Non Standard Size Placer Mining Claim

[tahoe737]

I want to file a "placer mining claim" in Arizona.
A standard 660x1320 foot claim will not fit due to a "highway right of way".
The creek runs at an angle, so in order to have it on the claim, one side would have to be on an angle.
I know that lately, Arizona's BLM doesn't want new claims to be filed diagonally.
Is it still possible to file a non-standard size claim?
The southern end line would be 800 feet long, the west end line 1000 feet,
and the east end line 350 feet. Approx 12 acres.
All sides would be north to south, and east to west, except the top line.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[Clay Diggins]

Unless the hwy area has been withdrawn there is no need to exclude it from the claimed area. The simple fact there is a right of way does not exclude claiming the area.

If it is withdrawn (unlikely but possible) just end the claim at the withdrawn area. If you must exclude the hwy area you must locate the claim by metes and bounds. The claim you describe is unlikely. I would have to see the PLSS and land status to comment further. I'm guessing there may be a Government Lot involved. Is this near Lynx Creek?

Heavy Pans

 

[tahoe737]

Hi Clay, thanks for responding. I know that you will give me very competent
advice.


I received an amendment required letter from the BLM on AMC439457. 12N 2E S31
Due to a vacation, the 30 days expired.


The letter stated "Any portion of a mining claim on land subject to a pre-
existing highway right-of-way granted per 23 U.S.C. 317 (1988), the Federal
Highway Act, is null and void ab initio. There is a highway right-of-way,
granted under the Federal Aid Highway Act, which cuts through your claim.
You must amend your claim so the right-of-way is not crossed.


I am planning to file a new claim just south of Hwy 69 that includes
as much of Big Bug Creek as possible.
It will include a metes and bounds description.

 

[Clay Diggins]

Thanks for the info tahoe737. I probably should have indicated we could do this by PM but if you are good with this being public I'll respond here.

I looked up the case file for Hwy 69. It was indeed withdrawn in 1949 for the ROW. You can see the withdrawal and get the BLM case file number (phx 085908/ Serial Number: AZPHX- 0 085908) from the Master Title Plat (MTP). It's always wise to check the MTP before attempting to make a mining claim. All the MTPs are available on the Land Matters Land Status Maps. With the MTP you are looking at the same land status map the BLM uses to keep track of the lands they manage.

You can also look up the land actions for your Section of interest on the LR2000 by putting the PLSS description into the search boxes found under "Pub CR Geo Report w/Land" item of the LR2000 search menu.

The withdrawal is 200 foot on each side of the road center line and amounts to a total withdrawal of 16.99 acres. Your claim location was valid for the portion not within the withdrawal except there was also a second small portion of your claim left on the northwest side of the withdrawal. Since a claim has to be contiguous (in one piece) the entire claim was void if you didn't amend it to take out that little hanging bit. It wasn't the withdrawal that killed the claim it was the fact that the claim was split in two by the withdrawal. That might be a technicality without much of a distinction but it's enough to kill the whole claim. If the hanging bit hadn't been there the BLM would just declare the part of the claim in the ROW void and the rest of the claim would be reduced but still ACTIVE case status.

Looking at my current map (I am mapping part of that area for a software update at present) and doing some rough calculations if you claim the east half of the NESW up to the ROW withdrawal your claim would be a little over 8 acres and you would get approx 500 ft of Big Bug Creek.

You could make that claim 660 ft east west at the bottom - about 920 ft north/south on the western edge and about 300 ft north/south on the eastern edge. Or you could claim the SESE of the NESW for 10 acres and let the BLM send you a notice that the portion of your claim overlapping the ROW is void. I prefer telling the BLM where my claims are rather than the other way around but you could do either.

I hope that helps.

Heavy Pans

 

[tahoe737]

Clay thanks for your help.


I am still learning how to read MTP's.


On the Historical Index Page does an "X" mean that it is open to mineral entry?


Using your numbers of 920x660x300 on Miners Diggins Footprints gives me
about 403560 square ft or 9.26 acres. If 10 acres is the new minimum claim
size, can I increase the 660 side to about 700 feet?

 

[Clay Diggins]

The Historical Index X's only indicate the Section aliquot subdivisions affected by the Serial Number or Case Number. You will see Government Lots listed to the right of the subdivision charts.

The Historical Index is a time/space defined list of case actions affecting land status. You will need to look up the specified laws, land actions, proclamations or cases to understand the details. The Federal Register is your friend when you dive deep looking at land status.

It is true that the Hwy ROW doesn't specifically withdraw the minerals but the land status has been changed to reflect the fact that the BLM is no longer the controlling surface management agency and the minerals are unmineable. I believe ADOT may be the controlling agency on that federally funded highway? ADOT has no power to sell minerals in the ROW but they do control the ROW surface and subsurface support.

The so called minimum claim size allows for a 10% fudge for intervening land status cases. I've used that successfully with intervening patents. I don't see how a ROW would be any different. 9.26 acres is well within the 10% rulings. The key to the 10% rule is not to expect it will allow you to exceed the 20 acres per claimant limit.

Or you could claim the south half of the aliquot minus the ROW and you will be more than 10 acres.

If you fear the BLM make the claim 10 acres square and let them cut it back. Don't expect any mercy in that process. They could easily miscalculate the claim size and "accidentally" cause your claim to be voidable. I've seen that before. They like nice square corners at Arizona BLM and seem to be incapable of calculating the area of an irregular polygon. Literally I don't think they have the tools or the knowledge to calculate the area of a triangle (Area =(height x base)/2).

Widening the claim won't get you any more creek. If you are looking for creek to work the 660 ft will be plenty and is less likely to confuse the nice folks at the BLM.

Heavy Pans

 

[Rail Dawg]

Ok when claiming a Government Lot how do you describe it?

I've been using the non-aliquot form that Nevada provides but still describe the Lot in terms the BLM seems to prefer.

i.e. N1/2SW1/4SW1/4

The Reno BLM office accepts this although the instructions indicate NOT to use aliquot parts in describing Government Lots.

 

[Goldwasher]

you describe it by lot number then the quarter section and so on.....like a normal description. You just don't have to describe using 1/2 corners like a normal easy 20 acre rectangle.

lot 4 se quarter sect. ** twnsp ** Range** mdm**

 

[Rail Dawg]

you describe it by lot number then the quarter section and so on.....like a normal description. You just don't have to describe using 1/2 corners like a normal easy 20 acre rectangle.

lot 4 se quarter sect. ** twnsp ** Range** mdm**

OK thanks for that.

Is this something I should amend or is the fact it passed the BLM muster good enough?

Moving forward I'll word the COL's as you describe.

 

[Rail Dawg]

you describe it by lot number then the quarter section and so on.....like a normal description. You just don't have to describe using 1/2 corners like a normal easy 20 acre rectangle.

lot 4 se quarter sect. ** twnsp ** Range** mdm**

Let me ask you this too.

If the Lot is say 38 acres you do have to describe which half of the Lot you are claiming correct?

i.e. N1/2 Lot 4 NW1/4NW1/4

How would you describe just 1/2 of the Lot?

 

[tahoe737]

My understanding is that the standard placer claim size is 660x1320.


Theoretically, would the BLM accept a square claim of 900x900 (since one side is
longer than standard) ?


How would you search the Federal Register to obtain land status records?


Again, thanks Clay for your help to me and all those that read this forum.