ColoradoProspector   CP Club Membership Info.

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Location Certificates, Claim Jumper
CP
post Mar 9 2015, 11:18 AM
Post #16


Master Mucker!
*****

Group: Admin
Posts: 4,149
Joined: 7-October 03
From: Colorado
Member No.: 3



Hi Gold Hill Miner, been a while since we'd heard anything in this thread. Sorry to hear you're still having difficulties figuring this problem out in the field.
No I wouldn't think that a properly amended survey of any age would just be disregarded, that just isn't how the survey world works. Claim owners wouldn't need to "relocate" because of water either.
There could have been a severe error in the old amendment to the survey possibly, that could cause it to be repined.
Again just wondering, I don't have all the info to work with so just offering possibilities.
Another thought, is there any chance that the newer survey in 2003 done by BLM serves a completely different purpose unrelated to your patented mining claims in that area?


--------------------
CP-Owner/Administrator
www.ColoradoProspector.com

IF YOU USE IT, THE GROUND PRODUCED IT!
MINERS MAKE "IT" HAPPEN!!


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gold Hill Miner
post Mar 13 2015, 06:46 PM
Post #17


Diggin' In!
**

Group: Members
Posts: 39
Joined: 24-April 13
Member No.: 69,279



QUOTE (ColoradoProspector @ Mar 9 2015, 12:18 PM) *
Hi Gold Hill Miner, been a while since we'd heard anything in this thread. Sorry to hear you're still having difficulties figuring this problem out in the field.
No I wouldn't think that a properly amended survey of any age would just be disregarded, that just isn't how the survey world works. Claim owners wouldn't need to "relocate" because of water either.
There could have been a severe error in the old amendment to the survey possibly, that could cause it to be repined.
Again just wondering, I don't have all the info to work with so just offering possibilities.
Another thought, is there any chance that the newer survey in 2003 done by BLM serves a completely different purpose unrelated to your patented mining claims in that area?

Yes, the reason they did this cadastral survey was to identify the BLM pockets of land for disposal. They ended up re- pinning every claim corner over 1/2 half the mountain section they were working on. Unfortunately I found the claim that caused several other to move 50-100' down a mountain off their shafts and tunnels. After the BLM survey Corner #1 of said claim is now pinned #4, Corner #2 is now #3. Like turning a page in a book. What a complete disaster across the rest of the mountain.


--------------------
Warm Regards,
GHM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gold Hill Miner
post Mar 13 2015, 06:53 PM
Post #18


Diggin' In!
**

Group: Members
Posts: 39
Joined: 24-April 13
Member No.: 69,279



QUOTE (Gold Hill Miner @ Mar 13 2015, 07:46 PM) *
Yes, the reason they did this cadastral survey was to identify the BLM pockets of land for disposal. They ended up re- pinning every claim corner over 1/2 half the mountain section they were working on. Unfortunately I found the claim that caused several other to move 50-100' down a mountain off their shafts and tunnels. After the BLM survey Corner #1 of said claim is now pinned #4, Corner #2 is now #3. Like turning a page in a book. What a complete disaster across the rest of the mountain.

What is the easiest, most simple way to show BLM? Besides a 5 minute jaw dropping visit to said claim. They also won't look at GPS coordinates that match all county records, the location certificate, or the mineral survey. This claim was amended in 1902. The first Location was done in 1895. I found the pre amended location cert., not the 1895 mineral survey. I was hoping BLM re-pinned the claim in the pre amended position because there may have been an old marker still in place. I am waiting for the original patent package from WA.


--------------------
Warm Regards,
GHM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gold Hill Miner
post Mar 13 2015, 06:55 PM
Post #19


Diggin' In!
**

Group: Members
Posts: 39
Joined: 24-April 13
Member No.: 69,279



QUOTE (Gold Hill Miner @ Mar 13 2015, 07:53 PM) *
What is the easiest, most simple way to show BLM? Besides a 5 minute jaw dropping visit to said claim. They also won't look at GPS coordinates that match all county records, the location certificate, or the mineral survey. This claim was amended in 1902. The first Location was done in 1895. I found the pre amended location cert., not the 1895 mineral survey. I was hoping BLM re-pinned the claim in the pre amended position because there may have been an old marker still in place. I am waiting for the original patent package from WA.



--------------------
Warm Regards,
GHM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gene Kooper
post May 24 2015, 06:24 PM
Post #20


Shovel Buster!
***

Group: Members
Posts: 100
Joined: 24-May 15
Member No.: 120,476



Hi Gold Hill Miner,

I've read through this thread and have some ideas that may be of help in resolving your problem. I found the BLM's dependent resurvey field notes that I believe includes your mining properties. They are available online at www.glorecords.blm.gov and can be downloaded as a PDF file for no fee. If you don't want to disclose the actual claims for privacy reasons, we can discuss some options in general terms. As you mentioned above, the BLM conducted this dependent resurvey in order to delineate the gaps and gores between patented mineral surveys that are still part of the Public Lands. Through the statutory authority given to the U.S. Secretary of the Interior, the Colorado BLM is delegated the task of determining the boundaries of the Public Lands within the State of Colorado.

In this case, your options to correct the 2003 dependent resurvey are restricted. An affected party may file a protest with the BLM, challenging the results of a dependent resurvey that they believe has failed to retrace and reestablish the original surveyed lines. If you had protested the survey prior to the filing of the plat, your burden of proof would have been to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the dependent resurvey was not an accurate retracement and reestablishment of the original survey. Since the survey has long ago been approved and filed, your protest will need to meet the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the resurvey was either fraudulent or grossly in error.

I realize that this doesn't seem fair, but if you can demonstrate that the boundaries of your claims do not match the mining improvements on your properties by 100 feet, the BLM may regard the lines that they reestablished in the 2003 dependent resurvey meet the "gross error" threshold.

I am a licensed land surveyor and worked on a project near Eldora where a 1943 dependent resurvey of the township had established brass caps for numerous corners that were regarded as lost. In one instance the brass cap was over 700 feet from the original stone section corner. In the late 1990s, the Boulder County Surveyor found the original stone corner and its bearing trees (which established that the stone had not been disturbed or moved). The BLM then conducted a Corrective Dependent Resurvey in the area in which they held the original stone corners and destroyed the 1943 brass cap monuments.

Gene Kooper, PLS
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CP
post May 26 2015, 09:59 AM
Post #21


Master Mucker!
*****

Group: Admin
Posts: 4,149
Joined: 7-October 03
From: Colorado
Member No.: 3



Hi Gene, welcome to the forums. sign0016.gif

Great information and thank you for posting it. happy088.gif It's nice to have a surveyors input and we all look forward to your future input.
Make yourself right at home browsing around we have an awesome group of folks around the forums and club.


--------------------
CP-Owner/Administrator
www.ColoradoProspector.com

IF YOU USE IT, THE GROUND PRODUCED IT!
MINERS MAKE "IT" HAPPEN!!


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MikeS
post May 27 2015, 03:38 PM
Post #22


Rock Bar!
****

Group: Members
Posts: 898
Joined: 9-January 14
From: Denver, CO
Member No.: 116,265



Welcome to the forums Gene! thumbsupsmileyanim.gif


--------------------

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gene Kooper
post May 27 2015, 10:20 PM
Post #23


Shovel Buster!
***

Group: Members
Posts: 100
Joined: 24-May 15
Member No.: 120,476



Thanks CP and MikeS.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gold Hill Miner
post Jun 8 2015, 07:40 AM
Post #24


Diggin' In!
**

Group: Members
Posts: 39
Joined: 24-April 13
Member No.: 69,279



QUOTE (Gene Kooper @ May 24 2015, 07:24 PM) *
Hi Gold Hill Miner,

I've read through this thread and have some ideas that may be of help in resolving your problem. I found the BLM's dependent resurvey field notes that I believe includes your mining properties. They are available online at www.glorecords.blm.gov and can be downloaded as a PDF file for no fee. If you don't want to disclose the actual claims for privacy reasons, we can discuss some options in general terms. As you mentioned above, the BLM conducted this dependent resurvey in order to delineate the gaps and gores between patented mineral surveys that are still part of the Public Lands. Through the statutory authority given to the U.S. Secretary of the Interior, the Colorado BLM is delegated the task of determining the boundaries of the Public Lands within the State of Colorado.

In this case, your options to correct the 2003 dependent resurvey are restricted. An affected party may file a protest with the BLM, challenging the results of a dependent resurvey that they believe has failed to retrace and reestablish the original surveyed lines. If you had protested the survey prior to the filing of the plat, your burden of proof would have been to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the dependent resurvey was not an accurate retracement and reestablishment of the original survey. Since the survey has long ago been approved and filed, your protest will need to meet the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the resurvey was either fraudulent or grossly in error.

I realize that this doesn't seem fair, but if you can demonstrate that the boundaries of your claims do not match the mining improvements on your properties by 100 feet, the BLM may regard the lines that they reestablished in the 2003 dependent resurvey meet the "gross error" threshold.

I am a licensed land surveyor and worked on a project near Eldora where a 1943 dependent resurvey of the township had established brass caps for numerous corners that were regarded as lost. In one instance the brass cap was over 700 feet from the original stone section corner. In the late 1990s, the Boulder County Surveyor found the original stone corner and its bearing trees (which established that the stone had not been disturbed or moved). The BLM then conducted a Corrective Dependent Resurvey in the area in which they held the original stone corners and destroyed the 1943 brass cap monuments.

Gene Kooper, PLS



--------------------
Warm Regards,
GHM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gold Hill Miner
post Jun 8 2015, 08:29 AM
Post #25


Diggin' In!
**

Group: Members
Posts: 39
Joined: 24-April 13
Member No.: 69,279



Thanks for your reply. I have the burden of proof. Unfortunately everyone makes mistakes occasionally. A whole mountainside of mine claims with matching location certificates (legal binding documents) do not just move down a hill 75-100', off their shafts and tunnels. BLM actually recorded 99% of the the claim lines in question not monumented, re- monumented and forgot to move the shafts and tunnels with the new lines. I have located all the original lines while someone follows after me and does further damage to them. Fortunately no one can move the shafts and tunnels. Since several claims have been moved re monumented, some shafts and tunnels have been moved onto BLM vacant pockets. This creates a whole new problem with leasing for mining. BLM had several vacant pockets of land between the claims. They definitely eliminated several pockets by re monumenting lines, sold some that were actually privately owned and disregarded a centerline survey. i have a surveyor that did a point certification for my most westerly line on one claim. I found where BLM made the mistake. They pinned a corner #4 at a corner #1. This brought on a whole ripple effect with several claims. Now the surveyor is platting the correct location and the new BLM monumented location for the burden of proof. Because of the fire, the correct lines are clearly visible from a higher viewpoint. So are the shafts and tunnels.


--------------------
Warm Regards,
GHM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gene Kooper
post Jun 15 2015, 10:05 PM
Post #26


Shovel Buster!
***

Group: Members
Posts: 100
Joined: 24-May 15
Member No.: 120,476



QUOTE (Gold Hill Miner @ Mar 13 2015, 07:53 PM) *
What is the easiest, most simple way to show BLM? Besides a 5 minute jaw dropping visit to said claim. They also won't look at GPS coordinates that match all county records, the location certificate, or the mineral survey. This claim was amended in 1902. The first Location was done in 1895. I found the pre amended location cert., not the 1895 mineral survey. I was hoping BLM re-pinned the claim in the pre amended position because there may have been an old marker still in place. I am waiting for the original patent package from WA.


QUOTE (Gold Hill Miner @ Jun 8 2015, 09:29 AM) *
Thanks for your reply. I have the burden of proof. Unfortunately everyone makes mistakes occasionally. A whole mountainside of mine claims with matching location certificates (legal binding documents) do not just move down a hill 75-100', off their shafts and tunnels. BLM actually recorded 99% of the the claim lines in question not monumented, re- monumented and forgot to move the shafts and tunnels with the new lines. I have located all the original lines while someone follows after me and does further damage to them. Fortunately no one can move the shafts and tunnels. Since several claims have been moved re monumented, some shafts and tunnels have been moved onto BLM vacant pockets. This creates a whole new problem with leasing for mining. BLM had several vacant pockets of land between the claims. They definitely eliminated several pockets by re monumenting lines, sold some that were actually privately owned and disregarded a centerline survey. i have a surveyor that did a point certification for my most westerly line on one claim. I found where BLM made the mistake. They pinned a corner #4 at a corner #1. This brought on a whole ripple effect with several claims. Now the surveyor is platting the correct location and the new BLM monumented location for the burden of proof. Because of the fire, the correct lines are clearly visible from a higher viewpoint. So are the shafts and tunnels.

When a claimant makes the discovery of a locatable mineral, a location certificate must then be recorded at the county. It describes that portion of the Public Lands that a miner claims the possessory right to the mineral estate. The claimant retained the mining rights as long as they met all of the requirements in the Federal and State mining laws and regulations thereunder and made a minimum of $100 in mining improvements annually.

Once upon a time, a mining claimant wishing a patent to mineral lands would begin the process by submitting an, "Application for Survey" to the Surveyor's General office. The application would include a certified copy of the location certificate. In many cases the original location certificate had to be amended to correct errors and/or conform to the regulations in force at the time it was located.

After a survey order was issued, a mineral surveyor would conduct the survey. You probably found a certified copy of the location certificate in the patent package from WA. After a mining claim has gone to patent, the location certificate is little more than a historical curiosity. The patent, approved plat and official field notes are the "legal binding documents" for patented claims. I point that out that because the plat and official field notes include ties to all of the mining improvements that were made to the claim at the time of the "patent" survey. A minimum of $500 in mining improvements were required before the claim could be patented.

Since the locations of the mining improvements are tied to one or more corners of your claim, their positions can be used to reestablish the original lines of the mineral survey. Both private surveyors and BLM Cadastral surveyors use mining improvements to set lost corners. For example, the discovery shaft/cut/adit is a natural monument. Natural monuments usually hold over artificial monuments because they are regarded legally as being more certain. Using your example that shafts don't move, their position is more certain than a conflicting stone monument, esp. if it has no original accessories.

One of the techniques that I employ before doing a mineral survey retracement is to draw up the claim boundaries and its mining improvements. I then "locate" the claim on an aerial photograph, fine tuning its position by aligning the mining improvements with disturbed areas on the photo. I'm not saying that you and your surveyor should necessarily do the same. However, your burden of proof to overturn the BLM's 2003 dependent resurvey is to show either fraud or gross error. Meeting that burden won't be easy. You may need to plot up several mineral surveys near your claim(s) to show the BLM that the pattern of mining improvements is unique. The BLM may disagree with your conclusions. If so, your next option would be to appeal to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gold Hill Miner
post Sep 13 2015, 01:30 PM
Post #27


Diggin' In!
**

Group: Members
Posts: 39
Joined: 24-April 13
Member No.: 69,279



Here is the claim. I was promised 2 week for delivery of BLM's new lines in comparison to this plat and location certificate that goes with it by a surveyor. It has been four months. Still waiting.


--------------------
Warm Regards,
GHM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Denise
post Sep 14 2015, 08:24 AM
Post #28


Master Mucker!
*****

Group: Admin
Posts: 7,186
Joined: 7-October 03
From: Colorado
Member No.: 4



Did you want to add a link or a picture of the claim Gold Hill Miner, we would love to see.


--------------------
Education is the key to the future,
and participation opens the door to opportunity.

Discover your prospecting independence & success!

ColoradoProspector.com

Owner/Webmaster
Core team member

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gold Hill Miner
post Sep 14 2015, 10:37 AM
Post #29


Diggin' In!
**

Group: Members
Posts: 39
Joined: 24-April 13
Member No.: 69,279



This is the shaft. Corner 1 original location is next to trees and road upper left. Now is #4. Corner #4 is supposed to be 200 plus feet to the upper right. The stone marker has been removed.Attached Image


--------------------
Warm Regards,
GHM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gene Kooper
post Sep 15 2015, 02:38 PM
Post #30


Shovel Buster!
***

Group: Members
Posts: 100
Joined: 24-May 15
Member No.: 120,476



Given the information that you have provided in this thread, I was able to figure out the claim name and mineral survey number for the claim with the shaft. Since you already have issues with a trespasser, I won't discuss them here. Your plat is available on the GLO Records web site and a color scan can be downloaded at no charge. I also have a copy of the field notes. If you do not have the original location certificate, the field notes include a certified copy of the amended location certificate, which lists the Boulder County Book and Page for the 1895 original location certificate. There is a nominal fee for the Boulder County Clerk and Recorder's office to make the copy.

I would be happy to assist you with additional research to correct the problem. One option to "fix" your problem is to request the BLM look at the merits of conducting a corrective dependent resurvey of their 2003 dependent resurvey. There are known issues with mineral surveys done at the time your survey was conducted. In 2003, the BLM was not aware of these issues. They are aware of them now.

One last thing....From reading your posts you have hired a surveyor for this project. It is not my intent for you to pay two surveyors. Any assistance I may provide you and/or your surveyor will be as a professional courtesy.

Please feel free to contact me at (303) 989-5424 or cekooper@gmail.com. Any provided information will be held in strict confidence.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
3 User(s) are reading this topic (3 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th March 2024 - 03:51 PM