First, I regard the comments, criticisms, and review of this forum's members to be very valuable, esp. when I am preparing for a presentation.?ÿ I've given 13 seminars on mineral surveys since 2004.?ÿ A large portion of the seminar that Steve Parrish and I will be presenting on February 28 will be mineral survey case histories.
My primary case history (see Item F of the course outline I posted yesterday) deals with the Sweet Home Mine near Alma, CO.?ÿ The mine owner was interested in consolidating seven of his nineteen lode claims into a single parcel.?ÿ The attached PDF contains a Lot Consolidation Plat I prepared to meet the county requirements for that lot consolidation.?ÿ For Colorado surveyors, it is equivalent to a Land Survey Plat with a handful of additional "things" required by the county.
BTW....I have a thick skin so no need to be gentle with your critique.?ÿ I welcome any input.?ÿ I decided to post this lot consolidation plat that contains 7 lode claims rather than the land survey plat of all 19 lode claims for one simple reason.?ÿ The lot consolidation plat weighs in at thirteen 24"x36" sheets. This is not an exemplar of what a plat of a mineral survey resurvey should be; merely my interpretation of what should be on a plat.?ÿ The PDF file is 2.8 MB
This resurvey is unique from most of my work.?ÿ All of the found monuments are original stones set by seven U.S. Deputy Mineral Surveyors spanning a period of time between 1873 and 1938.
?ÿ
Very impressive, 100 years from now a surveyor is going to get on his knees and thank you.
Jim
Quite a plat there Gene!!?ÿ ?ÿ Great documentation of your survey.?ÿ If a local county surveyor is doing a review of this plat I bet he had his hands full.?ÿ ?ÿInteresting there is such an extensive history of surveys, description of lost corners, and legal description on a state-authority plat.?ÿ Not saying it is not pertinent or valuable, just have not seen it done in the state authority plats here in the land of the frozen north.?ÿ?ÿ
I was a little thrown off by your term "bearing rock", as normally the Manual refers to rock/stones taken as accessories for PLSS corners as "Bearing Objects".?ÿ However, I looked in the 2009 Manual and saw the terms bearing rocks in Chapters 10-154 and 10-157 that pertain to Mineral Monuments.?ÿ ?ÿLearned (re-learned) something today, I know my memory is not what it used to be.
I also found the note near the Land Surveyor's certificates about the legal notice to file claim against errors or defects curious.?ÿ Is that a Colorado-centric requirement, or something you have chosen to do to put people on notice about the statute of limitation time frames for challenges to errors in the survey??ÿ?ÿ
Carry on, I'm sure your presentation will be outstanding, say hello to Steve for me.?ÿ?ÿ
?ÿ
?ÿ
To answer your last question first on the note regarding finding a defect in a survey, Colorado has a limitation of actions against land surveyors. I insert the exact text of the notice (boldface is my emphasis) in 13-80-105 on every plat sheet I sign.
13-80-105.?ÿLimitation of actions against land surveyors
(1)?ÿ Notwithstanding any statutory provision to the contrary, all actions against any land surveyor brought to recover damages resulting from any alleged negligent or defective land survey shall be brought within the time provided in section 13-80-101 after the person bringing the action either discovered or in the exercise of reasonable diligence and concern should have discovered the negligence or defect which gave rise to such action, and not thereafter, but in no case shall such an action be brought more than ten years after the completion of the survey upon which such action is based.
(2)?ÿ For purposes of this section, "land survey" or "improvement survey" means any survey conducted by or under the direction and control of a land surveyor licensed pursuant to the provisions of part 3 of article 120 of title 12 and includes but is not limited to professional land surveying, as defined in section 12-120-302 (5). Nothing in this section shall be construed as extending the period or periods provided by the laws of Colorado or by agreement of the parties for bringing any action, nor shall this section be construed as creating any claim for relief not existing or recognized on or before July 1, 1979.
(3)?ÿ (a) The limitations set forth in subsections (1) and (2) of this section shall not apply to any survey unless the documentary evidence of such land survey contains, clearly depicted thereon, the following statement:
NOTICE: According to Colorado law you must commence any legal action based upon any defect in this survey within three years after you first discover such defect. In no event may any action based upon any defect in this survey be commenced more than ten years from the date of the certification shown hereon.
(b)?ÿ If any survey is performed that does not require documentation, the limitations set forth in subsections (1) and (2) of this section shall nevertheless apply if, not more than ninety days after the completion of the survey, written notice of the provisions of this article is provided to all persons holding an interest in the property upon which such survey is conducted.
When you go to this section of the Colorado Revised Statutes the last item listed is "Case Notes." It contains this sobering excerpt from a Colorado Court of Appeals ruling.?ÿ A surveyor who fails to place the notice on the plat can be dug up and sued!?ÿ?ÿ
ANNOTATION
This section contains a 10-year statute of repose that sets a date after which a claim may be barred whether or not an injury has been discovered previously. Cornforth v. Larsen, 49 P.3d 346 (Colo. App. 2002).
Under the plain language of this section, in order for the 10-year statute of repose to apply, a survey must contain the notice required by subsection (3). If a survey does not contain the notice, the 10-year statute of response has no application and a plaintiff may sue a land surveyor outside of the 10-year time frame. Cornforth v. Larsen, 49 P.3d 346 (Colo. App. 2002).
An aside for Colorado surveyors:?ÿ The state licensing board is looking at making a rule change to the three year requirement to keep survey records.?ÿ The proposed rule change is that surveyors must keep their records for the length of time of the statute of repose.?ÿ If you don't place the notice on your plat, you would have to keep the records forevah!?ÿ ?????ÿ
?ÿ
Quite a plat there Gene!!?ÿ ?ÿ Great documentation of your survey.?ÿ If a local county surveyor is doing a review of this plat I bet he had his hands full.?ÿ ?ÿInteresting there is such an extensive history of surveys, description of lost corners, and legal description on a state-authority plat.?ÿ Not saying it is not pertinent or valuable, just have not seen it done in the state authority plats here in the land of the frozen north.?ÿ?ÿ
In Colorado, Land Survey Plats (LSP) are deposited, not recorded.?ÿ The county surveyor does not review plats submitted for deposit.?ÿ They assign a reception number and sign a brief statement attached to the plat.?ÿ This plat is for all intent and purpose an LSP.?ÿ Since the county planning department required a lot consolidation plat, my plat had to be administratively approved by the County Planner/County Designer and subsequently recorded (not deposited).?ÿ
In our initial discussions, the planner thought that it should only take a single mylar sheet.?ÿ However, he insisted that the language of the surveyor's certificate had to be exactly as stated in the county's land use regulations (reproduced on the plat).?ÿ The planner was taken aback when I plopped the plat on his desk.
My explanation for the extensive history of surveys, narratives on how the lost corners were reestablished, and descriptions of found corner monuments is simple. The following two subsections of the Colorado Revised statutes under definitions and required elements of an LSP require something be said (boldface is my emphasis).
38-51-102. Definitions. As used in this article 51, unless the context otherwise requires:
.
.
.
(18) "Public land survey monument" means any land boundary monument established on the ground by a cadastral survey of the United States government and any mineral survey monument established by a United States mineral surveyor and made a part of the United States public land records.
and
38-51-106. Land survey plats. (1) All land survey plats shall include but shall not be limited to the following:
.
.
.
(f) A description of all monuments, both found and set, that mark the boundaries of the property and of all control monuments used in conducting the survey. If any such boundary monument or control monument marks the location of a lost or obliterated public land survey monument that was restored as a part of the survey on which the plat is based, the professional land surveyor shall briefly describe the evidence and the procedure used for such restoration. If any such boundary monument or control monument marks the location of a quarter section corner or sixteenth section corner that was established as a part of the survey, the professional land surveyor shall briefly describe the evidence and procedure used for such establishment, unless the 1.6 corner location was established by the mathematical procedure as outlined in section 38-51-103.
Also, the BYLAWS AND RULES OF THE STATE BOARD OF LICENSURE FOR ARCHITECTS, PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, AND PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS promulgates additional requirements for describing found and set monuments.
1.6 Rules of Professional Land Surveying Rules
M. Description of Monuments. Section 38-51-106(1)(f), C.R.S., requires professional land surveyors to provide ??a description of all monuments, both found or set, that mark the boundaries of the property and of all control monuments used in conducting a survey.?
1. Purpose. The purpose of this statute is to identify the physical attributes of the monuments and caps set or found during the original survey and subsequent retracement surveys.
2. Acceptable description of monuments. Description of monuments found or set should include, but not be limited to the physical attributes and size of the monument, and the physical attributes and size ofthe cap. Examples would be:
a. Found 4?x 8?x 18?stone, projecting 12?above ground, scribed with one slash on the east face and five slashes on the west face.
b. Set #5 rebar, 24?long, with a 1.5?aluminum cap, stamped ??A Survey Co. PLS 99999?, projecting 0.2?? above ground.
c. Found #4 rebar, with a 1?yellow plastic, marked ??A Survey Co. PLS 99999?, flush with ground.
3. Unacceptable description of monuments.
a. Set Pin & Cap.
b. Found stone appropriately marked.
c. Found rebar.
d. Fnd. #5 rebar, 24?long, with a 1.5?AC, stamped ??A Survey Co. PLS 99999?, projecting 0.2??above ground. This is unacceptable, unless the abbreviations are defined in a legend.
I also include in my corner monument descriptions the original description in the official mineral survey field notes to show how close the original description is to what I found.?ÿ The Act of April 28, 1904 states that the monuments as established by the mineral surveyor shall be construed by the federal government as the supreme evidence of the land granted in the patent when there is a discrepancy with the patent description.?ÿ
If the monument I found is close to the original description and unless the preponderance of the evidence shows it has been disturbed or moved, my job is almost done. All I have to do is locate the corners with my fancy modern survey equipment to within a few millimeters and plot the results in my CAD software. Easy, peasy! ?????ÿ
Well done, Gene, again.
I named Control Point Jameson after my Grandson.
As others have noted, this is a very well done plat, Gene.?ÿ Future surveyors will surely praise your fine work.
?ÿ
I note on sheet 5 reference to a "bowlder" as part of an original monument description.?ÿ Was that spelled per the original notes or is that a misspelling on your part?
Nice job!?ÿ
I don't particularly like sheet six notes.?ÿ You do a good job of making a case for downhill movement of the corner stones, then reject it as not clear and convincing, but say another surveyor might not.?ÿ Seems like that could encourage litigation on the issue.?ÿ It looks like your opinion is that they have in fact moved, and yet you are going to use them anyway.?ÿ If you don't think they moved, in spite of the evidence you list that they have, then why not discuss other evidence that led you to believe they haven't moved.?ÿ Or do they hold even if they slowly creep downhill under the statute and case law of mineral surveys?
Nice job!?ÿ
I don't particularly like sheet six notes.?ÿ You do a good job of making a case for downhill movement of the corner stones, then reject it as not clear and convincing, but say another surveyor might not.
Thanks for your comments, Duane. I don't necessarily disagree with your position.?ÿ I am both a professional geologist and a professional land surveyor.?ÿ The professional geologist side of me knows that those corners have moved 1 to 3 feet down the fall line of the slope by natural mass wasting processes; i.e. soil creep and frost heave.?ÿ
As a professional land surveyor my position is there is likely a preponderance of the evidence to support the position that the original monuments no longer mark the corners.?ÿ However, I determined that a preponderance of the evidence is insufficient for the burden of proof and concluded that the burden of proof should be clear and convincing evidence.?ÿ I see no clear and convincing evidence of those stones moving downhill; at least in the time frame that I conducted my survey.
What I did find during my field survey is that the current positions of the bearing rocks (objects) match the record very well.?ÿ The largest difference in a distance is only 0.24 ft. and the bearings are all within a few minutes.?ÿ In Colorado, I cannot say that the true corner positions are record course and distance from the bearing rocks.?ÿ That constitutes a "virtual" corner position, which is not allowed in this state.
Also, I did not say that "another surveyor might not [agree]," which implies that another surveyor today might reach a different conclusion.?ÿ I documented what I found and my measurements to leave a record for the next surveyor.?ÿ My statement on Sheet 6 states, "n the future, a surveyor may conclude that the positions of the bearing rocks should be held as the controlling monuments for the the original surveys."?ÿ Perhaps that is a long leap on my part, but if the next surveyor finds additional movement downhill, then they will have proof of the movement and they will have to determine whether to hold the bearing rocks and either reset the original stones or set shiny new brass caps uphill from the original stones.
For myself, I don't like the solution of moving the original stones to fit the record of the original bearing rocks, just so they can start their trip downhill once more.?ÿ Nor do I like the idea of setting modern monuments uphill from the stones.?ÿ I will likely be dead by the time the next surveyor retraces this work, so if I had decided to remonument those corners, I wouldn't be embarrassed by someone giggling at the old geezer nitwit that rejected the original stones.?ÿ Nor do I see any benefit in setting new monuments just so they can follow the stones down the hill.?ÿ The point I was trying to support on Sheet 6 (also Sheet 9) is that the bearing rocks have not moved and the stones likely have moved some and that the next surveyor will have clear and convincing evidence of that movement (given my geologic conclusion holds true).
This is one of those instances where my dislike of land survey plats is manifested.?ÿ I would much prefer preparing a detailed surveyor's report that is well organized and documented with numerous photographs.?ÿ I will follow-up with several photos that I believe support my conclusion.
As for possible litigation, the lode claims are a private inholding within the Pike National Forest.?ÿ My client created this parcel so that it could be divided into two parcels, both of which are larger than 35 acres.?ÿ In Colorado, as long as all the resultant subdivided parcels are greater than 35 acres, the land subdivision is exempt from county regulations and approval.?ÿ The portion depicted on Sheet 6 became a park for the Town of Alma.?ÿ Their parcel straddles Buckskin Gulch which is the source of their municipal water supply (intake is approx. 2 miles downstream).
Edits made for readability.
?ÿ
Here are some panoramic views of the east-northeast facing slope of Loveland Mountain that give a general idea of the geologic setting for the "moved" stones on Sheet 6.?ÿ The upper half of the slope is bare rock and loose scree.?ÿ A large part of the snow melt percolates down through the scree and eventually daylights in the lower part of the slope as springs and seep lines so there is plenty of water near and at the surface for frost heave to do its work.
Down valley panorama
Up valley panorama
Late October panorama taken at the Detroit City Mine
Panorama taken from the center of the Red Amphitheater (a glacial cirque on Mt. Bross)
Rivulet in lower part of the slope of Loveland Mtn. that is fed by a spring just to the left of the photo (my old Aussie, Nathan enjoying the day)
Here are photos of the 4 bearing rocks as described on Sheets 6 and 9.
?ÿ
Bearing rock to Cor. No. 2, Enterprise Lode, Sur. No. 8413 and Cors. 2 and 2 of the Sun Flower No. 1 and Sun Flower No. 2 lodes, Sur. No. 17480.
Looking uphill (West)
?ÿ
Looking up valley (North)
?ÿ
Close-up of chiseling
?ÿ
Bearing rock to Cor. No. 3, Sun Flower No. 1, Sur. No. 17480
?ÿ
Close-up of the chiseled area of the rock.?ÿ The chiseled marks are extremely difficult to see and I've had to feel with my hands to verify the marks because the bearing rock is a quartz pegmatite with a very rough, pebbly surface of quartz crystals (that also make it difficult to chisel).
?ÿ
Bearing rock to Cor. No. 3, Sun Flower No. 2, Sur. No. 17480 (taken at noon).
?ÿ
Close-up taken in the late afternoon where the shadows make reading the chiseled marks much easier.
?ÿ
and bearing rock to Cor. No. 4, Highland Mary, Sur. No. 8411 (the original call was for a boulder that is 3 ft. above the ground surface and now it is even with the ground on the uphill side and only 1 ft. above the ground on the downhill side (chiseling not visible in photo).
?ÿ
?ÿ
Photos of stone monuments
?ÿ
Photos of Cor. No. 1, Highland Mary, Sur. No. 8411
?ÿ
Photo of Cor. No. 4, Highland Mary, Sur. No. 8411, as first found leaning downhill.?ÿ Stone was reestablished using the record tie from its bearing rock.
?ÿ
Photo of Cor. No. 1, Enterprise, Sur. No. 8413.?ÿ Stone was lying on the ground and was reestablished using its two original bearing trees (one is the stump to the upper right of the stone and the other is the rotted stump to the lower right.
?ÿ
I wasn't able to find the photo showing Cor. No. 2, Enterprise, Sur. No. 8413 and Cors. Nos. 2, Sun Flower No. 1 and Sun Flower No. 2, Sur. No. 17480 with their bearing rock.?ÿ They are both out in an open, grassy area.
?ÿ
Photos showing Cor. No. 2, Niagara, Sur. No. 20591 which is buried in thick, tall scrub oak.
Okay last post of stone corners.
?ÿ
Cor. No. 1, Sweet Home Fraction, Sur. No. 20507-A.?ÿ I have the original field tablet of the surveyor, which shows he ran an offset line (7.95 ft.) from Line 4-1.?ÿ Unfortunately he failed to compute the bearing and distance to the bearing tree from the corner and used his measurement from the offset line in the official field notes.?ÿ Also, he forgot to change the survey number from 20504-A to 20507-A.
?ÿ
Cor. No. 4, Sweet Home Fraction, Sur. No. 20507-A.?ÿ The stone is 1 ft. downhill from the record position based on its bearing tree.?ÿ Also, this area has silted in and almost covered the stone.
The fact that these two stones may have moved downhill does not affect the ground patented for this claim.?ÿ I found all four corners and none of them control the boundary of the ground contained in this claim.?ÿ There are six lode claims senior in right that have conflicts with this claim.?ÿ If there were no conflicts the area would be 20.66 acres.?ÿ After expressly excluding and excepting those six claims the acreage is 2.66 acres.?ÿ Below is a sketch showing what ground was actually patented for the Sweet Home Fraction Lode.
?ÿ
Photos of Cor. No. 1, Bushwhacker, Sur. No. 20591 (below the two trees on the left side of the photo)
Looking up valley
?ÿ
Looking down valley towards Cor. No. 2 of the Bushwhacker.
?ÿ
Close-up
?ÿ
Photo of Cor. No. 2, Bushwhacker, Sur. No. 20591
?ÿ
This last corner does not fit the other corners it is tied to by 3.4 to 4.6 ft. (see Detail 3 on Sheet 6). If one moved the stone to better fit those ties, it would not fit with the bearing tree tie.?ÿ The same surveyor that surveyed the Sweet Home Fraction surveyed this claim.?ÿ I do not have his field tablet for this survey, but he was prone to the occasional boneheaded blunder.?ÿ Perhaps he ran an offset line into the corner and failed to account for the offset again.
Okay, enough photos.?ÿ I hope they were helpful in illustrating the field evidence.?ÿ Again, all comments are welcome, including any suggestions on how best to depict this case history in my presentation.
Perhaps many of the other posters/lurkers here understand but I certainly do not.?ÿ Not that I question your work, that is not the point at all, but this plat, as well as others you have posted, show what appear to be numerous overlapping claims.?ÿ How does that happen.?ÿ Is it a real conflict, or merely the appearance of a conflict?
Perhaps many of the other posters/lurkers here understand but I certainly do not.?ÿ Not that I question your work, that is not the point at all, but this plat, as well as others you have posted, show what appear to be numerous overlapping claims.?ÿ How does that happen.?ÿ Is it a real conflict, or merely the appearance of a conflict?
I guess that the term "conflict" may be a bit confusing in this context.?ÿ
OVERLAP is probably more accurate than "conflict," in the vast majority of of these cases. Getting our collective heads around these kinds "nuances" that are somewhat unique to Mineral Surveys, requires a reasonably solid understanding of the various US Mining Laws, and the history of Mining Claims/Surveys/Patents in general.
?ÿThe concept of Overlaps, Extralateral Rights, Apex, Discovery, Split Estates, so forth and so on, is [for the most part] a rather arcane field of study. Aside from the actual Mining Laws, there are hundreds (if not thousands) of Land Decisions, [internal] Memorandums, Official Letters, IBLA Decisions, Local & District Court Rulings, as well as US Supreme Court Decisions relating to these "issues."
There are a few of us who have "specialized" in this type of surveying, but even after 40+ years of study and practice relating to Mineral Surveys, the only thing I know for SURE, is that I don't "know" much of anything FOR SURE.
Loyal
Yes, Jerry mining claims are very different from what you are familiar with.?ÿ There are three types of mining claims that can be patented: lode claims, placer claims and mill sites.?ÿ Under the U.S. mining laws a person acquires the rights to a mineral deposit by first making a discovery of a valuable locatable mineral. if the valuable mineral is located in surficial deposits (e.g. native gold in stream sediments) a placer claim is staked.?ÿ Placer claims give the claimant the mineral rights to the surficial mineral estate.?ÿ Because they are surficial estates, they do not purposely overlap each other.?ÿ Mill sites are also claims to the surficial estate and do not purposely overlap.?ÿ The mining claimant must prove that the mill site is located on ground that is not mineral in character.
If the valuable mineral deposit is a mineralized vein, a lode claim is staked.?ÿ Once staked the claimant acquires the mineral rights to the subsurface mineral estate.?ÿ Lode claims frequently overlap each other; it is the rule rather than the exception.?ÿ This allows mining claimants to acquire their full right to the subsurface minerals as authorized in the mining laws.?ÿ The land tenure system for lode mining claims is unique in this respect.
The best way that I can show this is to attach a U.S. patent that contains lode mining claims that are junior in right to other lode mining claims.?ÿ At the end of the metes and bounds description in the patent will be an "expressly excepting and excluding" clause.?ÿ I'm betting you've not seen that in a U.S. patent.?ÿ This clause excludes from the patent the ground in conflict with the claim(s) in the patent.?ÿ The PDF file below is the patent for the Blue Bird, Sweet Home Fraction and Daniel lodes, Sur. No. 20507-A.?ÿ The "expressly excepting and excluding" clause beginning on line 5 of page 7 of the PDF file excludes from the patent mineral surveys 106, 107, 766, 3105, 6437, and 17480.?ÿ
Of note, the Bushwhacker and Niagara lode claims (labeled as unsurveyed) are also excluded.?ÿ Mineral survey 20507-A was surveyed in 1933 and patented in 1935.?ÿ The Bushwhacker and Niagara were not surveyed until 1938 and patented in 1940, but they were located prior to the Blue Bird, et al. and therefore senior in right. The date of the patents does not always denote which patent is senior in right to the ground in conflict.
If the Bushwhacker and Niagara had not gone to patent, the ground in conflict would not magically be included in the patent of the Blue Bird, et al.?ÿ It would revert back to ground open for mineral entry.?ÿ Odd I know, but that is how it is handled.
There is one other oddity to U.S. patents of mineral lands and that is the topic of theoretical exclusions in a mineral patent.?ÿ Yes, that is a thing and it can be entertaining explaining to the landowner that their patent contains an exclusion that is not a true conflict.?ÿ There can also be issues of a senior claim that is truly in conflict, but not included in the expressly excepting and excluding clause.?ÿ Title companies have an esp. difficult time with these concepts.
?ÿ
Edit to add the link to the plat of mineral survey 20507-A&B.?ÿ The patent shows that the Sweet Home Mill Site is not included in the patent.
Mineral Survey Plat, Sur. No. 20507-A&B
?ÿ
The following is a compilation of the differences between the rectangular PLSS and mineral surveys that Steve Parrish and I put together.?ÿ It is certainly not comprehensive and any errors are mine.?ÿ ?????ÿ
Feel free to add to the list.
Unique Aspects of the Mineral Land Tenure System
Characteristics of the Rectangular Survey System
- Global in design beginning with an Initial Point, Principal Meridian and Base Line;
- Land divisions are formed by a telescoping grid that is based on well-defined rules and procedures;
- The official survey is normally done prior to sale and before 1909, under contract with the U.S. Government;
- Most Township subdivision surveys are conducted under a single contract;
- Subdivision creates common boundaries between land parcels (in other words, the plan is that there are no overlaps or hiatuses);
- Subdivision does not normally create junior-senior relationships (e.g. a ??regular? township subdivision);
- Bona fide rights as to location;
- The concept of closing corners is well defined; and
- The simple squares of the rectangular survey system are not simple.
Characteristics of Mineral Surveys
- The initial possessory right to Mineral Lands is based on the discovery of a locatable mineral on ground open to mineral entry;
- The lode is determined by additional exploration and development;
- The mining claimant must sufficiently mark his claim so it is readily retraceable on the ground;
- Prior to patent, the claimant must do $100 of annual mining improvements to maintain his possessory right;
- The mining claimant must employ and pay a U.S. [Deputy] Mineral Surveyor to conduct the official mineral survey after obtaining a survey order (the survey was approved by the U.S. Surveyor General, currently the Branch Cadastral Chief);
- Placer claims are surficial estates and do not normally overlap or create junior/senior rights with abutting claims;
- At the time of the application for patent any known lodes within a placer claim must be segregated and staked as lode claims by the placer claimant. Otherwise, others can enter the placer claim and claim the known lodes;
- If there are no known lode claims at the time of the application for patent, all lodes apexing within the surface boundary of the placer claim belong to the placer claimant. However, the placer claimant does not have any extralateral rights to dipping mineralized veins;
- Mill sites are required to be located on non-mineralized ground;
- Mill sites are surficial estates and do not normally overlap or create junior/senior rights with abutting claims;
- While mill sites are required to be located on non-mineralized ground, all surficial and subsurface mineral rights are conveyed to the mill site owner upon issuance of the patent. Like placer claims, no extralateral rights are granted for veins apexing within the surficial boundary;
- Lode claims often overlap and junior-senior rights are the norm;
- Hiatuses and gaps between lode claims are the norm, not the exception;
- For lode claims, bona fide rights to the subsurface mineral estate (i.e. extralateral rights) are fully preserved if the end lines are substantially parallel;
- The concept of closing corners is not explicitly defined;
- The locus of all mineral surveys are fixed by a connection to the rectangular survey system or to a U.S. Locating Monument, U.S. Location Monument, U.S. Mineral Monument;
- Mineral surveys are often tied to far distant, poorly established, shifting monuments, supposed to be corners of the rectangular survey system;
- Mineral surveys are not simple rectangles; and
- When retracing mineral surveys, thinking outside the box is to be encouraged!
