How Would You Treat this Gap

Gene Kooper · 2017-07-18T00:42:00Z

Here is an interesting twist on a gap not of record. While the parcels are three lode mining claims and a mill site, please consider that the solution is not dependent upon a specialized knowledge of mining claims.In 1882, the Old Lode (MS 1500) was surveyed by U.S. Dep. Mineral Surveyor, Albert E. Chase with a solar transit and 500 ft. steel tape. The plat shows it to be 1500 feet long and 150 feet wide. The plat and field notes show a connection between Cor. No. 1 and a section corner on the south township line to be S14?ø27'W, a distance of 8010.8 ft. All four corners are chiseled stones surrounded with a mound of stone. The patent was issued in 1885 and it does not state any conflicts or exclusions with other claims (acreage of 5.165 acres).In 1902, the One and Two lode claims and a mill site (MS 15000 A&B) were surveyed by U.S. Dep. Mineral Surveyor, A.J. Ventress with a Gurley Light Mountain transit and 500 ft. steel tape. The true meridian was determined by direct solar observations. The plat shows both lode claims to be 1500 feet by 150 feet and the mill site boundary is coincident with the side lines of the Old, One, and Two lodes. The plat and field notes show connections between Cors. Nos. 1 of the One and Two lodes and Cor. No. 1 of the mill site and a section corner on the south township line (same PLSS corner as MS 1500) to be S9?ø24'W, 8194.3 ft, S17?ø27'W, 8251.6 ft., and S13?ø31'W, 8556.5 ft., respectively.All 8 lode claim corners and Cors. No. 2 and 3 of the mill site are chiseled stones surrounded by mounds of stone. Cor. No. 1 of the mill site falls on a 8 x 3 ft. boulder, standing 2 ft. above the ground and marked with a chiseled "+". The patent was issued in 1904 and it expressly excepts and excludes from the patent that portion of the Old Lode (MS1500) in conflict with the One and Two lodes (acreage of 9.661). The patent states that the mill site has an acreage of 1.316 acres.Plat for Sur. No. 15000 A&B showing conflict with Old Lode, Sur. No. 1500. I conducted a field survey and found all of the original corners either firmly set or reestablished from the stone mound or original accessories). The exception is Cor. No. 3 of the Old Lode, which currently falls in a road. The measured courses and distances "reasonably" match the record dimensions for Sur. No. 15000 A&B. The distances of the Old Lode reasonably match the record. Line 1-2 of the mill site matches record of N0?øE, but Line 4-1 of the Old Lode is S1?øW. The mining improvements for the Old Lode fit the found position, not the position shown on Sur. No. 15000 A&B. The area is covered in pine forest and there are no improvements placed on any of the boundary lines (i.e. no fences). My client owns the mill site and wants to build a cabin. There is an existing road that provides access from the north to the Old Lode.Cors. Nos. 3 and 2 of the mill site create two angle points in Line 1-2 of the One Lode with fallings of 0.4 ft. and 0.6 ft. respectively. Cors. Nos. 3 and 1 of the mill site create two angle points in Line 3-4 of the Two Lode with fallings of 0.3 ft. for both corners. Instead of being coincident, Line 4-1 of the Old Lode is approx. 74 ft. east of Line 1-2 of the mill site.The field notes for the mill site (MS 15000B) clearly state that Cor. No. 1 is a chiseled "+" in a boulder and was set at the intersection of Line 4-1 of the Old Lode and Line 3-4 of the Two Lode. The field notes continue, "Thence north along Line 4-1 of the Old Lode a distance of 425.2 ft. to Cor. No. 2 at the intersection with Line 1-2 of the One Lode." There is a gap of 0.82 acres.Preliminary plat showing the found positions of the 3 lode claims and mill site. These claims are private inholdings within a national forest located somewhere in Colorado. What would you do with the "technical gap" (i.e. it is not of record). The monuments are still in their originally established positions. Hold everything and show the gap. The gap is Federal interest land. Hold the call to the senior line over the original monuments. They are closing corners. Set new monuments at the true intersections. Despite the suspected blunder of Dep. Ventress there is no gross error or fraud and since the other criteria of "mistake" is not defined in Chapter X of the 2009 manual, it is appropriate to bend Line 4-1 of the Old Lode through Cors. Nos. 2 and 1 of the mill site. This is in keeping the general rule that no gap in the record, no gap on the ground. (Sorry, this one is specific to mineral surveys.) Call your buddies at the USFS and BLM. Other solutions?

Summarize Topic

Page 4 / 4 Prev

Strictly Surveying

Last Post by Gene Kooper 9 years ago

61 Posts

12 Users

0 Reactions

1,554 Views

RSS

Gene Kooper

(@gene-kooper)

Posts: 1336

Member

Topic starter

Translate ▼

To finish up, the east end lines of the October and Triangle lodes were staked on the true position of the Polaris Lode, but the Polaris Lode's patented position was shown 43.4 ft. to the northeast on the plat. So, in this case there is a gap in the record, but NO gap on the ground because the true position of the Polaris came before the patented position. During the Binger Period, many deputy mineral surveyors left bread crumbs for those that followed their footsteps in an effort to show that they really weren't liars or stupid. Here is what the monumentation on the ground shows the positions to be.

Posted : July 19, 2017 8:05 pm

Page 4 / 4 Prev

26 Forums
54.5 K Topics
592.1 K Posts
262 Online
16.9 K Members

Forum Icons: Forum contains no unread posts Forum contains unread posts

Topic Icons: Not Replied Replied Active Hot Sticky Unapproved Solved Private Closed

How Would You Treat this Gap

Please support our supporters!

Our Policies

Quick Links

Support