Mine Claims in the Parcel Fabric

[TomNeer]

• How does the Parcel Fabric handle patented versus unpatented mining claims?


• What is the recommended procedure for importing these into the Parcel Fabric?


• Can we differentiate a lode versus placer claim within the fabric? Would it be best to add an additional field or modify the lrEncumbranceType domain?

My initial thought on loading the claims was to import both the patented and unpatented mining claims as encumbrances and then re-import the patented claims only as lots? Is this the best way to handle this or is there another suggested way?

The concern with this method is now we have split the patented claim into two separate features when it is truly a single feature. So if there is a change to the claim boundary (e.g., resurvey), we now have to edit the feature twice. Is there a way within the Parcel Fabric to tie/relate/associate a lot type with an single or multiple encumbrance type? So if a property owner has a patented survey (surface and mineral rights), water, and grazing rights that I would only need to update/edit/enter a single feature rather than 4 separate features.

[TiffanyPuett]

Hi Tom,

Based on the information you provided, I'm thinking that managing them as encumbrances would be the way to go.  Obviously all geographic features aren't required to be managed in the fabric, but if they tend to have some sort of survey description then fabric features is an option. Because all of the features are linked together in a kind of network, you don't have to worry about duplicating boundary resurveys.  In other words, topology is inherent and as long as the overlapping polygon types are "joined" any resurvey of a shared line will be updated multiple times.

Another option would be to use a "feature adjustment" and associate the patented claims to your fabric parcels.  This works by applying any displacement vectors stored on the parcel points to the associated features such that a shared corner of a patented claim will be adjusted to shifts in coincident parcel points when you run the feature adjustment.  The main difference here is that the user has a little bit more control and QA over the adjustment and the associated feature is loosely tied to the parcels (no real survey).

[TomNeer]

Tiffany,

Thanks for the reply. The problem is that patented claims are both an encumbrance and real property, and the legal definition is less pre-existing rights but retains the original legal definition. After having a conference call with ESRI about this. The current recommended workaround for patented claims will be:

1. Create Simultaneous Conveyance - This will manage the original survey boundaries.


2. Create a lot from the conveyance - The lot will represent the surface property and be modified by subtracting any pre-existing rights. The simultaneous conveyance will represent the original survey, whereas the lot will represent the actual rights.


3. Copy the lot to encumbrance - This will copy the lot and make a duplicate in the encumbrance layer of the actual mineral rights.

In talking with ESRI the objective will be to tie the encumbrance to the lot so that the edits, if made, are reflected between both layers. The above is all speculative as it has not been tested yet and we are not sure how the fabric will handle overlapping conyenances. We will be testing this in the next couple weeks.

[TomNeer · Accepted solution]

For those that are interested. I have worked with entering patented claims a bit now and come to a workflow that seems to be working for me. Though there is a potential for issues down the road. This is the process I am using:

1) Create a Simultaneous Conveyance based on each patented claim's full description. The full patented claim's boundaries are entered using the metes and bounds description and categorized as a "Small Holding Claim". The Subdivision Name is the same as the placer, lode, or mill site (e.g. Red Wagon Placer) and the Subdivision ID is the Patent Number with leading zeros (e.g. 0018746).

2) Repeat entering all patented claims with full boundary for the section I am working on. When all patented claims are entered, I start creating the tax parcels. No lots are created unless the patent was subdivided.

3) Tax Parcels are created from the oldest patent to the newest patent. The reason for this is that patent rights are grandfathered even though they may overlap. From the oldest a tax parcel is created. If a newer patent overlaps an older patent, a tax parcel is only created for the non-overlapping areas.

This process seems to be working fairly well. The main issue is tracking when patents were entered so you know which patent has parental rights. Watch out when extending into other sections as there may be parental rights not shown. The one concern I have is with all the overlapping Simultaneous Conveyances and what that may do to the Parcel Fabric.

I am not performing a "deep research" to see if parental rights have been passed to junior claims. Those will be addressed on a case by case basis at a later date. Nor am I creating encumbrances (e.g, mineral rights). I will create the encumbrances at a later date based on the tax parcels.