claims in issue were chiefly valuable for minerals was the testimony of Leonard A. Lindquist, a timber staff officer of the Sitgreaves National Forest. (Tr. 41.) He testified that in his opinion the estimated value of the timber on all of the land embraced within the claims (560 acres) was $166,000. Contestant argues that this testimony supports an inference that the value of the timber on the validated portions of the mining claims (40) acres) is $11,440. Assuming arguendo that this inferred estimate were accurate, it must be inferred from the evidence that the value of the stone on the same 40-acre tract would far exceed $11,440. The min