mcglinchy v. state, dept. of natural resources, alaska (2015)
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/25/2019 McGlinchy v. State, Dept. of Natural Resources, Alaska (2015)
1/25
Notice: This opinion is subject to correction before publication in the PACIFICREPORTER.
Readers are requested to bring errors to the at tention of the Clerk of the Appel late Courts,
303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, phone (907) 264-0608, fax (907) 264-0878, em ail
THESUPREMECOURTOFTHESTATEOFALASKA
JAMESP.MCGLINCHYd/b/a
M&MCONSTRUCTORS,
Appellant,
v.
STATEOFALASKA,DEPARTMENTOFNATURAL
RESOURCES,andDANIELS.
SULLIVAN,COMMISSIONEROF
NATURALRESOURCES,
Appellees.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
SupremeCourtNo.S-15277
SuperiorCourtNo.4FA-11-02830CI
OPINION
No.7028August7,2015
Appeal from the Superior Court of the State of Alaska,FourthJudicialDistrict,Fairbanks,MichaelA.MacDonald,
Judge.
Appearances:JosephW.Sheehan,LawOfficeofJosephW.
Sheehan, Fairbanks, for Appellant. Ashley C. Brown,
Assistant Attorney General, Anchorage, and Michael C.
Geraghty,AttorneyGeneral,Juneau,forAppellees.
Before:Fabe,ChiefJustice,Winfree,Stowers,Maassen,and
Bolger,Justices.
STOWERS,Justice.
-
7/25/2019 McGlinchy v. State, Dept. of Natural Resources, Alaska (2015)
2/25
I. INTRODUCTION
M&MConstructorssubmittedapermitapplicationtotheDepartmentof
NaturalResources(DNR)tomineamineraldepositforuseasconstructionrock.DNR
deniedM&Mspermitapplicationbecauseitconcludedthatthemineraldepositwas
commonvarietystone.UndertheCommonVarietiesAct,1 commonvarietiesofstone
arenotsubjecttolocation,meaningtheycannotbepermittedthroughthemininglaws
locationprocess.M&Mappealedtothesuperiorcourt,arguingthatDNRwrongly
denied its permit application and alsodenied itprocedural due process. After the
superiorcourtaffirmed,M&Mappealedtothiscourt.WeaffirmbecauseM&Mseeks
tomineforcommonvarietystonethatiswellwithintheambitoftheCommonVarieties
Act,anditreceivedampledueprocessintheDNRproceeding.
II. FACTSANDPROCEEDINGS
M&M,ownedbyJamesP.McGlinchy,istheleaseholderofamineral
depositatFlagHill,locatedapproximately45milessouthofFairbanks.M&Mplanned
todeveloptheFlagHilldeposittosupplymaterialsforanearbyAlaskaRailroadproject.
M&MsubmittedaPlanofOperationstoDNRinMay2010requestingapermittomine
thelandunder30U.S.C.22,theGeneralMiningLawof1872.
The1872MiningLawprovidesthatallvaluablemineraldepositsinlands
belongingtotheUnitedStates...shallbefreeandopentoexplorationandpurchase.2
1 ActofJuly23,1955,ch.375,69Stat.367(1955)(codifiedasamendedat
30U.S.C.601-615(2012)).
2
ActofMay10,1872,ch.152,17Stat.91(1872)(codifiedasamendedat30U.S.C.22(2012)).Alaskaappliesfederalmininglawintheabsenceofaspecific
state statute. See AS 38.05.185(c);AU Intl, Inc. v. State, Dept of Natural Res.,
971P.2d1034,1039(Alaska1999)(recognizingthatcertainstatestatutesgovernrights
in mineral deposits on state lands and [b]ecause the relevant state statute clearly
(continued...)
-2- 7028
-
7/25/2019 McGlinchy v. State, Dept. of Natural Resources, Alaska (2015)
3/25
Butinordertobefreeandopentoexplorationandpurchase,themineralormineral
depositinquestionmustbesubjecttolocation.3 TheCommonVarietiesAct,passed
in1955,limitswhatmineralsarelocatable,providingthat[n]odepositofcommon
varietiesofsand,stone,gravel,pumice,pumicite,orcindersandnodepositofpetrified
woodshallbedeemedavaluablemineraldeposit.4However,theCommonVarieties
Actdoesnotbarlocationofeither(1)claimsbasedupondiscoveryofsome other
mineral occurringinorinassociationwith[acommon]deposit,5or(2)depositswith
adistinctandspecialvalue.6M&Mreferstotheseexceptionsastheconstituent
mineralstheoryandtheuncommonvarietytheory.
In its Plan of Operations M&M asserted that the Flag Hill rock was
locatablebecauseiteitherwas(1)comprisedofvaluablemineralsduetotheinterlocking
structureofitsconstituentminerals,augiteandplagioclase,or(2)anuncommonvariety
ofstonewith adistinct and special value. M&MretainedTerryS. Maley, anoted
geologistformerlyemployedbytheBureauofLandManagement,andTomBundtzen,
2(...continued)
addressesthesubjectofabandonmentofstateclaims,weneednotconstrueourstatute
inaccordancewith theusages andinterpretationsapplicable tothe federalmining
laws).Thepartiesagreethatfederallawcontrolshereandweconcur.
3 See United States v. Bienick,14IBLA290,293(1974)(Notallmaterials
whichcanberemovedfromtheearthandsoldataprofitarelocatableunderthemining
laws.);BLACKSLAW DICTIONARY1082(10thed.2014)(defininglocationas[t]he
actofappropriatingaminingclaim).
4 30U.S.C.611.
5 Id.(emphasisadded).
6 Id.
-3- 7028
-
7/25/2019 McGlinchy v. State, Dept. of Natural Resources, Alaska (2015)
4/25
President of Pacific Rim Geological Consulting, Inc., to help prepare supporting
materialsforsubmissiontoDNR.
DNRformedanadvisorycommitteetoinvestigatethelocatabilityofthe
FlagHillrockandperformasiteinspection. Aftercarefuldeliberationthecommittee
recommendedthatDNRdenyM&Msapplication.Itconcludedthattheconstituent
minerals,augiteandplagioclase,werenotvaluablemineralsand,evenif theywere,
M&MplannedtomineFlagHillforthehostrockforuseinconstruction;itdidnotplan
tousetheaugiteandplagioclaseapartfromthehostrock.Thecommitteealsoconcluded
thattheFlagHillrockwascommonvarietyrockundertheCommonVarietiesActand
thereforenonlocatable.DNRsentadeniallettertoM&MinJuly2010.
M&Mappealedandrequestedahearing,whichtheCommissionerofDNR
granted.Overthenexttwomonthsthepartiesexchangedcontentiousemails: M&M
arguedthatthehearingshouldbelongerthanoriginallyplannedandthatDNRshould
be requiredtopresent itscase first. The partiesalso arguedoverthedisclosureofa
committeecommunicationsfileintheadministrativerecord,whichwasbeingheldby
DNRforprivilegereview.Thehearingofficerdeniedmostoftheserequestsbutallowed
anextrahourforquestioningwitnesses.Andthepartieseventuallyagreedthatthe
hearingshouldgoforwardasscheduledevenwithoutthecommunicationsfileandthat
M&Mcouldsupplementitsappealafterthefilewasproduced.
Theone-dayhearingwasheldinJanuary2011. Bundtzentestifiedthatthe
FlagHillrockmettheengineeringspecificationsforriprapandrailroadballast.Andhe
testifiedregardingwhatqualitieshethoughtmadetheFlagHillrockunique.Thesewere
mainly[s]uperiorLosAngelesabrasionlossnumbers,goodT13degradations,low
waterabsorption,veryacceptablesodiumsulfatesoundnesstests,and...a[high]coarse
riprappotential.MaleytestifiedthathebelievedtheFlagHillrockwasaverystrong
caseforlocatabilitybecauseithadauniquecombinationofproperties:hedidnot
-4- 7028
-
7/25/2019 McGlinchy v. State, Dept. of Natural Resources, Alaska (2015)
5/25
think[hehad]seensomanypropertiesthatcoulddosomuchforengineeringspecs...
inarockforthispurpose.McGlinchytestifiedthattherewouldbeamarketforthe
productsinFairbanksandthesurroundingarea.
WitnessesforDNRtestifiedatlengthregardingFlagHillspotentialyield,
jointspacing,andcoresamples. OnewitnesstestifiedthatFlagHillwasnotuniquein
being able to meet the technical specifications for aggregate, ballast, and riprap; he
thought[a]lotofsitescertainlyalotofsitesmeetmeetthecriteria.Another
witnesstestifiedthatchemicallythisplotissimilartoanumberofintrusionsacrossthe
InteriorofAlaska,aswellaselsewhereinAlaska.Andthewitnesstestifiedthat
[m]ineralogically . . . this deposit, the quartz monzodiorite is similar in mineral
compositiontootherrocksofthatchemistry,andeventhetexture...theinterlocking
plagioclaseandaugitearecommontorocksofthistype.Thewitnessnotedthatother
nearbyrockdepositshavehigherspecificgravitiesandthataugiteandplagioclaseas
occurringinthedeposithavenomarketvalueevenweretheytobeextractedand
marketed.
A month after the hearing DNR produced the contents of the
communications file. Thesewere mainly emails between the committee members
regardingtransportationtoFlagHill,scheduling,anddraftsofthecommitteereport.
M&Msupplementeditsappealwithabriefstatement,arguingthatthenewmaterials
weresoimportantthatitwouldhave conducted itsappealdifferentlyhadtheybeen
releasedbeforethehearing.Asrelevant,M&MarguedthatDNRknewsomeofthe
othermineraldepositsintheareacouldnotmeettheengineeringspecificationsforthe
AlaskaRailroadproject.
The hearing officer transmitted his report and recommendation to the
CommissionerinJune2011. HeconcludedthattheFlagHillrockwasnot locatablefor
itshighconcentrationofaugiteandplagioclase.HeexplainedthatM&Mwasmore
-5- 7028
-
7/25/2019 McGlinchy v. State, Dept. of Natural Resources, Alaska (2015)
6/25
specificallyarguing[theFlagHillrock]shouldbedeemedlocatablebecauseofthe
physicalpropertiesthismineralogyandtexturemanifestinthe...rock,nottheminerals
themselves.(Emphasisinoriginal.)AndhenotedthatseveralofM&Mswitnesses
testifiedthatM&Mhadnointentionofextractingorusingtheaugiteandplagioclasein
therock.ThehearingofficeralsoreviewedtheconflictingevidenceprovidedbyM&M
andDNRandfoundthatthefavorablejointspacingarguedbyM&Mwasnotsupported
by the evidence. The hearing officer compared the rock to other sites with similar
mineralogyandfoundthatitdidnothaveauniquepropertythatcouldgiveitadistinct
andspecialvalue.InSeptember2011theCommissioneradoptedthehearingofficers
ultimateconclusionthattheFlagHillrockwasneither(1)valuableforitsconstituent
mineralsnor(2)unique,andhedeniedM&Msappeal.
M&Mappealedthe Commissionersfinaldenial to thesuperiorcourt,
arguingthatthehearingofficerhadmisappliedthelawanddeniedM&Mdueprocess.
Thesuperiorcourtaffirmed.Itconcludedthatbecause[t]heapplication...[was]based
onthevalueofthehostrock,notthevalueofitsconstituentminerals,theconstituent-
mineralstheorydidnotapply.Thecourtexplainedthat[b]ecause[therock]istobe
usedasfill,aggregate,riprap,ballast[,]andbase,asamatteroflaw,theFlagHillrock
cannot fall within the uncommon variety exception. The superior court also
concludedthatM&Mreceiveddueprocess.M&Mappeals.
III. STANDARDOFREVIEW
In administrative appeals, we directly review the agency action in
question.7Wereviewquestionsoffactforsubstantialevidence,whichissuchrelevant
7 Brown v. Pers. Bd. for City of Kenai,327P.3d871,874(Alaska2014)
(quoting Grimmett v. Univ. of Alaska, 303P.3d 482, 487 (Alaska2013)) (internal
quotationmarksomitted).
-6- 7028
-
7/25/2019 McGlinchy v. State, Dept. of Natural Resources, Alaska (2015)
7/25
evidenceasareasonablemindmightacceptasadequatetosupportaconclusion.8We
need only determine whether such evidence exists, and do not choose between
competinginferences.9 Questionsoflawthatinvolveagencyexpertisearereviewedfor
areasonablebasis.10 Questionsoflawthatdonotinvolveagencyexpertisearereviewed
under the substitution of judgment standard.11 Questions of due process present
constitutionalissuesthatwereviewdenovo. 12
M&M argues that [t]he Hearing Officer, the Commissioner, and the
superiorcourt...misappliedthe...law,andthereforeweshouldreviewtheentire
agencydecisionunderthesubstitutionofjudgmentstandard.Wehaveheldthatthe
substitutionofjudgmentstandardisappropriatewherethecaseconcernsstatutory
interpretation or other analysis of legal relationships about which the courts have
specializedknowledgeandexperience.13 In City of Nome v. Catholic Bishop of
Northern Alaska weheldthatbecauseourdecisionrequire[d]interpretationofstatutory
and case law,we [did]not defer to the Citys administrative expertise.14Andin
8
Id. (quotingGrimmett,303P.3dat487)(internalquotationmarksomitted).9 Handley v. State, Dept of Revenue,838P.2d1231,1233(Alaska1992).
10 May v. State, Commercial Fisheries Entry Commn,175P.3d1211,1215
(Alaska2007).
11 Id.
12 Brown,327P.3dat874(quotingGrimmett,303P.3dat487)(internal
quotationmarksomitted).
13 Tesoro Alaska Petrol. Co. v. Kenai Pipe Line Co.,746P.2d896,903
(Alaska1987)(quotingEarth Res. Co. of Alaska v. State, Dept of Revenue,665P.2d
960,965(Alaska1983)).
14 707P.2d870,876(Alaska1985).
-7- 7028
-
7/25/2019 McGlinchy v. State, Dept. of Natural Resources, Alaska (2015)
8/25
Thurston v. Guys With Tools, Ltd.,weheldthatwhethertheagencyappliedthecorrect
legalstandardwasaquestionoflawthat[did]notinvolveagencyexpertise.15Thus,
we will review the narrow issue of the correct application of the law under the
substitutionofjudgmentstandard.Butwewillreviewthehearingofficersconclusion
thatthedepositatissuewasnotlocatableforareasonablebasis. 16
IV. DISCUSSION
Thisappealpresentstwoissues:whetherthemineraldepositatFlagHill
islocatableandwhetherM&Mreceivedproceduraldueprocess.
A. The Hearing Officers Decision That The Flag Hill Rock Is Not
LocatableHasAReasonableBasis.
1. Legalbackground
Alaskagenerallyappliesfederalmininglaw.17 TheGeneralMiningLaw
of 1872, as discussed above, provides that all valuable mineral deposits in lands
belongingtotheUnitedStates...shallbefreeandopentoexplorationandpurchase.18
Amineraldepositmaybeavaluablemineraldepositifitmeetstheprudentmantest
andthemarketabilitytest. 19 Theprudentmantestaskswhetherthediscovereddeposits
[are]ofsuchacharacterthatapersonofordinaryprudencewouldbejustifiedinthe
furtherexpenditureofhislaborandmeans,withareasonableprospectofsuccess,in
15 217P.3d824,827(Alaska2009).
16 May, 175 P.3d at 1215. This question involves considerable agency
expertise.See, e.g.,AS38.05.300(a)(Thecommissionershallclassifyforsurfaceuse
landinareasconsidered necessary and proper.(emphasisadded)).
17 See AS38.05.185(a),(c).
18 30U.S.C.22(2012).
19 Copar Pumice Co. v. Tidwell,603F.3d780,785(10thCir.2010);see also
TERRYS.MALEY,MINERALLAW 341,526,586(6thed.1996).
-8- 7028
-
7/25/2019 McGlinchy v. State, Dept. of Natural Resources, Alaska (2015)
9/25
developingavaluablemine.20 Themarketabilitytestaskswhetherthemineralcanbe
extracted,removed[,]andmarketedataprofit. 21
But[n]otallmaterialswhichcanberemovedfromtheearthandsoldat
aprofitarelocatableundertheminerallaws.22Itisthepurposeofminerallawsto
reservefromdispositionandtodevotetomineralsaleandexploitationonlysuchlands
aspossessmineraldepositsofspecialorpeculiarvalueintrade,commerce,manufacture,
science,orthearts.23 Thus,commonmineralssuchasclay,peat,commonorinferior
limestone,andcommonrockhavenotbeenconsideredvaluablemineralsunder
30U.S.C.22,24 with one exception: before1955, materials thatmet engineering
specificationsforroadbeds,railroads,airportrunways,foundationsforlargebuildings,
bridges[,]andotherstructuresweresometimesconsideredvaluableminerals.25
After the Common Varieties Act of 1955, [n]o deposit of common
varietiesofsand,stone,gravel,pumice,pumicite,orcindersandnodepositofpetrified
wood[may]bedeemedavaluablemineraldepositwithinthemeaningofthemininglaws
oftheUnitedStates.26 Evenifthedepositpreviouslywassubjecttolocationbecause
itmetengineeringrequirementsforcompaction,hardness,soundness,stability,favorable
20 United States v. Coleman,390U.S.599,602(1968)(quoting Castle v.
Womble,19Pub.LandsDec.455,457(1894)).
21 Id. at600(internalquotationmarksomitted).
22 United States v. Bienick,14IBLA290,293(1974).
23 Id. at297-98(Stuebing,member,concurring).
24 Id.at297(collectingcases).
25 Id. at298 (citingUnited States v. Mattey,67InteriorDec.63(1960);
Stephen E. Day, Jr.,50Pub.LandsDec.489(1924)).
26 30U.S.C.611(2012).
-9- 7028
-
7/25/2019 McGlinchy v. State, Dept. of Natural Resources, Alaska (2015)
10/25
gradation,non-reactivityandnon-hydrophillicqualitiesin roadbuildingandsimilar
work, after the Common Varieties Act these materials were treated as common
varieties, and therefore [were] not locatable, because materials which meet these
standardsarecommon,abundant[,]andofwidespreadoccurrence.27Thus,evenif
commonvarietystonewasconsideredlocatablebefore1955becauseitmetengineering
specifications,aftertheCommonVarietiesActitnolongerwaslocatable. 28
ButtheCommonVarietiesActdoesnotapplytobarlocationofeither
(1)claimsbasedupondiscoveryofsome other mineral occurringinorinassociation
29 30with[acommon]deposit, or(2)depositswithadistinctandspecialvalue. M&M
arguesthatFlagHillrockislocatableunderboththeories.M&Malsoarguesthatthe
hearingofficermisappliedthelaw.
2. The constituent minerals theory does not apply because
M&MplanstomineFlagHillfortherockasatotality.
M&MarguesthattheFlagHillrockisnotsubjecttotheCommonVarieties
Actbecausethemineralsaugiteandplagioclasearevaluableconstituentminerals.
M&Mmakesthisargumenteventhoughitadmittedlyplanstousethehostrockasa
whole.Thehearingofficerconcludedthattheconstituent-mineralsexceptiondidnot
applybecausetherocksvaluetoM&Misin therock,not theconstituentminerals,
augiteandplagioclase.Healsoagreedwiththecommitteethataugiteandplagioclase
havelittleornomarketvalueevenweretheytobeconsideredvaluableconstituent
minerals.
27 Bienick,14IBLAat298(Stuebing,member,concurring).
28 Id..
29 30U.S.C.611(emphasisadded).
30 Id.
-10- 7028
-
7/25/2019 McGlinchy v. State, Dept. of Natural Resources, Alaska (2015)
11/25
Ifthematerialislocatedonly forthevalueofaconstituentelementofthe
sand,gravel,orstone,theCommonVarietiesActdoesnotapply,andthematerialis
locatable.31EvenM&Msexpert,TerryS.Maley,agreeswiththisproposition.Maleys
treatiseexplains,Ingeneral,iftherockisvaluableforonlyanindividualmineralor
elementsuchasgold,silver,feldspar,mica,etc.itisnotacommonvarietyquestionand
30U.S.C.611doesnotapply;however,iftheentirerockisusedandtheconstituent
elementsormineralsarerelativelyunimportant,then30U.S.C.611mayapply. 32
In United States v. Bunkowski the claimants sought location basedon
gypsitetobeusedasasoilconditioner.33TheInteriorBoardofLandAppeals(the
Board)heldthat[s]incethematerialhereisvaluedandusedonlyforitsconstituent
gypsum,itmaynotbenecessarytodeterminewhetherthedepositisanuncommon
varietyofsand,gravel[,]orstone.34ButinUnited States v. BealtheBoardheldthat
rockcontainingfeldspar,anotherwisevaluableconstituentmineral,constitutedcommon
varietystonewhentherockwasusedforornamentalorlandscapingpurposes. 35 Maleys
treatise identifies the controlling language fromBeal as stating, For its use as
31 United States v. Bunkowski,5IBLA102,113(1972)(emphasisadded)
(citingUnited States v. Pierce,75InteriorDec.270,279(1968));Pierce,75Interior
Dec.at279([I]ndeterminingwhetheraparticularmaterialfallswithinthepurviewof
thecommonvarietiesprovision,itisnecessarytodeterminewhetherthematerialasa
totalityhasvalueorwhetheronlyaconstituentelementofthematerialhasvalue.).
32 MALEY,supranote19,at592.
33 5IBLAat106-07.Gypsitecanbespreadonalkalisoilsinordertoimprove
cropyieldbychangingthecompositionofthesoilthroughachemicalreaction.Id. at107,114-15.
34 Id. at113.
35 23IBLA378,395(1976).
-11- 7028
-
7/25/2019 McGlinchy v. State, Dept. of Natural Resources, Alaska (2015)
12/25
landscapingorbuildingstone,thefeldsparonthesubjectclaim...issimplygroundinto
rockformandthefeldsparelementinthefinalproductisofnosignificance. 36 Aclassic
exampleisgraniticrockcomposedofquartzandothermineralsusuallyfoundingranite.
Ifthegraniteisusedforconstructionpurposes,then[t]hereisnodoubtthattherock
wouldconstituteastonewithinthemeaningofthecommonvarietiesprovision. 37 But
ifthesamerockcontainedgoldandtheminerintendedtoonlyminetherockforthe
gold,thenthedepositwouldnotbeastoneandwouldnotbesubjecttotheCommon
VarietiesAct.38
ItisuncontestedthatM&MplanstomineFlagHillforthehostrockand
use it for constructionpurposes. M&Msappellate brief saysit bestwhen it asks,
[W]hywouldanyonewanttoextractthemineralsanddestroythevalueoftherock?
ThistellingstatementdemonstratesthattheFlagHillrockisvaluabletoM&Mforthe
hostrockandnotfortheconstituentminerals,augiteandplagioclase.Theclaimisnot
basedonsomeothermineral39itisbasedonthehostrockitself,liketheexample
usedinPierce andthesituationpresentedinBeal. Thehearingofficersconclusionthat
theconstituent-mineralstheorydoesnotapplyhasareasonablebasis. 40
36 MALEY,supranote19,at594;see also Pierce,75InteriorDec.at279-80.
37 Pierce,75InteriorDec.at279-80.
38 Id.at280.
39 30U.S.C.611(2012).
40
M&MarguesthatthehearingofficerwronglyrelieduponthefactthatM&Mdidnotplantoremovetheaugiteandplagioclase. Butthisargumentmissesthe
pointof the hearing officers decision. Thedistinction madewas not dependant on
whetherthemineralswereremovedfromthehostrock;itwasadeterminationofwhat
abouttherockwasvaluabletoM&M.Ingypsitecasesthegypsiteisnotremoved
(continued...)
-12- 7028
-
7/25/2019 McGlinchy v. State, Dept. of Natural Resources, Alaska (2015)
13/25
M&Malsoarguesthatthehearingofficerusedsometerminologythatis
morefrequentlyusedinthetestforuncommonvarieties.AlthoughM&Miscorrect,we
believethiswasbecausethehearingofficerwasalsoaddressingthemarketabilityand
prudentmantests.Essentially,thehearingofficerwasaskingwhether,ifaugiteand
plagioclasewerehypotheticallythetargetof themining, therewouldbeamarketfor
thesemineralssuchthattheywouldpasstheprudentmanandmarketabilitytests.And
hewasrequiredtousesomeofthistypeoflanguagetosetthecontextfortheremainder
ofthedecision. HisanalysisreasonablytacklesthemainissuewhethertheFlagHill
rockisvaluabletoM&Masawholeoronlyforsomeconstituentelementofitsmatrix.
Weconcludethatthehearingofficercorrectlyappliedthelaw.
3. TheFlagHillrockisnotanuncommonvarietyrock.
M&M alternativelyargues that theFlagHill rockis notsubject to the
CommonVarietiesActbecauseitisanuncommonvarietyduetofavorablejoint
spacing,highdensity,andbecauseitmeetsengineeringspecifications. TheCommon
Varieties Act provides that [n]o deposit ofcommon varieties of sand, stone, [or]
gravel...shallbedeemedavaluablemineraldeposit.41 But[c]ommonvarietiesdo
notincludedepositsthathavesomepropertygiving[them]distinctandspecialvalue.42
Inordertodeterminewhetheranotherwisecommondeposithasadistinctandspecial
value,weapplythefivetestsannouncedbyMcClarty v. Secretary of the Interior:
40(...continued)
because removal is not necessary for the gypsite to work as a soil conditioner. See
United States v. Bunkowski,5IBLA102,111-12(1972). Here,M&Mplanstousethe
rockforconstructionitisseekingtoextractandsellthehostrock,nottheaugiteandplagioclase.
41 30U.S.C.611(emphasisadded).
42 Id.
-13- 7028
-
7/25/2019 McGlinchy v. State, Dept. of Natural Resources, Alaska (2015)
14/25
(1) theremustbea comparison of the mineral deposit in
question with other deposits of such minerals generally;
(2) the mineral deposit in question must have a unique
property; (3) the unique property must give the deposit a
distinctandspecialvalue;(4)ifthespecialvalueisforuses
towhichordinaryvarietiesofthemineralareput,thedeposit
musthavesomedistinctandspecialvalueforsuchuse;and
(5)thedistinctandspecialvaluemustbereflectedbythe
higher price which the material commands in the market[ ]place.43
Ifthemineraldepositdoesnothaveauniquephysicalpropertyundertest2,thenthe
rockisacommonvarietyrocksubjecttotheCommonVarietiesAct. 44
a. McClarty test 1: comparison to other types of such
mineralsgenerally
Thehearingofficerheldthat[u]nderMcClartytest1,theother mineral
deposits thatshouldbecomparedwith[theFlagHillrock]areothersiteswithsimilar
mineralogy(i.e.,diorites,diabase,basalt,gabbro,quartzmonzodiorites,etc.)thatcould
bequarriedforrockthatisanaggregateofthosesuch minerals generally.(Emphasis
inoriginal.)Thehearingofficerfoundthatwhensiteswithsuchmineralsgenerallyas
compared to the [Flag Hill rock] were plotted together, they all have relatively
comparablephysicalproperties.Inmakinghiscomparison,thehearingofficermainly
used sites M&M itself had proffered as a reasonable comparison in its Plan of
Operations.
43 408F.2d907,908(9thCir.1969).
44 See, e.g.,United States v. Smith,66IBLA182,189(1982).
-14 7028
-
7/25/2019 McGlinchy v. State, Dept. of Natural Resources, Alaska (2015)
15/25
M&Marguesthatthehearingofficerconsideredthewrongtypesofmineral
depositsanddepositsthatweretoofaraway.45M&Marguesthatthehearingofficer
shouldhavecomparedtheFlagHillstonetorunofthemillstoneandbynotdoingso
rantheriskofcomparingittootheruncommonvarieties.AndM&Marguesthat
because the proposeduse of the rockisconstructionabulkuse the hearing
officer should have limited the comparisons to those deposits within 50 miles of
Fairbanks.
InUnited States v. Stacey & Jacksontheadministrativelawjudgenotedthat
akeyissueindeterminingwhetherthe...stoneiscommonoruncommonvarietyis
whetherthe[appellants]depositshouldbe comparedtosimilardepositsofstoneor
commonvarietydepositsofstonegenerally.46Heconcludedthatthestoneshouldbe
comparedtosimilardepositsofstoneratherthancommonvarietydepositsgenerally,47
because(1)itsusefallsunderthecategoryofbuildingpurposeswhicharetypicalof
commonvarietyminerals,(2)[thestone]graywackeiscommonlyfoundinsouthern
Alaskaandworldwide,and(3)thevalueof[thistypeof]stonedependsonincidental
factorsliketheproximityofthedeposittoprospectiveconsumers,localneeds,andthe
45 M&Malso argues that the hearing officershould not haveconsidered
undevelopeddeposits.ButeventhequotethatM&Musestosupportitspoint,from
United States v. Smith,explicitlystatesthatthecomparisonmaybemadewithactive
quarriesandexposed outcrops.66IBLAat189(emphasisadded).Maleystreatiseis
inaccord.See MALEY,supranote19,at601(citingSmith,66IBLAat189).
46 171IBLA170,177(2007)(alterationinoriginal)(internalquotationmarks
omitted).
47 Id.(internalquotationmarksomitted).
-15- 7028
-
7/25/2019 McGlinchy v. State, Dept. of Natural Resources, Alaska (2015)
16/25
like,ratherthanonanygenerallyrecognizedvalue.48OnappealtheBoardfoundno
errorinthisapplication.49
WeagreewiththeanalysisfromStacey & Jacksonandconcludethatthe
comparisonsitesthehearingofficerchosewerereasonable.BecausetheFlagHillrock
will beused as construction rock, and there was testimony that there were similar
depositsintheareaandthroughoutAlaska,thehearingofficerpermissiblycomparedit
tosimilardeposits.50Moreover,thehearingofficercomparedtheFlagHillrocktoother
depositshavingthesamegeneralmineralogyhedidnotspecificallycompareitto
depositshavingthesamepercentagesofaugiteandplagioclase,ortodepositswithonly
theinterlockingtexturethatM&MarguesmakestheFlagHillrockunique.Weholdthat
hischoiceofcomparisonsiteswithsimilarmineralogywasreasonable.
M&Malsoarguesthatthehearingofficershouldhaveconsideredonly
depositswithina50-mileradiusofFairbanks,butthisargumentisunsupportedbycase
law.Onlyonecase,United States v. McCormick,supportsM&Msspecific50-mile
rule.51Inthatcasethecomparisonwasconfinedto50milesfromFlagstaff,Arizona,the
48 Id.
49 Id.at179.
50 See Brubaker v. Morton,500F.2d200,202-03(9thCir.1974)(holdingthat
coloredroofstonewasproperlycomparedtoothercoloredstone);see also United States
v. Dunbar Stone Co.,56IBLA61,64-66(1981)(comparingtootherschistinthearea);
cf. Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. Anderson,629P.2d512,521(Alaska1981)(declining
togiveaninstructionaboutuniquenessinrelationtoabundancebecauseitwasnotproventhattherewereabundantnearbydepositsofsimilarstonethroughoutthearea).
51 27IBLA65,69(1976).M&MalsocitesAnderson,629P.2dat521,but
that case mainly discusses proximity and uniqueness underMcClarty test 2, not
comparisonunderMcClartytest1.See Anderson,629P.2dat521-22.
-16- 7028
-
7/25/2019 McGlinchy v. State, Dept. of Natural Resources, Alaska (2015)
17/25
centerofthemarketareaservedbytheseseveraldeposits.52TheBoardgavenoreason
for its limitation of 50 miles. As DNR notes,McClarty does not address the
geographicalrangeforthecomparison.53Casesusesuchterminologyasthroughoutthe
area54andthroughouttheregion.55
InUnited States v. HeldmanadepositinSouthDakotawastobeusedfor
decorative,landscaping[,]andprecastwork56bulkuseslikeM&Mplansforthe
FlagHillrock.Despitetheusesbeingbulk,theBoarddiscussedsimilardepositsasfar
away as Colorado.57 This directly counters M&Ms argument regarding haulage
distance. AndinUnited States v. SmiththeBoardnotedthattherewasacomparison
of appellants material with other deposits in the area.58 The Board then mainly
comparedthedepositlocatedonthenortheastsideoftheKenaiPeninsulatoothers
ontheKenaiPeninsulaandintheChugachmountainrange.59Here,thehearingofficer
mainlyusedthesitesthatM&Mitselfproffered. Weconcludethatthehearingofficers
decisionnottoadoptM&Ms50-milelimithadareasonablebasis.
52 McCormick,27IBLAat69.
53 See McClarty v. Secy of Interior,408F.2d907,908-10(9thCir.1969)
(providingnoguidanceonthedistancetobeconsidered).
54 See United States v. Heden,19IBLA326,339(1975);see also United
States v. Smith,66IBLA182,185(1982).
55 See Pitkin Iron Corp. v. Kempthorne,554F.Supp.2d1208,1214(D.Colo.
2008).
56 14IBLA1,7(1973).
57 Id.at6.
58 66IBLAat185.
59 See id. at185-89.
-17- 7028
-
7/25/2019 McGlinchy v. State, Dept. of Natural Resources, Alaska (2015)
18/25
b. McClartytest2:uniqueproperty
M&MarguesthattheFlagHillrockisuniquebecauseofhigherspecific
gravity, the fine graineduniform distributionof augiteand feldspar grains, and
[f]avorable[j]ointand[f]racture[d]ensity.60Thehearingofficerconcludedthatthese
qualitiesdidnotmaketherockunique.Henotedthathighpercentagesofaugiteand
plagioclaseandophitictexturearenotuniquein[thistypeofrock].Andhefoundthat
theredoesappeartobeanumberofotheroccurrencesofthismineralogyidentifiedby
geologicmappingwithininteriorAlaska. HealsofoundM&Msclaimsofhighyield
duetofavorablejointdensityunsupportedbytheevidence.
Thehearingofficersfindingsaresupportedbysubstantialevidence.There
wastestimonyduringthehearingthattheallegeduniquepropertiesoftheFlagHill
60 M&Malsoargues that the rock is unique because of its location and
because it meets engineering specifications. Although M&M urges us to consider
proximitytomarketinmakingtherockunique,thisisaninappropriateconsideration.
TheBoardhasrepeatedlyheldthatextrinsicfactorssuchasaccesstohighway[s]and
proximity to market, although they may give a deposit a competitive edge in the
marketplace,donotqualifyasuniquepropertiesofthedepositwhichgivethedeposit
adistinctandspecialvalue.Rather,thedistinctandspecialvaluemustbeinherentintheuniquequalityofthedeposititself.United States v. Henri,104IBLA93,98-99(1988)
(quotingSmith,66 IBLAat 188) (internalquotation marksomitted). The FlagHill
deposit cannot be unique because of its location or because it meets engineering
specifications;rather,thedepositmustbeuniquebecauseofitsparticlesizeorsome
otherphysicalfeature. See United States v. Multiple Use, Inc.,120IBLA63,90-91
(1991)(IfpumicemeetstheASTMstandardforuseasalightweightaggregate,thatfact
doesnomorethanestablishtheabilitytomarketanduseitasanaggregate.);United
States v. Guzman,18IBLA109,125(1974)([T]heDepartmenthasconsistentlyheld
thatdepositsofsandandgravelsuitableforallconstructionpurposes,whichmaybesuperiortootherdepositsofsandandgravelfoundintheareabecauseitisfreeof
deleterious substances, and because of hardness, soundness, stability, favorable
gradation,nonreactivity[,]andnonhydrophilicqualities,butwhichisusedonlyforthe
samepurposesasotherwidelyavailable,butlessdesirabledepositsofsandandgravel
are,nonetheless,acommonvarietyofsandandgravel.).
-18- 7028
-
7/25/2019 McGlinchy v. State, Dept. of Natural Resources, Alaska (2015)
19/25
rock were common in rockswiththat type ofmineralogicalquality generally, that
chemicallythisplotissimilartoanumberofintrusionsacrosstheInteriorofAlaska,
aswellaselsewhereinAlaska.Andtherewastestimonythat[m]ineralogically...
thisdeposit,thequartzmonzodioriteissimilarinmineralcompositiontootherrocksof
thatchemistry,andeventhetexture...[is]commontorocksofthistype.Onewitness
notedthatothernearbyrockdepositshadhigherspecificgravities.Andawitnessfrom
theAlaskaDepartmentofTransportationtestifiedthatFlagHillwasnotuniqueinbeing
able to meet the technical specifications for aggregate, ballast, and riprap and that
certainlyalotofsitesmeet...thecriteria.Therewasalsoconsiderabletestimony
regardingthejointspacingoftherock,withnumerousDNRwitnessestestifyingthat
M&Msforecastsforyieldsandjointspacingwereunreasonable.
Giventhisevidence,weconcludethehearingofficersdecisionthatthe
FlagHillrockdidnothaveauniquephysicalqualityunderMcClarty2isreasonable.
Onlyonecasehasfoundthatconstructionrockhasauniquephysicalproperty61andthat
caseisconsideredanoutlier.62Inthatcase,United States v. McCormick,theunique
physicalpropertythatwasallegedwasthat[t]hestoneha[d]beencrushedbytheforces
ofnatureinsuchawaythat80to95percentisofthepropersizeforvarioususesinroad
construction and paving projects.63 The deposit was also roughly stratified and
naturallysortedtoanextentthatdoesnotexistonanyothermaterialsourcesinthe
61 See United States v. McCormick,27IBLA65,69(1976).
62 SeeMALEY,supranote19,at614-16.
63 McCormick,27IBLAat68.
-19- 7028
-
7/25/2019 McGlinchy v. State, Dept. of Natural Resources, Alaska (2015)
20/25
area.64TheBoardconcludedwithoutexplanationthatthesubjectdepositispossessed
oftherequisitedistinctandspecialproperties. 65
Unique properties are found more commonly, although still without
regularity,inbuilding-stonecaseswherethephysicalpropertiesoftherockaresuchthat
itcanbepalletizedandshippedwithnoextraeffort.InUnited States v. McClartythe
Board found that a deposit ofbuilding stonehad uniqueproperties because it had
naturalfracturingandflatsurfacecrosssectioningthatmadealmostnoadditionalwork
necessaryduringremoval.66Noblastingwasrequiredandlittlesortingwasnecessary;
therockcouldjustbepriedout,palletized[,]andshippedwithoutfurtherprocessing. 67
Acontractortestifiedthathehadsaved12dayslaborbylayingitinsteadofother
varietiesbecauseitwassoeasytoworkwith.68InUnited States v. PopetheBoardfound
thatanotherdepositofbuildingstonewasuniqueforalmostthesamereasonsasin
McClarty:Theresnopreparationnecessary;itsmerelyloadedonthetruckandtaken
tothesite,thelandscapesiteorthebuildingsite,asitwere,andusedexactlyasitcomes
fromthequarry,noblasting,nobarringlooseisnecessary.69Inbothofthesecasesthe
stonewassouniquethatitessentiallyrequirednoefforttomine.
64 Id.
65 Id. (quoting 43 C.F.R. 3711.1(b) (1975) (removed in 2003)).
43 CFR 3711.1(b), a former Bureau of Land Management regulation, excepted
mineralsthatwerecommerciallyvaluableforuseinamanufacturing,industrial,or
processingoperation.
66 17IBLA20,32-33(1974).
67 Id.
68 Id. at37.
69 25IBLA199,204-05,207(1976).
-20- 7028
-
7/25/2019 McGlinchy v. State, Dept. of Natural Resources, Alaska (2015)
21/25
TheFlagHillrockmeetsengineeringspecifications,andfromthetestimony
attrialitappearsthattherockwouldhavebeenverysuitablefortheAlaskaRailroad
project. But merely being very good rock does not make a rock unique.70Unlike
McCormickorMcClarty,heretherewasnoqualitythatclearlysettherockapartfrom
otherverygoodrockthatalsometengineeringspecifications.Weconcludethereisa
reasonablebasisforthehearingofficersrulingthattheFlagHillrockdoesnothavea
uniquephysicalproperty.Becauseweagreewiththehearingofficeronthispoint,we
neednotaddresstheremainingthreeMcClarty tests.71 TheFlagHillmineraldepositis
commonvarietystonesubjecttotheCommonVarietiesActandthereforenotsubjectto
location.
B. M&MReceivedDueProcess.
M&Marguesthatitsdueprocessrightswereviolatedbecausethehearing
wasnotlongenough,oneofitsexpertswasunabletotestifyontheapplicationoffederal
minerallaw,anditdidnotreceiveDNRscommunicationsfileuntilafterthehearing.72
70 See United States v. Dunbar Stone Co.,56IBLA61,65(1981)(But
simply because this may beuncommonly good schistdoesnot necessarily make ituncommonlygoodstone.(emphasisremoved)).
71 Ifthestonedoesnothaveauniqueproperty,thenitcannothaveadistinct
andspecialvaluethatflowsfromitsuniqueness.See United States v. Verdugo & Miller,
Inc.,37IBLA277,303(1978)([T]hestone isnotuniqueandthereforedoesnothave
adistinctandspecialvalue.);see also United States v. Fisher,115IBLA277,286
(1990) (assuming arguendo a unique quality); United States v. Thomas, 90 IBLA
255,262(1986)(Evenifweacceptthattheparticularcolorofthestoneisunique,
appelleeshavepresentednoevidencethatbyvirtueofitscolorredsandstonewould
commandahigherpriceinthemarket.);United States v. Smith,66IBLA182,188-89(1982)(findingnouniquequality).
72 M&MalsoarguesthatitwasdenieddueprocessbecauseDNRrefus[ed]
tofollowFederalMiningLaw,whichrequiresDNRtobeartheburdentoestablish
(continued...)
-21- 7028
-
7/25/2019 McGlinchy v. State, Dept. of Natural Resources, Alaska (2015)
22/25
ThethresholdquestioniswhetherthedenialofM&Msapplicationtriggers
due process protections. Due process rights do not automatically attach to every
governmentalactionwithoutconsiderationofwhatrightsareatstakeandhowthey
might be affected.73 Before proceeding, we must determine whether there is a
deprivationofanindividualinterestofsufficientimportancetowarrantconstitutional
protection.74Weconcludethatthedenialofanapplicationtodevelopamineralslease
triggersdueprocessprotectionsbecausethesituationissufficientlyanalogoustothe
denial of a permit.75 While the Department did not terminate M&Ms underlying
mineralslease,76M&Marguesthattheonlypurposeofthemineralsleasewastomine
72(...continued)
prima facie the invalidity of the claim. M&Margues that DNRshould have been
requiredtoproceedfirstatthehearing.Butfederalmininglawappliesonly[u]nless
otherwiseprovidedandassupplementedbystatelaw.See AS38.05.185(c).State
law provides guidance on administrative appeals . . . of a decision in an
administrativeappealtothecommissionerofnaturalresources.AS44.37.011(a).
Specifically for DNR, in hearings in cases where facts must be resolved
11AlaskaAdministrativeCode02.050applies. Theseprovisionsdonotmandatethat
DNRproceedfirst.
73 Gottstein v. State, Dept of Natural Res.,223P.3d609,622(Alaska2010).
74 Heitz v. State, Dept of Health & Soc. Servs.,215P.3d302,305(Alaska
2009)(quotingBostic v. State, Dept of Revenue, Child Support Enforcement Div.,
968P.2d564,568(Alaska1998))(internalquotationmarksomitted).
75 Cf. Estate of Miner v. State, Commercial Fisheries Entry Commn,635P.2d
827,832(Alaska1981)(propertyinterestinanentrypermitfordrift-netsalmonfishing
inBristolBay).
76 See White v. State, Dept of Natural Res.,984P.2d1122,1126(Alaska
1999)(holdingthatthecancellationofaminingleaseimplicatesdueprocess);but see
State, Dept of Natural Res. v. Universal Educ. Socy, Inc.,583P.2d806,809-10(Alaska
1978)(denialofapplicationforaminingleaseisnotapropertyinterestsufficientto
(continued...)
-22- 7028
-
7/25/2019 McGlinchy v. State, Dept. of Natural Resources, Alaska (2015)
23/25
thestoneatissue,sofindingthestoneisnotlocatablehasthesameeffect. Weagree
withM&M.
[D]ueprocessrequiresnoticeandanopportunitytobeheardpriorto
governmentaldeprivationorinfringementofvaluablepropertyrights. 77Todetermine
whetherdueprocesswasprovided,weconsider(1)theprivateinterestthattheofficial
action affects; (2) the risk of erroneous deprivation of that interest through the
proceduresusedand theprobablevalue,ifany,ofadditionalorsubstituteprocedural
safeguards; and finally (3) the governments interest, including fiscal and
administrativeburdens,inimplementingadditionalsafeguards. 78Thecruxofdue
process is [the]opportunity to be heard and the right to adequately represent ones
interests.79
DNR provided M&M with notice of the hearing and responded toits
variouscontentionsinthemonthsbeforethehearing.Thehearingofficeraddedextra
timetoexaminewitnesseswhenM&Mobjected,andthepartieswereabletosubmit
writtenmaterialstothehearingofficerbeforeandafterthehearing. Eachsidewasable
topresentevidenceandcross-examinetheopposingsideswitnesses.Theadministrative
76(...continued)
triggerdueprocessprotections).
77 Gottstein,223P.3dat622.
78 Titus v. State, Dept of Admin., Div. of Motor Vehicles,305P.3d1271,1280
(Alaska2013)(quotingAlvarez v. State, Dept of Admin., Div. of Motor Vehicles ,249P.3d286,292(Alaska2011))(internalquotationmarksomitted).
79 Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. State, Dept of Envtl. Conservation,145P.3d
561,570-71(Alaska2006)(quotingMatanuska Maid, Inc. v. State,620P.2d182,
192-93(Alaska1980)).
-23- 7028
-
7/25/2019 McGlinchy v. State, Dept. of Natural Resources, Alaska (2015)
24/25
recordaloneinthecaseismorethan2,500pagesandfullydocumentedM&Msfactual
andlegalbasesforitsclaim.
WeholdthatM&Mreceivedproceduraldueprocess.Aone-dayhearing
wasappropriategiventhelimitednumberofquestionsoffactthehearingwasintended
toresolve.AndM&Mneverelaboratedwhoelseitwouldhavecalledorhownotcalling
these specific witnessesprejudiced it.80 M&Mwasnotdenieddueprocessbythe
restrictiononMaleystestimony;itisundisputedthathisprohibitedtestimonywould
havehadnobearingonanyofthefactualmattersinthecase: M&MwantedMaleyto
testifyaboutwhatthemininglawmeant.81 Butitiswellestablishedthatexpertwitnesses
arenotpermittedtotestifyonwhatthelawis.82Moreover,M&Mslegalpositionwas
welldocumentedinitshundredsofpagesofsubmissionstoDNR.
80 See Schmidt v. Beeson Plumbing & Heating, Inc.,869P.2d1170,1180
(Alaska1994)(discussingofferofproof).
81 See Barios v. Brooks Range Supply, Inc.,26P.3d1082,1088(Alaska2001)
(holdingthatbecausetheexpertcouldonlyofferthecourtanopiniononhowitshould
rule,thesuperiorcourtcorrectlyfoundthatisnotanappropriateroleforthiswitnessto
serve,regardlessofthelevelofhisexpertise);see also Specht v. Jensen,853F.2d805,
809-10 (10th Cir. 1988) (These cases demonstrate that an experts testimony is
proper...iftheexpertdoesnotattempttodefinethelegalparameterswithinwhichthe
jurymustexerciseitsfact-findingfunction.).M&Mwantedtohaveitsexperttestify
aboutfederalmininglaw,andthehearingofficerrestrictedMaleystestimonytofactual
issues.
82 See Barios,26P.3dat1088;see also In re Air Disaster at Lockerbie
Scotland on Dec. 21, 1988,37F.3d804,826-27(2dCir.1994), overruled on other
grounds by Brinks Ltd. v. South African Airways,93F.3d1022,1029(2dCir.1996);United States v. Brodie,858F.2d492,496-97(9thCir.1988), overruled on other
grounds by United States v. Morales,108F.3d1031,1037-38(9thCir.1997); Charles
Reinhart Co. v. Winiemko,513N.W.2d773,778(Mich.1994);Buzz Stew, LLC v. City
of North Las Vegas,341P.3d646,651(Nev.2015);France v. South Equip. Co.,689
S.E.2d1,14(W.Va.2010).
-24- 7028
-
7/25/2019 McGlinchy v. State, Dept. of Natural Resources, Alaska (2015)
25/25
M&Mfinallycomplainsthatitdidnotreceivetheunprivilegedcontentsof
DNRscommunicationsfilebeforethehearing.ButM&Mexpresslychosetoproceed
with the hearing before the communications file was released, and has failed to
adequatelydemonstratehowthelatereleaseofdocumentsprejudiced it.83
The administrative record clearly shows thatDNR, and especially the
hearingofficer,didanexemplaryjobinconductingthisappeal.M&Mreceivedample
dueprocess,clearlyevidencedbythethoughtfuladministrativedecision,thevoluminous
administrativerecord,andM&Msabilitytofilesupplementalbriefing.
V. CONCLUSION
WeAFFIRMthesuperiorcourtsdecisionaffirmingtheCommissioners
decisiondenyingM&MsPlanofOperations.WealsoAFFIRMthesuperiorcourts
conclusionthatM&Mreceiveddueprocessintheadministrativeproceedings.
83
M&MmainlyarguesthatFlagHillwastheonlysourceintheareatomeettheAlaskaRailroadspecificationsandthattheDNRknewthis.Butevenwerebothof
theseallegationstobetrue,itwouldnothaveimpactedthecase. Theuniquenessofthe
FlagHillrockhadtobedemonstratedwithoutregardtolocation . See United States v.
Henri,104IBLA93,98-99(1988). EvenhadFlagHillbeentheonlyusablerock,this
wouldnothavegivenitadistinctandspecialvalue.
-25- 7028