It's not uncommon to have more than one name, and in some cases several names.
I believe one name = 30 acre claim, more names more acres if avalible
2 names = 60 acres, half private, half they allow GPAA use
Maybe thats why the boundary is very well defined at the bridge, at least it was the last time I was there
Not having red the California book on claims, I'm speculating this
There used/still are several claims above Nancy's gold, and good gold can be found in the river

Bill

I think you will find those are just two adjoining 30 acre claims that both people hold......BLM requires one person per 20 acres or portion thereof, up to eight people on a maximum 160 acre claim. As one person you can buy and hold more than a 20 acre claim for the first year, but after that you need the required number of people for the acreage.

I don't think so, they both have different camc numbers and different groups of owners but cover the exact same ground. Holy Moly is 60 acres so has 2 30 acre claims, 1 of them is exactly the same as Nancy's Gold. I know it's a technical question, but I'm working on figuring out how these claims work, looks like a BLM error or me not understanding something. I know over 20 acres needs more than 1 listed owner, that's not what I'm asking, both claims have muliple owners, Nancy's is the Massie family, Holy Moly is a whole different group.

Dennis,

Find yourself a copy of "Location and Validity of mining claims"
and "Location and Patenting of mining claims and Mill sites in California"

Both can be found probably online at the Dept of Interior/BLM
and of the State of California web sites

Some dry reading, but valuable information.

Bill

If the same ground, by T-R-S, something for the GPAA Claim's Director to look into. Might give Walter Eason a call or email on it.

BLM will happily take your money on overfiles, then tell you it is now a civil mater for the courts to settle. They won't get involved in it, even though they caused the issue by accepting a second filing on the same ground.

Dennis, I think you are right.

The southern half of Holy Moly exactly overlaps Nancy's Gold.

Nancy's Gold was filed in 2011, Holy Moly was filed in 2015.

The two halves of Holy Moly appear to be in separate MRTS sections.

Further, based on the claim maps, it seems that the proprietors of Holy Moly should allow access to the NE corner of Nancy's Gold via the dirt road that starts at the west end of the bridge.

NANCYS GOLD is a valid GPAA claim. If there is another claim over stacking (not uncommon) I will attempt to contact the owner and ask them to amend their claim. If that does not work then I will ask the BLM to ask the owner to amend their claim or forfeit. Thank you for letting me know.

Hi, Kevin:

I believe Nancy's Gold is a valid claim. It certainly appears as if the southern half of Holy Moly was overlaid on Nancy's Gold. The maps that Dennis Lynch cited in his post of 20 July 2018 are persuasive.

Nancy's Gold doesn't seem to interfere/conflict with the northern half of the Holy Moly claim, just the southern half.

Also, GPAA Members should be allowed access through the Holy Moly claim to get the the NE corner of Nancy's Gold. We should be allowed to use the road and bring ourselves and our equipment through their claim without having to ask permission. Perhaps it would be good to erect markers on both sides of the road to show where the claim border crosses it. Also, if that's a locked gate at the west end of the bridge, what's the possibility for GPAA Members to get access to the gate key? Can we "check the key out" from the local BLM Office?

Thank you for looking into it. Please let us know how this gets resolved.

Now the question is "Should we prospect there between now and when this gets resolved?".

After having given this some more consideration, I have decided I can't tell if the claims are overlapping.

I believe the maps shown on The Diggings web site aren't sufficiently accurate to tell. The confusion may be related to the resolution of the map parts that are shown. If the maps show only the sections that the claims are in, the two claims could be side-by-side within the section. If the maps are showing the actual claim locations, then there is an overlap.

The accurate way to compare the areas would be to contrast the specifications for the Nancy's Gold claim against the specifications for the Holy Moly claim. I think that means comparing two sets of descriptions that were filed with the county.

Hi. We are new members to the GPAA and as we live in Sacramento California,we are trying to find good areas to pan for gold and have some fun. You would expect as a paying member of the GPAA that there would be more good claims that don't expect you to be mountaineer a to get to them.We also would really like to know what the outcome is for the debate on Nancy's Gold and Holy Holy being in the same place as we went there today and saw signs everywhere mentioning the Holy Moley claim and nothing about the Nancy's Gold claim. It's very frustrating for us when we drive all the way out there,excited to try our hand at panning and run into threatening warnings everywhere and not know what to do. It would be nice for the owners of Holy Holy or the BLM to let GPAA members pan on the claim since the GPAA claimed it as Nancy's Gold first and it is a very difficult area to try to walk to a specific NE corner of the mine with very, very slippery rocks that make it extremely difficult not to fall down. You feel lucky to just get down to the water and not break your neck without having to worry about whether or not you can actually just relax and pan there. I really hope someone solves this dilemma soon. And if anyone can recommend a decent GPAA gold claim that is within an hour and a half from Sacramento and is not too difficult to walk down to the actual water or claim, please ,please let us know. Thank you in advance to anyone who can help us out.

I have looked into this a little further this morning.

According to the BLM's LR2000 data, both claims cover the exact same space (except that the Holy Moly claim includes additional acreage to the immediate north).

Nancy's Gold:
Meridian 21 0140N 0110E 035 NW

Holy Moly:
Meridian 21 0140N 0110E 035 NW

I believe that "Meridian 21" is the Mt. Diablo baseline and meridian.

"0140N" means 14.0 townships North of the baseline.
"0110E" means 11.0 ranges East of the meridian.
"035" means Section 35 of that township & range.
"NW" means the Northwest quarter of that Section.

The additional acreage in the Holy Moly claim is in the section that is immediately north of section 35. The southern half of the Holy Moly claim and the entire Nancy's Gold claim appear to be identical.

[quote]
Posted By <a href='https://www.goldprospectors.org/AccountPreferences/userid/2936680' class='af-profile-link'>Erin Mullin</a> on 09 Jul 2020 08:16 AM
Hi. We are new members to the GPAA and as we live in Sacramento California,we are trying to find good areas to pan for gold and have some fun. You would expect as a paying member of the GPAA that there would be more good claims that don't expect you to be mountaineer a to get to them.We also would really like to know what the outcome is for the debate on Nancy's Gold and Holy Holy being in the same place as we went there today and saw signs everywhere mentioning the Holy Moley claim and nothing about the Nancy's Gold claim. It's very frustrating for us when we drive all the way out there,excited to try our hand at panning and run into threatening warnings everywhere and not know what to do. It would be nice for the owners of Holy Holy or the BLM to let GPAA members pan on the claim since the GPAA claimed it as Nancy's Gold first and it is a very difficult area to try to walk to a specific NE corner of the mine with very, very slippery rocks that make it extremely difficult not to fall down. You feel lucky to just get down to the water and not break your neck without having to worry about whether or not you can actually just relax and pan there. I really hope someone solves this dilemma soon. And if anyone can recommend a decent GPAA gold claim that is within an hour and a half from Sacramento and is not too difficult to walk down to the actual water or claim, please ,please let us know. Thank you in advance to anyone who can help us out.
[/quote]

Sorry to hear you got frustrated on this one.

It looks like the easiest access is east of the bridge. Did you get over there, or did you park west of the bridge (in the big turnout) and walk down from there?

If you do go back, it would probably be a good idea to have a copy of the BLM's LR2000 data for the Nancy's Gold claim and for the Holy Moly claim. If anyone tries to assert the Holy Moly claim, you should be able to counter their assertation with the documentation that shows the Nancy's Gold claim was pre-existing.. Of course, that assumes that they'd be open to discussion on the matter.

I haven't heard yet whether the GPAA is acting on this. I'm hoping they are, and I'm certain that they know more about how to handle this than I do. From what I've seen here in the forum, the best solution would be for the owners of the Holy Moly claim to amend their claim. I've no information about if or when that will happen.

I have sent a letter to the over-staker of the claim stating dates and all GPS corners. It is up to them to respond, amend or drop the claim. In any of the three necessary actions I can assure that removing their signage will be the last on their agenda. The claim is clearly over-staked and as I have shared in the past this is not uncommon.
I have approved and the payment to the BLM for 2021 has been made and reflects on the LR2000.
If you would like a PDF that you can print and take with you showing the validity of the claim you can print one from the LR2000



[/quote]

Sorry to hear you got frustrated on this one.

It looks like the easiest access is east of the bridge. Did you get over there, or did you park west of the bridge (in the big turnout) and walk down from there?

If you do go back, it would probably be a good idea to have a copy of the BLM's LR2000 data for the Nancy's Gold claim and for the Holy Moly claim. If anyone tries to assert the Holy Moly claim, you should be able to counter their assertation with the documentation that shows the Nancy's Gold claim was pre-existing.. Of course, that assumes that they'd be open to discussion on the matter.

I haven't heard yet whether the GPAA is acting on this. I'm hoping they are, and I'm certain that they know more about how to handle this than I do. From what I've seen here in the forum, the best solution would be for the owners of the Holy Moly claim to amend their claim. I've no information about if or when that will happen.

[/quote]

Hi Kurt and Kevin. I believe we parked in the West side of the bridge where other cars were and walked down the trail with the gate. There were lots of boulders and a big log and very slippery rocks blocking us from going into the actual claim area and several signs about the holy Moly claim. Is there an actual easier or other trail on the east side of the bridge that actually gets us directly into Nancy's Gold claim area? Thank you for getting back to us so fast.

[quote]
Posted By KEVIN HOAGLAND on 09 Jul 2020 04:44 PM
I have sent a letter to the over-staker of the claim stating dates and all GPS corners. It is up to them to respond, amend or drop the claim. In any of the three necessary actions I can assure that removing their signage will be the last on their agenda. The claim is clearly over-staked and as I have shared in the past this is not uncommon.
I have approved and the payment to the BLM for 2021 has been made and reflects on the LR2000.
If you would like a PDF that you can print and take with you showing the validity of the claim you can print one from the LR2000

[/quote]
Kevin:

Thanks for the update.

Do you have any advice on how to interact with anyone asserting "their claim" if we try to pan on Nancy's Gold? Would taking a copy of the BML's LR2000 data be sufficient?

[quote]
Posted By <a href='https://www.goldprospectors.org/AccountPreferences/userid/2936680' class='af-profile-link'>Erin Mullin</a> on 09 Jul 2020 07:08 PM
Hi Kurt and Kevin. I believe we parked in the West side of the bridge where other cars were and walked down the trail with the gate. There were lots of boulders and a big log and very slippery rocks blocking us from going into the actual claim area and several signs about the holy Moly claim. Is there an actual easier or other trail on the east side of the bridge that actually gets us directly into Nancy's Gold claim area? Thank you for getting back to us so fast.
[/quote]

Erin:

There are at least two other ways to get down to the river, and they are visible from space.

Check Google Maps, search for "Circle Bridge Mosquito Ridge" (apparently, the bridge is a historical landmark), switch to satellite view and zoom all the way in on the east end of the bridge. There's a turnout just past the bridge, and the path down to the river is visible from the southern end of the turnout.

If you go a bit farther, there are a couple of additional turnouts that may allow access down to the river. They are just after the road swings to the west. As the road swings to the south again, it leaves the Nancy's Gold claim. I suspect that the access from these turnouts is as rugged as what you experienced on the other side of the river.

There's also what looks to be a jeep trail from the west end of the bridge down to the river, but it goes through the valid part of the Holy Moly claim and doesn't seem to connect with the Nancy's Gold claim. The NE corner of the Nancy's Gold claim apparently ends in the river, so to get to the claim from there, people would have to swim, wade, float, etc. across the river.

I think the turnout on the eastern end of the bridge is the best bet.

Greetings.
I am planning a trip this weekend out to Nancy's Gold and have spoken with Gen from the GPAA site. I spoke about the signage by the bridge you can clearly view on Google Earth that states you must have a notorized copy of permissions to work the claims in this area. After reading these comments about the two claims overlapping, I'm wondering if this issue has been resolved yet. I have Kevin's number and will give him a call to discuss and will post what I've found out. Good Luck prospectors .