As this is an Appeal, no new evidence can be considered. Interpretation of the Law is about all that can be considered. In this case, which particular clause applies; I believe the Mining Commissioner (the expert opinion in this field) said that the clause governing unpatented claims on Crown Land was the one for this situation, while CLF et al said the clause applicable to land which was already used for a purpose other than mining or mineral exploration should apply. Since there is no farming or homesteading along this corridor logic says the Mining Commissioner was correct. In my opinion.