Jump to content

Clay Diggins

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Clay Diggins last won the day on October 24 2017

Clay Diggins had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

439 Excellent


About Clay Diggins

  • Rank
    Silver Contributor

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location:
    The Great Southwest

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Recent Profile Visitors

2,825 profile views
  1. This NOAA website Interagency Elevation Inventory shows where, and what kind of LIDAR the U.S. government agencies have available. There are links to the mapped data downloads. Most of the green areas on the map are only about 3 foot resolution so they may or may not be an improvement on the existing DEMs. Open Topography is another good source for free lidar data. It's more international in scope. The Tahoe Basin Lidar set is very high resolution as PG-Prospecting pointed out. It looks like there are several nice sets in New Zealand. You can directly download a selected area at this website. You will probably notice that the coasts have some pretty good LIDAR coverage and quality but the west has been pretty much left out of the feds LIDAR efforts. It's always a good idea to check your State's GIS office to see if they have different coverage.
  2. Not much detectable gold around Casa Grande OFS. In Tucson the Desert Gold Diggers have several good claims to the south. You might consider calling them to see if anyone is planning a trip around that time. Typically their outings are earlier in the month. Cost to join is around $50 first year. If you are down that way much it might be worth joining just for the claims access. Barry
  3. An FOIA is not really possible freak. Here's one of the parts of the Senate bill creating a new national monument. So Congress is just approving a memorial, if the Secretary of Agriculture decides they want one, and letting the agencies tell them what the boundaries are "Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment". Kinda hard to run an FOIA on documents that don't exist and might not until three years from now. The actual monument is described as "approximately 353 acres, as generally depicted on the map entitled “Proposed Saint Francis Dam Disaster National Monument”. Long experience tells me that 353 acres could be 200 or 1,000 acres in the final version and that original map has nothing but a scribbled line indicating a general area that may or may not be included in the final version. The current Forest Service map shows 440 acres for the monument, not 353. Here is the entire bill as passed by the Senate. As you will notice there are very few actions that include anything like an actual described boundary . Most of the land management bills rolled into this one bill have made several rounds through Congress and have failed in committee or on the floor. This particular monument proposal has failed several times - the last time was in 2016.
  4. It's a lot more than just California. 🎷 You won't find new boundaries because Congress no longer bothers to approve specific land withdrawal boundaries. If this bill passes the agencies involved will eventually agree on the boundaries and, if we are lucky, will eventually allow the public to know the final area. We deal with this nonsense all the time. Clearly there are boundary maps passed around to the Congresscritters but they are not considered definite or final. Kinda just squiggly lines on a very simple one page map. Not something you could rely on to know where the final boundary will be on the ground. As long as Congress continues to abdicate their power to the executive agencies the people and their representatives won't be able to really know where any of these proposed land status changes are happening. In my opinion it seems a silly way to manage public property and it's certainly not fair to the locals who have these changes imposed on them willy nilly. If you want a general idea about the proposed changes you can read the Washington Post.
  5. Hi Dave, I'd written a more involved reply as to why UTM is a good system for small local mapping but fails in a larger map but I lost the whole kit and caboodle when I went for a glass of water. Being as how I type with one finger and I still have to work for a living I'm not able to recreate the whole post again. I'll leave you with a short explanation and a link to a really cool animation that helps explain the why UTM is not a good choice for this grids and graticules over a large area.. From The Nature of Geographic Information Yeah UTM is actually 60 different map projections that can be treated as one as long as you are working within one UTM zone. Essentially besides the abnormal distortion and lack of repeatable measuring accuracy UTM still depends on four factors in it's description of a single point - the UTM Zone number, North or South of the Equator, the Easting and the Northing. Just as many factors as Lat/Long. There is a lot more to this whole thing of map projections and which one is best but in the end each map projection has it's own strengths and weaknesses. I myself use UTM on some of my small local map projects when that's the best choice for the use intended. We have thousands of different map projections so we can use the right one for the job at hand. Although UTM is a fine projection on a small local level the compromises involved don't make it a good projection for large scale grids and graticules. Thanks for the input Dave. Barry
  6. Thanks for the feedback Mike. 😊 We've already mapped the wilderness areas on the Land Status Maps. There is a single wilderness map for the entire United States as well as individual mapping on each of the State specific Land Status maps. The Patents mapping is a work in progress. 4 years now! With more than 6 million patents to map it's been a real challenge. We do have a few State wide patent maps that are working in house but we'd like to tune those a lot more before we go public. Each map has links to a copy of each patent grant as well as the survey plat when available. If you would like I can send you a link privately to a sample patent map so you can see how we are progressing and get your feedback. Just PM me if that's something you would like to comment on, your ideas on this would be of value to us. You can see mineral patent mapping with direct grant downloading and links to the Serial Register entries on the California, Colorado and Arizona Mining Claims Maps. The mineral patent boundaries can usually be seen by turning on the "Special Surveys" and "PLSS Second Division" map layers as well. We could include mineral patents on the other mining claim maps but like our many other projects we rely on public input to guide what gets priority. So far there have been no requests to continue with mineral patent mapping so it's got a low priority. Barry
  7. We've been considering some additions to the map tools on Land Matters and would like user's feedback. Land area locations in the U.S. are typically described by their legal land description (PLSS). This is the only system that has been physically surveyed and has actual physical markers on the ground. That's why it's the system for legally describing land parcels. All the Land Matters maps have the PLSS included as a possible display item but a lot of people (military) have been trained to use a grid to describe actual ground locations. Graticules are very much like grids but they have the advantage of following the earth's curvature, unlike grid maps. Digital graticules are capable of increasing in resolution as you zoom in to an area. These are advantages of a graticule but the use of a graticule is just like using a grid. It's possible to use both the PLSS and a graticule when mapping so we thought we would see if some people would like the option of using a grid type mapping system. To that end I have included graticule layers on our historic places and ghost towns map to let folks try out this system and see if they would like these layers included on other Land Matters maps. If you have an interest give it a try at the Historic Places Map. You can read more about grids, graticules and their uses on our New Projects page. Let us know if you would like this feature added to the maps. It's a bunch of work to make those changes so we'll have to see some demand before we add these in. Barry
  8. With .68 gram per ton and an 8oz sample it could easily be the nugget effect if free milling gold is involved. Gold being malleable is particularly susceptible to the nugget effect in small samples. Your sample was 1/4000 ton so at .68 gram/ton the assay result could be based on a single particle of gold weighing .0011023 of a milligram. Perhaps only one sample from the split had a tiny gold particle? In which case, assuming excellent and multiple assays, the results would be .34 g/ton. Fire assays are the standard but generally many assays are done on randomized samples before any assumptions about the quantity per ton of any particular deposit can be made. I suspect you will hear something similar from your assayers.
  9. Land Matters updated their Mining Claim Maps this past Wednesday. Although the LR2000 has been shut down Land Matters gets their data directly from the main BLM database in Denver. This mining claims update is only current until the gov shutdown on December 21st. We've been updating these maps twice a month for more than 4 years now. There have been some really big changes in Arizona this past month with a lot of ground opening up in some very good areas. A lot of the newly closed claims were old, from the 1930's and later so this isn't just the usual end of year churn. On a related subject the LR2000 went live again today. I guess the new boss told them to flip the switch? It did seem petty to take it down during the shutdown since the servers are already paid for.
  10. Not quite sure where to put this Steve. It will probably have some interest for western prospectors and the eastern hunters are going to find it really useful. You decide if it needs to be moved and I'll go with it. Land Matters has begun a new section on their website for new projects in development. The most recent new project is Forest Ownership. This new map tracks Forest Boundaries as well as both surface and subsurface (mineral) ownership on the National Forest System. "Forest Ownership" may sound funny since the common assumption is that all National Forest lands are created equal and are owned by the federal government. Unfortunately it's not really that simple. Land status within the forests varies greatly depending on several factors. We hope by developing this map set individual areas of the forests can be better understood by those who live near, use and research the United States forest reserves. These maps should help you understand why some areas of forest are off limits, why you see houses and farms within a National Forest and who owns the mineral rights in any particular area of a forest. In particular visitors to the eastern states forests can discover why they don't have the free use rights western forest users do. This map is going to be an eye opener for those who believe that all National Forests are the same. Many of the eastern forests are not owned or controlled by the federal government. Often when the U.S. has purchased some rights to surface use the minerals and timber are still owned in whole or in part by private individuals or corporations. When you go to the New Projects Page be sure and click on the "Forest Ownership" tab in the center of the page and read the background I've written for these new map layers. That background can really help you understand what you are seeing on these maps. The purpose of introducing these new projects while they are still in development is to get user feedback. You can have a direct influence on how these maps are developed and used as well as helping Land Matters define which projects should receive priority in their development. Please leave any comments you may have and if a particular project seems worthwhile consider supporting that project to help it along. Here is the link to the New Projects Page. Just click on the "Forest Ownership" tab then choose the Forest Ownership map link on the right to open the new project map in a new tab. Barry
  11. This is nothing new to the industry. There are several companies already offering working systems that handle several tons per day throughput. I think the investors on Dragon's Den should have done more research before throwing their money at a system that is behind the curve on going to market. Here's just one of the new extraction systems. It was introduced in 2016. HM X-leach. This leach process is already patented as is the physical plant process flow. The mining industry has been developing custom leaches to meet individual needs since at least 1880. Here's a 1981 paper from OneMine.org explaining these types of leach processes. This isn't new stuff but it's just now becoming cost effective due to regulation and safety concerns.
  12. Check the pH of your clay solution. If the pH is low (acidic) add some hydrated lime (Calcium hydroxide) to your water and the clay particles will go into suspension easier. This stuff is pretty cheap and won't mess up the environment. Be careful to keep the lime dust out of your eyes and off your skin it can cause chemical irritation.
  13. Oh If you only knew what you just wrote in American English! 😎
  • Create New...