**Mining Claim Use and Occupancy Management**

**Course 3000-64**

**BLM National Training Center Telecast**

**September 11-13, 1996**

This transcript is from the closed-captioning file produced during the
telecast.

It may contain errors in transcription and omissions.

Day 1 begins here

Day 2 begins on page 60

Day 3 begins on page 128

The Bureau of Land Management Satellite Network Presents Live From the
BLM National

Training Center in Phoenix, Arizona: Today\'s Instructors Are: and Now
the Host of Your

Program, Matt Shumaker.

Good Morning, Everyone and Welcome to the BLM National Training Center.
Today\'s

Telecast Is Mining Claim Use and Occupancy Management. We\'ll Be Having
a Look at the New

Mining Claim Use and Occupancy Regulations at 43 CFR 3715. Our
Instructors Will Be Rick

Deery and Scott Murrellwright. Rick Deery Is the Principal Author of the
New Regulations.

He\'s Also a Long‑time Instructor On Mining Law at the Training Center
and He Does a Great

Job Of Putting Things into Perspective. Good Morning, Rick.

Good Morning, Matt.

Scott Murrellwright Has Considerable Experience in Dealing with Mining
Claim Uses And

Occupancies. He Has a Unique Outlook as a Result. Good Morning, Scott.

Good Morning, Matt.

Joining Us Later Will Be Dennis Mclane, the Chief Ranger From Boise,
Idaho and Bob

Gibson, Geologist from the Nevada State Office. I Would Also like to
Introduce You to Elmo

Which Is the Brand Name of Our Overhead Projector. We\'ll Be Using it
Quite a Lot. We Want

You to Participate as Much as Possible. We\'ll Conduct this Course over
Three Days and We

Have Time for Questions and Answers. We\'ve Received Some Questions
Already, and We\'ll

Try to Work Them In. If We Can\'t Answer Your Question On the Air Today,
We\'ll Get Back

To You Once the Class Is over. Now, Let\'s Take a Look at the Class
Notes. We Sent One

Double‑sided Master To Each Office That Contacted Us Through Groupwise.
It Should Have

Been Duplicated For Each Person Attending this Week\'s Broadcast. I
Apologize for the Short

Turnaround Time Available to Your Office. However, We Had to Generate
the Entire Program

from Scratch, Including Training, in less than Three Weeks. This May Be
a New Record. Your

Notes Are in Six Sections And All Are Double‑sided. Sections after the
Introductory Material

Are Hand‑numbered in Sections D, M, S, L and G. We\'ll Be Referring to
Those Page Numbers

as We Proceed. Most of the Charts and Examples That We Show You on the
Elmo Are Also

Included in Your Notes. We\'ll Probably Need to Send You Overnight
Updates F You Haven\'t

Faxed Us a Groupwise Address for Your Location Yet, Please Do So Right
Away. There Will

Be Two Ways for to You Participate. We\'ll Ask for Telephone Calls
During the Course. That\'s

Your Cue to Call Us at The Number in Your Course Notes. When You Call,
We Ask That You

Stay Away from Your Television Or Turn the Sound down. Don\'t Get
Frustrated If You End

Up on Hold. Your Question Is Important. Steve Fetchner and Michael Horn
Will Be Our Phone

Operators and Will Get to You as Soon as They Can. You Can Send Us a Fax
Question At

Any Time. Use the Form in Your Course Notes. Be Sure to Print Your
Question With a Dark

Marker. In Either Case, We Encourage You To Use Real‑life Situations in
Your Questions.

Fax and Call‑in Telephone Numbers Are Listed in the First Few Pages of
Your Notes. If You

Don\'t Have a Fax, Call Us And We\'ll Write Your Question Down. Mining
Claim Use and

Occupancy Is a Fascinating New Program Without a Lot of Easy Answers. So
Let\'s Get Right

Tight. Notes for this Section Include The Regulations and the Remaining
Page Numbers in the

Section Have the Letter D in Front of Them. Rick, Are You Ready?

I Suppose I\'m as Ready as I\'ll Ever Be.

Well, Take it Away.

Well, the Regulations That Are in Front of You Are Listed As Part 3710.
The Section of the

CFR That Regulates Activities under Public Law 167, the Act of July
23rd, 1955. Specifically,

We Found a Subpart For These Regs at 3715, and Entitled the Regs Use and
Occupancy under

the Mining Law. Now, Why Did We Get These Regulations? And for What
Purpose Did These

Regulations Arrive on Your Doorstep? Well, Quite Simply, Because of
History. We Have a

Problem. The Problem Is a Long‑standing One. It Is One That Requires Us
to Take Three

Steps. First, We Have to Start Managing Occupancy and Stop Just React to
Go Occupancy.

Second, We Have to Integrate the Management of Future Occupancies Into
Our Many and

Varied Surface Management Jobs. And Last, We Need to Regularize The
Management of

Existing Occupancies. This Problem Was the Problem That Director Jamison
Promised The

Congress in 1990 That We Would Get Around to Solving. Now, What Caused
Us to Get These

Regulations? In Large Part, We Owe it to Geology. Geology Requires That
a Miner Occupy a

Site to Occupy the Ground. And the Mining Law Recognizes This Fact in
the Very Second

Sentence. Unfortunately, So Do Folks Who Want to Get Some Land Even
Though They Have

No Right to It. Now, Who Are These Folks Who Want to Get Some Land and
Have No Right

to It? Well, Historically We\'ve Called Them Squatters. They Have Been
Around Prior to The

Republic\'s Creation. They Were There in Colonial Times. They Have Been
There Prior to The

Mining Law. They Probably Occupied the Second Mining Claim Ever Located
Under the

Mining Law, and They Have Been Increasingly a Difficult Problem,
Particularly Over the Last

20 Years Where Hunger for Land Has Been Replaced by Criminal Activities.
These Regulations

Are Aimed at Squatters and We\'re Going to Remove Squatters from the
Public Lands by Doing

So We Will Help The Legitimate Miner. The Legitimate Miner Is Not
Endangered by this Rule.

The Squatter, on the Other Hand, Is the Primary Target of this Rule.
Now, How Did We Come

to These Regulations? Well, Back in 19 ‑‑ in the Late 1980s, Gao Did a
Series of Investigations

at the Behest of Many of the Members of Congress, And in Particular, the
House Interior

Committee Was Doing a Whole Series of Investigations On the Mining Law.
One Such

Investigation Focused On Illegal Occupancy. This Was Done at the Request
of Chairman Nick

Joe Rayhall of West Virginia, and in August of 1990, the Gao Report
Mentioned In the

Preamble to the Regulations Was Published. That Report Became the
Catalyst For These

Regulations. The Report in Graphic Detail Explained That Illegal
Activities, Drug Labs, Illegal

Squatting Was Ongoing on the Public Lands. The Report Also Found out
That There Were

Activities out There That Were Not Mining but Were Being Conducted under
the Guise Of the

Mining Law. Chairman Rayhall Did What Any Good Chairman of a
Subcommittee Would Do.

He Held What\'s Known as an Oversight Hearing. An Oversight Hearing Is a
Hearing That

Looks to the Issue At Hand, Even Though There Is No Pending Legislation.
It Is Part of a

Process on the Hill Known as Building the Record. At That Hearing,
Testimony Was Given by

All Interested Parties, And the Government Was Represented by the
Director, the California

State Director, the Foe Some Area Manager. And All Three Agreed That
There Was a Problem

and All Three Agreed That There Needed to Be a Solution. In the Course
of His Testimony,

Director Jamison Promised to Give the Field Offices the Tools They
Needed to Begin Solving

the Problem of Occupancy and to Begin Managing Future Occupancies. At
the Same Time,

Director Jamison Was Strongly Supportive Of the Legitimate Miner. He
Stressed That the

Legitimate Miner Has Oftentimes a Need to Reside on the Land, Not Just
Occupy, but to

Reside on the Land. Subcommittee Members, Notably Larry Thomas, Now in
the Senate ‑‑

Craig Thomas ‑‑ No, Larry Craig, I\'m Sorry, Senator Larry Craig,
Observed That Occupancy

Was a Detestable Problem but That Even Though We Were Going To Solve the
Problem, We

Also Need to Do Remember That People, The Citizens, Had Due Process
Rights and Those

Due Process Rights Had to Be Preserved. Everyone Present, Including the
Director, Agreed

with this Concept. Well, Having Made That Promise, Director Jamison Then
Returned To His

Office and Began to Give Out Instructions. Those Instructions Ultimately
Filtered down to My

Desk. Hillary Oden, Then Our Assistant Director for Mineral Resources,
Created a Task Force

to Composed Of Forest Service Headquarters Personnel, BLM Personnel from
The Field and

from the Washington Office. The Task Force Was Composed of Myself, Bob
and You Are Sun,

Alan Rabinoff, Dennis Mclane, Who Will Be Here Later, and Jack Bills of
the Forest Service

Washington Office. The Task Force Met for Several Days in DC in mid
October to Work out

the General Principles Of a Rule and Put Together a Set Of Draft
Regulations and Then Went

Home. Now, What Did That Rule That They Worked On, That We All Worked
On, Do? Well,

We Took a Slightly Different Tact on this Rule. We Said We Wanted to
Have a Rule That Had

Some Teeth to It. We Built a Rule That Was More Substantive than
Procedural. We Built a

Rule That Recognized That Miners, Legitimate Miners, Work in One of the
Most Heavily

Regulated Areas and Have to Deal With a Plethora of Permits. Mclaughlin
Mine in Northern

Nevada Had to Achieve a Compliance with Something on the Order of 236
Permits Before They

Could Go into Operation.

Rick, I Think Mclaughlin Is In California, Isn\'t It?

Northern California? Where Did I Say?

You Said Northern Nevada. Mclaughlin Is Either in Two or Three Counties.

Yes, I\'m Sorry. Thus We Decided to Create a Rule That Would Leverage
this Existing

Rule‑making Environment. Now, What Authorities Did We Use? Well, We Used
a Couple of

Different Authorities, but We Have Primarily Four Authorities: Four
Authorities That Provide

The Basis of this Rule Are the Mining Law, 30 Us Code 22, 43 U.S. Code
1061, the Unlawful

Enclosures Act, 43 U.S. Code 1730, FLPMA, and 30 U.S. Code 612, the
Surface Resources

Act.

It\'s Important to Note, Rick, The People Don\'t Need to Be Writing this
Information down.

You Have this in Your Packets.

this Is All Included with the Handouts, and it Is in the Regulations
Themselves at 3715. It\'s

Several Pages Back from the Beginning.

Now, with this Mixture of Rules, We Set out to Create Some Forms under
Which We Would

Work. The First Question That the Task Force Wrestled with What Lands
Were Going to Be

Covered by the Rule? Forest Service Let it Be Known Early on That They
Were There as

Observers and They Did Not Want To Have this Rule Applied to Their
Lands. Thus, the Only

Rules That Lands That this Rule Applied to Are Those Administered by
BLM, and That Is

BLM Surface. This Does Not Include Lands That Are Stock Raising
Homestead Lands. Those

Lands Are Not Subject to This Rule. Well, Having, Then, Crafted That
Particular Set of Draft

Language And Draft Principles, We Then Said \"What Else Do We Need?\" We
Then Decided

That We Have Two Kinds of People That We Had to Deal With: the First
Group of People

Were the Obvious New Occupants, Those People Who Were Going to Come
Through the Door

Once These Regs, If They Ever Went Final, Went ‑‑ Were to Go Final Would
Have to Address

the Rules. That Meant We Had to Dovetail This Regulation into the
Surface Management

Regulations, and We Did So. The Second Part of the Equation Is the
Existing Occupants. It\'s

Been 41 Years since the Passage of the Law Known as Public Law 167, and
for 41 Years Only

One Small Section of the Regulations at 43 CFR 3712 Stood For Anything
Related to That

Aspect of Mining Law Administration, and it Simply Said You Have to Be
Reasonably Incident

and You Can\'t Use Your Mining Claim for Anything Other Than Mining or
Reasonably Incident

Purposes. But it Had No Penalties, it Had No Procedures, and it Had
Nothing in There That

We Could Get Our Teeth into to Push the Squatter off the Public Lands,
And this Was Painfully

Evident In the Process That Became Known As the Crawford Process. It Was
Slow, it Was

Cumbersome, It Gave Us a Couple of Good Cases, but it Didn\'t Give Us
Any Of the Big

Victories That We Really Needed. So We Had to Find a New Way to Deal
with That. So, We

Then Said, the Existing Occupancies Will Have to Be Treated the Same as
the New

Occupancies. And They Will Have to Come into Compliance. However, We
Will Have to Give

Them a Schedule to Come into Compliance. Basically We Dealt with the
Existing Guys the

Same We Deal With the New Guys, but the Difference Was We Would Take a
Go Slow

Approach Because They Had 41 Years of the Government Looking the Other
Way. Okay. It\'s

Great. You\'ve Developed a Set of Rules. You\'ve Developed a Set of
Regulations. Where\'s the

Beef? Where\'s the Teeth? Well, in this Particular Case, We Decided That
this Rule Had to

Have Teeth That Didn\'t Exist in The Surface Management Regular Legs,
and We Built in from

the Get‑go Criminal Penalties, and You\'ll See a Citation to FLPMA
Criminal Penalties Section

and a Citation to a Legal Authority That BLM Does Not Often Use, and
That Is Title 18, U.S.

Code 1001 Federal Felonies. We Have Built Considerable Teeth Into this
Rule. Now, Just

Getting a Task Force Together and Flinging out a Set Of Rules and
Getting Them Numbered

the Way They\'re Supposed to Be Numbered and Getting Some Rough Language
Doesn\'t Make

a Rule, Because Sure Enough, Somebody in Management Is Going to Want to
Take a Look at

It, and So We Did Some More Work. We Did a Lot More Work. We Did Some
Substantial

Engineering. The Washington Office Took the Product, Did Some
Restructuring, Some General

Editing, and Basically Talked the Rule Through the Solicitor\'s
Department, Through the

Department\'s Solicitors in a Draft Phase. The Draft Was Then Given to
the Bureau\'s

Management Team, a Term We Don\'t Use Anymore, the BMT, And Their
Concerns and Their

Other Inputs Were Plugged into The Patrolled Rule. Of Particular Concern
to the Bureau\'s

Management Team Was the Situation That Confronted Them In Alaska. And
How to Authorize

Unlawful Occupancies. Well, We Dealt with That, and The Draft Rule Was
in Place and Ready

to Be Surnamed ‑‑ this Is An Infamous Term for Anyone Who Has Ever
Worked in Washington

‑‑ This Is Where One Goes Begging For Somebody\'s Signature as Being in
Concurrence with

Your Proposal ‑‑ in 1990. Throughout the First Half of 1991, the Rule
Was Cussed and

Discussed in the Surnaming Process in Just about Every Part Of the
Department, and Not Only

Did We Talk about That Rule Inside the Department, We Took It out on the
Streets. We

Talked to the Environmentalists in Washington. We Talked to the Miners
in Meetings in

Spokane, Denver, and Sacramento. And by June of 1991, Enough People Had
Agreed That the

Rule Was Necessary That We Were Able To Get the Final Signature of The
Assistant Secretary

for Land And Minerals Management and the Rule Was Sent to Omb in June of
1991. However,

Unbeknownst to Us, Certain Political Events Would Delay the Publication
of the Rules until

September 11, 1992, A Full 13, 14 Months after the Rule Went over to
Omb. The Comment

Period Closed on November 10th, 1992. Now, this Put Us Right into the
Middle of an

Administration Change, And, of Course, with That Sort of Circumstance,
All Activity Grinds

Very Nearly to a Halt, Except for this Rule. Hillary Oden Directed That
We Have a Final Rule

Ready for the New Administration When They Came Through the Door. So We
Took All of

the Comment, All of the Analysis, and Prepared Our Final Rule. The Final
Rule Was Given to

the Department. However, it Remained Dormant Throughout Most of 1993.
Why Did this

Rule Remain Dormant In 1993? Well, this Rule Was Dormant Because Most of
You Recall in

1993 and 1994 Battles over the Mining Law Reform Were in Full Swing on
the Hill, and the

Decision Was to Wait for the Outcome of Those Battles. I Will Make a
Note Here That We

Had the Strongest Possible Support from Director Jim Baca On this
Particular Rule. Finally in

Late 1994 When the Department Began to Realize That There Was No Chance
of Mining Law

Reform in the Foreseeable Future They Began to Actively Work on the
Final Rule. Once Again

They Took the Proposed Language That We Did up In a Proposed Package and
Began To

Change It, Alter It, Rewrite It in Return for Giving Us Surnames. By
April 1995, the

Department Then Decided That the Rule Was Ready to Go and Advised BLM
That We Should

Publish it Immediately. We of Course, Demurred and Said, Unfortunately,
Folks, the Timing

Would Bring the Law out Right in The Middle of the Mining Season And
That Wouldn\'t Be a

Particularly Good Idea. The Department Said, \"Oh, Well, You Figure out
the Timing.\" And So

Throughout 1995 We Worked With the Department to Come up With the
Content Adjustments

and A Final Signed Rule and Looked For the Optimum Time to Publish It.
And Our Decision

to Publish Was Going to Be Based on Possession Of a ‑‑ Possession of a
Budget. Unfortunately

Train Wrecks I & Ii, the November 1995 and the December 1995 Through
January 1996

Furloughs and the Loss of Collection of Information Brought Everything
to a Screeching Halt

and the Department Was Forced to ‑‑ Those of You Who Have Not Worked In
Washington

Are Puzzling over This. On All Regulations We Have to Comply with the
Paper Work

Reduction Act of 1980 as Amended By the Paper Work Reduction Act Of
1995, and Essentially

this Rule or this Law Says That We Will Reduce the Burden on the Public,
Notous, on the

Public of People Complying with the Rules. The 1995 Amendments to the
Act Added 120 Days

of Waiting Time To Our Rule. The Department Received Considerable
Appreciater from The

White House and the Reinvention Teams to Put a Thousand Pages of BLM
Rules into What\'s

Known as Plain English And over the Strenuous Objections of the BLM
Staff and The

Solicitor\'s Office, the Rule Was Redrafted into the Plain English
Format That You Have Before

You. Now, Having Sat Through That Process, I Will Tell You That it Is a
‑‑ it Is ‑‑ at the

Outset An Irritating One When You Have A Final Package Ready to Move,
But We Believed

When We Reached The End Product That the Product In Front of You Is a
Better Rule, Makes

More Sense, and the Public Has a Better Chance of Understanding it
Because It\'s Not Written

in Legalese. It Is Written in the Main in Questions and Answers, and
Will Then Provide a

Template or a Model for Some of the Other Minerals Regulations to Be
Revised in a Similar

Fashion. Well, the Final Rule Went to Omb In May and Was Approved in
June Of this Year.

We Published the Regulation as Final in July and it Became ‑‑ Took
Effect in August of 1996.

That\'s Almost Six Years after The Date of the Regulations, and I Will
Say this to Everybody,

Just as I Told Director Jamison On the Phone, for Six Years I Carried
Your Water, the Least

Can You Do Is Buy Me a Beer for That. As I Said, What\'s Purpose of This
Rule? Well, I

Briefly Discuss That.

We Have a Fax That Just Came In from Las Vegas. Go Ahead and Drop That
onto the Elmo,

Because I Think it Will Be A Good Illustration. The Fax Asks Are the
Overhead Guides That

You Are Using in Our Handout Materials? We\'re Completely Lost. What
Rick Is Doing Now,

Probably, Is Not in Your Handout Guide, However, as Soon as He Gets into
the Regulations,

and Especially the Definitions, Which I Believe He\'ll Be Doing Fairly
Soon ‑‑ Rick, Are You

Going to Be Getting into the Definitions Before the Break?

Yes. Yes.

Okay. Then, They\'ll Start Showing Up. Now, It\'s Important to Note We
Had to Put All of the

Camera Cards or Elmo Cards That You\'re Seeing on Your Television in a
Landscape Format.

So You\'ll Get about a Third of a Vertical Page for Each Television
Screen, but We\'ll Try And

Make Some Indication of When You\'re Getting to the Regulation So You
Can Follow along on

Paper. Anyway, Rick, Go Ahead.

Okay. Well, Anyway, We Have Now a Set Of Rules, They Are Final, They Are
Done, and

They Are Complete ‑‑ Before Us Complete with a Time Line That Will Have
a Drop‑dead Date

for the Existing Occupancies on October 15th of This Year. What\'s the
Purpose? Why Are We

Here with These Rules? The Purpose of this Subpart Is To Manage Use and
Occupancy. It Is

Not to Eliminate Trespass. It Is Not to Cleanse the Public Lands of
Squatters. It Is to Manage

Use and Occupancy. And We Are Managing it in Support of the Development
of Locatable

Minerals by Limiting Such Use or Occupancies to That Which Is Reasonably
Incident. By That

We Mean the Squatter, The Nonminer, the Drug Lab Operator Interferes
with the Development

of Minerals by Legitimate Miners. One, by Simply Occupying the Ground
and Being a Hazard

to Hard‑working, Normal Miners. And, Two, by Generating an Awful Lot of
Bad Press, and It\'s

That Bad Press That We\'re Going to Make a Major Effort to Turn Around.
The Bureau Will

Prevent the Abuse of Public Lands. We Will Recognize Valid Rights Under
the Mining Law,

and We Will Take Appropriate Action to Eliminate Any Invalid Uses,
Including Unauthorized

Residential Occupancy. Now, What\'s the Scope? I Said Earlier That the
Scope of This Rule

Applies Only to the Lands Administered by BLM, Not Any Other Land. You
Will Get

Questions, and I Have ‑‑ I Have Been Getting Them About I Have a Mining
Claim on The Lolo

National Forest. Does this Apply to Me? No, it Does Not. I Have a Mining
Claim on Split

Estate Lands. Does this Apply to Me? No, it Does Not. They Do Not Apply
to State Lands,

Private Lands in Which The Minerals Have Been Reserved To the United
States. They Do Not

Apply to Federal Lands ‑‑

Rick, I Think it Might Be Important to Point out at this Time That We
Are Now into the

Handouts That People Have in Front of Them, and We Are on Page 20 of 43
Cfr 3715, and

Rick Is into Section 3715.01, Which Is What Are the Purpose and Scope of
the Subpart and

We\'ll Be Moving down from There.

Okay. Thank You, Matt. Now, I Want to Stress a Point That Was Made to Us
by a Bunch Of

Folks in Alaska. These Are Our Most Extreme Cases Of the Need for ‑‑ the
Needful Residential

Occupancy. We Have Language at C Within This Subpart, and it Says, this
Subpart Does Not

Impair the Right of Any Person to Engage in Recreational Activities or
Any Other Authorized

Activity on Public Lands BLM Administers. Now, What in the World Does
That Mean? What

That Basically Says Is That Just Because You Have a Mining Claim, Just
Because You Have

Perhaps Even a Residential Occupancy, You Are Not Prevented From Going
out on the Public

Land and Hunting or Fishing or Engaging in Any Other Activity That Any
Other Citizen Is

Allowed to Engage In. In Other Words, the Miner Is No Different than the
Average Citizen.

Possession of a Mining Claim Does Not Change His Status. And We Want to
Make That Point

Over and over and over Again. The Fact Appear Miner Has a Residence on a
Mining Claim

Does Not Mean the Miner Cannot Go out And Hunt and Fish or Do Anything
Else out There

That Anyone Else Can Do.

Rick, in the Remaining 15 Minutes We Have Before the Break, You Want to
Start Getting

Into the Definitions?

Yes, We\'re Going to Start in Section 3715.0‑5. Okay. Mining Laws\...
First Definition. You

Can Follow along in the Rule.

You Don\'t Necessarily Need to Read Them Verbatim.

I Don\'t Plan on Reading Them. The Mining Laws Are Essentially Those
Laws That We All

Know and Deal with on a Daily Basis. Public Law 167, the Mining Law Of
1872, and All the

Variance of It. We Have Been Getting Some Phone Calls, and They Are Very
Interesting

Phone Calls from Placer Miners. We Have Said in this Particular
Definition That it Is Hard

Rock Mining. That Is an Unfortunate Choice of Terminology That Has
Seeped into Mining

Law Administration, Driven Basically by the Mining Law Reform Battles.
On the Hill They

Refer to Mining As Hard Rock Mining to Differentiate it from Coal
Leasing and Oil and Gas.

And it Never Occurred to Any of Us, Including the Solicitor, John Leshy,
That Somebody

Would Interpret this Particular Phraseology to Say, Oh, I\'m a Placer
Miner, These Rules Don\'t

Apply to Me. So When You Get That Particular Question, the Answer Is
Simple: Public Law

167 Says All Mining Claims Hereafter Locate Shall Not Be Used for Mining
‑‑ Any Purposes

Other than Mining and It Is the Phrase \"All Mining Claims.\" It
Doesn\'t Excuse the Placer

Miner. They Are Subject to this the Same as Anyone Else. Although You
Can\'t Blame the

Guys for Trying. Mining Operations: the Term Mining Operations in this
Particular Case Is

Similar to That of the 3809 Regulations. It Means All Functions and Work
Facilities and

Activities Reasonably Incident to Mining or Processing of Mineral
Deposits. It Means Road

Construction and It Means Other Means of Access To a Mining Claim or
Mill Site On Public

Lands. I Will Also Say That it Includes The Support Activities That Are
Normally Going to Be

Found Associated with Mining Activities. It\'s Going to Include Vehicle
Maintenance. It\'s

Going to Include Going to Town to Buy Spares. Now, If You Happen to Be
in Alaska, That

Can Be a Pretty Long Trip to Town.

I\'d Also Want to Add That it Also Includes Keeping Spares on Site.

Yes. And While We Prefer That Some People Keep Spares on Site, There Are
Times When

Spares on Site Are Not Present. Now, the Big Question: What Is
Occupancy? What Is

Occupancy? Well, Occupancy Means Full‑time Or Part‑time Residence on the
Public Lands. It

Also Means Activities That Involve Residence, That Involve The
Construction, the Presence Or

Maintenance of Either Temporary or Permanent Structures That May Be Used
for Residence,

or the Use of a Watchman or Caretaker for Purposes of Monitoring. Now,
Here in this

Definition We\'ve Covered a Lot of Ground. Occupancy for the Purposes of
These Regulations

Is Full‑time Or Part‑time Residence, Either One, and it Also Means the
Presence, Construction,

Maintenance of Any Building That ‑‑ and this Is Important ‑‑ That May Be
Used for Such

Purposes. If You See a Building out There That Could Be Used for
Occupancy, it Is Subject to

These Rules. Even If it Looks like Something That No Normal Person Would
Reside In. So

That Is Occupancy, and it Is Essentially a Definition to Fill In the
Gaps Found in 3809. If You

Put a Structure on BLM Administered Lands and Somebody Could Possibly
Live in It, Then It\'s

Subject to this Rule. Now ‑‑

Rick, as You\'re Working with The Elmo Cards, Use the Marker. It Shows
up Better on the

Television.

Yes, I Heard That. Thank You. Residence or Structures Include But Are
Not Limited to

Accesses, Access Vehicle ‑‑ Barriers to Access, Fences, Gates, Signs,
Tents, Motor Homes,

Trailers, Cabins, Houses, Buildings and Equipment or Storage Facilities.

You Know, That Leads to an Interesting Question, Rick, About Permanent
Structures Versus

Temporary Structures. I Think If We Could Cue up Slide 148, I Would like
to Show an

Example of What Is Clearly a Temporary Structure, and That Particular
Slide Shows Basically

An 8 by 30 Trailer and it May Look Familiar to a Lot of People. It\'s
the Sort We See All over

The Place, and Can You Hitch That up to a Three‑quarter Ton Pickup Truck
and Tow it Away.

It\'s Legal to Tow on the Highways, Assuming it Has All Its Wheels and
Brakes and Doesn\'t

Need Any Kind of Permit. But on Slide 164 We Have Something That\'s
Considerably Different

and Slide 164 Shows Us Really What\'s a Double‑wide Mobile Home and That
Is Made up Of 2

12‑foot Pieces. You Can\'t Tow Witness a Regular Pick‑up Truck. You Have
to Take it Apart.

You Have to Get a Moving Permit From the State. You Have to Have a
\"Wide Load\" Sign,

You Have to Have Pilot Vehicles. Clearly That Is Intended to Be Put into
Place as a Permanent

Structure. Now, I Would Suggest That Anything That Really Requires a
Moving Permit or a

\"Wide Load\" Sign to Move it Is Using ‑‑ Using Moving Techniques That
Are The Same as

House Moving.

and That\'s Exactly What the Rules Give Us. The Definition of Permanent
Structures We Have

Chosen to Use Means a Structure Fixed to the Ground by Various Types of
Foundations, Slabs,

Piers, Poles Or Other Means Allowed by the Building Codes. Notice
\"Allowed by the Building

Codes.\" That\'s a Major Issue in this Role. The Term Also Includes a
Structure Placed on the

Ground That Lacks Foundation, Slabs, Piers or Poles but That Can Only Be
Moved by

Disassembly into Component Parts or Techniques Commonly Used in House
Moving And That

Is Exactly the Term That Matt Has Described with the Double‑wide.
You\'ve Got to Have Pilot

Vehicles, You\'ve Got to Put it On Beams, and You\'ve Got to Haul It
with Something Other than

a Pick‑up Truck. That Makes it a Permanent Structure.

and That Would Apply Also to A Single‑wide Mobile Home That Is over 8
Feet Wide.

Anything Really That Requires a Moving Permit or a \"Wide Load\" Sign Is
a Permanent

Structure.

Now, We Have the Definition Of Public Lands. Every Rule Has to Define
Public Lands. As a

Result, We Have Probably More Definitions of Public Lands In the Cfr
than Any Other

Definition. It Simply Means Lands Open to The Operation of the Mining
Law Which BLM

Administers, Including Lands Covered by Unpatented Mining Claims or Mill
Sites.

Rick in the Eight Minutes We Have Before Our Break, Can We Wrap up the
Definitions or Do

We Need to Run over?

Yep, We\'re Almost Done. Okay. We Have Some Definitions That We\'ve
Chosen to Introduce.

We Introduced the Time Prospecting or Exploration. And It\'s Basically
the Search For Mineral

Deposits by Geological, Geophysical or Other Appropriate Techniques. It
Includes but Is Not

Limited To Sampling, Drilling, Developing Surface or
Undergroundworkings, and this Is

Important. We must Not Forget That Exploration Often Includes
Significant

Undergroundwork. Now, We Have a Very Important Definition That We Need
to Work About,

and this One Is Reasonably Incident. Reasonably Incident Is the
Statutory Standard Created by

30 U.s. C.612, Prospecting, Mining Or Processing Operations and
Reasonably Incident

Thereto. The Term Reasonably Incident Thereto Is a Shortened Version Of
That Long Phrase,

Prospecting, Mining or Processing Operations and Uses Reasonably
Incident Thereto. Keep in

Mind it Means Mining and It Means Associated Activities. It\'s Included
‑‑ it Includes for Our

Purposes Those Actions or Expenditures of Labor by a Person of Ordinary
Prudence to

Prospect, Explore, Define, Develop Mine or Been Fish 88 a Valuable
Mineral Deposit and Here

Is the Important Part. Using Methods, Structures and Equipment That Are
Appropriate To the

Geological Terrain, the Mineral Deposit in Question and The Point in
Time That You Are On

the Development Cycle and This Is Particularly Important. It Means That
What Is Going on

There Has to Be Properly Placed Within the Cycle of Mineral Development.
If Somebody\'s

Going to Walk in And Sell You That They\'re Going To Create an Open‑pit
Property On the

Strength of a Geophysical Anomaly, Then It\'s Pretty Safe To Say That
They\'re Probably Not

Reasonably Incident.

We\'ll Get into Greater Detail On Life Cycles and Related Issues
Tomorrow.

We Have Another Term That We Need to Know about. \"Substantially Regular
Work.\" It

Means Work That Directly and Substantially Benefits a Mineral Property,
Including Nearby

Properties That an Operator May Have. So We\'re Not Restricting it to a
Single Property, and

You Will See an Example of a Property That Has Substantially Regular
Work Occurring on it

and Several Other Properties Later on in Our Show. This Work Has to Be
Associated With the

Search for and the Development of Mineral Deposits Or the Processing of
Ores. It Includes

Active and Continuing Explore Nation, Mining, Beneficiation or
Processing of Ores.

Substantially Regular Work Also Includes Maintenance, Assembly, Work on
Physical

Improvements, Procurement of Supplies Incidental to the Activities and
It May Include Offsite

Trips Associated with These Activities. It Also Includes Seasonal but
Recurring Work

Programs. We Want to Stress That, Particularly in the Northern Areas
Where You Have a

Short Mining Season Followed by a Whole Lot of Good Skiing. Now, this Is
an Important One,

This Last Definition. I Want to You Pay Careful Attention to this.
Unnecessary or Undue

Degradation Is Further Defined by this Rule. As Applied to Unauthorized
Uses, It Means Those

Uses That Are Not Reasonably Incident and Are Not Authorized under Any
Other Applicable

Law as Applied to an Authority Use it Means the Same Thing as the 3802
and 3809 Definitions.

This Distinction Is Important And it Will Become Particularly Important
During Enforcement

Actions. We Have Used this Definition of Unnecessary or Undue less as a
Standard and More

as an Enforcement Tool Because it Lets Us Bring into Play the Criminal
Penalties Section of the

Federal Land Policy and Management Act. Matt, in the Three or So Minutes
Remaining, Do

You Have Any Other Observations or Questions about The Definitions?

Well, as to the Definitions Of Unnecessary or Undue as They Pertain to
This, We\'ll Be Going

Into Some More Detail on That Tomorrow. It May Be Called Excruciating
Detail, but We\'ll

Cover It. Scott?

I\'ve Noticed We\'ve Had Some Questions Come in and There Seems to Be
Some Confusion on

Some People\'s Parts That Whether Or Not Fences, Gates and Those Are
Considered Occupancy

and Whether or Not Those People Should Respond by Submitting Occupancy
Notification

Forms.

Ah, Good Point. Okay. The Occupancy Form That We Are Dealing with
Addresses Existing

Occupancies, That Is, Those People Who Reside on a Mining Claim. We Have
Fencing

Addressed in This Regulation and I Have Not Spoken in Any Great Detail
about Fencing in this

Regulation, but Fencing Is a Prime Concern. But it Is Not the Major
Concern. Occupancy,

Residency, Structures Capable of Supporting Residency Are Really What
That Occupancy

Notification Form Is All about. If You Get One on Fencing, Well, Thank
You, but it Doesn\'t

Really Apply.

We Had a Question That Came In, and it Has to Do with Using These on
Withdrawn Land.

Are These Rules in Effect on Public Lands That Are Withdrawn That May or
May Not Have

Mining Claims on Them?

These Rules Will Apply to Any Public Land No Matter When the Rights in
Question Were

Created. So That If the Lands Are Withdrawn, the Regulations Will Still
Apply.

Good.

and ‑‑

Well, I Think It\'s Time for a Break. I Know That I Could Use a Break,
And I Imagine

Everyone Else Can Use a Break. So We\'ll Be Back in 15 Minutes Exactly.
Be Sure to Leave

Your Television Turned On.

Welcome Back from Your Break. I Hope Everything Went Well for You.
We\'ve Been

Looking at Some Really Interesting Facts That Came in During the Break.
I Also Hope Your

Satellite Downlink Is Going Well. I Understand Some of the People From
Phoenix District That

Are Watching Us Today Lost Their Satellite Lock and Watched Old Reruns
of the \"Dating

Game\" for About Five Minutes but I Understand Phoenix Is Right Back
With Us Now. We\'ve

Received a Number of Interesting Facts During the Break and We\'ll Deal
with Them In a

Moment. Rick, Let\'s Get Back to Work. One Fax That Came in from Salt
Lake City, I Think, Is

Really Important, and That Is Do These Rules Apply to Pre1955 Mining
Claims?

and the Answer to That Is Yes. Public Law 167 Was the Result of Congress
Taking

Legislation ‑‑ Taking Legislative Steps to Make Case Law Positive
Federal Law. If You Look

‑‑ Positive Federal Law. If You Look at the Case That You Were Sent out
Called Bruce

Crawford and It\'s in Your Handouts at Some Point ‑‑

That\'s Right, the Bruce Crawford Case Follows the Regulations. I
Believe It\'s the next Part of

That Section.

Judge Berske Did a Considerable Degree of Legal Research and Spent a
Great Deal Of Time

Discussing Pre‑1955 Cases That Involved Illegal Occupancy,
Saloon‑keeping, Brothels, What

Have You, on Public Lands under the Guise of The Mining Law.

So Basically it Would Be a Good Read to Go Through Crawford Several
Times? That\'s Why

We Provided It.

Exactly. Read Crawford and Read the History of the Case Law Prior to
1955 and Then Keep

in Mind That In 1955 Congress Simply Said We Agree with All These Cases.
We Are Now

Going to Erect Them Into Positive Law and I Might Add That Even Back
Then, the American

Mining Congress in Testimony Supported the Passage Of Public Law 167
Just as the Now

National Mining Congress ‑‑ National Mining Association Supported These
Regulations.

Good. I Have a Question from Gordon Pine. I\'m Not Sure Which One of Us
it Is Addressed

To. The Question Gordon Sent Us Is: Is That a Tie or Is Appear Color
Test Pattern? I

Normally Won\'t Mention Someone\'s Name, But, Gordon, I Think It\'s a
Tie. Anyway, Rick, Are

We Ready to Get onto the Rest of It? We Have a Number of Questions. One
of Them Was

Why Don\'t ‑‑ Why Didn\'t the U.s. Forest Service Want These Regulations
to Apply To Forest

Service Land and Rick Will Address in That His Presentation Coming Up.
Also Why Don\'t

They Apply to Taylor Graze Lands and That\'s Not an Answer We Can Answer
in Really Quick

Form but Basically If the Land Is Functionally Equivalent to Public
Land, Then They to Apply.

When in Doubt, Check with Your Solicitor\'s Office. Another Question
That We\'ll Deal With Is

Historic Buildings. What Do We Do with Historic Buildings That Are
Occupancies. We\'ll Deal

with That in Greater Detail this Afternoon and Again In the Morning. And
Another Question on

Existing Occupancies on Claim with an Uncertain Boundary Between Public
Land and Patented

Land, Does That Mean We Have to Kick The People off Right Away? Does
That Mean We

Have to Kick The People off? No, That\'s Why There\'s the One‑year Grace
Period, and the

Expiration of the One‑year Grace Period Doesn\'t Mean We Will Be Lining
up Fire Trucks and

Burning up Buildings at the End Of That Year. Rick?

That\'s Absolutely Right, Matt. If it Hasn\'t Been a Problem in The Last
10 Years, There\'s No

Reason for it to Suddenly Be a Problem One Day after the Grace Period
Ends and We Need to

Keep That in Mind. We Have a Set of Regulations, And this Is a Good
Point to Jump In and

Start Talking about the Grace Period, Because It\'s the First Issue
Boiling Around the Offices.

The Timing of the Regulations, Fun Lynch, Coincided with a Lot Of the
Standing ‑‑

Unfortunately Coincided with the Standard Filings Pertaining to the
Mining Claim Recordation

Fees and There Was Some Considerable Confusion On the Part of Some Folks
Who Received

the Postcard Mailing From BLM Advising Them of These New Regulations a
Goodly Number

Of Folks Confused the Filing of The Occupancy Notification with The
Mining Claim

Recordation Fees. For That, We Apologize, but Sometimes the Left Hand
Isn\'t Exactly Certain

What the Right Hand Is Doing. The Grace Period, as I Said Earlier, Is
Intended to Bring The

Existing Occupants into Compliance. During the Development of the Rule
We Estimated That

There Are Probably 2,000 or So Existing Occupancies on the Public Lands.
Probably 650 of

These Are Real, Live, Legitimate Mining Operations Covered by a Notice
Or a Plan. The

Remaining 1300 Are Probably Single Occupancies, Some of Which We Know
About, Some of

Which We Absolutely Don\'t Know About, That We Will Have to Address. And
Dealing with

Existing Occupancies Is Kind of like Herding Cats. The Very First Job
You\'ve Got to Do Is

Get Them All into One General Place, and That\'s the Role of the Grace
Period. We Have Said

We Will Not Bring The Full Force and the Effect of These Rules on You,
the Occupant, If You

Supply Us with A Piece of Paper in the Proper Form That Says \"I Have an
Occupancy, it Is

Located At\... And Answer a Couple Questions And Give Us a Telephone
Number That We Can

Contact You At. Now, the Grace Period Then Runs From ‑‑ Effective ‑‑ the
Effective Date of

the Regs, the August Date, Date of Publication, to August 18th, 1997.
During That Time

Existing Occupancies Are Not Required to Come into Compliance with the
Regulations. They

Have a Year to Do So and It\'s to Their Advantage to Do So, but We Will
Not Apply the Full

Force of the Regulations to Them. Now, the Grace Period Applies to All
but Two Categories of

Folks Out There. The First Category Is That Person or Group of Persons
That We Have

Served a Formal Notice Of Trespass On. If it Was Sufficient to Be a
Problem as of the Date of

the Regulations to Warrant a Trespass Notice, Then You Don\'t Have the
Grace Period

Available To You. We\'ve Already Decided That You\'re Not Doing Mining.
The Second Group

of People Are Those Group of ‑‑ Groups of Folks That We Decide on
Inspection Are Not

Reasonably Incident and Who Are a Threat to Health, Safety or the
Environment. Now, How

Do We Determine Somebody Is Not Reasonably Incident and a Threat to
Health, Safety and the

Environment? Well, It\'s Pretty Obvious. You Go out on the Ground and
You Inspect During

the First Year. The First Year Does Not Mean BLM Stops Doing Everything.
The First Year of

the Grace Period Means We Begin to Focus Our Activities on the Known
Problem Sites, Those

That While They Aren\'t Rising to the Level Of a Trespass, While They
Aren\'t Rising to the

Level of a ‑‑ Calling in the Black Helicopters, They Are a Concern And
We Need to Deal with

It. We Inspect Them. Having Determined That They Are Not Reasonably
Incident and That

They Are a Threat to Health, Safety or the Environment, We Are Then
Empowered by Flpma to

Bring in Section 302c of Flpma That Says in Plain English: If You Are a
Threat, the Secretary

Is Empowered to Tell You to Turn Off Your Operation and Get off The
Public Lands Even

During the Pendency of Your Appeal. And That Is One of Our Most Powerful
Tools for Those

People Who Are Not Reasonably Incident And Those People Who Do Not Have
Permits or

Are a Threat or Are a Nuisance We Can Take an Action That Will, in BLM
Terms, Virtually

Instantly Get Them off The Public Lands.

That\'s Important to Note That Not Everything Is an Immediate Threat to
Health and Safety. If

Somebody\'s Been Living on a Mining Claim for 15 Years and Hasn\'t Been
a Threat to Health

And Safety for the 15 Years, It\'s Doubtful They\'re Going to Be a
Threat Tomorrow. We\'ll Go

into Some Examples Later on Starting this Afternoon And Through Tomorrow
about the

Difference Between a Threat to Health and Safety and Just Not Being
Reasonably Incident.

Okay. Thank You, Matt. Now, We Had a Question That Came Up from ‑‑ What
Office Was

That.

.

What Was the Question?

the ‑‑

We\'ve Received a Stack of Faxes During the Break That\'s Astounding.
We\'re Pleased to Get

Them and Will Be Going Through a Lot of Them.

and We Will Try to Get Back To Them as Quickly as We Can. The Question
That I Had in

Mind Was the One That Talked about Why the Forest Service Didn\'t ‑‑

Ah, an Excellent Question. The Question Is Basically Why Isn\'t the
Forest Service Interested

in Having These Rules Apply to Forest Service Lands.

Well, from My Brief History Of the Rules, You Heard That the Forest
Service Did Participate

In this Rule Making Process. Unfortunately, for Whatever Reason, the
Forest Service

Determined That Our Level Of\... Our Determination of When Occupancy Is
Warranted Did Not

Suit Their Needs. Our Standard Is One That\'s a Little Different, and
It\'s Basically Laid out in

the Rule At .2, and ‑‑

What Page Is That On?

That\'s ‑‑

Bottom of the Sheet.

I\'m Sorry, Matt. In the Regs it Is the Regulars Itself ‑‑ Regs Itself,
it Is Found in ‑‑ Beginning

on about Page 22. Now, Here We Adopted a Standard That Is a Little
Different from What the

Forest Service Chose to Adopt. The Forest Service Chooses to Use a Needs
Standard Based on

The Richardson Decision, and We Actually Had a Comment During The
Proposed Rule

Comment Period That Said We, Too, Should Adopt A Needs Standard. We
Chose Not to Do

this. We Chose to Take a Standard That Essentially Says up Front, \"Here
Are the Bench Marks

That You Must Achieve. If You Achieve These Bench Marks We Will Concur
in Your

Assertion That Your Occupancy Is Reasonably Incident and Ought to Go
Forward.\" And

That\'s a Different Form of a Test. We Have Laid out the Test and Said
Meet it and We Will

Agree With You. For That Reason, of Course, the Forest Service Said it
Doesn\'t Meet Our

Needs Standard.

So It\'s a Difference Between Reasonably Incident and Reasonably
Necessary?

Yes. Now Back to the Grace Period.

Before We Move onto the Grace Period, We\'ve Had a Question From Idaho
That Asks Do

These Rules Apply to Mining Claims That Have Been Issued First Half
Final Certificate?

Yes, this Question Has Repeatedly Popped Up. These Regulations Apply to
All Mining Claims

and All Sites on The Public Lands, No Matter Where They Are in the
Mineral Patent

Application Process. Until the Secretary Signs the Patent and Says
Good‑bye to That Piece of

Public Lands, These Regulations Will Apply. There Are No Escapes.

Great.

Okay. Now, I Mentioned the Grace Period. And I Also Mentioned the Notion
That We

Should Do Inspections in Grace Periods. Just Because We Have a Year, We
Don\'t Stop

Looking. We Don\'t Stop Observing. In Fact, It\'s to Our Advantage To Go
out and Do a

Surface Use Determination and Simply Sit With the Results of That
Surface Use Determination

and Talk to The Occupants.

So Conceivably I Could Go out And Do a Surface Use Determination on a
Mining Claim And

If Portions of it Are Not Reasonably Incident, the BLM Office Involved
Could Take That Out

and Show it to Them and Say, Look, this Is What We Found, You\'ve Got
Eight More Months

to Get this Cleaned up and Get Back Into Compliance or We\'re Going To
Have to Do

Something about You?

Exactly and That\'s the Kind Of Customer Service We Want to Be
Delivering. This Is Not

Something That We Want to Spring on People on the Day after the End of
the Surface Use or

the Day after the Grace Period Has Come to an End. We Want to Make it
Work for Us As a

Tool, Not as a Weapon. There Are Times When Weapons Will Be Appropriate,
but for the

Moment What\'s Appropriate Is to Use the Time We Have as a Tool, To Get
People to

Understand That They Either Have to Be Reasonably Incident and Have to
Meet All the

Standards, and the Sooner They Begin Going down That Path, the Better
for Them, The Better

for Us and the Better For the Public Lands. At the Same Time, We Need to
Then Be Able to

Tell People, Look, There Is No Way That You\'re Going to Be Reasonably
Incident and You

Need to Either Think about Getting off the Public Lands or Finding
Another Form of

Authorization for Your Particular Operation, No Matter What it Is.

Good. We Can Get Bogged down in Answering Questions Right Now, So Let\'s
Move along.

Okay. So, I Said Earlier That We Were Going to Deal with Two Kinds of
Regs, Two Kinds of

Folks, the New Folks, the Old Folks. We\'ve Talked a Little Bit about
The Existing

Occupancies, and We\'ve Said, Hey, If They Make Their Paper Filing and
They Aren\'t the

Subject of a Trespass Notice, and They Aren\'t Not Reasonably Incident
and a Threat To Health

and Safety, They\'ve Got a Year to Work with BLM, to Work with the Local
Office, to Get

Right So That They Can Get On with Whatever Their Operations Are. What
about the New

Operator? What about the Person Who Now Walks Through the Door and Says
\"Hi, I Have an

Operation and I Now Need to Know What I Have to Do?\" Well, the
Regulations Are Fairly

Explicit. Along with the 3809 or 3802 Filing You Have to Give Us a
Description of What

You\'re Planning on Doing, How You\'re Planning to Do It, Where You\'re
Going to Do It, the

Location of Fences, the Location of Buildings and Describe How the
Occupancy Will Relate to

Your Mineral‑related Activities. Having Done That, We Then Have a Job to
Do. BLM Will

Then Take a Look at the Occupancy along with the Surface Management
Filing. You Say,

Well, this Causes a Problem with Notices, Doesn\'t It? Ah, We Built in a
Process That Deals

with Notices. For Plans, It\'s a Relatively No‑brainer. In Dealing with
a Plan Level Activity That

Involves Fencing Or Occupancy, We Will Examine The Use and the Occupancy
for Reasonably

Incidence and Does The Level of Activity Warrant Occupancy, Does it
Warrant Fencing, Does

it Warrant the Use Of a Watchman? When We Make Our Determination, We
Will Make the

Determination Of, Yes, We Can Concur Or, No, We Do Not Concur. At the
Same Time We

Approve or Reject a Plan of Operations. It\'s to Be a Separate Part of
The Decision Record That

Goes Out Associated with That Plan of Operations. And It\'s Fairly
Important to Keep in Mind

That We Need to Have Explicit Language in There That Says They Have to
Maintain The

Standards Set out in the Regulations. Otherwise, the Secretary Can
Invoke Section 302c, and

Guidance Will Come out from Headquarters on this as Soon as We Can Get
it Roughed out and

Pass past the Solicitor\'s Office.

Tomorrow We Will Go into Some Detail on What Sorts of Uses Are
Appropriate for What

Kinds of Activities in Fencing and Residences and on and on and On. So
Be Sure to Be Here

Tomorrow For That.

Okay. Now, as Part of Screening the New Guys, the Newbies, If You Want
to Call Them

That, We Are Going to Look at Them Not So Inch Procedure as We Have in
Some of the 3809

Cases, We\'re Going to Be Looking at Them in a Substantive Basis, Sort
of How Big, What

Color, How Many, When And How. We Will Look At\... Is this Appropriate,
Is this Reasonably

Incident, Is this the Time When You Should Be Conducting this Activity?
And for Plan Level

Operations, It\'s Not a Problem. But What about That Notice Level
Activity? We Get about

1300 Notices a Year, down Unfortunately from Past Years, but There Still
Is a Potential

Workload That We Have To Address. Well, for Notice Level Activities,
We\'re Going to Split

The Review Process. When Somebody Comes in and Says \"I\'m Going to
Engage in Fencing Or

I\'m Going to Engage in Occupancy, We\'re Going to Say, Great, Give Us
Your Information,

And at That Point We\'re Going to Tell Them, Sit Back, Don\'t Do
Anything Related to Fencing

or Occupancy until We Tell You to Do So. 15 Days after the Notice Has
Been Received,

However, the Notice Level Activity Can Go Forward Without Any Change in
The Existing

Process. The Process Changes When We Address the Use and Occupancy And
Fencing Portion

of the Proposal. Those Pieces of the Proposal Are Going to Be Segregated
and Considered

Fully and Completely By the BLM Office. That Means We Will Do Nepa. We
Will Do Section

106 Compliance, We Will Do T&e Species and at the End of 30 Working
Days, We Will Get

Back To the Operator and Say We Concur or We Do Not Concur in Your
Proposed Activity,

or We Will Advise Them of the Need to Prepare an Neis or Do Consultation
under Section 7 of

The Threatened Endangered Species Act or Comply Fully with Section 106
So That the Review

Of Occupancy at Notice Level Activities Becomes a Federal Action. The
Notice Level

Activities That Involve Mining, Milling, Processing but Don\'t Involve
Use ‑‑ That Don\'t Involve

Fencing or The Construction, Placement of Permanent Structures or
Occupancy, They Can

Proceed to The Extent That They Are Capable Of Being Going Forward
Without The Other

Structures.

So Would this Mean That Someone Who Is Working on a Notice Level
Operation Would

Have to Get Authorization to Install a Double‑wide Mobile Home?

Yes.

Scott, Do You Have Situations Like in That Folsom?

Quite Often. We Have a Number of Folks Who Submit Notices and Is Also
Combined with

Occupancy at the Same Time. Under the New 3715s Now, as Rick Is
Implying, We Would Be

Breaking out ‑‑ Say We Have a Transition Notice That Came in a Week or
Two after August

15th, 1996, the Implementation Date of These Regulations, the
Information in That Notice May

Be a Little Sketchy. It May Not Be up to the Standards We\'re Now Asking
and At That Point in

Time of Review We Would Ship Back a Letter Asking Them to Resubmit under
3715.

Do You Think Overall It\'s Going to Make Your Work Easier?

it May Not Make Our Work Easier, but I Think in the Long Run it Will Be
a Benefit to Our

Management of the Lands.

Great. Thanks. Rick?

Okay. That\'s What We Hope for Is Benefit of Management to the Lands.

and the Health of the Lands.

and the Health of the Lands, And Improving the Opportunities For
Commercial Development

of The Public Lands and All of Those Goals That the Director Has Placed
on Us. Now, Having

Done All of the Work, Having Approved a Plan of Operations, Having
Approved or Concurred

in a Notice, the Question Is, What Standards Are We Going to Be Using?
Well, the Standards

in this Particular Regulation Are a Little Different. The Standards in
Previous Regulations

Regarding Surface Management Were Pretty Much Procedural. These Are
Pretty Much

Substantive. The Standards of Regulation ‑‑ Standards That We\'re
Looking for Compliance on

Are Essentially That Vast Array of Permits. That Means You\'ve Got ‑‑
You, If You Are an

Operator, Have to Have in Hand the Necessary Permits for Clean Air,
Clean Water, Whatever

the Federal Environmental Laws Bring off Onto Your Operation, and Have
Them in Hand for

All of the Activities That Are Currently or Proposed to Be Underway. But
We Don\'t Stop

There. We Then Turn Around and Say, You Also Have to Meet State Law, and
Here We Have

Tread into Ground That Has Shocked a Few People, Outraged Them,
Particularly Some Folks

out of Idaho During the Comment Period, and We Have Had Other People Who
Have Wildly

Applauded It. One of the Point to Remember About Management of Public
Lands Is We Are

Not the Sole Managers Of the Public Lands. We Are Not the Sole Powers
under The Federal

Scheme out There. There Are Other Powers with Equally Legal and Equally
Sovereign Powers,

and These Rules Recognize Them, and Those Folks Are the State, and the
State Has a Major

Interest in Managing Mining Operations. I\'ve Been in BLM 20 Years and I
Can Tell You That

When I First Came on Board, Most of the States Didn\'t Have Much in the
Way of Management

Schemes for Mining Operations. Now, by and Large, the States Have
Management Schemes

That Are The Most Robust and the Most Active of Any That You Can Find.
And We Expect

the Occupant and The Reasonably Incident User, So, in Effect We\'re
Saying Everybody, to

Have in Hand or Ready to Be Issued the Necessary Permits from the State
Mining And

Reclamation Folks. But We Don\'t Stop There. Just as the Home Stakes
Mclaughlin Project

Found out There Were 236 Permits, So Are a Lot of People Going to Find
out That There Are

a Scad of Permits. One Particular Area of Permits You\'re Going to Have
to Address And

We\'ve Not Done this Before, Is Building Permits. To Put up a Building,
to Occupy A Building

You Generally Have to Meet Codes, National Building Code, National
Plumbing Code,

National Electrical Code, If Not The National, One of the Others. We
Require of Every Person

Placing a Structure on the Public Lands That They Meet These Codes. And
Those Are the

Codes in Place As of the Date the Building Was Put in Place. Now, this
Is Going to Lead to

Some Work on Our Part as We Develop Working Relationships With Folks
That We Have

Heretofore Not Had to Pay Much Attention To, the State and County Code
Agencies. Now, I

Know over in California They\'ve Done a Pretty Good Job Of Keeping up on
This, and It\'s

Probably to Everyone\'s Advantage When You Get a Question to Search out
Someone in

California, Scott Murrellwright Sitting at My Left Would Be a Good
Contact, and Ask Him,

How Did it Work over on Your Side of The Fence When You Had to Deal With
the County?

in Fact, Scott Will Be Going Into Some Details on Just How to Deal with
the Counties and

What Kinds of Permits Are Required This Afternoon and Again in the
Morning.

Okay. Now, Having Had All of These Permits in Hand, We Now Have an
Operator Who Is

Very Close to Being Legitimate and on the Side Of Proper Behavior. Can
We Give You a List

of Permits? No, We Will Not Be Able to Give You a List of Permits. As
You\'ll Find Out,

Permits and The Number of Permits Will Vary County to County. We Have
Listed Only Those

Permits That Generally must Be Kept in Place and Maintained for An
Operation to Meet the

BLM\'s Standards. Now, What Happens When We Have Someone Who Doesn\'t
Want to Meet

The Standards? Well, We Have a Set of Prohibited Acts and Those
Prohibited Acts Look Back

to Our Standards, and We Have an Enforcement Mechanism. This Enforcement
Mechanism Is

Composed of Several Levels of Engagement. The First Is an Order. If We
Find That You Are

Not in Compliance, If You Are Not Reasonably Incident, and You Are A
Threat to Health and

Safety, We Can Order You off the Public Lands. We Invoke Section 302c of
Flpma And We

Say, \"Get off the Public Lands During the Pendency of the Review.\"

Where in the Regulations Can People Find Reference to the Orders?

Oh, You Would Ask That. That Is ‑‑ Excuse Me, While I Shuffle Papers
Here.

Being from Washington, Rick Is Expert at Shuffling Papers.

Oh, Matthew\... 37 ‑‑ 3715.7.

and You\'ll Find That on Page 27.

27 and it Basically Says That We Will Give Orders, We Expect Them to Be
Complied With,

We Will Give Notice of Noncompliance, and They Are Expected to Be
Complied with. Now,

Lots of Folks Have Said, Oh, Great, You Know, Here\'s an Order, Here\'s
a Notice of

Noncompliance, I\'ve Been Giving These Things out in 3809 and They
Haven\'t Done a Bit of

Good. They Can Be Appealed. The Order to Quit the Public Lands During
the Pendency of

Your Appeal Has a Unique Twist To It. When You Are Thrown off the Public
Lands, If You\'re

a Bad Actor, and You Say, \"I Don\'t Have to Take This, I\'m Going to
File an Appeal and Your

Order Won\'t Have Any Effect,\" We Have An Interesting Surprise\... That
Order Is Not Subject

to Being Stayed by the Board of Land Appeals. When an Order to Quit the
Public Lands Has

Been Issued and the Circumstances Have Warranted It, There Is No Appeal
for the Quitting the

Public Lands Order That Will Suspend It. You Have to Stay off During the
Pendency of the

Appeal and this Is Important. This Is the Big Hammer That We Will Have
in Forcing the People

Off the Land That We Don\'t Think Should Be There and Who Most People
Agree Aren\'t Real

Miners.

If You Want to See What Can Be Done, If You Don\'t Comply ‑‑ People
Don\'t Comply with

the BLM Orders, It\'s at the Bottom of Page 28 in Your Handout, and That
Is Section 3715.7‑2

Entitled \"What Happens If I Do Not Comply with a BLM Order?\"

at this Point We Then Move Onto the Substantial Amount of Teeth That We
Built into this

Regulation Remember That the Task Force Said We Didn\'t Want To Have a
Set of Regulations

That Looked and Acted like 3809 That Had One More Appealable Piece of
Paper. We Built

into it a Set of Criminal Penalties. If We Say \"Get Off,\" We Have One
Option: One Option Is

to Ask The U.s. Attorney to Go to Court and Say to the Judge, \"Please
Enjoin this Person

Permanently.\" Failure to Comply with an Order Also Carries with it the
Potential for Being a

Criminal Act.

Dennis Mclane Our Chief Ranger Is Waiting in the Wings Here, and He Has
a Presentation

Later in the Week Which Is Well Worth Joining Us for and We Also Have
Some Case Histories

for of Cases That Did Complete Criminal Prosecution. We Will Be Getting
to Those as The

Week Progresses.

Okay. Now, I Want to Stress, Dennis Is Going to Stress it as Well,
Criminal Penalties Are the

Penalties of Last Resort. We Do Not Encourage You to Immediately Rush
out and Throw

Criminal Penalties about in Discrim Nutly. I Said Before You Need to
Work With People. I

Focus My Comments There on the Existing Occupants. That Same Piece of
Advice Applies to

Those Folks Who Are In Noncompliance. And Who You Give an Order to and
Say \"Clean up

Your Act.\" The One Time We to Not Tolerate Anyone\'s Activities Is When
They Are Not

Reasonably Incident and They Are a Threat to Health and Safety. Those
Are the Folks That We

Need Off the Public Lands and That\'s When We Issue That Order That Says
\"Quit!\"

Now, If You Would like to Ask Us Some Questions about What Constitutes
Threats to Health

And Safety, I Would Ask That You Would Probably Be Best off until
Tomorrow Afternoon or

Friday Because We Will Be Getting Deeply into Threats to Public Safety
Then.

Matt, We Have Some Questions. We Have, What, about 15 Minutes Left?

Also, Do You Want to Go into The Interim Guidance? The Forms and What We
Do with The

Form That the Occupant Sends Us and So On?

the Interim Guidance Is Pretty Plain. I Will ‑‑

You Will Find the Interim Guidance Instruction Memo on ‑‑ Starting on
Page D as in Deery,

31 of Your Handouts.

the Interim Guidance ‑‑

Question Here: for Those Folks Who Submit Occupancy Forms And During the
Grace Period,

Do We Have to Conduct Surface Use Determinations by the End of the Grace
Period?

No. No. And this Is a Point That Was Made by Nevada. When We Were
Drafting the Final

Regulations and We Were Bouncing It off Select State Offices, We Were
Sort of Shocked by

One of The Responses We Got, Which Was, Oh, My God, You Expect Us to Do
All of this in

One Year? We All Shook Our Heads and Said, No, No, That\'s Not What We
Meant. What We

Meant Was That We Expect To Have a Year\'s Grace Period For the Operator
to Get Right

With the Regulations, with the Code Folks and with BLM. We Don\'t Expect
BLM to Take on

2,000 Surface Use Determinations In a Single Year. In Two Years. Or
Likely in Three Years.

What We Are Saying to the Public Is That You Should Be Ready to Receive
an Inspection

Within ‑‑ By the End of That First Year, But If We Don\'t Get to You,
Then It\'s up to BLM and

It\'s Not Your Fault. There Is No Penalty If ‑‑ for You the Operator If
We Don\'t Come and

Inspect You. Now, That Means We\'re Going to Have to Do Some Scheduling.
That Means

We\'re Going to Have To Do Some Juggling of Resources To Go out and Look
at Things Over

Probably about a Three to Four‑year Period. These Rules Are Not the End
of Occupancy.

These Rules Are the Beginning of The End of the Illegal and Unmanaged
Occupancy. Our Job

in this Case Is ‑‑ as I Said Earlier Is Kind of like Herding Cats. The
First Job You\'ve Got Is to

Get a Big Enough Line Around Them to Trap Them and Then You Have to Go
in and Try to

Move Them Around and Do Some More Cutting, and That\'s What We Will Do,
Albeit, Just like

Herding Cats, They Got Clause. You Don\'t Want to Get Scratched. We
Don\'t Want to Get

Scratched. So We Will Move Slowly on this.

Great. I\'ve Got a Couple of Questions Here I Would like to Deal with.
As I Mentioned, We\'ve

Gotten a Large Number of Questions and We\'ll Try to Deal with as Many
As We Can Before

the Break, but Don\'t Hesitate to Send in Some More and We\'ll ‑‑ We\'ll
Look at Questions over

the next Break And During Lunch and Try to Work Them into Our
Presentations. A Question

Here: since Fencing Is Included in the Definition of Occupancy, Please
Explain Why The

Occupancy Notification Form Is Not Needed.

Okay. In the Case of Fencing, Fencing ‑‑ the Determination Was Made That
Fencing Was Not

Likely to Cause a Problem on the One Hand. And It\'s Mainly the Issue of
Finding out Who Has

Somebody Residing. The Mere Presence of a Fence Has Never Obstructed
Most People,

Particularly If They Have a Fencing Tool and People Have Been Known to
Get Around Fences

Fairly Easily. The Occupancy Question, on the Other Hand, Is the
Placement of Structures, the

Presence of Watchmen, the Placement of Buildings, Physical Residence,
And That, in Our

Estimation, When We Drafted the Rule and When We Wrestled with the
Policy Cuts We Would

Have to Make and The Number of Cases We Would Deal With, Was Decided as
the More

Important Issue.

Also I Would Want to ‑‑ I Believe We Would Want to Emphasize That
Fencing Would Still

Be Covered under 3809?

Well, Fencing Will Still Be Under 3809 but at the Same Time Fencing Will
Ultimately Come

Under 3815.

and We Would Encounter Fences That Are Given Us to Because They\'re Not
Required on the

Occupancy Form as a Normal Part Of Our Everyday Work.

but I Think Possibly for the Claimants out There They\'ve Got A Real
Confusion Factor on a

Lot Of These Forms ‑‑ or this Particular Form and My Advice Has Been
Primarily to Them to

Ship it In. If in Doubt, We\'ll Make a Decision on it Later. So\...

Fair Enough.

Another Question We Have Coming up Is, as a Condition of Approving an
Occupancy, Can

We Require an Operator to Install a BLM‑supplied Lock as Well as Their
Own on a Gate

Through Their Fence?

If We Need to Get Through That Gate, Yes.

You Bet.

We Can Absolutely Require Them to Provide ‑‑ to Use a BLM Lock.

That\'s Right. Okay. Another Question Coming That We Got Is, Is a Portal
Occupancy, I

Assume That this Particular Person Is Asking about a Portal To an Add it
or a Collar of a Shaft,

but the Question Is Not Really Clear.

in One Sense, the Portal Is a Structure, but in Another Sense The Portal
Is Mining. It Is a

Reasonably Related, Reasonably Incident Activity That Is Actually
Mining, and it Is, Thus, Not

Occupancy Unless Somebody Is Sleeping Underground.

in Other Words, the Portal Isn\'t an Occupancy; It\'s a Use.

Exactly. It\'s a Reasonably Incident Use. So, Too, Would a Headframe Be
a Reasonably

Incident Use.

this One Is an Interesting Question That I Think Will Apply To a Lot of
Other Locations. I

Know It\'s a Question I\'ve Got. I\'ve Got ‑‑ I Am Going to Paraphrase
It. Suppose a Miner Does

Not Live on His Claim, Does Not Have a House Or a Trail or His Claim,
but Has A Large

Storage Shed on His Claim in Which He Keeps Shovels And Tools and
Suction Dredges And

You Name It. Is He Required to Submit the Form? Understand the Shed Is
Large Enough That

He Could Pitch a Cot And Sleep in There If He Wanted To.

the Short Answer Is, Yes, the Structure Is Capable of Supporting
Habitation, Provides Shelter.

in Other Words, If It\'s Big Enough for to You Get in out of The Rain,
You Need to File the

Form?

Yes.

Good Enough. 3715 and 3809 Are Obviously Intertwined. What Are the
Chances of Merging

The Two Sets of Regulations with The Goal of Combining Two Separate
Regulations in One.

Well, Regulatory Reinvention And Reg Redesign Is a Major Goal Of this
Administration. We

Are Going to Redo a Thousand Pages this Year, and There Will Be a
Literal Flood of Revised

Regulations Emerging from BLM And Going over to Omb. Whether They\'re
Published or Not

In this Calendar Year Is Another Question. We Raised That Same Question,
And for the

Moment We\'re Going To Leave the 3809 Regulations And the 3715
Regulations Exactly Where

They Are. We\'ll Eventually Get Around to Blending Them into a Single
Set Of Surface

Management Regular Legs.

We Shouldn\'t Be Looking for That Any Time Soon, Though?

No. No.

All Right.

Not Unless You Plan on Volunteering to Do the Work.

Not Very Likely.

Good.

I Have Another Question That Has Come in from One of My Colleagues in
Arizona. It\'s

Wonderful in Any Class We Give, Including Satellite Training, We Always
Get These Loaded

Questions from People in Town and this One Is No Exception N this One, I
Won\'t Mention the

Man\'s Name, He\'s Asked Us Basically to Define the Universe and Give
Seven Examples But

We\'ll Try to Answer this as Best We Can. If You Find Occupancy That Is
Not Covered by a

Notice or Plan, In Other Words, the Person Never Filed One, a Plan, Do
You Establish a 3809

File at That Time and Notify the Occupant That He Is in Noncompliance
with 3809 and must

File a Notice and Plan?

Why Not?

Sounds to Me Pretty Straightforward. Scott, Do You Run into Cases Like
That.

.

All the Time, Yeah. And They Would Also Have to Supply under 3715s Now
Also.

When I Was the Area Geologist In What Was Form You Arely Known As the
India Resource

Area, and That\'s Been Long Enough Ago Before There Was Dirt, I Would
Say Fully

Two‑thirds of the Plans of Operation That I Dealt With Came in When I
Stumbled Across

Something on the Public Lands and Very Few Came in the Front Door and
this Is Obviously No

Exception.

this Particular Circumstance Is Also One of Those That Would Lead You to
Look to Ask the

Question, Anyway, Of, Do We Want To Take an Enforcement Action Under
3715? Because

Conducting Use or Occupancy Without Having a Properly Reviewed Plan or
Notice Is a

Prohibited Act and Could Be Subject to Criminal Penalties.

That\'s Right.

and We Have Changed the Universe a Little with These Regulations. We
Have Redefined the

Boundary Of Conditions of Matt\'s Universe And Seven Different Examples.
Now There Is a

Penalty for Conducting Activity Without Going and Getting Proper
Authorization.

That\'s an Interesting Point Because it Seems to Change the Prime
Regulation That We Would

Be Dealing with New Surprising Operations That We\'d Never Heard Of and
I Know as a Tool it

Would Have Done Me a Lot of Good. It Would Have Made My Work a Lot
Easier All Those

Years Ago. Of Course, You Were There.

Yes.

One Other Question That Came ‑‑ this Is ‑‑ I\'m Still Working Off of the
Same Fax on this One,

So this Is Great. Do Building Codes, et Cetera, And Local Zoning Apply
to Public Lands? The

Answer to That Right Now Is A Qualified Yes, Especially When It Comes to
Building Codes

and I Know, Scott, You\'ll Be Dealing With Those Later and I\'ll Be
Dealing with Those in Some

More Detail Tomorrow. And Does Granite Rock Apply? In Other Words, the
Granite Rock

Decision. Let\'s Just Hold the Answer on That One Because Our Exercise
at Lunch Time

Tomorrow in Many Respects Speaks Directly to the Granite Rock Issue.
Okay. Well, Scott,

Do You Have Any Observations on How We\'ve Done So Far?

So Far, Pretty Good. Have We Got Any More Faxes or Questions Coming In?

We Do Have a Comment That Came in and it Seems to Have Disappeared So
We\'ll Pick it up

After the Break. I Think this Is Another Good Time to Break for Our
Final Morning Break, and

So When We Return, Scott Murrellwright Will Pick up the Topic of Use
Authorizations and

Occupant Submissions. His Notes Begin with Make M, M As in
Murrellwright, 1. While

You\'re out on the Break It\'s a Good Time for to You Think of Questions
to Fax to Us And

We\'ll Try to Work Them into Our Presentations for the Remainder of the
Morning and Again

Tomorrow. Remember That We\'re Planning a Telephone Question and Answer
Session this

Afternoon. So We\'ll Be Back in 15 Minutes And Be Sure to Leave Your Tv
Turned On. Scad

Intertwined.

Welcome Back from Your Second Morning Break. Once We\'re Through with
the Questions

and Answers That Came In, and We Had a Few Questions That Came In, and
We\'ll Have

Answers for Most of Them, Scott Murrellwright Will Then Take Overuse
Occupancy and Use

Authorizations. Let\'s Deal with Some of the Questions First. We Have a
Fuel That Are Really

Straightforward. A Number of the Questions Actually Ask the Same
Question, And That\'s Base

Clay: What Happens If an Operator Fails to File the Occupancy Form? The
Answer Is Really

Straightforward. The Full Force and Effect of the Regulations Take
Effect Immediately. Or at

the End Of, What ‑‑

October 16th, 1996. This Individual Who Fails to File the Form Is Going
to Have To Be in

Full Compliance with The Regulations, and That\'s the Point That You
Need to Make to

Somebody Who Asks the Question. If You Feel You\'re Ready to Be In Full
Compliance with

These Regulations on October 16th, Don\'t File the Form. But If You Have
Any Doubt in Your

Mind, File That Form.

the Bottom Line Is If the Person Doesn\'t File the Form, They Don\'t
Have the Benefits of The

Grace Period. I Have Another Question: since Technically a Mining Claim
Should Not Be

Staked until Exploration Reveals a Discovery, Would an Occupancy Used
During The

Prospecting or Exploration Process Would Be Regulated There Are 3715?
The Answer to That

Is Yes. The Examples Are Spike Camps in Alaska. I Know Years Ago I Used
to Work For a

Uranium Company and We Explored for Uranium in Wyoming And We Had Spike
Camps, and

That Sort of Thing Would Be Regulated.

and It\'s Occupancy. It\'s Public Lands or Mining Claims and Mill Sites.
That\'s One of the

Important Facts That Exist out Here, Is That You Don\'t Need a Mining
Claim to Go out and

Explore and Prospect for Minerals.

Another Question We\'ve Received Is Do the 3715 Regulations Apply to
Structures That

Existed Before the Miner Filed the Mining Claim That They\'re Located
On?

Short Answer Is Yes. We\'ll Have a Lot More to Say About That Later.

Also, Do the 3715 Regulations Stand‑alone or Can They Be Used Along with
the 9828

Regulations? You Bet! They Can Be Used Together and We\'ll Get into
Fairly ‑‑ Pretty Fair

Detail on and That Scott Has Quite a Lot to Say about That. Rick, You
Have a Couple That

You Want to Deal with.

Okay. I Have a Question, One Came In, A Question on the Form. One of the
Questions Asks

the Mining Claimants, Do You Claim Fee Simple Title to the Lands?
That\'s Got a Lot of People

Puzzled. That Grew out of the Concern Expressed by the Nevada State
Office That They Had

to Deal With Town Sites, Either Formal Town Sites That Didn\'t Make it
Or Town Sites That

Grew up Informally Around Existing Mining Operations, and the Land Title
Questions in Those

Areas Are So Tangled That it Doesn\'t Make Any Sense for BLM to Attempt
to Make a

Determination Of Reasonably ‑‑ Reasonably Incident or Is Occupancy
Justified. So We Said

the Simple Solution Is to Build Another Box and Put These Folks in That
Box If We Agree

That They Have Some Kind Of Colorable Title Claim on the Land and We\'ll
Get Around to

Making a Reasonably Incident Determination Once the Department Has
Concluded the Issue of

Land Title. That\'s the Only Reason That\'s There.

That Also Deals with Town Sites, I Understand.

Yes. Yes.

Okay.

Another Question Comes Up, Says: Essentially That They View the
Statement in 3715.0‑1 C

As Applying to Only the Public And Not to the Miner. Well, We\'re Sorry
That It\'s Read That

Way. The Express View of the Department of the Interior All The Way
Through the Solicitor

And All the Way Through the Assistant Secretary Is That it Is the
Position of the Department of

the Interior Acting Through BLM That with Respect to These Regulations
the Mere Fact That

a Mining Claimant Possesses a Mining Claim Does Not Endanger or in Any
Way Interfere with

Their Rights as a Citizen.

What Section Is That Again, Rick.

3715.0‑1c.

Great. We Had a Further Fax That Came In. One of the Questions Has to Do
With a Portal

Which Appears to Be an Adit ‑‑ Which Is Basically An Adit into a
Mountain, a Mining Adit

this. Particular Portal Has a Chimney Coming out. Do They Need to File
the Occupancy Form.

If Somebody Is Living in It, They Need to File an Occupancy.

the Fact It\'s an Adit ‑‑ Another Question Came Up, What\'s The
Statutory Authority That Gave

the Area Manager the Right To Issue the Cessation and Suspension Notice?
Flpma, Federal

Land Policy Management Act Section 302c of Flpma. And Section 302c of
Flpma\'s Powers

Are Further Delegated by The General Powers Granted to The Secretary
under 43 Usc 1201. It

Comes to the Area Manager Through the Many and Varied Secretarial,
Departmental and

Bureau Delegations, but There Is Plenty of Authority for It.

Great.

One Other Question: How Should We Handle Winter Visitors? Claimants Who
Are Not

Occupying The Land on August 15th but Filed the Grace Period Form.

Don\'t Tell Me. Let Me Guess, Rick, this Question Did Not Come in from
Alaska?

No, it Didn\'t! It Came in from an Arizona Office, and the Answer to
this One Is Simple: They

Had to Be Occupying the Public Lands on August 15th. The Fact That They
Filed the Grace

Period Form Doesn\'t Get Them the Grace Period. So They Will Be Treated
like Any Other New

Occupancy, and Have to Go Through the Process Just like Anybody Else
Does.

So When the Winter Visitors Come Back to the Colorado River Region on
November ‑‑ in

November and December, They Need To Be Getting Their Paper Work Right
down to the BLM

Office to Be Legal?

Exactly.

Okay. Good to Know. Scott, I Think It\'s Time to Move Along.

All Right.

So Take It.

Okay. Thank You. Good Morning. My Portion of the Program Today Begins on
M1 and

Covers Use Authorizations under the New 3715 Regulations. If You\'ll
Bear with Me for a

Second Here, this Is Kind of a Compaction of the Regulations. So this Is
Not Verbatim and in

Each Particular Section I Have Lumped Them up Given the Time Constraints
We Have Here

Today. So I Will Try and Point out the Individual Sections That I\'m
Referring to as We Go

along. So Let\'s Give Ate Try Here. ‑‑ Give it a Try Here. Hopefully at
the End of the Session

the Training Will Be Able to List the Standards and Requirements Appear
Use or Occupancy

must Meet to Be Authorized, Determine If a Proposed Occupancy Will Meet
the Concurrent

Standards, Be Able to List State and Local Building And Safety Standards
and with The

Understanding That All Jurisdictions Will Be Different, Explain
Generally How to Go About

Determining Local Standards. You\'ll Also See a List of Handouts There.
I Need to Draw Your

Attention First off to Number 10. You\'ll Notice Mine Is Probably
Different than Yours. If You

Would ‑‑

Notice You\'re on Make M as in Murrellwright, 1, That\'s M1 of Your
Handouts. If You

Haven\'t Already Found Page M1, You Probably Ought to Do So Now.

Thank You, Matt. If We\'re All into the Handout Section Now, Look at
Number 10. If You

Look at the Screen, the Television Screen You\'ll See \"Letter of
Authorization.\" If You Would,

If You\'re Looking At Yours Now, You Will See on Number 10 \"Certificate
of Occupancy.\"

Cross That out and Replace That With \"Letter of Authorization.\" You
Will Also Find on Page

M14 This Letter of Authorization or Certificate of Occupancy That Is
Stated Here. If You

Want to Do the Same to That, or Just Make a Note Right Now, You Can Take
Care of it Later

On. Anyhow, We Have 10 Handouts Listed Here. If You\'ve Already Had a
Chance To Breeze

Through the Packet There You Will Notice There Are More than 10. It Will
Be Unlikely That

We Even Cover What We\'ve Got Listed Right Here Today, but They\'re For
Future Reference.

They Would Be Good Things to Look at to Help You Guide You Along in Your
Future

Activities Or Your Future ‑‑ Trying to Implement These New Regulations.
Use Authorization.

Written Authorization Is Required for Occupancy or Use of A Mining Claim
If it Exceeds 14

Days in a 90‑day Period. This Is Something New. This Is Not Something
That We\'ve Had

Before at Our Disposal. We Now Do.

It\'s Important to Mention That the 14 Day Ins a 90‑day Period Is Not a
Nonconcept. It Has

Been Used for Years In, I Believe It\'s 43 Cfr 8360. You Camp ‑‑ You
Can\'t Camp on The

Public Lands for More than 14 Day Ins a 90‑day Period and Putting Them
Together Makes

Them Consistent with Other Subparts.

the 14 Day Limit Also Applies To Uses Related to Storage Facilities,
Fences and Gates. Some

of the Standards and Requirements under 3715.5, the Use and Occupancy
must Be Incident.

Avoid Unnecessary or Undue Degradation. Must Conform to All Applicable
Federal and State

Environmental Standards. And the Claimants must Also Obtain All Required
Permits Under 43

Cfr 3800 and 3710.

It\'s Important to Note That Key Word Applicable under Federal and State
Environmental

Permits. And Applicable Also Would Apply To Permits That the County
Might Require. It Is

Not Reasonable of Us to Require a Claimant to Get a Permit Only to Have
Them Go to The

County and Have the County Person Say \"You Don\'t Need That!\"

That\'s Correct.

So We Need to Educate Ourself As to What Permits People Are Likely to
Need.

I\'ll Be Getting into That in Another Minute or Two Here. Please Note
That Permanent

Structures Are Not Permitted If Exploration Only ‑‑ Exploration Only
Involves Surface

Activities. And Temporary Structures Are Permitted During Exploration
Activities. Permanent

Structures Are Permissible If Subsurface Exploration Is Proposed.

Now, We Might Want to Mention The Sort of Permanent Structures That Are
Envisioned with

Subsurface Exploration and Those Are the Permanent Structures Required
for Health and

Safety. Anything That Requires a Poured Foundation Is Going to Be a
Permanent Structure,

and If You\'re Going Underground, Especially in a Shaft, You\'re Going
to Need a Headframe, a

Hoist House and to Meet Safety Requirements You Will Have to Pour
Permanent Foundations.

But You Can Still Tow in Other Things. You\'ll Need a Change Room for
Miners. You\'ll Need

Storage of Equipment. You Can Get Change Rooms for Miners with Showers
and Lockers

And So on That Are Built on an 8‑foot Wide Trailer Platform. So Can You
Still Use a

Temporary Structure for Most of the Ancillary Facilities During
Underground Exploration.

Thank You. And, Again, All Structures must Conform with Applicable State
And Local

Building, Fire and Electrical Codes and Occupational Standards.

Those Are the Standards That Were in Effect at the Time the Structure
Was Built.

at the Time the Structure Was Built. Right. Correct. Some Localities May
Require a

Certificate of Occupancy Indicating That the Building Has Met Health and
Safety Codes. This

Particular Certificate of Occupancy Will Be ‑‑ If it Is Issued ‑‑ Will
Be Done by the County at

the Completion of the Facilities or Structures That Have Been Permitted
on the Public Lands.

And Some Indication That the Proposed Structure Can Be Approved by BLM
May Be

Requested By the Locality. In Other Words, at the Completion of a Review
of a Proposed

Occupancy Mining Operation, There May Be Some Instances Where BLM Will
Have to Write

a Letter of Written Authorization to the County Authorizing Them to
Process the Permits.

You\'ll Find an Example of One Of Those Letters Inside Your Notes, Even
If Scott Doesn\'t Get

To It, I Believe There Is at Lest One in There for Format. Which Case Is
That.

I Believe That Is ‑‑ this Will Be the Golden Eagle Proposal.

the Golden Eagle Proposal. If You Want a Good Example of What Those
Could Look Like,

Go Into the Go Ahead Uneagle Propose You. Remember, a Lot of the
Handouts We Handed

You Are Intended for Future Reference and Things Can You Pattern Your
Work after and We

May Not Talk about All of Them Here Today. Scott?

and Back to Me. Also Sewage and Sanitation Permits, Which We\'ve Pretty
Much Touched on

Already. What These Regulations Require Is a Closer Working Relationship
With Local

Agencies. In California, Given Today\'s Tight Budget Constraints, Which
Go Across All State

Lines Concerning the Counties, Too, We Need to Work Hand in Hand with
The County. It\'s

up to Us Now as Specialists To Contact the Counties and Find What County
Codes Are

Applicable. If They Have the Work Force to Implement Them along with
this Requires Us

Getting on the Phone And Finding out Just Who Wants To ‑‑ or Can Work
with Us in

Implementing These Regulations. I Work in the Folsom Resource Area and
We Manage BLM

Lands in Roughly 11 Counties. Our Land Pattern Is a Patchwork Quilt
Covering Approximately

250,000 Acres with Numerous 10 To 40‑acre Parcels and in Some Cases
Surrounded by Private

Property. I Would Describe the Counties in Which I Work in as Proactive
When it Comes to

County Codes Applying to BLM, Apply to Go BLM Land. It\'s Not Too
Unoften We Have an

Adjacent Land Owner Who Calls Us And Also Contacts the County Boards Who
Is Building a

\$250,000 Home Adjacent to BLM When They Have a Trailer and Septic Hole
That They Can

See Out Their Kitchen Window. It\'s Cases like That That in 1991 to Help
Implement Our

Policies over There That the California State Director Ed Hastey under
8365 Implemented

Supplemental Rule. It Went Through the Review Period and Was Finalized
in 1991. If You

Look at Your Handouts You\'ll See the Farthing Case and In That We Used
the 8365s, Which

The County Assisted BLM in an Inspection and the County Determined That
this Occupancy

Site Was in Violation of County Codes and the Trailers Were up On Slabs
Without Permits,

Wood Stoves Without Permits and There Was No Septic System. In ‑‑

Scott, Did We Provide Them a Copy of the Farthing Case in the Notes?

There Is a Copy.

about What Page Does That Start On.

They Should Find That on M21 Through 64.

If You Would like to Read the Case Sometime During Lunch or After Hours,
It\'s a Good

Read. I Do Recommend It.

Yes, I Tried to Provide a Good Majority of the Case in That Description
There. That Is One of

the Things That Helps the Case to Get Concurrence or Affirmation by
Ibla, That Is Having a

Case That Is Put Together and Things Are Documented. Without
Documentation, Things Just

Don\'t Happen.

If it Isn\'t Documented, it Didn\'t Happen.

it Didn\'t Happen. Correct. So the Bottom Line Is Here, in Terms of
Implementing Our

Regulations in the New 3715s, We Need to Work Hand in Hand with The
County. BLM Is Not

Qualified and Does Not Have the Authority to Inspect or Issue Violation
Notices for County

Codes, and How That Generally Works Is When We Go out and Do a Joint
Inspection, the

County Will Write up a Violation Notice, Which You Will Also Find in
Your Handouts and I

Will Reference That a Little Later, They Write The Violation Notice and
Then BLM as Land

Owner Is Issued That Letter and Then We in Turn Write Notices of
Noncompliance to the

Mining Claimant Citing the County Codes That They\'re in Violation of
and Then We Give

Them the Appeal Process. This Is a 3809 Case. It Is Applicable Also to
3715. So That\'s Why

It\'s in There to Help You Use it as a Guide. Some Typical State and
Local Ordinances That

You\'ll Be Using Are Health and Safety Codes Where Any Structure Used
for Habitation

Requires Appropriate Sewer, Power and Structural Stability. And You\'ll
Also Run into Uniform

Building Codes, Which Require Valid Permits to Elect, Construct,
Enlarge, Modify. And Also a

Code That Some People May Not Be Aware of That We Can ‑‑ That Is
Applicable to Public

Lands, Especially in California, Is Vehicle Codes, Especially When it
Comes to Vehicles out

There That Have Not Been Registered for a Number of Years, If You\'re
Looking at a Site That

Looks like a Junkyard.

in Other Words, this Is a Great Way to Abate What Ends up Looking like
an Auto Wrecking

Yard but Is on a Mining Claim?

Correct. Also the Handout, Maricopa County, Again, it Reinforces What
Was Happening

There in Mass Placer County, the Ibla Case There. You Will Notice There
Is a Response to a

Joint Infection by BLM and County Code Inspectors. No Running Water
Again. No Sewage

Disposal in the Dwelling. They Also List the Uniform Building Codes They
Are Not in

Compliance with. You Will Be Able to Find That on Page M113 for Your
Review. You Will

Also Find Mariposa County Codes in There to Give You an Idea What You
Can Be Expecting

down the Road. This Particular Case Now We Have Before the U.s.
Assistant ‑‑ District

Attorney\'s Office, and We Are Seeking ‑‑ We Have Seeked A Court
Injunction, Are in the

Process Now of Going Through a Settlement Agreement. Again, to Give You
Another

Illustration of Counties, We Have Placer County Handout. You\'ll See a
Different Style of

Warning Notice, Code Violation. Again Dealing with an Occupancy Where
Permits Are

Required Due To Land Classification and That\'s One Thing You\'ll Be
Asking the County, How

Are We Zoned out There? Is it Zoned Forestry, Residential? Do Your Codes
Apply? Do They

Not Apply? What\'s Going On. You\'ll Be Able to Find the {Zoin}ing on
Page M69 and Trailer

Occupancy Regulations on Pages M71 Through 76 to Give You An Idea.
Moving onto

Claimant Submissions, under 3715.3, Consultation Is Now Required. If You
Are Going to Be

Residing On Public Land for Exceeding the 14 Days in a 90‑day Period. If
a Mining Operation

Exceeds Casual Use as Defined in 43 Cfr 3800 a Notice/plan of Operation
Needs to Be

Submitted According To 3802 and 3809 for Review Concurrently with
Materials Under

3715.3‑2. Information Required to Process The Proposal under 3715.3‑2
Includes a Detailed

Map That Identifies the Site and the Placement of Structures, Fences,
Gates, Signs, Enclosures

and Location of Reasonable Public Access Through or Around the Mining
Site.

by a Detailed Map, Does That Mean That the Occupant Will Have To Have it
Prepared by an

Engineering Company?

Not Necessarily. Where I Work in the Mother Load, Ideal More with the
Small Miners Out

There, and as an Example, You Could Look on Page M112 at The Golden
Eagle Map. That

One Is a Fair Representation of What Is ‑‑ It\'s Acceptable. It\'s Not
the Standards of a Mining

Company, but for Our Purposes it Gives Us an Idea as To What the
Intentions Are with The

Claimant. As Long as it Clearly Depicts The Information We Need, It\'s
Good Enough?

Yes. And If We Do Have Problems with It, We Can Always Get in Contact
With the Claimant

and Correct Anything We Need To.

Good. Thanks. A Written Description and Detail Is Also Required ‑‑
Description Is Also

Required as to How the Occupancy Is Reasonably Incident, How it
Constitutes Substantially

Regular Work, Observes Observable on the Ground Activities Would That
Lead to the

Development of an Economic Deposit, and Also the Use of Appropriate
Equipment That Is

Presently Operable Subject to Reasonable Repair, Maintenance, et Cetera.
Occupancy May

Also Involve One Or More of the Following: Protecting from Loss or Theft
Valuable Minerals

or Regularly ‑‑ I Have to ‑‑ Protecting from Loss or Theft Valuable
Minerals And/or Regularly

Used Equipment. I Have to Learn How to Spell Here One of These Day
Snooze I Have to

Defend Scott on this One. I Put Those Elmo Cards Together For Him and I
Ran Them Through

My Spell Check and I Have an Awful Feeling Added to the Custom
Dictionary.

Also the Occupancy must Involve or Can Involve Protecting the Public
from Equipment or

Surface Uses Which If Unattended Create a Hazard to Public Safety.

We\'ll Go into Some More Detail on Public Safety Hazards Tomorrow.

and Located in an Isolated Area That Would Prevent Workers From Working
a Full Eight‑hour

Shift. And this You Can Find under 3715.2‑1. The Proposal must
Demonstrate a Need for

Enclosures, Fences and Signs to Exclude the Public. Could I See Slide
109, Please? As an

Example, as to What Some Of the Proposals May or May Not Come up With,
this Is a Gate

That We Encountered on One of Our Inspections, and the Question Here Is,
Is this

Appropriate? The Gate May Be Appropriate, but Is the Construction of it
So? Is it Intimidating,

Threatening?

That\'s a Good Question and I Think Maybe We Ought to Reserve Further
Discussion of this

One Until this Afternoon When We Have Dennis Mclane with Us.

Anyhow, That\'s an Example of What Many of You May Very Well Know We
Encounter out

There. Also the Proposal must Also Provide an Estimated Period of Use of
the Structures,

Enclosures, et Cetera, as Well As the Schedule for Removal and
Reclamation When Operations

Cease. Temporary Occupancy May Be Extended Beyond the 14‑day Limit To
Secure the Site

Provided Consultation Has Begun and this You\'ll Find under 3715.2‑3. A
Watchman Can Also

Be Included In Your Proposal and Is Justified under 3715.2‑2. For the
Use of a Watchman, it

Must Be Reasonably Incident and Continual, and must Be Shown That the
Presence Is Required

Whenever the Operation Is Not Active or When the Claimant or The Workers
Are Not on Site.

Another Way of Saying That, Scott, Is the Need for the Watchman Can\'t
Disappear When The

Miners Go to Town. The Watchman\'s Got to Be There At All Times.

Good Point. That\'s Correct.

It\'s Not a Case of Some Guy On the Day Crew Is Appointed Watchman and
Gets to Live on

Site, and When Everybody Goes to Town He Goes with Them. That Guy Has
Got to Be There

for The Full Time.

We Have a Designated Named Individual in the Notice or Plan Of
Operation?

Exactly.

Well, If They Have a Mine Crew of Eight People, Could it Be Any One of
the Eight. I Mean,

That One Guy Has to Go To Town Once in a While to Do Laundry.

You Don\'t Necessarily Have to Specify Who the Watchman Is. Those Are
the Kinds of Details

That Are Best Worked out at the ‑‑ on the Ground Level.

the Bottom Line Is There Needs to Be a Physical Presence At All Times.

the Physical Presence and the Need for the Physical Presence Cannot Go
Away When the

Operation Closes for the Week, For the Weekend.

It\'s Also Important to Note That the Underlying Use That Requires the
Occupancy in Itself

Needs to Be Reasonably Incident. I Remember a Case Not Far from Blythe,
California, Where

the Miner Asserted That He Needed a Watchman Because Eed Swimming Pool
Slide and a Lot

of Antique Cars and Kept Firearms That Had To Be Guarded. It Wasn\'t
Mining but Needed a

Watchman to Look after All the Stuff Not Reasonably Incident.

That\'s What We Regulations Are About, Is Presenting Situations Such as
That.

Right.

That\'s Right. Proposal Review\... BLM Has 30 Business Days or Cyst
Weeks to Review All

Occupancy And Use Submission from Date of Receipt of the Materials,
Unless BLM Concludes

a Determination Cannot Be Made until 30 Business Days after it Prepares
the Necessary

Environmental Documents or Has Complied with The National Historic
Preservation Act, the

Endangered Species Act And/or Other Applicable Statutes. The Bottom Line
Is Today

Occupancy Cannot Be Initiated Unless the Claimant or Operator Possesses
the Written

Authorization from BLM and Has Obtained All Other Applicable Approvals
and Permits. At the

End of the Review Period For ‑‑ That Does Not Include a Plan of
Operation, a Written

Determination Will Be Sent to The Claimant, and under 3715.3‑5, He Will
Be Required to

Continue to Comply with 3715.2, 3715.2‑1 and 3715.5‑5. That Will Be a
Paragraph in There

That Is Required in Our Response to It. I Would Also Recommend Attaching
A Copy of the

Regulations Again Also.

Scott, I Think I Ought to Dive in with a Question That\'s Come In,
Because I Remember this

Being a Long‑standing Argument I Had with Miners Who Said I\'m Not On a
Mining Claim, My

House Is On a Mill Site Claim and We Have A Question in That Says, Do
These All ‑‑ Do the

Regulations Also Apply to Mill Site Claims?

I Would Say Yes.

Absolutely Yes.

Without Question, They Were Intended to Apply to Mill Sites.

Great.

Okay. For Operations Conducted under a Plan of Operations, the
Determination Will Be

Concluded In a Decision That Approves or Rejects the Plan. For Letters
of Nonconcurrence,

The Letter of Nonconcurrence When BLM Does Not Feel That the Information
Supplied

Justifies Concurrence, it Will Describe How it Failed to Meet the
Conditions and Also We Have

the Opportunity to Give the Claimant Or Operator the Chance to Modify
The Plan or If We

Feel It\'s ‑‑ Warrants an Appeal, Then We Would Mention That to Him
under 3715.9.

Submissions\... I Think Due to the Time Constraints Here, Matt, We\'ll
Skip this Which Is on M4

and Also M5.

So We Are Skipping Sections In M4 and 5 and We\'ll Move to Where.

We\'ll Move to M12 to the Golden Eagle Placer. The Names and Faces Have
Been Changed,

but this Proposal Here That You\'ll Be Looking at Is a Operation That Is
Now Underway. What

We Have Here Is the Golden Eagle Placer. The Claim Sundt Max Sands. And
He Is Located in

Eldorado County. Again, the Map for this That We\'re Referring to Is on
Page M112. Mr.

Sands Says I Am Propose to Go Conduct a Placer Operation About 300 Yards
North of the

Green River. I Intend to Mine the Old River Banks on a Daily Basis for
the Next 20 Years and

Currently Plan To Disturb less than Five Acres. I Intend to Process the
Material On Site and

Will Be Setting up a Trommell, Crusher, Screens and Sluices. Of the. I
Will Also Be Using a

Generator, Dump Truck and Backhoe. Water to Run the Processing Plant
Will Be Pumped

from the Green River and I Am Currently Pursuing Obtaining a Water
Rights Permit from

Regional Water Quality Control. I Estimate the Wash Plant Can Process up
to Nine Cubic

Yards Of Material per Hour and My Intention Is to Eventually Apply For
Patent. Given That

this Is to Be a Year‑round Operation, I Will Need to Set up Residence on
My Claim. My Wife

Will Be the Only Other Full‑time Occupant. Presently My Residency Will
Consist of Temporary

Structures. I Need to Place a Camper Trailer, Tent House, Shower and
Chemical Toilet at the

Location Marked on the Attached Map. I Also Require a 10 by 12 Foot
Metal Storage

Building, a Mill Building and a Water Storage Tank. Gasoline and Diesel
Fuel Will Be Stored

in 55‑gallon Drums 50 Feet from Any Structure and Chemical Fire
Extinguishers Will Be

Available and the Ground Will Be Cleared from Flammable Debris. Existing
Holes Will Be

Fitted ‑‑ I Think I Meant Filled on That One. That\'s Not Matt\'s
Mistake. One Is Mine ‑‑ Will

Be Filled With Tailings. Trash Will Be Brought to the County Dump. Any
Disturbance in

Contour Will Be Filled to a Natural‑looking State. And Areas Will Be
Reseeded and Replanted

and All Equipment and Structures Will Be Removed When The Operation Is
Completed. Based

on His Submissions, the Consensus at the Time, and Even Today, Is That
He Would Get a

Letter of Concurrence, and\... A Letter of Concurrence. We Have
Completed Our Review of

Our Proposal ‑‑ to Your ‑‑ Oh, Boy. Excuse Me.

Hang on a Second. We Have a Question That Just Came in and I Think this
Might Be a Really

Good Time to Dive in And Deal with It. It\'s, Again, from Our ‑‑ My ‑‑
One of My Usual

Suspects Here in Phoenix. I Think He\'s Going to Owe Me a Beer or
Something When this Is

Over with. This Is Addressed Really to Rick. If I Remember the
Definition of Casual Use in

3809, Occupancy Is Not One of Those Items That Can Push an Operation
above Casual Use.

Are We to Assume That Now? If the Operator Is Doing Pick And Shovel
Work, It\'s Clearly

Casual Use, but Eye Doesn\'t Justify Occupancy. Will We Then Require a
Notice or Just Require

the Occupancy to Cease? There Seems to Be Some Inconsistency.

Well, That\'s a Good Point. You Get to this by Saying: Are You Doing
Occupancy? If You

Are Doing Occupancy at Casual Use Levels and it Is Possible to Do
Occupancy at Casual Use

Levels, and Let Me Take as an Example a Spike Camp In the Middle of
Alaska, People Doing

Geologic Reconnaissance, People Doing Mapping and People Doing Backpack
Geophysics ‑‑ I

Have Done All Three of Those in My Career, Checkered as Though It May Be
‑‑ Would Be a

Casual Use Level Activity and Would Involve ‑‑ Could Involve Occupancy
in Excess of 14

Days Based out of a Tent Camp and So The Rule Would Apply to Casual Use
Level Activity.

I Think It\'s Important to Note That the Kind of Occupancy That a Casual
Use Activity Is

Going to Warrant in Most Cases Will Be Almost in Distinguishable from a
Recreational Camp.

You\'re Going to Be Hard to Able Them from the Ordinary Elk Hunter Using
a Wall Tent.

That\'s Correct.

That\'s Why We Adopted the 14‑day Standard.

and That Leads Us to Another Question That Came In, Which I Think this
Is a Good Time to

Cover. Most State BLM 43 Cfr Supplemental Regulars Are 14 Daze Within a
28 Day, Not 90

Days. Will this New Use Authorization Interfere with Existing Camping
Regs?

the Answer to That One Is We\'ll Look at It. I Doubt That it Will, but
‑‑

Pay Attention to the Information Bulletins.

Pay Attention to Information Bulletins When They Come out.

and He Will We\' Have That Answer in Due Time. Scott to Sorry to
Interrupt ‑‑

Back to Your First Question There, Just So It\'s Clear, an Occupancy Can
Be Proposed on a

3715s and under a Casual Use Operation, Which Means No 3809 Notice Would
Necessarily Be

Submitted.

There Would Be No 3809 Notice But There Would Be Some Written
Concurrence in the

Paper Trail Somewhere.

Right.

There Would Be a 3715 Case File.

Right.

and the Requirements of 3715 Would Apply, and the Advantage To this Is
the Casual User Has

Still Got to Clean up the Site When They Leave.

That\'s Correct. This Also Speaks to Why You\'re Asking Pour Separate
Case Files For

Basically the Same Operation?

Exactly. And ‑‑

it Will Sure Make Things Easier for Record Keeping.

I Think Also Maybe in Some of The Cases We Will Also Receive Notices
That Are Actually

Casual Use.

That\'s Right. Especially in Some of the California Desert Areas. The
Difference Between

Casual Use and Notice Level Is Very Hard to Disearn at Times.

Just Be Aware. Back to Our Letter of Concurrence Here for Max Sands. We
Have Completed

Our Review of Your Proposal to Occupy Your Golden Eagle Placer Mining
Claim. Camc

34512 Submitted under 43 Cfr 3715.1. ‑‑ I\'m Sorry. Under 3715. I Concur
with Your

Occupancy as Long as You Continue to Comply With Subparts 3715.2,
3715.2‑1 And 3715.5

(Attached). This Is the Paragraph That must Be Included in All Levels of
‑‑ Letters of

Concurrence. Prior to Establishing Your Occupancy, You must First Obtain
Building and

Sanitation Permits From Eldorado County. I Have Enclosed an
Authorization Letter for to You

Submit to the County So They Will Process the ‑‑ Process the Required
Permits. When You\'ve

Obtained the Necessary Permits, Please Provide BLM with Copies for Your
Case File. If You

Have Any Questions, Contact Rock Pit at and a Sample Authorization
Letter, I Would Do This

Differently Today. I Would Probably Recommend Instead of Giving the Copy
or The Letter to

the Claimant, Ship It Directly to the County Itself. Then, Again,
That\'s All Going to Depend on

the County and the Personnel You\'re Dealing with There.

I Would Say in That Case They Definitely Want to Send a Carbon Copy to
the Claimant Who

Should Be Keeping Records of this as Well.

Yes. Letter of Authorization\... S.crammer, Your County Planning
Department. Max Sands Is

the Owner of the Golden Eagle Placer Claim Located on BLM Lands. It Is
Our Understanding

That Before Eldorado County Will Accept an Application for a Building
Permit the Land

Owner Must Provide Documentation That Authorizes the Proposed
Construction on the Lands

Involved. Mr. Sands Has Demonstrated the Need to Build a Storage Shed
With a Bathroom at

His Occupancy Site in the Green River Canyon. He Plans to Connect Gray
Water And Sewer

Lines from the Build To Go a Septic System. Mr. Sands Is Conducting Gold
Mining Operations

under 43 Cfr 3809. Notice of Operations and Is Currently Authorized to
Occupy His Claim

under 43 Cfr 3715. The Proposed Septic System and 200 Square Foot
Structure Is Considered

to Be Consistent with Mining and Occupancy Notice as Approved. You May
Regard this Letter

as Authorization from the BLM to Issue and Process Permits Necessary for
the Construction

Of the Structure and Utility. Sincerely, Area Manager. I Think Another
Question Comes Up

Here Is Regarding Exploration Activities. What Do We to about Septic
Systems There? We

Have Found, Number One, I Don\'t Think Septic Systems Fall Under the
Level of Activity That

Would Require a Septic System or Something That We Would Necessarily
Want. We Have

Worked it out with a Number of Counties Where If the Claimants Who
Intend to Occupy,

Obtain Approval or Obtain a Contract for a Portable Toilet From a
Licensed Septic System

Within the Area, We Can Accommodate Them under That Process and Still
Meet the

Guidelines and Codes.

That Would Be One of Those Forest Green Plastic Things That You Open the
Door of and

Latch It Behind You.

the Hard Plastic. Johnny‑on‑the‑spot Basically.

along with the Contract to Empty It. It\'s Important to Note What We
Mean by a Portable

Toilet Is Not A Folding Stool with a Bag.

Correct. And If You Want to Look a Little Farther into That, There Are
in Your Handout

You Will Look on Pages M91 Through 103 and this Again Is in Mariposa
County, Not To Be

Picky on Mariposa County, This Is Where the County Has Approved a
Portable Toilet Use For

Six Months Provided the Claimant Provides Copies of Contracts for Local
Septic Service.

Every Six Months That Has to Be Renewed. That Is a Casual Use Operation
Out There. It\'s

Hand Tools.

What Page Was That On?

That Was on Pages M91 Through 103. It Is Notices Supplied in There And
Also

Correspondence Back and Forth from the County and BLM.

That\'s a Good Read. I Recommend People Have a Look At It. Just Read it
after Lunch.

and I Have ‑‑ What Else Have We Got? Any More Questions?

We Have a Couple Faxes in Here. We Have a Little Time for Questions, and
One Question

Here Is, Well, Rick, Why Don\'t You Deal with the One You Have in Front
of You.

the Question Came to Us from The Butte District Office, and That
Question Says: Who Gives

The Order to Quit and What Authority Does the Average BLM Person Have to
Issue That

Quitting Order? Well, Folks, My Suggestion to You Is That the Person
Signing That Order

Better Be the Line Manager, and Wherever the Line Delegations End,
That\'s Where That Order

Ought to Be Signed. In Scott\'s Case, It\'s the Area Manager.

Good. I Think We Have a Few Minutes, If You\'d like to Phone in with a
Call, and We\'ll Try

and Handle Your Question on the Air. Again, Send Us a Fax, and We Have
Another Fax

Question Here To Deal with.

Does the Permanent Structure Prohibition Mean That No Permanent
Structure Is Allowed For

Open Pit Mines or Placer Mining as These Are Surface Activities?
Basically When You Are

Doing Mining, You Are Allowed to Place Permanent Structures. It Is Only
Exploration That

We Begin to Look Askance at the Placement of Permanent Structures. So
the Answer Here Is,

Yes, You Can Place Permanent Structures At Placer Mines and at Open‑pit
Mines.

I Think We Can Also ‑‑ We Can Bring up a Good Example of Why We\'re
Asking People to

Meet These Local Codes If We Would Just Have a Look at Slide 101 as A
Beginning. And

That\'s, I Think, a Marvelous Example of What Some of the Problems Are
We Can Encounter

That People Could Just Kind of Happen into Without Really Any Knowledge.
If You Look

Carefully There, That\'s Scott Murrellwright\'s Left Arm ‑‑ or Is it
Your Right Arm?

That Looks like My Eye Right.

and There Is No Power Going To That Wire.

That Is Actually the Power Supply for That Operation Coming Out of the
Ground, And, Rick,

Do You Think You Could Call That a Public Hazard or a Nuisance?

Without Question That\'s Probably a Public Hazard. And Here We Want to
Get into a Little

Something. I\'m Certain That If There\'s a Solicitor Listening, They\'re
Probably on Their Way to

Low Polar Orbit about Now. We Are a Land Owner. Make No Mistake about
It. We Will Be

the Possessor of the Deep Pockets. It Is Incumbent on Us to Ensure That
All of Those Folks

Who Are Using BLM Lands for Legitimate Purposes Are in Compliance with
The Police

Powers of the States, And That Means That They Have to Comply with the
Willedding Codes,

Sewage Codes, All of the Things Scott\'s Talked about. If We Don\'t
Ensure That They Are In

Compliance, the Liability Rebounds on Us, and We Have a Significant
Burden to Shoulder. And

at the Risk of Angering the Solicitors Even More, I Will Let ‑‑ No
Longer Angering the

Solicitors, I Will Let That Matter Go and Simply Say That We Are Now in
That Unknown

Terrain That We Have Consistently Tried To Avoid, Which Is the Question
Of Where\'s the

Liability? Who\'s at Fault? If Someone Goes Out, Occupies a Cabin or a
Facility on BLM, it

Does Not Meet Code, the Thing Burns to the Ground and Someone Is Killed
and Injured, Who\'s

Going to Get the Tort Filed Against Them? The Person Operating the
Mining Claim, Who May

Have No Money Whatsoever? Absolutely Not. It Will Undoubtedly Be the
BLM. And it Is in

Our Best Interest To Make Sure That We Don\'t Have That Circumstance
Happen. That\'s Why

We Want Structures to Meet Code.

this Sort of Situation, I Think, Could Get Us Between a Rock and a Hard
Place. It Might Be

Worthwhile, Rick, Spending a Moment Explaining What We Go Through When
We\'re Looking

at an Abatement and the Building Is Potentially Historic Building
Covered by the National

Historic Preservation Act.

the Problem Arises in the Creation of an Attractive Nuisance. As a Land
Owner, If You Allow

a Structure to Sit out on Your Back 40 and You Have Children Playing in
It, It\'s an Old

Half‑beat‑down Barn That You Haven\'t Posted, You Haven\'t Told People
to Stay off of it and

You\'ve Made No Definitive Effort To Keep Kids out of It, If a Wind
Comes along and Blows

That Thing Flat to the Ground While Some Grade School Kids Are Playing
in It, You Have an

Attractive Nuisance, and You Have Bought Yourself a Lot of Liability.
That Means That We\'re

No Different. We Have Buildings out There That, Though They May Be
Greater Than 50

Years Old, May Constitute an Attractive Nuisance. They May Be a Threat
to Health And

Safety. They ‑‑ Simply Because They\'re Falling down Around Your Ears.
Or They May Be a

Place Where Illegal Activities Are Occurring. We Have the Same Duty That
Falls On Every

Other Land Owner in the Country to Abate Attractive Nuisances, and That
May Include

Removal of the Structure. Or at Least a Decision to Remove ‑‑ Proposed
Decision on Our Part

To Remove the Structure. And Those of You Who Deal with 106 Are Probably
Inwardly

Groaning or Some Outwardly Groaning. There Is No Way Around That.

Still, If We Are Dealing with Section 106 Compliance in Our Discussion,
it Is Important to

Note That this Building or Situation May Constitute a Hazard or a
Nuisance. If We Could Look

at Slide ‑‑ Where Did it Go? Slide 149, We Have a Good Example of a
Situation That Was

Very Much like That. The Slide That\'s about to Come Up, this Particular
Residence No Longer

Exists, I Have to Emphasize. This Is Formerly in Riverside County,
California. The Building

Was ‑‑ Portions of The Building at Least Were in Excess of 50 Years Old.
It Was Being Used

as a Weigh Station for Illegal Immigrants And Used to Cooking ‑‑ for
Cooking

Methamphetamine. In this Case Fortunately the Area Archaeologist Looked
at it And Said this

Has No Significance and I\'m Not Sure It\'s over 50 Years and Left. So
Moving to the next Slide,

We Can Show What Actually Came out Of That Situation. Can We Move ‑‑ the
next Slide

Would Be 151 ‑‑ Not 151. 150. We Were Able to Abate That Situation.
Understand, it Was

under a Different Regulatory Regime. However, If You Have a Public
Hazard or Nuisance, or

If, for Example, Cooking Meth, the Shpo Needs to Know That. If There Is
Going to Be

Responsibility, We Need to Share It. Rick?

You\'ve Covered it All, Matt. We Have a Call Coming in Now From Randy in
Las Vegas.

Hello, Randy? You\'re on the Air.

Caller: Can You Hear Me on The Phone.

We Can Hear You Just Fine.

Caller: Twice Now I Heard Mr. Shumaker and Murrellwright To the Issue of
Zoning on Public

Lands. I Would like to Clarify Something Because I Think It\'s Confusing
Us. It\'s Very Clear

That County Sanitation and Building Codes Apply to Public Lands, to
Structures on Mining

Claims and Mill Site Claims and So On, but On the Zoning Issue, Zoning
Applies to Land Use,

and Congress Has Spoken on the Issue That These Lands Will Be Open to
Mining. So If We

Are Going to Say That These Lands Are Now Subject to Zoning as Well, You
Know, We Are

Allowing the County to Override A Federal Land Use Decision Made By
Congress. I Think ‑‑

So I Would like to Clarify this Issue of Zoning on Public Lands.

You Are Right about That, Randy. In Fact, If We Have Said this Is
Causing Zone to Go

Apply, I Think We Were in Error. This Is an Issue We\'re Planning To Get
into in Greater Detail

Starting Tomorrow, but in ‑‑ in Fact, Our Lunch Time Exercise Tomorrow
Speaks Exactly to

this Case. But, Granite Rock Versus the ‑‑ Versus the State of
California And So on Applies.

Rick, Perhaps You Have More.

No, You\'ve Done an Admirable Job Saying Exactly What the Policy Is. The
Police Powers

Cross Administrative Boundaries Within A State, Whether They Are Park
Service Land, BLM

Land or Forest Service Land or What Have You. The Zoning Laws Are Land
Use Laws and

Our Caller Has Correctly Said Congress Reserves To Itself the Right to
Say What Uses Will or

Will Not Occur on The Public Lands.

That\'s Absolutely Right. I Think Most of Us Are Familiar With
Situations Where a Mining

Claimant Operates on an Unpatented Mining Land, Mining Claim ‑‑ I\'m
Sorry ‑‑ Where He

Knows If He Filed a Patent and Obtained Patent He Would Have to Shut
down Because County

Zoning Would Not Permit Him to Continue If it Was Private Land. Randy,
Thanks Very Much

for Clarifying That and Calling.

Caller: Okay. Thanks.

Well, Rick. We Have Another Fax Question That Came in from Palm Springs.
Basically It\'s:

Please Explain Permanent Structures Are Not Permitted If He Can More
Asian Only Involves

Surface Activities. Does this Include a Fence or Gate to Keep out
Trespassers for Claims

Surrounded by Private Land or a Fence or Gate Around a Surface Trench?

Okay.

it Sounds like There Are Actually More Issue Here, We\'re Looking at
Three or Four Issues.

There Are a Couple Issues in This Question. The First Question Is
Permanent Structures Are

Not Permitted When Surface Activities ‑‑ Surface Exploration Activities
Are the Matter at

Hand. What We\'re Saying Is That If You Are Only Doing Surface
Exploration, That Is,

Drilling, Sampling, Geophysics, Mapping, Geochemistry, You Do Not Need
to Place a

Permanent Structure on That Site. The Driller\'s Shack Can Come in As a
Skid Mount off the

Back of A Trailer, Assuming He Needs One. You Can Sit in a Wall Tent for
14 Days. You

Can Pull a 30‑foot‑long 8‑foot‑wide Trailer on the Site, And These Are
Not Permanent

Structures. If You Would Bring Something in That Has to Go in on a Slab,
That Has to Be

Moved by a Method That Looks like House Moving for Exploration
Activities We Do Not

Accept That as Reasonable. Now, Fencing or a Gate to Keep Out
Trespassers from a Claim

Surrounded by Private Land ‑‑ If There Is a Requirement for Gating or
Fencing, It\'s

Independent of the Question of Structures. Fencing May Be Required for
Any Number of

Reasons. In this Particular Case the Adjoining Land Owners May Insist On
Fencing as a

Condition of the Operation Going Forward. And If it Is, Indeed,
Surrounded, Well, There\'s Not

a Lot We Can Say about That. We Would Probably Approve the Fence.
Fencing Around Only

a Surface Trench Is a Safety Issue. It Is an Issue That Is Decided More
on the Basis of What

Would The Mine Safety Folks, Either at The Federal or State Level,
Require.

We Have a Question That Came In from Klamath Falls and We Have a Phone
Question from

Art In Salem. Art, Please Hold. We Will Try to Get to You Before We
Break for Lunch. This

Question from Klamath Falls Is in Reference to Casual Use Occupancy
Equaling an Elk Camp, I

Did Not Notice a Maximum Standard of Structure Allowed on The Claim. A
Claimant Could

Build a 2500 Square Foot Four‑bedroom Ranch House on the Claim F We
Disagree With the

Size of the Structure, What Authority Is Used to Deny The Occupancy
Request?

Well, First Off, If There\'s Two Parts Here ‑‑ If You Put up A 2500
Square Foot Four‑bedroom

House, You Are Probably Putting Up a Permanent Structure. That\'s Not
Going to Equal Casual

Use. Casual Use Occupancy Generally Says Tent Camping. If We Need to
Clarify with That

Guidance, We\'ll Get That out. What Authority Do We Have to Deny the
Size of the Structure?

It Comes to That Question That I Spoke of Earlier: What Is the Position
of the Operation in the

Mineral Development Lifecycle? If It\'s an Exploration Level Activity,
Then it Doesn\'t Need To

Have a 2400 Square Foot House. On the Other Hand, If You\'re Talking
about an Operation

That Is on the Verge or on the Cusp Of Becoming a Mine and They Need To
Have

Administrative Support And Administrative Facilities And They Have to
Have an Office That

Looks Similar to Your Office, Then, Yes, There May Be A Need for a 2400
Square Foot

Facility That Has Space for Typists, Xerox Machines and More Importantly
the Coffee Machine.

We\'ll Get into What Kinds of Occupancies Are Appropriate at What Level
of Operations

Tomorrow. I Don\'t Want to Jump Too Far Ahead Except to Say That You
Have Three

Examples of Surface Use Determination Reports, and They Are in the
Section Beginning with

S1. You Might Want to Have a Look at The Dreamer\'s Paradise Report.
I\'m Sorry about the

Cutesy, but I Didn\'t Name the Mining Claim. Have a Look at That One.
There Is a Discussion

in There About Mineral Property Lifecycles. In the Meantime I Would like
to Take a Call from

Art. Hello, Art in Salem, You\'re on The Air.

Caller: Yes, My Question Has To Do with Dredging.

by Dredging Do You Mean Suction Dredging?

Caller: Suction Dredging, Right. The Claimant Claims That He Has To Have
an Outhouse

and Then a Platform. Now, with the Surface Exploration, I\'m Kind of
Concluding That That

Would Fall Under Surface Exploration and That He Doesn\'t Really Need
this ‑‑ the Outhouse

out There and The Platform.

Well, the Question Is Really One of What Are the Sanitation Codes Going
to Require?

Caller: Right. We Haven\'t Gone That Far Yet.

Okay. The Other Thing Is, You Know, How Permanent Is That Platform? Is
it Permanent in

the Sense That It\'s Going to Be on a Slab, Or Is That Platform Simply
Going To Be ‑‑

Resemble More Likely a Deck?

Caller: It\'s Actually Resembles a Deck at this Point. But it Is
Attached to Trees.

Is There a Suction Dredging Season on the River?

Caller: Uhm\... I\'m Not Sure. I\'m Sure There Is. I Think the State of
Oregon or Deq Has a

Certain Time Frame or Window There.

So Primarily Determine, You Know ‑‑ We Would Have to Look at The Length
of Time the

Season Is And What Would Be Necessary in That Operation for That Length
Of Time Also.

it Sounds to Me like There Is Some Homework Needed Here in Figuring out
What the Local

Codes Are.

Caller: Right. But it Sounds Like, from What I\'ve Observed, and I\'m
Kind of a Part‑time

Mining Person Here, So I Don\'t Have a Lot of Time to Spend on Checking
this All out And I

Get it ‑‑ I\'m Able to Do It Whenever I Can, but the ‑‑ it Looks More
like It\'s a Recreational

Operation. He Goes out There and He Spends The Weekend and He Pulls up
His Camper and

the Platform Is Just For Dining. More than Anything Else.

I Think We Are Running Low on Time, Art, So I Am Going to Put You Back
on Hold and

We\'ll Try And Finish this off the Air. Thanks Very Much, Art, for
Calling. This Is One of

Those Situations, I Think, Where the Question Is ‑‑ the Answer Is in a
Gray Area. Are We

Looking at Mining or Are We Looking at Recreation? And We Come to a
Standard Of, If You

Can Put it into the Back of A Three‑quarter Ton Pick‑up Truck or into a
Utility Trailer And

Haul it Away at the End of Your Mining Operation or the End Of Your
Weekend Operation,

Then You Should Do So.

Exactly. In this Particular Case, this Is An Issue That\'s Not Going to
Be Resolved by One Site

Visit. This Is an Issue That\'s Going to Take a Lot of Observation and a
Lot of Documentation.

The Regulations Don\'t Prohibit The Weekend Miner, and That\'s One Point
to Remember. The

Weekend Miner Still Has the Right to Use and Occupy and to Put up
Structures. Now, We

Have a Problem Here in Divining the Difference Between Somebody Doing
Predominantly

Recreation and Predominantly Mining and It\'s Going to Turn Pretty Much
on the Observed

Activity That\'s Going On.

in this Specific Case in the Remaining Few Seconds We Have Before We
Need to Go to the

Exercise for Lunch, I Think That Art Might Want to Suggest That The
Operator Start Using a

Camper That Is Fully Self‑contained, Has its Own Restroom Inside So the
Point Is Not a

Problem That Anyone Has to Deal With, and at the End of the Weekend, the
Camper with its

Bathroom Goes Home. Great. Okay. We\'re out of Time for Faxes, Although
We Do Have a

Large Stack of Them Right Now and We Would like to You Continue Sending
in Questions.

Remember That after Lunch We\'ll Have a Great Deal of Time, at Least by
Comparison, for

Answering Questions on the Air And We Don\'t Bite. Give Us a Call. We\'d
like to Hear from

You. In the Meantime, We Are a Few Minutes Away from Lunch and I Would
like to Introduce

the Lunchtime Exercise. If You Move to Page M9 in Your Notes, on That
Page You Will Find

Mr. I.m.nobody\'s Proposal. His Proposal Is on Page M8. Scott Named All
These and I\'m Not

Responsible for Them. You Can Thank Scott for Their Oddball Names. Once
You\'ve Found

That, Look Forring the Following in Mr. Nobody\'s Proposal. Has He
Provided Complete

Information? Has He Demonstrated That His Uses Will Be Reasonably
Incident? Will They Be

Reasonably Calculated to Lead to the Extraction and Beneficiation of
Minerals? Will He Use

Appropriate Equipment? Has He Obtained the Necessary County Permits?
What Does the Real

Purpose of This Operation Appear to Be? What Is Your Strategy for
Dealing with this Case?

Now, During Lunch, and as Early As Possible, We\'d like to You Fax Us
Back Your Strategy

Using The Form on Page M10. Now, the Fax Number Is Listed on The Front
of Your Handout

Packet. Get it Back to Us If You Possibly Can by 12:00 Pacific Daylight
Time, 12:00 Noon

Pacific Time, So We Can Review All the Answers and Go over Them After
Lunch. Again, If

You Come up with Some Additional Questions During Lunch, by All Means,
Send Us a Fax. If

You Don\'t Have a Fax, You Can Call in and We\'ll Write Your Message
down. When We Come

Back from Lunch, We Will Be on Transponder 17 of This Same Satellite. Be
Sure Your

Receiver Is Tuned To Channel 17 and Don\'t Forget To Fax Back Your
Results. And If You

Have Questions During Lunch, Fax Them to Us Then. Fax Them to Us Then.
If You Haven\'t

Sent Us a Groupwise Address for Your Site, Please Do So Now. A Moment of
Clarification,

We Don\'t Plan to Send Things to Your Groupwise Site. We Do Want to Send
Updates

Overnight to Your Office. So We\'ll Be Back in 90 Minutes. (Short
Introductory Comment

Missing Due to Edit Control Not Being Fed to Satellite.) \...A Question
Came in Earlier, Will

this Program Be Available Later on Videotape and the Answer to That Is,
Yes, We Will Make

this Whole Program Available on Videotape. We\'re Not Exactly Certain
When It Will Come

Out, Although We Are Shooting for 60 Days. Watch Your Instruction
Bulletins Coming from

the Training Center For the Announcement. Also When You Send Us Faxes,
Just Send Us the

One‑page Fax. Please Don\'t Send a Cover Sheet. All We End up Doing Is
Throwing It Away.

Okay, Scott, What Did People Think of the Barrack a Proposal.

First I Would like to Thank The Responses We Got. It Was a Considerable
Amount. For the

Most Part, the Class ‑‑ The Folks That Are Watching Us Came up with the
Correct Answers.

We Did Have a Few Folks Who Seemed to Have Missed the Point. But I Think
Maybe First We

Should Go Through the Exercise Or Through Primarily What ‑‑

Give Ate Brief Overview and Then Let\'s Go over What the Answer Should
Have Been.

Okay. First Off, the Exercise Here Was Intended to Have You Take a Look
To Determine

Whether or Not Enough Information Was Provided By the Claimant. Also,
Has He

Demonstrated His Uses Will Be Reasonably Incident And Will They Be
Reasonably Calculated

to the Lead to the Development of an Economic Deposit? And Are They
Using or Do They

Intend to Use the Appropriate Equipment? And Has He Obtained the
Necessary County

Permits? If You Have the Program in Front Of You and You Look at Page 8
And You Look at

It, You Will See What He Has Proposed There. The Consensus Was That the
Claimant, Mr.

Nobody, and the Correct Answer Is, No, He Did Not Provide Enough
Information. And Did He

Demonstrate He Would Be Using Reasonably Incident ‑‑ Uses Would Be
Reasonably Incident?

No Was the Correct Answer Again. Will They Be Reasonably Calculated to
Lead to the

Extraction and Beneficiation of Minerals? No. And Do They Use
Appropriate Equipment? Our

Response Was No. And Has He Obtained Necessary County Permits? There\'s
Nowhere in the

Document That He Does Say That He Has. If You Would Look at Page M7 You
Will See Our

Response to That. You\'ll Notice We Have a Letter Of Nonconcurrence to
His Proposed

Operation. You Need to Also Take Note That The Letter of Nonconcurrence
Is Certified

Return Receipt Requested, and That the Document Identification Number Is
Also Listed on the

Letter. In Response to Mr. I.m. Nobody, We Received Your Notice of
Operations and

Occupancy on August 23rd, 1996. We Have Completed Our Review and Based
on the

Information You Provided, I Am Unable to Determine Whether Your
Occupancy Is Reasonably

Incident at this Time. You Described the Mining Operation Using Sluice
Boxes and A Dredge.

You Notice Lists Your Claim as a Lode, but Your Mining Claim Location
Notice Filed at the

BLM Office Lists it as a Placer. You Also Propose a Water Well. The
Installation of a Power

Line, a Large Storage Shed and a 40‑foot Mobile Home. Your Proposal
Fails to Demonstrate

Conditions of 43 Cfr 3715.2, A, They must Be Reasonably Incident, C, Be
Reasonably

Calculated to Lead to The Extraction and Beneficiation Of Minerals, And,
E, Use Appropriate

Equipment. Therefore, Your Proposal to Develop a Site Is Unnecessary And
Undue

Degradation of Public Lands and Is Not Acceptable at This Time. I
Suggest That You Redirect

Your Efforts Towards the Exploration And the Development of the Mineral
Deposit. You May

Amend Your Proposal to Occupy. Enclosed Is a Copy of the Regulations
under 43 Cfr 3715,

Which Outline the Conditions That must Be Met. If You Have Any
Questions, Contact Rock

Pick At\... Another Thing You May Want to Also Include in this Letter of
Nonconcurrence Is

the Appeal Paragraph. Which May Also Be of Some Use to The Claimant.

It\'s Not Only Some Use to the Claimant, Scott, It\'s Actually
Mandatory.

It\'s Mandatory.

So You Probably Do Want to Include It.

So ‑‑ Questions?

Great. As You May Have Surmised Joining Us Also this Afternoon Is Dennis
Mclane. We

Mentioned That Dennis Would Join Us. Dennis Is the Chief Ranger for The
BLM, and He\'s

Stationed in Boise. Good Afternoon, Dennis.

Happy to Be Here.

Good. We\'re Happy to Have You Here. We Would like to Invite Calls Now
That We\'re Here

this Afternoon. We Do Have a Number of Faxes That Came In, and We\'ll
Invite Some More.

Here Is a Good One, and this Came in from Oregon and That Is, What Legal
Recourse Is the

BLM Willing to Undertake in Counties Where the County Is Unwilling to
Enforce Their Own

Codes on BLM Mining Claims. I Think That\'s a Situation in More than
Just Oregon.

Well, the First Problem That Arises with this One Is What Are We Looking
At? Are We

Looking at the County Declining to Apply Codes to a Relatively Intact
Structure That Is Being

Used by a Mining Operator Who Is Otherwise in Compliance with All Other
Pieces Of

Regulation? In Which Case it Might Not Be That Major of a Deal. On the
Other Hand, If We\'re

Looking at a Circumstance Where You Have Someone Who Is Not Reasonably
Incident, There

May Be a Drug Lab, There May Be Marijuana Cultivation, There May Be
Simply Residence,

Then it Can Take on a Much More Important Aspect. It\'s One of the
Vehicles and One Of the

Tools We Use for Getting Rid of the Not Reasonably Incident Operator. If
the County Is

Saying They Don\'t Intend to Enforce Their Own Codes, Then It\'s Very
Likely In the

Circumstance, the Latter Circumstance, That There\'ll Be More Problems
than Just Code

Violation, and You\'ve ‑‑ You Step Back and Take the Broad View. You
Begin to Look at \"Is

the Place an Attractive Nuisance?\" Dennis, Do You Want to Go into That?

I Think We Have an Example of A Situation That Might Actually Fall under
That. If We

Could Bring up Slide 103 And We\'ll Have That on Screen as We Have Our
Discussion. Dennis?

What I Would like to Say About this Is, Even Though We Know All Too Well
That this Is

Perhaps, Indeed, a County Violation, Neither Our Law Enforcement Nor Our
Surface

Protection People Are Trained in Interpreting These County Codes As it
Pertains to Health,

Safety And Building, However, it Doesn\'t Negate the Fact That This
Violation Could Clearly

Be A Hazard or a Nuisance, and If It Is, like the Slide We Saw Before
Lunch with the Exposed

Electrical Service Connection ‑‑

Yeah, in this Case What We\'re Looking at Is an Electrical Service
Connection That\'s Nailed

To a Tree, Has No Covers on it And There Are Wires Going Every Which
Way.

That One, Too, I Don\'t Think It Takes a Trained Building Inspector to
Determine That That

Is, Indeed, a Hazard and Should Be Addressed in That Vein as a Hazard
Rather than Perhaps

Identifying the Specific Building Code That Was Violated.

So in General I Think It\'s Safe to Say That Where We Have Situations
like That, the Building

Code Violations May Be The Least of the Problem, and If The County Is
Not Willing to

Enforce, There Are Probably Other Problems We Need to Deal With, and If
There Aren\'t Any

Problems, If Our Only Problem Is The County Isn\'t Enforcing, It\'s Not
a Problem. Here Is One

from Ridgecrest, California, and the Author Is a Good Friend of Mine,
and this Particular

Individual Has a Real Gift for Making a Short Story Long. So Let Me Just
Read It. Many of

Our Casual Users Here Only Come to Their Claims Sporadically, I.e., Six
or Seven Weekends a

Year, Yet They Have Cabins and Other Storage Facilities That Occupy 24,
Full Time, Seven

Days a Week. When the Casual Users Can Pack In the All the Equipment to
Support the 14

Day Trip, They Can Just Easily Pack it out. I Believe Permanent
Occupancy For the

Convenience of a Casual User Is Not Warranted. I\'m Leaving a Lot out of
This, Believe it or

Not. Is this True in Your Opinion? And I Think an Answer to That Is We
Return to the

Standard of If You Can Put it in the Back of a Three‑quarter‑ton Pickup
and Pile More into a

Utility Trailer And Haul it Away on Sunday Afternoon, You Don\'t Need to
Leave it There.

Which Is Probably the Right Answer.

Especially If this Is a Casual Use Situation. We\'ll Be Talking about
Casual Use and the Life

Cycles of Mine Properties and So on Tomorrow And this Is Come up Again
and Again but

Basically the Bottom Line Is, If You Can Haul it Away At the End of the
Day, You Should

Haul it Away at the End Of the Day. Here\'s an Interesting One\... This
One Comes from Yuma.

Occupancy must Also Be Involved In One or More of the Following, And
Here We Have

Protecting from Loss or Theft ‑‑ Protecting ‑‑ Oh, Boy, Protecting
Valuable Minerals from Loss

or Theft. Please, Folks, When You Send Us The Faxes, Write Real Legibly.
We\'re Having a

Hard Time with Some of Them, Especially this One. I Think it May Be Just
the Fax That Did it

to Us. Are We Authorizing in this Case A Claimant or Watchman for Each
Mining Claim So

That Nobody Enters the Claim with a Metal Detector? Here We Are ‑‑ I
Imagine the Example

in this Case Is Pretty Much Vacant Land, Nothing Much Going On, It\'s
Just One in 500 Mining

Claims or 50 Mining Claims Somebody Has Staked. Are They Authorized a
Watchman To

Keep People off.

If You Go Back to the Standard That We Set as a Benchmark, and We Say
When Can You

Justify the Use of a Watchman? It Says That Somebody Needs to Be There
24 Hours a Day to

Secure One of the Items That We Had Discussed a Little Earlier In the
Rule, and That Is Keep

The Public out of Workings, Keep The Public Away from Equipment, Keep
the Public out of the

Room In Which the Concentrates Are ‑‑ Concentrates Are Stores or the
Gold Bullion Is Stored,

Keep the Public Protected and off of the Workings. One of the Key
Features of the Standard,

the Benchmark That We Set, Is There Has to Be Observable on the Ground
Activity. If You

Have Simply a Barren Piece of Ground and You Want to Keep Treasure
Hunters Off, That\'s

Not the Intent of These Regulations.

What If the Claimant Has Specimen Grade Material like a Commercial Grade
Wolfonite,

Where Somebody Could Walk in and Ship Away in Many Claimant\'s Opinion a
Fortune in

Specimens? Is it Exposed? Is it Readily Removable? Is There in Plain
Sight for Someone to

Pick it up and Take It Away? There Is a Logic to Having a Watchman
Observe Those Exposed

Valuable Minerals.

Can the Watchman Charge Admission?

We\'ve Suddenly Gone Beyond Mining and off into Another Area That
Involves

Commercialization Of Collection and the Running of A Business, and There
Is Some Other

Guidance about Charging For Use of ‑‑ Allowing Public Use of a Mining
Claim. There Is an

Instruction Memo That Came out in New Mexico That Cut Some Very
Interesting New Trail

on this That Says That They Have to Have a Recreation Permit from Us
Before They Can

Allow or Begin to Charge People For this Extra Use Because They\'re
Running a Commercial

Operation. This Is Not a Mining Operation Anymore. This Is a Commercial
Recreation

Operation. So, Yes, I Suppose with the Proper Authorization it Could Be
Done, but Not under

the Mining Laws.

Good. This Would Be a Good Time for You to Call In. We\'ll Be Happy to
Take Your Calls.

We Don\'t Bite. If You Have a Real‑life Situation That You Would like Us
To Discuss, We\'ll Be

Happy to Hear from You. Even Rick Doesn\'t Bite. He\'s Promised to Keep
the Jaws Closed as

Far as That Goes.

I\'m on Good Behavior Today.

That\'s Right. If a Claimant Wins an Appeal and This Is out of the
California State Office, I

Believe, If a Claimant Wins an Appeal from an ‑‑ from Ibla Concerning a
Cessation of Activities

Decision From BLM, Can the Claimant Sue BLM for Damages and for Loss of
Revenue?

Dennis? We\'re All Leaning Back ‑‑

Just Because I\'m a Law Enforcement Officer Doesn\'t Necessarily Mean
I\'m Involved in All

Lawsuits. However, the Answer to the First Part of That Question Is,
Yes, People Can Sue You

for Almost Anything.

the Second Part of the Question Is, What Are Their Chances of Winning?

I Wouldn\'t Think Too Good, You Know. I Would Think That Clearly We
Still Have Some

Responsibilities There That Need to Be Taken Care Of.

If the Individual Who Sent Us This Fax Has Some Additional Facts or Some
Background, I

Think this Would Be a Good Time To Call and Maybe We Can Discuss It a
Little Better. I

Have Another Good Question Here from Las Vegas. When Proper Filing for
an Existing

Occupancy Has Occurred And BLM Has Reviewed and Determined That the
Occupancy Is Not

Appropriate, Does the Grace Period Continue for the Full Year?

Yes.

That\'s Part One. Yes.

Part One. Absolutely.

Now, We Can Use the Determination That We Made When We Came to the
Conclusion That

It Doesn\'t ‑‑ Isn\'t ‑‑ Isn\'t Reasonably Incident and Sit down With
the Resident and Miner and

Say, Look, You\'ve Got Four Months Left, this Is What You Have to Do to
Come into

Compliance, Because If You Don\'t We\'ll ‑‑ We\'re Probably Going to
Initiate Action Against

You. In this Case the Occupancy Is Meeting Code, the Occupancy Is Not in
Conformance

Because There Is No Mining Going On.

the Test for Throwing People Out of the Grace Period Is it Must Be Not
Reasonably Incident,

That Is, No Mining, and it must Be a Threat to Health and Safety. What
We Have in Front of

Us Says Nothing about the Two‑prong Test. It Simply Says One Prong Has
Been Satisfied,

That Is, It\'s Not Reasonably Incident, and the Other Part, Health,
Safety or The Environment

Threats, Have Not Been Demonstrated. Thus, Based on What We\'ve Got
Here, I\'d Have to

Conclude That The Grace Period Would Continue For the Full Year, and as
Matt Says, You

Make Use of That Year As a Tool, to Lever the Individual into Either
Leaving The Public

Lands or Conducting a Real, Live Operation.

I Think It\'s Very Important To Note That We Should Be out Doing These
Surface Use

Determinations Inside That One‑year Grace Period and Not Starting on
Them When the Grace

Period Is over.

Exactly.

Right. Here\'s One from Oregon. Do the 3715 Regulations Apply to BLM
Administered

Surface with Privately Owned Mineral Rights? Ooh, Rick, You\'re the
Headquarters Man.

Thanks, Matt.

You\'re Welcome.

the Answer Is No. Very Simple. This Is User Occupancy under the Mining
Law, and Privately

Owned Minerals Do Not Include ‑‑ Are Not Included Within the Ambit of
The Mining Law. So

the Short Answer Is These Regs Do Not Apply. This Is a Realty Issue, and
Don\'t Let Them

Make it a Mining Issue. Tell the Realty People It\'s Theirs.

It\'s My Understanding ‑‑ Here Is Another One from Oregon ‑‑ It\'s My
Understanding That the

Few Remaining Claims with Surface Rights Determinations Under Pl 167
Were Surface

Management by BLM Is Excluded Are Not Regulated There Are 3809 And 3802.
Without

Another Surface Rights Determination to Would the 3715 Regulations
Apply? I Think There

Are Two Points That Need Clarification, Rick.

this Is a Good One, and this Gets at the Heart of the Pl 167 Issue.
Public Law 167 Did Two

Things. It Said, First Off, Anybody Who Uses ‑‑ Locates a Claim
Hereafter Can Only Use it for

Mining Purposes, Purposes Reasonably Incident. It Also Said That BLM
Could Administer the

Surface Resources Unless the Claimant Filed a Verified Statement and
Demonstrated the

Existence of a Valid Claim. In Those Cases, Where We Have an Operator
Who Has Filed the

Verified Statement, Who Has Demonstrated the Existence of a Valid Claim,
and Has the Rights

To the Surface, We Will Not Go In and Try to Impose the 3715 Regulations
on the

Management of The Surface Resources. By That I Mean, Predominantly The
Passage Across or

Through by The Public to Adjacent Lands. This Is the One Major Issue.
Obviously it Goes

Without Saying They Have the Right to Manage The Grass, the Trees and
the Other Surface

Resources. We Will Not Go and Attempt to Force the Claimant to Accept
Passage Across and

Through. However, If the Claimant Says, \"I\'m Not Going to Let Them
Across, Through, I\'m

Going to Continue Blocking the Access to Adjacent or Public Land Back
Over My Shoulder,\"

Then We\'re Going to Do Another 167 Determination and Come to a Final
Solution. Now,

There\'s a Question in Here About It\'s Excluded and Not Regulated under
3802 and 3809. That

Is Not Correct. 3809 and 3802 Have at Their Core Requirement to Prevent
Unnecessary or

Undue Degradation. It Does Not Say Prer‑ or Post Flpma. It Does Not Say
Pre or Post 1955.

It Is a Statement Laid upon the Secretary and a Mandate That Covers
Mining Claims ‑‑ in Fact,

All Mining Claims, and So They Must Prevent Unnecessary or Undue
Degradation. As to the

Issue of Occupancy, Well, Earlier on We Said That There Is Only One
Reason to Occupy, and

That Is for Legitimate Mining, and Pl 167 Simply Took the Body of Case
Law And Made it

Federal Positive Law.

Good. We Have a Question in from the California State Office, and I\'m
Not Really Clear. I

Think the Question Here Is Asking That Are There Times Where We Would
Perhaps Want to

Request a Waiver on County Requirements If the County Requirements Would
Tend to Cause

Excessive Damage to the Public Lands? If I\'m Not Getting the Gist of
Your Question Correctly,

Give Us A Buzz or Send Us Another Fax. Rick?

Okay. If the Request for a Waiver Is Only to Reduce the Environmental
Impacts That Arise

from the Adherence to a County Standard, A Zoning Standard ‑‑ Not a
Zoning Standard, a

Building Permit Standard, Then It\'s Incumbent on Us to Say, Look, We
Think There\'s a Better

Way to Get Around It, and the Standard That You\'ve Held out as Being
Required Needs to Be

Carefully Thought out and Reconsidered. That\'s Okay for Us to Request a
Waiver. If It\'s

Simply to Say, Oh, You Know, Fred\'s a Nice Guy and We Really Would like
to You Give Fred

a Waiver Because it Will Make Life Better for Fred, No, That\'s Clearly
Wrong.

So, in Other Words, If Fred Comes in to the Office and Says, Look, I\'m
Barely Making it

Financially, If I Have to Comply With These County Regulations, I\'m
Going to Go Under, That\'s

Not the Right Reason?

That\'s Not the Right Reason. Fred, We\'re Real Sorry You\'re Likely to
Go Under, but Every

Prudent Businessman Inside the County Has to Meet Those Standards and If
I Shave Those

Standards for You, Then Every Other Prudent Businessman in the County Is
Going to Expect

That Those Standards Will Have to Be Shaved and We Simply Can\'t Be in
That Business.

I Think it Would Also Be Incumbent on Us, Though, as Land Managers,
Having to Deal with

Local Counties, to Play Square With Them. If We\'re Going to Request
That Sort of Waiver,

We Need to Keep In Contact with Them. We Need to Apprise Them of What
We\'re Doing and

Get Their Concurrence If We Possibly Can, Convince Them, as it Were.
Scott, Have You Run

into Situations like That.

.

There Have Been a ‑‑ a Waiver From County Codes?

Yes.

on a Particular Piece\... Not That I\'m Aware Of. The County Has Been
Pretty Well ‑‑ Pretty

Responsive and They\'ve All Been Very Cooperative in the Majority of the
Counties We Work

In Working with Us in Enforcing And Having the Codes Apply.

Have They in Any Cases Bent The Codes or Lessened the Requirements for
Some of These

Uses or Users.

I Think We\'re down to the Case We Gave Before, the Downs Case in
Mariposa County, Given

The Size or Phase of the Operation, Instead of Going Through a Full
Septic System They Have

Aloud Loued a Johnny On the Spot Portable Toilet.

and a Renewable Permit?

Renewable.

We Had a Question Earlier, Dennis, While You Were Waiting In the Wings,
If We Could Bring

Up Slide 109, I Think We Might Want to Have a Look at It. There Are Some
Situations, I

Think, Where, as We Work in the Field We\'ll Encounter Things That Are
Gates on What May or

May Not Be Reasonably Incident Operations. This Particular Gate We Saw
Earlier this

Morning. Dent Us, What Can You Tell Us About this from a Law Enforcement
Standpoint?

That\'s Quite a Gate, Matt. First of All, If this Was Something That the
BLM Was Going To

Authorize, Certainly I Hope We Would Be Involved with the Operator in
Helping Them to

Determine Exactly What Type of Gate That They Needed. To the Point of
Maybe Doing What

We Can to Eliminate These Large Spikes That Appear to Be Something Maybe
Designed to

Puncture a Radiator Perhaps. But it Doesn\'t Negate the Fact If this Is
a Well Used Road or

Gate That Leads to the Gate and Children on Four‑wheeled Atv\'s Or
People on Motorcycles ‑‑

Even Adults on Atv\'s.

Oh, Yes, this Is Certainly a Hazard We Would Have Responsibility for and
Certainly We ‑‑

Regardless of the Mining Claim Situation, We Still Have An Obligation to
Provide for Public

Safety and We Need to Keep in That Mind When We Work With These Folks
That We Have

Sort of a Dual Responsibility Here. We Have to Provide for the Mining
Use on the Public

Lands, But We Still Have to Provide for Relatively Free Access to the
Public and a Safe

Environment For the Public to Use.

Scott, What Became of That Gate?

it No Longer Exists.

Ahh. We Have a Question in from Wherever Area Code 801 Is, I\'m Willing
to Bet That\'s

Utah. The Question Is If Due to Geography a Claimant Cannot Put Even a
Temporary

Structure on The Actual Mining Claim, must He File a Mill Site in Order
to Legitimize His

Occupancy? I\'m Not Sure What\'s Being Asked Here, but it Would Appear
‑‑ Well, the Bottom

Line Is That The Mining Law Allows the Claimant to Use Whatever Land Is
Reasonably

Necessary to Get the Job Done. Now, Why Someone Would Need to File a
Mill Site Claim in

Order To Legitimize an Occupancy Escapes Me. It\'s Important to Note
That the Regulations

Treat Mining Claims All the Same, Whether You\'re Occupancy Is on a Lode
Claim, a Placer

Claim or Mill Site Claim, You Still Have to Comply with 3715, and If a
Residence or

Occupancy Is Necessary, or Reasonably Incident to the Mining Operation
Here, it Could Be Put

on Adjacent Land Assuming It\'s Not Withdrawn.

and Assuming That It\'s Not Subject to a Mining Claim. You Know, You
Don\'t Have to Have

Everything Occurring on the Mining Claim as Long as the Lands Would Be
Open to the

Operation of the Mining Law. So You Could End up Putting a Spike Camp
Away from a Claim

on Unclaimed Ground.

That Would Be a Spike Camp Without a Spiked Gate?

Yeah.

in Fact, We Covered That Sort Of Situation Earlier During Exploration
Normally You Haven\'t

Necessarily Gotten Your Mining Claims Filed Yet but You Are Spending a
Large Amount of

Time Out in the Field from a Base Camp and the Occupancy Might Be
Reasonably Incident.

Exactly.

No Formal Documentation ‑‑ Another Question from Oregon ‑‑ We\'re
Getting a Lot of

Response From Oregon and Again this Would Be a Good Time to Call in If
There\'s Something

You\'re Not Clear On. We Would like to Hear from You. No Formal
Documentation for Gates,

No Trespassing Signs, Fenced Enclosures That Exist as Of 8/15/96 Are
Required by These

Regulations, And, Therefore, No Grace Period Exists for These Uses.
These Are Questions.

Rick, Can You Kind of Talk to That?

Well, There Is No Formal Documentation on Gates, Signing And Fenced
Enclosures. We

Assume That You\'ll Deal with These as You Get Around to Looking at
Them. These Are

Mainly Questions of Public Access and the Need to Control the Casual
Trespasser, What Msha

Refers to as the Casual Trespasser Who May Drift Onto a Mining
Operation. We Have Not Set

These as Subject To a One‑year Grace Period Because We Fully Expect That
You\'ll Work with

Them over this First Year. If There\'s Significant Problem, Then We Want
to Deal with it This

First Year.

Good. In Fact this Kind of Question Sort of Leads into this Question We
Just Now Got in

from Palm Springs. It\'s Two Questions, Actually. What Procedure Should
We Use If We Know

a Mining Claim That Is Occupying but Does Not File the Appropriate Form?
And If That\'s ‑‑

and the next Question Is Does 43 Cfr 3715 Apply to Minerals under Stock
Grazing Homestead

Lands? We Can Handle Those Probably in Reverse Order. The Answer to the
Second

Question, Rick.

it Does Not Apply to Lands Sun to the Stock Grazing Homestead Land. Does
Not Apply

Itself ‑‑ the Regs Don\'t Apply Themselves to Minerals That Are Reserved
to The United States

but Are Owned By Some Other Agency or Some Other Entity. Simple as That.
Now, the Other

Question, What Procedure Should We Use If We Know a Mining Claim it Is
Occupying but

Does Not File the Appropriate Form? Well, the Very First Thing You Might
Want to Do Is Ask

the Mining Claimant to Give Serious Consideration to Getting That Form
in by October 16th.

I\'m Sorry, by October 15th, the Close of Business. Because on October
16th, If the Mining

Claimant Doesn\'t File the Form, Then the Full Force and Effect of the
Regulations Comes To

Bear, and the Mining Claimant Has to Be Not ‑‑ Has to Be Reasonably
Incident, Has to Meet

The Tests for Justifying Occupancy, and Has to Be in Compliance with All
County Permits,

Federal Permits, State Permits and That Might Be Just a Lot More than
this Individual Is

Prepared to Accept at this Point.

Okay. Here\'s One That Just Came in From Nevada ‑‑ at Least Someplace
Within Area Code of

702\. The Claimant Uses Existing Buildings as a Residence and for
Storage. ‑‑ I\'m Sorry.

Storage of Equipment. He Agrees to Stop Using the Facilities. Do We Make
Him Remove the

Equipment and Seize the Occupancy? What Do We Do about the Buildings?

under What Circumstances Does He Agree to Cease Operations? Is it
Because it Was Not

Reasonably Incident? I Guess That\'s a Do Loop We Don\'t Need to Go
down. Let\'s Assume the

Operation Is Now Being Closed Down, That There Is No ‑‑ There\'s Nothing
Wrong with the

Operation, It\'s Just Completed, and You\'re Now Left with a Set of
Historic Buildings out

There. What Do We Do about These Buildings? Well, First Question We\'re
Going To Have to

Ask Ourselves Is Do We Want Those Buildings? Do You Want to Speak to
That?

Yeah, I\'ll Talk a Little Bit About That. I Do Plan on Friday Dealing
with The Issue of the

Administrative Procedures Related to Property Impoundments, but in this
Case The Way I

Understand It, We Have A Couple of Buildings That the Mining Operator
Did Not Place There;

They Were There When He Arrived? Do I Understand That Correctly?

Yes.

So Basically When He Is Leaving He\'s Leaving the Buildings as He Found
Them, Basically.

I\'m Not Really Clear on this From the Question. This Is What We Got.
This Question Came in

from Gordon Pine in Tonopah, and Gordon, If You Can Get to a Phone, I
Think You Ought to

Call Us.

it Basically Says the Claimant Is Using Existing Buildings. I\'ll Base
My Answer on the

Assumption That the Buildings Existed at the Time He Took over The Claim
or Filed on it or

Made His Location. In this Particular Instance, If He Decides, Okay, I
Didn\'t Put Up These

Buildings, So I\'m Not Taking Them down and I\'m Not Going to Bear That
Burden, I Think

What We First Need to Do Is Say, Okay, Would You at Least Like to Sign a
Relinquishment to

Us, on Those Two Buildings to The United States. Then Once We Take
Possession of That

Property, We must Take Very Affirmative Possession in Terms Of Locking
Doors, Putting Signs

On it Saying Property of the United States and Then We Need To Get with
the Historic

Preservation People to Determine If We\'re Going to Keep the Buildings,
What Are We Going to

Do with Them. At the Point He Decides He No Longer Needs the Building,
We Need to Seek

Relinquishment or Seek Abandonment of the Buildings and Deal with That
Appropriately.

Here\'s One from Here in Town. A Question from Phoenix. If an Occupancy
Request Requires

An Environmental Review, Number One, must the Review Conform to Nepa
Policies and

Procedures or Can it Be Informal. Number Two, If Nepa Is the Occupancy
Request

Categorically Excluded?

Okay. Is There Any Such Thing as Informal Nepa? No. There Is Not. You
Have to Do and

Follow the Formal Nepa Process. And There Is No Way Around That. It May
Lead You an

Eias. So Be It. The Proponent of the Operation May Have to Rethink the
Operation. If Nepa

Is to Be Applied to an Occupancy, the Second Question Is, Can We Get
Some Categorical

Exclusions? There Are Certain Circumstances Now under Nepa Which You Can
Categorically

Exclude an Action Because it Has Some Degree of Analysis Done Already or
That The Actions

Aren\'t Significant But There\'s an Immediately Adjacent Preexisting
Analysis. You\'ll Have to

Talk to Your Nepa People to Get the Precise Set of Circumstances. But,
We Know, and We\'ll

Try to Work Through the Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance in
the Department

That We Ought to Think Seriously About Getting a Categorical Exclusion
in Place for Certain

Occupancies, Not All, Just Some.

If I Understand it Correctly, Categorical Exclusions Before They Can
Placed into the

Departmental Manual Require Some Experience?

Yes and We Need a Little Bit Of Experience Here First.

That\'s Right. Okay. One Speaker Said We Should Set Up a Separate 3715
Case File. Is this

the Case? Should We Set this up in Addition to a 3809 Case File? Also,
There Is No 3715 Case

Type In Our ‑‑ in Our Case Orca ‑‑ Case Rec. ‑‑ We\'ll Bounce over That
One and Assume It\'s

Case Something or Other. How Do We Handle a Separate Case File for 3715?
I Think Rick

Can Answer Part of This but the Rest of it We\'ll Defer until Friday
Morning When Bob Gibson

Comes on Stage with Us to Talk to Case Recordation And File Management.
Incidentally, Bob

Gibson Has Arrived, He\'s Waiting in a Back Room. We Know We\'re All
Here Now for The

Week.

Yes, There Is a Requirement For Setting up a 3715 Case File. The Current
Directions Say a

3715 Case File of a Separate Sort Ought to Be Created for All The
Existing Occupancies. And

the Existing Occupancies Will Then Be Kept in a Separate Case File until
We Have Rendered A

Determination and We Have Received a Final Action. That Is, They Didn\'t
Appeal Our

Determination of Noncompliance, Or They Did Appeal it and it Went to the
Department, the

Board of Appeals Upheld Us and They Didn\'t Go to U.s. District Court.
We Can Then Close

That Particular Case File and Send it Off to Archives. For New
Occupancies, Our Objective Is

to Do as Many of The 3715 Actions in the 3809 Case File. We\'ve Got Some
Action Codes Set

Up and Bob Will Go in Greater Detail in All of That So I Will Punt to
Bob for Case Rec.

Guidance to You Guys on Friday.

If We Don\'t Get this Question Answered Well by Friday, and This One
Came in Anonymously,

That\'s Fine, You\'re Welcome to Send Us an Anonymous Fax and If You
Check off the Spot

That Says Don\'t Mention My Name on the Air, You We Won\'t Do It, Unless
You\'re Gordon.

If We Haven\'t Answered Your Question on Friday Morning, Be Sure to Ask
it Again and We\'ll

Be Sure to Take Care of It.

Let Me Interrupt and Interject Here. There\'s a Reason We Adopted this
Dual Case File System

for the Existing Occupancies. Keep in Mind That Matt Mille Nba Ch Has
Determined We\'re

Going to Reduce the Levels of Review and Appeal Within this Rule and
Every Other Rule. So

We Have a Rule Here Where the Appeal Is Directly to the Board Of Land
Appeals. Now, What

this Means Is That When Someone Appeals a Decision, That Case File Is
Going to Be Bundled

up and Shipped off to The Interior Board of Land Appeals. It\'s
Well‑known to Any

Adjudicateor That When You Have An Appeal, the Case File Is Closed. If
You Want to Put So

Much as a Piece of Kleenex in That Case File, You\'re Going to Have to
Serve a Copy on Your

Lawyer, Their Lawyer, the Board of Land Appeals and Just about Everybody
Out There. Now,

the Existing Occupancies ‑‑ No, Thank You, I Don\'t Have Any Case Files
I Need to Serve That

On. The Case Files That We\'re Going To Be Dealing with Are in Many
Cases Going to Have an

Existing Occupancy in Parallel to a 3809 Or 3802 Case Plan or Notice,
and We Cannot Stop

Doing 3809 and 3802 Jobs Just Because We\'ve Taken One Piece of the Case
File And Shipped

it off to the Interior Board of Land Appeals Where We Wait for Three
Years For the Board to

Catch up with All of These Cases. We Still Need Live Cases That We Can
Operate out Of.

And Rather than Shut down That Particular Case So That We Can Wrestle
with the Appeal on

an Issue That May Only Be a Small Part of an Actual Ongoing Operation,
We Made the

Decision, We Will Create a Separate Set of 3715 Case Files for the
Existing Occupancies.

Can I Ask a Brief Question?

Sure.

Back to the Appeal Here Where They Are Appealing Directly ‑‑ You Say to
the Ibla, Do They,

The Area Manager, Ships out the Decision, They Appeal That Decision,
Does Their Appeal

Come Back Through the Office That Issued That Decision?

Yes.

and Then from There it Goes From the Office That Issued the Decision,
Does it Go to the

State Office or Directly to ‑‑

No, it Goes Directly to the Board of Land Appeals, Just as The 3802
Appeals Process Was,

And Fraught with All the Danger. Now, They Add ‑‑ the Added Aspect of
That Is That Means

at The Area Level You Have to Do The Job Right. You Have to Get it Done
Right, And If the

Case File Isn\'t Done Right, and Much More Will Be Said about this on
Friday, and By Matt and

Other Folks, the Board Isn\'t Going to Be Shy About Turning it Around
and Giving it Back to

You. To That End, You\'re Going to Have to Turn to Your Adjudicateors at
the State Office

and Say I Need Help, I Need Guidance from You on How Good a Case File
Has to Be, What It

Looks Like, Where Things Ought to Be and What We Need to Be Doing to
Keep Our Case

Files Up to Snuff. The Fact That We\'re Jumping Straight to the Board
Shouldn\'t Give You

Carte Blanche to Ignore The State Office Adjudicateors. They\'re a
Valuable Resource and You

in the Areas Ought to Be Using Them.

That\'s Right, Rig, and a New Program like this We Can\'t Afford to Be
Lew Losing Cases. The

Case Files Have to Be Thoroughly Documented. They Have to Be Kept
Separate as Necessary.

Everything Has Got to Be There. Every T Has to Be Crossed, Every I Has
to Be Dotted.

Yes, it Doesn\'t Take but One Major Loss That Goes to U.s. District
Court to Lose this Entire

Set of Rules. We Don\'t Want to See That Happen. I Don\'t Want to See
That Happen Because

I\'ve Spent the Last Six Years Trying to Get These Things Out the Door.

I Think We Can Safely Make an Offer and I Know That I Can Speak for
Myself and Rick

Would Probably Agree, If You Have a Case like this That Looks like It\'s
Approaching Appeal,

and You\'d like an Outside Opinion, Give Either of Us a Call, Give Scott
a Call, Give Someone

Who Has Been Working on this for Some Time a Chance to Look at it And
See If You\'ve Met

All the Requirements Before it Gets Really Ugly. We Have Another
Question That Came in

from Wyoming, and I Just Don\'t Feel Qualified to Ask this One. I\'ll
Have to Recuse Myself

from It Not So Much Because of the First Question but Because of The
Last Two Questions

And, Rick, You Can Use Your Judgment On Whether or Not We\'re Going to
Deal with Those.

Is There Any Way to Waive ‑‑ Waive ‑‑ Wave ‑‑ County Decision
Fitzsimmons They Conflict

with BLM Compliance? If the Claimant Met BLM Compliance but the County
Feels Visual

Impacts May Be Significant. Well, this Is a Land Use Issue As It\'s
Described Here, and

Unfortunately the County Cannot Do Anything That Takes Away the Federal
Right, Even If it

Doesn\'t Look Pretty. There Is Nothing That We Can Say To the County
Other than We\'re

Sorry it Doesn\'t Look Pretty in Your Identifies, but the Federal Right
Is a Federal Grant and a

Grant from the Sovereign Cannot Be Demeaned or Defused by the County.
Love the Tie. Well,

Okay. It\'s Cool. I Kind of like It, Too. It\'s Not as Brilliant as
Matt\'s In Spots, But, Hey, Matt\'s

a Master at That. If I\'ve Answered this Question Fully, Okay. If Not,
Why Don\'t You Give Us

a Call and We\'ll Talk about It.

Actually There\'s a Question About Visual Quality. We\'ve Got a Slide,
for Example, Slide 131,

for Example, Shows Something That\'s Clearly a Visual Problem, and
What\'s a Visual Problem

to the County and What\'s a Visual Problem under Our Regulations May Be
Two Entirely

Different Things, and This Is Clearly a Visual Problem, but It\'s Also,
Well, Dennis, Would You

Call Appear Threat to Public Health and Safety or Just Ugly?

Well, I\'d Include That. I\'d Probably Include the Word Eyesore to Go
along with the Visual

Impairment. Certainly this Detracts from What the Public Lands Are
Supposed to Be in Terms

of Us Protecting the Resources and Providing for Public Safety.

Rick, Can We Deal with Eyesores?

Yeah, If They Come under the Heading of a Nuisance. One of the Things
That You Cannot

Do Is Maintain a Nuisance On Public Lands. And If You Have Trash
Littering The Landscape,

Yeah, That\'s a Nuisance, and it Has No Business Being There. On the
Other Hand, If the

Objection Is Simply We Don\'t Like the Whole in the Ground, or The
Presence of the Headframe

Because We Think it Spoils the Pristine Beauty, Well, We\'re Sorry, That
Goes with Mining.

Trash Dumps Don\'t Go with Mining.

Yeah. Right. We Have a Question in from Oregon. In Oregon it Often Takes
Years To

Obtain a Water Right. Would We Not Concur with That Portion of the
Occupancy Requiring

Appropriate Water Until the Water Right or Any Other Permit Is Granted?

Ooh. I\'m Going to Punt on this One. John Leshy Likes to Play with Water
Law. Maybe We\'ll

Send this One up to Big John and Let Him Wrestle With this One. I
Personally Would Have

Little Comfort in Tying Anything to Water Rights, but That\'s Just Me. I
Have Very Little

Comfort in Water Law. Matt?

I Don\'t Know What Else to Say On That One. As We Said this Morning,
this Is A New

Program and it Doesn\'t Have a Lot of Easy Answers. I\'m Not Even Sure
We Have All The

Answers. As a Matter of Fact, I\'m Sure We Don\'t. A Lot of the Answers
We\'re Going To

Come up with as We Go along. Well, the Faxes Seem to Have Dried up ‑‑
Are Those Two That

You\'ve Dealt with?

We\'ve Dealt with These.

Scott, in Our Remaining Five Minutes, Can You Give Us a Five‑minute
Overview of the

Farthing Case?

Well, I\'ll Make an Attempt Here. The Slide We Saw Previously, If We
Could Get Back to it

for a Second, That Is the Farthing Residence.

There.

and That Is the Ibla Case That I Mentioned Earlier this Morning, and
Basically What We\'ve

Got Here, We Have an Occupancy with a Number of Problems. The County
Went out with Us

to Do an Inspection. We Were Brought into this Because this Particular
Piece of BLM Land Is

Within 100 Yards Roughly of an Adjacent Land Owner Who Just Got Through
Building a

\$250,000 House. So the County and BLM Went Out, Did an Inspection, and
‑‑

Let\'s Jump Ahead to Slide 143.

You Have the Slides There?

Yes, this Particular Case Had A Number of Problems.

a Number of Violations Here, And this Was the One Primarily That Got the
Adjacent Land

Owner Really Upset. Why Should I Be Spending \$250,000 on a House,
Septic System, When

this Mining Claimant over Here, Who Isn\'t Mining, Can Get Away with
Stuff Like this? This Is

What We\'re Trying to Stop.

Let\'s Go to Slide 144. This ‑‑

and During the Inspection We Did Not Prompt the Dog, but He Went over to
Do His Normal

Daily Thing, I Guess, Having a Brief Bite. Anyhow ‑‑

this Clearly Constitutes a Public Hazard.

Very Much So.

If Not Cruelty to Animals.

Not to this Particular One, But ‑‑

What Was the Final Outcome in Farthing in the Few Minutes We Have?

the Final Outcome Was We Issued Two Notices of Noncompliance. He
Appealed Both. That

Decision Covers Both of Those. Mr. Farthing Left for Arizona. He
Abandoned the Site and Is

Now Here in Your Territory.

Do You Know If He Has Moved Onto a Mining Claim Here?

I\'m Not Too Sure about That.

Good. Al Burch, Take Note. Looks like We\'re Start to Go Run Out of Some
Time Here. We

Will Leave the Fax Machine Loaded with Paper Overnight. If You Think of
Questions after

We\'re Through, Fax Them onto Us Any Time During the Night. If You Have
Insomnia, You

Can Fax Us a Question about 3715. We Will Try to Answer Them Tomorrow.
We Do Have a

Reading Assignment For You. We Have Three Surface Use Determination
Reports for You to

Read Tonight. We\'ll Go over this Type of Report and What it Can Do for
You in the Morning.

Now, All Three Cases Are Real, And They Range in Age from Six Months to
Nine Years. The

First of Them, the Dreamer\'s Paradise Is ‑‑ Report Was Written Just
after the Crawford

Decision. It Doesn\'t Fit the Current Report Manual Writing Format
Exactly.

That\'s My Understanding. We Use That Particular Report to Build the
Manual Standards.

I\'ve Heard That. I\'ve Heard That. But it Is a Good Example of What To
Do When the Only

Guidance You Have Is an Ibla Decision. And It\'s Also a Good Example How
To Use

Photographs to Document Nonuse and a Good Idea. Another Good One Is the
North Star

Report from Montana. It\'s Kind of an Intermediate Age. The Last of
Them, the ‑‑ Is the

Popcorn Shrimp Report. That\'s Not Really It\'s Name. It\'s a Current
Case and I Had to Heavily

Sanitize it to Change The Names and Locations to Satisfy the Office of
the U.s. Attorney.

Now, Some of You from Northeastern Utah May Recognize It, but Keep Tight
Yourselves.

Anyway, Pay Special Attention to The Way the Authors Tabulated Their
Observations and

Conclusions. It\'s a Very Powerful Technique And It\'s Borne Some Very
Good Fruit. I Think

We Have a Call Now and This Is Al in Phoenix. Hello, Al, in Phoenix.

Caller: Hi, How\'s it Going, Guys?

Well, Pretty Good.

Caller: I Wanted to Thank Scott Murrellwright for Sending Mr. Farthing
Our Way.

You\'re Welcome, Al. Anything I Can Do to Help.

Caller: Maybe We Can Reciprocate in a Year or So.

I Am Looking Forward Tight. He Has Not Abandoned His Claims, Only the
Occupancy Site.

Caller: Good Job, Guys. We\'ll Talk with You Tomorrow.

We\'ll Expect to Hear from You. We Have One Last Fax That Came In Before
We Go off the

Air, and Do You Really Mean BLM Should Take the Responsibility of
Contacting Everyone to

Ensure That They Get the One Year? It\'s Their Responsibility Not Ours.
If We Tell Some but

Miss Someone Would We Be Potentially Liable?

the Answer to That One Is Simple, No. We Should Make an Effort. If for
No Other Purpose

than Good Customer Relations. Yes, You Can Ignore Some People And Not
Say Something to

Them And Be Pretty Much Assured They\'re Not Going to Get the Message
from Somebody

Else, and The Only Thing You\'re Very Likely Going to Do Is Have a Lot
Of People Nod Their

Heads and Say, Hmmm, Thought That about Them All the Time, Just Can\'t
Learn to Live with

Those Folks And Can\'t Learn to Trust Them. You Know, You\'re Better off
Believing in

Customer Service Than You Are in Not Believing in Customer Service.

Well, Denver Service Center Did Send out to All Mining Claimants Notices
What this Was All

About, the 3715s and Notifying the BLM. It\'s Also the Claimant\'s
Responsibility to Keep the

Records up to Date.

Absolutely. No Question about That. But Nothing\'s Lost If We Go out And
Take That Extra

Step.

No, Nothing Is. It\'s a Question of Time.

Yeah, Absolutely.

That\'s Right.

Okay. Well, That\'s it for Today. Now, Remember That All Day Tomorrow
We\'ll Be on

Satellite Galaxy 9, Transponder 2. We\'ve Double Checked. It Will Be
Galaxy 9 and

Transponder 2. And I\'ll Wear a Different Tie. So We\'ll See You Then.

This begins the transcript for the 2nd day of the telecast (Sept 12,
1996).

The Bureau of Land Management Satellite Network Presents Live From the
BLM National

Training Center in Phoenix, Arizona: Today\'s Instructors Are: And Now
the Host of Your

Program, Matt Shumaker.

Good Morning, Everyone, and Welcome to the BLM National Training Center.
Today\'s Telecast

Is the Second Day of Mining Claim Use and Occupancy Management.
Yesterday Gordon Pine

from Tonopah Sent Us a Fax and Asked If My Tie Was a Tie or a Color Test
Pattern. I Wasn\'t

Quite Sure What He Meant until I Saw the Tie after We Were All Done
Yesterday on a Monitor.

Apparently You Could Have Turned Your Television Brightness Way Down and
Turned the

Lights off In Your Room and You Still Would Have Been Able to See Very
Clearly. So Today I

Have Tea Side to Do Wear Something More Sedate. Gordon, the next Time
I\'m Through

Tonopah I Will Buy the Hamburgers. Also, If Sending Faxes, Be Sure To
Give What You Are

Asking Some Thought. Some of the Faxes Had Questions We Really Couldn\'t
Figure out. We

Weren\'t Able to Answer Them At All. Others We Did the Best We Could On
What We Thought

People Were Asking. And Remember to Use a Dark Marker, Not a Fine‑point
Pen. Our

Instructor Panel this Morning Will Be Rick Deery and Scott
Murrellwright. Good Morning, Rick.

How Are You?

I\'m Toing Fine. And I Appreciate the More Sedate Tie.

Well, it Was Awfully Warm in Here Yesterday. Scott, Welcome Back. How
Are You this

Morning?

Pretty Good. Slowly Getting Used to this Chair.

Ooh, That\'s Scary. This Afternoon, We\'ll Have Dennis Mclane and Bob
Gibson Available to

Answer Questions as They Come In. So They May Be Joining Us. We Sent You
Some Overnight

Updates via Groupwise, These Includes Updates on Mine Safety, Health and
an Instruction from

The Nevada State Office on the Contents of a Successful Realty Case
File. We Will Be Get to Go

All of Those Later Although the Case File Material Will Probably Be
Dealt with in the Morning

Tomorrow. If You Don\'t Have Them You Should Check with Your Site
Coordinator. There Will

Be Two Ways to Participate Today. We Will Ask for Telephone Calls During
the Day. Again,

When You\'re Asking Questions on the Air We Ask You Stand Away from Your
Television Or

Turn the Stand down. Steve Fetchner and Michael Horn Will Be Our Phone
Operators and Get to

You as Quickly as They Can. You Can Send a Fax Question at Any Time
Using the Form in Your

Course Notes. Understand When You Send Us a Fax Question We May Not Get
it On Paper

Here on the Stage. We May Hear about it Through the Intercom and Will
Work the Answer into

Our Discussion If at All Possible. Remember to Print Your Question With
a Dark Marker.

Telephone Numbers for Your Fax Questions or for Your Call‑ins Are in the
First Few Pages of

Your Notes. Before We Get Going, We Had Some Faxes That Came in
Overnight and I\'d like to

Deal with Those Now Because They Primarily Clarify Things We Were
Talking about Yesterday.

We Had a Couple of Questions Dealing with Fences and Signs, And We\'ll
Postpone Dealing with

Those until Just Before Lunch Today. Rick, You Want to Deal with Some Of
the Questions?

Okay. We Had a Couple of These. One Question That Came in from The ‑‑
Some Folks at the

Mine Expo \'96, the Toy Show, Welcome Aboard, Folks, Says How Come the
Regs Are No

Longer on the Internet. I Assume Here We\'re Talking About the BLM Home
Page. If You Can\'t

Find the Regs on The Internet on a BLM Homepage, Go to Ww
W.access.gpo.gov. Find the

Subpage Known as Gpo On‑line and Do What\'s Known as Known as a Wais
Search on Federal

Register Volume 61. And You Can Use 43 Cfr 3715 and The Rin Number as
Your Search

Standards. And While I Don\'t Guarantee That Works, That\'s an Awfully
Large Site That Uses a

less than Intuitive Search System. You Should Have Some Luck There. We
Have Another

Question That Came in from New Mexico. The Question Reads: Is it
Considered Use If a Miner

Has Equipment and Other Stuff on His Claim but He\'s Not Living on It?
Yes, it Is Use. Anything

That Happens on the Public Land Is a Use. What We\'re Dealing with Is
Essentially the Test of

Whether The Use Is Reasonably Incident, That Is, Mining Related, or a
Nonmining Use. And

That\'s One of the Sorting Tools That These Regulations Give Us. The
Second Part of the

Question Says, Can We Use 3715 to Require A Miner to Remove Selected
Nonmining‑related

Equipment? Absolutely. Anything That\'s Not Mining Related Is Not
Reasonably Incident, and

Either Has to Have Another Form of Authorization or Has to Be Removed,
and That\'s One of the

Points, I Believe, Matt in the Popcorn Shrimp Exercise.

That\'s Correct. That Exercise Deals Directly With That Issue and Also
the Format of the Report

Is an Excellent Way to Deal with What Is, What Isn\'t, What Is, What
Isn\'t and the Various Things

That Should Be Taken off a Claim. We Will Come Back to That Report
Later, but If You Haven\'t

Looked At It, You Need to Spend Time Witness. It\'s a Powerful Report.

Now, We Have One Other Question That Came in from Idaho Falls and If We
Are ‑‑ Said

Something That Resulted in Some Confusion, We Apologize. Apparently We
Did. We Were

Confused Yesterday about What State or County Building Codes Were
Applicable. You Said

Two Different Things. One, That the Codes That Were to Be Used Were
Those Applicable at

The Time of Our Occupancy Determination. Two, Those Codes That Were
Applicable When the

Structure Was Built. How about Someone Occupying a Structure That Was
Built in the 1890s?

Well, If You Turn to Page 13 of The Regulations in Your Handout And Look
in the Preamble

Language, We Discuss That, and Essentially What We Are Saying Is That
the Occupancy Needs

to Comply with the Applicable Standards, and in Most Cases the
Circumstance Is Going to Be

That The House Has to Comply with Code at the Time it Was Built And
Residency Began. Some

Counties, Some States Have Retrofited Their Codes to Make The Most
Updated Codes Apply

Backwards in Time to Older Structures. California Is a Classic Example
Of this. In Particular,

California\'s Earthquake Standards. In Which Case the Word Applicable
Code Means the Most

Current Code. With Respect to Something Built, Say, 1880, 1890, 1900, If
You Are in the First

Circumstance That the County Has Chosen Not To Make Old Structures
Retrofit To Meet New

Codes, Then the Applicable Code Would Be 1890 Code, and If There Was No
Codes In 1890,

Then There Is Simply No Code Requirements to Be Met. Matt?

That\'s Right. The Bottom Line on this Is You Need to Be Talking to Your
County People. If

You\'re Not Talking to Your County People, Then You\'re Not Learning the
Stuff. Yogi Berra

Once Said, Which Is a Close Paraphrase, It\'s Amazing What You Can Hear
by Listening. In this

Case, It\'s Amazing What You Can Learn by Reading the Regs. If You
Haven\'t Done it Yet, You

Really Ought to Be Doing That. Another Question Here from Montana, and
I\'ll Just Let You

Take Care of It.

Could You Explain the Scope Of a 3715 Nepa Analysis? Does the Analysis
Apply to More Than

Residential Occupancy and Proposed Enclosures That Prevent Public
Access? Well, the Second

Half of the Question Is One That We Feel We Need to Deal with Quickly.
It Appears as Though

this Rule Has Elevated 3809 Notices to Federal Actions. If We\'re
Looking at All Proposed Uses

in Terms of Reasonably Incident and Unnecessary or Undue. We Are Looking
at Occupancy and

Fencing as Part of the Proposed Action. The Other Stuff, the
Nonoccupancy, Nonfencing Stuff, Is

Running in the Background. It Does Not Need BLM\'s Review or Approval to
Continue. It Simply

Has to Conform to All Standards, Including the Need to Be Reasonably
Incident. Nothing Has

Changed the Status Of a 3809 Notice. The Only Thing That You Are Looking
at Is the Use and

Occupancy and the Background Is The Activity That Is Occurring, And it
Occurs Regardless of

What We Do. It Is Still a Nonfederal Action From a Nepa Perspective. I
Hope That Answers

That. Matt, We Had Another One Just Come In.

Yes, this Just in from Yuma, Arizona. It\'s an Interesting Question,
Rick.

Okay. You Have Mentioned Several Times Of the Need for Surface Use
Determinations, Yet I

Can Find No Mention of this in the Regulations. Where Does this
Requirement Come From? If

You Look in the Old 3893 Manual, Matt, Which Has Not Yet Been Taken down
from the

Directive System, You Will Find A Requirement for a Surface Use
Determination. The Surface

Use Determination Is Essentially That Point at Which All of the
Arguments for or Against the

Occupancy Are Put Into Some Form of Report So That The Management Will
Understand

What\'s Going On. That Surface Use Determination Requirement Will
Continue to Exist in the

Regulatory or Guidance Scheme That Accompanies This Regulation. It Is a
Useful Tool. It Is a

Good Place, Particularly When You\'re Going to Make a Not Reasonably
Incident Determination

to Put All Your Ducks in a Row and Place Your Arguments Carefully on
Paper and Think about

Them and We Intend Particularly for Those Cases That Are Going to
Involve Not Reasonably

Incident Outcomes to Have a Surface Use Determination Prepared for Them.

It\'s Also Important to Note, Rick, People That Prepare the Surface Use
Determinations

Understand What Mining Is Supposed to Look like. A Surface Use
Determination That\'s

Prepared by Somebody Who Doesn\'t Have a Clue What a Mine Will Look like
Will Have No

Credibility.

and Will Get Us in an Awful Lot of Trouble.

Yeah. One Last One Overnight from New Mexico.

Okay. Remember the Miner Who Is Not Living on His Mining Claim and Who
Does Not Plan

on Living on His Mining Claim but Has a Large Shed Capable of Being
Lived in ‑‑ I Think We\'ve

Answered the Question at this Point ‑‑ on His Claim, Who Is Required to
Submit An Occupancy

Form. Okay. The One ‑‑ the Question Goes: The One‑year Grace Period Is
Over and Nothing

Has Changed. Does this Occupancy Need to Be Approved under 3715 as a
Large Shed Capable

of Being Lived In? The Answer Is the Question. It Is Capable of
Supporting Occupancy. It Is a

Permanent Structure. We Need to Have a Determination Of Concurrence or
Nonconcurrence.

Great. That\'s it on the Faxes for Now. We\'ll Be Getting Back to More
of Them Later. Scott\'s

Back this Morning and Has Some Clarifications and Follow‑up on
Yesterday\'s Bear Cave

Exercise and Then He\'ll Pick up Dealing with Existing Occupancy. Scott,
Take it Away.

Thank You, Matt. As Matt Said, I Would like to Preaddress the Bear Cave
Load Exercise. I

Thought That Was a Little Abrupt Yesterday. Just Gotten Back from Lunch,
and After Lunch

Jitters, and So Bear With Me. You Don\'t Need to Go Back into Your Notes
at All. If You Would

Look at Your Monitor Right Now. The Explanation and the Reasons For the
Answers Were No

Lie in The Question: Do They Use Appropriate Equipment? Well, He
Identified a Lode Deposit

and Said He Was Going to Be Using a Suction Dredge for It. That Is Why
We\'re Saying No. In

Regards to the Has He Obtained the Necessary County Permits, There\'s
None Mentioned. We

Would in this Particular County Need to Write a Letter of Authorization
from BLM. And What

Was the Real Purpose of This Operation Appear to Be? Most of You, Just
about All of You Got

It, It\'s a Home or Retirement Home. This Particular Mining Claim Is
Located Behind a Locked

Gate, Which You Have to Access Through Private Property, and Sandwiched
Between Two

Private Pieces and Just a Little History Here, We Got a Call from the
Adjacent Land Owner, and

the Claimant Was Bragging about What They Were Going to Be Doing and
Building On Site.

Anyhow, Your Strategy Was Correct. Letter of Noncompliance. List the
Standards and

Requirements Not Met and Give Them the Opportunity to Resubmit And Also
Have the Appeal

Paragraph in There. So I Would Also like to Take a Moment to Make a
Response to a Question

That We Had Yesterday Regarding the Golden Eagle Proposal. The Question
Was: the Notice

Did Not Address Needs per Regulations for Occupancy. Why Concur Without
Further Need?

Well, Maybe I Should Give You a Little More of a Background Here
Regarding That Particular

Case. The Mining Claim Is Located in a Recreation Section of a Wild and
Scenic River, and the

Mining Activity, Settling Ponds and Equipment and Occupancy Is less Than
200 Feet from the

Campground, and There\'s Also ‑‑ We Also Manage Commercial Rafting on
this Particular River,

and the Rafting Takeout Is on the Opposite Side of the Road Which Is
Also Part of His Mining

Claim. So it Was BLM\'s Consensus That The Claimant\'s Residency Is
Necessary for the

Operation for The Protection of His Equipment And Also the Safety of the
Public. And We\'re

Also Scheduled to Do a Patent Exam on That Particular Case next Year,
Which Brings a

Question to Mind to Me, Rick, in This Particular Case, We\'ve Got A
First Half of the Final

Certificate Has Been Issued, We\'re Scheduled to Do a Mining Claim
Validity Exam next Year. If

We Were to Go out and Do a Surface Use Determination Right Now, Does the
Mining Claimant

Need to Be Actively Engaged in Mining Operations? In Other Words, If the
First Half of the

Certificate Has Been Issued, Does the Mining Claimant Need to Be
Actively Engaged in Mining

Operations?

Well, it Makes Your Determination of Validity a Little Easier, But, No,
There Does Not Have to

Be Actual on The Ground Operations, And, Further, with Respect to this
Particular Case, as

You\'ve Laid It out to Us, He Still Has to Have a Notice, an Occupancy
Notice, with Us, or He\'s

Got to Face the Full Impact of the Regs On October 16th of this Year.
But, No, There Is No Real

Need For Him to Be Actively Mining While You\'re Doing the Surface Use
Determination. He

Certainly Ought to Be Mining Or at Least Demonstrating What He\'s Doing
in the Way of Mining

When You Are Your Examiners Get Out There.

Right.

Okay.

Thanks. Also If There Are Any Other Questions on That Particular
Proposal, You Can Give Me

a Call At the Office next Week When I\'m Back in If You Still Want to
Discuss It. Okay. Moving

On, Use Authorizations And Existing Occupancies. Basically What We\'re
Going to Try to Cover

Here Is Explain the Process and the Time Frame for Adjudicating Existing
Occupancies and

Hopefully Give a Description of an Existing Occupancy and Determine If
It\'s Reasonably Incident

Use. What We\'ll Be Looking at Primarily Is Regulations on Page 25,
Roughly 3715.4. Handouts,

If You Notice, We Have An Example of an Immediate Suspension Order,
Another Order, Partial

and Converting a Mining Claim Occupancy to 2920 Lease Letter. All
Existing Use and

Occupancies Must Comply with the Regulations By August 18th, 1997. If
Not, BLM Will Issue a

Notice Of Noncompliance or Order Any Existing Use or Occupancy Failing
to Meet the

Requirements To Suspend or Cease under 3715.7‑1.

a Quick Question. Maybe We Could Address this to Rick. At the Beginning
of Business on The

Day of the Deadline, Should We All Be in Our Parking Lots With Our
Engines Warmed up and

An Arm Load of Notices of Noncompliance Ready to Go So We Can Blanket
the Countryside

with Them? Or Should We Just Work Them into Our Normal Course of
Business?

Well, Our Advice Is Work Them Into the Normal Course of Business. Your
Adjudicaters and

Your Office Staff May Well Be Ready To Throttle You If 150 Appeals All
Arrive in the Office at

More Or less the Same Time and That\'s The Circumstance That Will
Probably Confront You.

Basically the Idea Is to Proceed To the Worst Case Known to You, Work on
That Case, Work on

as Many Other Cases as You Have People and Money and Time Available For,
and Then Move

to The next Case. Remember, We Have on this Rule Three Years of
Authority for Information

Collection. That Means That We Don\'t Have to Justify this Rule and Go
Back Through Any

Processes for Three Years. And When We Got That Justification, We Said,
We Didn\'t Expect to

Solve All These Problems in the First Year or in The First Year plus Day
One. We Said it Will

Probably Take Us The Full Three Years to Pull This Together and Have No
Doubt About It, We

Will Probably Go Beyond That Three‑year Period. So If You Want to Rush
Right out And Throw

out 150 Notices of Noncompliance and Get 150 Appeals and Go Through the
Process of Boxing

up 150 Copies Of Case Files and Sending Them Off to the Interior Board
of Land Appeals, with

the Expected Result from Both Your Staff and Likely from Your State
Director, Go Right Ahead.

I\'m Not Going to Tell You Don\'t. I\'m Simply Going to Suggest That
Prudence Dictates You Deal

with What You Have the Dollars and The People to Handle.

There\'s Another Issue Involved in That, and We Have an Example of What
Can Happen to You

on Slide 127. So If We Could Have a Look at Slide 127, this Is the Fate
That Befall You If You

Start Doing Things Altogether Too Quickly. This Is Not Necessarily Bad.
If You Look at this

Particular Instance, It\'s a Television Crew And It\'s Interviewing
Someone Who Has Been Told to

Leave and If Suddenly in Every BLM State There Is a Swarm of These
Things, It\'s Going to Get

Ugly. Scott, Do You Have Any Observations on That Particular Instance?

That Has Happened on Occasion To Us. In Fact, That Is One of Our Slides.

I Know.

That Has Happened on More Than One Occasion.

and Dennis Mclane Will Have Opportunity to Revisit That Tomorrow. Dennis
and I Have Been

Featured In the San Diego Union, but Fortunately We Were below the Fold,
So it Wasn\'t Quite as

Bad As it Could Have Been.

and this Raises ‑‑ Matt Raise As Point That\'s Well Taken. If You Want a
Public Relations

Disaster, this Is a Sure Prescription for It. If You Are Going to Do It,
Be Sure to Check with the

Opa Folks First.

Thanks, Scott. Carry On.

Be Ready for the Hot Seat.

the Hot Seat Hotter than These Seats?

Hotter than These Seats, Yes. The Use or Occupancy under the Mining Laws
That Existed on

August 15th, 1996, May Continue For One Year after That Date Without
Being Subject to the

Procedures of this Subpart Provided That, One, an Existing Occupancy
Form Is Filed with BLM

By October 15th, 1996, And, Two, BLM Has No Pending Trespass Action
Against the Use or

Occupancy. The One‑year Grace Period Will Not Apply If BLM Determines
That The Use or

Occupancy Is Not Reasonably Incident and the Continued Presence of the
Use or Occupancy Is a

Threat to Health, Safety or the Environment. In this Case BLM Will Order
an Immediate

Temporary Suspension Of Activities under 3715.7‑1 (A). If No Existing
Occupancies but Uses

Exist under the Mining Laws, They, Too, Are Subject to The Standards in
3715.5 and Will Be

Determined During the Normal Inspection and During Review of Notices and
Plans Filed under

43 Cfr 3800. After BLM Receives the Occupancy Notification Form an
Inspection Will Be

Conducted to Obtain the Information Described in 3715.3‑2 and That\'s
Located on Page 24. The

Requirements There. Based on the Exam, BLM Will Make A Determination of
Concurrence Or

Nonconcurrence, and the Claimant May Provide this Information in Writing
or Verbally on Site. I

Have a Question on this Right Now in Regards to Specialists Going out
There, Geologists,

Mining Engineers: What If We\'re Out There on Site, and I Have on
Occasion Had the

Opportunity or Have Had to Sit down with a Claimant and Help Them Write
Their Notice or Plan

of Operation, and in Some of Those Cases It\'s Because They Haven\'t ‑‑
Don\'t Have the Skills or

the Tools to Do it Themselves. Are We Putting Ourselves in a Position
Here of Taking ‑‑ We\'re

Talking Verbally Here, Verbal Information from the Claimant in Regards
to Their Operation, and

We Are Actively Writing this Down, and If We Come up ‑‑ We Determine
That It\'s a

Nonconcurrence in this Operation, and They Appeal, and The Instance
Could Come Back and

The Operator or Claimant Could Say, Well, BLM Wrote this for Me?

Well ‑‑

Where Are We?

We\'re Where We\'re Supposed to Be. The Claimants Have the Positive Duty
to Get Us the

Information. If They Don\'t Get Us the Information, Then We\'ve Said
We\'ll Go out and We\'ll

Gather It. We\'d Much Prefer That You Provide it to Us, but If We Have
To Generate it on Our

Own, Then We Will Do So to Make That Determination, and in That Sense
It\'s Not Remarkably

Different From a Validity Exam. The Validity Exam Can Result in A
Claimant Saying, Ah, Back

over That Way, Go Take a Sample, and We Craft up a Plan Based on That
And the Guy Comes

into the Courtroom and Says, No, No, No, You Have No Idea What You Were
Talking about.

Well, You Had the Opportunity, Mr. Claimant, to Say What Was Happening,
What Was on Your

Mind And We Made the Prima Facie Case Based on What We Thought You Were
Going to Do.

Now, We\'re Not Talking Quite Prima Facie Case, but the Parallel Is
Strong. We Are Going to Go

out and See What Is Going on and We Are Going to Say, this Is What We
Think. Before You

Leave, When You\'re Writing this Up, it Helps to Sit Down and Review
What You\'ve Acquired,

What You\'ve Divined From the Discussion and Say, Look, Based on What
We\'ve Talked About

over the Last 15 or So Minutes, Here Is What I See You Planning on
Doing. Is this Right? If So,

Let Me Know. If Not, Tell Me Now.

and That\'s Where Documentation Comes In.

Exactly!

Documentation Is Also Important ‑‑ Also If the Claimant Is Someone Who
Will Sit Down and

Let You Write Things Down for Him to Sign, it Implies To Me You\'ve Got
a Pretty Decent

Working Relationship, at Least For That 15 Minutes, and as a Public
Servant, If You Will, You

Owe it to Him to Say, Because You Know Pretty Well What\'s Going to Look
like a Reasonably

Incident Work and Not, You Owe It to That Man or Woman to Say, You Know,
I Don\'t Think

These Things Are Going to Fly, and You Need to Be Prepared for Us to Say
No. And Maybe

You Can Get an Agreement from Them on the Spot To Clean up That Before
it Ever Becomes a

Problem. If We Can Avoid a Problem, We\'re Far Better off than Trying to
Solve a Problem.

in My Experience, I Found That a Face‑to‑face with the Claimants
Discussing the Operations

and What\'s Going to Take Place Is ‑‑ You Can Determine an Awful Lot and
Cut Off a Lot of

Problems Right Then And There.

That\'s Right. One of the Things I Remember Is That in Many Cases I Had
Really Good Working

Relationships with People, and They Cleaned up Their Act or Kept Their
Act Clean Not So Much

to Comply with The Regulations but Because They Didn\'t Want Me Mad at
Them, and I Know

You\'ve Got People in the Same Situation.

Yeah. Okay. Moving On, under 3715.4‑3, If it Is Determined That All or
Part Of the Existing

Use or Occupancy Is Not Reasonably Incident, an Order or Suspension ‑‑
Order a Suspension or

Cessation of All Or Part of the Use or Occupancy Under 3715.7‑1. We\'re
Still on Page 27. And

Also 3715.4‑3b, BLM May Order the Land to Be Reclaimed And Specify a
Reasonable Time For

Completion under 3800. And BLM May Order the Claimant To Apply Within 30
Days after The

Date of Notice from BLM for Appropriate Authorization 43 Cfr 2900.
Priorities. Denver BLM

Informed All Mining Claimants by Postcard of the New Regulations and
That a Notice of

Occupancy Is Required to Be Filed with BLM. Denver Apparently Never Did
Distinguish

Between Claims Located on BLM and Forest Service. So the First Question
out of the Box Is to

Ask What Agency Manages the Service That Your Mining Claim Is Located
On.

Scott, in Defense of the Folks at Denver, We Put on There Language That
Said Administered

By BLM, and as Usual, this Looks To the Notion That We Speak a Language
Inside the Agency

That Is ‑‑ Makes a Lot of Assumptions On Our Part. When You Say
Administered by BLM, We

Inside the Agency Know, Oh, That\'s the Yellow Ground on The Maps. The
Community at Large

Thinks Administered by BLM, BLM Administers the Mining Law, So BLM
Administers That

Land, and We Had an Awful Lot of Inquiries At the Headquarters Level as
Well of Folks Calling

in Saying, I\'m on the Lo Lo National Forest. Should I File One of These
Forms? And We Then

Got a Greatly Relieved Citizen Who Said, No, You\'re Not Required.

That\'s What I\'m Finding, Too, With a Lot of Phone Calls.

We Also Got a Lot of Kudos Over the Phone from Folks Who Said I\'m
Awfully Glad You\'re

Trying to Get Rid of the Nonminer.

I Can Ditto That. The Main Point Is Trying to Cut Down the Workload
We\'ve Got on This.

Can You Ditto That?

I Can Ditto That.

Is There Any Truth to the Rumor You Are Rush Limbaugh\'s Stunt Double?

I Can\'t Say, Top‑secret. Where Was I ‑‑

Never Mind\...

When Sorting Through Those Existing Occupancy Forms You Will Probably
Find That Some

Have Been Submitted Even Though No Use or Occupancy Exists on Site. When
in Doubt, Call

the Claimant. The Main Point Is Here Is Try And Reduce Your Workload as
Possible and When

You Can Use The Phone to Talk to the Individual Who Has Sent in the
Form, I\'ve Found Some

of My Forms Are Even Missing a Few Details Such as Cmac Numbers, Notice
Plans, Give Them

a Call, And Look Them Up, and Fill Them In.

it Also Helps to Build a Working Relationship with Some Claimants You
Might Not Have Had

A Relationship with in the Past, And as Matt\'s Pointed Out, That
Working Relationship with an

on The Ground Claimant Can Be Worth A Lot More than Mere Compliance With
the Rules.

That\'s Right. One Thing I Would Want to Mention, If You Are Adding
Things to Something the

Claimant Submitted to You, Send Them a Note Back or a Letter Back with A
Copy of What

They Sent and the Additions You Made to it Saying, Thanks, it Was
Missing this Information, but

We Had it on File, So I Added It. Is it All Right with You?

I ‑‑ Yes, I Agree.

with New Regulations Comes More Work. To Determine Who Floats to the
Top, a Review of

the Current 3802 and 3809 and 2920 Case Files Should Be Conducted for
Pending Actions Such

as Notices Of Noncompliance, Appeals, Litigation Through Usada Office,
Trespass Notices, and

Any Surface Use Determinations in Progress. Those Cases That BLM Has a
Pending Action

Against Should Receive Top Billing.

Scott, Some Folks Might Not Know What a Usada Is.

That\'s Us Assistant District Attorney.

Okay. When an Existing Occupancy Notice Is Submitted, the Claimant or
Operator Should Be

Notified as Soon as Possible Whether They Qualify or Not for The Grace
Period. If the Record

Shows Had He Do Not, an Order May Also Be Appropriate. You Will Notice
in There on Page

M16 That There\'s a Grace Period Example, and the Individual Involved Is
Casey Jones, and

Casey Jones Received a Certified Receipt Notice of Noncompliance On June
4, 1995. He Was

Required to Register His Vehicles and Provide Copies of His County
Building and Sanitation

Permits Within 30 Days of Receipt. On August 16, 1996, He Had Still Not
Complied with BLM\'s

Request Or Appealed the Am\'s Decision. An Immediate Suspension Order
Would Be Deemed

Appropriate in This Case Because Due to the Sanitation and Still Not
Coming Into Compliance

with County Codes Regarding the Septic Situation, the Area Manager
Determined That

Immediate ‑‑ That ‑‑ I Just Said It, a an Immediate Suspension Order
Should Be Sent out. Again,

on Any Kind of Order We Need to Remember to Send Them Certified Return
Receipt and Also

as Matt Said, Include the Certification Number.

Scott, We Have about 10 Minutes Left until We Go to Our Morning Rake
Break. How Are We

Doing on Occupant Submissions?

I Can Briefly Run Through These.

It\'s Important to Note ‑‑

Let Me See If I Can Move Forward Here.

It\'s Important to Note, I Believe, You Have Copies of the Things Scott
Is Slipping Through. So

You Can Look at Them Later.

Maybe a Point Worth Noting Here That We Might Want to Cover Is
Conversion of a 29 ‑‑ of a

3809 Case to a 2920 Case.

this Would Be in a Situation Where There Just Isn\'t Anything That We
Can Do to Make it

Reasonably Incident to Mining And Give Them Authorization to Live There
Anyway?

Correct. In Our Resource Area, and I\'m Sure Many Others, You Will Find
That You Have Got

Some Folks Who Have Been Living out There for 25, 30 Years, You Know,
When They Went

out There ‑‑ the World Was Different Then. What Can We Do? I Call These
Mom and Pop

Cases.

Would this Be a Conversion of 3809 or 3715 Case.

this Would Be a 3809 Case. But the Question, Is They Have Sent in 3715
Occupancy Forms.

What Are We Going to Do? You Know. And Basically for What Happens In
These Cases, We

Would Have The Claimants Relinquish the Area Their Site Sitting on and
Issue Them a 2920

Permit Where There Is No Advantage to the Government Here. It\'s Too
Much of a Hardship.

this Seems like it Takes the Place of the Old Mining Claim Occupancy
Act.

It\'s a Version of It.

and it Was Specifically Built Into the System When the Rules Were Being
Devised. We Early on

Decided That We Didn\'t Want to Have Front Page News above or below the
Fold or On the 5:00

News in Sacramento Of Old Folks Being Driven off Their Mining Claims
When There Was No

Percentage in It. So We Built into the Rules a Simple Requirement. All
We Have to Do Is Give

Them An Order to Go Get a ‑‑ an Appropriate Authorization under Part
2900. That\'s the Trap

Door. It\'s Also the Thing That Lets You Say, this Is No Longer a
Minerals Case. This Is Now a

Case to Be Dealt With by the Lands Folks and this Is Also a Vehicle for
Keeping You out of Bad

Press. Don\'t Use it Indiscriminately But Be Prepared to Make Use of It
as They Have Done in the

Folsom Area.

It\'s Important to Note with The 2920 or Even the O Leases It\'s Not a
Fire and Forget Exercise.

If You Are Just Leasing the Land, You Have to Maintain Your Compliance
Examinations on it

Because What Will Happen Is Instead of Having a Noncompliance or a ‑‑ an
Inappropriate Use

under 3809 or 3715 You Will End up with an You A Inappropriate Use under
2920 Which Is Just

as Bad.

How this Happens Is under the Lease, the Lease Expires upon The Passing
of the Claimants.

Once They Are Gone, They Cannot Will the Structures to Their Relatives
or Anything Else. At

That Point in Time There\'s a Time Period There, Minimum Usually of a
Year, for the Relatives to

Clean Off, Dismantle the House, Remove it Or Quitclaim it or Relinquish
it To the U.s.

with Those Cases It\'s Important to Note the File Remains Active until
after the Death of the

Occupants and the Buildings Have Been ‑‑ Have Had Whatever Their Final
Disposition ‑‑ I Was

Going to Say Demolition. That\'s Not Always the Case. I Have Had Almost
a Bad Experience

with this with an Old Moca, Where the People Died and The Docket Clerk
Looked at the

Origination Date and Said, Oh, That\'s Seven Years Old and it Went to
the Archives and We Had

No Idea That Was a Situation. So the People Died, the Widow Moved to Los
Angeles to a Rest

Home, the Building Was Vacant And it Was Used for Illegal Uses Such as a
Drug Lab and it Was

Very Bad News. You\'ve Got to Stay on Top of These. The Average
Residence Time of an Area

Geologist Is Between Five And 15 Years. These Things Can Go on More than
15 Years. So You

Have to Keep Those Files Active.

You May ‑‑ We Do Have ‑‑ We\'ve Had a Few Discussions in Our Office with
the Realty Folks

And Some of Them Are Not Happy About It, but That\'s the Way it Goes.

That\'s Right.

It\'s the Area Manager\'s Decision. You Can Look at a Letter We\'ve
Prepared to Gabby Hayes on

M19 To See How We Kind of Works That Thing. I\'m Pretty Much Done.

Well, Actually, We Have about Six More Minutes Before the Break. If You
Would like to Go

into Some of the Detail on the Items You Just Skipped over.

Oh ‑‑

Which I Think Would Be an Excellent Use Right Now.

Okay.

Because You\'re Catching Me a Wee Bit by Surprise.

You Caught Me by Surprise There for a Moment, Too. Here We Go. Looks
like We Have a

Question in Here. Is this a Correct Interpretation Of 3715.7‑1,
Nonconcurrence, I.e., Trespass,

Immediate Suspension ‑‑ Ahh ‑‑

Scott Has Just Been Handed a Flowchart. It Should Appall ‑‑ I Apologize
For the Color. It Will

Tend to Swim and Smear On Your Television. We Won\'t Have it up for
Long.

Let\'s See. Is this a Correct Interpretation Of 3715? If You Look in
Your Book There On Page

M149, There Is a Flowchart, and ‑‑ Let\'s Take a Look.

Again, What Page Are You Looking At?

We Are on Page M149.

M149 Is the Place to Be Right Now.

Not Quite Is I Guess My Answer to this Particular Breakout, but Nice
Try. Scott, Why Don\'t

You Put Your Flowchart up and ‑‑

I\'m Not Too Sure How this Will Work, but We\'ll Give it a Try Here.
Oops ‑‑ Zoom it ‑‑

Never Mind, We\'ll Get Back to Lucy this Afternoon with That Answer to
That Question. We\'re

Sorry. We Tried, but Diagrams and Little Boxes Don\'t Work on Little
Boxes That You\'re Staring

At Across the Room. So We\'ll Try Again with That One. Essentially It\'s
a Question of What Is

the Sequence That One Follows in Dealing with Suspensions. Suffice to
Say That Immediate

Suspension Is the Highest Level Of Activity That You Don\'t Want To See
Going On. It Means

That There Is a Threat To Health and Safety and the Actions on the
Ground Are Not Reasonably

Incident. That Is a Suspension Order That Can Be Appealed but the Appeal
Does Not Stay the

Order. A Lesser Case Involves Not Reasonably Incident Activities But
That Are Not a Threat to

Health and Safety and There You Give an Order Saying Suspend, Stop,
Quit. That Order Is

Appealable to the Interior Board of Land Appeals And That Order Is
Stayed When it Goes to the

Board. The Third Tier or Lower Most Tier Is a Notice of Noncompliance.
It\'s More or less

Reasonably Incident but There\'s Something That Needs to Be Tweaked That
Isn\'t Exactly Right,

and Those Are the Corrective Notices That We\'re All Sort of Familiar
with. Remember, the

Difference Is We\'ve Backed These up with a Substantial Teeth of
Criminal Penalties. Scott?

Okay. If You Have Got Time Here, You Could Take a Look at Some
Nonauthorized Uses

Under, I Believe it Is, Mr. Pickle?

Ah, Yes, Mr. Pickle.

Mr. Pickle. And I Have Thoroughly Messed Up.

You Have Lost Mr. Pickle.

I Have Lost Mr. Pickle.

Well, There\'s No Point Shuffling Looking for Mr. Pickle.

in Mr. Pickle, the Situation There Is an Inspection Was Done After He
Was Approved under

3715 And the Inspector Went out and Found That Mr. Pickle Was Pouring a
Concrete Slab

Foundation and He Was Also Building a Pigpen. Which Is Not Authorized
under The Mining

Law or the 3715s, and If You Look at That, There Is an Order There for
Him to Cease and Desist

in Part to Remove Those Improvements That Are Not Authorized under the
3715s. Or under the

3809s.

Scott, Cases like That Are Fairly Common. Before We Go to the Break, If
You\'ll for Give Me

for Diving Back into a War Story, I Had a Claimant That I Had to Deal
With, for Him the Route

to the Mine Claim Was past the County Dump. The Dump Was Closed on
Saturdays And

Sundays. People Would Get There and Say, The Dumb Is That Closed and
Leave Stuff by the

Gate. So this Claimant Had Everything From Swimming Pool Slides to
Plastic Drums and

Mannequines And That Was a Bit Difficult to Deal with. And When He Sent
Us His Plan of

Operation He Did Include the Residences and the Structures, But We
Didn\'t Expect the

Swimming Pool, Slide and Water Skis.

We\'ve Had Numerous Situations Like That. We\'ve Had Buildings That Have
Been Used for

Storage for Ski Supplies, Boots, Poles, the Works. It Was Listed as a
Mill Building.

Ahh. Perfect Sense, of Course. Well, It\'s Time for Our Morning Break.
We\'ll Be Back in 15

Minutes Exactly. So Be Sure to Leave Your Television Turned On. And
We\'re Taking Critiques

on Ties Today on a Scale of 1 to 10 Who Has the Worst Tie. So You Can
Fax That in with Your

Questions Later. So We\'ll Be Back in 15.

Welcome Back. I\'ve Agreed to Take over Hosting The Program for a Few
Minutes. Now, Some

of You Were Wondering What Happened to Poor Mr. Pickle. Well, We Found
Mr. Pickle, and

He\'s Still with Us. Now, Matt Will Be Doing Some Talking about What
Legitimate Uses Are, but

Before We Go to Them, We Will Have a Few More Questions That Have Come
In, and We Want

to Jump Right into Those. On Page M19, First Paragraph, Why must a
Mining Claimant

Relinquish Their Claim Occupancy ‑‑ the Occupancy Embraces Prior To the
Issuance of a 2920

Lease? Scott, You Want to Take a Shot At That One?

Well, Right off the Top, 2920 Regulations Don\'t Apply to Mining Claims
and If a Mining Claim

in Encompassed by It, We Need to Have it Relinquished Prior to Issuing a
2920 Lease ‑‑

Occupancy.

this Is a 2920 for Occupancy, Not Incidental Use or an Auxiliary Use
That Isn\'t Incident to

Mining. Okay.

Another Question Here That Came in from Idaho Falls, and That Question
Says, in the Case Of

Authorizing a Long‑term Occupancy under the 2920 Regs We Now Charge an
Annual Fee as

with New Leases under 2920, or Would We Waive it Because of the Mom And
Pop Hardship?

Scott?

They Would Still Be Required To Pay a Fee under That. If You Look at the
Letter That Was

Drafted There, I Believe it Mentions That. And, Yes, a Fee Does Apply.

and We Have an Observation Here from Somebody at Ntc That Says an Ada Is
the Incorrect

Use Of Terminology. It Is Assistant U.s. Attorney Or Ausa. We Stand
Corrected.

Thank You Very Much.

Actually We Sit Corrected.

We Sit Corrected. Thank You, Matt. And at this Point I Think It\'s Time
to Go to Matt to Talk

about What You Want to Talk about.

Well, What I\'m Talking about Is Evaluating Occupancy and Use, Rick, and
this Is Kind of a New

Thing for Me. Usually I Sit Where Rick Is Sitting, and Now I Am in the
Position of Going

Through Elmo Cards and Trying to Teach on Camera, So If I Collapse in
Fear, You Will Know

Exactly Why. Anyway, at the End of the Session and this Session Should
Run until Just Before

Lunch, We Are Going to Be Looking at Evaluating Occupancy and Use, And
When It\'s over We

Would like You to Describe in General the Types of Uses That Are
Legitimate and Not

Legitimate And, of Course, That\'s Going to Depend Where the Property Is
in Its Mine Lifecycle.

We Will Want to Also Look at Ways to Reduce Interagency Conflicts and
That Speaks Directly

to Msha Regulations and Some of the Things We Sent You Via Groupwise
Overnight. We\'re

Also Going to Hope That You\'ll Be Able to Describe the Life Cycles of a
Mineral Property. They

Actually Have Them. It\'s Not like Butterflies but Not Too Far Different
Either. We Would Also

like You to Make a Preliminary Evaluation of a Surface Use or Occupancy
Given a Set of Facts.

You Have to Understand Mine Operators Are Entitled to Use as Much of the
Public Lands Is

Reasonably Necessary for Them ‑‑ As Much as They Reasonably Need For
Their Legit

Operations. We Have an Example on Slide 155. Some of These Necessary
Uses May Appear to

Be in Conflict with BLM Goals N this Case this Looks To Be a Cement
Plant, Whether or Not

this Would Be on a Mining Claim Remains to Be Seen or a Mill Site Claim
but a Terrible Thing

Happened Here a Few Weeks Ago, and That Was We Moved from Office to
Office, and Moving

Just 400 Feet I Managed to Lose A Career Accumulation of Slides Of
Mining Claim Occupancies

and Mining Claim Uses. So I\'m Kind of Depending on Stock Footage, and
this Is Stock Footage.

Also must Be Understood That Mine Operators Are Subject to a Myriad of
Regulatory Demands

Other than from BLM. Some of Them Carry Greater Pebble Tease than BLM
Regulations. We\'ve

Got to Be Sure We\'re Not In Conflict with Other Agency Requirements.
Some Examples: These

Are Really Near and Dear to a Lot of Mine Operators and Mine Foremen.
The Mine Safety and

Health Administration, for Example, Msha Has Rules That Establish The
Pit Bench Width and

Height. Say That Four Times Rapidly. The Size, Width and Surface of Haul
Roads. The Required

Ancillary Facilities like Change Rooms and Ambulance Station and All
Sorts Of Things.

Protection of Health and Safety Of the Public by Fencing or Signing. The
Work Hours of Mine

Employees. For Example, You Can Work Longer Hours in a Surface Mine than
You Can Work

in an Underground Mine. The List Just Goes on and on and If You Want to
Get a List of Them,

Talk to Any Mine Manager And They\'ll Grown and Say, Ohhh, And Wonder
How Long it Will

Take. You Need to Have a Copy of this In Your Home Office. You Need to
Have this Available.

It\'s 30 Cfr Parts 1‑199. These Are Msha Regulations. In Many Respects
Msha Is like a Local

Government Agency. We\'ve Got to Meet Their Requirements. We\'ve Got to
Allow the Miners to

Meet Their Requirements. Sometimes Msha Requirements May Appear to Be in
Conflict with

Our Requirements. This Is an N‑a Nutshell What Msha Requires. Now, I
Tried to Contact Msha

to Get Information We Could Give You Today and I Played Phone Tag For
Two and a Half

Weeks Trying To Get Information and I Finally Got it in Writing on
Monday, Which Is Why You

Got Your Groupwise Overnight Update. Basically Msha Does Not Require
That the Mine

Property Be Fenced, So If Somebody Comes to You and Says Msha
Requirements Say I Have to

Fence My Property, That\'s Not Strictly True. However, Msha Does Require
That Dangerous

Areas Be Posted Against Entry and That the Area Be Barricaded. Well,
Sounds to Me like in

Many Cases a Fence Is the Right Answer. So Although Msha Is Not
Requiring Fencing, Fencing

Seems To Be a Pretty Good Idea at Times. Emsaw Does Not Require a
Full‑time Guard Be

Posted at the Mine Site a Lot of Major Mines Do Have a Full‑time Guard,
and If You Go down

and Say ‑‑ Take a Tour, for Example, of the Mission Complex South of
Tucson, You\'ll Stop at a

Guard Gate. The Guard Is There Primarily to Make Sure You Belong There
and Make Sure You

Have Safety Equipment and Make Sure That They Know You\'re Coming. Msha
Also Has

Roadway Standards. You Don\'t Need to Be Keeping Notes. If You Didn\'t
Get this in Your

Overnight Updates, Contact Us Via Fax and We\'ll Resend Them to You.
Also Check with Your

Downlink Coordinator and See If They\'re In for Copying and You Don\'t
Have Them Yet. If You

Want to Look up Msha Road Standards Look in 30 Cfr 56.900 And 56.9313.
Msha Standards

Requiring Training Requirements for Personnel at Mine Sites Are at 30
Cfr 48. So If You Have

Been Told by a Mine Operator That Even the Ups Delivery Driver Has to
Have Msha

Certification to Enter the Property, You Might Want to Look That up in
this Location. Although

You Have to Understand The Mine Operators Are ‑‑ I Won\'t Say at the
Mercy of the Msha

Inspectors Because That\'s Not the Right Terminology, but The Local Msha
Inspectors Do Have a

Large Say in the Way Things Are Enforced. Okay. Suppose You Want to
Contact Somebody at

Msha to Find out What the Real Story Is? Here\'s What You Do. For
Training Things You Can

Contact the Msha Academy at Beckley, West Virginia. Here\'s the Phone
Number. You Don\'t

Have to Write this Stuff down. It\'s Coming to You via Groupwise. If You
Didn\'t Get It, Let Us

Know. For District Office Type Information, There\'s a District Office
in Denver. There\'s a District

Office in Dallas. And There\'s a District Office in Vacaville,
California. Why They Have Offices in

Dallas And Vaca Villascapes Me, but There They Are. If You Want to Talk
to the Source, Call

Michael Sheridan. Michael Is a Mining Engineer in Denver and His Phone
Number Is ‑‑ You

Might Write this One down Because this Is the Man I Played Phone Tag
with. His Phone Number

Is 303 231‑5430. If You Have Specific Questions. And Actually, Most
People Will Welcome

Communication Between Agencies. Don\'t Be Afraid to Call. Just Don\'t
Waste Other People\'s

Time. The Environmental Protection Agency Also Has Some Requirements
That Mines Have to

Meet, and this Is by No Means an Exhaustive List. Your Haz‑mat People
Will Have Better

Answers than I Ever Will, But Basically They\'ll Have Things to Say
about the Location And Size

of Mine Facilities, the Use and Storage of Chemicals, Disposal of Wastes
and on and on And On.

Understand That in Many States The States Have Taken over Enforcement of
Some of These

Things. You Should Have Someone in Your Office That Has a Pretty Fair
Idea of What Is

Required. All Right. State and Local Government Agencies Have a Big Say.
They May Require

Some Permits. If They\'re Going to Require the Permits, BLM must Allow
the Operator to

Comply with the Requirements of the Permits. We\'ve Talked about Some of
These Things Earlier

Such as Getting Waivers If Meeting a County Requirement Would Be Worse
than Not Meeting a

County Requirement And So On. Scott Went into this in Some Detail. There
Are Septic Tank

Permits, Access Road Standards, Electrical Service Standards, Dust
Control and on and on and

On. We Need to Be Talking to Each Other.

Matt, along Those Lines, We Just Got a Fax That Came in That Reminds Us
That Msha Will

Only Apply Their Standards to Working Mines. They Do Not Apply Their
Standards to

Exploration Operations. So We Have to Bear in Mind That There Is a
Distinct Point Where Msha

Becomes a Player, and That Is When a Mine Is Proposed or Comes into
Existence. The

Exploration Phase, You Will Probably Not See Msha out There. You\'ll
Probably Find Some

Other Agency out There.

That\'s Right. That\'s a Good Point and I\'m Glad We Got That
Clarification. Also, Msha, for

Some Reason, Doesn\'t Seem to Get to All Operating Mines, and One Thing
That Has Been Used

in the Ridgecrest Resource Area When Someone Claims to Be a Mine
Operator and Truly

Legitimate And Saying I Have to Do These Thing for Msha, They Call the
Msha Inspector and

Say, Hey, This Guy Somebody You Inspect And He Frequently Says, \"Who?\"
You Can

Document That Sort of Stuff If You\'re Building a Case Of Not Reasonably
Incident Mining.

the Other Point, Too, Is That That Will Help Msha Get a Handle On Folks
That Maybe Haven\'t

Been Giving Msha Required Notification. So Both Agencies Benefit.

That\'s Right. It\'s a Good Idea. If We\'re Going to Require Mine
Operators to Obtain Permits

from A Local Government, We Have to Be Prepared to Allow Them to Meet
the Standards. We

Can\'t Just Brush off the Local Government. If We Establish a
Requirement That Are in

Opposition or Conflict, We\'re Going to Lose on Appeal, We\'re Going to
Lose Big On Appeal.

We Had a Question Yesterday About Waiving County Requirements When it
Looked like It

Would Better Protect the Environment and We Agree That\'s A Good Idea.
But We Can\'t Have it

Both Ways. If We\'re Going to Want to Work With the Counties We Need to
Treat the Counties

Decently So They\'ll Want to Work with Us. We Can\'t Just Arbitrarily
and Capriciously Say

County We Are Going to Ignore That and Go Our Own Way. We Need to Be
Talking to Each

Other. Another Important Issue Is Protecting Public Safety. We Have to
Allow Operators to

Fence or Sign Areas to Protect The Public Safety Where There\'s A
Demonstrable Need. We Don\'t

Need to Have the Area Fenced or Signed When All We Have Is Mining Claims
That Blanket 50

Square Miles of Antelope Pasture. In Fact, 50 Square Miles of Antelope
Pasture Reminds Me of a

Time I Worked out of Riverton, Wyoming, but I Wasn\'t Working For the
BLM and There Wasn\'t

Uranium There, Either. Another Story for Another Time, Rick.

Yes, I Hope So.

it May Be Necessary to Allow An Operator to Post No Trespassing Signs in
Specific Instances.

Early this Morning We Received a Fax in from the Ridgecrest Resource
Area ‑‑ in Many Respects

He\'s Ahead of the Curve On Good Signage Requirements and Lynn Pointed
Out, and I Have His

Fax Right Here, Ridgecrest Only Allows No Trespassing Signs on The
Structure That Is Used

Exclusively for Residence. Remember, this Is Public Land. It\'s Not
Private Land. And Nowhere

Are You Going to See Me Recommending That We Put up Signs That Say
Private Property Keep

Out, Because it Isn\'t Private Property. We Have to Be Really Careful
About That. Anyway,

Ridgecrest Only Permits The No Trespassing Signs to Be Used at the Point
of the Residence.

They Have Perimeter Fence Signs Stating Other Things. We Recommend the
Use of Signs That

Are Very Descriptive. Just Keep out with No Reason Doesn\'t Really
Explain That If You Go in

There You\'re Going to Be Eitheren Alive or Fall into Shafts. We Will
Come to Some Descriptive

Signs in a Few Minutes. Our Intent Is to Protect the Safety of the
Public. Part of the Intent Is to

Avoid Tort Liability. Dennis Mclane Can Talk More About Tort Liability
Tomorrow. However,

Our Intent Is to Protect the Public Safety. If We Will Better Protect
the Public Safety by Posting

Bilingual Signs or Trilingual Signs, Even, Then We Should Do So. Almost
a Radical Idea but One

That Really Bears Thinking about Is When We Have Areas That Are Really
Hazardous, When

There\'s An Industrial Mining Activity Going O You Might Want to
Consider a Notice of Realty

Action, Closing a Buffer Zone Around the Area. Your Notice of Realty
Action Would Close the

Area to Only Authorized Personnel or BLM Employees, in Other Words,
People That Need to Be

There. That Way We Can Post Official Closed Area Signs. If You Have
Immediate Problems You

Might Want to Consider an Emergency Closure. There Are Some Useful
Language For Some

Signs in Hazardous Areas and I Have a Couple Examples. Slide 145 Is, of
Course, One of My

All‑time Favorites. Slide 145 Shows Probably the Best Example of a Sign
That Tells You Exactly

What\'s Going To Happen to You If You Trespass. Now, this Wasn\'t Really
on Public Land. This

Is near Blythe, California. But I\'m Willing to Bet the Families That
Posted this Sign Did Not Have

a Serious Problem Of Trespassing. There Are Some Signs That Are Not a
Good Idea. For

Example, Slide 158. Slide 158 Is Not What We Would Want to See. This Is
Mining Area, No

Trespassing, on and on and On. Somewhere in the Fine Print ‑‑ This
Isn\'t the Sign That Says, We

Serve Our Own Justice. That\'s Not a Good Idea. When You See These
Things, It\'s Worth a Visit

to the People That Posted Them to Come up with Something That Is More
Appropriate. Another

Lousy Example Is Slide 159. This One ‑‑ I Didn\'t Knock this One Down,
Honest, I Didn\'t. This

One I Came upon it this Way. It\'s Private Claim, Camc, Whatever the
Number Was, Keep Out.

They\'re on the Right Track. Tass Mining Claim and There Are Some Signs
Available for Mining

Claims. If You Subscribe to the California Mining Journal, There Is an
Outfit That Advertises in

The Classifieds and They Sell a Mining Area Sign or Mining Area Warning
Sign That\'s Really

Pretty Good. If You\'re Going to Develop Language for Signs in Hazardous
Areas You Need to

Give Them Some Thought. You May Want to Contact ‑‑

the Solicitor\'s Office.

You May Want to Contact the Solicitor\'s Office Prior to Posting and
Figure out What an

Appropriate Language Is. The Sort of Signage Has to Be Limited to Truly
Hazardous Situations

Where We Really Need To Protect the Public\'s Safety. Again, You Don\'t
Want to Be Putting up a

No Trespassing or Private Property Sign. Here\'s an Example. This Is
Pretty Generic. Keep out.

Hazardous Conditions. It Explains You Shouldn\'t Go There and Basically
Why. Here\'s Another

Good One Coming Up. I\'m Not Sure If in Today\'s Environment it Would Be
Either a Good

Deterrent or an Invitation For Somebody to Come in and Steal the
Explosives, but You Really

Ought to Consider If You Have Explosives, There\'s an Explosives Haserd
and You Ought To

Post That. Here\'s an All‑time Favorite. Keep out. Not Particularly
Descriptive. But Appropriate in

Other ‑‑ in Some Instances. This One Is Available from the BLM Sign
Shop. At Least it Was the

Last Time I Looked. And You Can Post it Anyplace There Are Open Mine
Shafts. It Doesn\'t

Generally Serve as a Really Good Deterrent, but it Does Warn People If
They\'re Not Watching

Where They\'re Walking They\'re Likely to Fall In. This One Is a Little
More up to Date. Danger,

Open Mine Shafts. Stay out and Stay Alive! A Lot of States Are Doing
Public Relations

Programs on Stay out And Stay Alive and this Would Dovetail Nicely with
What They\'re Doing.

Another Possibility, Danger, Hazardous Chemicals. No Trespassing. Used
by the Ridgecrest

Resource Area in the Residential Areas And That Seems like an Awfully
Good Use. Rick, Where

Would You Suggest Putting a No Trespassing Sign?

it Seems to Me That Ridgecrest Is on the Right Track, That the Only
Place You Really Want to

Assert the Right To Privacy Is in the Residency And No Trespassing
Asserts a Right to Privacy.

Scott, What Have You Been Doing with Signs in Folsom?

Our Signing out There Is the Standard Signs That You\'re Using Right
Here. We Do Encounter a

Lot of the Signs, No Trespassing, That We ‑‑ as Exhibited on the
Entrance To Actually BLM

Land. Those We Remove Automatically And Contact the Claimant and Have
Them Place

Appropriate Signs Closer to the Operation.

That\'s a Fair Approach. I Think That Will Work. Here Is One That\'s
Useful If You\'ve Decided to

Go with a Notice of Realty Action and Close an Area. This Is Closed Area
Entry Proceed Behind.

If Need Be You Can Post a Copy Of the Notice of Realty Action. I Know
Folsom Has Been

Good About Posting Realty Actions at Sites. I Think It\'s a Good Idea.
This Is One Coming up

That Ridgecrest Developed for a Mine Currently in Development and I
Really, Really like this

One. This Is Danger, Active Mining Operation. Authorized Personnel Only.
And in the Fine

Fuzzy Print at The Bottom, I Regret It\'s There, But That Says, this Is
Used at The Briggs Mine,

and I Would Like to Think Lynn Gum from Ridgecrest for Sending That
Earlier in the Week and

this Should Have Been Included in Your Overnight Updates. How Are We
Doing for Time, Rick?

If I Can Find the Clock. The Time on Our Clock Says 9:18.

Ooh, Coming Right along.

So Weary Moving along. We Had Another Fax Come in That Also Sought to
Remind Us That

One of the Other Players in this Case That We Haven\'t Spoken of Is
Osha, and I Can Hear the

Hackles Raising as I Mention Osha, but There Are Going to Be Safety
Requirements Put in Place

By Osha.

That\'s the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

Yes, and Their State Clones. We Have Been Focusing So Far on Federal
Agencies. Remember

That There Are in Many Cases State Agencies and Federal ‑‑ and ‑‑ at the
Mining Level And at

the Health and Safety Level That Also Have State Requirements, and They
Are Every Bit as

Important. There May Be No Fencing Requirement on the Part of Msha, But
the State Mine

Safety Folks May Come in and Say, Ah, but We Have a Fencing Requirement.
So You Need to

Be Aware That There Is a State Mine Safety Agency, Their Requirements,
You\'re Going to Have

to Look to Them as Well. And You\'re Going to Need to Talk To Those
People. Actually Those

People Can Be Some of the Best Allies You\'ll Ever Have in Getting
Hazardous Circumstances

Corrected. Because Very Often the State Mine Inspector Can Move with the
Swiftness That Is

Remarkable by The Standards of the Federal Bureaucracy.

Would the Osha Standards Apply to Exploration Operations?

I Don\'t Know, but I Will Make A Wild‑ass Assumption and Say, I Bet They
Do.

Probably So. If You\'re Employing Somebody in A State and Paying Them
Money, You Are

Probably Paying Them Money, You Are Bound by the Occupational Safety and
Health

Administration.

If Anybody Has Any Real Knowledge, Send Us a Fax. We Would Appreciate
Knowing So We

Can Pass That Word Back on When We Get Back to Headquarters And Matt and
Scott and I

Several Other People Begin Working on The Longer Term Guidance, We\'ll
Begin to Look into

Some of These Questions and Try to Get Them Answered as Well.

If You Do Have That Kind of Information, We Would like to Hear from You,
and If You Can

Call in and Tell Us about It, I Think That Would Be a Good Thing To Do
Right Now.

Yeah.

We Would like to Hear from You. In the Meantime, I Have Another Fax Here
That Has a

Question, And That Is: Although I\'ve Searched the 3715s to Find a
Section, I Can\'t Seem to Get

the Citation Other than Just 3715.7. Is There Direct Language That
States That We as BLM

Inspectors Have the Authority to Enter and Inspect All Structures Other
Than Those Used Solely

for Residential Purposes? And Wouldn\'t That Mean That No Trespassing
Signs Should Be

Limited to Structures Used Solely for Residential Purposes? The Citation
Is Question Is Looking

for Is 43 Cfr 3715.7.

it Basically Says BLM Field Staff Is Authorized to Physically Inspect
All Structures, Equipment,

Workings And Uses Located on the Public Lands. Plain and Simple. We Are
Authorized to

Inspect.

Basically. And as a Policy or Not Going to Go into a Residential
Structure Without Really

Written Permission.

and We Say That and Rule in The next Paragraph, Paragraph B, BLM Will
Not Inspect the

Inside Of Structures Used Solely for Residential Purposes Unless an
Occupant or a Court of

Competent Jurisdiction Gives Permission. That Means You\'re Either
Invited In by the Occupant

or You Have a Warrant.

Scott, Go Ahead.

Are You Saying Here, Then, That If We Have a Storage Shed Out There or
an Enclosed Shop

That We Can Enter That Premises To Inspect?

That\'s Right.

Okay.

Also the Claimant Says, No, No, I Live in There, and Then You Stay out.
However, for the

Purpose of Going on the ‑‑ on These Properties for Evaluating the Uses
and Eventually Writing a

Surface Use Determination, One Of the Things You Need to Determine Is Is
this Building

Residential? And If the Claimant Says, That\'s My Residence, Please
Don\'t Go in There, That\'s All

You Need to Know. You Don\'t Need to Know If He Has A Seally Posturpedic
or Sears Mattress.

If the Claimant Says That\'s My Residence to about Six out of Seven
Buildings, You Have a

Good Idea Something Is Not Being Played on the Square.

Let\'s Revisit That with Dennis. I Think That Falls into a Law
Enforcement Aspect.

Certainly Brings That into It.

Causes Us to Ask. Moving Along, I Want to Go into The Life Cycle of
Mineral Property.

Mineral Properties Have Life Cycles, Believe it or Not, and If You Look
into the History of The

American West and the History of Mining in the American West, You Find,
Pick For an Example,

the Getchel Area Of Nevada, it Was Heavily Prospected and Had High‑grade
Mining in Around

the 1880s, and The Miners Went in and They Sniped out Everything They
Could Afford to with

the Technology And Prices of the Day, They Abandoned, and They Left.
Now, Those of You

That Are Familiar with Getchel Will Probably Want to Correct My Dates
Because I Am Pulling

this More or less out of the Sky. If I Have it Wrong, Let Us Know. Then
Back in the \'30s During

the Depression, People Came Back in With Improved Technology and There
Was Some Work in

the Teens Around 1918, 1919. The People in the \'30s Removed And Mined
as Much as They

Could With the Prices and Technology Of the Day and When That Particular
Ore Was Depleted,

They Left. Remember That Ore Has a Distinct Legal and Economic Meaning.
Ore Is a Rock That

Can Be Mined And Marketed at a Profit Today. Now, Tomorrow Technology
May Change and

Allow Lower‑grade Material to Become Ore, Which Is What Causes Us to
Have Mineral

Property Life Cycles. After the \'30s Getchel Was Abandoned Again and
It\'s Back up In Operation

Recently and People Were Mining Very Low‑grade Gold Deposits. The
Lifecycle of a Mineral

Property Recognizes That. The First Phase of a Life Cycle Is Prospecting
or Exploring for Ore.

Now, Each of These Phases Has to Be Successful for the next Phase To
Begin. It\'s Possible for

Prospecting to Not Be Successful and People Just Go Away. Okay. Suppose
We\'re Prospecting

for Ore and We Find an Ore Body. We Need to Find out How Big it Is. Now
Here We\'re Using

the Term Ore Kind of Loosely. We Should Perhaps Be Seeing We\'re
Prospecting or Exploring

For Mineralized Rock. We Delineate It. We Try to Figure out How Big Is
It? What Does it

Amount To? And Then If It\'s Large Enough And of a Large Enough Grade We
Will Develop a

Mine. But If it Isn\'t Large Enough or High Enough Grade, We Won\'t.
We\'ll Go Away and

Prospect Somewhere Else. So We\'ll Develop the Mine and Ultimately Will
Produce Some Sort of

Mineral, and When We\'re Done, We\'ll Reclaim It. This Is Kind of an
Ideal Life Cycle. At Any

Point We Can Give up and Say, \"Ah, it Didn\'t Work\" and Go Away. The
Kind of Uses That Will

Take Place at Each of These Phases Will Be Different from the Other
Phases. Each of These

Phases Requires Surface Uses Which Are Necessary And Reasonably Incident
to Operations.

They\'re Going to Depend on the Phase. These Reasonably Incident Surface
Uses Are Normally

Lesser At Prospecting Stages and Greater at Development and Production.
Makes Perfect Sense,

If You Think about It. During the Exploretation You Have a Few People on
the Ground Walking

Around with a Rock Pick And a Bag and Collecting Samples. They Wander
off. That\'s Really

Indistinguishable From a Rock Hound on Vacation. At the Upper End During
Production, off

Large Facility, You May Have a Pit a Thousand Feet Deep and a Mile
Across. That\'s a Rather

Extensive Use of The Land. At the Earlier Stages, Reasonably Incident
Uses May Not Be

Noticeable by the Casual Visitor to the Public Lands And, In Fact,
They\'re Really

Indistinguishable from Recreation and Recreational Camping. A Mineral
Prospect May Be

Abandoned by One Operation During the Exploration or Delineation Phase
Only to Be Picked up

by Another Operator Later. One of My Favorite Stories Has To Do with
Lead and Zinc

Prospecting in the Tristate District in the Midwest Where One Company
Left, Another Company

Came in Just to Be Spiteful They Put Their Exploration Drill Hole Where
the Office Trailer from

the Previous Company Had Been, and That Was Their Discovery Hole. So
Because One

Company Wasn\'t Successful Doesn\'t Mean Another Company Won\'t Be
Successful Later.

Numerous Operators May Reject a Property Before Somebody Finally Figures
out a Way to

Make it Go. Only a Very Tiny Fraction of Mineral Prospects Ever Become
Successful Mines and

Ever Move Into Production. Early Phases of Prospecting or Exploration
Involve Operations That

Normally Result Only in Negligible Disturbances to the Surface. A
Prudent Operator, and Here\'s

The Boil You Are Plate ‑‑ Boilerplate, a Prudent Operator In the Usual,
Customary and Proficient

Early Prospecting or Exploration Operations Would Undertake Geophysical
Surveys, Removal of

Small Rock and Soil Samples for Testing. The Area That Would Be Used for
This Kind of an

Exploration Project Would Typically Be Small. You Would Be Looking over
Several Townships

and You Would Be Doing Overnight Lodging in a Nearby Town or Portable
Base Camp. I Know

When I Was Working in Uranium Exploration We Hated Camping Overnight.
The Reason Is We

Had to Cook Our Own Food, We Lost Field Time and It Got Plain Miserable
Because We

Couldn\'t Take Showers. Believe Me, Camping Overnight in The Gas Hills
Isn\'t as Nice as Staying

in an Apartment in Riverton. The Equipment Required for this Phase Is
Very Minimal and Can

Normally Be Carried in the Back Of a Pickup Truck. At the End of the Day
Can You Put it in the

Pickup Truck and Haul it Away. Later Stages of an Exploration Project
May Involve Exploration

Drilling. In Such Cases, More and Larger Equipment Is Required Such as
Mechanized

Earth‑moving Equipment. Drill Rigs Can\'t Go Everywhere Although There
Are Drill Rigs That

Are Pretty Good at Handling Rough Terrain. Delineation of an Ore Body
May Require Drilling

on a Larger Grid or an Irregular Grid or Doing Tunneling under the
Subsurface. The Surface

Uses in this Phase Cause Due and Necessary Degradation of a Greater
Magnitude than

Exploration or Prospecting. Notice I Said the Terms Due and Necessary
Degradation. If You

Dille Dig a Hole, That Degrades the Surface. But If It\'s Appropriate at
That Phase, it Is Due and

Necessary. Understand, However, That this Is to Be Reclaimed at the End
of The Project. If the

Project Fails. If the Project Doesn\'t Fail and It Moves onto Mining,
That Hole Will Eventually

Become a Mine And Then That Would Be Reclaimed At the End of the
Process. Now, When

You Start Getting into Delineation Phases, It\'s Normal To Expect the
Placement of Temporary

Buildings and Limited Storage of Appropriate Equipment And Supplies.
What Is Limited and

What Is Appropriate? What Kind of Equipment Is Appropriate? What Kind of
Temporary

Buildings Are Appropriate? It\'s Very Hard to Say Because Everything Is
Kind of Situational. In

Most Cases, During Pilot Mining or Delineation, Everything Comes in as
an Office Trailer. They

May Have Several Pieces of Office Trailer That Get Stuck Together.
Whether or Not You Want

to Call These Temporary Structures or Permanent Structures, They\'re
Still Relatively Uneasy to

Unbolt and Move Apart, Move Away. Sometimes a Pilot Mining Project Will
Be Undertaken to

Test Ore You a Mean Bill Tea While Continue to Go Delineate and It\'s
Still Common for a Mine

Project to Fail at this Point. Development of a Mine and Production
Require the Most Intensive

Uses of the Surface. Development of an Open Pit or Underground Mine
Requires Substantial

Earth Moving. I Know it Sounds Self‑evident, But It\'s True. If You\'re
Going to Dig a Hole, You

Have to Move Dirt. You Frequently Have to Move a Lot of Dirt. You Have
to Build Roads. At

this Point You\'re Probably Going to Be Covered by Msha. You May See
Mine Infrastructure

Starting to Be Put Together. Now, Why That Whole Talk on Mineral
Property Life Cycles? Well,

When Things Take Place That Are Excessive for That Part Of the Cycle, or
out of the Cycle,

Unnecessary and Undue Degradation May Take Place. Basically If Things
Are Being Done

Improperly or out of Sequence, You\'re Going to Get Degradation Worse
than What You Would

Normally Expect? And I Have an Example. For Example, Constructing a
70‑foot Wide Road

Where a 25 Foot Wide Road Is Appropriate May Constitute Unnecessary
Degradation. Msha Will

Have Something to Say About the Size of the Road and You Need to Be Sure
It\'s Appropriate.

But You Should Be Suspect If Someone Who Is Just Prospecting Proposes to
Put in a Wide

Road. There\'s Something Wrong with This Picture. This One Is Obvious.
Establishing a Tailings

or Holding Pond Without Proper Lining May Constitute Unnecessary
Degradation, as May The

Placement of Structures When Not Really Need to Do Support Actual
Operations. Something We

Called the Hefty Bag Heap Leach or Lining a Pond With What Looks like
Trash Bags Is Really

Not Appropriate. That Would Be an ‑‑ Probably Unnecessary Degradation.
Undue Degradation

Takes Place When Operations Inappropriate to The Mineral Properties Life
Cycle Occur. And by

That We Mean Building a Mill Before You Found the Ore Body. Now, There
Are Thousands of

Cases Where That Took Place in The West in the 1880s Through The Present
and If You\'re

Familiar with Mining Scams, You See a Lot of Show Mining Where People
Bring in Equipment

and Stuff and Build Roads and Take Movies and Try and Get Investors
Involved. That Would

Probably Fit under The Category of Undue Degradation, When Undue
Degradation, in Other

Words, Operations, out of Sin Crawnization with the Mine Property\'s
Life Cycle Take Place, the

Property Often Fails.

Another Point Here, If You Go Back to the Definitions We Spoke About
Yesterday, It\'s

Probably Not Reasonably Incidental. One of the Requirements for
Reasonably Incidental Is That

The Activity must Be Appropriate For the Geological Terrain, the Mineral
Deposits Being

Sought, And the Sage of Development That The Project Is In.

I Know Las Vegas District Had A Case like this about Eight Years Ago
Where the 3715s Would

Have Been Very Helpful to Them, Where Somebody Proposed to Come In and
Do Something

Completely Out of Line for the Phase They Should Have Been In, Which Was
Prospecting. When

Somebody Is in a Prospecting Phase and They\'re Proposing to Come in and
Collect 80

Truckloads of Material to Be Hauled off to Somewhere When Really They
Should Be out Doing

83 Yo Chemical Surveys, You Should Question What\'s Going On.

Matt, We\'re down to about 10 Minutes. We\'ve Been Getting Some
Questions. Do You Want to

‑‑ How Are You Situated for Time Here?

Let\'s Have a Quick Look Here. Give Me about Two More Minutes. I\'ll
Talk Fast. You Know I

Can Talk Fast. Then Let\'s Field Those Questions And We Can Go on Our
Break.

Okay.

If You\'re Going to Construct A Road Where Only a Way for Access Is
Required, That So

Should Get Your Attention. The Excavation of an Open Pit Is Not
Appropriate When All You\'re

Doing Is Exploration, Although Understand That Sometimes a Pilot Mining
Operation Is

Necessary. Failure Usually Results When a Mineral Property Is Developed
by Bypassing the

Necessary Early Phases. If That\'s a Problem for Private Investors, it
Doesn\'t Affect Us Directly

Except Here, the End Result Can Be an Abandoned Exploration Project That
the Taxpayers Have

to Pay to Clean Up, and That Is No Fun at All. Anyway, Shall We Go onto
the Questions, Rick?

I Suppose We\'ve Flogged this Horse Sufficiently. We Had a Question That
Came to Matt and

Scott from Las Vegas. Said That We Should Take down Perimeter No
Trespassing Signs When

Discovered We Are Creating A Situation Which Will Cause the Claimant Not
to Be Willing to

Work with Us. Would it Not Be Better to Meet With the Claimant and Work
with Them to

Remove or Change the Signs? You Guys Want to Take That One On?

I Think It\'s a Case by Case Situation.

Absolutely.

All Depends on Where It\'s Located, What Area, What the Access Situation
Is, What the Public

Use Is. But, Yes, the Ideal Way Would Be To Meet with the Claimant on
Site and Discuss It.

I\'ve Dealt with Situations That Had to Be Handled Both Ways And in Some
Cases Where the ‑‑

Somebody Has Posted a No Trespassing Sign Immediately Impeding Regular
Transit, It\'s Got to

Come down Right Away. Other Times, I Know I Can Go in And Talk and Say,
Look, You Can\'t

Do That. Do Something Else.

Okay. Another Question, this One Likewise Comes from Lynn. Lynn, You\'re
Being a Busy Boy.

We Congratulate You. Don\'t Know If You\'ll Get a Reward for That, but
Keep ‑‑

No, Usually the Reward Is More Work.

Matt Stated If the Claimant States That\'s My Residence, We Don\'t Go
In. Let\'s Assume the

Claimant Has an Attached Garage/work Shed. We Know That the Structure Is
Not Used Solely

for Residential Purposes. Just Take a Look at Matt\'s Garage, as per the
Regulations. Do We Go

Ahead and Enter the Structure to Inspect Equipment And Use In.

Actually My Garage Is Often Used for a Residence but Usually It\'s When
I\'ve Had a Fight with

My Wife. Gosh, Rick, I Was Hoping You Would Answer the Question, Not
Just Ask It.

You\'re Talking about this One. This One Is a Gray Area. It\'s Going to
Depend Pretty Much On

the Physical Circumstances. If Enough of the Residency, like The
Washroom and Food Storage

And Pantry Storage, Spills out Into the Garage, Probably We\'d Be
Justified in Considering That

To Be Part of the Residence. Might Not Necessarily Be Required to Make
Your Surface Use

Determination.

That\'s Correct. Generally If You\'ve Got a Situation Where the Claimant
Isn\'t Being Particularly

Cooperative and Saying That\'s a Residence, That\'s a Residence, That\'s
a Residence, Don\'t Go in

Any of Them, There Are Going to Be Other Problems That You\'ll Find, and
Can We Peek in the

Windows? Maybe We Need to Ask Dennis That Later.

Yeah, That\'s a Good Question. We\'ll Come Back to That One. Now We Have
Another Question

From Northern California. At What Point in 3715 Flowchart Is the Surface
Use Determination

Report Necessary? In 3713.3‑3 Would a Surface Use Determination Report
Have to Be

Completed During the 30 Working Days or Is it Considered Part of The
Nepa Documentation in

Which We Have 30 Days after All Documentation Is in to Review The
Occupancy? Well,

Basically this Is One of Those No Matter What Answer You Give It\'s Not
Going to Be the Right

Answer. A Surface Use Determination May Be a Major Document, and If You
Look at Pop

Scorn Shrimp, You Have in Your Hands a Major Document. Do You Know How
Long it Took

Them to Prepare That?

That Was a Fast Track Issue. I Believe That They Started on It in
September and Ended in ‑‑

Just a Few Month Ago. Perhaps the Author of the Popcorn Shrimp, If
You\'re Listening, from

Northeastern Utah Could Call and Tell Us a Little Bit about It.

That Would Probably Help Us On this Case. It Is Going to Depend on
Precisely the

Circumstances Surrounding the Actual Case. If You\'re Going to Make the
Determination at the

End of 30 Days, You\'re Going to Have to Have That Surface Use
Determination Cranked out and

Ready to Support You in the Nonconcurrence Determination. It\'s less
Important to Have a

Surface Use Determination When You Say It\'s Reasonably Incident And
It\'s Appropriate and

Proper. The Surface Use Determination Becomes a Major Factor When You
Are Going to Say

It\'s Not Reasonably Incident.

That\'s Correct. However, I\'d Be Really Hesitant To Say That We Could
Do a Lesser Job on a

Surface Use Determination That Says That It\'s All Right Because We\'re
Going to Have People

Looking Over Our Shoulders.

Yeah, That\'s the Other Unknown Here. Is We Don\'t Know What Kind of
Over the Shoulder

Coverage this Program Is Going to Generate. Play it as it Lays, as They
Say In the Golf Business.

the Bottom Line Is on a Surface Use Determination, Whether It\'s Good or
Bad, You Need to

Do a Credible Job.

Okay. If That Doesn\'t Answer the Question, Well, the ‑‑ Afraid The
Circumstances Are Such

That That\'s Not Got a Fixed, Firm, Fast One. It All Depends on the
Circumstances Surrounding

the Case.

as Long as We\'re on Surface Use Determinations, I Would like To Throw
out a Pitch Right

Now That as You Complete Them and as They Can Be Released for Internal
Use, Please Send Us

Copies of Surface Use Determinations to the Training Center. The Other
Side of That Coin Is If

You\'re Starting out on One And You\'ve Never Done One Before, Contact
Us. The Three We

Gave You Are Just Three. We Have Other Examples We Can Give You, and
They Can Help You

Get the Format and Content Figured out and Save You a Whole Lot of Work.

Yeah, Keep in Mind That the Most Powerful Tool You\'ve Got Is Groupwise
and Your

Telephone, Because it Puts You in Touch With Everybody Else Who Is Doing
The Job. Let Me

Also Add Something in Here. When I Get Back to the Washington Office,
We\'re Going To Finish

Setting up a List Server in Groupwise for Use and Occupancy and We Will
Send out a General

Groupwise Announcement. We\'ll Have Space on That Groupwise List Server
for about 200

People. If it Gets Any Bigger than That, The Irm Folks Will Have My
Head. Those of You Who

Are Working in The Program, We\'re Going to Ask You to Sign on the Irm
List Server ‑‑ or to the

List Server On Groupwise Because it Will Be A Place to Post a Question
and Have Maybe 100,

150 Folks See The Question and Maybe Feed You Back an Answer.

Well ‑‑

We Will ‑‑

150 Different Opinions.

That\'s True. I Mean, It\'s a Place to Talk. It\'s Not a Place to Find
Policy. The Policy Will Come

out Through The Normal Channels. In this Respect, the List Servers
Function the Same Way The

Old Shared Folders in Fts 2000 Used to Work. We Have Calls Coming In.
Why Don\'t We Go to

Johnny. Push a Little Harder. You\'re On.

Caller: Yes, Matt, I Would Like to Ask a Question about Checking out the
Surface Use

Determinations on a Mining Property When the Claimant Is Not with You.
What Are Your

Rights as Far as Entering Buildings When the Claimant Is Not There?

Your Rights Entering the Buildings and this Is Something We May Want to
Revisit When

Dennis Mclane Joins Us for Questions this Afternoon, and Rick and Scott
Stop Me If I Have This

Wrong, but Your Rights Are The Same as If the Claimant Is There. If it
Looks Residential Stay

Out. But You Need to Make an Affirmative Effort to Get the Claimant to
Go out There with

You.

Yeah, You Very Clearly Need To Contact the Claimant. That\'s a Critical
Feature.

Caller: Okay. So Are You Saying That You Should Not Enter Buildings That
The ‑‑ If the

Claimant Is Not With You.

You Should Not Enter Anything Clearly Residential and If You
Inadvertently Go into

Something Residential, Turn Around and Go Out.

Caller: That Clears That Out.

Push Hold and We Had Call Two. Call Two Dropped off. Okay.

That Was Al in Phoenix. So ‑‑ Let\'s Go to Another Question. What
Criteria Do You Use to

Make A 2920 Determination Versus Remove the Building? Scott? Matt?

it Looks like at What Point Are We Going to Say, Yeah, We\'ll Issue a
2920 Lease Versus Get

The Building out of There?

Okay. Well, Let Me Just Respond to Another Question, Too, That Kind Of
‑‑ to Follow up on

this. Hopefully I Can Answer this Question Here. The Issuance of a 2920
Lease. We Are Charged

Here with ‑‑ We\'ll Take the Mom and Pop Situation Again, Which Is What
I\'m Trying to Work

with Here at The Moment. We Are Charged Now with Doing Surface Use
Determinations.

Where We Have a Situation Where We\'ve Got Mining Claimant Where
Activity and Mining Has

Ceased For Say a Good 20 Years ‑‑ Roughly and They Have Been Residing on
the Claim for a

Good 50, It\'s Unlikely We\'ll Come up With a Determination of
Concurrence. So That Leads Us

down the Road To Having These People Removed Who Have Spent Virtually
Most of Their

Lives on BLM Land and on a Mining Claim. So in Order to Put the Record
Straight Here and to

Help Make Things Easier for Them Without Them Sitting There Thinking,
Oh, My Gosh, Now

I\'m Going to Have To Move Off, What We Do under The 2920 Lease
Situation Is We Have the

Claimants Release or Relinquish the Portion of the Mining Claim That
Their Occupancy

Encompasses or Embraces. It May Only Be an Acher and That\'s It. We Are
Not after the Whole

Mining Claim. So We\'re Looking at the Occupancy Residency Site for the
Lease Itself and That Is

It.

Those of You Who Were Around During the Mining Claim Occupancy Act Will
Remember

That\'s the Way the Mining Claim Occupancy Act Worked as Well.

It\'s Time for Our Morning Break. When We Return, Matt Will Talk About
the Fascinating Use

and Surface Use Determination Subject. He Will Show You a Video Case
Study in the next

Segment. So Have Your Vcr Ready to Record. You Will Need this Video to
Work The Lunch

Time Exercise. We Will Tell You When You Should Start Recording.

Welcome Back from Your Break. Now, Before We Move on to Surface Use
Determinations,

We Want to Address Some Questions That Came in over the Break. We Also
Want to Add That

All of These Questions Are Not Being Sent to the Circular File When
We\'re Done with Them. All

These Will Be Bundled up and The Three of Us plus a Couple Others You
Haven\'t Seen Will Be

Using Them as Part of the Tools We\'re Going to Have at Our Disposal
When We Develop a

Document or an Interim Operating Guide for this Program. We Will Have
the Opportunity to

Take More Questions from You Before this Course Is Over, and When this
Course Is Over, We

Will Ask That You Continue to Groupwise Us Questions as They Arrive to
One of the Four of

Us, Matt, Myself, Scott or Dennis Mclane or Bob Gibson, and We Will
Attempt to Take Some of

These Questions and Plug Them Into the Operating Guidelines That Will Be
Coming out Through

The Directive System.

Absolutely. Matt, You Want to Address Some Questions That Have Come
Through?

We\'ve Had a Number of Questions and Comments That Came In During the
Break and I Want

To Deal with a Few but I Also Want to Amplify What You Said. Even If You
Send Us Questions

We Can\'t Answer, Those Will Go into Interim Operating Guidelines and We
Encourage You to

Send Questions. We\'re Keeping Track of Them. We Did Have the ‑‑ Some
Initial Results of the

Necktie Competition Coming in on ‑‑ and We Have a Really Good View of it
Here from Las

Cruces, New Mexico, and We Weren\'t Expecting Quite an Excellent
Tabulation of It, but So Far,

at Least in New Mexico, Rick Deery Is the All‑time Loser and in One Case
He Is Being Asked Is

That a Necktie or a Used Napkin. Rick, Is That a Necktie or Used Napkin.

It\'s a Neck Tie.

a Winnie the Pooh ‑‑

I See Tiger, I See Pooh, Eor And Piglet but I Haven\'t Seen Owl. I\'ll
Keep Looking, Though.

There Is Another Comment Here That Someone Is Telling Me I Should Smile.
I Am Smiling.

Although I\'ve Been Told That My On‑camera Demeanor Is Sort of Someone
Who Reports on a

Funeral During an Earthquake. So Bear with Me. We Have a Question in Our
Discussion about

the Lifecycle Of a Mine. You Gave the Example of a 75‑foot Road Versus a
25‑foot Road. If the

Proposed Action Is Just The Construction of the Road to Get Access
Beyond the Two Track

That Leads to the Area Is this Subject to the 3715 Regs? I\'m Not Sure I
Fully Understand That.

Rick, Maybe You Can Work on That One.

Well, While We\'re Talking About Roads, Yes, Roads Are Partially Covered
by the 3715

Regulations If You Take a Look At the Definitions Found in the
Regulations. Under Mining

Operations. That Definition under Mining Operations Says it Includes
Building Roads and Other

Means Of Access to Mining ‑‑ a Mining Claim or Mill Site on Public
Lands. So Road

Construction Is a Use, And It, Too, must Be Reasonably Incident.
Remember That the Use and

Occupancy Regs Are the Large Umbrella under Which We Are Working on All
Uses. We Tend to

Focus on Occupancy, But We Have Changed the Boundary Conditions of the
Universe a Little

Bit in That We Are Also Assessing All Uses, Not Just Occupancy. All Uses
Have to Meet the

Reasonably Incident Test to Be Allowed to Go Forward.

We Have Another Question in From Wyoming, and Rather than Read It, I
Think, Rick, this Is

Probably Best Addressed to You. It Includes a Number of Twists, Although
at No Time Does

Anyone Cross the International Dateline.

the Claimant Has Submitted an Existing Occupancy Form for His Residency.
He References an

Unapproved Plan. His Mill Site Was Ruled Invalid By a Validity Exam. He
Has Appealed to Ibla.

He Is Still on the Site Because Ibla Granted the ‑‑ a Stay Pending the
Appeal. The. Should BLM

Accept His Occupancy? Your Prior Decision Has Been Stayed. There Is No
Action until the

Board of Land Appeals Reaches a Decision. You Accept His Occupancy Form.
It\'s as Simple as

That. When Ibla Turns Around and Does Something, it May Be Time to Then
Consider Your

Options.

Good. Rick, Is Nepa Required to Bring Existing Facilities into
Compliance?

Yes. Nepa Is a Requirement for All Determinations, Whether Existing Or
the New Occupancies

That Will Come Through the Door.

What If the Facilities Were Previously Covered by an Eia or A Large Ea
or Even a Small Ea,

Could You Just Refer to That Document.

Yes, and We Will Try to Have Guidelines out in the Operating Guidelines
Addressing Those

Particular Nepa Questions. That\'s the Point Where a Cx Seems Pretty
Appropriate.

Great. If We Have Existing Trespass Case Files with Initial Reports Of
Trespass, Preliminary

Investigation Reports And, in Some Cases, Documentation of Contact with
the Cabin Owner but

Have Not Yet Issued a Notice of Trespass, Would These Be Considered to
Be Pending Trespass

Actions?

No, You Have to Have Had a Formal Notice of Trespass Delivered to the
Occupant.

and in That Case it Would it Need to Be a Certified or Personal Service
‑‑

it Would Have Had to Have Met The Standards for the Test Pass Abatement
Manual or

Handbook, And So it Would Have Had to Have Been the Personally Served
Notice of Trespass.

Good. Okay. So You Can\'t Just Go to the Trespass Register and Pick out
All the Names and

Say These Are Existing Cases, You Don\'t Qualify.

No, You Can\'t. You Have to Go to Those Which Have the Formal Notice of
Trespass Sent to

Them, and this Is Found in the Interim Guidance That Came out as an
Instruction Memo and Is

Found Immediately Following the Regulations Somewhere about Page D31.

Now, That ‑‑ I\'m Not Sure That Was Copied in the Written Material That
Went out to People.

Is That out as an Ib.

That\'s an Ib. I Don\'t Have the Number Handy. We\'ll Find it for You
and Give It to You this

Afternoon.

Also, If You Requested ‑‑ Rather If You Did Not Receive Your Overnight
Update via

Groupwise, Make Sure That You Sent Us Your Groupwise Address And Asked
Us to Send

Them to You. We Are Getting Requests from People for Overnight ‑‑
Groupwise Updates That

They Didn\'t Receive, and We Can\'t Find Them on Our Mailing List. So
Whether or Not We Lost

it or It Didn\'t Get to Us, Send it to Us Again and We\'ll Get You up to
Date.

We Have Another Question That Came in from Somewhere in California. It
Says to Scott\'s Page

M 149, Unless Use Is Not Reasonably Incident or a Threat to Health,
Safety and the

Environment, I Believe Is What They\'re Quoting, The Board of Speakers
Keeps Saying, and What

Is It, And, Or, Or? In the Case of the Immediate Suspension of
Activities, the Requirement Is Not

Reasonably Incident \"And\" a Threat to Health and Safety and the
Environment. Must Be the

Two. And I Will Send this One out to You, Bill, in New Mexico. I Agree,
it Is Cumbersome.

Why Don\'t You Give Us a Call and We\'ll Talk about it on the Phone And
Maybe Everybody Can

Pick up On Where this Fax Colloquy Is Going. And We Have Another
Question From the Garnet

Resource Area. If There Is an Inhabited ‑‑ Inhabitable Structure on a
Current Claim but the

Claimant Does Not Use it and Has No Intention of Using It, the Claim
Exists from a Previous

Use, Why Would it Be an Existing Occupancy? We Don\'t Believe That it
Is, and That the

Claimant Should Not Have ‑‑ Should Not Need to File A Notification of
Occupancy. Please

Explain. Thanks. Okay. If the Claimant Is Not Making Use of It, Has No
Claim on It, Then

You\'re Right, the Claimant Probably Doesn\'t Need to Claim Or Send the
Notification of

Occupancy. What That Has the Effect of Doing Is Saying That Everything
About the Operation Is

Going to Be up to Snuff on October 16th, 1996. We\'re Going to Ask Some
Pretty Tough

Questions about the Cabin, And at That Point We\'re Going to Have to
Have a Positive

Declaration from the Claimant That the Cabin Is Not Part of His
Operation, Is Nothing He Wants

to Deal With, and We\'re Going to Have to Take Some Affirmative Actions
as Dennis Discussed

Earlier and We\'ll Discuss Again Later.

Good.

and That\'s it for the Questions That Have Come Through That Are Germane
to the Moment.

Matt, I Understand You Want to Say Something about Surface
Determinations.

Well, I Can Go on for Hours And Hours and Hours on Surface Use
Determinations ‑‑

I\'m Sure You Can.

We Only Have about a Half Hour in Which to Do It.

Speaking of Hours, How Long, By the Way, Did the Popcorn Shrimp Take? I
Think We Had a

Message up on One of the Computer Screens That Said Something in the
Order of 220 Hours.

We Did. We Got That Message. The Popcorn Shrimp Exam, and the Author of
the Popcorn

Shrimp Exam Did, in Fact, Call In, but Because We Had Sanitized His
Report So Heavily, He

Didn\'t Want His Name Used on the Air. So We\'ll Respect Him. However,
the Popcorn Shrimp

Exercise from Beginning to End, Including Law Enforcement and Support
Time, Required 224

Hours Of Work, Which Is Actually Surprisingly Good. Some of These Can
Take a Lot More

Time.

Matt, That Just Got Faxed Into Us, It\'s Another Sign. Perhaps You Would
like to Share It with

Our Viewing Audience and Make Comments on It.

Okay. Again, We Have to Apologize for The Orange Paper. It Tends to Swim
a Little Bit on

Your Screen. Here We Have a Warning Sign That Says Mining Claims,
Extreme Danger.

Remember, You\'re Looking at a Picture of a Fax Here. So Excuse Me for a
Moment While I

Make You a Little Sea Sick and Let\'s See If We Can Come in Closer.
Warning. Mining Claims.

Extreme Danger! Anyone Asserting Rights in Contravention of the Rights
Claimed under These

Mining Claims Will Be Considered a Trespasser and Will Be Prosecuted to
the Full Extent of The

Law! Kind of an Eery Sounding Thing But Actually It\'s Not Bad.

it Does Tend to Sound Foreboding. I\'m Not Sure That Prosecuted Under
the Full Extent of the

Law Is the Proper Term, since If You Assert Rights Against a Mining
Claimant It\'s Mostly

Private Party Litigation, and That\'s Not Prosecution in the ‑‑

That\'s Litigation.

it Is Litigation. I Would Be a Little Concerned About this Particular
Sign Going Up That Has a

Bit of a Constitutionalist Ring to It, And it Doesn\'t Tend to Serve Any
Purpose Other than

Seemingly to Say to Rival Mining Claimants, Stay off.

I\'d like to Hear Some of the History of this Particular Sign, If the
Person Who Faxed it to Us

Could Give Us a Call and Explain What the Story Was and What People Were
up to Where They

Photographed It. I Assume this Is a Photograph. We\'d like to Hear More
about it But this Is a

Really Interesting One. With a Little Tweaking this Sign Could Be Put to
Some Pretty Good Use

and Be Informative Enough to Warn People They Are on a Mining Claim and
They Can\'t

Contravene The Mining Claimant\'s Rights, Although They Would Be Welcome
To Go and Hunt

and Fish and Do The Things as Allowed by Law.

Matt, I Think That about Covers All the Faxes That Came In. Let\'s Hear
it about Surface Use

Determinations Now. And Not in Terms of Hours and Hours.

No, I Wouldn\'t Do That to You. I Wouldn\'t Do That to Anybody. Just
Before ‑‑ Just During the

Break I Did Manage to Find Dennis Mclane and Asked Him Can We Peek in
the Windows, and

the Answer Is, Sure, Peek in the Windows, and in the Example Rick Was
Using, If the Garage

Door Is Attached and the Pam Pull of the Attached Garage, You Can Look
Inside, If They Say

It\'s Residential Don\'t Go In. Peek. But You Don\'t Want to Break the
Glass to Slide the Curtains

out Of the Way. That\'s Not a Good Thing. In Fact, That\'s a Very Bad
Thing. Dennis Can Go into

Greater Detail on That this Afternoon. Anyway, on ‑‑ When Working on
Surface Use

Determinations, It\'s Important to Remember That Documentation Is an
Essential Part of Any

Surface Use Examination. Actually, You Could Take off This Last Sentence
and Say

Documentation Is an Important Part of Anything We Do Because
Realistically If it Isn\'t

Documented, it Didn\'t Happen. If You\'re Going to Go out and Do Work,
You\'re Wasting the

Taxpayers\' Money If You Don\'t Document It. If You\'re Not Going to
Thoroughly Document

Your Work, Don\'t Even Bother Beginning the Work. If You\'re Not Going
to Do the Job Right,

Don\'t Do the Job. Have Somebody Else Do the Job Who Wants to Do the
Job. Now, in Your

Overnight Update Via Groupwise You Would Have Received an Instruction
Memorandum from

the Nevada State Office That Lists the Essential Parts of a Case File.
These Essential Case File

Parts Are Really Intended for Realty Actions, but It\'s Very Much
Applicable to What We\'re

Doing With Surface Use Determinations. Have a Look at That. If You Have
Questions, Bob

Gibson Will Be Able to Deal with Them in the Morning, and If You Look at
it During Lunch

Today, We Can Talk about it More this Afternoon. Documentation Is
Essential. I\'ve Had the

Good Fortunate Many Years Ago of Having an Ibla Case, a Case I Worked
On, Was Appealed,

We Did as We Were Supposed to Do, We Sent the Case File off to the State
Office, Which, in

Turn, Shipped it to The Internal ‑‑ Interior Board Of Land Appeals. I
Got a Photocopy of a Letter

From the Solicitor\'s Office to The State Director Saying They Were Not
Entering a Brief Because

the Case File Was Complete. That\'s a Compliment. If You Do Your
Documentation to The Point

Where the Solicitor Does Not Need to File a Brief, You\'ve Done a Fine
Job. And I Might Add,

We Won That Case on All Points on Appeal. That\'s the Sort of Work We
Should Be Doing.

Something That Really Needs to Be in Every Case File Is a Case
Chronology. Here\'s a Sample of

a Case Chronology. You Can Find this in the Baird Case History Which
Starts in Section L of

Your Report. Now, Scott Has Some Cases Very Much like ‑‑ a Case
Chronology Very Much like

this in One of His Handouts. I Don\'t Have the Page Numbers in Front of
Me. Scott, Have You

Memorized Those Pages.

I\'m Afraid, I Haven\'t, Matt.

It\'s Well Worth Looking At. It\'s in There. This Is a Sample. What You
Need in Your Case

Chronology Is Date and Event. Here We Are 2/15/83. BLM Sends Notice of
Noncompliance

under 43 Cfr 3809 To Six Claimants for Performing Unauthorized
Operations with Earth Moving

Equipment\... Now, That Should Tell You That Somewhere in the Case File
Is a Copy of the

Notice of Noncompliance. This Sample Case Chronology Needs to Be in the
Case Where You

Can Get to it and Add to It. You Can Keep it on Your Word Processor and
Add to and it Print

Another Copy. Scott\'s Case Chronology Is on Page M33. You Don\'t Need
to Get to it Right

Now, but It\'s Another Good Example. The next Entry Here in the Case
Chronology Is a Few

Days Late ‑‑ A Day Later, BLM Staff Goes out To the Site, Photographs
the Occupancy, the

Trash and the Mess. The Geologist Notes All Equipment Could Be ‑‑ That
Could Be Used for

Mining Is in Old and Poor Condition. In Other Words, it Didn\'t Run. It
Couldn\'t Be Made to Run

Without Putting an Engine Back In It. One Occupant Shouts Murder Threats
to BLM Staff but

Then Disappears. Things like That Definitely Need To Be Documented. Now,
Your Case

Chronology Absolutely must Have Some Things In It. It must Record All
Events Associated with

the Case. Whenever Possible, it Should Refer to a Document in the File.
If All You\'re Doing Is

Mentioning Went Out, No Change, On That Date, That\'s Fine. But If
You\'re Talking about a

Notice of Noncompliance, If You\'re Talking about an Order, You Need to
Refer to it in Your

Case Chronology. It Has to Be as Chronological as Possible. Now, When I
Started Using Case

Chronologies, I Was Using an Olympia Portable Typewriter. I Eventually
Graduated to an Ibm

Selectric. I Couldn\'t Move Things Around With Block Move. Word
Processors Came Later. It

Has to Be Free from Erasures And Alterations. If You Put in Something
New, Cross it Out,

Initial it and Date It. Your Case Chronology must Be Absolutely
Positively Objective Much. It\'s

Essential. I Know It\'s Sometimes Difficult To Be Objective about
Someone Who Threatened to

Kill You. If They Do That, Though, You Need to Be in Touch with Your Law
Enforcement

Officer. But That Needs to Be Documented And it Needs to Be Played
Straight. The Reason for

it Is That Documents That Are Straight Neutral Add Tremendously to Your
Credibility. If Your

Dislike for the Individual Comes Through the in The Document, Your
Credibility Goes into the

Toilet. Now, Surface Use Determination. What Is It? We\'ve Been Talking
about Surface Use

Determinations All Morning. In Essence, a Surface Use Determination Is a
Professional Report

Written by a Certified Mineral Examiner. Here We Go with the Certified
Mineral Examiner Stuff.

I Know That with the Patent Application Backlog We Have and So on Having
to Use Certified

Mineral Examiners Gets to Be a Problem Because They Have a Large Backlog
of Work. Why to

We Want to Use Them? It\'s Because ‑‑ Because Certified Mineral
Examiners Have Sufficient

Education and Experience to Recognize What Mining Looks like and What
Mining Should Look

like. The Last Thing You Want to Do Is Have Someone Go out and Look at
One of These

Occupancies and Be Fooled. The Last Thing You Want to Do Is Have
Somebody Go out and

Look at These Occupancies and Not Know What They\'re Looking at and Say,
Well, this Is All

Bad and When In Reality It\'s Good. We\'ll Lose and Lose in a Big Way.
Additionally, a Surface

Use Determination Receives Quality Control from a Certified Review
Mineral Examiner. This

Means That the Final Product That You Have in Your Hand as a Manager or
a Worker on One of

These Cases Will Be Reviewed and it Will Be, at Least in Theory, a Good
Report. Now, I\'ve Seen

Probably 15 Surface Use Determinations Coming Across My Desk in the Last
Eight Years. I

Know There Are More That Have Been Done. You Have Three Good Examples in
Your Notes. I

Have Seen Only One Really Bad Example. That Really Bad Example Resulted
In Really Bad

Direction from the Judicial System. So You Need to Do These Right And
You Need to Do Them

Right The First Time. If You Find Yourself in the Position of Having to
Write a Supplemental

Report to Fix a Surface Use Determination, You Need to Throw it Away and
Start Over. What

Do You Look for When You Go Out onto an Occupancy and Try And Determine
If Things Are

Reasonably Incident? If We Can Bring up Slide S ‑‑ Page S39 ‑‑ Actually
We Can\'t Bring up Page

S39. Sorry. If You Look on Page S39 in Your Notes, What We Have There Is
a Really Dreadful

Photograph of a Suction Dredge. I Apologize. I Wanted to Make These
Available As Slides for

Us to See, but I Mentioned Just Before Break That A Terrible Thing
Happened When We Moved

I Lost My Career Accumulation of Photographs. So It\'s Gone. The Very
Best We\'re Going to Be

Able to Do Here Is Look at Some Photocopies. Bear with Us. On Page S39
Is a Photograph of a

Suction Dredge. That Suction Dredge Is Located On a Lode Claim. In the
Middle of the Desert.

And the Occupant Said, We Use The Suction Dredge in Our Mining
Operation. Well, We

Wondered Where the Water Came from Because the Water Had to Come in in
the Back Of Their

Truck. Things to Look for. You Need to Look for the Wrong Kind of
Equipment. Are They

Using a Suction Dredge In the Desert? That Doesn\'t Make a Lot of Sense.
On a Recent Trip to

California I Saw a Floating Bucket Line Dredge in the Middle of the
Desert. In a Dry Lake. A

Dry, Artificial Lake. It Was One of the Silliest Things I Think I\'ve
Ever Seen. That\'s Something

You\'ll Want to Look for. You Want to Look for Wrong Kind Of Equipment
That\'s Inoperable.

You Want to Look for the Right Kind of Equipment but Inoperable. Look on
Page S38. On Page

S38 of Your Notes Is a Picture Taken of a Box of Tools. Now, Those of Us
That Work on Cars

and Do a Lot of Mechanical Things Call These Tools with a Shelf Life.
Their Brand Name Is

Taiwan, Indonesia. Who Knows. You Get Them for There Are 3 at A Discount
Store. Be That as

it May. Look Closely at the Caption. These Tools Are Covered with at
Least a Six‑month

Accumulation Of Doggy Bon‑bons. That Shoe Should Tell You How Often the
Claimant Our

Occupant Was Using Them. It Will Also Go to Good Faith. You Want to Look
for the Right

Kind of Operable Equipment with No Activity. If We Could Look at Slide
160, Perhaps We Can

Use That as an Example. Slide 160 Is an Actual Piece of Mining
Equipment, and Without a Lot of

Work, this Piece of Mining Equipment ‑‑ It\'s a Trommel. This Probably
Could Be Refurbished

and Put to Use and Would Do the Job. This Was Located at an Occupancy
Trespass. Scott Is

Probably Familiar with The Location of this One Because It\'s in His
Area. Scott, Is That ‑‑ Has

That One Been Taken Care Of?

Excuse Me Throat Here. That Has Been Resolved, Yes, and The Claimant ‑‑
Excuse Me ‑‑ My

Throat Is on the Way out. The Cabin No Longer Exists and The Claimant
Has Moved off and We

Have an Agreement Where He Is Living on Another Claim Upriver.

Another Claim Upriver?

Another Claim Upriver for X Amount of Years.

this Is a Piece of Real Mining Equipment. It Can Do a Real Job. But If
We Can Look at Slide

161, This Is Where You Need to Start Looking More Closely. Slide 161, I
Believe, Shows the ‑‑

Let\'s Back Up. Well, I\'ve Lost That One. Sorry. It Should Be the Slide
Right After the Trommel.

Yes, Slide 161. Let\'s Bring That One Up. Okay. This Is the Operating
Area, in Other Words, this

Is the Motor Of the Trommel. It Looked Great, like a Piece of Equipment
That Was All There.

But Has it Been Used Recently? You Want to Look at and it See Where the
Belts Run on the

Pulleys. Are the Pulleys, Rusty, Corroded Or Are They Shiny like They
Have Been Operating. Is

There Gas in the Gas Tank? Or Is There Just Jelly or Is it Empty? Is the
Spark Plug Missing.

Does it Look like All You Have To Do Is Pull the Handle and Make it Go.
If the Property Is

Littered with Stuff That Looks Great but Doesn\'t Look like it Will
Quite Run, You\'ve Got a

Problem with The Right Kind of Equipment but No Activity or the Right
Kind of Equipment but

Just Inoperable Equipment. Another Situation You Have Is The Right Kind
of Operable

Equipment but the Wrong Kind of Activity. With the Right Kind of
Operable Equipment and the

Wrong Activity, it Returns to the Suction Dredge. If You Have a Suction
Dredge on The Mining

Claim in the Middle Of the Desert. It Doesn\'t Matter How Well it Works,
It\'s Not Likely to Do

the Right Kind of Job. More Things to Look for. When Someone Gives You a
Proposal and Says

I Need to Establish this Occupancy to Use As a Base of Operation for My
Prospecting Activities,

That Should Cause Your Antenna to Come up and Say, Wait a Minute, Wait a
Minute, Why Do

You Need To Establish an Occupancy to Go Prospecting? Remember That in
the Life Cycle Of a

Mineral Property, Prospecting or Exploration Is Something That\'s Pretty
Low Level and Really

Looks a Whole Lot like Recreation. Maybe What They Need to Be Using A Is
a Self‑contained

Trailer or Self‑contained Camper and Moving 25 Miles Every 90 Days or
less. Another Thing to

Watch out for Is a Seemingly Appropriate Occupancy with an Incompatible
Second Use. What

Does That Mean? Well, Maybe They\'ve Got a Mine Operation Going, Maybe
They\'re Actually

Mining, but There\'s a Sign up That Says, Fortunes Told, Palms Read.
That Isn\'t Normally

Something You Expect to See on a Mining Claim, and You Might Want to
Wonder about That.

Another One Is a Seemingly Appropriate Occupancy with a Secondary Use
That Has Become a

Primary Use. We\'ll See Situations like this Coming up in Our Video in a
Little While, and That Is

Where, For Example, the Miner Has Mining Equipment but He Is ‑‑ Seems to
Be Making More

Money Buying and Selling Mining Equipment than He Is Just Actually
Mining with It. That\'s

Something You Want to Watch for. Another Problem Is a Seemingly
Appropriate Occupancy

with the Right Kind of Operable Equipment But with an Accumulation of
Junk. If We Could See

Slide 157, We Have an Example There. In Slide 157 ‑‑ this Is a Lousy
Example and If You Look

Closely, You Will Notice the Sign Says \"Hahnest Ron\'s Used Cars.\"
That\'s Not Likely to Give

Him Many Sales, but That Was on a Mining Claim. We Can Move to Slide 162
as the Next One,

and Here We Have Clearly a Sluice. Could Be Used, Could Be Put to Use,
but We Have a Junk

Motorcycle. In the Background Is an Engine From a Datsun. Hoses Going
Nowhere. We Have

Possibly the Right Kind Of Equipment but it Sure Isn\'t Being Used and
It\'s Start to Go Look like

Junk. Okay. Let\'s Go to Slide Un46 for a Moment. Slide 146 Is Still
Another Example. These

Should Mean a Lot to Scott Because He\'s Seen Them. This Is a
Good‑looking Cabin, Looks like

‑‑ it May Even Meet Code, but If You Look Closely, There\'s a Lot of
Stuff There That Really

Doesn\'t Belong There, and If You Look a Little More Closely, it Looks
like the Whole Purpose Is

to Just Have a Residence. Scott, You Want to Tell Us How This Went? How
Is Your Voice

Doing? Better at the Moment. This Particular Cabin Is Located In a
Wilderness Study Area, and

All Improvements Were to Be Removed By, I Believe it Was, June of 1989.
We Actually Had to

Go Through The Assistant U.s. Attorney\'s Office ‑‑ I May Have Said That
Wrong Again ‑‑ but

We Have an Agreement Where the Claimant Has Removed the Structure from
the Wsa and Has

Moved onto the Other Side of the Line Where They Also Have Another
Claim, and Is Presently

Occupying His Claim Over There. For the next Five Years.

Okay. Good. Now, When You Are Preparing a Surface Use Determination, the
Determination

Needs to Explain Why You Came to the Answer You Came to Rather than Just
Saying, Yes, this

Is Reasonably Incident, No, It\'s Not. There\'s a Report We Didn\'t Send
You Because We Wanted

to Limit The Amount of Paper That Was Being Mailed out and Copied
Everywhere, That Use

Uses a Lot Of the Explanation from the Mineral Property Life Cycles. If
You Would like to Have

a Copy Of That Report, Send Me a Groupwise Message and I\'ll Send It to
You. I Have Started

Using That Thought Process a Lot in the Surface Use Determinations
Lately. Incidentally, I Do a

Pretty Large Amount of Field Work on Surface Use Determinations and I
Try to Keep up on It.

So I Do Have a Pretty Good Selection Available for You to Look At. If
You Would like a Copy,

Let Me Know. They Generally Aren\'t Very Long. A Surface Use
Determination Does Not Have

to Be a Long Report. In Fact, it Should Be Fairly Short. But You Need to
Show Your Rationale

and Your Conclusions Have to Follow from That Rationale. I Would like to
Move Now to the

Mineral Peak One Case Study. We Will Be Rolling this Video in A Moment,
and I Think We\'re a

Little Ahead of Schedule. Have We Had a Question Coming In.

Actually We Did, and We Actually Had Somebody Call Us, And it Never
Moved over to the

Appropriate Box on the Screen in Here, So We Never Picked Up, and We\'re
Sorry for That. If

You Want to Call Back, Please Do. This Is from Doug up in Roseburg. He
Asks, We\'re Rapidly

Approaching the Point Where Many Abandoned and Possibly Existing Claims
Have Structures or

Dumps On Them Protected by Arpa. What Types of Conflicts Do You
Anticipate in this Area,

I.e., Attempts to Refile on an Arpa Protected Site. Well, You Have to
Keep in Mind What Arpa

Does. It Says You May Not in an Unauthorized Fashion Go out and Destroy
Archaeological or

Historical Sites. That Does Not Prevent an Authorized Operation, and
That\'s One of the Reasons

Why We Set Into the Rule the Requirement That All Determinations of Use
And Occupancy

Have to Contain Compliance with or Have to Include Compliance with
Section 106. If We Have

Complied with Section 106, and We Have Done the Proper Job in the 106
Compliance, We Have

Several Choices. We Can Mitigate the Site. We Can Avoid the Site. Or We
Can Simply Step

Back and Let the Site Be Disturbed, Possibly Destroyed. We Do Expect
Some Considerable

Workload. There Will Be Cases, and We\'ve Had a Colloquy with Gordon in
Tonopah on Precisely

this Issue Of Arguably Historical Artifact That Are in the Way of a
Current Mining and

Occupancy Operation. 106 Will Be the Process That We Go Through. This
Will Create

Long‑time Lines Just like it Does at Any Other Part of the Operation,
but That\'s the Way ‑‑ the

Way the Program Is Set Up, and That\'s The Way We\'ll Have to Do It. We
Had Another Question

That Came In, and this One Relates, I Suppose, More to Dennis, and
We\'ll Ask Dennis to Speak

to This. It Says: There\'s Been a Major Problem with Getting Doj to
Process Surface Use Cases

Unless We Can Show Irreparable Harm. Is There Now a Change? Do They Have
the Time, the

People to Handle this? This Is a Potential Increase in Work. And along
the Same Lines Is Another

Comment from Arizona: a Minerals Person Who Has More Than Casual Use ‑‑
Casual

Acquaintance with ‑‑ as a Mineral Person with More than Casual
Acquaintance with Lands And

Realty, I\'m Concerned That Scott\'s So Goes it Comment about Lands
Workload Increase May

Have Dire Consequences. Seriously, How Much Coordination Was Done with
the Lands Folks in

Developing These Regs? Well, Yeah, They Were Involved In it from the
Get‑go, and They

Surnamed off on the Original Proposal, and So We Are All in Agreement.
The Director Has

Signed It, and We\'ll All Go Marching off. There Are Going to Be Work
Loads. Not Only Work

Loads That Are Going to Increase for Us, but Work Loads That We\'re
Going to Run into in Doj,

and We Will Have to Deal with Those as They Arise. This Is What the
Management of This

Program Is All about. When We Begin to Run into Problems about Doj
Doesn\'t Have The Time,

Doj Doesn\'t Have the People, Doj Doesn\'t Have This, That, Then Those
Kinds of Concerns Need

to Come Back to The Headquarters Office So That We Can Deal with Them at
a Bureau to

Bureau Level or a Department to Department Level And See If There
Aren\'t Some Mutually

Agreeable Solutions. Forest Service a Few Years Back Paid the Wages of
an Assistant U.s.

Attorney to Get Some of Their Concerns Dealt with in the Courts. So If
These Kinds of Things

Occur, Yes, We Will Have a Problem, and They Probably Do Have Dire
Consequences for You.

Sorry about That, Ol\' Buddy.

Is That the Last Question?

Yeah, That\'s the Last One That We Want to Take up Now.

Okay. I Think We Can Go into the Mineral Peak Case Study and We\'ll
Watch it as it Goes

along. Anyway, What We\'re Going to Do Now Is Take You on an Armchair
Field Examination

on Television. You Are Now the Field Inspector, And You Are Going to Go
and Look At a

Mining Claim That Has an Occupancy and a Large Variety of Uses on It.
This Would Be a Really

Good Time For You to Turn on Your Vcr. This Video Runs Just under Four
Minutes and It\'s a

Mock Field Visit in Response to Receiving An Occupancy Notification from
Mr. Smith, the

Operator of the Mineral Peak Mine. Your Job Will Be to Determine If The
Overall Uses and the

Occupancies Are Reasonably Incident to Mining. Are There Any Uses or
Residences That Are

Not? You\'ll Need to Take Note of Them And Explain Why They Are Not or
Why They Are. You

Will Probably Want to Record The Video So You Can Review it During
Lunch. Now, Some of

You May Recognize This Property, Especially If You\'re from Northwestern
Nevada. We\'ve Done

Everything We Can to Protect the Privacy of the Claimant, So Keep it to
Yourselves. For Extra

Credit, See If Can You Count the Number of Times the Claimant\'s Dog
Appears in the Video.

The Mineral Peak Is a Real Operation. We\'ve Changed the Names and a Lot
of the Location Data

to Protect the Identification and Privacy of the Operators. The Exercise
Is in Your Course Notes

Beginning on Page S49. Please Get Together at Each Downlink Site and Try
to Come up With an

Answer. Then Fax Your Brief Answer Back To Us Using the Form on Page
S51. Just as Soon as

You Have the Answer. We\'ll Discuss it after Lunch. Now Let\'s Go to the
Mineral Peak Number

One.

Welcome to the Mineral Peak Number One Placer Mine. This Is a Low‑level
Mine, and Mr.

Smith, the Operator, Recovers Placer Gold at this Site in the Arid West.
Just Last Week Mr.

Smith Submitted His Occupancy Notification to BLM. We Are Here to Have a
Look at Mineral

Peak Number One. Mr. Smith Mines Gold from the Site. He Also Brings in
Placer Material from

Other Claims on BLM and Forest Service Planned In the Vicinity to Be
Processed Here. His

Operational Area on this Claim Is Just under Five Acres. And He Reclaims
as He Mines. Mr.

Smith Maintains a Variety of Mining Equipment on Site. Some of His
Processing Facilities and

Equipment Are in This Double‑wide Workshop Trailer. Some of the
Equipment Mr. Smith Has

on Site Includes a Vibrating Screen Sluice, a Bulldozer with Ripper,
Pumps for His Operation, A

Small Tractor, and a Drag Line. Most of the Equipment Is in Pretty Good
Shape, and He Has

Spares on Hand. He\'ll Buy and Sell Equipment as Appropriate. Mr.
Smith\'s Operation Uses

Groundwater. It\'s Pumped into this Pond. And into Tanks on the Adjacent
Hill. He Recirculates

Water to the Extent Possible. He Powers Everything with this Ancient
Surplus Electrical

Generator That He Picked up at Auction. Mr. Smith Has All Necessary
State Permits for the Use

of the Groundwater. He Lives at the Site with His Wife and a High
School‑age Daughter. They

Occupy These Medium‑size Single‑wide Trailers. The Trailers Are Old but
in Good Condition.

Two Can Be Moved on the Highways Without a Permit from the State. One
Requires a Permit

and Pilot Vehicles. He Has a Septic Tank and All Necessary State and
Local Permits for the

Residence and The Operation. Some of the County Permits Were Issued to
Him Only after He

Threatened Litigation. The County Wishes He Would Just Go Away and Has
Asked the BLM to

Make That Happen. The Smiths Have a Telephone. They Use Their Ancient
Generator And

Recreational Vehicle Batteries for Their Electricity. Mr. Smith Has
Several Vehicles. Some Are

Used by Mrs. Smith and Their Daughter. The Remainder Are Trucks Intended
for His Mining

Operation. Not All Run, but Some Are Kept Back for Parts. In Summary,
the Mineral Peak Is A

Small Mine That Combines Operations on and off Site with A Residence.

Okay. You\'ve Just Completed Your Armchair Examination of the Mineral
Peak Number One

Placer Mining Claim, and It\'s as Planned under 43 Cfr 3715.4‑1. The
Smiths\' Uses and Residences

On the Mineral Peak Are Long‑standing and It\'s Clearly An Existing Use.
Mr. Smith\'s Submission

to BLM Was Complete. He Does Not Claim Fee Simple Title to the Land Nor
Is There Any

Color of Title Dispute of Any Kind. There Is No Trespass Action and No
Noncompliance Action

Current Against the Claimant. Now, Based on the Information in The
Video, it Is Now up to You

To Determine If the Uses and Residences on the Mineral Peak Number One
Are Reasonably

Incident. Use the Regulations at 43 Cfr 3715.2 and .5 as Your Guide.
Now, in Your Assignment

Yesterday, You Will Also Have Read the Popcorn Shrimp, the Dreamer\'s
Paradise and the

Northstar Surface Use Determination Reports. Use the Type of Rationale
Found In Those

Reports to Come to Your Conclusion. Now, When You Fax Us Back Your
Answer, You Should

Be Able to Answer These Following Questions:: Is There Any Clear And
Present Danger to the

Health, Safety or the Environment That Would Cause BLM To Order an
Immediate Temporary

Cessation of Activities? Does Work Appear to Be Substantially Regular?
Does Equipment

Present Appear to Be Appropriate and Reasonably Operable? Are There Any
Items Present That

Are Not Appropriate? Why Aren\'t They Appropriate? On an Overall Basis,
Are the Uses and

Residences on the Mineral Peak Number One Reasonably Incident? If They
Are, Why Are They

Reasonably Incident. If Not, Why Not? Are There Residences That Are Not
Reasonably Incident?

What Will Your Recommendation to Management Be? Now, as You Saw in the
Video, County

Officials Would Clearly Like to See this Operation Just Blow Away and
Never Come Back. How

Will That Affect You? How Will That Affect Your Recommendation? How Will
That Affect the

Outcome Of the Case on BLM\'s Side? Now, an Interesting Question\... How
Would Your Opinion

Be Affected If You Discovered That Mrs. Smith Prepared Income Tax
Returns in Her Spare

Time in a Spare Room in One of the Trailers? And for Extra Credit,
Again, How Many Times Do

the Smith\'s Dog Appear in the Video? Please Fax Your Answers Back to Us
Today During Lunch

as Soon as Possible and We\'ll Go over Them Right after We Come Back.
There\'s a Form on Page

S51, I Believe, in Your Notes. You Can Use That. Get Together at Your
Downlink Sites and

Talk to Each Other. We Can Take Individual Answers Or We\'ll Look for
Site Answers. We\'re

Just Curious to See What You Have to Say. Dissenting Opinions Are
Welcome. I Understand We

Have Some Other Questions That Came In.

There Was a Question That Came In, Matt, and It\'s on Your Side of the
Counter There.

Right in Front of Me. That\'s Why I Couldn\'t See It. If a Mining
Claimant Has a Vegetable

Garden on His Claim, Is this Reasonably Incident? That\'s a Good
Question.

and it Sort of Relates to One Of the Questions That You\'ve Asked on
this Study. As a General

Rule Is the Underlying Activity Reasonably Incident? Does it Necessitate
or Warrant Occupancy?

And, Frankly, There\'s Nothing Better than Home‑grown Tomatoes.

I Thought it Was Truly Unamerican Not to Grow Your Own Tomatoes and
Vegetables.

Ditto.

There Are Only Two Things Money Won\'t By, True Love and Home‑grown
Tomatoes.

We\'re Told We Have More Questions Coming In. We Haven\'t Seen Them Yet.

We Have a Question That Just Appeared on the Phone and it Dropped off.

If You\'re ‑‑ If You\'re Calling Us on the Phone, Remember That There
May Be Some Delay

Time While the Computer Switches Your Call to Us, and We Have a Monitor
Buried down Here

That Tells Us When We Can Punch This Little Button Here and Not Cut You
or Everybody in

the Control Room off. So Bear with Us. It Takes a Moment for That to Get
Here.

Actually I Think We May Have Gone a Little Too Quickly on the Vegetable
Garden Question.

The Bottom Line Is the Underlying Use That Allows People to Have the
Occupancy and

Residence on the Claim Has to Be Reasonably Incident. This Is Similar to
Asking a Question, If I

Have a Residence On a Mining Claim and My Mining Operation Is
Legitimate, Is it All Right for

Me to Have a Basketball Hoop So I Can Unwind After Work? Of Course, it
Is. Similarly If You

Want to Grow Vegetables and Your Underlying Use Is Legitimate Do It.
When You Start

Looking More like A Truck Farm and less of a Mine, There\'s a Problem.

That\'s True. You May Need Another Form of Authorization, after All, the
Secretary Is

Empowered to Authorize Cultivation on the Public Lands, but Not under
the Mining Clause. He

Can Do So under Flpma. So That Becomes a Possibility. We Have Some
Questions That Came

That Related to Mineral Peak, Matt, and They\'ll Have to Be Answered by
You. First, What Is the

Gentleman\'s Production Rate? Second, How Far Does He Haul Material?
And, Third, Does He

Have or Doesn\'t He Have Another Job?

I Can Take Those One at a Time. First I Would like to Mention We Do Have
Time Between

Now and When We Break for Lunch Much. If You Would Like, Give Us a Call.
We Can Answer

Questions on the Air. We Don\'t Bite. We Would Love to Hear from You.
Especially If You Tried

to Call Us Earlier and Dropped off. Give Us a Try Again and We\'ll Get
You On. The First

Question Here Was\...

What Is Mr. Smith\'s Production Rate.

His Production Rate Is Highly Variable. This Is, as the Videotape
Indicated, in the Arid West,

and It\'s Easier to Work in Winter Than in the Summer, So His Production
Rate in the Winter

Tends to Be Higher. He Produces Enough Gold to Have Put Five ‑‑
Correction ‑‑ Four Children

Either Through College Or Trade School and His High School‑age Daughter
Is about to Go off

to the University Fairly Soon. So His Production Rate Is High Enough to
Do That. It\'s Measured

in Cubic Yards per Day, but Not Hundreds of Cubic Yards per Day.

How Far Does Mr. Smith Haul His Material?

I Assume That Question Relates to How Far Does He Have To Bring in the
Material from Other

Claims. The Longest Haul He Has Is about 30 Miles. However, He Is an
Excellent Amateur

Geologist, and He Has Figured out Where He Can Dig to Get the Most Gold
per Bucket. So

When He\'s Hauling Material From the Other Claims, He Does It in the
Back of a Pickup Truck.

Okay. And Does He or Does He Not Have Another Job?

Mr. Smith Works Exclusively At the Mine Except When He\'s Fixing
Equipment That Broke

down Or Trying to Locate Spares.

Okay. And Those Are the Questions in Front of Us. We Have, Perhaps,
Another One That I Will

‑‑ That Came to Us From Carson City, and Addresses Criminal Actions, and
it Addresses Scott\'s

Flowchart. What We Will Do with That Particular Question Is Defer That
Question until Dennis

Gets Here and Dennis Is Going to Discuss the Need for and the Use Of
Criminal Activity ‑‑ or

Criminal Actions on the Part of BLM Law Enforcement Personnel, And
That\'s Simply a Better

Time And a Better Place to Get to That. We Have Not Forgotten Your
Question. We Will Get to

It. And Our Phone Screen Is Blank. If You Have Some Calls, Particularly,
Bill, out in New

Mexico, We\'ve Been Waiting for a Call from You Because, You\'re Right,
the Fax Back and

Forth, Is Kind of a Cumbersome Method Of Getting to an Answer. Why
Don\'t You Give Us a

Call. We Have a Line Ringing.

Okay. In the Meantime, If You Have Additional Questions on the Case, If
You Need Some ‑‑ or

on The Case Study, If You Need Some Clarification, You Can Send a Fax
Requesting

Clarification or Get on the Phone. But We Will Probably Be Breaking For
Lunch Pretty Soon.

Can I Pick this Thing up Now? Not Yet.

We Have a Call Just about Ready and Another Call Ringing In Now. So
Stand By. Okay. When

We Come Back, We Will Go Over the Mineral Peak Exercise, And We Have
Answered ‑‑

We Have Al in Phoenix on Line 1. Go Ahead, Al.

Caller: Hey, Guys, How\'s it Going Today?

Pretty Good, Al. How about You?

Caller: What I Heard a Little While Ago Is Somebody Could Grow
Vegetables on a Mining

Claim; Is That Right?

Yeah, as Long as the Underlying Reasonably Incidental Activity Involves
Some Occupancy And

the Vegetable Gardening Is a Form of Recreation.

Caller: Okay. At One Point I Thought We ‑‑ I Thought Ibla Told Us We
Couldn\'t Grow Buffalo

on Mining Claims.

Buffalo ‑‑

Caller: and Raise Turkeys And That Sort of Thing. Are We Discriminating
Between Carnivoors

and Herbivors.

I Suppose We Are. The Buffaloes Are a Site Specific Case. In That Case,
Mr. Peterson Owned

The Property next Door and the Board Pointed out the Proper Place for
Mr. Peterson\'s Livestock

Was next Door and Not On the Mining Claim.

It\'s Also Important to Note In That Particular Case That the Occupant
Asserted That the Buffalo

Were Necessary Parts of His Reclamation Activities, Which I Don\'t Think
Fooled Anybody.

Yeah, That\'s ‑‑ There\'s More To That Tale than Meets the Buffalo Head
On.

Also the Impacts from a Small Vegetable Garden, Which Really Isn\'t
Going to Be Much Larger

Than a Little Tiny Backyard, Are Considerably less than the Impacts of
Grazing Buffalo.

Yeah, Rule of Reason.

.

Caller: but What I\'m Hearing Is That at Least Small Recreational
Gardening and Small

Recreational Animal Husbandry Is Perhaps Okay?

Yes.

and Certainly You May Come to The Circumstances Where Professional
Animal Husbandry Is

Okay as Long as it Is Authorized Under a ‑‑ an Appropriate Authorization
Such as a Trailer

Manufacturing Site or 2920, and Several Cases in Alaska Come to Mind.

Good.

Caller: Interesting ‑‑ I Have One Other Question. Can I Ask That, Too.

Get Right to the Point.

.

Caller: Okay. Right to the Point. Why Do We Have to Use Surface Use
Determinations on

Everything Single One of These? It Seems to Me That There Are a Number
of Different Criteria

That We Use to See Whether Occupancy Is Legitimate or Not. So it Makes
More Sense to Me to

Use Criteria That All Mineral Specialists Could Deal with Rather than
Run out and Jump Right

into a Reasonably Incident Determination Through Surface Use
Determination.

You Want ‑‑

I\'m Not Sure How to Answer That.

I\'m Not Sure How to Answer That One, Al.

We All Understand That If We Have to Go out and Do a Surface Use
Determination on

Everything, The Workload Is Going to Mushroom to Levels That We Haven\'t
Seen Before and

None of Us Want That. We May End up Coming One Sort of A Triage Method,
Rick.

I Think That\'s Exactly What\'s Going to Happen. If There\'s an Existing
Operation, a Mining

Operation Out There, That\'s a No‑brainer In Achieving a Reasonably
Incident Determination.

I Think We Need to Focus Our Resources Where the Resources Need to Be
Focused.

and That We\'ll Take Home and Put in the Hopper When We Develop Our
Guide Books.

Thanks, Al.

Caller: Have a Good One.

Now We Have Something from Bill in New Mexico.

We Still Have Both on the Line, Hello, Bill.

Caller: Hello Rick. I\'m on the Air Here?

Yes, You Are.

Caller: You May Recall My Question Faxed Earlier, We Have A Miner Who
Has a Shed on His

Claim, but He\'s Using it for Mining Purposes. But He Could Be Occupying
it If He Wanted To,

but He Isn\'t, and He Doesn\'t Plan on It, and You Said, Yes, He Should
Give Us a Notification for

the Grace Period Because It\'s Capable of Being Occupied. My Follow‑up
Question Was, Okay,

It\'s a Year Later, Nothing\'s Changed, and He Is Not Going to Occupy
the Shed, but Is Going to

Remain There. Then You Said, Well, it Indeed Needs to Be Approved. So My
Follow‑up to That

Follow‑up Is, Is That Approval For the Shed or Is That Approval For
Occupancy?

it Is One in the Same, Essentially Because the Shed, as You Pointed Out,
Is Capable of

Supporting Occupancy, and as You Define Occupancy, We Define it As a
Structure Capable ‑‑

the Presence of a Structure Capable Of Supporting Residency. It\'s Sort
of a Chicken or Egg

Thing, but We\'re Going to Say His Use of the Shed, His Placement of the
Shed, Is Reasonably

Incident Even Though He May Not Be Occupying it in The Sense That He\'s
Residing it In. So

We\'re Going to Make That Determination of Concurrence, But Not the
Determination of

Concurrence with a Residency. The Use out There ‑‑ Well, You\'re Going
to Look at the Use And

Say, Does He Need to Have The Shed?

Caller: Can I Follow up on That Answer?

Okay.

Caller: We Would Answer it Here and I Think Maybe We Agree With You, but
Here\'s My

Proposed Answer to That, Is, Yes, the Shed Is an Approval, but It\'s
Approved in the Context of a

3809 Plan of Operations, but Since He Is Not Occupying the Shed and
Doesn\'t Want To, There

Wouldn\'t Be Any Approval as to Occupancy under 3715.

You Could Probably Take That Approach or Put a Proviso in Saying it Will
Not Be Used for

Occupancy at Any Time. Send Me Some More Groupwise Stuff at the Office.
We\'ll Try to Work

this One into The Existing Occupancy Guidance. After All, We Have Got
about a Year to Fool

with this One, Bill.

Caller: Okay. I Mean, this Isn\'t It?

Oh, No, Oh, Heck, You Asked The Question. We Get to Play with this for
Quite Some Time.

Part of the Beauty of this Particular Media for ‑‑ Medium For Getting
the Initial Training Out Is

That We Can Hear from Everybody All at Once on Where The Questions and
What the

Confusion Is. So, You Know, Give Us a Call, by All Means.

I Think Bill Is Gone.

Push the Hold Button.

the Hold Button. It Is Now Clear.

We Have a Couple Questions That Have Come in Asking for Clarification on
the Mineral Peak

Number One Exercise. The First Question Is Why Does The County Want Mr.
and Mrs. Smith to

Disappear? And the Reasons Are Very Simple. The Area They\'re in Is Not
Zoned For Mining, the

County Thinks That Mining Is Ugly, and it Is Possible to See the
Operation From the Highway.

What More Reasons Do They Need? Another Question Is: How Interested Is
the Irs in Assessing

Income Generated by Our Mining Claimants? Mere Mention of the Irs to
Some Claimants Is

Enough to Resolve Some Occupancy Cases. Won\'t Work this Time. This
Claimant Is Very Well

up on The Irs, and He\'s Mining Placer Gold, and He Knows How Taxation
Works on Placer

Gold. Basically You Produce Gold, but Don\'t Produce Income until You
Sell the Gold. Then

You\'re Taxed on Income from The Sale of the Gold. So He\'s Well Aware
of That. Okay.

We Have a Couple More Faxes That Have Come In.

We Have Another Question Coming Around. Bear with Us. We\'re about Three
Minutes out

From Lunch. And We Should Be Ready to Go Quickly. Owe.

Okay. Question: One to Matt. Is the Wife Being Paid for the Tax Work?
How Many Returns

Does She Process? Is There a Sign on the Claim Advertising the Work?

Well, I Heard Three Questions, and One of Them Is Absolutely Excellent,
and the Sort of

Question That Needs to Be Asked. She Does Probably, Oh, Three or Four
Dozen Every Spring.

She Doesn\'t Do Very Many after April 15th. She Is Paid for Them, but
There Is No Sign at the

Gate Advertising. But Now That You\'ve Asked the Question, How Would it
Be Different If

There Were a Sign At the Gate Advertising Them?

Well, If There Were a Sign at The Gate Advertising, it Would Be That
Secondary Use Within

Underlying Reasonably Incidental Mining Operation, and the Regulations
Allow for Us to Say

Stop or Get Another Form of Authorization from the Authorized Officer,
and We Have Built

That Explicitly into the Regulations.

Good. What\'s this Last One.

the Last One Says ‑‑ It\'s From Montana, and Says, Does a Large
Operating Mine with an

Approved Plan of Operations and An Operating Permit from the State Have
to Apply for 3715

Authorization for Facilities That Could Be Used as Residential, I.e.,
Large Office Buildings,

Water Treatment Buildings and Such That Are Remote and Could Conceivably
Be Used for

Overnight Stays? Okay. They Don\'t Have to Apply for 3715 Authorization
‑‑ Well, Let Me Step

Back. I\'ll Assume the Question Focuses Here on Do They Need to Send Us
A Notice.

Rick, I Think We Ought to Hold it There and Pick it up After Lunch.

You Are Right, Matt. I See a Minute and a Half. So, Montana, We\'ll Get
Back to Your

Question as Soon as We Get Back on Line, And, Matt?

Okay. It\'s Time for Lunch. We\'ll See You Back on this Same Satellite
and Channel in 90

Minutes, and We\'ll Be Watching For Your Mineral Peak Answers. So Fax
Them into Us Just as

Quickly as You Can. And If You Have Alternate Scenarios That You Think
Had Are Appropriate

for the Exercise, Let Us Know.

Welcome Back. We Hope That You Had a Good Lunch. Joining Us Now Is
Dennis Mclane, As

He Was Yesterday, and Remember, Dennis Is BLM\'s Chief Ranger and He Has
Been Working

With Mining Claim Occupancies For a Number of Years. Before His Time in
Boise and

Washington ‑‑ or Washington and Boise, Dennis Did Considerable Occupancy
Work in San

Diego. Welcome Back, Dennis.

Thanks, Matt. Happy to Be Here Again.

Great. We\'ve Had a Good Response to the Class Exercise and We\'ll Be
Going over That in a

Few Minutes. We\'ve Also Received a Pretty Good Thick Stack of Fax
Questions and We\'ll Also

Get to Those Once We\'re Through the Class Exercise. In the Meantime, We
Had a Phone Call

from Tonopah, Which Has Dropped off the Screen. Gordon in Tonopah,
Please Give Us a Call

Back and We Would Love To Get Right with You. And We Would Also like to
Encourage to

You Give Us a Call Now If You Would like to Ask Questions on the Air.
It\'s a Good Way to Get

Your Question Thoroughly Clarified And a Complete Answer. We\'ll Do the
Very Best We Can

With the Fax Questions but Sometimes We Can\'t Exactly Figure out What
You\'re Really Asking

and We\'re Not Sure We\'re Giving You a Correct and Full Answer.
Although You Have to Keep

in Mind Not Everything That Has a Complete and Full Answer Yet. In the
Meantime, Let\'s Have

a Look at the Mineral Peak Exercise. We\'ve Had a Lot of Response, a
Good Thick Stack of

Them. On the Whole Just about Everybody Has the Right Idea, Although
There Were a Few

Points That Were We\'re Not Sure Of. Let\'s Start at the Beginning. If
You Look at Page S51 in

Your Notebook, Let\'s Go to the First Question. Is There a Clear Danger
to Health, Safety or the

Environment Present That Would Cause BLM to Order an Immediate Temporary
Cessation of

Activities? And the Correct Answer to That Is No. And I Don\'t Recall
Seeing a Yes Answer to

That Anywhere. Whoop, There\'s One. We Have a Yes Answer in from El
Centro. If You from El

Centro Can Explain What You Saw That Was a Clear Danger to Health and
Safety and Give Us a

Call, We\'d Sure like to Know, Because We Didn\'t See It. Maybe There
Was Something off in The

Background That We Completely Missed. You\'ve Marked That One. Rick, My
Arm Doesn\'t Fit

All the Way over to the Elmo, So Rick Is Doing the Marking for Me Right
Now. Number Two,

Does the Work Appear To Be Substantially Regular? Most of the Answers We
Got Were Yes

and It\'s a Probable Yes, Although Based on What We Showed You in the
Video You Really Can\'t

Tell, and If You Had Done A Real Exam, You Would Have Looked at the
Equipment, Looked

At the Pulleys, the Condition of Things, but You Would Have Been Able to
Tell That, Yes, the

Equipment Is Operable and it Does Look like You Get in and Turn the Key
and it Would Go.

Does the Equipment Present Appear to Be Appropriate and Reasonably
Operable? Sure. In Most

Cases ‑‑ in Fact, I Really Didn\'t See Any Equipment There That Didn\'t
Belong There. If You

Looked in the Background Behind the Tractor and You Might Want to Look
at That Later

Because We Don\'t Have That to Show You Right Away, Behind the Tractor
Was a Radial

Stacker for Stockpiling Material. Whether or Not That\'s Reasonably
Incident, Ah, It\'s Hard to

Say, But It\'s Probably Okay. Are Any Items Present That Are Not
Appropriate? And Why Aren\'t

They Appropriate? Well, Rick, That\'s ‑‑ the Probable Answer to That Is
a Yes And No. If We

Could Go to Slide 165, There\'s a Good Example of Something There
That\'s Kind of Equivocal,

Whether It\'s Appropriate or Not. So Slide 165 Basically Shows a Pile of
Used Lumber. I

Wandered Around There for Some Time and I Really Couldn\'t Figure out
What That Was for.

That May Be Something Where You Would Want to Sit down with the Resident
and Explain

That this Doesn\'t Appear to Be Reasonable. What\'s Going On? So in this
One, Probably an

Answer of Yes and No Is Appropriate. We Didn\'t Give a Maybe
Possibility. So Check Yes and

No and I Think That Covers It.

Which One, Matt?

this Is Are Any Items Present That Are Not Appropriate. That\'s a Yes
and No. Does Equipment

Present Appear to Be Appropriately ‑‑ Appropriate And Reasonably
Occupant. Let\'s Look at

Slide 166. We Just Answered That Question, But this Is a Good Example.
Slide 166 Basically

Shows That, Yes, Not Only Is the Equipment Operable, but it Is, in Fact,
Operating, And, Scott,

How Many Times When You Get out on a Residential Occupancy Do You
Actually See the

Equipment Operating?

It\'s Pretty Rare. I Can Count Maybe Once or Twice A Year.

How Many Times Do You See Equipment That Actually Could Operate?

That Could Operate? Maybe Three or Four Times a Year.

That\'s Not a Whole Lot Better.

No.

So These Are Things You Do Want to Be Looking for. The next Question Is
on an Overall

Basis Are the Uses and Residences on the Mineral Peak Number One
Reasonably Incident? For

That We Can Look at ‑‑ Oh, Let\'s Look at Slide 168. Are These Uses
Reasonably Incident

Overall? The Answer Is, Yeah, Really, This Looks Pretty Good. Scott,
Don\'t You Think this

Looks Pretty Decent in Comparison to Most of Your Occupancies You Deal
with?

First Glance Here, It\'s Neat, It\'s Clean. It Looks More than
Acceptable.

I Agree. So Overall it Looks Pretty Good. Now, There Are Some Things
That May Be Maybe

Need Attention. That Question There, Rick, Is Yes, Yes. Are There Uses
or Residences That Are

Not Reasonably Incident? Let\'s Go to Slide 167 and Have a Look at That.
This Shows a Large

Single‑wide Trailer, but It\'s Not Currently Being Occupied. We Had a
Number of Answers Back

From Field Offices Saying That This Is Probably Not Reasonably Incident,
and in Some Places on

An Overall People Said in Response on an Overall Basis Are The Uses and
Residences on the

Mineral Peak Reasonably Incident I Got a No but Usually with
Clarification. I Think, Though, on

the Whole Most of it Is Pretty Reasonably Incident. But We Had Some
Question about The

Number of Trailers. We Also Had Some Questions about The Number of Cars
on Site. We Have

on Slide 178, this Shows A Problem with Vehicles. Slide 178 Is Basically
a Couple Of Trucks,

One in the Foreground And One in the Background, Just Out of View on the
Right of this One Is

Another Pickup Truck Just Like That One Which Is the Same Make, Year,
Model, and the Parts

Are Interchangeable. This Is Kind of an Arguable Situation, Is this
Reasonably Incident, Is it Not,

or Is this Junk Stuff That Needs to Be Removed. What Would You Say?

I Think it Would Depend on How Long It\'s Been in That Condition, and
That You Could

Determine over Your Course of Inspections. If You Find after Six Month
Nothing Has Changed,

Then it Needs to Be Addressed.

Currently Registered ‑‑

Currently Registered, Yes.

Rick, Any Observations on That?

Generally If the Trucks Are Being There ‑‑ Kept There for Parts
Purposes, it Is Really a

Question, as Scott Puts It, of The Residence Time. If They\'re
Scavenging the Parts Relatively

Quickly, It\'s Not There 24 Months from Now, It\'s Probably Okay.

All Right.

and in Particular in Some of Your Remote Locations. A Lot of the Folks
Who Work in The

Placer Mining Business Are Noted for Their Ability to Grab Parts and
Pull Them Together Into

Some Kind of Operable Piece Of Equipment, and We Have to Recognize That
That Kind of

Mining Is Going to Be Different Than When You Buy Something Completely
off the Shelf, a Full

Physical Plant, and You Need to Take into Account That it May Take Them
Six, Eight, Nine,

Ten, Twelve Month to Assemble Something. That\'s Particularly So in
Places Like Alaska.

Especially Where It\'s Remote. Last Month Burt Clay and I Did An Assist
in the Ridgecrest Area

In a Pretty Remote Area, Something That Very Similar to What You\'re
Describing and There

Was a Pile of Stuff There That Really Looked Almost like Junk, In Fact,
If You Didn\'t

Understand What You Were Looking At It, it Would Have Been Junk, But
Standing There We

Saw Things That Could Have Been Used to Repair a Sluice and Were, in
Fact, Pieces of a Sluice,

and They Seemed to Be Perfectly Reasonable to Us. But You\'ve Got to Be
Real Careful What

You Are I Looking At and It\'s Been There for a While, You Really Are
Not Doing Anybody a

Favor by Saying it Has To Get out Right Now. Spend Some Time and Find
out If It Really Is

Reasonably Incident, Although That Doesn\'t Apply to Litter and Junk and
Things like Scott

Showed Us Yesterday on the Farthing Case. I See Gordon\'s Back. We Will
‑‑ Gordon, Don\'t Go

Away. We Will Be with You as Soon as We Can. There Were Also Some
Questions About the

Trailers, and Rick, Do You Have an Observation on What Kind of
Residences People Should

Have to Live in on a Mining Claim?

Well, Yeah. Just Because They\'re Residing on A Mining Claim Doesn\'t
Mean They Have to Live

in the Worst Possible Set of Circumstances. If There\'s a Choice Between
Living in a 12‑foot Wide

Versus An 8‑foot Wide, It\'s Not Unreasonable to Say Have a Little
Creature Comfort and Live In

Something Slightly Bet for You\'re Going to Reside There as A Watchman.
It\'s Sort of like Saying

That All BLMers Have to Hold Meetings In Hanksville Because Nobody Will
Have Fun in

Hanksville as Opposed to Holding it down the Road in Vegas Where People
Might Possibly Have

Fun. We Don\'t Want to Get into That Position. It May Also Be More
Efficient For Them to Hold

a Meeting in Vegas Where Dollar per Visitor Expended Is Going to Be a
Lot Less Than, Say,

Hanksville.

That\'s Right.

That Same Sort of Philosophy Ought to Be Applied to the Miner In this
Case or the Watchman.

They Probably Are Going to Wake Up and Be a Heck of a Lot Better Rested
and a Lot More Fit

by Sleeping in a Comfortable Place Rather than Something That You
Wouldn\'t Want to Turn into

a Dog Kennel.

That\'s Right. Absolutely Right. In this Particular Case, You Didn\'t
Really Have the Benefit Of,

as Paul Harvey Would Say, \"The Rest of the Story.\" And the Two
Trailers That Were In the

Background, If We Could Look at Slide 168 Again, the Two Trailers That
You Saw Here Really

Aren\'t as Big as They Look. They\'re a Lot Smaller than They Look. They
Are Eight Feet Wide

and One Of Them Is 22 Feet, I Think, and One of Them Is 25 Feet.
Imagine, If You Will, Three

People, a Father, Wife and Daughter in a Space That Small? And Can You
Immediately

Understand Why They Might Want To Bring in Something Larger. And for All
We Know, and

We Didn\'t Give You the Information, Perhaps They Were about to Haul Out
the Older Smaller

Ones and Just Live in the Large One. So Cut Some Slack in Situations
Like this and Get Some

More Information. Okay. We Also Had an Extra Credit Question Which Is
How Many Times

Does the Smith\'s Dog Appear in The Video? And Our Answers Ranged the
Whole Spectrum

from the Dog Isn\'t Reasonably Incident and Should Be Gotten Rid Of,
Which We Just Can\'t

Agree with at All ‑‑ it Comes Back down to Creature Comforts or
Creatures, as Rick Was

Mentioning a Moment Ago, All The Way to ‑‑ We Had One Answer With Six
Sightings If We

Could Bring up Slide Number 171. This Is the First Sighting of The Dog.
The Dog\'s Name Is

Abby and the Dog Is a Queensland Heeler and Exactly the Opposite of a
Dog That Dennis Will

Show You Tomorrow. Yuma, However, Reports Five Dog Sightings, Four of
the Whole Dog

And One of Ears. So this Is Four Dog Sightings And One Dog Sighting from
Yuma, And When

We Put this Tape Together, We Found Three. So If We Could Go to ‑‑ Back
to Slide ‑‑ We\'ll

Find It. Back to Slide 166, We\'ll Show You the Second Time the Dog
Shows Up. Bear with Us.

We Have to Get a Little Levity Into this. The Dog Is about to Climb into
The Sluice, and I Will

Not Tell You the Pun That Burt Suggested I Give out over the Air. It Is
That Bad.

Is That the Golden Flees?

I Didn\'t Say It. The Third Siting of the Dog, We\'re Not Going to Show
You. Once We Got on it

a Still, but There Were Three Guaranteed and Government Certified
Sightings Of the Dog in this

Video. Since Gordon Has Been Waiting a Tremendous Amount of Time, Let\'s
Go to Gordon in

Tonopah. Hello, Gored 91.

Caller: Hello, There. A Nepa Question for Rick. You Keep Saying You\'re
Going to Try to Get

the Occupancy Things As a Cx. What Is Their Status Right Now? And If
Somebody Comes in

Tomorrow with an Occupancy, Do We Have to Do a Full‑blown Nepa Analysis
on It?

Yes. If Somebody ‑‑

Caller: I Was Afraid You Were Going to Say That.

I Know. Everybody Cringes at That. Your Nepa People Should, I Stress,
Should Be Able to

Give You Some Decent Guidance on Those Cases Where You\'ve Got an
Existing Operation That

Is Bringing in an Occupancy and Setting up a Watchman and Getting All
That into Place, and

You Ought to Be Able to Make Use Of Preexisting Nepa Documents.

Caller: but If We Do a Nepa Analysis it Means That We Route It Through
Basically the Entire

Staff and Look at T & E and Look At Cultural and ‑‑

Absolutely.

Caller: Look at Soils and Riparian and the Whole Ball of Wax?

Absolutely. There Is No Way Around That.

Caller: Oh, Boy. Now, the Point to Remember, Gordon, Is That the Nepa
Analysis Is at the

Same Time One Of Your Most Powerful Tools, and You Need to Treat it as
That. It\'s Only a

Problem If You Regard the Process as a Problem.

Rick, Would it Be Different If Someone Is Coming in Reporting an
Occupancy on Something

Where There Is Already A Plan of Operation on File That Has Had Nepa
Documentation That\'s

Come and Gone That Also Included Those Buildings?

it Would Be Simpler, it Would Be More Minimal, and You Probably Could
Find among the

Departments Categorical Exclusions Reason to Use a Cx. We\'ll Have to
Get Guidance out To

You on That.

Can We Assume, Rick, as Soon As You Get Back to Washington You\'re Going
to Get Right on

That?

Oh, Yeah, All Four of Us Here, plus Bob Gibson, Will Be Getting Copies
of Various Things,

and We\'ll Be Starting to Put Together the Interim Occupancy Operating
Guides. It\'s less of a Task

than it Sounds like Because We Have Some Drafts That We Worked up Prior
To the Revision

into Plain English.

Okay. G Anything Else, Gordon?

Caller: No, That Answers It.

Thanks Very Much. Next Time I See You in Tonopah, Remember, the
Hamburgers Are on Me.

Okay. Let\'s Finish up on the Mineral Peak Exercise and That Is, What
Would Your

Recommendation to Management Be? And in Most Cases the Recommendation
Was, this

Appears To Be Overall Reasonably Incident and Not a Problem. County
Officials in the next

Case, as We Said, Have ‑‑ Would Like to See the Smiths\' Operation Be
Closed by BLM and How

Would this Affect Your Recommendation? Well, People Kind of Danced
Around this and a Few

People Cut To the Chase. Basically it Doesn\'t Affect Your
Recommendation, Although There

Will Be Some Other Things You Have to Do, like Explaining to The County
Why You\'re Not

Going To Make Them Go Away. Remember, County Zoning Doesn\'t Allow for
Mining in the

Area, But They\'re Still on Mining Claims. One Thing You Can Be Sure of
in This Case Is Mr.

Smith Is Never Going to File a Patent Application. Now, How Would Your
Opinion Be Affected

If You Discovered Mrs. Smith Prepared Income Tax Returns in Her Spare
Time in a Spare Room

in One of the Trailers? We Had Some Spirited Disagreements in the Faxes
on This. Maybe We

Ought to Discuss Exactly What the Right Answer Is On this One, Because
We Had Everything

from Prosecution to Make Them Stop To, Okay, So What, If They Don\'t Put
up a Sign.

Somebody Else Said, Which Is Really the Right Answer, I Suppose, If it
Gets to Be Really

Commercial, it Needs to Have a 2920 Permit.

That\'s Exactly the Right Answer, Matt. The Regulations Take into
Account this Circumstance

Where You Go Out, You Find That a Person with a Reasonably Incidental
Operation and

Justified Occupancy Has Someone There or Is Engaging in a Part‑time
Activity That Is a

Commercial Activity. For That Activity to Be Allowed To Continue, That
Person Ought To Have

Authorization from the Department under 2920, and That\'s the Right
Answer, Is That Mrs. Smith

Would Have to Come in And Seek a 2920 Permit from Us.

Good.

Okay?

Okay. Do We Have Any Closing Observations on the Mineral Peak Before We
Move onto

Some of the Questions?

Just ‑‑ Let\'s Take this As, Say, under 3715.4‑2 and this Was Our
Inspection We Just Conducted.

Would Knee ‑‑ Need to Do a Surface Use Determination after This.

I\'m Not Sure the Mineral Peak Warrants a Surface Use Determination. I
Know Earlier Before

Lunch We Probably Put Fear of Workload Into People by Maybe Sounding
Like There Were

Going to Be a Lot More Surface Use Determinations Required than There
Really Are, but this

Case Looks Pretty Straightforward. I Think in the Few Instances Where
There Isn\'t Something

Quite Right, the Thing to Do Is For the Field Person to Talk to Mr. and
Mrs. Smith to Say, Look,

Everything Looks Okay Except for These Few Things, and Explain Why this
Is Needed and Get it

Hammered out in Advance and Work Out an Agreement Between People. If
That Doesn\'t Work,

Then Maybe You Would Want to Go to a Surface Use Determination. But
Definitely You Would

Probably Want to Write a File Memorandum, I Think, That Documents Your
Visit, Why it Seems

to Be Reasonably Incident And Your Rationale for Not Doing Anything
More. Which You\'ve Got

to Have the Documentation, Even If All it Is A Three or Four Paragraph
Memorandum, it Just

must Be Documented, and That\'s All There Is to It. Rick?

That\'s a Pretty Good Assessment, Matt. We Did Earlier on Seem to Imply
That Every Time You

Did One of These Things There Was the Need For a Surface Use
Determination. That\'s Not Quite

Correct. Particularly When You\'ve Got a Case That\'s Reasonably
Incident Where They Are ‑‑

Their Occupancy Is Justified and There\'s No Reason to Say We Don\'t
Concur. Now, There Is a

Circumstance That We Have to Be Aware Of. There May Come a Time When
Somebody Is

Looking over Our Shoulder and Saying \"We Disagree.\" We Will Have to Be
Prepared to Come

One the Information That Would Otherwise Be in a Surface Use
Determination When We Defend

Our Decision in Front of the Board Should the Party Looking Over Our
Shoulder Say We Object.

Remember, We Have Changed the Appeals in this Program from Only Parties
Affected to ‑‑ Only

Operators Affected to Any Party Aggrieved by the Decision. So the ‑‑ the
Number of Players In

the Game Has Suddenly Has the Potential to Get Much Larger and At a
Certain Point We May

Have To Justify a Yes, and We Will Have to Have the Information That
Would Have Otherwise

Gone Into a Surface Use Determination. This Does Not Mean That We Go Out
and Do One Each

and Every Time. These Will Be Done Only Occasionally.

Dennis, What to You Think of That from a Law Enforcement Standpoint? Do
You See Any

Problems at the Mineral Peak?

No, Not at All. In Fact, it Looks Relatively Clean to Me in Comparison
to Many Mining Claim

Sites I\'ve Seen.

Good. Excellent. At this Point I Think it Would Be Good If You Disagree
with Us, If You\'d like

to Call in and Amplify Something, or If You Would like to Ask a Question
About the Mineral

Peak. We Purposefully Put a Large Number of Things That Are Gray Areas,
That Are Equivocal

into The Mineral Peak Exercise, and We\'re Hoping That We Can Use This
Exercise as a Means of

Developing These Fine Points That We\'re Going to Be Discussing
Throughout the Course. These

Are Serious Problems. The Workload Is a Serious Problem. We Don\'t Mean
to Imply That We

Need to Go out and Do a Surface Use Determination Every Time. But We
Want to Have a Level

Idea, an Equal Approach Everywhere as to the Way These Are Being
Handled. So this Is

Probably Your Finest Opportunity to Call in and Talk To Us, Get it out
on the Table And If It\'s

Something That Needs Guidance from Washington, this Is Your Opportunity
to Tell Us. Anyway,

We Do Have Some Fax Questions That Came in During Lunch, and I Would
like to Go Through

Some of Them. The One That Just Came in from Worland District Is an
Excellent Question and I

Don\'t Think It\'s Something We Touched on and I Should Have Touched on
it Before Lunch.

Does Distance from a Town or City Have a Bearing on the Determination of
Reasonable Incident.

In Other Words, If a Claim Is Only Five Miles from Town, Couldn\'t the
Claimant Drive Back And

Forth from His Claim? Excellent Question. Rick?

Yes, it Could Be That the Ideal Solution Is the Claimant Drives Back and
Forth from Town To

the Mining Claim. On the Other Hand, If in the Process of Traversing
That Five Miles the Mining

Claimant Has to Go into a Designated Wilderness Area and Drive Back and
Forth, Back and

Forth, Back and Forth On a Daily Basis, Through a Designated Wilderness
Area, it Makes Sense.

From a Management Standpoint to Reduce the Environmental Impacts To the
Wilderness Area

and Say, Put up a Base Camp and Stay There, and Reduce the Number of
Transits in and out.

T&e Species Are a Logical Place Where this Can Occur, And, Indeed, this
Has Already

Happened in Scotchman\'s Peak, Grizzly Bears Versus R. Max Peterson
Which Was Decided by

The D.c. Circuit Court and One Of the Decisions Rendered by the Forest
Service Was to Reduce

the Number of Flights in and out by Keeping People ‑‑ I Don\'t Know That
They Kept Them on

Site, but They Spent Some Time Jiggling The Number of Contact Hours That
The T&e Species

Had with Human Beings. That May Be What We Would Have To Do. This Is Not
Just for the

Miners\' Convenience, this Is Not Just For Controlling Mining
Activities. Remember What the

Title of this Course Is ‑‑ Managing Use and Occupancy. And We May Find
for Our Management

Purposes That Saying To Somebody, Go out and Reside There and Don\'t Go
Back and Forth

Across an Otherwise Pristine Area or a High‑value Area, Don\'t Make That
Traverse Every Day,

We Would Rather You Stay out There.

There Is Another Side to That Coin, Too, and If People Read The
Dreamer\'s Paradise Report,

Again, I Hate That Cutesy ‑‑ Have a Look at the Dreamer\'s Paradise
Report. That\'s an Example.

They\'re Only a Four Miles from Town. They\'re Not Mining. Do They Need
to Live There? No. If

the Underlying Use Doesn\'t Support an Occupancy, 10 Miles From Town it
Doesn\'t Support It,

40 Miles from Town it Doesn\'t Support It, but the Closer to Town, the
More Likely it Is and The

More Reasonable it Is to Commute, Unless You Have a Hazard or Something
That Does Require

an On‑site Presence and That\'s Something We Would Want To Look at on a
by Case Basis.

You Have to Balance the Notion the Closer to Town You Are the More
Likely You Are to

Come into Contact with the Public and the More Likely the Opportunities
You Have for

Vandalism, Which Then Warrants The Use of a Watchman.

That\'s Right. We Have a Call In. This Is from Walt in El Centro. Hello,
Walt, Welcome.

Welcome. Go Ahead. What\'s Your Question?

Caller: We Were Kind of Questioning the First Question Here on the
Mineral Peak Case Study

about Clear Danger to Health and Safety on the Environment.

We\'re Curious. What Did You Find We Didn\'t See?

Caller: There Wasn\'t Anything Wrong to Cause a Temporary Cessation of
Activities, but We

Thought He Could Store His Fuels a Little Safer and One of the Other
Members Thought There

Were Some Electrical Problems with His Wiring.

Those Are Good Observations. I Didn\'t See the Fuel Storage. If You\'re
Referring to the Water

Tank That Was Early in the Video, the Tank on the Hill, That Was
Actually for Water, Not Fuel.

Was There a Fuel Storage That We Didn\'t ‑‑

Caller: There Were Several 55‑gallon Drums, a Couple of Them Were Set on
Pedestals and a

Couple Sitting on the Ground. They Weren\'t Marked and Didn\'t Look like
They Were Stored

Properly.

That\'s an Excellent Point and Something You Definitely Want to Bring up
with Mr. Smith.

Again, as We Noted in this One, His Relationship with the County Isn\'t
Really Good, So It\'s

Unlikely He Would Get Good Advice from County Code Enforcement. This Is
a Problem,

Especially in Areas That Are Riparian or near Riparian Areas Where If
You Have One Drip Every

Five Minutes of Diesel Fuel, Eventually You\'ve Got a Nasty Problem. A
Very Good Point.

Caller: the Other Question I Had Was about the Zoning. How Does That
Conflict with BLM\'s

Policies There?

it Really Doesn\'t. Rick Can Quote off Chapter and Verse of the Supreme
Court Decisions That

Tell Us That the County Zoning Doesn\'t Apply Although We Do Need to Be
as Diplomatic as We

Can When Talking to Counties.

the First Decision Is, of Course, the Granite Rock Decision. Granite
Rock Stands for the

Proposition That a Zoning Decision That Absolutely, Utterly Excludes a
Federal Activity Would

Not Be Reviewed Favorably by the Court. There Are Other Cases of Ventura
County and Several

Others That All Focus on the Notion That Land Use Decisions Are the
Decisions That Rest with

the Sovereign, the Land Owner, the United States. That\'s Basically the
Sum of the Case Law. If

You Want to Go Back and Look At the Case Law, U.s. Vkleppe Is a Good
Place to Start.

There Are a Number of Cases That Apply. Ventura County Versus Gulf Oil
Is Another One

That Hits.

Although There Are Some Argument That Ventura County Was Modified by the
Court in

Granite Rock.

and I Believe That it Was.

and in Ventura County, the Mere Existence of the State Program Was Seen
as Being Preempted

by the Federal Government. The Court in Granite Rock Said, No, the Mere
Existence Is Not

Preempted. There\'s the Test of Reason and The Test of How the State
Will Execute its Duties

under its Program That Has to Be Looked At, and If the State Then Begins
To Tram Pull upon

the Federal Right, Then the State Has to Step Back.

Okay. Good. Walt, Did We Take Care of Your Questions and Comments?

Caller: Yes, You Did. Thank You.

Thanks Very Much for Calling In. Okay. We Have a Report in Now from
Wyoming. Let\'s See.

This Appears to Be Casper. And We Have an Update on the Tie Situation.
We Have Some Votes

in from Wyoming. We Have Votes for Worst Tie. Scott Gets One‑third of a
Vote. This Is a New

Way of Voting. Deery Gets One and a Half Votes. Yesterday\'s Gets One
Vote. I\'m Not Sure

What We Mean by Yesterday\'s Tie. And Matt\'s Tie Today Gets One Vote as
Worst Tie. We

Took a Pole of the Camera Operators in the Studio and All Think Rick\'s
Tie Is the Best. Did We

Just Get a Good Close‑up Of Your Tie? There it Is. This Is a Really
Wonderful Winnie the Pooh

Tie but It\'s Not Reasonably Incident to the Program So We Can\'t Allow
It. Anyway, in Addition

to the Tie Tally from Wyoming, We Have a Question, and That Is: in the
Example in the Popcorn

Shrimp in Yea Who Number One Mining Claims Was the BLM Asked to Conduct
Surface Use

Determinations by The Claimants or Was this Done As Part of a Patent
Exam and Does the New

Regulation Give Us The Authority to Do So. I Will Answer These
Backwards. We Have Always

Had the Authority, at Least since 1955 And Probably Before, to Examine
The Legitimacy of a

Surface Use Of a Mining Claim. And the Chances Are the Claimant Did Not
Ask Us to Do It. In

Fact, I Can\'t Imagine Any Circumstances under Which a Claimant ‑‑ an
Occupant Would Want Us

to Do a Formal Exam of Their Occupancy.

this Raises a Question in My Mind Here. There Are Areas in California
Where a Surface Use

Determination Hasn\'t Been Done On a Particular Township and Range.

You\'re Speaking of a Pl 167 Determination?

Correct. So Where Do We Stand in Light of That?

Rick Is a Better Person to Answer That Question than I.

Well, the Effect on Reasonably Incidental Use and Occupancy Is Nil. Po
167 Simply Codified

the Preexisting Body of Case Law and Said, Okay, You\'ve Got to Be Part
of a Legitimate Mining

Operation Before You Have the Right to Set up Shop. Setting up a Saloon,
Setting up A Brothel

Simply Doesn\'t Qualify.

Curio Shops Don\'t Work Either.

Curio Shops, You Name It. Now, in the Case of Managing the Surface Use,
the Use of the

Surface Resources, That Has an Impact on Us, Scott. Congress Said, Okay,
You Pre\'55

Claimants Who Are out There Who Claim You Have the Rights to the Surface
Resources, There\'s

a Way For You to Get Your Rights, and You File a Verified Statement.

Now, Is There a Difference in This Case Between Managing the Occupancy
and Managing the

Surface Resources.

Yes, There Is.

like Selling Gravel and Selling Timber?

Yes, It\'s Completely Different. If Somebody Says I Have the Surface
Rights in this Particular

Case, Then They Can Turn Around to Us and Say, You Cannot Allow
Recreationists to Cross

Over, Around or Through My Mining Claim Because I Own and Manage the
Surface by Dent of

Having a Valid Mining Claim. Now, What\'s Our Response to That? Our
Response Is Going to Be

a Surface Use Determination under Pl 167 on That Particular Incidence.

We Have a Call Coming In. Brent in Wenatchee. Welcome?

Caller: You There?

We\'re Here.

Caller: the Question I Have Is It\'s Not Quite Clear, I Guess, of When a
Surface Use Exam Is to

Be Used in Basically A Nonoccupancy Case. I\'ve Got a Building out Here
and I Think We

Alluded Tight, Maybe Somebody Else Called in from the Spokane District
Yesterday, About the

Claimants Claiming it Is Used as a Tool Shed, but the Build Something
Approximately 25 By 50,

and Principally Used as a Meeting Hall.

a Meeting Hall?

That Sounds to Me like a Nonreasonably Incidental Use. That\'s When
You\'re Going to Do a ‑‑ a

Determination, Because the Structure You Cite Is the Size Of a House.

Caller: Right.

Could it Be Used for Supporting Somebody to Live in It?

Yeah, it Could Be. You Know, Another Contention Is That the Claimant
Owns Private Land

Within Half a Mile. He\'s Got Some Patented Property That He Could, You
Know, Store The

Tools. He Claims He\'s Got Shovels and Picks and Lanterns and Stuff, And
I Basically Asked Him,

You Know, Why Do You Need Such a Huge Building to Store Such a Small
Amount of

Materials? Why They Couldn\'t Be Loaded in The Back of His Truck and
Hauled To His Property.

and You Have to Keep in Mind The Definition of Occupancy. The Definition
of Occupancy

Catches Even the Placement of Structures That Aren\'t Being Resided In.
So We Would Make a

Surface Use ‑‑ a Concurrence or Nonconcurrence Determination and At this
Point You Would

Also ‑‑ Sounds like You Would Have to Back this One up with a Surface
Use Determination and

Maybe Some Long‑term Observations by the Ranger.

Now, Brent, What I\'m Hearing You Describe in this Example Seems to Me,
Based on What

You\'ve Told Me, to Be a Pretty Flagrant Use of a Mining Claim That
Isn\'t Reasonably Incident

To Mining, and Surface Use Determination Is Probably Going To Be Needed.
However, Don\'t

Let the Thickness Of the Popcorn Shrimp Report Scare You Away.

Caller: but the Problem Is There Is Nobody in Washington Right Now
That\'s Certified.

That\'s Easily Doable, and If You Have Any Problems like Brent Has Where
You Don\'t Have

Certified People on Hand, There Are Ways Where You Can Borrow a
Certified Person for a

Short Period of Time And, You Know, Brent, or Anyone Who Has a Problem
like this and You

Don\'t Are a Certified Problem, Give Me A Call, Give Rick a Call, and We
Can Arrange Help for

You. We\'re Not All Alone in this.

and Keep in Mind That Everybody Doing the Report Doesn\'t Have to Be
Certified.

That\'s Right. I Won\'t Say There Are Ways So Much Around It, but There
Are Ways to Work

Within it to Make It Work to the Advantage of Everyone, Except, Perhaps,
the Misgrant.

Caller: Now, the Claimant I Have Talked to on the Phone and He Indicated
He Is Going to

Submit One of These Forms.

Then He Should Do So and You Definitely Need to Go out Sometime During
That Year and

Have a Look at It, but He\'s Got That Grace Period Unless He Has A
Hazard to the Public Health

And Safety.

Caller: It\'s Already Been There like 15 Years, So ‑‑

What\'s Another Year Going to Matter?

What\'s Another Year Going to Matter, and You Spend the Year Basically
Talking to Him,

Advising Him and Working with Him and Say on October 16th of ‑‑ or
August 18th of 1997,

Here\'s What ‑‑ Here\'s Where You Have Got to Be.

Brent, You Won\'t Need to Have Your Surface Use Determination Done Right
Away. As a

Matter of Fact, If You Do As Rick Is Suggesting, You May Not Need One at
All. If Can You Sit

down and Say, Look, this Doesn\'t Cut It. It\'s Going to End up off the
Public Land One Way or

Another. You Can Go Easy or You Can Go Hard. Sit down with Him. That
Might Solve the

Problem.

Caller: We Thought We Had an Agreement with Him That He Was Going to Tow
the Thing to

Private Land, Tear it Across the Forest Service and So Forth, but He
Didn\'t ‑‑ Latest He Called

up And Said, Well, I Think it Still Is Incident to What I\'m Doing Out
There, and I Want to Keep

The Thing.

Brent, this Sounds like Kind Of an Interesting Situation and I Would
like to Hear from You on

This. Give Me a Call in a Few Weeks. I Will Be in Montana next Week And
Be in

Commuunicado. This Sounds Interesting.

Caller: I\'m Going to Get Pictures Inside of the Benches And So Forth.

That Was a Good Call. I Think That Helped Clear up Some Problems. It
Brings Us to Another

Fax Question I Have Receipt Here That Fits into It. You Mentioned
Earlier Surface Use

Determinations Has to Be Done with Cme. Does this Mean Only Cme\'s Can
Only Deal with

Surface Use Determinations from Start to Finish? Absolutely Not. The Cme
Needs to Be the

Principal Author and Has to Be There During the Main Investigation but a
Lot of Work Can Be

Done by the Noncertified People. The Whole Reason for Having a Certified
Mineral Examiner

Involved in this Is You Need to Get Somebody with the Qualifications
That You Can Depend on

That You Can Take to The Bank, That You Can Take to a U.s. Attorney, as
Dennis Will

Describe, That Really Knows What Mining Looks like and That Their
Opinion Will Be

Respected. Dennis, Do You Have an Observation on That?

I Know Early On, Matt, When You and I Were Working Together The Thing I
Found Most

Handy With the Surface Use Determination Is it Became a Briefing
Document for Me When I

Talked to an Assistant United States Attorney Looking at Criminal
Prosecution, That When They

Asked, Well, What about This Mining Issue, I Was Able to Go to the
Surface Use Determination

and Show Them Mining Was Not an Issue in the Case and it Would
Ultimately End That Being a

Guide to the U.s. Assistant Attorney as to What Testimony the Geologist
Would Give on the

Stand in Terms of Being a Professional Witness for Mining or Not Mining.

and There Is Another Point to Be Remembered Here That\'s Being Driven
Most Recently by the

Budget Act: the Congress Has Recognized in Report Language The Existence
of Cmes and

Crmes, And Said That All of Them Will Be Pulled on and Sent in the
Direction of Resolving the

Mineral Patent Issue by Making That Recognition Congress Has Placed Sort
of a Seal of

Approval That Will Be Recognized By the Judicial Branch on the
Certification Process, and the

Notion That a Cme Has Some Kind Of Role to Play and Has Congressional
Recognition Is Not

Going to Be Lost on a Court When An Ausa Is Standing There Making A
Presentation. And

Probably it Won\'t Be Lost on The Ausa If You Raise this Point With Him
That, Hey, Congress

Recognizes the Existence of These People. What We\'re Looking at Here Is
The Worst Possible

Case Where We Have to Go to U.s. District Court. To That End, You
Clearly Want to Have

Cmes Involved. Does That Mean as Matt Put it Cmest Are the Only People
Involved? Absolutely

Not. They Are Spread Dime Thin in Some Places and Some Places Thinner.
To Manage

Occupancy It\'s Going To Take a Village. Everybody Is Going to Have to
Work on this from the

Managers Through the Adjudicators Through The Realty People and It\'s
Not Simply the Cme\'s

Job. It\'s Everybody\'s Job in That Resource Area and It\'s Everybody\'s
Job in the State. That Means

the State Office Is Going to Have to Provide Support To Those Area
Offices When They Get

Themselves in a Bind or They Need Information, and I Pass This Word on
to You 12 Folks out

There Who Have Been Designated As the State Office Contacts. This State
‑‑ the State Office

Folks Are Going to Have to Be Pipelines for Information Flow To Those
Areas and at the Same

Time Going to Have to Be a Place Where Those Folks Can Come and Say
Help.

That\'s Right. We Still Have a Big Stack of Fax Questions Ahead of Us,
but If You Would like to

Call in for Clarification on Something, this Is a Good Time to Do It.
Rick, as I Pass this Question

Over to You, I Want to Point out We Just Heard from Yuma and Your Tie Is
Voted as Best Tie

of the Day. At Least from Yuma.

Okay. For Nepa Analysis this Comes out Of Butte. If Occupancy Is
Reasonably Incident, It\'s

Not Discretionary, What Are the Alternatives? Well, One ‑‑ We\'ll Have
to Work On That. This Is

Sort of like What\'s the Alternative of Approving or Not Approving a
Plan of Operations? What Is

the Decision and ‑‑ What Is the Decision and How Are the Mitigating
Measures Applied? This

One Needs a Little Bit of Thinking. It\'s Not Going to Be an
Off‑the‑cuff Answer. I\'m Not Going

to Shoot from the Hip or the Lip on this One. You\'re Right. If it Is
Reasonably Incident, it Isn\'t

Really Discretionary under The Mining Law. They Have ‑‑ and under Our
Regs. Assuming it

Meets the Test. So Bear with Us. We\'ll Come up with Some Alternatives
and We\'ll Have to Work

out the Alternative Scenarios with the Nepa People, And What\'s the
Decision? Well, the Decision

Is Going to Be That You\'re Going to Approve The ‑‑ or Concur in the
Activity. You May Have

Some Mitigating Measures That Turn on Getting Permits? I\'ve Identified
Four New Permits That

Have to Be Gotten Because We Didn\'t Know about These Last Week and We
Stumbled Across

Yet Another Piece of the County Bureaucracy That Says You Have To Have
These Permits.

This, Too, Will Develop as We Develop this Program.

Good.

this Will Be the Sort of Thing That Goes into the Interim Operating
Handbook Many. If That\'s

from Butte, I Suspect That\'s Dave Williams. Thanks, Dave.

Question on That. If it Is Reasonably Incident, Wouldn\'t Be We
Concurring Anyway?

Yes, We Will Concur with It. That\'s Our Decision. Our Decision to
Concur in the Occupancy.

Nonconcurrence Is Not a Decision. Now, Are There Other Alternative Nepa
Decisions That Are

Driven By the Nepa Process? We Will Have to Talk ‑‑ Sit down And Talk
with Some Nepa

People And Get Some Guidance out for Them. We Thank You for the
Question.

Good. We Have a Question from He Will Co‑which I Think Is Probably on A
Lot of Other

People\'s Minds. Rick, Can You Explain Simple Fee Or Fee Simple Title?
Yes, Fee Simple Title,

this Is One of the Questions in the Use And Occupancy Notification Form.
It\'s There Because

Right Before The Final Regs Got Ready to Go Tom Called Me up and Said,
Rick, What Do We

Do about Virginia City and Some of the Old Mine Camps Where the Land
Title Is So Fouled up

That We Have No Idea Who Owns What and Even the Nevada Delegation Won\'t
Touch It? And

I Said, Well, Thanks, Tom, I Really Appreciate this at the 11th Hour.
How about If We Simply

Say We Will Delay Processing These Operations until We Have Made a
Determine as to the Land

Title Question. So What We\'re Talking about Is a Claimant Comes in and
Says, I Have ‑‑ or a

Person Comes in and Says, I Have Fee Simple Title to This Land Because
I\'ve Been Living on It,

it Was Given to Me By My Grandfather Who Got it on A Handshake Deal in
1898, and It\'s

Always Been Part of the Townsite. That\'s the Kind of Circumstance
We\'re Looking At. We\'re Not

Looking at Somebody Who Is an Article 10 Constitutionalist Saying of
Course I Claim Fee

Simple Title, You Have No Rights as the Federal Government. We Are
Ignoring That Argument.

We Are Looking at the Person Who Believes under Color of Title They Have
a Scintilla of

Ownership and Those Are the Folks this Language Is in There For. The
Effect Is If We Agree

with That Assertion, We Put Them in a Holding Bin until Such Time as We
Get That Question

Answered.

Great. In Fact, You Have Led in Perfectly to this Question That Came in
from Veil District and I

Couldn\'t ‑‑ I Couldn\'t Have Asked for a Better Prep, Thanks, Rick.

You Can Wash My Car Now.

Ralph, Rick Is Doing a Marvelous Job Leading into Your Question. We Have
a Constitutionalist

Who Has a Residence Developed on a Mill Site Claim, an Independent Mill
Site Claim for Which

He Has Failed to Pay the Rental Fee. He Received a Decision Declaring
The Claim Null and

Void. He Is Appealing That Decision. In His Appeal, He Has Asserted
Ownership of the Land

Based in Part on His Legal Theory That The Government Cannot Own or
Manage Land. Do We

Wait to Apply the 3715 Regs until after Ibla Makes a Ruling? Also, What
Do We Do If He

Checks The Fee Title Box on the Form? I\'ll Pass That down.

Okay. Well, this Is One Who Has Got ‑‑ I Assume That the Board Has
Stayed the Decision.

Then I Don\'t Have ‑‑ I Don\'t Have an Answer to That.

I Will Make the Assumption as Most Decisions the Board Has Stayed It.
His Claim of

Ownership of the Land, the Board Will Probably ‑‑ Again, Here We Don\'t
Know. If He\'s Making

this Claim to the Board, the Board Will Probably Dismiss It. If He Files
the Occupancy Form And

He Checks the Box, We Don\'t Have to Agree That He Owns the Land, and
There Is a Firmly

Held View with BLM and in the Solicitor\'s Office That, First Off, for
Box Number 4, Whatever

That Is, to Apply, We Have to First Agree There Is an Issue. If He
Checks the Box, it Doesn\'t

Mean Anything If We ‑‑ If We Don\'t Agree with it and We Can Take
Actions on August 18th,

1997\.

I Think All it Means Is He\'s Checked the Box.

Yeah, it Means Nothing. And So, Yes, He\'ll Get the Grace Period If
He\'s Not a Threat to Health

and Safety and He\'s Not Unreason ‑‑ Not Reasonably Incident and There
Is No Threat, No

Immediate Shutdown Action, Then We Wait, and at the End of The Year,
this Looks like a Guy

Who We Talk to First.

That May Very Well Be. We Have Another Question That Has Come in from
Salt Lake City

And It\'s Address to Do Me, but I Think We\'re All Going to Want to
Answer this One. With All of

Your Arm Waving About Surface Use Determinations, My Understanding Is
That They Are

Often, If Not Always, Shot down by Ibla. Is this True or Not? Well, I\'m
Unfamiliar with Any of

Them Being Shot down by Ibla With the Exception of One out of Colorado
That Was So

Appallingly Written That it Should Never, Ever Have Left the State
Office. Now, There May Be

Others I\'m Not Aware Of. However, My Experience with Surface Use
Determinations Is They

Don\'t Generally Get as Far As Ibla. What Normally Happens Is the Area
People Take it out to the

Miner and Say, Look, or the Miner or Occupant I Should Say And Look,
this Is What We Came

Up with. Our next Step Is to Initiate Some Sort of Prosecution or
Litigation. Wouldn\'t it Be

Better If You Got Up and Left? Generally They Get up and Leave. Scott,
What\'s Been Your

Experience?

That\'s How We Have Done it on Occasion, Also in Our Resource Area. And
Sometimes That

Approach Works. Sometimes it Doesn\'t. It All Depends on the Individual.
But\...

Have You Had Surface Use Determinations That Were Reversed as it Were by
Ibla?

I Can Think of One Case, it Would Be the Doherty Case and I Believe
That\'s Also in the

Handouts.

and on the Doherty Case You Were Beaten on the Record. Simply Put, the
Case, If You Read

Both the Alj\'s Decision and The Administrative Judge\'s Decision at
Ibla Says You Lost On the

Record, Guys, Sorry.

Just Not Complete Information In the Case File?

and That\'s When You Have a ‑‑ A Need for a Surface Use Determination to
Make Sure You

Build the Record.

It\'s Important to Note There Really Haven\'t Been a Lot of Surface Use
Determinations Done

When You Compare the Number of Surface Use Determinations with The
Number of Patent or

Validity Exams the Bureau Has Done over The Years, There\'s No
Comparison And There\'s Not a

Lot of Case Law or Experience to Draw On. One of the Problems I\'ve Seen
With Some of the

Surface Use Determinations Is They Don\'t Answer the Question. They
Spend Four Pages Being

the Definitive Work on the Regional Geology of the Area and Then Go Into
the Whether or Not

the Surface Use Is Reasonable in Two Or Three Paragraphs and That\'s
Backward. The Review

Wasn\'t Always Done Properly. And They\'re Just ‑‑ There Haven\'t Been
That Many Done to Begin

with. Again, We ‑‑ Scott or I or Rick Would Be Happy to Review Any Just
as a Peer Review

Before They Go out for Technical Review. There Is a Format for Them in
The BLM Manual. It Is

Worth Having a Look At. Comments, Rick?

Fair Enough. You Covered the Waterfront on That One.

One More Thing on the Surface Use Determinations. It Takes a While
Sometimes for These to

Make Their Way Through The Judicial System, Whether Through Ibla and the
U.s. Attorney or

to Federal Courts or Just to Federal Courts. There Are a Number of Them
out There and a

Number I Have Written That Don\'t Have Final Disposition. I Don\'t Know
If They\'ve Been Shot

down Yet. Also a Well Written Surface Use Determination Can Easily Be
Turned into an

Affidavit for Use In Court, and I Think Dennis Has Had That ‑‑ We\'ve
Done That with Dennis

Before. I\'m Not Sure I\'ve Answered the Question, but We Probably Said
More than You Want to

Hear, and If You Want to Have That Clarified, Give Us a Buzz. It Didn\'t
Hit My Hot Button.

Really, it Didn\'t. Okay, We Have a Call from Randy In Medford. Hello,
Randy?

Caller: Yes, We Were Wondering Why There Wasn\'t Anything Included about
Mandatory

Bonding in the 3715 Regs?

Ah, Very Simple, Because Bonding Will Be Covered in the 3809
Regulations. And Those

Regulations Are on Their Way to Omb.

Caller: Thank You.

Great! Thanks for Calling In. Well, That Just Goes to Show We Don\'t
Have to Talk for a Long

Time. If You Would like to Give Us a Call, We Can Make it Short. Thanks
Very Much for

Calling, Randy. We Have Another Fax Question Here That I Think Scott Can
Answer, and it Is in

Great Detail and it Has to Do with When We Decide When to Approve a 2920
Application. What

Kind of Criteria Do We Use? Whether We\'ll Do it or Not? We like or
Don\'t like the Claimants,

Length of Occupancy, Potentials for Public Relations Disaster, Potential
for Illegal Activities,

Age, Mined in the Past, Health Doesn\'t Allow It? What Kind of Criteria
Do You Use?

I Go Out, I Do an Inspection Of the Mining Claim, I Come Back With My
Findings, and I Do

Not ‑‑ I Only Make a Recommendation. It\'s up to the Area Manager to
Determine Whether or

Not We Go To a 2920 Application on a Mining Claim.

Nice Weavin\' Bob.

I Admit. There Is Very Few We Have Really Accepted or Gone Through the
Process on out

There. For the Most Part, It\'s Not a Common Thing, at All. It\'s in
Rare Cases. Again, When Do

We to It? I Can Only Think of Possibly Three or Power over the past
Eight Years, And, Again,

These Are Generally ‑‑ Generally Have To Do with Mining Claims Where The
Folks ‑‑ There\'s

Usually ‑‑ There Are Reasons for Them Not Working the Claim. They\'re up
in Their 80s, or

They\'re Handicapped and They Just Don\'t Have the Means to Move On,
Shall We Say. It Would

Be a Hardship. And They\'re in a Certain Area Where It\'s Not a High‑use
by the General Public,

and So There\'s a Lot of Different Factors It\'s on A Case by Case.
It\'s Not Something That We

Look Forward to Doing, Nor Do We Normally Make a Normal Routine Out of
It.

as Another Side of this Coin, It Is Generally Going to Be a Decision
Made by the Area Manager

as to Whether or Not 2920 Should Be the Preferred Route and Whether or
Not Someone Should

Be Granted Something. I Hate to Say ‑‑ this Is a Lands Case and Somebody
with Whom You

May ‑‑ You May Be in Trouble With Somebody with Whom You Have More than
a Passing

Acquaintance, but It\'s Really Going to Fall in the Hands of The Lands
People to Make this Kind

of Determination, and We\'re Going to Have to Look to Cooperation with
the Lands Folks. So

You\'re Going to Have to Coordinate with Them.

Okay.

What the Decision Boils down To or What the Surface Use Determination
That Scott Makes Is

Essentially That this Is No Long Ear Minerals Problem. It Ceases to Be a
Minerals Problem and a

Lands Problem. If You Really Want to Get Compartment Mentalized.

the BLM Should Operate as a Team and I\'m Hesitant to Use the Word Team,
but it Fits Really

Well Here. It\'s Not a Lands Problem, a Minerals Problem. It\'s a BLM
Problem and We Need To

Work with Each Other and Get This Worked out. And If We Happen to Use
Regulations in the

2,000 Series Or the 3,000 Series, Either Way We Can Make this Happen.

the Problem Arises When Somebody Says It\'s the Geologist\'s Job and
They Dump it Completely

on the Geologist, and This Option Says, Hey, It\'s Not Just the
Geologist You Dump this One On.

You Got to Bring in Your Realty People.

We Have Another Question in And I Think It\'s a Good One Because the
Nepa Issue Is a

Problem That People Are ‑‑ a Problem People Are Having Understanding and
I Think I\'d Like to

Make a Pitch. Next Week Ntc Will Be Doing a Satellite Broadcast on Nepa.
I\'m Not Really Clear

on What the Content Will Be, but There May Be Opportunities for You to
Tune In and Perhaps

Get Some of These Questions Answered That We\'re Dancing Around Largely
Because We Don\'t

Know the Complete Answer. But this Question Here Says, If The Eis to an
Rmp Has Determined

That the Total Mining Activity In a District or Mining District Or a
Region or an Area, Including

the Occupancy of the Claims Is Not Significant, Do We Need an Ea for a
New or Existing

Occupancy Covered by 3715?

That it Is Not Significant ‑‑ I\'m Not Sure What That Means. If They Say
That It\'s No Big Deal

to Have an Occupancy under The Rmp and the Eis Has Looked At it in That
Way, I\'m Going to

Make Some Assumptions Here That Occupancy Is Not a Major Deal, It\'s Not
‑‑ It\'s Not

Something That We Would Say No To, Then, It\'s Possible under Nepa That
You May Be Able to

Tier off of That Document and Do an Ea That Looks to It. Again, You Need
to Talk to the Nepa

People. One of the Things We ‑‑ I Want To Stress Here Is That for Far
Too Long Nepa Has Been

the Province of Guys Who Can Shuffle Five Pieces of Paper Together And
Say this Is What the

Proper For Format of the Document Looks Like and You Go Away in a
Blind‑stinking Rage

Because No One Has Told You How to Use the Document. That\'s Our Job. It
Is a Tool, and So

Use the Tool for Problem Solving. Don\'t Look at it as Yet Another
Damned Hurdle I Have to Get

Over. Think of the Nepa Component of This as a Tool to Get Me Further
Down the Road to

Making My Decision.

Good.

We\'ll Get Back to You, Obviously, with More Guidance on Nepa in this
Process.

for Those of You That Are Watching the Clock, You May Have Come to the
Conclusion We\'re

About to Dump out and Have the Satellite Turn Us off in the Middle of a
Word, and That\'s Not

The Case. Our Wizards in the Control Room Have Managed to Locate Another
15 Minutes of

Air Time, So Don\'t Go Away. We\'ve Got 15 More Minutes to Take Care of
Some of These

Questions. So We\'ll Be with You for a Little Bit More and If You Want
To Call In, We\'ve Got a

Little Time. Let\'s Keep at this. I Think We Have Some Good Questions
We\'re Dealing with.

Here\'s Coming In, a Fax Question Asking, Basically, I\'m Confused. On
New Proposed

Occupancies Within 30 Days Do We Need to Complete a Surface Use
Determination Mineral

Report Even If There Is Presently Nothing Developed on the Ground?

Well, Matt, You Want to Run That One?

Well, I Can Give the Nickel Answer or Give the \$5 Answer.

Try the \$5 Answer.

I Think I\'ll Start with the Nickel Answer Because They Always End up
Being \$5 Answers. The

Nickel Answer Is No. Basically You Need to Look at The Proposal and
Determine If it Looks

like it Would Be Reasonably Incident to Mining And Then If it Is
Document it in Your File

Through a Case Report Or a Memorandum or However You Want to Do It, and
You\'re Done. If

It\'s Not, You Need to Do the Same Thing Just in the Other Direction.
But a Surface Use

Determination Is Generally Limited to an Existing Problem.

Yeah, That\'s the Point That Needs to Be Kept in Mind. Surface Use
Determinations Are Going

to Be Done on Those 2,000 Or So Existing Occupancies. When You Get a New
One, You\'re

Going to Evaluate It. Now, You May Be in the ‑‑ Find Yourself in the
Position of Doing a Whole

Lot of Evaluation In Detail That May Get Close to A Surface Use
Determination, but You Don\'t

Have to Do a Surface Use Determination in a Formal Sense on That New
One.

What Do You Do in a Situation Where You\'ve Got Rival Claimants, Both
People Assert The

Rights to Occupy or Use the Same Piece of Ground?

I Suppose We Could Default to The Rangers and Tell Them to Keep Them
Apart.

I\'ve Been There. That\'s Only Temporary.

and That Doesn\'t Really Work Either. You\'re Going to Have to Process
As Expeditiously as

Possible Both of Them and at the Same Time Tell Them That They\'ve Got
To Resolve Their

Differences in A Court of Competent Jurisdiction. It\'s an Unpleasant
Place to Be.

Well, That Doesn\'t Solve Our Problem.

No, it Doesn\'t Solve the Problem. The Problem Is Unsolvable Unless We
Decide to Take on the

Burden Of Determining Who Has Precedence, and That Raises a Burden That
I Don\'t Think the

Department, at Least Right Now, Want to Absorb Absent Mining Law Reform.

Okay.

Now, If Mining Law Reform as The Secretary Supported Goes Through, We
Would Make

Those Determinations, We Would Pull Those Back into at Least an Hr 322,
but until Congress

Modifies The Law, They Still Go out to The Courts of Competent
Jurisdiction, and We Still

Essentially Play Something of a Referee\'s Role.

Okay. I\'ve Been in a Situation Where ‑‑ Dick God Win, If You\'re out
There, I Remember this

Vividly, I Felt like Hiding in Your Truck, in Fact, You Got it Defused
So Quickly, I Didn\'t, But,

Anywhere We Got Between Two Claimants, Both Were Asserting The Rights to
Be There and

Dick Got it Defused. But the Ranger Is Going to Go Home, and the Problem
Is Going To

Remain. So, If We Issue an Authorization To One Concurrence ‑‑ We\'ll
Play This One off as the

Program Grows. I Hope It\'s Not Going to Be a Widespread Problem,
However. I Have Another

Question In, and That Is Where You May Allow Raising Animals on Mining
Claims. We Would

Not. Do You Believe an Rmp Restriction Enforceable? There Are a Number
of Questions On this

One.

Let\'s Start Right Here. We Have a Case in a Northern State Where an
Individual Raised Dogs

on a Mining Claim. That Individual\'s Occupancy of The Mining Claim Was
Legitimate. There

Was a Legitimate Underlying Mining Operation. The Individual Was a
Watchman And Happened

to Raise Dogs. Now, it Is Possible, it Is Allowable under a 2920 Permit
to Allow Co‑location of

the Dog Farm and the Mine, Provided That The Watchman Gets a Permit
under 2920 or Any One

of the Various Authorities That We Have for the Secretary\'s Development
of the Land. The Very

First Question Has to Be Asked Is, Does the Underlying Rmp Allow That
Use? That Use Has to

Be Allowable. So, Yes, Those Secondary Uses Have to Be in Conformity
with The Rmp. If the

Rmp Says You Can\'t Do That, Well, Then, You Can Think About Modifying
the Rmp or You

Can Simply Smile and Say, Sorry, You Can\'t Do That. And the Other Part
of the Secondary Use

Is One That it Has To Be Legal. If It\'s an Illegal Use, Well, You
Can\'t Allow That to Happen,

Anyway.

Okay. The next Question ‑‑ Okay. I Just Answered the Rmp. Call ‑‑ That
Wasn\'t a Question.

The Statement Was, Call If You Don\'t Want to Discuss over the Air. I
Guess We Did Want to

Discuss This One over the Air. We Did.

Remember, the Rmp Does Say, You Know, We\'re Not Going to Allow Dog
Raising or Animal

Raising Other than in this ‑‑ in This Area. Fine. You\'ve Set the
Boundary Conditions for a 2920

Permit. The Authority in this Case Is Going to Be a 2920 Permit.

I Think It\'s Important to Point Out, Though, Because this Issue of
Growing Vegetables, This

Issue of Raising Rabbits or Dogs, Is an Issue That Going to Continue
Recurring, and it

Emphasizes a Continuing Need for Inspection and Enforcement. Once We
Approve an Activity

on The Public Land Doesn\'t Mean That We Can Just Forget about It. It\'s
Not a Fire and Forget

Exercise. If We\'re Authorizing Something, If We\'re Keeping an Eye on
Something, We\'ve Got to

Get out And Stay on Top of It, Because These Things Can Get out of Hand
If We Don\'t.

If Somebody Has Two Dogs Because They Keep Dogs or They Want a Dog to
Sit Around and

Bark like the Dog in Our Video, Okay, That\'s Fine. But If Suddenly this
Guy Decides He\'s Going

to Raise Sled Dogs, Then You\'ve Taken on a Whole Different Aspect.
It\'s Become a Commercial

Enterprise, and When We Find Those Additional Commercial Enterprise, We
Have to First ‑‑ We

Have to Make the Cut. Do We Want to Co‑locate Those Commercial
Enterprises? Does it Make

Sense from a Management Point of View? Could We Authorize That
Commercial Enterprise on a

Piece Of Adjoining Public Domain? Does it ‑‑ Is There Money That We
Could Perhaps Be

Earning for The Treasury by Getting a Piece Of That Operation? Those Are
Some of the

Questions That the Management of this Activity Brings Forward.

Good. Speaking of Dogs, We Have Our Dog Sightings in from Redding.
Redding Reports Four

Dog Sights, One We Showed, Two We Showed, Three by the Drag Line on the
Left Side of the

Screen and You\'re Absolutely Right, but They\'re Reporting in Front of
The Drug at the End of

the Video. I Don\'t Recall That. We\'ll Have to Look at That Again
Tonight. Thanks, Redding.

Okay. We Have a Comment in from California from Len Gum, and Thanks for
Staying with Us.

Even Though the Eis May Say That Current Levels of Mining Are Not
Significant, it Does Not

Relieve You from Needing to Make an Identification. The Threshold ‑‑ to
Identify the Threshold

of Where Significance Occurs. So You Need to Do an Ea to Address
Cumulative Impacts. This

Was the Issue That Was Dealt with in Sierra Club V. Penfield.

No Problem. Significance, Fine. That\'s What Nepa Is All about. It Could
Lead You ‑‑ You\'re

Right, Len, You Could End up With an Occupancy That Prompts An Eis. One
Occupancy

Doesn\'t, Two Doesn\'t, Three Doesn\'t. The Fifth, Sixth, Seventh,
Eighth, Ninth, 10th, 12th and

Then up Comes Number 13, and 13 Is the Magic Number. You May Be Pushed
into Writing An

Eis. Sorry about That. That\'s Just Part and Parcel of Managing Our
Program.

If it Wasn\'t the Occupancy That Pushed You into the Eis, Something Else
Would Have Come

Along a Short Time Later.

Yeah.

Here\'s a Question Just in and I\'ll Pass it over. If We\'re Notified of
an Upcoming Occupancy in

the Form of a Mining Notice and Being Notices Are Exempt from Nepa How
Could a Nepa

Document Such as a Categorical Exclusion Be ‑‑ I Think We Plowed this
Ground.

We\'ll Do it One More Time. The Analysis of or Review and Handling of
Nepa Level ‑‑ I\'m

Sorry, of Notice Level Activities Is Bifurcated. I Will Use One of
Matt\'s \$5 Words. That Is, it

Comes along and it Splits. This Part over Here Is the Notice Level
Activity. It Gets a 15‑day

Review Around The Office, and If it Doesn\'t Cause Unnecessary or Undue
Degradation, Well, It\'s

Allowed To Proceed Unmolested. On this Side the Mining the Occupancy and
the Fencing Goes

Into an Entirely Different Review Process, Which Involves The
Preparation of Nepa. It Involves

the Preparation of An Ea or an Eis. It Involves Section 106 Compliance.
It Involves T&e Species

Compliance. Plus Anything Else That We May Have to Go Through. And it Is
Examined on a

Time Line That Says 30 Working Days Plus Any Extra Time We Need to
Comply with Nepa, 106

or the Threatened and Endangered Species Act.

We Have about Four Minutes Left and I Have One More Question in Front of
Me. This Is from

Wyoming. The Question Is, a Claimant Has A State Mining Permit Covering
His Placer Claims,

but the State Has Not Authorized the Associated Mill Site. The State
Demands a Reclamation

Bond Before They Will Authorize The Mill Site. And the Claimant Disputes
Their Authority to

Ask for a Bond. He Won\'t Pay. The Site Has Habital Buildings. No
Permits Have Been

Considered. Does the BLM Consider this a Risk to the Health, Safety or
Environment?

We Would Need More Details on This One.

I Think We Need More Information.

We Would Need a Lot More Details on this One. Particularly since the Guy
Is Disputing the

Notion of the State\'s Police Powers. This One You Would Want to Tread
Very Lightly Around

It. So If You\'ve Got More Details, Send Them into Us. We\'ll Look at
It.

in Fact, Randy, If You Would Send Us Some Information, Some Background
on this Overnight

by Fax, I Think We\'ll Have ‑‑ We Can Have a Look at and it Probably Get
a Better Answer in

The Morning. Or Maybe Just Give Rick or Me a Call.

Groupwise it to Matt. That\'s Another Alternative.

That\'s Right. Groupwise Tight Me. I\'m the Only M. Shoe Make Inner
Groupwise. You Won\'t

Have Any Trouble Finding Me in the Address Book Although You Have to
Spell Shumaker

Correctly. Dennis Do You Have Anything You Would like to Add Before We
Head Out.

Just a Minute?

Do You Have Any Easy Ones.

I Can Answer These Fairly Quickly, Matt.

Let\'s See If We Can Get to One.

the First One, There Has Been A Major Problem with Doj to Process
Surface Use Cases Unless

We Can Show Irreparable Harm. The Question Is, Is There Now a Change?
The Answer to That

Question Is The Threshold of Irreparable Harm Is Provided in the Rules
of Civil Procedure,

Provided by the Judiciary Branch, Not the Doj. That Threshold Is,
Indeed, Mandatory for

Injunctive Relief. So There Is No Change.

but it Would Be Incumbent on Us in Our Documentation to Show That There
Is Irreparable

Harm Taking Place Unless Something Is Done, and Perhaps We Could Change
That Pie

Improving the Quality of Our Work.

Yeah, and I Intend to Talk a Little Bit More about Those Thresholds
Tomorrow.

Great. Scott Do You Have Any Observations Before We Have to Shut down
for the Night?

No. I May Say it Tomorrow but Not Tonight.

Real Good. Rick?

Ditto.

Well, That\'s about it for Today. If You Weren\'t Able to Get Your Fax
Answered or Your

Question Answered, Send Us a Fax Overnight. We\'ll Leave the Fax Machine
Loaded with Paper

on this End. We Have Another Reading Assignment for Tonight. Please Read
the Baird Case

History Starting on Page L18. It Is a Very Interesting Case From 1984 in
San Diego. It Broke a

Great Deal of Legal And Operational Ground and it Contains Examples of
Some Really Good

Working Tools. Dennis Will Be Referring to it Quite a Lot Tomorrow.
Also, Read the Notes on

Pages G1 Through 8. These Will Help You Understand Bob Gibson\'s
Presentation First Thing in

the Morning Well, That\'s it for Today. We\'ll See You Tomorrow!

This begins the 3rd day of the telecast ‑ (September 13, 1996)

The Bureau of Land Management\'s Satellite Network Presents: Today\'s
Instructors Are: And

Now the Host of Your Program, Matt Shumaker.

Good Morning, Everyone and Welcome to the BLM National Training Center.
This Is the Day

We\'ve All Been Looking Forward To, Our Final Day of Mining Claim Use
and Occupancy

Management. I Know We\'ve Been Looking Forward to It. Joining Our Panel
Today Is Bob

Gibson. Bob Is a Geologist in the Nevada State Office. Bob, Welcome to
Phoenix.

Thank You.

Back with Us Today Is Dennis Mclane. How Are You this Morning, Dennis?

I\'m Doing Well. I\'m Happy That It\'s the Last Day.

So Are We. And Also with Us Is Rick Deery To Help Us Start Things off
this Morning.

Good Morning, Matt.

Later Scott Murrellwright Hay Return to Give Us a Hand. He Will Be
Available for Questions,

Though. We Didn\'t Send Any New Groupwise Overnights. If You Didn\'t Get
Any New Ones, It\'s

Because There Weren\'t Any. We\'ll Also Ask for Telephone Calls During
the Day. If You Like,

You Can Make Your Call Anonymously. And If We Recognize Your Voice, We
Won\'t Tell

Anyone Who You Are Or Where You\'re Calling from. When You Do Call,
Remember to Stand

Away from Your Television Or Turn the Sound down. Steve Fetchner and
Michael Horn Will Be

Our Phone Operators and Will Get to You as Soon as They Can. You Can
Send a Fax Question

at Any Time. Please Print Your Question with A Dark Marker, Not a
Wide‑tip Marker, Just a

Dark Marker. Remember, the Telephone Numbers Are Listed in the First Few
Pages of Your

Notes. A Lot of Nepa Questions Have Come up in the Last Few Days. Next
Week the National

Training Center Will Broadcast Course 1600‑2, an Overview of BLM\'s Nepa
Process. This Will

Be an Interactive Course and You Will Be Able to Ask Questions for
Further Clarification. For

More Information Call Gregg Simmons: to Help Your Office Participate in
These Satellite

Training Courses, See the BLM Satellite Downlink Guide. Your Office
Should Already Have A

Copy or Visit the NTC Home Page on the Worldwide Web. Our Temporary
Address Is

www.starlink.com/\~ntc. We Have a Number of Questions That Came in
Overnight and There Is

One Thing We Ought to Deal With and That\'s the Bagwell Situation, Rick.
A Lot of People Think

about Using the Bagwell Case as a Means of Abating an Occupancy
Trespass, and as a Result We

Did Give You a Copy of the District Court Decision in Bagwell in Your
Notes and it Is in Section

D as in Deery. We Didn\'t Cover it Yesterday or The Day Before, but
It\'s Worth a Few Words

Now. The Bagwell Situation Was a Very Narrow Case That Dealt with an
Occupancy on a Mill

Site. It Dealt with Bad Faith and Uses Which Go Directly to the Validity
of a Mill Site Claim. The

Bagwell Case Has a Lot of Potential Pitfalls If You Want To Use it in a
Case in Your Office, So

Be Very, Very Wary of It and Read the Case over Thoroughly, and You
Definitely Need to Talk

with the Solicitor\'s Office and with the U.s. Attorney. Rick?

There\'s Another Thing to Remember Here\... What We Did With this
Regulation Was Essentially

the Same Thing Congress Did with the ‑‑ with Public Law 167. They
Codified the Preexisting

Case Law and Put it into Law. We Took Our Rules and We Codified the
Existing Set of

Circumstances That Were out There. We Took All the Existing Case Law to
the Extent That We

Agreed With It, and We Put it into Regulation. The Primary Tool You\'re
Going to Be Using for

the First Couple of Years Here until We Begin to Build Case Law under
3715 Is the 3715

Regulation, and the Interpretations and the Guidance That Comes out of
Headquarters. Why?

Because Essentially Most of the Regulationed That ‑‑ Most of the Cases
That Went Before Are

Now Moot. We Have Now Set into Rule a New Standard and We\'re Going to
Use These

Standards. Now, Let Me Say a Word about the New Standard. We Got a Call
from ‑‑ a

Groupwise Message from Someone Who Said, Hey, I Don\'t See the Big Deal.
This Looks like All

You\'ve Done Is Taken Every Authority That We\'ve Had and Kind of Put it
All In One Place.

Exactly the Point! We Are Not Embarked on Anything Here That We
Couldn\'t Do at Any Time in

the past 41 Years. There Is No New Authority Involved Here. There Is No
New Ground‑breaking

Case Law. There Is No Radical Change in The Way We Do Business. What We
Have Simply

Done Is Taken the Scattered Pieces of Policy, of Case Law, of Guidance
And Just Plain Ol\'

Practice and We\'ve Put it in One Place, and When We Put it in One
Place, We Decided to Add

Some Teeth to It. So Don\'t Think of this as Something That You
Couldn\'t Already ‑‑ Couldn\'t

Already Do. You Could Have Done this. It Would Have Just Been a Little
More Difficult. We\'ve

Simply Put it in One Spot And Tried to Make it Easier.

It\'s Important to Note Also That the Teeth Have Always Been There, at
Least since Flpma and

Late They Are Morning Dennis Mclane Will Be Going Through a Situation
Where We Will

Demonstrate That There Were Teeth Even Before These Regulations. We\'ve
Been Getting a

Flurry of Faxes in Regarding One of Our Conversations Yesterday Having
To Do with Our

Example of the Mineral Peak, and That Is the Situation Where the ‑‑ Mrs.
Smith Was Doing

Income Tax Returns in a Back Room and Would We Allow Vegetable Gardens
as Long as the

Underlying Use Was Legitimate. Well, We\'ve Gotten a Lot of Faxes Back
That Say We\'re Wrong,

That\'s the Wrong Approach, and They Certainly Wouldn\'t Allow it At
Their Office. You Have to

Understand That the Standard We\'re Using Is Reasonably Incident. It\'s
Not Reasonably

Necessary. The Standard of Reasonably Incident Is in the Statute 43 U.s.
Code 612. It\'s in the

Regulations. Not the Reasonably Necessary Standard. Rick?

and That\'s a Deliberate Determination on Our Part. We Looked At, We
Evaluated the

Arguments for Reasonably Needed, And We Rejected Them, and If You Want
to See Those, You

Can Take A Look in the Pream Tubal Your Regulations on Page ‑‑ Preamble
To Your

Regulations on Page 13 And You Will See a Discussion Why We Said We Do
Not Believe We

Want to Adopt the Reasonably Required or Reasonably Needed Standard of
Richardson. Rome

Has Spoken, the Matter Is Closed. Matt?

I Don\'t Know How I Can Possibly Follow That. But I\'ll Try. Well, You
Kind of Threw Me off

My Stride There, Rick.

Sorry about That.

That\'s Okay! That\'s Fine. We Got a Fax in from Ridgecrest From Buzz
Todd, and Buzz, I Want

To Thank You for Sending This, And I Want to Pass it down and I Would
like for Bob to Stick it

On the Elmo, and Buzz Sent Us Several Pages of the Types of Permits That
People Who Want to

Operate Mines May Be Required to Get in California. Now, Some of These
Permits Will Also Be

Appropriate in Other States. Tonight Even Try and Look at it On Your Tv
Screens Except to

Realize It\'s Big, Long, Heavy, There\'s a Lot of it and There Are Five
Pages. If You Would like to

Get a Copy, I\'m Sure Buzz Would Be Happy to Send You One by Groupwise.
If He Has on it

Groupwise. It Looks like It\'s Been Photocopied from a Publication.
Buzz, Also, Would You Be

Good Enough to Send Us a Copy.

Another Point on That. This Is a Useful Tool for Not Only the Public but
for Our Own Internal

Management. We Need Ourselves to Know How Many Permits Are out There?
Who Have We

Got to Talk To? By Assembling Lists like This, We Have a Notion of Who
We\'ve Got to Call and

Who We\'ve Got to Learn to Work With, and for Our Own Internal Purposes
and for Sound

Public Participation and Sound Public Service, We All Ought to Think
about Assembling These

Things Either on a Statewide Basis to the Extent It\'s Possible,
Virtually Impossible in California,

as I Understand It, or to Do it on an Areawide Basis. Or a Districtwide
Basis. This Is a Good

Tool. You Ought to Think about Seriously Taking Someone, Sending Them
Off, and Sitting

Them down and Saying Build Me One of These Lists. This Is a Real Good
Idea.

Thanks Very Much, Buzz, for Sending it to Us. We Do Appreciate it More
than You Know. So

No Good Deed Goes Unpunished, So You Will Get a Couple Requests for It.
We Have a Couple

Irrelevant Things to Discuss. We Are Continuing Our Tacky Tie Contest
and a Couple of Us

Have Taken Great Pains to Have Something That Will Horrify You And Make
Your Television

Screens Bleed. I Know Chip Was Pretty Good About Saying, Oh, He Loves it
And I Felt That

Dilbert Was Appropriate for a Friday. And, Rick, What Can You Say?
Donald Duck.

Donald Duck.

Dennis Is Plain Jane Standard In the Uniform.

I Don\'t Think Dennis Would Ever Hear the End of it If He Wore a Donald
Duck Tie on His

Form. So It\'s Probably Just as Well.

So, Anyway, as You\'re Sending In Questions and Comments to Us Today,
We\'d Appreciate Yet

Another Tie Tally and See Who Wins the Tacky Tie Competition. We Didn\'t
Worn Bob Gibson

We Were Going to Do this. In Fact, We Didn\'t Know We Were Going to Do
it until Yesterday.

So Bob Has a Pretty Nice Tie on And I\'m Sorry to Hear That, Bob. Also
We Got a Number of

Observations of Dog Sightings in The Mineral Peak Video Yesterday And
There Were More Dog

Sightings Reported than We Knew Of. So Last Night I Got My Vcr to Work
on the Television

and I Discovered There Are, in Fact, Four Certified Dog Sightings of The
Whole Dog and at

Least One Ear Sighting. So If You Saw More than We Did, You\'re Probably
Right. Anyway, We

Got a Number of Questions in Overnight on Overnight Faxes. Here They
Are. There\'s Just a Big

Pile of Them. We\'re Going to Try to Deal with Some of Them Before We Go
to Bob Gibson.

When We Finished Yesterday on My Voice Mail at My Desk We Had a Rather
Lengthy Message

from a Realty Specialist Who Had Some Comments on Our Approach for 2920
and Basically

Giving a Larger Workload to Realty Specialists for 2920 Authorizations.
I Appreciate Your

Phone Call. You Raised a Lot of Excellent Points. You Need to Call Us.
Don\'t Leave on it My

Voice Mail. If These Are Questions You Have, These Are Questions Other
People Have, and We

Need to Deal with Them out in the Open and Put Them to Bed. Rick?

Exactly. Now, Let\'s Keep in Mind One Point, Matt. When We Say 2920, and
We Repeatedly

Turn to 2920 and Say, Well, We\'re Looking at That as a Potential
Solution, You Need to

Remember That 2920 Is an Option. It Is Not a Requirement. The Decision
to Issue or Not Issue a

2920 Permit Rests Solely With the Manager\'s Discretion. When We Are to
the Point Where We

Are Talking About, Yeah, Maybe One of the Solutions and One of the
Options Is a 2920 Permit

or a Rec. Permit or Some Other Special Authorization Under One of Our
Pieces of Authority,

That\'s Optional. You Don\'t Have to Give That to Somebody. You Don\'t
Have to Use That as a

Tool. You Can Say, Please Leave the Area. That Is Your Ultimate Option.
Because Once You

Have Determined That it Is Not Reasonably Incident, That it Is Not a
Mining‑related Use, Then

That Person Has No Right to Occupy The Land. It Then Becomes Our
Discretion To Decide

Whether or Not They Should Be There. So, Yes, We Are Putting an
Additional Burden on the

Realty Guys. Sorry about That. But, Keep in Mind, it Is a Choice That
You Have to Make, And it

Is Not a Mandatory Choice. You Can Say, Please Leave. Matt?

We Had Another Question That Went along Those Lines Last Night That Was
‑‑ Well, It\'s From

Baker, Baker, Oregon. It\'s Fairly Lengthy and Fairly Convoluted.
Basically Our Answer

Yesterday Appears to Them to ‑‑ I Can\'t Even ‑‑ I Can\'t Read it
Because It\'s Convoluted. The

Bottom Line Is, Because Things Can Be Authorized on 2920 Doesn\'t Mean
That They Have to

Be Authorized on 2920. This Doesn\'t Mean That We\'re Going to Say,
Okay, Give Every Squatter

and Every Unauthorized And Unauthorizeable Use a 2920 Permit. Nope,
That\'s Not What We\'re

Saying.

I Agree, Matt.

Another Question That Came In, Our Insistence on a Cme for Surface Use
Determinations Is

Short‑sighted and Discriminatory. I Think this Is More of a Comment than
Question. As a Mining

Engineer with 19 Years Experience in Leaseable Minerals I Am More than
Qualified to Do this

Work Even Though I Don\'t Have Certification. If You Require
Certification You Need to Change

the Requirements To Allow People with Leaseable Experience Who Tend to
Be More Qualified

on Mine Production, Equipment, Bonding, Reclamation And So On. You Are
Excluding an

Entire Group of Qualified Professionals This with Arbitrary
Classification.

If You Have 19 Years Experience Doing All These Things, Then it
Shouldn\'t Be Difficult to Get

Certified. The Bureau Is in Dire Need of Certified Mineral Examiners,
and It Occurs to Me That

Given the Case Loads That Are out There, Asking Management to Allow You
To Get Certified

Shouldn\'t Cause Too Much Difficulty.

We Have a Call in from Ridgecrest. We Would like to Take It. We Are
Postponing Bob Gibson

for A Little Bit, but this May Be Worthwhile. Good Morning, Mike, in
Ridgecrest.

Caller: this Is Mike Hogan. I Appreciate You Having the Time To Have Me
on Here. Your

Course Is an Excellent Course. I Am Really Pleased with the Format and
the Information That\'s

Coming Across and I Would Like to Pass That on from the Realty End, at
Least, as Far as What

I\'m Receiving Here in Ridgecrest. What I\'m Calling about Is That, And
I Was the Culprit on Your

Voice Mail Yesterday, Because What I Was Really Trying to Do Is See If
You Could Get a

Realty Specialist Knowledgeable in 2920 On the Panel Today and I Know it
Was a Short Notice

Point, but What I\'m Concerned about Is That The Reference Keeps Being
Made That 2920 Seems

to Be the Catch‑all for What Doesn\'t Fit In the Old and the New Mining
Regulations, and It\'s

Discussed Sporadically, but for Those of Us in the Lands Program That
Could See at Least

Knowing Len Gum Being in the Minerals Chief In this Office, I Know That
He Really Loves to

Keep Him and His Staff Passing off as Much Work To the Lands Program as
Possible, and I\'m

Concerned That We\'re Going to Get into a Situation Where in Other
Offices Or Wherever in the

BLM That We\'re Looking at the Way to Legitimize Mining Claims Could Be
Through 2920 If

They\'re Not Mining Claims after the Surface Use Determination. I
Personally Think That My

Favorite Part of the 2920 Regs Is the Unauthorized Use Section And I
Think it Should Be

Actually Strengthened to Incorporate Some of the Fallback From the
Mining Claims Stuff That

You\'ve Already Changed. The Last Thing That I Think We Really Want to
Do Is Legitimize

Operations That Have Been Compliance Nightmares for Mining Under Some
Type of 2920

Authorization. The Authorizations Are, You Know ‑‑ They Do Encompass
Anything Like

Residential or Commercial Or That Type of Thing, but If You\'re Looking
at a Permit, That\'s a

Three‑year Situation Which NEPA Has to Be Done Every Three Years and
Applications Have to

Be Filed, and Although That\'s a Nonpossessory Interest, We\'ve Got the
2920 Leases Which

Provides a Possessory Interest To Whoever Holds the Lease, and It\'s
Based on an Amortization

Situation and Commercialization, So That We Could End up by Using The
Word Lease, it Could

Give The Connotation That We\'re Going To Give Some Type of Possessory
Right.

It\'s Important to Note, Mike, These Will Be Discretionary and If it
Isn\'t Something That Is

Approveable, If it Isn\'t Something That We Should Have on The Public
Land under 3715 or

2920, Then the Answer Is Going To Be No in Any Event.

Caller: Right.

and What We\'re Simply Saying Is That We Don\'t Throw Widows And Orphans
out of the Only

Place They\'ve Got to Live. We Don\'t Burn Cabins in the Dead Of Night
after the Rangers Have

Restrained an 80‑year‑old Lady And They Don\'t Have Anyplace to Go. This
Was the Guidance

That Cy Jamison Gave to Us Six Years Ago When We Started this Exercise,
And Nothing Has

Changed That Guidance since Then. What We\'ve Tried to Do Is Build Into
Our Tool Kit a

Sufficiently Large Selection of Options. 2900 Is Simply One More Option.
One of the Other

Options Is to Simply Say \"Get off and Here Is Our Friendly Ranger to
Escort You to the

Boundary of the Public Land.\"

That\'s Right. And Just Because Somebody Has Established, Say, a
Convenience Market on

Public Land to Undercut His Competition with Lower Cost Rental Doesn\'t
Mean We Should

Legitimize That under 2920. In Any Event They\'ve Got to Go. Rick, Do
You Think We Could

Use Mike\'s Input When We\'re Putting Together the Interim Guidance.

No Good Deed Goes Unpunished. Mike, What Do You Think?

Caller: I Would Be Willing To Lend a Hand. I Don\'t Mind Doing That. I
Just See it Could Be a

Workload for Lands and Realty And the Smoother We Can Make the Process
up Front as a

Transition Process to Where If the Movement Is Unauthorized Use All the
Way Through, Let\'s

Get Rid of Them. We Can Do So.

Absolutely Right.

Caller: a Life‑term Easement For the Elderly or Handicapped For One of
Those Type Decisions

That We Do it as a Life‑term Easement and Not as a Lease or As Some Type
of ‑‑

by the Same Circumstances, We Do Have Cases out There Where We May Have
a Profitable

Enterprise That We Don\'t Want to Shut down.

Caller: and That Would Be ‑‑ That\'s Where I Think the Staffs Have to
Work Together to Get

Recommendations Across That Just Because We\'re Handing it to You To
Take Doesn\'t Mean We

Want You To Trespass ‑‑

and What We Want to Emphasize As I Said Earlier Is That Isn\'t The
Geologist\'s Problem and it

Isn\'t the Geologists Flipping it Over to the Lands Guy\'s Desk and
Saying, Hey, It\'s Your Problem

Now. For the 20 Years I\'ve Been in The Bureau, That\'s Been the
Historic Way to Approach It. It

Comes in on a Mining Claim, Oh, It\'s a Geologists Problem. He Does It.
Now What You\'re

Calling for and What We\'re Calling for Is a Team Approach. Thank You
for Calling, Mike.

Caller: Well, Thanks a Lot. By the Way, on the Ties, I Think That the
Disney Tie Is the Busiest

but the BLM One Is the Ugliest, I\'m Sorry.

Thanks Very Much for Calling, Mike, and We\'ll Be in Touch. Thanks Very
Much. We Also

Have Word from Ridgecrest. Apparently it Came in by Fax While Mike Was
on the Phone. Their

Vote for the Tackiest Tie Is the One Dennis Is Wearing, And If You Look
Closely, it Is The Only

Tie That Has a Tie Tack. We Would like to Move on Now. We Spent Some
Time on the Phone.

Bob, I Think It\'s Your Turn, and Let\'s Get Rolling on Case Recordation
and Case Management.

Thank You, Matt. What ‑‑ I\'m Going to Talk about Today Is Three Issues.
First of All, We\'re

Going to Talk about Data Management, and Then We\'re Going to Talk about
Case Management

as it Relates, And Finally We\'ll Go into Appeals a Little Bit, and That
Will Lead More into What

Dennis Is Going to Talk about Later in Law Enforcement Issues. First
Thing Is Data

Management, And the Question Came the Other Day as Far as What We\'re
Doing With Case

Recordation to Track These Things We\'re Doing, and What We Did Is
We\'ve Gone to the Service

Center and We\'ve Asked For Some Codes to Be Put into The Current Case
Recordation System.

There Are Four of Them. They Are Found on Pages G10 ‑‑ I Will Put it on
the Elmo Here and

Briefly Talk about Each One. The First One Is Occupancy Form Filed. What
That Is Is for These

Existing Occupancies That Were On the Ground as of August 15th When the
Regulations Went

into Effect. The Forms Are Now Being Filed With Our Offices, Various
Offices. Some of Them

Are Going to the Wrong Office, but They\'re Being Forwarded to the
Proper Office For Their Use.

Some of Them Are Being Sent to The Denver Service Center. The People Are
Confusing the

Language for the Omb Requirement. If You Have Any Comments on How To
Fill out the Form,

Send it There. The People in the Service Center Are Nice Enough to Send
it onto The State

Offices. What Is Critical When Your Office Receives it Is to Have it
Date Stamped When it

Comes into The Mail Room, and That\'s One of The Things That Is Where
the Code Is Defined.

It\'s a Very Simple Code. All it Requires Is Having the Code in the
System, and All You Have to

Do Is Enter the Date That it Was Date Stamped Coming Into the BLM
Office. This One‑time

Form must Be Postmarked by October 16th. That Is the Last Day That We
Are Accepting the

Forms for ‑‑ That Is the End of the 60‑day Period That Was Allotted in
the Regulations for the

Forms to Be Filed with Us. After That, Any Form Filed Will Be Treated
Just as ‑‑ They Will Be

Ignored ‑‑ Well, Not Ignored, But Basically It\'s Going to Be Treated as
a New Occupancy with

New Information Required.

Excuse Me, Bob. It\'s October 15th. The ‑‑ it Has to Be Postmarked By
October 15th.

15th.

15th. Close of Business.

Correction on the Slide Here.

We Want to Make Sure of That. You must Notify, I\'m Reading From BLM ‑‑
I Am Reading

from 3715.4b1. You must Notify BLM by October 15th of the Existence. On
October 16th ‑‑ If

You Haven\'t Done So, the Full Force And Effect of the Regs Will Fall On
Your Head.

I\'ll Get Ahold of the People In Denver to Alter That Definition. We\'ve
Already Had Some

Changes In the Definitions. A Memo Will Be Going out When The Codes Are
Available for Use

In the System. Right Now it Says No Forms Will Be Required after the
16th. That\'s Where They

Got the 16th In There. Initially They Also Said \"Accepted\" but That
Did Not Allow for the

Acceptance of Something That Was Postmarked Prior to That Time. Now, for
the Codes ‑‑ for

the Occupancies That Are Coming in New, the Code to Use Is Associated
Occupancy, and That

Is, Once Again, the Same Simple Format, Allowing to Enter the Date That
Is Postmarked, and

These Codes Are to Be Used in ‑‑ Right Now They Are Being Used in The
3809 or 3802 Case

Types. After I Discuss the Codes Here, I Will Talk to You about What
We\'re Doing as Far as the

Issue Of Keeping a Separate File for The Existing Occupancies, What
We\'re Going to Have Is a

Difference Between the Automated Record and the Paper Record Right Now.
I\'ll Get into That in

a Little Bit Here. This Is What You Use for Associated Occupancy. Once
You Have Either of

Those Two Situations, Your next Step Is Going to Be to Determine Whether
That Occupancy

Meets the Regulatory Requirements, and When You Make That Determination,
You\'re Going to

Have to Issue a Letter or a Decision to the Operator, Claimant, Filer of
the Occupancy Whether

You Can Concur with His Occupancy or Not. If You Concur, We\'ve Got a
Definition, We\'ve Got

a Code for Occupancy Concurrence, and Once Again It\'s a Simple Enter
the Date That the Letter

Is Signed By the Authorized Officer Determining That the Occupancy Does
Meet the Regulations

and Standards of Being Reasonably Incident in 43 Cfr 3715. Once Again,
this Is Being Used With

the 3802 and 3809 Case Types. Conversely, on the Other Side, If You\'ve
Determined That the

Occupancy Is Not Reasonably Incident, What You Use Is Occupancy
Nonconcurrence and the

Date the Decision Is Signed by The Authorized Officer Saying That the ‑‑
it Has Been

Determined That They Are Not. In That Decision Also You Want To Give the
Reasons Why and

Any Remedies You May Have for How The Claimant, Operator, What Have You,
Could Bring

the ‑‑ If It\'s Possible to Bring the Occupancy into Compliance with The
Regs. If It\'s Not a Total

Case of There\'s No Way That it Can Be Authorized. Now, the Case Type,
Initially We Had

Decided to Put These Things In 3802 and 3809 Case Types in The Case
Recordation System, and

That\'s Why We Had the Four Codes There. But Then it Became Apparent
with The Existing

Occupancies That it Was Necessary to File Them Separately Because You
Could Have an Appeal

Going on with That Case Separate from the Issue of What Is Happening
with Your 3802 or 3809

Case. We Are Currently in the Process Of Trying to Get a Separate 3715
Case Type, but the

Problem There Lies in the Fact That in the Spring of 1997 We Will Be
Putting the Initial

Operating Capability up in the State Starting with New Mexico. That
System Has Been under

Construction, as You May Well Know, for over Five Years Now, And We\'re
Getting Real Close

and It\'s Very Hard to Make Any Last‑minute Changes to the System
Because of the Effects it

Will Have on Other Parts of the System. It\'s a Lot like Acupuncture.
You Can Put a Needle in

Someone\'s Foot to Cure Pain in Their Head, and the System Here Entering
a Whole New Case

Type Has a Lot of Ramifications That They\'re Not Prepared to Deal With
Right Now. The

Problem with Creating a 3715 Case Type in Case Recordation That Is
Possible, but Then When

That Is Converted over into Almrs/ioc, it Goes into an Area Called the
Post Cleanup Conversion

Area Which Is Basically an Area Where Everything That Doesn\'t Have a
Home in the New Ioc

Will Reside And There\'s No Way to Get Any Kind of Reporting Capability
off Of That. But There

Are Other ‑‑ We Will Work on Trying to ‑‑ We\'re Going To See What We
Can Do. I\'ve Got the

People in the Service Center Working on Trying To Make the Changes to
the System. In the

Meantime, Rick Has Talked About the Possibility of Having Some Sort of
Maybe Pc‑based

System Where We Will Track These Things Where That Is in the Works. We
Will Be Discussing

That as Time Goes on and We Will Keep You Informed as to What We\'re
Able to Come up with

and as Far As Keeping Track of What These Things Are. One of the Neat
Things That You Can

Do Is Use ‑‑ If You Have a Unix Box There Is a Piece of Software Called
Arcview and It\'s The

Geographic Information System Software and Allows to You Depict and Plot
Various

Information. On Pages G10 Through G12 Are Examples of Something That I
Put Together for

the 50th Anniversary of BLM to Depict Where the Minerals Were in the
State of Nevada. It Is a

Little Bit Blurry on Your Copy. I Sent a Color Copy of This, And, of
Course, Once it Was

Xeroxed it Doesn\'t Xerox Real Well. This Smudge Area You See Here Is
Actually Yellow and Is

the BLM Land Pattern That We Had. I\'ve Put ‑‑ Located Each of the
Cities Where BLM Has an

Office In Nevada. This Particular One Is for Salable Minerals. I\'ve
Prepared One for Salable

Minerals, One for Leaseable Minerals and One for Locatable Minerals. The
Legend Is Such That

You Can Prepare it to Make it Anything You Want. You Can Use Any Color
Scheme You Want.

You Can Use Any Kind of Symbol You Want. There Are Certain Symbols That
Are Already in

the System and We\'re Working as We Get Later Releases to Try to Get
Other Symbols Put into

the System. It\'s Just a Tool That You Might Want to Use in Showing
Where Your Occupancies

Are. It\'s One of the Tools That They\'re Using Right Now in Conjunction
with the Abandoned

Mine Land Program Where They Take a Gps Unit Out, That\'s Geographic
Positioning System,

And Plot up Exactly Where These Things Are At, and If You Can ‑‑ You Can
Take That Data

That You Get from Gps, Plug it into Arcview, and You Can Create a Nice
Map for Presentations

When You Want to Talk about Where the Occupancies Are in Your State. Now
I Want to Talk

about Case Management. This Is the Area Where We\'re Talking about the
Paper Record. We\'ve

Just Talked about What We\'re Doing with the Electronic Record. Because
of the Unavailability

Right Now of the New Case Type, We\'re Going to Be Handling the Paper
Record Slightly

Different, But It\'s Very Important, as Has Been Stressed over the past
Couple of Days, and

Cannot Be Stressed Enough, Is the Importance of Keeping this Record in
the Proper Order and

Keeping Everything Right in the Case, Not Leaving Anything out Or
Putting Anything That Is

Not Necessary into the Case, Because If You Do, as Was Brought up the
Other Day, it Could

Affect Us in Such That You Would Lose the Case Before Ibla Because You
Do Not Have the

Information There, Or You May Have Some ‑‑ Have Put Something in There
That Could Have a

Deleterious Effect. Once Again, to Use Matt\'s Slide From the Other Day,
If it Isn\'t Documented,

it Didn\'t Happen. So Whenever You\'re Going to Start Going out to These
Occupancies and Look

at Them, Start Documentation Right Away Of Everything You Do. What I
Want to Talk about in

Order to Illustrate this Better Was Sent out to You by Groupwise The
Other Day Is a Memo That

Was Put Together by Ken Stauers of The Nevada State Office, and it Was a
Memo Sent out to

the Entire Bureau to All Field Offices and the Number Is Nv‑96‑156.

I Would like to Dive in at This Point. This Is One of the Overnight
Updates That You Would

Have Received the Night Before Last. That Would Have Been Wednesday
Night. If You Didn\'t

Get It, Let Us Know, Send Us a Fax with the Groupwise Contact That We
Can Send this to You

At.

Thank You, Matt. Although this Memo Is Entitled Realty Case File
Documentation And

Maintenance, It\'s Pretty Much Applicable to Any Case File That You
Might Have. As I Go

Through the Portions of This Memo, You May Notice Some Of the Numbers
Will Be out of

Sequence. There May Be Some Numbers Missing. What We Have Done Is Put
the Entire Memo

on Cards Here, and What I\'ve Done Is Try to Choose Those Portions of
the Memo Which Are

Most Applicable to What We\'re Doing with Our Surface Use Determinations
and the Reports

We\'re Doing for Occupancy. First Thing That it Says Is That We Need,
Therefore, to Take Our

Records and Our Record Keeping Practices Very Seriously. This Cannot Be
Stressed Too Much.

Too Often by the Time the Record Of a BLM Decision Reaches a Point Where
an Appeal or

Lawsuit Is Filed, the Case File Contains Extraneous Material Such as
Handwritten Notes That

Were Never Intended to Be a Part of The Permanent Record. If You\'re
Talking to the Occupants

on the Phone and You\'re Documenting What You\'re Talking About, in the
Meantime You\'re

Scribbling Notes to Yourself, or Making Asides or Doodling, Whatever,
You Don\'t Want to

Include Those Kind of Things in a Case File. Ibla Is Not Going to Want
to See That Stuff. And

These Cases, Unlike the 3809 And 3802s That Go to the State Director
First Where You Could ‑‑

Where There\'s a Possibility Of an Oversight from the State Office and
Removing Extraneous

Material from the Case File, it Is Not Going to Happen. The People from
the District Are Going

to Have to Send it Straight to Ibla and Whatever Is In the Case File Is
the Official Record When it

Goes to Ibla. So Before You Send it to Ibla, You Need to Remove Any
Unnecessary Materials

Inadvertently or Carelessly Left In the File, Because They Become A Part
of the Official Record.

Bob, We\'ve Got a Concern About Removing Items from the Case File. Now,
Once a Case File

Goes Away From the Office, it ‑‑ My Understanding Is That it Goes
Wherever it Has to Go,

Warts and All, Even If We Have Doodles or Things and Even a 3809 Case
That May Pass its

Way Through the State Office on its Way to Ibla Shouldn\'t Be Purged of
Anything, Even If There

Is a Dollar Bill Stapled Inside.

No ‑‑

and the Point Here Is That We Should Focus on If You\'ve Got a Document
and You\'ve Been

Sitting There Writing and Scribbling Down Notes on a Piece of Paper
Saying Here\'s the ‑‑ Here\'s

this Bozo Who Has Called Me Again, And You\'re Being Very Unkind and
Very Unprofessional,

and That Constitutes Your Record of a Phone Call, You Ought to Take The
Time to Put it on a

Piece of Paper, Type it into Your Word Processor and Document the File
Properly. As Dennis

Has Pointed out Before, Your Demeanor Is Going To Count, and If You\'ve
Gotten a Whole Bun

of Place Placed in That Case File That Seems \'Say Your Demean Sir
Flippant, less Than

Professional, Your Words And Your Words and Views Are Going to Be
Treated as less than

Professional. So When it Finally Goes to the Case File, You Ought to
Make Sure That it Is

Something That, As We Say Inside the Beltway, You Don\'t Have Any
Problems with It Being

Published on the Federal Page of the \"Washington Post,\" Because There
Are Times When Things

That You Write May End up There, and So When You Write Something for the
File, And You

Write Something for the Official Record, You Think about The Fact That
it May End up in The

Hands of a Supreme Court Justice.

That\'s Right. If You Get to the Point Where You\'re about to Send off a
Case File on Appeal and

You Think That You Really Wish You Had Five Minutes Just to Take Some
Things Out, You\'re

Guilty of Really Rotten Case File Management. Bob?

Yes. What this Goes to Speak to Is Generally When an Appeal Decision
Goes Before Ibla for

Review, There Is No One There to Back up or Explain What Is in The Case
File, Why Something

Is There, Why Something Is Not There. All They Have Is the Record That
Is Before Them to Use

to Render Their Decision. The Need to Defend an Action May Also Arise
after the People ‑‑

Sometimes These Cases, Because Of How Long That They Can Take To Go
Through the

System, Maybe The People That Are Most Acquainted with Them Have
Forgotten It. It May Be

Several Years Before The Issue Before the Board Is Heard. Or in the Case
of What We Have a

Lot of Times Going on Now, There\'s a Lot of Flux in the Bureau. The
Person That Originally

Worked on the Case May Not Even Be in the Bureau Anymore, or He May Be
at Another Office

and Unavailable. So That\'s Once Again Why You Need to Work to Make Sure
That All the

Documentation in Your Case File Is Acceptable, Legible, Correct and
There\'s Not Anything in

There That You Would Not Want Seen as a Matter of the Record. In Order
to Ensure the

Bureau‑wide Consistency of the Proper Documentation and Maintenance of
the Case Files, Ken

Stauers Has Developed Some Points Here in His Memo to Assist You in What
You Need to Put

into a Case File and What Not to Put into a Case File, What Way to Put
Them In, Where They

Should Be Stored. I Am Going to Go over the Points That I\'ve Found
Relevant in His Memo

That Pertains to What We\'re Doing with Occupancy. Once Again, If You
See a Number Up in the

Corner the next Elmo Presentation Is Missing a Number, That\'s Because
What Was Used in

There Was Aimed at Realty Cases. There Were Such Things as Talking about
Accounting Advise.

There Are No Fees Involved in What We\'re Doing. So Those Were Taken out
and Will Not Be

Shown. Once Again, this Stresses, While This Documentation Was Put for
‑‑ Was Put out for

Realty Case Files, it Does Applicability to All Case Files. We\'re Using
it Here to Demonstrate

What We\'re Doing for The 3715, but it Also Works for Your 3809, 3802
Mining Claim, Lands

Realty, Forestry, Any Case File That the Bureau May Have. These
Principles Apply to Them All.

The First Principle Is That Case File Maintenance Is Every Users\'
Responsibility. It\'s Not the

Responsibility of The People in the Central Records or If Your Case
Files Are Stored Somewhere

Else. It\'s the Individual User That Is Working on the Case File. It\'s
Your Responsibility to Keep

That Case File in the Proper Order, Keep the Proper Documents In There.
It\'s Not ‑‑ You Need

to Treat it Like Would You Treat Your Essential Records That You Treat
In Your Private Life.

If There Are Inappropriate Personal Notes, Duplicate Copies Of
Documents, Torn Case Jackets,

Case Jackets with Missing Bar Codes, If You Are Using a Bar Code System
in Your Office, the

Person Discovering the Situation Should Either Take the Necessary
Corrective Action in the Case

of A Torn Jacket to Try to Get a New Jacket or Bring it to the Attention
of Someone Else If You

Are Looking at Someone Else\'s Case File and You Notice Discrepancies or
Problems with It,

You Need to Bring it to That Person\'s Attention So That They Can Put
the Case File in Proper

Order So That If Ever the Situation Arises Where That Case File Has to
Go to Ibla or in the Case

These Case Files Are a Matter of Public Record, the Public Can Come in
and Ask to See the Case

Files. So Keeping That in Mind, Don\'t Put Anything in There That You
Wouldn\'t Want Someone

to See. Here it Talks about the Receipt Of an Application, but Basically
What We\'re Talking

about Here Is The Receipt of the Information On an Occupancy or the Form
That Was Filed. As

Far as Immediately Assigning A Serial Number to the Case Right Now,
That\'s Where We Get

Back to the Area That We Have a Difference Right Now in the Paper Record
Versus the

Automated Record.

Bob, Can You Create a 309 Case by Putting an Occupancy Symbol after the
Number?

Can You Put a What ‑‑

Can You Create a 309 Case by Putting an Occupancy Symbol After the
Number?

No ‑‑ What Do You Mean by an Occupancy Symbol, Matt?

I\'m Not Really Sure. The Question Just Came into Us And it Was
Forwarded to Me and I\'m Not

Sure I Fully Understand It. I\'m ‑‑

I\'m Not Sure I Understand What They\'re Talking about as Far as an
Occupancy Symbol. If They

Would like to Call In, Clarify That, or Send Us a Follow‑up Fax on What
They\'re Talking about.

Right Now, as I Said, These Are Brand‑new Regulations. We Are Working
with the People In

Denver to Get an Automated Mechanism Available. It May Be Possible, but
it May Change.

We Will See about Getting This by Fax in Writing, and We May Be Able to
Do a Better Job On

It. Go Ahead, Bob.

Right Now What You Would Be Entering into Case ‑‑ Well, What You Will Be
Entering into

Case Recordation or Orca If You Are One of the Orca States Is One of The
Four Codes I

Showed You Earlier as Far as What Happens, And That Would Go into the
3809 Or 3802 Case

File That the Person, If the Person Has an Existing Plan or Notice to
Cover Their Mining Claim.

In the Event That the ‑‑ They Are Doing Casual Use and They Are
Occupying the Ground and it

Is Determined it Is Reasonably Incident, We Do Not Have a Mechanism
Right Now. It Has Been

Talked about and Suggested by Several States in Order to Create
Something. It Was Put in as a

Request to Go Into Almrs/ioc. It Is Not Available in the First Release.
It Could Be Available in

Future Releases to Try to Track What Goes on in Casual Use Situations.
The Problem Presented

There Is That it Could Become a Record‑keeping Nightmare and a Workload
Nightmare Is Bad

Enough In Such Areas Such as Nevada Trying to Keep up with the Plans And
Notices Without

Keeping up With All the Casual Use Operations as Well. It\'s Just a
Mechanism in Case Someone

Comes in and Says, Hey, I Saw So and So out There in a Tent on the
Ground. What about It? If

They\'re Not Disturbing Anything, They Have a Tent There, You May Want
to Know Whether

They Are Occupying a Mining Claim or They\'re on Unappropriated Public
Land. I Don\'t Know If

We Are Going Necessarily into Occupancy Case Files to Deal with
Confidential Information, but

If There Is Some Information That the Claimant Is Specifying He Wants To
Remain Confidential,

this Has To Be Stored Separately Outside Of the Case File. , and it May
Also Be Appropriate To

File a Serial Register Page On the Top of the Case File as Long as They
Are Kept on the Top Of

the Other Documents for Ready Reference. I Don\'t Think We\'ll Deal Much
With the Issue of

Confidential Information in this Aspect of Occupancy. Mostly That Arises
When You Get Into

the Areas Of, Say, for Instance, a Validity Exam, and Until Such Time as
the Exam Has Been

Finalized, the Marketing Data and Such Can Be Confidential.

Bob, We Have about 5 Minutes To a Break. So Can You Summarize What\'s
Needed for a Case

File in the Remaining Five Minutes?

Basically What You Need for Your Case Files Is You Need to Have All the
Pertinent

Information That Is Being Sent In. It Needs to Be in a Legible Format So
That it Can Be Read,

Not Only by Yourself, but by Others. If You Send it to the Board and All
Your Notes Are

Illegible and Can\'t Be Read, That Can Affect The Decision. Only Have
Stuff That Is Pertinent to

the Occupancy. Don\'t Have Extraneous Notes or Personal Opinions Unless
You Want Those

Personal Opinions Used by the Board to Come to Their Decision, as Was
Expressed Earlier about

the Demeanor of The Person Keeping the Records Will Come Through in the
Decision.

Absolutely Right. Another Thing to Be Aware of Is If You Are Using
Photographs, The

Photographs Need to Be Mounted and Captioned. I Remember Some Years Ago
I Was Given a

Case File to Review and The Author ‑‑ the Person Who Maintained the Case
File Wondered Why

it Has Been Rejected by the State Office. I Opened up the Case File and
Things Fell on the Floor.

That\'s Not a Good Case File. Go Ahead, Bob.

That\'s about ‑‑

Well, We Had a Call That Just Dropped off. I Was Trying to Arrange for
You To Have Some

Time to Deal with That Call. Do You Want to Finish up with The Point by
Point Issues That

Need to Go into a Case File or Do You Think It\'s about Time for A
Break, Bob.

I Think It\'s about Time for a Break.

I Think We Can Take about a 10‑minute Break Now. It\'s Time for Our
Morning Break. So We\'ll

Be Back in 10 Minutes Exactly. Remember to Leave Your Television Turned
On, and When We

Return, Dennis Mclane Will Pick up Where We Promised He Would Pick up
Yesterday.

Welcome Back from Your Break. We Hope You Had a Good One. Joining Us Now
Again Is

Dennis Mclane. In a Few Minutes Dennis Is Going To Be Covering the Three
Aspects Of

Inspection and Enforcement, Administrative, Civil and Criminal.
Criminal. In the Meantime, We

Need to Do a Little Bit of Follow‑up with Bob Gibson. We Have Appeals
and So on That We\'ll

Be Dealing With, and We Have a Quick Call to Take. So Hello, Jim, in
Phoenix, We Don\'t Have

a Lot of Time, So Get Right to the Point.

Caller: Hello. This Is for Bob Gibson. I Was the One That Sent That Fax
Down Regarding the

Symbol. What I Was Referring to Was Case Parting. If We Could Use a ‑‑
We Had Discussed this

Here, Using the Symbol Uo after the Serial Number, in Other Words,
Parting It out from a 3809

Case, That Way We Would Be Able to Utilize All of the Codes That We Can
Now Use for 3809.

We Could Also ‑‑ and Maintain a Separate File. We Could Print Serial
Pages. It Would Appear

on the Orca Geo And We Could Work Closely with Law Enforcement as to
What Went Into the

Uo File, and When You Consider That Even Concurrences Can Appeal by Any
Party Who

Appears to Be Aggrieved, We\'re Talking about All Kinds of Possible
Appeals.

So, Jim, You Are Suggesting Adding a Suffix to an Existing Case File
Number?

Caller: to ‑‑ We Would ‑‑ it Would Be a 3809 Case If it Was Associated
with a 3809 Action,

And Then We Would Have an Associated 3809 File for a Notice. I Am ‑‑

Jim, That\'s a Possibility That I Will Raise with the People in the
Service Center. It\'s Possible in

the System Today, but What I\'m Not Sure on Is That Is a Solution for
What We\'re Dealing with

Today, but Once Again, the Conversion of Those Files into Almrs/ioc May
Present Some

Problems. They\'re Not Prepared at this Point to Convert Those Suffixes,
But it Is an Issue I Will

Raise With Them, and Let the Field Know If That Is an Acceptable
Situation and Something That

They Can Work with. Thank You for Your Suggestion.

Caller: this Is a Suffix on The Serial Number, Not on the Case Type.

Yes.

Great. Thanks Very Much for Calling, Jim. Okay. Looks like That\'s Also
‑‑ Would Answer the

Fax Question That Just Came in from ‑‑ Was That Montana?

Yes. No, this Is from Ridgecrest ‑‑ This One Was from Boise and It\'s My
Understanding That

Both Existing and New Cases That Involve Occupancy Are to Have Two
Separate Files There

Are New Standards/case Types Couldn\'t We Use a Suffix on the Serial
Number to Separate

Them.

That Seems like the Same Question and Basically the Same Answer.

Basically It\'s the Same Question, and Once Again, That Is a Solution I
Will Raise with The

People in the Service Center And See If That Can Be Accommodated More
Easily When We

Move into Almrs/ioc Here in About Six Months.

Okay. Bob, in the next Three or Four Minutes Can You Summarize the
Appeals Process?

Briefly I Wanted to Touch on Appeals in the System. Dennis, If You Would
Put on the Elmo,

Please, and Section 3715.9 Of the Regulations Give You What Appeal
Rights That You Have. If

You Would Go to the next One, Please. It Says, If You Are Adversely
Affected by a BLM

Decision, Order or Determination Made Under this Subpart, You May Appeal
the Decision,

Order or Determination to the Interior Board of Land Appeals Subject to
The Procedures in 43

Cfr Part 4, Which Is the Administrative Procedures Act for Appeals. That
Was the Reading

Assignment Given Last Night for You to Read Over. That Gives You All the
Information You

Need as Far as How to Treat an Appeal. Would You Put on the next One,
Please? One Question

Is Whether ‑‑ Does An Appeal ‑‑ Appeal to Ibla Suspend a BLM Decision?
Next One, Please.

And an Appeal to Ibla Does Not Suspend an Order Requiring an Immediate,
Temporary

Suspension Of the Occupancy under the Occupancy Regulations, Even Though
‑‑ next One. And

the Provisions of 43 Cfr 4.21 (A) Apply to All Other BLM Decisions,
Orders and Determinations

under the Part. Basically You Do Have a Right to Appeal, and You Appeal
Directly To Ibla. If

the Appeal Is Timely, You Have 30 Days to Appeal. If it Comes in in 40
Days, Send It to the Ibla

Anyway, Let Them Make the Determination That the Appeal, Whether the
Appeal Was Timely or

Not. Anything over 40 Days, Write a Decision Denying the Appeal as Filed
Untimely. That\'s

Basically it for Appeals.

We Have a Quick Question That Just Came in from Butte. It Has to Do with
2920 Trespass

Cases.

What Do We Do with Existing 2920 Trespass Cases for Mining Claim
Occupancies? Should We

Close Them out When 3809 or 3802 Case File Is Opened? No, Don\'t Close
Them out When a

3809 or 02. We\'ll Work Further on How to Distinguish Between the Ones
You Already Have

Right Now ‑‑ There\'s an Area Fortress Pass, And There Are Some ‑‑ for
Trespass and There Are

Some Commodity Codes Being Used Fortress ‑‑ for Trespass in the System.
We Will Have to

Work on How We\'re Going to Merge this Information Together. Further
Guidance Will Be

Coming Out.

as Bob Is Finding, Just as Rick Has, this Class Is Being Just as
Valuable to Us as it Is To You,

Possibly Each More Valuable to Us, as We Return and Find Things We Need
to Work on For

Further Clarification and Guidance to the Field, and We Do Appreciate
the Questions We\'re

Getting In. We\'re Getting a Lot of Fax Questions In. Keep Sending
Faxes. We Want to Hear from

You. We\'re Not Going to Be Able to Answer All of Them on the Air Today,
but Everything That

We Get We\'ll Work on as Guidance as Needed and If We Haven\'t Answered
Your Question by

the End of the Course, Call One of Us. Call the Appropriate Person. We
Will Be Happy to Talk

to You. Dennis, Shall We Get Going on Inspection, Enforcement and So On.

Might as Well, Matt. There Has Been a Great Deal of Build‑up Towards My
Presentation And I

Hope Not to Disappoint Anyone.

I Know You Won\'t.

I Want to Start out Just by Saying Sort of What I Intend to Talk About,
What I Intend to Talk

about Is Enforcement, Not Only Criminal Law Enforcement, But Civil
Enforcement,

Administrative Enforcement as Well, and I Hope to Explain to You the
Differences Between

Those and the Relationships Between Those Enforcement Aspects and Maybe
Use Some

Examples to Illustrate That. I Also Want to Give You Some Helpful Hints
on How to Keep

Yourself Safe and Healthy When You\'re Carrying out Enforcement Actions,
Not Only Safe and

Healthy in Your Person, but Safe And Healthy in Your Own Legal
Environment as Well When

You\'re Doing Some of These Things. So to Start out Sort of with That
Legal Groundwork, I

Want to Start Very, Very Basic Here, and I Want to Start with the
Constitution of the United

States. This Constitution, of Course, Applies to All People of the
United States. It Applies to Our

Members of the Public. It Applies to Us. In Fact, a Lot of Us Are Sworn
To Uphold this

Constitution. A Lot of What the Bureau of Land Management Does for a
Living Lately Has Been

Called into Question Because of this Document. There Are Those Opponents
out There That Are

Carrying this Around in Their Pocket and Saying, Well, this Proves That
The Bureau of Land

Management Perhaps Not Only Doesn\'t Have The Authority to Have Mining
Claim Occupancy

Regs but Maybe Also Doesn\'t Have the Authority To Exist in Itself.
Primarily Those That Would

Make That Argument Point to Article X Of the Constitution, Which
Basically Says That If the

Constitution Has Not Reserved a Power to the United States, Then It Goes
to the States. Then

They Will Quickly Point to Article I, and in Article I There Is a
Shopping List of Various

Authorities of the Federal Government, and in Article I You\'ll Find the
Postal Clause, the

Customs Clause, the Immigration Clause, and the Various Other Things
That Pertain to the

Federal Government. One of the Others That You Will Find in Article I Is
What\'s Called the

Session Clause. This Sick Clause Was Written by The Founding Fathers
I\'m Sure to Take into

Mind the District of Columbia Primarily, but They Also Said That When
There Is Consent of the

Legislature of a State, the United States May Also Have Erection of
Forts, Magazines, Arsenals,

Dock‑yards, Other Needful Buildings. Quite Often the Constitutional
Argument Will Say That

Because The Public Lands Is Not on this List, and Because We,
Quote‑unquote, Don\'t Have the

Consent of the State, That Perhaps the Bureau of Land Management Has No
Reason to Exist. I

Hate to Say This, but Based Upon That Argument Alone, the
Constitutionalist\'s Argument Is

Correct. The Bureau of Land Management Is Not Administered or Created
out Of Article I of the

Cession Clause. The Only Articles I Can Give You For Jurisdiction Are
Things Liar Yellowstone

National Park That Was Created Before Wyoming Was a State and Yosemite
National Park

Which Was Originally Created as A State Park and Then the State
Legislature Creeded it Back to

The Federal Government. In Those Examples, the Federal Government Has
What\'s Called

Exclusive Jurisdiction. That\'s Where the Federal Government Is the Only
Law of The Land and

the State Does Not Have Their Full Measure of Enforcement Authority in
Those Areas. I Am

Here to Sell You That Article 1 the Cessation Clause Does Not Apply to
Bureau of Land

Management Lands. Unfortunately, Quite Often Our Constitutionalists
Arguers Will Not Go Back

to the Back Part of The Constitution, and Back There We\'ll Find Article
Iv, the Property Clause.

There Are Several Important Things We Need to Know Here. First of All,
the the Authority Is

with Congress, and the Congress Can Make All Needful Rules and
Regulations, and Here\'s the

Particular Kicker, Property of the United States, And They Have the
Authority over That. Okay?

What\'s Important to Point out Here Is What We Get from the Property
Clause Is Essentially The

Authority of a Property Owner. In Law Enforcement Business That\'s Known
as Proprietary

Jurisdiction. We Have All the Rights of a Property Owner to Enforce Our
Laws and Our

Regulations on Those Lands. At the Same Time, in Proprietary
Jurisdiction, the State and Local

Government Has the Same Measure of Authority over Those Lands as They Do
All the Other

Lands of the State. So They May Also Enforce Their Laws and Regulations
on the Land. The

Kicker Is That the Constitution States in the Supremacy Clause When
There Is a Conflict

Between the Laws, the Federal Government Is Supreme. For Those of You as
Matt Would Put it

Want a Good Read, You Might Want to Read the Decision That Came out of
United States

Versus Nye County Because You Will Find the Principle of the Supreme Cy
Clause Played out in

That Case and the Bureau of Land Management Does Have the Authority to
Enforce the

Regulations That Relate to Public Lands and Resources. One of the
Needful Rules and

Regulations That Congress Came Up with to Manage the Public Lands as You
All Know Is the

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. We Saw a Few Faxes
Earlier in The Session

That Were Sort of Grumbling about Our Comment That We Made on the First
Day about Law

Enforcement Being a Last Resort, and There May Be Some of You out There
That Are Thinking

Well We Just Invented this Phrase to Perhaps Be an Obstacle Or Perhaps
Give You a Hard Time.

However, I Want You to Know That We, Indeed, Did Not Invent this
Particular Concept. What

I\'m Showing to You Now Is a Direct Quotation out of the Legislative
History of the Flpma. This

Came from the Conference Committee Between the Senate and The House in
1976 That Came up

With the Final Version of the Particular Act. Now, Law Enforcement
Authority For the Bureau of

Land Management Was an Extremely Hotly Debated Issue. There Was
Accusations That the

Federal Government Was Now Setting up a Police Force That Was Going to
Bring down the Law

Of the Land and the Authority of The Federal Government on All of Our
Public Land Users, and

There Was a Great Deal of Hype about It and the Committee Did, Indeed,
Put Forth Some Policy

For Us to Understand. Basically Criminal Prosecutions And Penalties
Should Be, and Remember,

it Says Should Be, Doesn\'t Say must Be, Remedies of Last Resort.
Emphasis Should Be Given to

the Dissemination of Information and The Creation of a Law Enforcement
Presence That Will

Advise the Public and Administrative Resolutions Rather than Prosecution
in the Courts. That

Doesn\'t Necessarily Say That the Last Resort Cannot Sometimes Be the
First Resort, And it

Doesn\'t Necessarily Say That the Last Resort Won\'t Occur Fairly
Quickly, and I\'ll Talk About

Examples of That as We Move along Here. Now, the Committee Went on to
Sort of Give Us

Some Objectives For What We\'re Supposed to Do in Law Enforcement and
There\'s Always a

Great Deal of Debate Is Law Enforcement Really Meant to Enforce Mining
Law, Really Meant

To Enforce Grazing Regulations? I Think Certainly the Committee Has
Encapsulated That When

They Say the Committee Expects the Secretary Will Use, Will Use, His Law
Enforcement

Authority. Now, it Doesn\'t Say Will Use His Law Enforcement Authority
for Just Recreation or

Except When It\'s Dealing with Mining Claims. It Says the Secretary
Will, Indeed, Use That, and

the Objective of this Is Basically Protection of Public Resources And
There\'s That Public Safety

Phrase. Now, I Want to Point out That in The Actual Statute You Won\'t
Find the Phrase \"Public

Safety,\" However, from the Legislative History We Have What\'s Called
The Spirit of the Law,

That the Committee, Did, Indeed, Intend For Us to Have a Responsibility
For Public Safety on

the Public Lands, and We Need to Keep That In Mind as We Go along. Now,
I Want to Say That

My Experience in Law Enforcement With That Last Resort Concept Before I
Go on Here for a

Minute Really Falls into the Category That When I Got Involved in Mining
Claim Occupancy,

One of Three Things Was Occurring, Either We Had Very Overt Signs Of
Criminality, in Other

Words, They Were Violating Other Federal Laws and Regulations, Or, Two,
They Were Failing

to Comply with an Order That We Had Issued, or They Were Refuse to Go
Comply with That

Order. And I Think Certainly the Congress Did Intend Us to Have Our Law
Enforcement

Authority in Order to Make Certain That We Did, Indeed, Assure
Compliance With the Federal

Laws and Regulations. Now, the Federal Law Enforcement ‑‑ Excuse Me, the
Federal Land

Policy and Management Act in the Enforcement Section, in Section 303,
and this Is Something

We Law Enforcement Officers Pay a Lot of Attention To, but Maybe Not
Everybody Else Does,

Briefly Provides Several Things. It Does Provide for Regulations That
Have Criminal Penalties,

And it Says Basically That Any Person Who Violates, Who Knowingly and
Willfully Violates,

These Regulations Can, Indeed, Be Held Criminally Liable or Criminally
Responsible For That

Act. Now, it ‑‑ it Says Specifically Any Person. That Doesn\'t Say Any
Person Except Miners or

Any Person Except Ranchers. It Says Any Person Who Knowingly And
Willfully Violates. The

Act Also Says That at the Request of the Secretary, the Attorney General
May Institute Civil

Actions for Injunctive Relief And/or Claim Collection And I Will Talk
about Civil Procedure in a

Few Minutes. It Also Gives the Secretary the Authority to Designate Law
Enforcement Officers

and in the Bureau of Land Management, Your Law Enforcement Officers Are
Your Criminal

Investigators and Law Enforcement Rangers. The Act Provides What Their
Responsibilities Are.

Each of These Officers Has the Authority to Carry Firearms, Has The
Authority to Make Arrests

And Has the Authority to Conduct Necessary Search and Seizure Actions
Related to the Law

Enforcement Function. The Act Also Says That Nothing In this Act Shall
Be Construed As

Reducing or Limiting the Enforcement Authority Vested in The Secretary
by Any Other Statute.

What That Simply Means Is That All Other Federal Laws Do Apply On the
Public Lands as They

Relate to the Resources. And it Closes Off, and this Is The Phrase
That\'s Amplified in The 2920

Regulations and to Some Degree What We\'re Doing in 3715, The Use,
Occupancy or

Development of Any Portion of The Public Lands Contrary to Any
Regulation of the Secretary or

Other Responsible Authority or Contrary to Any Order Is Unlawful and
Prohibited. The Statute Is

Fairly Clear That It Intends to Bring to Bear this Enforcement Authority
Should People Either

Fail to Comply or Refuse to Comply. Now, Before I Move onto the Specific
Three Aspects of

Enforcement, I Want to Give You A Few Helpful Hints about Making Visits
out There.

Especially Those of You That Are Not Law Enforcement Officers and
There\'s a Few Techniques

I Want To Share with You That Hopefully Will Make You Safe. If I Could
Bring up Slide

Number 181, I Want to Say That this Most Probably May Be the Welcome
Wagon to Your Site

Visit for the Enforcement of 3715 Regulations. I Want You to Know That
You Have Some

Rights Here, and the First Right You Have Is to a Safe and Healthy Work
Environment. What

That Means Basically on This Site Visit Is If You Encounter Something
like This, We Ask That

You Please Stay in Your Vehicle until You\'ve Got Ahold of the Operator
and Had All Dogs

Leashed or Other Hazards Eliminated Before You Exit. So Keep in Mind
What You See as You

Approach the Site. Now, If You Pull up to the Site And the Person You
Intend to Contact

Appears to Be Not Acting Quite Normal, Could Be under the Influence of
Alcohol, Could Be

Under the Influence of Drugs, Isn\'t Quite Comprehending What You Have
to Say, My Advice to

You Is to Come Back Another Day And Hopefully Make an Appointment to See
That Person

Later, Because, Number One, When A Person\'s in That State, They May
Commit Themselves to

Some Behavior That They Don\'t Ordinarily Do and Number Two, They\'re
Probably Not Going to

Listen to Anything You Said Nor Remember it Later, Probably Even
Including the Appointment.

Now, If You Also Show up at the Site and There Is a Large Crowd Of
People There Because

They\'re All There in Support of this Person\'s Cause Against the BLM,
You Need to Avoid

Persons That Are Extremely Argumentative, Especially to the Point of
Losing Their Temper. If

the Crowd Is Too Hostile, Again, Return Another Day, Perhaps Invite Your
Law Enforcement

Ranger to Come with You. Now, If You Do, Indeed, Need to Make That
Contact in That Crowd

Situation, the Important Principle Is Find the Person Who Is Really
Responsible. Separate Them

from the Crowd. Have Their Conversation with Only Them and Try to Avoid
Side Conversations

with Other People. Now, I Started out by Talking a Little Bit about the
Constitutionalist

Challenges. Another Thing You May, Indeed, Encounter Is Somebody Is
Going To Challenge

Your Authority When You Arrive on Site. Now, You Have Some Rights in
This Particular

Situation and So Do They. First of All, They Have the Right to Know That
They Are, Indeed,

Dealing with the Bureau Of Land Management. Now, If You\'re Not Wearing
a Uniform or Not

Driving a Vehicle With the Decal on It, Chances Are They Might Want to
See Your

Identification. We All Are Familiar with the Department of Interior\'s
Official Identification Card,

And I Want to Say That this Is The Only Identification That You Need to
Provide Them in Terms

of Your Official Presence There. You Do Not Have to Provide Your Private
Driver\'s License.

That\'s a Privacy Information You Have a Right to Privacy over. You Do
Not Have to Give Them

Your Home Address or Your Home Telephone Number or Any Other Privacy
Information. You

Are There on Behalf of the United States Government, and This Is an
Official Visit, and This

Would Be the Only Thing You\'re Obligated to Show Them. Now, Unfitchly,
When this Card Was

Designed ‑‑ Unfortunately When this Card Was Designed, it Included a
Place in the Corner For

Social Security Number. Social Security Number Is Another Thing That You
Have the Right to

Privacy over. Recently We\'ve Issued an Instruction Memorandum That
Allows for Your Clerks

That Are Typing up These Particular Items To Keep That Section Blank.
Now, the Reason We\'re

Doing this Is Not Only to Protect Your Privacy, but We Have Had Some
Known Cases Where

Constitutionalists Have the Habit of Wanting to Use Your Social Security
Number, Send it To the

Irs with a Report of False Income, in Order to Trigger an Audit Against
You, And this Can Cause

You a Great Deal of Personal Grief. So We Want to Assure That Your
Social Security Number Is

Your Own Privacy Information. You Don\'t Have to Provide That To the
Persons You\'re Making

Contact with.

Dennis, a Question. Should That Occur, Doesn\'t That Qualify as a False
Statement to The

Federal Government and Would We upon Discovering That Refer That to the
U.s. Attorney\'s

Office?

We Certainly Should, Rick. However, It\'s Going to Be a Long Time Before
It\'s Discovered

Because Basically it May Trigger The Audit, the Audit May, Indeed Begin
to Take Place and

That\'s Going to Be the Moment When We Wonder, Why Is this Happening to
Me? And as We

Uncover Those Sort of Things, That\'s Something We Need To Keep in Mind.

Now, People May Encounter Reluctance at Their Home Offices To Have a
Government Id Card

Filled out Without the Social Security Number Because Many People Look
at a Form and Feel

They Ought to Fill in Every Possible Plank. We Look for a Copy of the Im
and It Seems to Have

Gone into Never, Never Land, but Dennis I\'m Sure You Have a Copy and If
People Have a

Question, Are You Willing to Send a Copy to Them?

Certainly. Anybody Can Call Our National Office in Boise, and We Can
Obtain a Copy of That

for Them.

That\'s Good. If I Could Have Slide 182 Up, Please. Now, One Thing That
We Always

Encounter Quite Frequently on The Public Lands Are Firearms, And I Want
to Start out by

Saying the Bureau of Land Management Has No Regulation in Itself That
Prohibits the

Possession of Legally Obtained And Legally Possessed Firearms. Firearms,
as Long as They Are

Legal in Themselves, Are Allowed To Be Possessed on the Public Lands.
The Difference Comes

in as to What They\'re Used for. Now, If You\'re Making Your Site Visit
and People Have Visible

Firearms on Them, Sort of Acting In an Intimidating Manner, Our Advice
to You Is to Return

Again On Another Day and Perhaps Visited the Site with Your Law
Enforcement Officer.

Another Helpful Hint Here Is That Firearms Are Kept by Most People on
the Public Lands Either

in Their Vehicle or in Their Home or Residence or Building. If You\'re
Having a Conversation

With Somebody and They Say, Hey, I Need to Go to My Residence to Get
Something or I Need

to Go to My Vehicle to Get Something, I\'m Not Saying They\'re Going
over There to Get a

Firearm, but I\'m Saying You Need to Be Aware of That. So If They Go in
Their Building,

Vehicle, Sort of Move Your Way In a Nonchalant Way Back to Your Vehicle,
Get in Your

Vehicle, Which Is a Safe Place for You to Be, And/or Stand Behind Your
Vehicle Where You

Have Some Degree of Cover Should They Come Out with Something a Little
More Threatening

than a Piece of Paper. We Ask That You Keep That in Mind. Now, If You
Make the Visit with

The Law Enforcement Officer, I Want You to Know That under Case Law
Called Terry Versus

Ohio, Law Enforcement Officers Have an Inherent Right to Keep Things
Safe. In That Particular

Right, They May, Indeed, Seize a Firearm During the Course of the
Conversation Should They

Have a Fear for Your Safety or Their Safety, and They May Possess That
Firearm During the

Conversation until the Conversation Is over. If the Firearm Is Something
That The Person Is

Allowed to Legally Possess, the Law Enforcement Officer Can Return That
to Them When the

Visit Is over. So If You Are Expecting Those Kind of Hostilities,
Certainly We Invite You to

Work with Your Law Enforcement Ranger on Maybe Nullifying Some of That.

I Would Also like to Encourage People to Work Closely With Law
Enforcement Rangers

Whenever They Possibly Can. Back in the Dark Ages When I Was An Area
Geologist in

California I Used to Do Social Visits to Mines, Mine Operators and
Occupancies, Where I Would

Bring The Ranger along. Actualryly They Would Drive in The Ranger Truck
and I Would Ride.

The Purpose of the Visit Was to Make Deductions. I Would Introduce the
Ranger to The

Operator and Say this Is the Ranger Who Patrols Your Area. I Would like
to You Meet Them.

What That Message That They Were Getting from Me Was Is That We\'re
Serious, We Mean

Business, We\'re for Real, and We\'re Not to Be Trifled with. And in
Three Quarters of the Cases,

That Did the Trick. It\'s a Very Powerful Tool and It\'s Nonthreatening
If You Make It a Social

Visit on the First Trip.

Now I Want to Talk about the Kind of Things That Can Immediately Cancel
out That Last

Resort Philosophy. If There Are Signs of Immediate Criminality and What
I\'m Talking About

Here, There Are a Lot of Federal Laws That Don\'t Necessarily Have That
Knowing And Willful

Threshold, it Basically Says Any Person Who Violates and There\'s Also a
Lot Of Other Things

the Person Should Obviously Know Are Illegal in Themselves, the First
Thing I Want to Point out

If I Can Bring up Slide 183, We\'ve Talked a Great Deal about Vegetable
Gardens and There Is

One Vegetable Garden That We Will Not Tolerate and That\'s the
Cultivation of Marijuana. That

Has, Indeed, Occurred on a Number of Mining Claims Throughout the
Western United States. I

Just Want to Give You a Word Of Caution. If You Work in Heavy Vegetated
Areas That Have

Fairly Reliable Sources of Water, Chances Are Your Mining Claims Could,
Indeed, Have

Something like this Going On.

Dennis, We\'ve Had a Number of Questions Asking Us over the Last Couple
of Days Are

Surface Use Determinations Required in Every Instance Where You\'re
Going to File an Action

Against A Mining Claim? Well, this Is Not a Mining Issue Shown on the
Slide. This Is a Criminal

Issue. You Don\'t Really Need a Surface Use Determination If the Mine
Operator or the Occupant

Is Growing Marijuana.

Certainly, Matt, and I\'m Probably Not Even Going to Ask Somebody
Whether this Is

Reasonably Incident, Too.

Pretty Unlikely.

the Kinds of Things to Be Aware of Visiting the Site That May Indicate
That Marijuana Is

There, Maybe Unbeknownst to You, If There Is like Water Pipes Lead to Go
Nowhere or Not

Lead To Go Something That Would Be a Mineralized Area, If the Site
Appears to Be

Overguarded with Rather Large Dogs, Vicious Dogs, People in Camouflage
Clothing With Semi

Automatic Weapons, These Are Good Signs Something Is Going on There
Besides Mining,

Especially If There Is No Gold Bullion Laying out on The Ground. You
Might Also Keep in Mind

Herbicide and Pesticide Containers Are a Sign of This, As Well as
Certain Other Fertilizers,

Stockpiled Chicken Wire, Other Materials That May Relate More to a
Marijuana Cultivation Site

than a Mineral Development. The next Thing I Want to Talk About That Is
Definitely a Danger to

Your Health and Safety Is Drug Laboratories. We Have Had Mining Claims
That Have Been

Used for Drug Labs Tories. The First Thing You\'re Going to Notice If
Drug Laboratory Activity

Is Going on Is Probably Strong Chemical Odors Emitted From the Building
or the Place Where

this Is Going On. We like to Say it Smells like Ether, but That\'s like
Saying Rattlesnake Tastes Lie

Chicken. Matt Tells Me Ether Smells a Lot Like Starter ‑‑

the Active Ingredient in the Starting Fluids We Use in Spring When We
Want to Start Our Lawn

Mower for the First Time Is Actually Ether.

a Strong Unusual Chemical Odor Is a Sure Tip There Is Something Going on
There Probably

Besides Mineral Extraction. You Might Also See Very Unusual Laboratory
Equipment, Rather

Large Flasks and Beakers and Other Things Used in Conjunction With
Heaters That Heat Certain

Liquids to Make the Particular Drugs. And Some of the Typical Chemical
Containers You Will

Find Is Hydrochloric Acid, Red Phosphorous and a Lot of Used Empty Ether
Canisters Strewn

About. If You See These Kinds of Things, You\'ve Probably Got a Drug
Activity Going on There,

a Drug Laboratory and Our Advice To You Is Get out of the Site
Immediately and Notify Your

Law Enforcement Officer Because If You Can Smell Those Fumes, You May
Already Be in

Some Degree of Danger in Terms of Your Own Personal Health. So Keep in
That Mind in Your

Particular Inspections. If I Could Bring up Slide 184. Now, If You Find
Explosives Such As this

One Laying About, I Don\'t Think That this Is the Typical Kind of
Explosive a Miner Would Use

for Mineral Extraction. This Is What\'s Known as a Pipe Bomb, and
You\'ve Heard about it

Recently in the Olympics Affair And Other Places Where Pipe Bombs Are
Being Used. A Pipe

Bomb Is Designed Basically for One Purpose and That\'s to Hurt or Kill
Human Beings. The Pipe

Fragments, Sometimes They Stuff it with Nails. It\'s Basically Designed
to Harm Other People.

This Is Not Something That You\'re Going to See in a Kip Cull Mineral
Extraction Operation. If

You See These Sort of Things Coupled with Maybe a Lot of Firearms
Present, Maybe Even

Military Ordnance and Hand Grenades You Know You Have Something Going on
Besides

Mining and I Want to Make That Clear That Those Are Definitely Uses Not
Reasonably Incident

to And Should Be Moved on Pretty Quickly.

When You Encounter Things Like That, You Don\'t Have a Mining Issue, You
Have a Law

Enforcement Issue. Don\'t Spend Any More Time than It Takes to Figure
out There Is Something

Dreadfully Wrong and Leave. Don\'t Worry about Mapping It. Don\'t Worry
about Inventorying.

Get out and Talk to Law Enforcement.

Now, in These New Regulations We\'ve Specifically Codified a Prohibited
Act Called

Obstructing Free Passage or Transit by Force, Threat or Intimidation.
Now, a Lot of People May

Think That We Came One a New Concept Here. However, That Comes Straight
out Of the

Unlawful Enclosures Act Which Has Been Around for Almost 100 Years. This
Is, Indeed, an

Illegal Act ‑‑

Actually, Dennis, It\'s More Like 115 Years Old.

It\'s Quite Old. I Had One Occasion Where I Wrote A Warning for That and
the Mining Operator

Asked Me, He Said, When Did You Start this New Law? And I Said, Quite a
While Ago.

Yes.

So You Need to Be Aware That If Somebody Is Doing That and You Can
Definitely Articulate

or Put Together the Evidence That They Have, in ‑‑ Articulate That You
Have Used Force,

Threatened, Intimidation, from Witness Statements, Complaints from
Citizens, this Is Can Go

Something Can That Cause the Last Resort to Become the First Resort
Right Away Because We

Have an Immediate Public Safety Concern We Need to Take Care Of. Another
Loose Category in

the Regs Is Causing a Fire, a Hazard Or a Nuisance. If Someone Causes a
Fire, Number One, If

They Intentionally Set It, That\'s an Act of Arson and That Needs to Be
Dealt with as a Criminal

Act. Number Two, If They Make a Mistake and a Fire Gets out of Hand and
Burns up a Bunch of

Public Lands, That\'s Still an Act of Carelessness and Still Can Be
Addressed from a Criminal

Standpoint and We Still Need to Approach it in That Particular Way. When
it Comes to Hazards

and Nuisance, I Have a Few Special Notes to Share with You Here.
Basically a Nuisance Is

Apparent When a Person Is Conducting Activities That Tend to Obstruct,
Interfere With, Annoy

Or Discomfort Other Members of The Public. A Nuisance Could Also Be an
Act Prejudicial to

Public Morals or Dangerous to Life or Injurious To Public Rights and
Resources. But We\'re

Asking That If You Are Going to Make a Case on this and It\'s Going to
Make That Last Resort

Become First Resort That You Have a Documented Administrative Record
That Clearly

Illustrates this. In Other Words, the Harm to the Public Should Be Real
Rather Than Predicted.

Again, the Best Evidence You\'d Have for this Is Citizens\' Complaints,
Perhaps Reports and

Complaints That You Received From the Sheriff\'s Department, The
Building and Safety

Department or Other Outfits That Are Going to Tell You There\'s
Definitely a Hazard out There

or There\'s Definitely a Nuisance Going on and We Talked a Little Bit
about the Other Day That

When, in Fact, the Building and Safety People of the Local County
Aren\'t Willing to Enforce

Their Regulations, That If it Is Clearly a Hazard or a Nuisance, And We
Can Document That,

Then We Can Proceed under 3715 in Order to Enforce That Particular Mesh
Are. ‑‑ Measure.

Now, When Your Law Enforcement Officer Comes with You, or If The Law
Enforcement

Officer Makes a Visit to the Site Themselves, They\'re Going to Take a
Little Bit Different Tact

Than Perhaps You Because Your Law Enforcement Officer Is Not
Particularly Going to Be That

Concerned about Reasonably Incident to or Whether Something Is
Unnecessary or Unnecessary

Undue Degradation. They Are Going to Depend upon You to Tell Them When
Those Things Are

Apparent. But When They Visit the Site, They\'re Going to Immediately
Start Probably Identifying

People, Identifying the Vehicles That Are Present and the Other Property
That\'s Present There So

That They Can Start Their Own Documentary Track Record Here. What I Want
to Point out

Here Is That in Their Patrol Log, Which They\'re All Required to Keep,
It\'s Sort of a Record of

Their Daily Activities and Because We Law Enforcement Officers Contact
So Many People in

Such Short Spans of Time, If We Don\'t Write It Down, Chances Are We\'re
Not Going to

Remember the Conversation We Had with That Person or Who it Was We Were
Talking about.

You Have a Copy of this Patrol Log Form in Your Handouts And It\'s in
Section L. In Fact,

Most of What Dennis Is Going over Can Be Found in Section L. The Slides
Aren\'t There, but the

Other Visuals Are.

They\'re Basically Going to Make an Entry for the Time of Day They Were
There. They\'re Going

to Identify the Location. There\'s a Lot of Things Here That Relate to
Their Management Aspects.

They\'re Going to Enter Their Action Code Here That Has to Do With
Whether or Not They

Issued Any Written Warnings, Any Citations, Made Any Arrests and Those
Are Going to Sort of

Come Later When We Talk about That. In the Observation Area, They Will
Probably Make

Entries That Relate to the Information They Are Gathering. Law
Enforcement Officers Can, in

Deed, When They Have a Burden of Proof Calderoneable Suspicion Can
Indeed Request Person\'s

Identifications, They Can Identify All the Vehicles Present There and
Start Itemizing What\'s

Going On. In There They Will Write Things Like, I Made Comment with Joe
And His Driver

License Number Is 830689, Whatever it Is, Looked At Arizona Plates
459‑xlt. They\'re Going to

Write down All The Different License Numbers in There. They Will Sort of
Record Who Is There

and What\'s Going on at That Particular Time They Made That Particular
Visit, and These Go on

File in the Resource Area Office and Become a Documented Record or
Documented History as

To What\'s Going on out There and What Kind of Activities They Were
Participating In. Now,

While They\'re There They May, Indeed, Come Across Certain Violations.
They May, Indeed,

Already See That Something Is Going on That Shouldn\'t Be Going On. And
the First Thing That

They\'re Going to Want to Do Is Document With this Particular Operator
or This Particular

Person What Violations Are Being Committed And Basically Let Them Know
That The next

Time We See Them, These Could, Indeed, Be Considered Knowing and Willful
Violations. In this

Basically They\'re Going To Issue ‑‑ If They Don\'t Have What They Need
to Issue a Citation,

They Will Probably Issue a Warning Notice, and in The Warning Notice
They\'re Going To

Identify the Things That Are Happening out There. They Might Identify
3715.6j, Which Is Uses

Not Reasonably Connected to Mining and Milling. They Might Even Go over
to 2920 And in

Here I\'m Talking about 29201‑2 (E) Which Is Basically No Person Shall
Knowing Lil and

Willfully Violate the 2920 Regulations. It Was Referred to with the Buzz
Word Unauthorized

Use. Then They Might Go to a Specific Code Section That Deals with a
Specific Violation Such

as this One Which Has to Do with Trash Dumping. Okay? They Are Going to
Identify Those

Things Already Right up Front With this Particular Person and Probably
Tell Them, You Need to

Clean up Your Act Before I Come Back Here Again, Because When I Come
Back Here Again,

this May Indeed Be a Knowing and Willful Violation. I Want to Point out
What\'s at The Bottom

of the Form Here. We Basically Let Them Know at The Bottom of the Form
That this Is Not a

Citation and No Court Appearance Is Required. It\'s Basically a Courtesy
to Them. We Are Going

to Assume on this First Visit They Didn\'t Know That They Weren\'t
Allowed to Do Those Things

and in Order to Document in the Future That They Did Know That These
Things Were

Violations, We\'re Going to Issue A Written Warning and Let Them Know
What\'s Going on

There. Now, Before I Move On, I Want to Talk about Some Things That Came
Up over the past

Couple of Days About What Gives Us the Authority to Go out There and
Inspect. I Want to

Reiterate a Fact Here That Even Though We Put in the 3715 Specific
Authority for You To

Inspect These Mining Claims That We Didn\'t Really Need to Do That. I
Want to Make the Point

That The Public Lands Are, Indeed, Public, and That\'s Exactly What They
Are. Not Only Does

the Public Have a Right of Access, but We as Bureau of Land Management
Certainly Have

Administrative Responsibilities to Be Anywhere We Need to Be to Carry
out Our Duties on the

Public Lands. So Public Lands Are Public. We, Indeed, Can Go There. We
Talked a Little Bit

about the Citizens\' Right to Privacy and That\'s about the Aspects of
Inspection, Especially If They

Turn into a Search and Seizure Situation. We Talked about Residential
Buildings. When a

Residential Occupancy Has Been Authorized or When a Resident Is
Demonstrating with Closed

Doors, Locks or Signs an Expectation of Privacy, Those Residential
Structures Should Not Be

Inspected Without the Resident\'s Consent or Without a Search Warrant or
Other Order of The

Court.

Dennis We Have about Five Minutes Before Our Scheduled Break. Do You
Want to Stop in

Five Minutes and Pick this up after The Break or Move ‑‑ Push the Break
Back a Little Bit?

Let Me Just Finish with These Legal Aspects of Searches and Then I\'ve
Got an Excellent

Breaking Point.

Excellent. Let\'s Do That.

So We\'re Basically Saying You Can\'t Go in a Residential Structure to
Inspect If They Don\'t

Want You To. Your Law Enforcement Officers Know What the Exceptions Are
to Search

Warrant Rules. They Also Are Very Familiar with What Is Required to Get
a Search Warrant.

Even Our Law Enforcement Officers Have to Have a Valid Reason to Go in
There. They Have to

Have Probable Cause That There\'s Evidence Contained In That Building,
and They Have To Be

Able to Illustrate Before The Legal End, the Judiciary Branch That They
Indeed Have Probable

Cause Before a Search Warrant Issues. There Are Exceptions to the Search
Warrant

Requirement. I Won\'t Go into Those. You Can Contact Your Law
Enforcement Officer If You

Need To Know What the Exceptions to a Search Happen to Be. But When it
Comes to Those

Nonresidential Areas, the Land In and Around the Residential Structure,
There Is No Reasonable

Expectation of Privacy on the Public Lands. As We Said Yesterday, You
Can, Indeed, Peek in the

Windows. In Fact, in Peeking in the Windows, If a Law Enforcement
Officer Peeks in the

Windows and Sees an Item of Evidence in Plain View, Such as a Small
Marijuana ‑‑ Indoor

Marijuana Grow, That, Indeed, Can Lead to The Probable Cause We Need for
a Search Warrant

or Can Lead to Possibly Some of the Exceptions For for the Search
Warrant Requirement. Now

I\'m at a Good Breaking Point.

Well, Good. I Think this Is a Good Time for Our Final Morning Break.
When We Return in 10

Minutes, Dennis Will Finish up with His Civil and Criminal Approaches.

Welcome Back. We\'ll Return to Inspection and Enforcement in Just a
Moment, But We Have a

Couple of Small Irrelevant Matters and Then a Couple of Fairly Large
Relevant Matters to Deal

with. We Have a Necktie Vote in from Las Cruces District. We Have One
Vote, Mclane, Three

Votes Deery and 6 Votes Shumaker. Apparently Dillebert Takes the Day
Today. And the

Montana State Office With Thanks to Glen States That All Agree That the
BLM Uniform Tie Is

the Worst. I Have a Couple of Questions in That We Want to Deal with
Right Away, and Then

We\'ll Get Right Back to It. One Comes in from California and That Is
Why Are We Taking the

Stand of Authorizing Nonworking Claims under Any Regulation or Rule? If
They\'re Not Maining

and in Compliance, or at Least Working Towards Compliance, We Should Be
Moving Them off

Public Lands Before the Site Gets Really Bad. Why Is There a Grace
Period? We\'re Not

Advocating Authorizing Or Legitimizing Nonoperational, Nonworking
Nonreasonably Incident

Claims, Not at All! And the Grace Period Isn\'t a Year in Which We Take
a Nap. The Grace

Period Is When We Go And Find These Things and Whenever Possible Work
with the Claimant

to Get Them Either into Compliance and Operating or off The Public Land.
Rick?

the Other Thing That\'s Important to Know or to Keep in Mind about the
Grace Period Is It Is

the Time When You Get Your Ducks in a Row. You Get Your Documents Ready.
You Get All

of Your Case Files Ready, and If You Have a Bad Case, Then the Day after
the Grace Period

Ends, You\'re Ready To Move, and That\'s the Thing to Keep in Mind. The
Grace Period Is a Time

to Do Some Thinking, Some Planning and Some Working. There\'s an Old
Statement about The

Six P\'s That Can That I Can\'t Restate Here from Ol\' First Sergeant
Davis and it Is This Time That

We Take Care of The Six P\'s. Keep That in Mind.

Great. Another Question Comes in from California Also. Rick, I\'ll Just
Drop this One in Your

Lap.

What If a Claimant Does Not Comply and We\'re Forced to Arrest Him or
Her, Thank You, And

We Take it to the Magistrate? He/she Demands a Jury Trial. We Then Ask
the U.s. Attorney To

Take the Case and Because He Does Not Feel That It\'s a Big Deal He
Won\'t Take the Case.

Aren\'t We in the Same Boat as Before the 3715 Regulations? Well, Okay,
I\'d Have to Agree With

That. Also, Are We Going to Ask for a Legislative Change? I\'m Going to
Take the First One. If

the Magistrate Says ‑‑ If it Goes up to the Magistrate, Heads For a Jury
Trial, and the Ausa

Doesn\'t Take it and We Don\'t Get A Report on That at Headquarters,
Then the Same Thing That

Bob Gibson Said Earlier Applies Here\... If it Isn\'t Recorded, it
Didn\'t Happen. For Us to Take

Management Actions at the Headquarters Level or to Come up with Some
Kind of Solution, We

Need Names, Dates, Times, Places the Number Of Occurrences and the
Probable Cost in Tolls

and Fte That We Would Have to Come up with to Get to a Solution, and So
the Answer Is,

Yeah, There Are a Lot Of Things That Are out There That Are Not Part and
Parcel of Our

Control. We Need to Know about Those, Too, So We Can Try to Figure out
Solutions. As to the

Second Question about Asking for a Legislative Change, The Answer Is a
Cat Gorecally

Expressed Absolutely Not! Given the Tone, Given the 10 Or, We Could Go
up and Ask for a

Legislative Change in Flpma and We Could See an Outcome That Could Lose
Us Law

Enforcement Penalties or Law Enforcement Authority Entirely. This Is an
Issue That the

Department and the Administration Has Said Is Not Going to Go Forward No
Matter How Many

Times it Gets Raised at The Lower‑most Level. So, Get over It. Matt?

Great. Thank You. We\'re Still Getting Questions In. People Are Asking,
Well, If We Get the

Occupancy Form In, Does That Mean We Stop All Actions Against Them?
Rick?

it Depends on the Kinds of Actions. Are We at a Point Where We Have
Gotten Together with

the State And Deq Has Said, You Know, We\'ve Got Enough Violations We
Can Proceed? Well,

of Course. If the County Comes in and Says, You Know, We Find a
Violation, Then They Can

Proceed. Remember, We\'re Dealing with the Sum Total of the Universe. We
Are a Partial Player

in That Universe. As Dennis Has Pointed Out, If You Go out and Find
Evidence of Absolute

Criminality, You\'re Sure Going to Take Actions Against Him, Period.
Scott Has Put a Question

in Front of Me. Deq? That\'s the Department of Environmental Quality. I
Came out of Wyoming,

and They Were a Pretty Useful Set of Folks to Turn to When There Was No
Remaining

Enforcement Authority. One of the Other Sets of Folks, The County
Sheriff May Have a Beef

with a Mining Claimant That May Arise under State or County Ordinance.
So Use Those.

Also the Regulations Themselves Are Pretty Clear. If You Have a Pending
Trespass Action

Against an Occupant on a Mining Claim, the Simple Act of Them Filing the
Form Doesn\'t Mean

You Have to Stop Cold.

the Only Time That You Stop Cold Is Making a Reasonable Incident
Determination to

Somebody Who Does Not, One, Have The Notice of Trespass Formally Filed
Against Them Or,

Two, Is Subject to the Immediate Cease And Desist. That Is the Standard
of Not Reasonably

Incident and a Threat To Health, Safety and the Environment. During this
Period, We\'re Going

To Go over and Deal with Those Problems That Have Risen to the Top, Have
Floated to the

Surface, and We Knew Before the Date of the Regs That Were a Problem.
Those Are the Ones

We\'re Going To Focus Our Attention on Outside of the Grace Period. All
the Rest, Well, We\'ll

Line Them up in Accordance to What We Have Available to Us and Which
Ones We Think We

Ought to Move On First. Dennis, Do You Have Anything You Want to Add?

No.

Okay. We Have a Couple of Questions In. They\'re from Different
Locations. One from Redding

and One from Coeur D\'alene. I\'ll Read the One That Puts it Most
Succinctly and I Think We May

Want to Address this to Dennis and Rick. What about the Court Decision
We Were Told about

Last Year, Which I Think May Be in Hawaii, Which If I\'m Right Said ‑‑
No, Not in Hawaii ‑‑ in

Violation of a Regulation like Exceeding the Camping Limit or Whatever,
That Person, the

Trespasser, Has No Expectation of Privacy in a Residency and We Can
Enter in And Inspect. Is

That Coming Up?

I Have a Question Here I Was Intending to Cover That as Well.

We Have Three of Them Now. So, Dennis, Let\'s Go Back to Dennis and
Maybe We Can Deal

With That.

I Want to Point out in the Time We\'re Given, There Is No Possible Way I
Can Discuss with You

All Possible Legal Aspects Of Searches and Seizures, and That\'s Why I
Really like to Defer You

and Defer You to Ask Those Questions Specifically of Your Law
Enforcement Officer, But I Will

Get into That Particular Case in a Moment as I Answer this Question.
This Question Is, What

about the Curtilage, and I Will Explain in That a Minute, Around
Residents Around Mine Sites.

Does a Curtelage If the Residences Is on a Mine Claim. If it Exists, We
Probably Could Not Look

in the Windows Except If We Were in Open Fields. Their Assumption Is
Correct. If It\'s Exists,

We Could Probably Not Look in the Windows. Unfortunately, There Is No
Definitive Case Law

That Says That There Is No Curtelage on Public Lands, However, Inquiries
With the Justice

Department Is This, Public Lands Are Public, Not Private, Therefore,
There Is No Curtladies and

Gentlemen. Some of You Want to Know Does it Have Something to Do with
Cottage Cheese or

What? It\'s Described in Case Law as The Immediate Area Surrounding a
Person\'s Residence. The

Best Example Would Be a City Block. If a Person Lives on a City Block
That\'s Fenced All the

Way Around Their Yard and Their House Is in the Center, and Their Garage
Is off to the Side,

Everything Within Their Fence, Including the Garage and the House Is
Their Curtelage and They

Have a Right to Privacy in That Particular Area. Expanding That to
Another Private Land

Example, You Have The Example of a Farm. You Have a Farmhouse in the
Middle of 400 Acres.

Now, the Farmhouse Itself and Any of the Outbuildings Around It Could Be
Considered

Curtelage, However, All the Fields Surrounding it Would Be Considered
under a Doctrine Called

Open Fields and Would Be Considered Open Fields, Meaning That Law
Enforcement Officers

Could, Indeed, Enter upon the Open Fields to the Point of Viewing into
the Curtelage or

Residence in Terms of Looking For Evidence, and That\'s Called The Open
Fields Doctrine. The

Discussions We\'ve Had with Justice Department Would Indicate That They
Sort of Consider All

the Public Lands to Be, Quote‑unquote, an Open Field, Because as I Point
out There Is No

Definitive Case Law That States That, So I Am Going To Answer this Just
like a Lawyer, it

Depends.

Dennis, I Think it Would Be Worthwhile Once Again, Two Days Later, for
Us to Requote Part

of The Regulations, and These Are Our Marching Orders to Ourselves. This
Is the Policy That the

Vast Majority of Us Will Be Working Under as We Work in the Field.
Section 3715.7, How Will

BLM Inspect My Use or Occupancy and Enforce this Subpart? A: BLM Field
Staff Is Authorized

to Physically Inspect All Structures, Equipment, Workings and Uses
Located on the Public Lands.

The Inspection May Include Verification of the Nature of Your Use And/or
Occupancy to Ensure

Your Use or Occupancy Is And Continues to Be Reasonably Incident and in
Compliance with

Sections 3715, et Cetera, et Cetera. Can You Read this. It\'s on Page 27
of Your Firsthandout. B:

BLM Will Not Inspect the Inside of Structures Used Solely For
Residential Purposes Unless An

Occupant or a Court of Competent Jurisdiction Gives Permission. We
Don\'t Go In.

Matt, I Would like to Finish This by Two Pieces of Case Law That We Do
Know That Were

Fairly Defensive and I Think One of the Faxes That Came in Was Probably
Pointing Direction at

this Particular Case. It Came out of the 9th Circuit In Utah, and It\'s
Called United States ‑‑

Ruckman Versus the United States. What We Had Was a Trespasser, Not a
Mining Claimant,

That Was Living in a Cave and the Cave Did Not Have a Door on It. It Had
Simply Pieces of

Lumber Piled up at the Entrance. Inside the Cave Were Hand Grenades and
Various Other

Explosives. The Law Enforcement Officers Working the Case, Entered the
Cave, Seized the

Explosives and Ruckman Was Subsequently Prosecuted. When the 9th Circuit
Looked at The

Case They Said a Trespasser, Quote‑unquote, a Trespasser Has No
Reasonable Expectation of

Privacy. Now, We Don\'t Consider this Case As Being Definitive in Saying
a Structure ‑‑

Definitive or Structure We Have Authorized Would Not Have a Reasonable
Expectation of

Privacy. What It\'s Say Something Somebody That Hasn\'t Exerted a
Reasonable Expectation of

Privacy Through a Locked Door and Somebody That Was Clearly a
Trespasser, They Had No

Authority, Even the Mining Law, to Be There, Had No Reasonable
Expectation of Privacy. In

Another Case That Involved a Tent and a Campground, and in That
Particular Case, What the

Courts Found Was That the Person Who Had Leased in ‑‑ in Their Mind
Leased or Rented the

Campsite ‑‑

Dennis, I Think We Can Hold For a Minute. We\'re Having Technical
Difficulties with Our

Satellite Uplink, So We Are Going to Pause For a Moment and If You Still
Can Hear Us, Great,

but We\'ll Be Back. Apparently Some Field Stations Have Lost Audio. We
Don\'t Know If the

Problem Is At Our End or the Satellite End, But We Will Be Back with You
as Soon as We Can.

So Please Stand By.

Welcome Back. Things Had Been Going Altogether Too Well. We\'re Not Sure
If it Was the

Tacky Tie Competition or the Fact It\'s Friday the 13th, but I Think
We\'re Back on the Air Now

And Hope Can You Hear Us. If You Can\'t Hear Us, Just Read Our Lips.
We\'re Not Quite Sure

Where We Fell off At, So We\'re Going to Pick it up Here and Go Back to
Dennis. Remember

That Dennis Is Giving Basically an Overview and When We Start Getting
Questions about

Curtilage, I Think We\'re Getting A Little Bit More Detail than We Have
Time for and We Don\'t

Have A Lot of Time Left as You Might Imagine. We Are All on Groupwise,
So Specific

Questions and Philosophical Legal Arguments by All Means Give Us
Messages on Groupwise.

They\'re a Lot of Fun That Way. The Question We Were Dealing With When
We Went off the Air

Was How Will BLM Inspect Occupancies, Specifically Residential
Occupancies. You May Have

Heard this Before You Went off but You\'re Going to Get it Again and of
Course We\'ll Get These

Tapes out to You So Can You Figure out What Was Lost While We Are Losing
Our Sound

Feed. BLM ‑‑ this Is 37 ‑‑ Section 3715.7 of the Regulations (A) BLM
Field Staff Is Authorized

to Physically Inspect All Structures, Equipment, Workings And Uses
Located on the Public

Lands. The Inspection May Include Verification of the Nature of Your Use
and Occupancy to

Ensure Your Use or Occupancy Is and Continues to Be Reasonably Incident
and in Compliance

with The Regulations. (B) and this Is Important, this Is Our Guidance to
Ourselves, This Is BLM

Telling the Field Staff How They\'re Going to Work. BLM Will Not Inspect
the Inside Of

Structures Used Solely for Residential Purposes Unless an Occupant or a
Court of Competent

Jurisdiction Gives Permission. Period. That\'s Our Policy. We\'re Going
to Stick with It. Dennis?

Thank You, Matt. I Want to Definitely Start Moving Right into
Enforcement Actions, and a Fax

Question Came In Yesterday That Asked about Why Wasn\'t the Flowchart in
Your Handouts on

3715 Including the Criminal Penalties Aspect and That\'s Because That\'s
Flowchart Was Designed

to Only Show Perhaps the Inside BLM Administrative Procedures Related to
3715. I Want to

Assure You There\'s a Lot of Different Actions That Can Go on out There.
What You\'re Going to

Get Is, Once Again, and I Talked about Not Having a Whole Lot of Time
For Detail, this Is ‑‑ the

Rules Of Criminal Procedure and the Rules of Civil Procedure Are Rather
Large and Complex.

There\'s a Lot of Information There, and I Was ‑‑ I Was Just Going to
Show to You How Large

This Book Is. This Is Just the Rules of Civil Procedure. There\'s One
Just like it for Criminal

Procedure, and I Can\'t Go into Possibly All the Detail In the next 50
Minutes or So on This

Particular Aspect, but I\'m Going to Give What I Have Come To Call the
‑‑ Dennis\' Common

Sense Guide.

Dennis, as You Are Just Now Reading, We Bought an Extra 15 Minutes of
Satellite Time into

Lunch. Relax. I Think We Can Handle this.

Okay. You Are Going to Get Sort of My Abbreviated Guide to What\'s Going
on in

Unauthorized Use and Trespass and What I Am Showing To You Here and I
Will Zoom in Some

of the Particular Items, Is The Generic Unauthorized Use and Trespass
Flowchart, in Other

Words, Where Do We Go in Terms Of Our Enforcement Actions on These Three
Things and

How Do We Get from One to the Other or How Do We Stay Just Within One?
And I Want to

Point out Some Differences and Some Other Things That Go on with this
Particular Thing Here.

When We Discover an Unauthorized Use, Generally We\'re Going to End up
Going Through a

Determination of Trespass. We Might Even Have a Notice of Cease or
Desist Warning or a

Warning to the Trespasser, but Along These Lines We Are Going To
Eventually Determine the

Nature of the Trespass, and What I ‑‑ What I Mean by the Nature Of the
Trespass Is, Is this

Trespass Knowing and Willful, or Is it Inadvertent? And We Need to Find
out the True Nature in

Terms of Whether the Person Is Deliberately Violating The Law or Perhaps
They Don\'t

Understand What\'s Going on and What Needs to Occur. After That We\'re
Going to Make Some

Sort of Resolution Decision Or Recommendation on How We\'re Going to
Proceed Through the

Three Different Enforcement Aspects. The First One I\'ll Talk about Is
The Administrative, and

What I Want to Point out Here Is, First Of All, the Initiators of the
Administrative Process Is

BLM Staff. Okay? The BLM Staff Is What\'s Going to Start this Action
Rolling. And That Gets

into That Flowchart That\'s Provided to You In Your Handouts on the
3715s. This Particular

Flowchart I\'m Showing to You Is Very Generic In Nature and Could Apply
to Minerals Cases,

Trespass ‑‑ Grazing Trespass Cases or Land Trespass Cases.

It\'s Important to Point out This Does Appear in People\'s Handouts and
It\'s in Section L.

Correct. What I Want to Point out about This Administrative Is in this
Particular Arena What

We\'re Really Talking about Is We\'re Talking about Our Own Internal
Procedures and this Is Done

Exclusively by the BLM. Ultimately If We Need to Adjudicate One of These
Cases, It Commonly

Goes to Ibla, and I Don\'t Even Profess to Be an Expert in the Ibla, and
I\'m Not Going to Speak to

That.

this Handout, Incidentally Is On Page L10 and Ibla, for Those That
Don\'t Recall, Stands for The

Interior Board of Land Appeals.

Uh‑huh. And What That Board Is All About, the Way I Understand it As a
Law Enforcement

Officer Is It\'s Primarily a Referee Function. I Can\'t Even Spell
\"Referee\" This Morning. What

They\'re Going to Determine Is Basically the Concept of Fairness. Did We
Follow Our Own

Procedures And Regulations? Did We Follow Our Own Rules and Regulations
in Carrying out

this Particular Administrative Action? The Kind of Phrase That Comes Out
of it as a Judgment

Sometimes Is That We Were Arbitrary and Capricious. We Didn\'t Play the
Game by the Rules.

That\'s Sort of What Happens in The Administrative Process. But Remember
the Administrative

Process Is Something We Ourselves Can Do and Take Care Of Business on
Our Own. A Couple

of Examples I\'m Going To Use as the Beginning of an Administrative
Process, There Is A Law

Enforcement Procedure We Can Do Called Seizure of Process Or Seizure of
Instrument Tale

Tease of a Crime. In That Particular Case, One of Our Law Enforcement
Officers Could Indeed

Seize Signs, Could Indeed Seize Gates, Locks And/or Enclosures. Okay? If
We\'re Going to Seize

Something Because It\'s Evidence Of Criminality, We\'re Definitely Going
to Have to Proceed with

Prosecuting That Case in a Criminal Sort of Way. And Also If We\'re
Going to Seize These Items,

We Probably Ought To Do Our Best to Give a Warning First and Let the
Violator Give ‑‑ Give

the Violator a Chance to Remove Those Items If We Need Them Removed
Before We Go to the

Particular Seizure. A Case in Point a Few Years Back, the Way I
Understand the Story, We

Ultimately Ended up Seizing a Gate and Taking it Back to the BLM Office
and I Want to Point

out That We Certainly Have the Law Enforcement Authority to Carry Out
That Seizure. The

Person Was Given Plenty of Opportunities to Eliminate That This Unlawful
Enclosure and They

Failed to Comply. But Going Beyond a Law Enforcement Seizure, I Want to
Talk about

Impoundments and Property Impoundments Briefly And Not Having a Great
Deal of Time to

Talk about a Lot of Detail. About Before I Do, I Want to Tell You a
Story and It\'s about A Case

in California. It Was Called Jones et Al. Versus the Bureau of Land
Management. Particularly Not

Only the Bureau Of Land Management, but 35 Named BLM Employees, and this
Involved A

Procedure That We Often Do Called a Property Impoundment. In That
Particular Case, I Believe

Our Employees Probably Did Everything They Probably Should Have Done,
and They Followed

the Procedures. They Took Care of Business the Way They Thought They
Needed to Do. In That

Particular Case, We Had Some Claimants along the River, The Merced
River, I Believe it Was,

That Were Basically Not Reasonably Incident to All of Those Other
Things. We Ultimately

Looked at Some of Their Violations as Criminal Offenses. We Took That to
the District Court for

Prosecution and What We Ended up with Unfortunately Was a Magistrate\'s
Decision to Dismace

Miss the Case Based upon The Fact That, A, the 3809 Regulations Do Not
Clearly Define

Prohibited Acts and the Secretary Practiced His Discretion by Not
Including Criminal Penalties in

the 3809. Therefore the Offenses Were Not Criminal in Nature. I Am a
Firm Believer That Flpma

Says Any Person Who Knowingly Violates Any Regulation Issued Pursuant to
this Act. So I

Firmly Believe That There Is Such Criminality, but We Didn\'t Take Care
of That Specifically. So

One of the Lessons We Learned In this Case Was to Rewrite 3715
Regulations That, Indeed,

Included These Two Items. But Going Back to the Story of The Property
Impoundment, They

Went in with a Notice to the Person That They Were Going to Seize the
Property, Take the

Property Away, and Dispose of it And/or Establish Value and Do Their
Impoundment

Procedures. Getting Back to What I Said on Day One, You Can Definitely
Get Sued for Almost

Anything, and That\'s Exactly What Happened in This Case. Just about
Every Employee That Was

Either Involved in Carrying Out the Impoundment, Helping With the
Impoundment or Giving

Advice to the Impoundment Was Named in the Suit. The Suit Basically Took
the Tact Of Saying

That These People Were All Participating in an Unlawful Taking of
Private Property. In the End,

We Did Not Get a Case Precedent out of this Case. Unfortunately, There
Was a Cash Settlement.

Some Same Maybe Fortunately Because Basically We Ended up Buying out the
Trespass. In the

End the Trespasses No Longer Existed, the United States Government Paid
a Certain Dollar

Amount, Basically Saying This Case Was Not Particularly Worth
Prosecuting, and That Says

Something about the Civil Process. The Civil Process Is Generally a
Litigation Between Two

Parties. The Objective Is Probably Never To Get to Trial. The Objective
Is to Have the Two

Parties Settle, and That\'s Exactly What Occurred Here. I Think the
Worst Thing That Occurred

Was the Personal Grief That Each of Those BLM Employees Had to Bear. I
Want to Close by

Saying I Think Those Employees Did Everything They Needed to Do to Do
Right and I Think

Those Employees Were Very Diligent in Trying to Maintain the Health of
The Land, and They

Certainly Helped to Serve Present and Future Publics in this Particular
Action. It Was a River

Area That Needed To Get These Particular Trespasses Cleaned Up, but
Unfortunately There Was

a Great Deal of Grief They Went Through In That Particular Process. I
Give You this Example

Because I Want to Remind You the Bureau Of Land Management Does Have
Procedure That

Relate to Impoundments. Can You Find Those in BLM Handbook 9232‑1, the
Realty Trespass

Abatement Handbook. The Procedures Are Good. They Definitely Will Keep
You Out of

Trouble, I Believe, and Keep You in the Scope of Your Employment and
Scope of Your

Authority If You Choose to Use This Particular Method. Now the You a
Bridged Edition or My

Abridged Edition, Number One, Were Supposed to Provide Notice. If We
Know Who the

Property Belongs To, We Are Supposed to Give Them Notice We Intend to
Remove That

Particular Property. Number 2, We\'re Supposed to Make A Posting at the
Particular Site. And

We\'ve Provided ‑‑ We Have a Form, of Course, as We Always Do, BLM Form
9230‑4 That Can

Help with You this. It\'s on Card Stock, and It\'s Fairly
Self‑explanatory and It\'s Sort of a Fill in the

Blank Sort Of Thing and You Are Basically Going to Put the Person\'s
Name, Street Address,

City, et Cetera, You\'re Going to Describe Their Maintenance and Storage
Of, Equipment, Junk,

Whatever the Case May Be, You\'re Going to Describe the Public Lands
Where It\'s Located On.

Then We Have a Little Bit of Verbiage Saying It\'s in Violation of the
Unlawful Enclosures Act or

Perhaps in Violation of Flpma and Then Cite The Specific Regulations
They Have Violated. We

Might Want to Include 3715.6 (J) Uses Not Reasonably Incident To. We
Might Want to Point

out 2920.1‑2 (E) Unauthorized Use And We Might Want to Say There Is
Trash and Litter Here

That Needs to Be Removed Because Our Objective Being If We Can, We Want
to Encourage the

Violator To Haul Away this Junk and Get Rid of it on Their Own Behalf
Rather than Us Having

That Particular Burden. And Then the Bottom of the Form Has a Great Deal
of Verbiage That

Relates to the Time Limits We\'re Giving. We\'re Going to Enter the Date
We Want it Removed by

in Here. We\'re Going to Basically Say the Location Where We Have
Impounded The Property

Here, and We\'re Basically Telling Them in this Last Paragraph That
Failure to Remove May,

Indeed, Result in a Citation and Their Appearance Before the Magistrate.
A Couple Little Tips on

Property Impoundments. If You Say You Have to Have Everything Gone by
the 14th Day Or

We\'re Coming to Get You, You Need to Be Aware of a Few Little Public
Affairs Strategies. If

You Say We\'re Coming out on Day 14, Maybe You Need to Come Out on Day
15 or 16 Rather

than Exactly the 14th Day, You Know, Because If They\'ve Arranged a
Welcoming Party for You,

this Is A Simple Little Tactic That You Can Avoid Some of Those
Particular Complicated

Factors. Another Thing You Have to Keep In Mind Is That in this
Procedure the BLM Stands on

its Own and We\'re Doing All of this Ourselves. If We\'re Going to
Impound All of This Great

Valuable Equipment or All These Structures and Everything Else, We\'re
Doing So At Our Own

Expense and it May Require Dump Trucks, it May Require Low‑boys for
Bulldozers Or Defunct

Road Graders, Whatever the Case May Be. We Are Going to Bear All the
Expenses up Front.

Now, When We Impound it and They Come to Get Their Valuable Property,
They Have to Pay

Us Back for the Money We Spent Removing it from the Public Lands, but
Chances Are They\'re

Probably Not Going to Come Get The Property Because They Probably Don\'t
Have the Money to

Do That. But Clearly Understanding That This, to Some Extent Is a Scary
Procedure, I Know I

as a Law Enforcement Officer When We Discussed this as a Probability, It
Makes Me

Uncomfortable, Because I Prefer to Have a Document a Judge or Magistrate
Signed off on

Rather than Moving Through this Ourselves. But I Want You to Know We
Have The Authority

to Do it and it Certainly Could Be a Case ‑‑ There Certainly Could Be
Cases Where this Is the

Most Appropriate Way to Do It. Basically We Have to Do a Diligence
Search for Ownership. We

Have to Provide Legal Notices. We Have to Make Sure We Have Established
Either

Abandonment Or the Fact They\'re Not Going to Pick up That Particular
Piece of Equipment.

Can I Just Jump in Here for a Second? If the Rangers Are out There and
They\'re Issuing Notices

for Trash and Warning Notices or Issuing Notices to Cease or Notices to
Remove, I Think There

Should Also Be a Notice of Noncompliance That Should Also Be Issued That
Cites the Same

Violations That the Claimant Needs to Take Action on Also and It Should
Also Have the Same

Time Frames of the What I\'m Getting at Is Notices of Noncompliance Do
‑‑ Can Also Be ‑‑ Have

Cited in Them 8365s for An Example, That\'s Farthing on Page M55. Other
Federal Regulations

Also Can Be Cited in Our Notices of Noncompliance and They Should Also
Coincide with What

Law Enforcement Is Doing, Too.

Many Years Ago When I Was Working with Mining Claim Occupancies I Used
to Come upon

Occupancies That Had Appeared From Nowhere. I Had No Idea Whose They
Were, The Mining

Claim Records Hadn\'t Been Caught up to Date, So I Used to Carry a
Little Staple it On the Wall

Form That I Hand to Do Dennis, and Dennis Is Putting It up on the Elmo.
This Has Been

Updated for the Regulations of 3715. It\'s Not a Trespass Notice. It\'s
Just a Notice to Stop and

Come in and Talk to Us in the Office. Now, this Is in Your Notes and The
Page Number Is

Marked on There. Dennis, Could You Read off What That Page Number Is?
It\'s on the Left

There.

It\'s S7.

It\'s on Page S 7 in Your Notes. Have a Look at It. It\'s ‑‑ It\'s Not
Really an Action, but You Can

Staple it to Something That Just Appeared Over the Weekend While You
Weren\'t Watching, and

It\'s a Good Invitation for Somebody to Come into the Office and Talk to
You and Maybe Work

Towards Getting Things Straightened out. You Do Want to Note That You
Posted One. You

Want to Use a Second Copy as An Affidavit of Posting and Keep It for a
Case File That You\'ll

Develop, Because as Dennis Will Be Describing, You Need to Build A Good
Solid Case File That

Will Sustain If Necessary a Knowing And Willful Case. Dennis?

Dennis, Let Me Add a Second To Tom\'s Point Here. When We Built the Set
of Orders And

Noncompliance Provisions in This Regulation, We Did a Little Bit of
Thinking, and I Want to

Draw Your Attention to Notice of Noncompliance under 3715. Which Is What
I\'ll Assume You

Were Talking about.

Yes.

When You Get down Towards Subsubparagraph 2 of This, If You Do Not Start
and Complete

Corrective Action Within the Time Frame Allowed, BLM May Order an
Immediate Suspension

Under Paragraph A. Remember, That\'s the Immediate Temporary Suspension
Order. Of this

Section If Necessary or We May Order an Appealable Cessation Order.

Rick Is on Page 28.

I Am on Page 28 of the Regulations in Your Copy. Now, Let Me Give You at
Least From the

Policy Standpoint, as Dennis and I Were Building this System about Six
Years Ago, If You Fail

to Follow That Notice Of Noncompliance, We Follow up With an Order, and
If You Fail To

Follow the Order to Quit the Public Lands, You Have Committed A
Prohibited Act, and under

the Provisions of 3715, Dennis Is Empowered to Take an Action of
Arresting the Individual in

Question and We Have Established A Pattern That Should Go Quite a Way to
Supporting the

Notion That this Is a Willful Violation.

and an Approach of Last Resort.

Yes.

That\'s Right. Before We Move On, Dennis, We Have Some Word on What
Happened To Our

Audio. Apparently the Line Between the Training Center and the Uplink
Station, Somebody

Backed into a Switch or Something. We\'re Not Exactly Sure, but
Everything Was Fine on this

End And Everything Was Fine at the Satellite. As a Result We\'ll Be
Taking an Extra 15 Minutes.

So We Won\'t Go to Lunch Right on Time. We\'ll Be about 15 Minutes Late.
Okay, Dennis.

Okay. The next Thing I Want to Talk About Is Briefly Describe the Civil
Process. Civil Process,

What I\'m Talking About in Civil Is Basically in ‑‑ Sometimes Civil and
Administrative Get

Confused in The BLM. Remember, Administrative Is All Within the BLM.
Ultimately it Goes

Outside the BLM in the Ibla So the Person Has Their Right of Notice and
to Be Heard. What

Makes Something Civil Is When We\'re Actually Going to Take Somebody to
Court. We\'re Not

Going to Do it in a Criminal Matter but Take it as a Civil Matter,
Looking upon it as A Litigation

We Need to Take Place. I Want to Point out That the Initiating Office Is
the Solicitor\'s Office. I\'m

Not Sure If this Is a Blessing or Sometimes it Could, Indeed, Be a
Hindrance. But Going Back to

What I Said About the Federal Land Policy And Management Act, it Says at
The Request of the

Secretary We May Institute Civil Action, and The Solicitor\'s Office Is
the Office That Makes

Those Particular Requests. Now, That Means That You\'re Going to Have to
Have a Pretty Good

Case to Convince the Solicitor\'s Office this Is, Indeed, Worth
Pursuing, and as You All Know,

Their Time Frames Are Outside the Realm of Our Immediate Control and
Sometimes It\'s Going

to Be Our Own Diligence That\'s Going to Hopefully Make Things Happen.

If You\'ve Read the Baird Case As You Were Asked to Last Night And Went
Through the Case

Chronology, You Get a Good Idea Of What a Worst Case Scenario Is For the
Solicitor\'s Time

Frame Versus Ours.

in Civil We\'re Looking at ‑‑ As I Pointed Out, Litigation ‑‑ Whatever
We\'re Looking at

Litigation Rather than a Referee Function, and We\'re Basically Looking
‑‑ What We\'re Looking

to Get out of the Court Is What\'s Called Damages. We\'re Looking for
Damages or We Might Be

Looking for Injunctive Relief. Okay? I\'ll Talk a Little Bit about Those
Terms. What\'s Most Handy

for Us in the Mining or Mining Claim Compliance Issue Really Is the
Injunctive Relief Because

We Want to Prevent the Action from Going On. We Want to Prevent the
Action From Causing

Further Harm. One of the Faxes Yesterday or The Day Before, I Can\'t
Remember, Talked about

the Threshold of Irreparable Harm. What That Threshold Is All about Is
That\'s What We must

Achieve If We Are Going to Obtain What\'s Called a Temporary Restraining
Order. We must

Show That Irreparable Harm Will Occur If We Wait the Time Necessary to
Provide the Person

the Opportunity to Appear. So a Tro Can Be Issued Without Notice Without
Notice to the

Particular Operator If, Indeed, We Have Proven Irreparable Harm. Now,
When We Go into the

Actual Action to Look for Permanent ‑‑ A Permanent Injunction or
Something That ‑‑ T.r.o.,

Temporary Retrain Straining Order, If We Are Looking at Getting
Something Permanent, a

Permanent Injunction or a Judgment of Enjoinment, We Are Looking to
Prove Beyond a

Preponderance of Evidence. What That Basically Means Is If We Have
Evidence 51% That They

Did It, and Their Evidence Is Only 49% That They Didn\'t, Then
Essentially We\'ve Achieved

Preponderance of Evidence. Now, I Think in Most of the Cases We\'ve
Done, They\'re Looking for

a Much Higher Standard in Preponderance of Evidence, and They\'re
Looking to Perhaps Prove

the Item Even Greater. Basically When We Receive the Judgment, the
Enforcement Order

Becomes Enforceable by the United States Marshal\'s Service, And We in
BLM Law Enforcement

Request Assist the Marshal in Serving Those. What the Civil Process Can
Do For Us Is it Can

Take Something That Could Potentially Be Hostile or Potentially Be a
Difficult Situation, it Can

Remove it from the Public Land Scene, and it Can Take it to the Legal
Arena Where Perhaps We

Can Have a Little More Civil Discussion on the Matter. The Example I
Want to Use Here, And

Some of You May Have Even Read about it in the Newspaper, I Don\'t Know,
Is United States

Versus Ken Mende Nba Ch. In That Particular Case We Had An Individual
Who So Severely Did

Not Recognize Federal Authority over the Public Lands He Didn\'t Even
Bother with the Mining

Claim Aspect. He Basically Said That He Was Inspired from a Religious
Standpoint to Take and

Hold a Piece of Public Land, to Cut and Remove Trees to Use Those Trees
To Build His Home

and He Basically Said this Is What I\'m Going to Do. He Also Was Busy as
Giving Rhetoric He

Intended to Defend His Right to Do this to the Bitter End. The Rhetoric
Hinted Was He Was

Maybe Looking for this Maybe Ruby Ridge or Waco Type Incident. I Want
You to Know Clear

and Well the Bureau of Land Management Is Not Interested in Having These
Kind of

Confrontations. In Our Conversations with the Justice Department on
Hostility And Other

Problems on Federal Lands, They\'re Not Interested in It, Either, and
What They Proposed to Us

Is That We Look Upon Things in Terms of the Graduated Approach, Give
Somebody the

Opportunity to Comply, Move Towards the Civil, Move Towards the
Confrontation And in the

Legal Arena. Fortunately the Justice Department Backed up What They Had
to Say in Oregon

and Were Very Open to Receiving Our Documents in Terms of Obtaining
Injunctive Reliever and

in Joinment Against the Defendant. Ultimately What We Ended up with Was
That the Defendant,

His Agents, Officers and Employees And All Those Acting in Concert With
Him Are Permanently

Enjoined and Prohibited from Occupying, Cutting And/or Removing Timber
from the Public

Lands Described in Township 23, Et Cetera, et Cetera. So He Was
Permanently Enjoined From

Having That Particular Activity. That\'s How the Civil Process Can Work.
If it Turns into Being a

Well‑oiled it Can Be a Very Effective Tool in Terms of Using It out
There the Public Lands.

Ultimately the Defendant Moved Onto Forest Service Land in the State of
Washington and He

Underwent Some Similar Problems. I Also Want to Point out There Was Good
Coordination with

the Law Enforcement Staff in Oregon And Good Coordination with State And
Local Law

Enforcement Because When the Defendant Appeared for His Initial
Appearance to Make His

Case as To Why We Shouldn\'t Enjoin His Activity, Rather than Defending
Himself He Stated the

Judge Had No Authority over Him and Questioned Whether or Not the
Judge\'s Membership in

the Oregon Bar Was an Appropriate Thing for Him to Have. While He Had
this Discussion in The

Courtroom, Waiting Outside Were Some State Officers, Because the
Defendant Also Had Some

Outstanding Warrants for Failures to Appear in State and Local Courts.
So When He Stepped out

of the Federal Courtroom Arena, He Was Immediately Arrested for These
Failures to Appear, and

While He Was Spending Time in the Local Jail, the BLM Was Able to Go out
To the Site and Do

a Great Deal Of Cleanup in the Process. So a Good Coordinated Method in
The Civil

Enforcement, Coordination Between All the Agencies Involved, Really Paid
Off in That Particular

Arena. So the Civil Process Could, Indeed, Give Us Something. As I Move
into Criminal, I Want

To Point out Something That\'s Very Important and Somebody Brought
Forward this in One of

The Faxes. Remember I Said over Here on the Civil Side We Need
Preponderance Of Evidence.

When We Get to the Criminal Side, What We\'re Talking about Is Probable
Cause. You Need to

Know That Probable Cause Is Greater than Preponderance of Evidence. The
less Unlearned Here

Is If We Pursue Something Civilly and We End up Going to Court and the
Court Finds We Did

Not Have Preponderance of Evidence, Then That Sort of Prevents Us from
Going over to

Achieve Probable Cause in the Criminal Side. So That\'s Why We Need to
Carefully Choose What

Method We\'re Going to Choose Ahead of Time Before We Get Ourselves in
This Particular

Conflict. In Other Words, If We Go Through The Whole Civil Process and
We Lose, Then We\'ve

Sort of Negated Our Ability to Look Towards the Criminal Avenue for
Resolution. I Want to

Point out in the Criminal Aspect the Initiating People Are Your BLM Law
Enforcement Officers.

They Are Authorized to Issue Citations, Authorized to Make Arrests, They
Are Authorized to

Seek Prosecution Through Criminal Complaints, Affidavits And Other
Instruments. So They,

Indeed, Can Proceed in Those Particular Arenas. I Do Want to Point Out,
However, As We

Move into This, When We\'re Dealing with Violation of the 3715s, These
Are What Are Known

As Class a Misdemeanors in the Federal Criminal System. What That Means
to All of You Is That

a Class a Misdemeanor Is Something That Has a Term of Imprisonment
Greater than Six Months

but Basically Not More Than a Year. Our Term of Imprisonment for the
Flpma Is One Year

Imprisonment. So These Are Class a Offenses. What That Means from a
Rules of Criminal

Procedure Standpoint Is Under a Petty Offense, Which Is Less than Six
Months, the Person Is

Not Entitled to a Jury Trial. However, They Are Entitled to Trial by
District Court. So That

Brings Us Some Unique ‑‑ Only One Unique Option to Them. A Class a
Misdemeanor, the

Person Is Entitled to Not Only a Trial in District Court, Rather Than
Magistrate\'s Court, but

They\'re Also Entitled to a Jury Trial Should They Choose to Do That,
and a Lot of Us Have

Found Out That Causes Us Particular Grief When it Has to Cross the U.s.
Attorney\'s Office, and

They Have to Make a Decision on Whether or Not this Is Worth
Prosecuting. I\'ll Talk about That

a Little Bit Later, Too. Because These Crimes Are Misdemeanors, We Also
Have Discretion.

What I Mean by Discretion Is That We Don\'t Have to Prosecute All
Knowing and Willful

Violations as Criminal Offenses. Now, That\'s Different If We Have
Another Law That\'s Been

Violated That Could Be a Felony Law. A Good Example Is \$500 or More
Damage under the

Archaeological Resource Protection Act Is a Felony Offense. And a Felony
Offense under a

Misprison of Felony Concept must Be Reported to the U.s. Attorney\'s
Office and Only the U.s.

Attorney\'s Office Can Dismiss a Felony Offense. So We Don\'t Have
Discretion for Felony

Offenses, but for Misdemeanors We Do Have Discretion, and We Can
Exercise That Discretion

Through Combining Our Administrative and Our Criminal Procedures in
Terms Of Giving Due

Warning. Now I Want to Sort of Show You a Case Example That Matt and I
Both Were

Involved in a Number Of Years and I Will Try to Point Out Some of the
Criminal Aspects

Involved as We Go Through this.

Before We Dive in There, Dennis, We\'ve Had a Question About the Notice
to Cease

Construction That We Showed a Little While Ago, and the Question Is it
an Official Form And

Will it Become One? Well, Not Yet. It Was Something That Was Put
Together to Solve a

Problem Some Years Ago. Rick and I Have Been Discussing This and We Will
Get Back to You.

It\'s Probably Not a Good Idea to Use it until It\'s Approved. Go Ahead,
Dennis.

Okay. If I Could Have My First Slide Up There in That Series, Please.
This Is What this

Particular Trespass Started out to Be. In Fact, I Wasn\'t There on the
First Visit, but I Understand

From Those That Were There it Was One of Those Cases Where the BLM
Boldly Where the

BLM Had Never Gone Before, and What We Found on the Site Basically Was
Virtually a Trailer

Park. There Was a Lot of Different Residences Living There, There Was a
Lot of Junk Equipment

Stored There, Most of it Wasn\'t Working. There Was a Variety of Things
Going on There.

it Was Quite a Wild Time. In Fact, They Had Formed Their Own Mining
District, Their Own

Recorder\'s Office, and If Memory Serves Correctly, They Had a Ranger of
Their Very Own and

Their Very Own Jail.

and We, Indeed, Had a Discussion about Who the Ranger Was.

Yes. And the Jail and Their Ranger Disappeared, Never to Be Seen Again.

Another Interesting Note on The ‑‑ When We Sent out the First Notices, I
Also Remember That

One of the Main Operators Wrote Us a Letter Back That Said Because He Is
a Mining District

And He Formed His Own Rules, That Those Rules Were the Only Rules That
Were Applicable on

This Piece of Land. So Basically We Encountered Our First
Constitutionalist That We Can

Remember in Terms of That Particular Concept. Go Ahead, Dennis.

the next Slide Shows Us Posting Notices in Conspicuous Places and I
Guess We Did this For

Comic Relief, However, this Was the Community Toilet of the Trailer
Park. So We Wanted to

Make Sure That Everybody That Was Living Here Did, Indeed, Get Personal
Notice Or Had an

Opportunity to Know That Their Act Was, Indeed, in Trespass.

it Is Important to Note, Though, That the People Did Have A Free and
Easy Style and If That

One Was in Use They Used Alternate Facilities and We Had To Step over
Them Fairly Often.

What Opened this Case Wide Open and When We Got There Was It Was Pretty
Much an

Occupancy Case and Discussions with the Solicitor\'s Office Was
Basically Saying We Had No

Authority to Move on the Occupancy, as Long As They Said They Were
Miners, Quote‑unquote,

They Could Do Something. However, Because We Specifically Put in the
Notice of

Noncompliance All the Particular Things That They Were Not Allowed to Do
in the Future, the

Thing That Broke this Case Wide Open Is this Bulldozing of a Road.

That\'s Right. You\'ll Find the Copies of the Notices of Noncompliance
That We Used in this Case

in the Baird Case History in Section L of This, and They\'re Good
Reading, But Be Aware, We

Really Enjoyed ‑‑ in Some Respects Enjoyed Dealing with this. It\'s Easy
to Get into Flowery

Language. They Include Things like You Have in Excess of Three Chickens.
When They Decided

to Bulldoze a Road, That\'s Basically Where I Came In. The Relationship
Matt and I Had In

Southern California in Those Days, I Said, Matt, You Tell Me I Am
They\'re Not Mining and I

Will Take Care of the Rest. Here\'s a Slide That We Took as An Evidence
Photo and Became a

Main Piece of Evidence. You Can See the Pole Sticking up On the
Right‑hand Side There. That

Pole Approximates the Public Land Boundary, and Can You See Kind of a
Road That\'s Off to the

Right of the Poll. That Road Was Their ‑‑ Existing Road That Trespassed
on the Neighbor\'s

Property. What Gave Them the Incentive to Try to Build a New Road Is the
Neighbor Put up a

Couple Gates. The Neighbor Was Having a Dispute. And Because the
Neighbor Was Adversary

to Them, the Neighbor Was a Friend to the BLM in Terms Of Reporting What
Was Going on

There. So the Neighbor Put up the Gates. I Took this Photo Standing
Right At a Section Corner

Placed and I Will Show That to You in a Minute. The Damage That You See
to the Left, It\'s

Actually in Two Places, Just Immediately Left of The Pole You Can See
What Appears to Be

Maybe a Road, and If You Look off to the Far Left Of the Photo You Will
See Another

Disturbance of the Vegetation That Was Another New Road That They Cut
In. Now, We Came

to Find out a Long Time Later That the Purpose of That Road Had Nothing
to Do with Mining, it

Actually Had to Do With the Fact They Were Running An Illegal
Communications Site On Top

of a BLM Mountain and They Need to Do Keep Their Road Open in Order to
Maintain Their

Communications Site.

Dennis We Have about 20 Minutes until Lunch. Maybe We Can Try to Arrange
Your Spacing

Here So We Might Be Able To Handle a Question or Two.

Okay. I Just Want to Point out Because Of the Public Land Boundary Was
In Doubt, Before We

Ever Got to This Point, We Had a Cadastral Survey Completed.

it Wasn\'t a Difficult One. It Didn\'t Take Long. It Only Involved
Setting about Four Caps, but it

Made the Work A Lot Easier. This Was a Checkerboarded Area And it
Wasn\'t Real Easy to

Figure out Where the Lines Were.

All I Need to Do Prove from Criminal Standpoint Was That the Use Was Not
Authorized and it

Was Knowing and Willfully Committed. Fairly Easily We Took Care of That
by Ultimately Matt

Testified That They Had No Relationship to Mining Other Than Being
Casual Employees, and

The Fact That it Was a Knowing And Willful Violation Because They Had in
Possession the

Notices of Noncompliance, and All I Had to Show Was That Plants and
Their Parts Were

Destroyed, and I Did So with Some of These Illustrations. Here\'s
Another Photo of the Road

That Was Way off to the Left. And this Is the Last Photo That Basically
Shows What it Looks

Like the Day That ‑‑ the Day of Their Probation Hearing after The Trial
Took Place. Now, I

Want to Illustrate to You How Important Certain Pieces of Evidence Can
Be. In this Particular

Example, and You Can See It\'s Labeled on the Right Government Exhibit
Number 8, I Saw to it

Myself That I Need to Do Describe in the Courtroom Exactly What Was
Going On out There

Because Quite Often It\'s Very Difficult to Describe The Scene in a
Courtroom Environment. So I

Put Together this Really Quick Sketch, and I Realize Technology Today
Could Probably Do a

Much Better Job than I Did With this Particular Piece of Evidence, but
What Really Helped Us in

the Occupancy Is That I Had Labeled the Last Two Remaining People That
Lived There. I Had

Labeled the Neely Residence and the Baird Residence, and at One Point in
The Trial, When I Was

on the Stand, the Judge Looked over to Me, and He Says, Do You Mean to
Tell Me That They

Live There Without Paying Rent, Without Paying Property Taxes? And He
Interrupted the

Testimony, and I Said, Well, Yes, Your Honor, That\'s Correct. That\'s
Exactly Correct. And I Put

That Aside, and I Thought, Well, I Answered His Specific Question, it
Was Only a Side Question,

it Might Not Go Anywhere. But Ultimately it Did Go Somewhere Because
When it Was Over,

We Basically Had a Situation Where the Defendants Were, Indeed, Found
Guilty of The

Particular Charges of Knowing and Willfully Destroying Plants or Their
Parts. The Other

Significant Thing Is We Also Convicted Them of Violating the ‑‑
Violating Not Only a

Regulation, but We Also Succeeded in Charging Them with The Federal Land
Policy and

Management Act as Well. So We Got a Conviction on Both Counts. They
Received a Fine of

\$1630 to Be Surrendered to the Clerk of The Court in Order to Provide
Restitution for the

Damage They Caused. They Also Were Given a Great Deal of Probation and
among the ‑‑ They

Also Had a Jail Sentence To Do Some Time on and among the Conditions of
Probation Was,

Number One, They Surrender the \$1630 Within Two Weeks And, Also That
They Vacate the

Public Lands Within Two Weeks. So We Got Sort of a Surprise out Of That
One Little Question

That The Judge Asked of Me. At That Two‑week Mark, at the Probation
Hearing, I Remember

Stepping into the Judge\'s Chambers, and the First Thing He Asked Me, He
Said, Are We Going

To Put These Boys in Jail this Morning? I Said, No, Your Honor, They
Cleaned up the Site to the

BLM\'s Satisfaction, Which They Did, And the Trespass Was, Indeed,
Abated. But it Shows How

We Can Go from The Administrative to the Criminal Process Fairly Quickly
And Without a Great

Deal of Preparation. So My Lesson That I Have for You Really Is to Begin
All of Your Trespass

Work with the Principle Of Begin with the End in Mind And If You Begin
with the End in Mind

You Will Be Well Prepared For What Might, Indeed, Come Next.

the Baird Case History You Have in Your Notes Is Just a Pail, Thin
Fraction of the Actual Size

of the Case File. What You Have Excerpts. The Case File Was Very Thick.
Yet Every Document

That Was Ever Served to Anybody Appears in That Case File. It Was All
There.

Okay. I Want to Point out the Primary Instrument We Used to Initiate
Criminal Actions Is the

Federal Violation Notice, and Your Rangers All Have a Good Stack of
These, and this Is the

Main Instrument They Use in Quite a Number of Occasions. Yes, We Can
Arrest for a Lot of

Offenses, but Sometimes That\'s Sort of Impractical, and in Reality We
Usually Arrest Somebody

When We Think They Will Disappear Before We Come Back Another Day. When
it Comes to

Occupancy Trespass, I Want to Say If They Disappear, Hey, I Think That
Maybe Is What We

Were Looking For, Anyway. But What I Want to Point out to You on the
Form, There Is a Little

Box down Here, and I\'ll See If I Can Bring That up for You, and That
Box Is Something That

Our Officer Can Check That\'s Entitled Information Supplied to Me from
My Fellow Officer\'s

Observation. I Want to Point out to You That All of You Nonlaw
Enforcement Employees in the

BLM, We Consider You Our Fellow Officers, Our Fellow Federal Officers,
and If You Provide

Us Information That Has to Do with Whether or Not It\'s Reasonably
Incident or Unnecessary and

Undue Degradation, All These Things Can Go into That Measure Are of Our
Personal Probable

Cause Observations in Order to Initiate the Criminal Case, and That Can
Really Be Helpful. Now,

I Won\'t Go into Great Detail on this One. This Is Basically the
Flowchart Of the Criminal Justice

System.

Oh, the Flowchart from Heck.

and Kit Go a Lot of Different Places. I Only Show it to You to Remind
You That Once We

Enter a Case Into the Criminal System, it Takes the Same Flow That Any
Other Criminal Case

Would Do in Terms of the Initial Appearance, The Pleading, et Cetera.
Upon Initial Appearance,

the Magistrate Is Mandated to Advise Them That They Have the Right to
Jury Trial, and That

They Have a Right to District Court Trial. If They Waive That Right,
Then The Trial Can Occur

Right There Before the Magistrate and We Can Get this Thing out of the
Way. However, If They

Ask for District Court Trial, It\'s Still Going to Have to Go down to
the U.s. Attorney\'s Office,

and That May Result in What\'s Called An Administrative Denial,
Basically it Doesn\'t Meet Their

Prosecutorial Guidelines or Maybe It\'s Not Important Enough To
Prosecute. That Can Give Us a

Great Deal of Frustration, Unfortunately.

Dennis, I\'ll Add My Earlier Statement. When That Happens, We Need to
Know about It. We

Need to Know What the Outcome Is, What the Reasons Are, If Possible,
That the U.s. Attorney

Has Given Us for Not Taking the Case, So That We Can See If There Are
Patterns Developing,

So We Can See If It\'s a Case Where, Yes, the U.s. Attorney Is Concerned
about It, But He

Doesn\'t Have People, He Doesn\'t Have Time, He\'s Got Drug Cases. GBLM,
If You Could Give

Me Fte And Dollars, I Might Be Able to Dedicate Full‑time Bodies to This
or Part‑time Bodies to

This. This Was a Solution Used by the Forest Service in One of Their
Campaigns in Northern

California, I Believe, and It\'s An Option That We Might Want to Pursue.
But I Again Stress, If it

Isn\'t Reported and Documented, it Didn\'t Happen, and from a Management
Standpoint, We Don\'t

Have Any Way to Act on Them. So When this Occurs, We Need to Know.

Another Technique That I Often Used When I Was Doing a Lot of That
Casework Is That If I

Knew That the Person Was Going To Request a Jury Trial and it Was Going
to Ultimately Go

down To the District Court, What I Would Do Is I Would Draft a Letter
from the District

Manager To the U.s. Attorney Basically Outlining Our Plea for Help,
Basically Saying this Is an

Important Case to Us, We Really Need Your Interest on it and in Most of
My Cases, in this

Particular Baird Case, it Resulted in Their Special Prosecutor Being
Assigned to the Case, and He

Was Very Helpful to Us. So You Can Also Get Some Degree Of Success That
Way. But My

Word of Caution Is That The U.s. Attorney\'s Office, They\'re All Busy
People, and Don\'t Cry

Wolf Too Many Times, Otherwise They\'ll Get the Message That Maybe
Everything You Sent

Them by Letter May Not Be as Important as You Describe. But If You Have
Those Important

Precedent‑setting Cases You Need Attention On, this Certainly Should
Occur. Another Case, and

I\'ll Point it Out Only Briefly, Matt Gave You The Document on
Dreamer\'s Paradise. On That

Particular Case I Wrote The Letter, I Asked for Assistance, and I Had an
Assistant U.s. Attorney

Working With Us. He Very Conveniently Turned Matt\'s Surface Use
Determination Report into

an Affidavit. I Was Serving Grand Jury Subpoenas for Telephone Records,
Welfare Records and

Employment Records, and We Were Moving Towards Grand Jury Indictment on
This Particular

Occupancy Case. Unfortunately, Then the Assistant U.s. Attorney Asked Me
If I Could Provide

Him a Photo of the Potential Defendants, Which I Did Provide. One of the
Defendants Walks

with A Cane, Had a Colostomy Bag, Didn\'t Look Too Good, and His Answer
to Me Was,

Dennis, this One Doesn\'t Have Particular Jury Appeal. A Couple Weeks
Later I Got That Phone

Call That Said That They\'re a Little Bit Too Busy Right Now to Handle
That Particular Case. So

That\'s an Example Where I Almost Got to the Door and Then We Had to
Fall Back and Resort

To Other Resolutions in Order to Solve That One.

Dennis, I Think It\'s Important to Note, Though, When You Have an Area
Where You\'re Trying

to Break into a Judicial System That Isn\'t Willing to Take Your Cases,
the First One You Take

That You Should Really Imemphasize Should Be a Very Serious, Very
Important Case, One

That\'s Very Meaningful. As in Our Case it Was the Bairds.

and That Leads Me into What I Would like to Show You Here and This Is
Dennis\' Own ‑‑ the

Three Standard Public Land Defenses: The First One Is I Didn\'t Know.
This One Came up in the

Baird Case Because They Said, I Didn\'t Know That it Was Against the
Law.

the Fact That We Sent Them Notices of Noncompliance by the Ream
Apparently Had No Effect

on Them.

Well, That Was Our Chief Piece of Evidence, and to Quote The Judge, He
Said, the BLM Has

Done and Taken Every Opportunity To Help You Understand What You Need to
Comply with.

So We Beat That One down. The next One Was \"I Thought I Could.\" Now,
this One I Really

Want to Emphasize Because What Happened Here Was That They Tried to Make
The Case That

One of Our BLM Mining Engineers Gave Them Permission to Do this
Particular Act. We Ended

up Having to Put the Mining Engineer on the Stand and Very Quickly
Answering Some Questions

for the Assistant U.s. Attorney. He Denied Giving Any Such Permission
for the Person to Do

This. My Word of Caution Is That All Of Our People That Make Contact
With the Public,

Including Counter People, Need to Be Aware To Not Give the Nod or Not
Give An Inadvertent

Yes to a Certain Question That May Have to Do With the Use and
Development of Public Lands.

We Have to Be Very Careful about Informal Conversations. Otherwise We
Could Provide this

Particular Defense to the Thing. And the Last One Is \"Somebody Else Did
It.\" In the Baird Case

They Brought In a Secret Witness, Dr. Spivey, His Name Was.

He Was a Prominent Chiropractor and an Expert Witness.

He Had an Old Snapshot Photograph of What Appeared to Be Some Road
Somewhere Covered

With Mustard Weed, and He Was Claiming That the Roads That Were Cut by
the Bairds Were

There Before and They Were Doing Nothing More than Improving the Roads.
Unfortunately He

Didn\'t Understand the Federal Standards Of Evidence. He Could Not Say
Who Took the Photo.

He Could Not Say What Correction The Photo Was Taken from. And He Could
Not Put a Date

on The Photo.

and Also We Had Introduced 8 By 10 Before and after Photographs That
Really Put That

Defense to Bed.

and I Bring up the Three Defenses for You That I Truly Believe If You
Have the Documents

and Evidence to Counteract Each of Those Three Defenses, You, Indeed,
Can Be Successful in

the Criminal Arena In Achieving What You Want to Achieve in Mining Claim
Occupancy

Regulation and in Abating Trespass.

Dennis, It\'s Getting on Close To Lunch. I Understand You Brought a
Slide Of a Peculiar

Situation with You. Why Don\'t We Bring That Slide up Now. That\'s Slide
193. Can You Explain

it to Us?

Yeah, I Want to Give You a Chance to Sort of Exercise Your Minds after
Three Days of Work

Here in Terms of Deciding Perhaps What to Do about this. I Want You to
Listen Very Carefully.

I Didn\'t Conveniently Provide You One of Those Nice Little Yes Or No
Forms. I Am Going to

Ask You to Completely Go from Scratch and Create this as You Go. But You
Need to Listen

Very Carefully to the Description of The Violation. In June Your Outdoor
Recreation Planner

Puts a Copy of a Visitor Register for a National Scenic Trail on Your
Desk. A Visitor Comment

Is Circled on The Form That Says, Do We Really Have to Pay That Guy in
the Shack to Cross

His Mining Claim? Now, You Know That the Trail in Question Leads to a
Very Popular Hot

Springs. In July the next Month You Find Out That Someone Complained to
The Sheriff\'s Office

That a Naked Person Who Lives in a Shack near the Trail to the Hot
Springs Has Been Pointing a

Gun At People and Demanding That They Pay a Fee. Okay. You Arrange to
Visit the Site, And in

this Photo Is Exactly What You See. There Is No Evidence of Any Digging,
Excavation or

Mining Activity. There\'s Only a Small, and this Is Truly Vegetables,
Not Marijuana, There Is Just

a Small Vegetable Garden Behind the Shack.

.

No Mushrooms, No Peyote?

No, Just Those Great Tomatoes That this Person Eats. Here Is What We
Would like You To Do

in Three Parts. We Would like You to Identify What Follow‑up Items
Should Occur on this Case,

in Other Words, What Things Do You Need To Do to Collect More
Information? Number Two,

Discuss and Identify What Violations Are Apparent Here, Understanding
That the 3715

Regulations Are Current and Being Enforced Now. And Number Three,
Develop a Resolution

Plan, Including Your Recommended Enforcement Actions What You Would Do
about this

Particular Situation.

Can You Do That During Lunch. We Have a Little Time Before Lunch and
We\'ve Had Faxes

That Have Come in That I Think It\'s Appropriate for Dennis to Talk To.
Here Is One in Big,

Bold Print From ‑‑ Appears to Be from Nevada. So, Dennis, Would You Help
Us With That

One?

the Question Is: Is it the BLM Ranger Who Should Give the Order to
Remove Unauthorized

Structures to the Occupant? This Seems to Be Outside What The Geologist
Should Be Doing? In

Talking with Management on This Question, Quite Often Management Is
Quick to Remind Me

That All BLM Employees Have a Responsibility for Carrying out Resource
Protection Actions,

Including this Sort of One. Now, Certainly I Think the Ranger Should Be
Involved, in Fact, What

We\'ve Been Stressing All along Here Through These Three Days a Teamwork
Approach. Begin

with the Mind in Mind and If the End in Mind Ultimately Becomes Criminal
Enforcement, You

Probably Ought to Need the Ranger Involved at Some Point or Another. I
Think the Realty

Specialists Because of the 2920 Applications Need to Be Involved and
Certainly the Surface

Protection Or Geologist Person. But Can the BLM Geologist Serve These
Notices? Yes, They

Can. In Fact, Matt and I Have Often Done Those Things Together.

Yes, in Fact, in Many Cases These Notices to Remove Unauthorized
Improvements Go out Via

Certified Mail. So it Really Doesn\'t Matter Who Drops it in the
Mailbox. I Can Recall Spending

an Afternoon When it Just Got Too Much to Stay in the Office and It Was
Too Nice Outside, I

Would Take a Stack out and Go Knock on Doors for People That Wouldn\'t
Receive Their Mail.

So a Teamwork Approach Is Appropriate. But I Always Talked to Dennis
First to Make Sure

That the People I Was Going to Go and Talk to Were Not Known Threats To
My Safety. And it

Was Never a Problem.

Good Point, Matt.

Okay. That One Wasn\'t What I Expected. Welcome Back to the Air and the
Donald Duck Tie

Wins in Yuma. Never Read a Fax into the Air Cold, I Guess. Dennis, Can
You Identify Some

Examples of Types of Risks or Threats to Health, Safety or the
Environment That Would Warrant

a BLM Suspension Order? Actually this Is Addressed to The Panel and
Perhaps Rick or Scott

Might Want to Dive in with This One.

Okay. Some of the Examples of Types of Risks and Threats to Health,
Safety or the

Environment\... Well, Walking out and Pointing a Gun at Somebody Is
Probably Right up There at

the Top of One Of Those Threats to Health and Safety. Chemicals, Red
Phosphorous, like You

Might Find Land Mines, Pipe Bombs, That Sure Looks like a Threat to
Health and Safety.

Leaking Tanks of Diesel Fuel, Something That Might Tend Towards a Clean
Water Act Violation

or an Air Quality Violation, They Sure Look like They Fit with That.

I Want to Make a Valuable Point There, Too, and I Mention That a Mining
Claim Itself Does

Not Exempt You from All Other Federal Laws, and We Haven\'t Discussed it
a Lot but Certainly

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the Water Act, They Have
to Comply with

Those Acts and If They Have a Situation Where We Have a Waste Hazard ‑‑
If ‑‑

Remember ‑‑

I Remember How You Used to Put That, Dennis and It\'s Really Good.
Basically Dennis Used to

Say, Staking for Four by Four Posts And Filing a Mining Claim Does Not
Exempt You from All

Laws, Safety and Environmental.

We Have on Occasion Also Run Into a Situation Where We\'ve Had Reported
from Neighbors

That Dynamite Has Been Left Inside an Adit. That, Too.

We Could Sit Here All Day and Compile a List of Things That Aren\'t
Safe, but Basically If it

Doesn\'t Look Safe, If it Looks Like a Hazard, it Probably Is. We Had
Another Question Here,

Right There. Would You Hand That One over to Dennis? We\'ve Got about
Five Minutes Left. I

Think We Can Handle this One.

this Is a Situation Question. What Legal Enforcement Measures Would You
Prescribe in the

Following Situation: Claimant Is in 3809 Noncompliance for Accumulation
of Junk Materials,

Plenty of Time Has Been Allowed, Past Deadlines Have Been Ignored. Some
Cleanup Has Been

Done, but It Is Far from Complete. No Imimprovement Has Occurred For the
past Several

Months. Materials Are Not Reasonably Incident to Mining. No Serious
Safety Hazard, but More

a Public Nuisance, Unsightly. Should BLM Clean up and Bill Claimant,
Haul Materials to Dumb

That.

Claimant Has No Means to Pay. A Similar Question Came in Yesterday about
Excessive

Materials, Junk, Equipment, et Cetera. The Key Here for a Law
Enforcement, of Course, Is That

You Have Provided Me Some Documentation That Says this Is, Indeed, Not
Reasonably Incident

To. Okay? I Think Certainly and in Getting With What Scott Said, Not
Only Would We Go with

a Written Warning with this to Start the Criminal Process, We Would
Probably Do a Notice of

Trespass With Certified Receipt to Make Sure They Know What\'s Going on
Here. Personally I

Would like to Move On an Objective to Get Them to Clean it Up. However,
it Looks Here That

Even If the Court Forced Them to Clean it up Maybe They Don\'t Have the
Means to Do So. It

Can Get Very Difficult. Now, Some Resource Areas Have Taken the Tact
That It\'s Just Worth

Tight Get it out of There And It\'s Worth Tight Pay the Price to Impound
the Property. If You Do

That, and the Claimant Is Saying, Well, I Don\'t Have The Money to Do
It, One of the Things

That You Can Do Is Go After a Relinquishment to the Property. Have Them
Sign over Their

Interest in the Property to the United States, and Then We Can Remove it
Right Then and There,

And That\'s Been Used Successfully in a Lot of Routines.

That\'s a Time Honored Process. That\'s Been Used as Early as the \'50s.
Scott, Did You Have

Something to Add?

a Thought Here. Is it Possible for the Magistrate If the Claimant Cannot
Clean it Up, Can the

Magistrate Order Them to Clean It Up?

the Magistrate Can Certainly Order Them to Clean it up and Basically the
Penalty If They Don\'t

‑‑ They Are Basically Put On Probation with a Condition of Probation
That They Clean it Up,

And If They Don\'t Clean it Up, They End up Having to Spend Time In
Jail.

That\'s Precisely What Happened with the Bairds, Although They Were
Fairly Wealthy, They

Pled Poverty.

and We Deliberately Chose to Go after \$1630 to Look at Repairing the
Damages They Had

Caused Specifically Because We Were Not Confident That They Had The
Ability to Repair the

Damages Themselves. They Were Really Not That Skillful of Heavy
Equipment Operators.

We Weren\'t Sure We Wanted Them out There with Heavy Equipment Any
Longer than We Had

To. Let Me Go Back to the Question We Had a Little Earlier. If You Look
Through the Rules,

Can You Identify and I\'ll Go Back to the Question, Came from Oregon,
Can You Identify Some

Examples of the Types of Threats Or Wrist Took Health, Safety and The
Environment That Will

Warrant a BLM Suspension Order? Suspension Order Is the Highest Form of
Noncompliance

That\'s out There, and Essentially That Person Has to Be Not Reasonably
Incident and a Threat to

Health And Safety. So You Have to Two Tests That You Have to Achieve.
There Is a Cessation

Order Which Is Allowable for Someone Who Does Not Pass Both of Those
Thresholds, but the

Suspension Order Is Really Aimed at the Person Who Is Not Reasonably
Incident and Who Is a

Threat to Health and Safety. And the Health and Safety and The
Environment Can Include Failure

to Have the Necessary Permits from the County.

Good. Thanks, Rick. Well, We\'re Right about Time to Break for Lunch. We
Have a Good

Question That\'s Come in from He Will Co‑, and it Has to Do with the
Step by Step Process for

Confiscating or Attaching a Claim with Abandoned Equipment and What
Happens If They Go

into Bankruptcy. I Am Not Sure We Will Be Able to Handle That Step by
Step, and We Can

Speak to it Generally and After Lunch Dennis Can Give You Direction to
Go and Look and Get

The Answers You Need. It Is Just about Lunch Time Now. So as We Break,
We Would like You

to Be Thinking about the Situation That Dennis Showed You. We\'d like
You to Fax Us Your

Suggestions as Soon as You Can. We\'ll Also Ask That If You Have
Questions During Lunch, Go

Ahead And Fax Them into Us. Now, We\'re Going to Start at the Regular
Time That\'s in Your

Schedule, Which Is about an Hour And 15 Minutes, Rather than 90 Minutes.
When We Come

Back, We\'ll Be on Transponder 5 of this Same Satellite. Be Sure You Are
Your Receiver Is

Tuned to Channel 5 and We\'ll Be Back in about an Hour and 15 Minutes
Right as Regularly

Scheduled.

Welcome Back! We Hope You Had a Good Lunch. I Would like to Express Our
Real

Appreciation to Those of You That Called in to Tell Us Our Sound Had
Gone down When We

Lost Our Audio Feed. We Didn\'t Know it on this End Until the Phones Lit
Up. It Was the Best

Response We\'ve Had on Phone‑ins Throughout the Whole Session Although
We Have a Couple

Calls Pending Now. This Afternoon We Have the Entire Crowd with Us, We
Have Rick Deery on

the End, Hello, Rick.

Hi.

Bob Gibson Is Back. Hello, Bob. Scott.

Hi, Matt.

and Dennis Headquarter Lane. ‑‑ Mclane. If You Don\'t Know Who They Are
By Now, There\'s

No Hope. This Is Our Type for Interactive Questions and Answers. We Had
a Number of

Questions That Came in During Lunch and We\'re Going to Try and Put Some
To Bed That Came

in During the Day this Morning. We\'d like to Encourage You to Call in
Because We Will Be

Taking Calls Fairly Soon. If You Do Call in and If You\'re Waiting on
Hold, We Don\'t Have a Lot

of Time this Afternoon, So Please Get Right to Your Point, And Try to
Limit Yourself to One Or

Two Questions That Are Pretty Specifically Stated. Anyway, Let\'s Move
on ‑‑ Incidentally,

Something I Nearly Forgot. If We Could Pull up Slide 194. Yesterday We
Talked as You Know

About Signs That Were Appropriate to Put on a Mining Claim. Well, Ron
Smith out of the

Phoenix Field Office Went out During Lunch and Bought Some of The Signs
We Were Referring

to And We Have One Showing Now. This Particular Sign He Is Being Shown
Is Not My

Favorite, Although It\'s a Whale of a Lot Better than a No Trespassing
Sign. The Problem I Have

with it and It\'s Not Serious, Is That it Says Violateors Will Be
Prosecuted to the Full Extent of

The Law. Actually That\'s Not the Case, Because BLM Is Not Going to
Prosecute Citizen a for

Walking Across Mining Claim B. Let\'s Bring up Slide 195. Slide 195 Is
the One I Was Referring

to Yesterday When I Mentioned That There\'s One That Is Advertised in
the California Mining

Journal. This One Is Also Available at a Lot of Mining Supply Stores
Through the West, So You

May Not Need to Order It. There Is Not a Severe Problem With this One.
It Says Federal Mining

Claim. Strictly Speaking, There Isn\'t Such a Thing as a Federal Mining
Claim, but It\'s Pretty

Descriptive, Nonthreatening and Explains in Accurate Detail What The
Mining Claim Is for. And

Slide 196 Is a Good Example Of What You Can Put up on Your Claim
Corners. This Is Just

Basically a Corner Marker. It\'s Actually a Sign about Three Inches by
Three Inches. So It\'s Not as

Big as it Actually Looks and it Can Be Nailed Easily to a Four by Four
Post. Slide 197 Is an

Example of What You Can Post in the Area of Open Mine Shafts. Many of
the Offices of the

State Mine Inspector in the West Will Have Signs Much like This, and The
next One, Which Is

Slide 198. You Can Generally Get These for Free from Your State Mine
Inspector. I Know

You\'ve Put Them to Extensive Use Even Here in Arizona at Some of the
Mines We Deal with in

Training. If We Can Bring up Slide 193, Dennis Can Give Us Kind of a
Background on Where He

Would Go And What Other People Suggested With the Situation We Left You
With at Lunch.

Thanks, Matt. I Think Most Everybody Got the Right Idea, and the Right
Idea Is That this Is

Obviously Not Reasonably Incident to and May, Indeed, Be Unnecessary and
Undue

Degradation, and it Really Didn\'t Take a Genius to Figure That out and
I Think Just about

Everybody Got That Right down The Line. In Terms of the Kind of Things,
And Most Everybody

Got Most of These, the Kind of Things We Should Be Looking for in this
Particular Case Right

Away as Follow‑up Items, We Need to Determine Land Status, Is it Public
Land, We Need to

Verify If There Is a Mining Claim in The Recordation Files, We Need To
Pick up the Sheriff\'s

Office Report on the Incident That Occurred. Another Tip I Have, and
this Is Something That We

Do in Law Enforcement Occasionally, We May Want to Send One or Two Law
Enforcement

Officers out There In Plainclothes to Find out What Happens to Them.
Will They Get a Gun

Pointed at Them, Be Asked for a Fee. And Last but Not Least We Might
Want to Interview the

Visitors At the Hot Springs to See What Happened to Them When They Went
By this Guy\'s

Shack. One Point That Nobody Seemed to Get Is What\'s the Camping Stay
Limit? That\'s a

Follow‑up There. What\'s the Camping Stay Limit For That Particular
District. If It\'s 14 Days, We

Might Have An Immediate 14‑day Violation There. The Kind of Things That
People Identified

and They Got Almost All of These That Could Be Potential Violations
under 3715, Use Is Not

Reasonably Incident. 2920, Unauthorized Use. Hazard and a Nuisance.
Possibility for Special

Recreation Use Permit Violation. Barring Transit Through or over Public
Lands and Then There

Is a Question of Sanitation. Where Is His Trash and Human Waste Going?
We Need to Find That

out. In Terms of What to Do about It, In Some Cases a Site Visit by a
Law Enforcement Officer

Could Solve this. We Need to Go out and Visit with This Fellow and Find
out Who it Is and We

May Run His Name Through the Sheriff\'s Office and Find out He May Be a
Wanted Person or for

That Mat Whir We Talk to the Sheriff\'s Office on The Initial Report
They May Be Interested in

You a Re:ing Him For That Particular Violation And We May Be Able to
Coordinate That with

the Sheriff\'s Office. In Terms of Administrative Things We Can Do, We
Can Look at A Notice of

Noncompliance, Make Sure We Established Knowing and Willful and Might
Also Want to Issue a

Law Enforcement Officer Written Warning. Then of Course We Could Move to
Citations If We

Have To. I Want to Point out If He Keeps Pointing Guns at People and We
Prove That Up, We

Probably Need To Arrest this Gentleman.

Dennis, Do You Think this Is A Mining Issue?

I Don\'t Think It\'s a Mining Issue at All. I Think Somebody Told Him
That\'s Basically the Way

You Homestead, Is You Post a Mining Claim and I Don\'t Think That\'s
What\'s Going On Here.

Rick, Does this Qualify for a Grace Period?

this Guy Is Not Reasonably Incident and He\'s a Threat to Health and
Safety.

That\'s Right. This Isn\'t Each a Mining Issue. This Is a Public Health
and Safety Issue. He\'s out of

There. We Have a Phone Call. This Is Jim in Sacramento. Hello, Jim?

Caller: Is That Me, Matt? I Kind of Hear You on Static to Boot. Here on
the Phone. You

Hearing Me?

We Hear You Just Fine.

Caller: a Question, Matt, on The Preparation ‑‑ or the Need For
Preparation of Mineral Reports

to Be Signed by an Examiner and Then a Mineral Reviewer. It Seems Clear
from What You All

And Particularly Deery, Are Saying Is That the Surface ‑‑ The
Reasonableness of Surface Use or

Whatever Requires a Report. Now My Question Is, and Trying To Separate
Some of These

Issues That You\'ve Been Going over in 3700, Seem to Slop over into
3900, and Do You Think

That It\'s Prudent to ‑‑ Prudent to Require A Signed Mineral Report for
These 3700 Issues

Whereby Diligence, Reasonable Use Is Involved with Occupancy?

Rick?

Absolutely, Jim. Remember That We\'re Going to Use This Particular
Report in the Main When

We\'ve Got an Issue That Says, No, It\'s Not Reasonably Incident, No,
You\'re Not Going to Be

Staying out There. The Surface Use Determination Is Going to Be the
Vehicle for Putting All

That Together, and There Are Several Reasons for Sticking with the
Certified People. One of

Which Is That They Have Been Trained, They Have Met a Certain Level of
Standards, and The

Congress Has Recognized Them In the Current Budget Act as Being Persons
of Importance.

Caller: Well, That\'s What I Would Have Assumed, but I Wanted To Make
Sure Because My

Boss Is Checking with Me in Terms of Laying out the Patent Program And
the Requirement of

Certification and Signature and Et Cetera.

Yeah, And, Understand, Jim, We Know There\'s a Case Load There. Doesn\'t
Necessarily Mean

That It\'s Solely Going to Be Done by The Certified Mineral Examiners.
It\'s Also an Opportunity

to Take Some of Your Other People Who Are Not Necessarily Certified at
This Point and Get

Them out and Start Them Working. Now, I Grant You That this ‑‑ This Kind
of Report Doesn\'t

Have Sufficient Economic Analysis and Mineral Costing Associated with It
to Ultimately Qualify

for Certification, but If Somebody\'s Going to Want to Start to Do Field
Work as a Mineral

Examiner, this Is Also a Place To Start. What We Want Is at Least One
Cme Sitting There in the

Process.

Thanks Very Much, Jim.

Caller: You Bet.

Let Me Make Another Point Here. Just Got Passed over to Me. NTC Is
Paying for Travel and

per Diem for Cme Training. Actually It\'s Washington Office, And Matt
and the Guys at NTC

Launder the Money for Us. So If Somebody Says I Can\'t Afford Because of
Travel and per Diem,

That\'s Not an Issue.

Thanks, Rick. We Have Another Call. This Is ‑‑ Hello, Len in Ridgecrest.

Caller: Hi, Is this Matt?

this Is Matt.

Caller: Matt, this Is Len. I Have a Little Information in Regards to an
Issue You Guys Were

Discussing a Second Ago About the 14‑day Camping Limit. We Did Have a
Case out Here in The

Argus Range Wherein We Had An Individual Who Had Not Had His Proper Plan
of Operation

Filed, and When We Went Through All of the Process of Getting Him into
Magistrate\'s Court,

We Won and We Lost in Court. We Lost Because the Judge Said Since We
Hadn\'t Gone to the

Site For 14 Consecutive Days and Recorded and Documented His Occupancy
for Those 14

Consecutive Days That Our Conclusion by Starting in March Of One Year
and Visiting the Site

Several Times Between March And May Was Not Enough to Carry Weight in
Court to Say He

Had Violated That 14‑day Limit. So I Would Suggest If You\'re Trying to
Establish That Time

Frame You Make Sure Your Ranger Or Your Geologist or Whomever The
Inspector Is Goes to

the Site for 14 Consecutive Days and Documents with Photo Dated Evidence
the Individual\'s

Occupation of the Ground for More than 14 Days.

Dennis, Do You Have a Comment On That.

.

Obviously What We Have Here Is We Have a Magistrate That Is Establishing
His Own Standard

of Evidence for Violation of That Regulation, and That\'s Certainly
Appropriate. The Magistrate

Has Discretion to Determine Whether Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt Has
Occurred in Terms

of Conviction. It Has Not Been My Experience That That\'s Been Required
in Other Courts for a

14‑day Camping Limit. So It\'s Just a Matter of What Standard of
Evidence You\'re Going to Put

Together in Terms Of Proving That 14 Days. If That\'s What That
Magistrate Wants, Then That\'s

Probably What You\'re Going to Have to Show.

Caller: We Also Won in That Case Admonishment to the Claimant Involved
to the ‑‑ from The

Court That Said Specifically In the Case, If I See You Folks Back in
Here Because You Have

Not Properly Filed the Plans of Operation with Bureau of Land Management
as Required by the

Ridgecrest Resource Area, You Will Be Sent to Jail Effectively Was His
Bottom Line. So We

Did, in Fact, Get Resolution. So We Lost and We Won. We Didn\'t Get ‑‑
like I Say, We Didn\'t

Get to Win the Citation As Far as a Fine. There Was Also Litter and
Other Things Involved. But

We Did Get the Information To the Claimant We Need Your Paper Work and
Need it in Proper

Order.

in Support of the Law Enforcement Officers, They Certainly Had Probable
Cause for The

Violation. Unfortunately, Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt Is up to the
Court to Determine.

Thanks Much for Calling, Len.

Caller: Bye.

Bob, During Lunch a Number of Questions Came in for You and Also During
Our Last Session.

Can You Handle a Couple for Us?

Sure, Matt. I Have a Question That Came in From Redding, and it Says: We
Have Existing

Mining Claim Related Trespass Files Set up in Orca as 2928 Cases. What
Are We to Do with

These? Right Now the Answer Is Just Leave Them Right Where They Are.
We\'re Still Working

out the System. The Regulations Are Brand‑new. We\'re Still Working with
the People in the

Service Center on What We\'re Going to Do with What Is Existing in Case
Recordation And What

Is Going into Almrs/ioc, Where it Will Go and How it Will Go. This Is an
Issue We Will Have to

Address Further since It\'s Brand‑new We Haven\'t Addressed Any
Conversion Issues of What Is

In One Place and Where Is it Going To. Would Case Be a Good Place to Put
3715 Cases until the

Almrs System Is in Place to Accept 3715? That Probably ‑‑ Well, That
Can\'t Be Answered

Because I Could Say Yes it Would Be a Good Place, but If Further
Information Shows That We\'ll

Have Problems in Taking the Stuff That Is in 2928 and Putting it to
Where 3715 Cases Will

Reside We Don\'t Want to Compound Any Problems. So Right Now I Just Say
Await Further

Direction as We Work These Details out. Another One Here Is: ‑‑ this One
Comes from Area

Code 619. I Believe That\'s ‑‑

Southern California. Could Be Anywhere from San Diego To Needles.

it Says If a Case File Is Suffixed in Orca and an Appeal Is Filed the
Entire Case File Is Sent to

Ibla. This Might Not Be a Good Idea. That\'s What We Were Getting at
Before the Necessary to

Put in a Separate Case File the Information Regarding the Occupancy
Versus the 3809. Possibly

the 3802, 3809 Case Type Could Be Color Coded on a Label for Occupancy.
Once Again, It\'s a

Brand‑new Regular Legs, We\'re Feeling Our Way Through It. Unfortunate
Will He We\'re Also

Right in the midst of Changing The Entire Automated System and The Way
We Do Business and

We\'re Feeling Our Way Through That as Well, Just Await Further
Instructions and ‑‑

Bob Before We Move On, We Just Had a Question That Came Into Dennis
about the Liability

That BLM Employees May Have for Lawsuits, Especially If We Lose. Before
You Do That,

Dennis, We Do Have Fresh Information, Comment, on Scott\'s Tie and from
The Field We Have

Scott Megadittos.

it Is True. He Is Rush Limbaugh\'s Stunt Double.

Dennis?

the Question Involved When BLM Employees Are Sued by a Claimant, If the
Claimant Wins,

Are We Protected in Any Way by The BLM? Your Protections in Terms of
Personal Lawsuit

Against You All Revolve Around Whether or Not You Were Operating Within
the Scope of

Your Authority and the Scope of Your Employment. Now, Generally When
That Occurs You\'re

Exempt from Liability. However, Defending You on Behalf Of the United
States Government Is

Totally Discretionary on the Part of the U.s. Attorney\'s Office. If
They Choose to Defend You,

Which in Almost Every Case They Do When You Are in the Scope of Your
Employment and

Authority, They Are Basically Going to Ask For the Case to Be Dismissed
Against You and

Entered upon the United States and Deal with the Suit in That Particular
Manner. It\'s Interesting

to Note in the Story That I Shared with You, Jones Versus the Bureau of
Land Management, the

United States Continued to Make the Argument That These People Were
Within The Scope of

Their Employment And the Scope of Their Authority. However, the
Plaintiffs Continued to Make

the Argument That All of These Employees Should Have Known That These
People Had Civil

Rights and They Should Not Have Violated Them, And Unfortunately We
Never Did Get a

Definitive Ruling on Whether or Not That Case Was Going to Close out in
That Way. So it Isn\'t

Really the BLM That Protects You. It Would Be the United States.
However, You All Need to

Understand That You\'re Going to Have to Stand on Your Own Occasionally
If, Indeed, the

United States Chooses Either, A, You Were Not in the Scope of Your
Employment Authority Or,

B, The United States Attorney Chooses Not to Defend You. Most of Our Law
Enforcement

Officers Are Fully Versed in This Problem and Carry Personal Liability
Insurance. I\'m Not Here

to Sell You Insurance, but If You\'re Going To Do These Sorts of
Activities, You Need to

Understand That This, Indeed, Is a Possibility.

I Thought You Had a Cousin That Sold Insurance, Dennis. No, Never Mind.
Not True. Bad

Joke. Dennis, in Light of the Part of 3715, I Believe That\'s, What,
7.1, Rick, That Tells Us That

We Will Not Go into a Residential Part of a ‑‑ an Occupancy or the Part
the Claimant Has Said Is

Residential and If a BLM Employee Does So, Are They Acting Outside the
Scope of Their

Employment?

Certainly So in the Case of a Law Enforcement Officer Because There Has
Been Case Law That

Says Law Enforcement Officers Are Expected to Know What Is Required to
Enter a Private

Residence. Okay? There Have Been Some Successful Cases in Defending
Nonlaw Enforcement

People on the Basis They Aren\'t Required to Know All About Search
Warrants and the

Exceptions to Search Warrants, Et Cetera, but When There Is Doubt,
Don\'t Enter a Residence.

It\'s Just That Easy.

That Seems like Good Advice In All Cases. At this Point I Would like to
Suggest We Do Have

Some Room on The Agenda for Some Telephone Calls and Fax Questions.
Again, this Is Your

Time to Call In or Fax in and Get the Questions Answered That You Would
like to Have Done.

We Have a Whole Pile of Them Here, and They Range ‑‑ So Far Range from
General Questions

to Specific Questions, and We\'ll Deal with Them as Best We Can. Okay.
Scott?

since We\'re Getting Back to Bob, If I Could Just Make a Comment Here
and Get Any Input

From Anybody Else Here. It Appears Now We\'re ‑‑ We Could Have up to
Three Different Case

Files for a Particular Mining Claim under 3809 or 3802, 2900 And Now
3715. It Has Been Our

Experience That When We Have Passed Case Files On to the Ausa, They Want
a Complete

Document or a Complete Case File as to What Is Happening on That Claim.
So I Believe What

We Should Be Doing at this Point, If We Have Information in One File, it
Should Also Be

Included in All The Other Three Case Files, Too.

That\'s an Excellent Idea. When in Doubt, Make a Copy and Put it in All
the Files. That\'s Very

Good. Bob, Would You like to Carry on With That Question You Have in
Front of You?

I Have Just One Final ‑‑ It\'s Not Really a Question. It\'s More a Point
Made from Las Vegas, and

It\'s a Good Point, Too, That under the Existing Almrs System We Have
Today the Case

Recordation System, an Occupancy Could Be Denoted by an Extension on the
Serial Number, As

Was Discussed Earlier this Morning, but in the New Almrs/ioc, this
Cannot Occur Because the

Number Will Be System Generated. Today Each Office Is Generating Their
Own Serial Numbers

In. In the New System, the System Itself Generates the Numbers for Each
Case. There Are a

Number of Problems That Could Occur from That. We\'re Working on Those.
They\'re Still

Working with Exactly How the Serial Numbers Are Going to Be Generated
and Who Is Going to

Assign What Where.

Great. Thanks, Bob. I Have a Question Here, and this Is Concerning
Section 3715.5‑c. That\'s

Paren. C. Permits. Do the Permits ‑‑ the Required Permits, I Assume,
Duty Permits Just Include

Residential Permits Like Sewage, Building Permits And So On, or Do They
Include Permits for

Mining and Milling? I Can Give You a Nickel Answer Or Give You a \$5
Answer. The Nickel

Answer Is, Yes. But They Include All Applicable Permits. You Can Learn a
Lot by Just Reading

the Regs. Rick, Do You Have That Appropriate Cite in Front of You?

Yes, 5c Says Your Occupancy Must Conform to All Applicable State and
Federal Standards and

You must Have Acquired All Required Permits Before Beginning as Required
under this Subpart.

This Means Getting Permits and Authorizations and Meeting Standards
Required by State and

Federal Law, Including but Not Limited to and There\'s a Long Laundry
List. It Is All Permits.

Necessary for Whatever Particular Phase of Activity You Are In. You
Don\'t Have to Have All the

Permits for the Entire Life of The Operation, but If You Are Going to
Turn the Key on

Tomorrow, You Better Have Everything in Order to Be Able To Turn That
Key On.

Great, Thanks, Rick. We Have Another Call. Hello, Byard in Phoenix.
Hello?

Caller: How You Doing?

We\'re Doing Fine and Be Doing Better in about Half an Hour.

Caller: First of All, I Want To Thank Rick for Doing My Third Marriage.
That\'s Okay. My Real

Point Is on the Case File Recordation of Placing a Suffix at the End of
the Case File Number

Indicating It\'s an Occupancy Case, the Person from California Called in
a Little Bit Ago and Said

If the Case Went Back, the Entire Case File Would Have to Go, Including
the 3809 Portion of the

File, and I Guess the Example That I Have, I Disagree with That
Statement, And the Example I

Have Is a Mineral Patent File Where We Have the Mineral Patent File Is
Serial Number Aza

12345 and Then If the Case Goes to Contest, the Contest File Goes to Aza
12345‑1. If the

Contest Goes Back to Ibla, It\'s Only the Contest File That Goes Back
There, and I Guess I Would

Suggest That a Similar Thing Would Happen in The Case of a 3809 Case
That Had An

Occupancy Attached to It, That If the Person Appealed the Occupancy
Portion ‑‑ or ‑‑ of The

Case, That Only the Occupancy Portion of the Case Would Be What Would Be
Sent to Ibla.

Once Again, That Only the Contest File Went to Ibla, Not The Mineral
Patent Case File.

That\'s a Good Point, Byard. I Think You\'re Correct in That. Again,
That Points to the Necessity

of Keeping the Occupancy Stuff Separate from It. We\'re Still Trying to
Work These Little Things

out.

.

Caller: I Agree, Bob, on Keeping it Separate, but I Think That Might Be
a Way That We Could

Accommodate That and Still Keep it in a 3809 Case Type as You\'re
Suggesting until the 3715

Case Type Is Established.

the Problem Isn\'t with the Current Case Recordation and Where We Keep
it There. Where the

Problems Arise Is What\'s Going to Happen When That Goes to Almrs/ioc?
We Have a Number of

Different Avenues We Could Take to Solve That Problem, and What We Have
‑‑ than What We

Have Today. The Problem Is We Can\'t Make Any Changes in What We\'re
Going to Be Getting in

the Springtime.

Caller: Okay. Great. Could I Make One Other Observation, Matt, While
I\'m On?

Well ‑‑

Caller: Short?

Make it Short.

Caller: it Has to Do with Dennis\' Comment Earlier about Going Through
the Solicitor and

Some of the Difficulties That We Have in Getting Some of These Cases
into the Legal System.

One of the Points That I Want to Make, First Off, Is That in Arizona We
Enjoy Very, Very Good

Relationship with Our Solicitor. I Don\'t Think We Could Ask for
Anything Better. The Second

Point Is, in the past We\'ve Been Hesitant to Proceed With These Types
of Cases, Mostly

Noncompliance in 3809, Because the Attitude Was That The U.s. Attorney
Wouldn\'t Take These

Because They\'re Taking All The Good Cases, the Drug Cases And That Type
of Thing, and I

Guess My Point Is That Repeatedly the BLM Has Been Criticized for Not
Exercising Its

Authority on Processing Noncompliance Issues or the Like, and I Guess
the Comment I Would

Make Is That BLM Should Process the Case All the Way to The Point Where
BLM Essentially

Loses Control and the Control of The Case Goes to the Solicitor Or the
U.s. Attorney, at Least

If There\'s Going to Be Criticism Levied, It\'s Not Going to Be Levied
Against the BLM, Because

We\'ve Taken it as Far as We Can Take it Without Help from Some Other
Authorization, and I

Guess I ‑‑ Organization and I Guess I Support We Have to Do the Same
Thing in the Occupancy

and Use Cases as Well, That We Carry it Forward Diligently as Far as We
Can, Let the Hammer

Fall on Someone Else If That\'s to Be.

and I\'ll Repeat What I Said Earlier, When That Happens, We Need to Know
about it at

Headquarters, Because If it Isn\'t Documented, it Didn\'t Happen.

Thanks for the Call. I Think We\'ll Comment Further on The Air Here.

I Certainly Agree in Terms of Having Diligence in Pursuit of The Case.
Sometimes If You Deal

with the U.s. Attorney\'s Office or the Solicitor\'s Office That Has a
Volume of Business Problems,

the Best Thing You Can Do Is Do a Lot of the Work for Them, Write Up the
Draft Actions,

Write up The Draft Paper Work, Put it Before Them, Let Them Do Some
Revision Work and Get

it Before The Courts Where it Needs to Go. However, Clearly
Understanding That the Solicitor\'s

Office Helps Us with Civil Process and Drug Enforcement Cases on the
Criminal Side Would Not

Necessarily Impact the Volume of Business on the Civil Ride.

That\'s Right.

However, the Civil Side Can Be Loaded up with a Lot of Other Matters as
Well.

and No Matter What We Do, We Return to the Issue That If We\'re Going to
Ask for Help from

A Solicitor from the U.s. Attorney, We Have to Provide Well‑documented,
Thoroughly

Documented, Complete Work or They\'ll Tell Us to Take a Hike.

Uh‑huh.

Great. Okay. Dennis, Do You Have an Unanswered Question in Front of You
There.

a Couple I Can Answer Fairly Quickly. I\'ll Go Through this One Question
by Question. What Is

the Step by Step Process For Confiscating or Attaching a Claim to
Abandoned Equipment on A

Notice Level Mining Operation? The Answer Is You\'ll Find the Step by
Step Process for

Abandoned Equipment Impoundment In BLM Handbook 9232‑1, the Realty
Trespass Abatement

Handbook. There\'s a Whole Chapter Dedicated to How to Do That with The
Step by Step

Process. The next Question Is: How Do We Sell the Equipment Then? You Do
That with Your

BLM Property Management People. They Can Do Everything They Can To
Advertise the

Equipment for Sale, Put it up for Sale and Recoup Some of Our Losses
Through the Sale of That

Equipment. Or They May Also See a Certain Equipment That Can Be Used by
The BLM and

They Can Make a Decision to Convert the Use of That Equipment to the
United States. Then: Is

There a Process to Attach Claim to the Facilities Or Equipment That Is
Abandoned On

Notice‑level Operation If the Company Goes into Bankruptcy? I\'m Certain
There Probably Is a

Process. I\'m Not That Familiar with It. However, If You\'re Looking
after Going after Somebody

and Attaching the Bankruptcy Process In Terms of the Claim That We Have
Against That

Company, I Think You Need to Check with Your Field Solicitor\'s Office
And Find out How

That\'s Done to Get an Affirmative Claims Collection.

Okay. Good. Looks like the One You Have in Front of You There Is Similar
to This One, So

Why Don\'t You Just Roll Right into It.

this One Basically Refers To, Does Any Property, Including Attached
Cabins and Personal Tools

‑‑ the Question Is Incomplete ‑‑ but Does Abandoned Property Revert to
the Government

Automatically or Does It Have to Be Posted? The Answer Is it Not Only
Has to Be Posted but

All the Procedures Of the Handbook must Be Followed In Order to
Establish the Abandonment

and Then Once the Abandonment Takes Place, We must Take Affirmative
Possession of The

Property, Either Through its Removal or If We\'re Not Removing It like a
Building or Structure,

The Structure Needs to Have the Windows Boarded Up, the Doors Locked,
Signs Posted on it as

Property of the United States. Okay. Is this Section Retroactive to
Existing Abandoned

Properties? The Principals Claiming Abandoned Property in the Name Of
the United States

Government Are the Same Regardless of Whether They\'re Old, New or
Otherwise. We Need to

Take ‑‑ Follow the Appropriate Procedures, Take Affirmative Possession
of the Property. What

Do We to about Old Cabins 50‑plus Years That an Occupant Was Using? I
Assume Was Using

Means They\'ve Moved out. The First Thing I Would Do in That Case Is
Because They Were a

Claimant or Because They Were Living There, They May Have an Interest
That They Can

Articulate. I Would Ask That Person since You\'re Leaving Would You
Please Sign this

Relinquishment of Property for Me. By Getting That Relinquishment Then
I\'ve Taken Affirmative

Possession of the Property in The Name of the United States. Do They
Have to Remove or

Destroy the Cabin or Building? Only If We Requirement and They Comply
with ‑‑ Comply with

Our Requirement. If We Want it to Stand Because It May Indeed Be a
Historic Structure, We

Can Do That. But We Need to Take Affirmative Possession So Nobody Else
Moves In. Where

Does Archaeology Move into The Picture with the an Particular Was Tease
Act, it Enters with

the Same Threshold Of 50 Years or 100 Years Depending on the Lawyer
Interpreting.

We Have a Call on Hold from Phil in Salt Lake. Phil I\'m Going to Ask
You to Hang on for a

Second. There Is Something Rick Needs to Deal with That\'s Been Pointed
Out to Us a Number of

Times. Rick, According to Instruction Memorandum 96‑147 Change 1
Effective the 23rd of

August of This Year Manual Section 3893 Has Been Deleted. How Can We
Still Use it in

Conjunction with the 3715 Regulations If it Doesn\'t Exist?

You Can\'t, but You Will Be Getting Guidance That Will Come Out Shortly
about the Time it

Takes for Us to Get Back to Headquarters and Matt and I Groupwise a Few
Things Back and

Forth That Will Take, If Not Exactly All the Principles Found In ‑‑ and
Verbatim Language of

That Particular Manual Section And Turn it Back into Interim Guidance.
So Matt Can Look

Forward to Sitting down with Me via Groupwise and Coming up with a New
Version of the Sud

Requirements of That Old Manual, And Look for it Shortly.

We\'re Ready. Hello, Phil, in Salt Lake. Welcome?

Caller: Hi, Matt. Appreciate You Taking the Call. I Just Wanted to Make
a Quick Comment

with Regard to Confiscating Things. I Think You Really Need to Have Your
Hazardous Material

Coordinator Look the Site over Before You Get Involved with Taking
Things off the Ground,

Particularly Electrical Equipment Could Have Things like Pcbs Contained
and That Sort of Thing.

in the Electrical Transformers?

Caller: Yes.

for Those That Don\'t Know, Until About, What, Five Years Ago, Phil, the
Oil Used to Stabilize

Electrical Transformers Contained Pauley Chlorinated Biphenals and It\'s
Nasty Stuff.

Caller: I Would Make Sure The Hazardous Materials Coordinator Is in the
Lube and Has an

Opportunity to Participate.

That\'s a Very Good Point, Phil. Thanks Very Much for Giving Us a Call.

Caller: Thanks for the Time.

You Bet. Dennis, I Think That\'s an Excellent Point. Something to Be
Remembered. In Fact,

That Fits in with the Situation You Encountered up in The Northern Part
of the California Desert

Some Years Ago.

and We Ultimately Had to Seize Hazardous Materials Rather Than Waste
Because They Were

Still in Sealed Containers, but When in Doubt, and If There May Be
Hazardous Materials There,

We Definitely Need to Have a Hazardous Materials Coordinator With Us
Because Sometimes We

May Have to Contract with a Clean‑up Person, Go Through the Cradle to
Grave Procedures That

Have to Do With Cleaning up Hazardous Waste.

Scott, Have You Had a Haz‑mat Situation You\'ve Had to Deal With in
Folsom in Your

Occupancies or Has it Mostly Just Been Sewage and Junk.

Lately It\'s Been Sewage and Junk. We Do Have Haz‑mat Problems Unrelated
Where We\'ve Got

a Number of Drug Lab Sites That Have Been ‑‑ You Know, That Kind Of
Thing.

No Fun. I Have a Good Question in from Albert. This Is Probably the
Clearest Job of Faxing I

Have Ever Seen. Looks like It\'s Written in Ink. Rick, under the 3715
Appeals That Go Directly to

Ibla Instead Of for State Director Review We Have Heard Rumors of
Regulation Changes That

All Appeals and All Programs Will Go Directly to Ibla with No State
Director Review. Question

1: as Anyone Asked Ibla or the Office of Hearings And Appeals If it Can
Handle the Workload?

And Question 2: What\'s the Current Time Frame for Case Completion at
Ibla in Years?

Well, Ibla Knows It\'s Coming. Matt Met with Them. They Had a Long
Discussion. And Matt Is

Pretty Firm. We\'re Going to Go to a Straight To Ibla Appeal Process.
Ibla Has Said They\'re

Ready for It. As to the Current Time Line and Time Lag for Cases, I
Haven\'t a Clue of Late What

That Is. I\'ve Heard Multiples of Years, But That Varies by Case Type
and By Decision. Some

Cases Naturally Enough Go To the Front of the Queue Because They\'re ‑‑
Cue, They\'re A Failure

to Pay a Recordation Thing and Those Are Pretty Much Canned Decisions.
It\'s the Toughys

We\'re Going to See That Have a Long Residence Time. Instead of Looking
Through the Case

Record and Say, Yes, it Was Posted after the Deadline, Bring Up File
Number 265, this Is Going

to Be a Case Where They\'re Going to Sit down and Have to Go Through the
Record Line by

Line, Look What\'s There, Weigh Our Decision, Weigh Our Justification
and Basically Mull Over

the Record. These Take Time.

in a Case like That, Rick, I Think the Response Time We\'ll Get from
Ibla Will Be Directly

Proportional to the Quality of Our Record.

Absolutely. The Better the Quality of Your Record, the Better You Can
Demonstrate What\'s

Going on out On the Ground in an Unbiased Fashion, the Quicker the
Administrative Judges at

Ibla Can Look at the Record and Say, Yes, the Decision Is Supported By
the Record. That\'s

What They\'re Looking for. They\'re Not Looking to Go out And Get BLM.
That\'s Not Their Role.

Their Role Is One of Fairness. Does the Record Support the Decision
That\'s Appealed from?

That\'s Their Job. And They\'re There to Keep Us out Of Trouble When
Somebody Says I\'m Going

to Take You into U.s. District Court, Mr. Secretary, And If the Board
Isn\'t There Doing That

Quality Control, Then We Run a Terrible Risk That Instead of Having the
Board of Land Appeals

Doing a Full‑blown Review of the Record, We Could Have a U.s. District
Judge Constructing

the Record in the Case, and Believe Me, You Don\'t Want That to Happen.

That\'s Right, Rick. The Goal We Should Be Aiming at As We Put Our Cases
Together Is To

Have the Case So Complete, So Thoroughly Documented, and So Readable and
Straightforward

That by the Time it Gets to the Solicitor\'s Office, the Solicitor Looks
at and it Says, I Don\'t Need

to File a Brief, And Just Mails it On‑off to Ibla. We Have Another
Question In, Rick. If the Fee

Title Box Is Checked On the Existing Occupancy Notification Form, it
Seems to Me That We

Would Be Required to Issue a Decision Saying That We Conclude That Fee
Simple Title Is Not

in Question, or Is in Question, and Give Them the Opportunity to Appeal.
Rick, Do You Agree?

No, We Aren\'t Required To, at Least Not in the First Year. If We Don\'t
Agree with Them, If It\'s

a Ms. Understanding, the Guy Says All Mining Claims Are Fee Title,
That\'s Why You Check The

Box, You Can Pick up the Phone and Explain What the Reason Is and Very
Often He Will

Change That. I\'ve Had Several Phone Calls to That. There\'s No Need to
Issue Any Kind of

Decision until Such Time As We Get Around to the End of This Grace
Period and Hate to Keep

Saying this like a Broken Record, We\'ll Get Guidance out To You on
That.

in Fact the Questions You\'ve Sent Us and the Questions We Expect to
Hear from You via

Groupwise Will Help Tremendously In Getting That Guidance out. So Keep
in Touch. We Have

Another Question in from Montana and It\'s One That I Think We Left on
the Table Yesterday.

I\'m Not Sure If We Left it on The Table or Answered it Quickly.

or Forgot It.

with a about Large Operating Mines with Approved Plans of Operation and
Permits? If They

Have Large Facilities And Can Have Employees, Do They Need to Fill out
the Form and Send it

to Us?

the Simple Answer Is, Are They Ready to Be Inspected on October 16th,
1996? If They Feel

They\'re Ready to Be Inspected on in October, 1996, Yeah, Don\'t Send in
the Form. That\'s the

Only Penalty. The Only Penalty Is the Rule Hits You in October of this
Year Instead of August of

next Year. So If You\'re Feeling You\'re Ready, Great, Go Ahead, and
Frankly a Lot of These Big

Guys Are Probably in Good Shape.

We Have Another Good Question In from Pete in Vernal. Pete Wants Us All
to Know He Is

Not Related to Dan. So, Pete, You\'re off the Look Hook. It\'s a
Four‑page Fax but in Big Type.

Pete, the Bad News Is We\'ve Misplaced Page 1. Pete Did Ask, Do the
Regulations Also Cover

Tunnel Sites?

Yes.

Pete, If You Would like to Give Us a Call, If We Don\'t Get Get
Everything for You, I Think

This Would Be an Excellent Time For You to Do So. Is Our Concurrence of
a Mill Site the Same

as Recognizing the Mill Site\'s Validity, Remembering That the Use and
Good Faith in Occupancy

of a Mill Site Goes Directly to its Validity. The Answer to That Is No.

Simple. It\'s No. We\'re Looking at the Reasonably Incidental Nature of
the Occupancy. We Are

Not in Any Way Addressing The Validity of the Underlying Claims. This
Rule Doesn\'t Even Look

to That. Matt?

an Additional Subset of this Question Is: Will Guidance Later Come That
Has a Boilerplate

Sentence Added That Says this Approval or Concurrence Is Not a
Recognition By the Bureau of

the Validity of Your Mining Claim or Site?

No Brainer, You Bet You.

We\'ll Add That to the List. I Can See We\'re Going to Be Busy. Okay.
Holy Cow. I Can\'t Figure

this One out. This Is Question ‑‑ Pete, Pete, Pete\... I\'ll Never
Forgive You For this One. Several

Operators Have Submitted Existing Occupancy Forms and All They Have Is
Equipment and

Supplies Stored on Site Without A Presence of Structures That Could Be
Inhabited like a Tool

Shed, Example. Should I Return These Forms with A Note That There Had to
Have Been a

Residence or Structure Capable of Being Inhabited as of 8/18/96?

Yes, You Could. Or You You Can Say Do You Want Me to Return it to You?
They\'re Not

Subject to the Reg. I Have Numerous of Calls from People Who Say We\'ve
Got a Couple of

Fences and We May Want To Get in There at Some Point And Do Some
Drilling. Do We Need

to File It? The Answer Was No. No, If They Want To, it Will Have No
Effect Because They

Have No Occupancy as of the ‑‑ Occupancy or Structure Capable Of
Supporting Occupancy as of

The Date of the Regulation. It\'s Moot.

Dennis, What Do You Do If Somebody Points a Gun at You?

If Somebody Points a Gun at Me?

Yes ‑‑ Well, That\'s a Two‑pronged Question. What Do You Do If Somebody
Points a Gun at

You, and What Should We Do as Geologists and Field Specialists If
Somebody Points a Gun at

Us?

First of All, If Somebody Points a Gun at You in the Course of Carrying
out Your Duties

Enforcing These Regulations, Do Whatever They Tell You. You Know, If
They Tell You to

Leave Immediately, Leave Immediately, and Then Report That to Your Law
Enforcement

Officers When You Get Back as Well as Reporting it to the State and
Local Law Enforcement

Officers Who Can Also Look at Charges for Assault Against Your Person,
as Well as Title 18 of

The United States Code Which Is A Federal Offense for Assault Against
Your Person. So

Certainly That Needs to Be Said.

What Do You Do If Somebody Points a Gun at You?

If Somebody Points a Gun at Me, I\'m Going to Try to Retire To the
Nearest Cover I Can Find

And, Indeed, Probably Point a Gun at Them and Effect an Arrest. In Fact,
It\'s Interesting That

You Bring up That Point. One of the Very First Arrests I Ever Made by a
BLM Ranger Involved

Somebody Occupying A, Quote‑unquote, Mill Site Claim. However, the Only
Thing They Were

Located upon Was a Retired BLM Fire Station That Happened To Have an
Electrical Hook‑up.

They Hooked Their Trailer up to The Electrical Hook‑up. When Our Ranger
Escorted the Utility

Company to Disconnect Them, the Woman Besided to Point A Shotgun at the
Ranger and

Because of That, There Was No Mining Law Involved. She Went Direct to
Jail, Did Not Pass Go,

Did Not Collect \$200.

Bad Choice, Bad Choice. Thanks, Dennis. We Have a Series of Questions in
From Ann Falcon

in the Caliente Resource Area. I Will Run Through Them Quickly. I Think
Each of Us May Have

Something to Say Bit. It Touches on a Lot of the Work We Have All Talked
about. Situation 1:

Currently Active Claim to Settle an Occupancy We\'re in the Process of
Exchanging a Portion of

the Claim. We\'ve Received a 3715 Form from The Claimant. Should We Do a
Surface Use

Determination or Let the Land Exchange Settle the Occupancy? Maybe We
Should Handle That

One Right off the Bat. Suggestions?

What Did I Write on the Paper On That One Earlier, Matt?

Nothing.

Nutting? I Don\'t Know. Can the Exchange Get You out of It Faster? Is it
Appropriate to Do the

Surface Use Determination to Decide Whether or Not this Person Ought to
Be There to Begin

with? It May Change Your View of Your Willingness to Go Through and ex
‑‑ than Exchange.

as We Continue with These Questions, and These Questions Are All Good, I
Don\'t Have Any

Dumb Questions in this Stack, We\'ve Had Very, Very Few Dumb Questions.
I\'m Thrilled and

Pleased with What\'s Come In. We\'re Start to Go Move from Questions
That Ask about Principles

into Questions That Ask about Strategy for Individual Cases, and I Think
We\'re Best Equipped to

Answer Questions on Principles Rather Than Questions on Strategy.
Questions on Strategy Might

Be Best Given to Us over Groupwise. Situation Number 2: to Settle The
Occupancy We\'re in the

Process of a Land Exchange. The Claim Has Lapsed since the Exchange
Began. We Have Not

Received a 3715 Form From the Claimant. Should We Do a Surface Use
Determination? Oh,

Dear, We\'re off Again. I Knew it Was Coming. There\'s Somebody at Mci
Who Is Clumsy Who

Keeps Backing into The off Switch.

Either That or They\'re Doing Something Where the off Switch Is Located.
Okay. Well, I

Understand We Had Some ‑‑ I Understand We Had Some Audio Difficulties.
It Wasn\'t Mci. It

Was Us, I Think. But We\'re Back, in Any Event. Well, it Was Somewhere.
Again, Thank You for

Calling Anding Us We Were Having Audio Difficulties. The Problem Seems
to Have Been Cured.

It Was Fortunately Short this Time. We\'re Not Sure Where it Occurred,
and it May Have

Happened at a ‑‑ One or Two Downlink Sites. Excuse Me. Here We Go.
Taking this from the

Top, to Settle the Occupancy We Are in The Process of a Land Exchange.
The Claim Has Lapsed

since the Exchange Began. We Have Not Received a 3715 Form From the
Claimant. Should We

Do a Surface Use Determination or Let the Land Exchange Settle the
Occupancy?

Trespass Notice Would Be One. It\'s No Longer a Mining Claim.

That\'s Right. The. The Mining Claim Is Gone.

Whatever Happens to the Land Exchange Happens. Just Get That Finalized
There.

Here\'s a Fun One, Situation 3: the Claimant Did Not Tell Us Of the
Occupancy of a Watchman.

When We Discovered the Watchman After 17 Years, the Occupant, Who Is Not
the Claimant, but

Has A Claim next to the Occupancy, Asked to Exchange the Property.
Somewhere I\'m Expecting

to Find A Statement That They Crossed The International Dateline and How
Does That Affect It.

The Land Exchange Process Is Has Not Started Due to Backlog. It\'s
Uncertain or Unknown

When It Will Happen. The Claim Is Still Active with The Original
Claimant. I\'m Not Sure What

We Mean by Active Here, Like, Is There Mining Going on or Just Stuff
Going On? The

Watchman Is Used to Protect The Claimant\'s Private Property But Little
If Any Mining Ever

Occurs. The Land Is Within Five Miles of Civilization and Has State
Highways up to the Dirt

Road to The Claim. Does the Land Exchange Replace The 3715 Process and
Is as it Stands If We

Do a Surface Use Determination, it Will Probably Request the Occupant to
Leave. First Off, I

Don\'t Think this Is A Front‑burner Issue.

If It\'s Been There for 17 Years and Suddenly Rose to the Top, It\'s
Sort of Like, Oh? Well,

Maybe. Sounds to Me Like, Yeah, Surface Use Determination Might Be
Appropriate, but it

Wouldn\'t Be One That I Personally, If I Had Other Things on My Platter,
Would Schedule next

Week.

You Might Request Them to File the Information Required Under 3715 and
Then Take it from

There, See What Happens Later On.

These Kind of Time Frames Also Cause a Great Deal of Difficulty, If You
Were Looking At a

Criminal Resolution, Because Frankly the Criminal Side of the U.s.
Attorney\'s Office Is Not

Interested in Stale Cases. In a Stale Case You Would Probably Be Looking
at a Civil Resolution

at Best.

this Is about as Stale as They Come, and I Don\'t See Any Evidence of
Criminality in What\'s

Written up Here. Here Is an Interesting One from California. A
Depression Era Mine Site with

Relatively Well Preserved Mill Facilities and Numerous Residential
Quarters Has Had a Caretaker

on the Site for a Number of Years. Here We Go Again. This Is a Different
Part of California. This

Is Not the Same Case. It\'s Two Different Resource Areas, but Things
Start to Sound Similar after

a While. The Claims Have Not Been Mind Since 1942, Possibly Shut down By
War Production

Board Order L 402 or 408. The Historical Character of the Property Does
Need Protection From

Vandalism but a Caretaker Cannot Be Authorized Within the Scope of 43
Cfr 3809 or 3715.

Does Anyone Have a Suggestion? Scott? What Would You Do?

He\'s Been out There for X Amount of Years ‑‑

Well, a Long Time.

a Longggg Time.

Sounds like You Ought to Make Him a Volunteer. I Don\'t Say That
Flippantly.

That\'s Not a Flippant Suggestion.

That Might Be a Case Where You Turn Around to Somebody and Say, Would
You like to

Volunteer And Do this Job? We Offer You the Opportunity to Keep Staying
Where You\'re

Staying?

We Do Have a Case of That in Nevada Right Now Where We Do Have a
Volunteer out

Protecting A Site Looking out after Our Interests.

Yeah.

an Old Building That Was Built out of Glass, Very Rare, And Individuals
Are Staying out There

and Keeping an Eye on it For Us.

Is That the Bottle House?

Yes.

That\'s a Well‑known Historic Site and I Have Been out There And It\'s
Beautiful and Well Worth

Preserving. A Question from Montana. What Is a Reasonable Range of
Alternatives on a 3715 Ea

Environmental Assessment for Reasonable Incident Occupancy.

We Said We Would Punt on That One and We Will Continue to Punt Away. We
May Make it to

the Redskins If We Keep Getting Good at Punting. Or Perhaps San Diego
Chargers. Next Week

There Will Be a Video, Interactive Video Course, like This on the NEPA
Process. Matt and I and

Gregg Simmons From the Arizona State Office Will Conspire Early next
Week to Come up with

Perhaps a Range of Alternatives That Can Get Kicked Around on That Video
Course. And We

Will Also See about Getting Some Guidance out as Interim Guidance.
Again, this Is One of Those

Things That Takes a Little Bit More Thought and an Off‑the‑cuff Answer
Doesn\'t Really Work

Here. Some of These Things Are Going To Be Basically Driven by the Site
at Hand and the

Circumstances at Hand. Remember, NEPA Is Site Specific. There Are
Certain Big Broad

Parameters We Can Give You, but We Haven\'t Thought Those Through Yet.

Regrettably, No Matter How Hard We Try, How Hard We Would Like To, We
Are Not Going

to Be Able to Give You a Cookbook with A List of Ingredients That Will
Fit Every Possibility

with High Altitude and Low Altitude Recipes. It Just Isn\'t Going to
Happen. A Lot of Thought

and a Lot of Thinking Is Going to Have to Go Into this. Does Every Every
Occupancy Form

Filed Need a Concurrence or Nonconcurrence Decision?

Yes.

Yes and No.

Technically Yes, Unless the Individual Decides to Quit. Let\'s Say You
Have an Individual Who

Is Not Reasonably Incident, Files the Form. We Go out. We Do this ‑‑
Surface Use Determination

That\'s Signed by a Certified Mineral Examiner, and We Take it to Him
and Say, Boy, You\'re Not

Even Close. The Person Gets up and Quits and Says, Good‑bye. We Don\'t
Have to Go Any

Further. We Close the Case. If the Person Doesn\'t Quit, We\'re onto the
next Phase. Matt?

You\'ve Said Appear Claimant Has to Relinquish or Partially Relinquish
the Claim Prior to

Obtaining a 2920 Lease. Why Do They Have to Relinquish. A 2920 Does Not
Segregate Against

Filing Future Mining Claims So Others Could Take over The Lease. Scott?

I Think it Goes Back to the Rights of a Mining Claimant to Have the
Right to Occupy, and in

Our ‑‑ Generally How We\'ve Been Working in Our Resource Area We Will
Not Issue a 2920

Permit for Occupancy on a Mining Claim Unless the Mining Claimant
Relinquishes the Rights to

the Occupancy Area. We\'re Not Lookinging at the Entire Mining Claim. I
Don\'t Have an Answer

in Terms Of Where Is it in Writing. Rick Might Have a Better Idea.

It\'s Sort of a Procedural Thing That Looks Back to the Old Mining Claim
Occupancy Act. They

Had to Relinquish the Area Around Their Occupancy and Relinquish Those
Other Pieces of The

Claim in Order to Get That Small Piece of Ground. It\'s Sort of a ‑‑ You
Know, Common

Currency of Doing Business in BLM. We Can\'t Really Come up with an
Answer in Minerals as to

Why We Want Them to Do That Other than There Is the Mining Law and You
Have the Right to

Occupy under The Mining Law If You Want to Occupy under Some Other
Purpose, Quit Your

Mining Claim.

it Also ‑‑ since a Fee Is Also Required under 2920, this Also ‑‑ There
Is Also the Acreage That

Is Defined for the Occupancy Site Helps to Establish the Rate and You
Don\'t Want to Hit Them

up for a 20‑acre Piece.

Okay. Suppose an Occupancy Form Is Filed and the Office Determines That
There Really Is No

Occupancy for Whatever Reason. Would a Letter to the Claimant Stating
There Is No Occupancy

Serve in Lieu of a Decision?

Why Not?

I Can\'t Think of a Good Reason.

a Phone Call May Also Work.

Yeah.

as Long as It\'s Documented.

as Long as It\'s Documented. Remember, If It\'s Not Documented, it
Didn\'t Happen. So as Long

as You Get Some Kind Of Documentation into the Case File, a Phone Call
May Be the End of It.

under the Definition of Occupancy, What\'s the Difference Between the
Presence of People And

the Presence of Structures?

Essentially Nothing. I Mean, the Presence of People Is You\'ve Got an
Existing Occupancy

That\'s Ongoing, and You\'ve Just Discovered it after 17 Years. The
Presence of Structures

Capable of Sheltering People Is The Functional Equivalent of Occupancy.
We Have Designed a

Net Big Enough to Catch Somebody Putting A Structure out on the Public
Lands That Could Be

Lived In.

it May Seem a Little Redundant but the Question Goes On to Ask: Are
Occupancy and

Residence Interchangeable or Synonymous?

They Are Partially Synonymous In That Residency Means You\'re There,
You\'re Living There,

You\'re on the Claim 24 Hours a Day and It\'s Your Sole Place of
Residence. Occupancy Means

That There\'s a Building out There That\'s Capable of Supporting
Residency.

Good. I Have Just Handed Dennis a Question and Asked Him If it Has Any
Elements of

Criminality in It. It\'s a Very Long Question That Falls into the
Category of I\'ve Got this Problem,

How Would I Approach it for Strategy? So We Probably Can\'t Answer the
Whole Question, but

Can You Kind Of Summarize What You Think it Is?

Is That One Wyoming?

this One Is Wyoming.

Let Me Take a Stab at That First. The Very First Thing That I See In
this Is That You Have

Somebody Who Is Not Only Saying That There Is No Authority ‑‑ Well, the
Individual Has Said

That He Lives on a Mill Site. The Mill Site Was Part of a Placer Claim
Found Invalid in \'93. He\'s

Appealed and Got a Statement. He Refused to Pay His \$100 Filing Fee on
Constitutional

Grounds. He Has a Stay for That. He Says He\'s Exempt from 3809. There
Are No Exemptions

from 3809. He Says His Mill Site Predates 3809. We\'re Sorry, That
Doesn\'t Work. He Has

Preempt Authority, Whatever That Means. He Says That Parking Equipment
On Federal Land Is

Not Disturbance and Cannot Count Towards the Five‑acre Rule. He
Denounces BLM. Stand in

Line. Take a Number. No Electricity. No County Permits. Denies That the
State Has the

Authority to Make Him Pay a Bond And Blames BLM State Conspiracy For His
Failure to

Produce and I Suppose Black Helicopters and Blue Helmets. Okay. What\'s
Going on Here? This

Guy Is Saying the Entire Structure of Regulatory Management of
Operations on the Public Lands

Is Illegitimate. The Very First Thing Do You Is Call over to the State
and Say, What Are You

Guys Going to Do? There\'s No State Permit. Sortly Deq Has a Pretty
Strong Set of Enforcement

Teeth and They Have Never Been Shy in Wyoming about Using Them. You Have
No County

Permits. I Suspect this Is Sweetwater County. Sweetwater County Ought to
Be Contacted and

You Begin at the Local Level, and You Begin to Demonstrate That, No, He
Has No Permits, No,

He Has No County Authorization, and You Begin to See If There Isn\'t
Some Violation at the

State Level That Will Help You Lever this Guy out.

Great. We\'re Just about out of Time. We Did Find Page 1 of Pete\'s Fax
During the Grace

Period, Rick, And We Have to Do this Quick, Are People Required to Keep
the Same Level of

Occupancy or Can They Increase it During the Grace Period?

Say That Again.

During the Grace Period, Can People Increase Their Level of Occupancy or
Do They ‑‑ Are

They Required to Keep at the Same Level?

We\'re Silent on That and We\'ve Never ‑‑ We Haven\'t Addressed That
Issue. We Will Address

That Issue in Interim Guidance. My First Answer Is, If It\'s Reasonably
Incident to Increase Your

Level of Occupancy, It\'s Okay.

Well, We Weren\'t Able to Get To All of Your Questions Today And over
the Last Three Days.

We Still Have a Few in the Stack. The Instructors Have All Promised to
Answer Questions by

Phone or Groupwise. We Do Encourage Groupwise Questions to Avoid Playing
Phone Tag.

Please Keep in Touch with Us. Over the Last Three Days We\'ve Examined a
Spectrum of Mining

Claim Use and Occupancy Issues. We Know We Haven\'t Answered Everyone\'s
Questions and

We\'re Not Sure That There Are Answers To Everything Just Yet. In the
Meantime, It\'s Important

That We All Work Diligently and Document Diligently. Remember, If it
Isn\'t Documented. It

Didn\'t Happen. I Would like to Thank Rick Deeree, Scott Murrellwright,
Dennis Mclane and Bob

Gibson for Joining Us this Week. It\'s Been a Really Busy Three Days, a
Little Uneven at Times

And We Really Thank You for Your Participation. This Telecast Is One in
a Series Of Satellite

Courses Offered by The BLM National Training Center. We Value Your
Suggestions and

Comments. Please Mail Us Your Evaluation Forms So That We Can Continue
to Bring You the

Best in Distance Learning. Thanks for Your Participation.