GLO survey question

@gene-kooper

Greetings, you old cowboy/rock lover.?ÿ Simply letting you know that there is a post needing your decades of wisdom.

Gene is the expert on this.

I think in Mineral Patents senior rights is determined by the claim date, not the Patent Date.?ÿ The Senior claim can get patented after the Junior claim but still be senior.?ÿ Something like that.

@dave-karoly?ÿ

Thank you. I hope he sees these posts.

While the Master Title Plats and Historical Indexes are an important resource, they are sometimes less than "accurate." Most issues concerning apparent ambiguities between Patents, Surveys, "Field" Notes and such, can be resolved by digging into the original documents. In some cases, this means obtaining copies of the Land Entry Case Files from the National Archives (which is usually easier than it sounds, but takes time).

In 50+ years of surveying, 45 of which were nearly 100% Mineral Survey related, I can tell you that issues like this happen more often than one might expect. Two Patents to the same piece ground, omitted "fractions," screwed up supplemental plats, and obscure nuances relating to what really happened on the ground can bite you on the butt. Bear in mind that "Additional Field Notes" may or (often) MAY NOT be the result of additional field work. The same caveat goes for Amended Plats as well.

Gene Kooper has dug deeper into the minutia than anyone I know, and hopefully he will be along soon.

Loyal

Sorry, I traveled to Nebraska today. My Dad was in the hospital and I'm caring for him the next few days as he convalesces.

Yep HC, I'm in cow country just a few blocks from the local radio station whose call letters are KCOW.

Not to amaze anyone with the databases I've created for Colorado mineral surveys, but I found "letter 10609" because I track the marginal notations (usually in red ink) and found four lodes and one placer claim with that marginal notation. Those red marginal notations often disclose material errors in prior official surveys. In other words, a mineral surveyor conducting a new mineral survey had to disclose any material errors in prior official surveys. It doesn't change what ground was patented, as the original established monuments are controlling regardless of any survey measurement "blunder."

I won't say for sure where these claims are, but they are located in Summit County, Colorado (in case the original poster wants to keep the claim names "secret").

Time to check on my Dad. He is 99 and goes to bed at 8:00 p.m. so I may be able to reply later this evening or more likely tomorrow. I need to talk to an old client who says the BLM is interested in surveying their property. I surveyed it in 2009.

@dave-karoly It is the survey where we found a rotted off wood post under an old tree trunk back in either 2008 or 2009.

@gene-kooper I remember that very well.

I looked at the plats and patents for the claims and Letter 10619 is exactly what I thought it was. For Colorado, beginning with the May 1886 manual of instructions for the mineral lands, mineral surveyors were required to submit a separate letter report with their preliminary plat and field notes. This separate letter report included several auxiliary items not required in the field notes. One of those was to report any material errors in prior official surveys. In this case a mineral surveyor found material errors in the connections to the PLSS corner for the claims you mention in the OP.

Also, regarding the conflicts between the three lode claims and their patents. I was able to pull the patents and the situation is a bit unique. Please let me know if it is okay to post the patents and field notes for those claims as I'm sure others on the forum would be interested in their "unique" features. I won't post anything else in case you don't want to disclose the actual claim names.

@gene-kooper

Thank you so much. No problem posting any publicly available info. I own one of the patents. I am the "expert" in my location. I worked two years to get a USFS permit to use the main road in the area connecting to the highway so I could have legal access and get a building permit. It was an excruciating and expensive process to get 2 miles of road access permit from the USFS. So I have a good idea about a lot of things in the area with primary documentation and letters, and have had to study almost every one of 30 some patents and surveys, because at one point I was trying to piece together all the mineral surveys to prove to the USFS that the road predated their founding in 1905. At the end of the day, I failed, somewhat because the road was only shown on some surveys in the area, and also because the USFS is the 800 pound gorilla and they get what they want and they wanted me to get a permit under a current standard/law/statute referred to as FLPMA. All is good. tight with USFS now. and have permit.

Regarding the situation with these three patents you are looking at. When I bought my property, there was a boundary survey from year 2012 where the surveyor included the intersection between MS1720 and 2031 and 2032 to be in with 1720. The County showed that to be the opposite. I didn't want a lawsuit, so my attorney insisted that the surveyor revise the boundary survey to reflect the County GIS map. He did it. Now that I know so much more about things, and surveys, I can't believe he just changed the boundary survey on a request. There is no boundary survey for 2031 or 2032. However, in doing that, another problem has come up, so I really want to try to get to the bottom of whats what, as opposed to off the cuff reactions and willy nilly boundary adjustments, and discuss what the real scoop is with all the stakeholders.

FYI, one of the reasons I bought in the area was because I just love this kind of old history, even when confusing. I'm an armchair historian. I'm dying to write a book.

Even though I tend to help people with things I'm an expert in and love doing it, and you appear to be similar, I'd be happy to do something nice for you in kind.

Let me share this as well, because I find it fascinating:

This whole area, 36 parcels between some similar number of patented claims, was abandoned in the 1920's. Then a couple of historians discovered all this abandoned private property in the 1950's, quit claimed it back and forth, and took ownership of all of it. (that really shouldn't work that way, but time solves all problems!) They sold a little in the 1960's, but really started selling in the 1980's. ?ÿThere were lawsuits. My particular property had a quiet title action in 1981 where a judge declared an owner and his order recorded, so I know that I'm good with clear title. There were a few more situations like that. In the 1990's there was a train wreck near by with hazmat. The County went to shut down the highway and discovered that a few people lived out in my area, where they didn't know there was any private property. So then the Master Title Plat was looked at, and all the property entered into the County records. Crazy huh?

Being nuts about history goes hand in hand with being a land surveyor worthy of being employed by the public.?ÿ In fact, we sometimes know TOO MUCH and it interferes with getting the job done.?ÿ On occasion, ignorance is bliss.

Attached are the plat and field notes for the Logos Lode, Sur. No. 1720. The Logos plat shows two unsurveyed lode claims that are senior to the Logos; those being the Big Sunflower and Colorado Mint lodes. The field notes for the Logos Lode states that a tunnel and shaft within the exterior boundary of the Logos were by the claimants of the two unsurveyed lodes. The sidelines of those two claims are parallel to the endlines of the Logos lode (N 6°15' W).

As an aside, the seniority between mining claims is usually determined by the dates of location. In this case, Sur. No. 1720 is junior to the two unsurveyed claims. They were later surveyed as Surs. Nos. 2031 and 2032. Some folks get confused with this general rule and automatically assume that the claim with the lowest survey number is always senior. In fact, the U.S. mining laws do not require that the mining claim be surveyed and patented in order to maintain the possessory right to the mineral estate.

ETA: After I post the other plats and field notes, I'll discuss the "importance" of the red marginal notations (and letter 10619).

Okay, here comes the first twist in the story. Here are the plats for the Big Sunflower (Sur. No. 2031) and Colorado Mint (Sur. No. 2032). The two claims have been rotated by 23?ø45' from their positions shown on the plat of the Logos Lode. The rotation can sometimes be the result of the unsurveyed claims being referenced to magnetic north. The instructions for mineral surveys required that the bearings be from the true meridian rather than magnetic. In this case, it is very unlikely that the original orientation of the Big Sunflower and Colorado Mint lodes were based on magnetic north. Magnetic variations in Colorado usually range between 12?ø and 16?ø E so a variation of almost 24?ø E is unlikely.

If you look closely at the plat of the Big Sunflower Lode, it shows the discovery shaft being the same as the shaft depicted on the Logos Lode plat. The official mineral surveys of these three claims were done before the location certificates were included in the official field notes. My professional "guess" is that the Big Sunflower lode has an amended location in which the claimant determined that the lode ran N 17?ø30' E rather than N 6?ø15' W as depicted in the original location certificate. Mining claimants are free to amend their location when during the development of the mine they determine that the lode runs in a different direction than first indicated. For the Big Sunflower, the rotation was done at its discovery shaft.

The Colorado Mint Lode shows the same rotation, but in order to keep the common side line with the Big Sunflower Lode the rotation is also about the Big Sunflower's discovery shaft. Because of that, the tunnel on the Colorado Mint Lode is no longer on the center line of the lode claim so the claimant made a new discovery (see shaft to the northeast of the tunnel). Again, this is an educated "guess" but I'm fairly certain that the Colorado Mint Lode's location was relocated rather than amended. The difference between an amendment and a relocation to a location certificate is that an amended location keeps the original date of location, whereas a relocation has the location date reset to the relocation date. The general rule is that if the discovery remains intact an amended location is appropriate even when the orientation of the claim changes. However if the discovery is moved, a relocation is required.

In order to verify my "guesses" about the location certificates, I would need to go to the Denver National Archives and peruse the collection of location certificates that were included in the applications for mineral survey orders or acquire the Land Entry Case File from the DC Archives which will include a copy of the location certificate. Otherwise, one can have fun at the courthouse trying to find the recorded location certificate in the Lode and/or Locator bound books in the vault.

ETA: Corrected some spelling and grammar errors.

Gene,

Do you have the "Connection Diagram" (aka District Sheet) for this area?

How about the Patents?

Yeah...I'm needy!

Loyal

Maybe this?

?ÿ

I'd say not needy, just impatient. I am taking my Dad to visit his wife at the nursing facility now....back at 2:30 p.m.

I do have the patents, connected sheet, amended field notes, supplemental Master Title Plat and the survey that found the material errors that created the spatterings of red in the top margins of the plats.

@gene-kooper Thanks buddy, no real rush at this end.

@placerlode Excellent, Thanks!

1 down

Here is a reduced-sized connected sheet, supplemental MTP and patent for the Logos Lode (Sur. No. 1720). The sup. MTP erroneously shows the conflict between the Logos Lode and the unsurveyed (before the mineral surveys were conducted) mining claims: Big Sunflower and Colorado Mint lodes as remaining in the public domain. The general rule for MTPs is that the line width indicate whether the ground on both sides of have been patented or remain in the Public Domain. A double-width line means that the ground on both sides of the line were patented. A normal-width line mines that the ground on one side is patented and on the other side still remains in the Public Domain. A thin line indicates a survey line where there is no patented ground on either side.

The connected sheet also shows a traverse of some sorts. I have no idea what that represents.

The patent (esp. the plat on page 5) shows the unique way in which the Logos Lode is depicted with the exclusion of the unamended positions of the Big Sunflower and Colorado Mint lodes shown with a solid line. The dashed lines are a unique way of showing the orientations of the two claims after they were amended/relocated. I'll leave to someone else a graphic showing how the MTP should be corrected. There are some small gores that need to be added to correctly so ownership between the three lode claims and the Public Domain.

At least for the mineral surveys I've seen in Colorado, the normal way to describe overlaps is to reference the intersections between the conflicting claims in the metes and bounds description and then include an expressly excepting and excluding clause for the previously described conflicts. In this case, the patent adds a metes description at the end of the patent description for the area to be excluded from the Logos Lode. Normal patent language would call this Tract A, and it would be later listed in the expressly excepting and excluding clause.

For completeness, here are the patents for the Big Sunflower (Sur. No. 2031) and Colorado Mint (Sur. No. 2032) lodes.

The OP included a reference to a "letter 10619" dated Nov. 15, 1888. I briefly mentioned above that the "Instructions to U.S. Deputy Mineral Surveyors for the District of Colorado" dated May 1, 1886 included a required separate [letter] report that contained auxiliary information regarding the mineral survey. Here is an image of Paragraphs 46 through 49 of the instructions.

Paragraph 49 states that the mineral surveyor must report any material errors in prior surveys. In this case U.S. Deputy Mineral Surveyor, Ben Cress while conducting the mineral survey of the Joker Lode (how appropriate), which is Sur. No. 5232 found that five prior official surveys had an erroneous connection to the PLSS corner. The lode claim Ohio Boy, Sur. No. 1840 and the placer claim Taylor Hill Placer, Sur. No. 2351 in addition to the 3 lode claims listed above all had material errors in the PLSS connection. Here is the plat for the Joker Lode.

And here is an image of the top half of the cover page to the official field notes for the Joker Lode.

The upper left portion of the cover page has a received date of Nov. 15, 1888. Below that are a list of numbers written vertically; the left-most one being 10619. This is the index number assigned to the separate letter report submitted to the S.G.O. on 11/15/1888. I have found no evidence that the Colorado Surveyor's General office retained any of these letter reports, but the full set of field notes for the Joker Lode, contains all of the information necessary to compute the five material errors in the PLSS connection.

For completeness, here is a copy of the amended field notes described by a red ink notation in the top margin of the plats for the Big Sunflower (Sur. No. 2031) and Colorado Mint (Sur. No. 2032) lodes. The amended notes received on Dec. 26, 1888 document that the lengths of the side lines of the two claims was not found to be 1500 ft. as shown in the official surveys of those two lodes, but rather 44.4 ft. short of the record distances.