Law Office of Russell D. Hartill 140 W 9000 S Suite 1, Sandy, UT 84070 (801) 561-4797 Fax (801) 561-4798 russhartill@lawyer.com 10 June 2009 Bureau of Land Management Salt Lake Field Office 2370 South 2300 West Salt Lake City, Utah 84119 Ithas come to our attention that the BLM Utah office is demanding claimants file notices of exploration, reclamation estimates, and post reclamation bonds if they wish to oppose the backfilling of mine openings on their valid mining claims. Such a demand is premature, given the fact that many claimants wish to engage in casual use which requires NO notices nor plan of operations. A mining claimant may hold a valid mining claim for a variety of mining purposes, as long as assessment work is done timely and feos are kept current. BLM has engaged the UTAH DOGM-AMRP on various occasions to assist them in the remediation of abandoned mine lands, and currently is considering closing openings in the Lakeside District. It is DOGM- AMRP policy to obtain claimholder permission prior to closing openings. If BLM is positioning itself as ‘the owner of the claim in question (for purposes of granting permission to proceed with closures) then we hereby put BLM UTAH on notice that such an ownership claim is detrimental to claimant's rights and we intend to sue for damages if such a remediation is carried out after the date of location of our claims. 1. The claim was located and fees paid in part because of the condition of the land at the time of location. In fact, a valid mineral discovery was visible and accessible through the openings present on the date of location. Backfiling these discovery points will jeopardize claimant's ability to prove a valid mineral discovery occurred, and will harm his ability to sell or mine the claim, 2, The BLM has not shown that the opening is in need of remediation. Itis currently under claim, and is not a danger to the general public and the claimant is and will through his casual use of said claim, monitor and otherwise secure the opening as best he can. 3. Mine claimants have valid rights and interest in their claims and can buy/sell and otherwise enjoy their claims to the full extent the law allows. Such rights are being curtailed and cut short Whenever BLM continues to schedule mine closures on active valid claims. Such activity by BLM may in fact rise to the level of a “taking” and as such the claimant would have a right to compensation for his/her losses as a result of BLM action against their claim.BLM’s request for a notice of exploration presumes that active exploration is currently proceeding. Itis not a requirement to actively explore in order to hold a claim, and casual use does not require notices nor plans of operation. This office is confused by your letter’s citation of several code sections, none of which are applicable to the present claimant, because claimant is NOT engaged in exploration, and thus no notice is necessary. He merely wishes to maintain the openir 1g AS IS until he decides to commence exploration. Under CFR 3809.21 - (When do I have to submit a notice?), a notice of operations is due 15 days before exploration begins, unless itis casual use. Since the activities on the claim in question are ONLY casual use at present, the filing of a notice of operations, or a plan for exploration are not required. If BLM believes otherwise, please cite the code section requiring the posting of a reclamation bond for pre- 1976 openings on a valid post 1976 mining claim. ‘While engaging in casual use operations, claimant will maintain all existing structures, equipment and other facilities in a safe and orderly manner. Signage has and will be placed to adequately identify and alert the public to any hazardous conditions on the claim per § 3809.421 43 CFR Ch. I (101-05 Edition) By BLM'’s own definition, casual use does not cause unnecessary or undue degradation. Claimant is not “operating” any mine while engaged in casual use so no disturbance is contemplated. Lastly the remaining code citations you cited in your letter involve use and occupancy of the claim, and claimant does not intend to occupy the claim for more than 14 days in any 90 day period. It is the claimant’s wish and right to maintain his claim with the mine openings as currently constituted, ‘Adequate precautions to avoid claimant liability for damages by multiple-users of public land of which their claim is part will be undertaken on a casual use basis. The fact that the BLM has federal funds available to permanently close and backfill mine openings does not somehow give them permission to violate the property rights of mine claimants. it does not follow that just because the BLM has federal funds with which to close mine openings that the mine claimants needs to match dollar for dollar the anticipated/proposed closure design, cost, and timetable. Asking the mine claimant to post a bond to cover the reclamation costs of historic pre-1976 openings is unprecedentedly illegal and not supported by case law. PLEASE BE ADVISED that any attempt to backfill historic openings on the claims in question will be considered an illegal taking of claimant's property rights under the US Constitution and the responsible Parties will be held accountable gad liable for any and all damages. Sincerely, lan Russ Hartill, JD For and on behalf of mine claimant