Although I vaguely remember seeing something like this before, it is not very common in my experiance.
Here is a land description for a Federal Patent issued in 2004:
********************************************************
T.x X., R.x X.,
?ÿ?ÿ sec. 20, lots 2 - 4 inclusive;
?ÿ?ÿ sec. 21, lots 12 - 16 inclusive;
?ÿ?ÿ sec. 26, lots 19 - 34 inclusive;
?ÿ?ÿ sec. 27, lots 26, 28 - 42, inclusive, 44 - 51 inclusive;
?ÿ?ÿ sec. 28, lots 12 - 38 inclusive;
?ÿ?ÿ sec. 29, lots 11 - 38 inclusive;
?ÿ?ÿ sec. 30, lots 27 - 41 inclusive;?ÿ
?ÿ?ÿ sec. 31, lots 17, 18, 20 - 32 inclusive;
?ÿ?ÿ sec. 32, lots 15 - 23 inclusive;
?ÿ?ÿ sec. 33, lots 21 - 29 inclusive;
?ÿ?ÿ sec. 34, lots 17 & 18;
T.y Y., R.y Y.,
?ÿ?ÿ sec. 25, lots 7, 15 - 17 inclusive, 20, 24, 25;
?ÿ?ÿ sec. 36, lots 9, 15, 16, 21 ?? 23, 28.
The above land description is meant to include all public lands that may now exist within the S1/2 of sections 20
and 21, and all of sections 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 (except Lot 19), the N1/2 and SW1/4 of section 32, and
all of section 33, T.x X., R.x E., and the E1/2 of sections 25 and 36, T.y Y., R.y Y., Salt Lake Meridian, Utah.
*************************************************************************************************
It should be noted at this point, that these sections contain hundreds of Patented Lode Mining Claims and ZERO aliquot part Patents.
The last paragraph is what we?ÿcall the "Omnibus Clause." It conveys whatever Federal Fractions that MAY exist within the subject sections. A pretty slick way to clean up the cadastral fabric of these sections from the Federal viewpoint, although it can create issues for the Private Land Owners down the road.
Loyal
although it can create issues for the Private Land Owners down the road.
Like the entire PLSS concept from the beginning.
Although I vaguely remember seeing something like this before, it is not very common in my experiance.
Here is a land description for a Federal Patent issued in 2004:
********************************************************
T.x X., R.x X.,
?ÿ?ÿ sec. 20, lots 2 - 4 inclusive;
?ÿ?ÿ sec. 21, lots 12 - 16 inclusive;
?ÿ?ÿ sec. 26, lots 19 - 34 inclusive;
?ÿ?ÿ sec. 27, lots 26, 28 - 42, inclusive, 44 - 51 inclusive;
?ÿ?ÿ sec. 28, lots 12 - 38 inclusive;
?ÿ?ÿ sec. 29, lots 11 - 38 inclusive;
?ÿ?ÿ sec. 30, lots 27 - 41 inclusive;?ÿ
?ÿ?ÿ sec. 31, lots 17, 18, 20 - 32 inclusive;
?ÿ?ÿ sec. 32, lots 15 - 23 inclusive;
?ÿ?ÿ sec. 33, lots 21 - 29 inclusive;
?ÿ?ÿ sec. 34, lots 17 & 18;T.y Y., R.y Y.,
?ÿ?ÿ sec. 25, lots 7, 15 - 17 inclusive, 20, 24, 25;
?ÿ?ÿ sec. 36, lots 9, 15, 16, 21 ?? 23, 28.The above land description is meant to include all public lands that may now exist within the S1/2 of sections 20
and 21, and all of sections 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 (except Lot 19), the N1/2 and SW1/4 of section 32, and
all of section 33, T.x X., R.x E., and the E1/2 of sections 25 and 36, T.y Y., R.y Y., Salt Lake Meridian, Utah.*************************************************************************************************
It should be noted at this point, that these sections contain hundreds of Patented Lode Mining Claims and ZERO aliquot part Patents.
The last paragraph is what we?ÿcall the "Omnibus Clause." It conveys whatever Federal Fractions that MAY exist within the subject sections. A pretty slick way to clean up the cadastral fabric of these sections from the Federal viewpoint, although it can create issues for the Private Land Owners down the road.
Loyal
Was this a patent to the state?
Your example is not that uncommon here in Colorado.?ÿ A mining company cleaned up a few sections of ground east and south of Cripple Creek in an identical fashion.?ÿ The patent was issued in 1997.?ÿ The parcels are described by aliquot parcels in some sections, by government lots in other sections and other descriptions simply state, "any remaining Public Lands within the section".?ÿ Monumentation was not that necessary since a large portion of the original land surface is floating above a large open pit gold mine today.?ÿ Here is a link to the description page showing the 45 land descriptions listed in the patent.
And here is the patent with a presumed acreage of 62.44 acres.?ÿ
Back in 1905 five patents were issued for the remaining ground between nearly 130 mineral surveys in Sec. 18, T. 15 S., R. 69 W. (one of the sections in the 1997 patent).?ÿ The five patents totaled a little over 9 acres and collectively weighed in at 150 pages.?ÿ The field notes for the mineral survey described 45 discontiguous tracts.?ÿ I like the simplicity of the modern conveyance, not to mention it is only 3 pages.
Clear Creek County was issued a patent (later revised) for all remaining lands controlled by the BLM within the county in 1995.?ÿ The BLM began by attempting to survey all of the remaining gaps and gores between patented mining claims.?ÿ They soon gave that up as pure folly.?ÿ The patent was issued without benefit of survey!?ÿ I surveyed three of those parcels that the county sold to a client. He had 3 patented lodes that adjoined the fractions.?ÿ I ended up locating 37 original stones so I could determine what was left belonged to my client.?ÿ One of the parcels crossed a township line so I had to also retrace the township line and set pins at the intersections with the lode claim lines.?ÿ I've heard that the BLM has had some conversations with Gilpin County to do something similar, but nothing formal has been discussed.?ÿ The patents are too long so below are links for anyone wishing to download them before February 9.
Revised patent to Clear Creek County issued in 2002
?ÿ
Although I vaguely remember seeing something like this before, it is not very common in my experiance.
Here is a land description for a Federal Patent issued in 2004:
********************************************************
T.x X., R.x X.,
?ÿ?ÿ sec. 20, lots 2 - 4 inclusive;
?ÿ?ÿ sec. 21, lots 12 - 16 inclusive;
?ÿ?ÿ sec. 26, lots 19 - 34 inclusive;
?ÿ?ÿ sec. 27, lots 26, 28 - 42, inclusive, 44 - 51 inclusive;
?ÿ?ÿ sec. 28, lots 12 - 38 inclusive;
?ÿ?ÿ sec. 29, lots 11 - 38 inclusive;
?ÿ?ÿ sec. 30, lots 27 - 41 inclusive;?ÿ
?ÿ?ÿ sec. 31, lots 17, 18, 20 - 32 inclusive;
?ÿ?ÿ sec. 32, lots 15 - 23 inclusive;
?ÿ?ÿ sec. 33, lots 21 - 29 inclusive;
?ÿ?ÿ sec. 34, lots 17 & 18;T.y Y., R.y Y.,
?ÿ?ÿ sec. 25, lots 7, 15 - 17 inclusive, 20, 24, 25;
?ÿ?ÿ sec. 36, lots 9, 15, 16, 21 ?? 23, 28.The above land description is meant to include all public lands that may now exist within the S1/2 of sections 20
and 21, and all of sections 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 (except Lot 19), the N1/2 and SW1/4 of section 32, and
all of section 33, T.x X., R.x E., and the E1/2 of sections 25 and 36, T.y Y., R.y Y., Salt Lake Meridian, Utah.*************************************************************************************************
It should be noted at this point, that these sections contain hundreds of Patented Lode Mining Claims and ZERO aliquot part Patents.
The last paragraph is what we?ÿcall the "Omnibus Clause." It conveys whatever Federal Fractions that MAY exist within the subject sections. A pretty slick way to clean up the cadastral fabric of these sections from the Federal viewpoint, although it can create issues for the Private Land Owners down the road.
Loyal
Was this a patent to the state?
Nope!
Gene,
Mining Districts are a blast to work in, sometimes not so much fun to "sort out."
Loyal
I should have prefaced my previous post by saying that your example is not as rare in Colorado as other western states.?ÿ After all, Colorado has more mineral surveys than any other state; by my count 26,329 approved mineral surveys.
Roger that Gene.
Utah only has just over 7,000, and I think Nevada is still in the 5k range.
The more the merrier!
Loyal
Sorry for the thread hijack, Loyal.?ÿ I'll post a separate thread on the "blizzard of lines" showing the 130 mineral surveys with 46 remainders that tally up to 9 acres I mentioned above.
Interesting ending there where it speaks of hazard waste and the land "will never revert to the US."?ÿ We are getting rid of this and will never take it back!
Leon,
That is a Federal government attorney in his argle-bargly way stating that the adjacent private land obviously impacted the remaining Public Lands from all of the previous mining activity.?ÿ Therefore, the Feds will never consider rescinding the patent.?ÿ Similar language is in a patent issued recently to the Town of?ÿ Silverton, Colorado. The town got some Federal lands between all the mining claims that surround the townsite.
Loyal, does the patent of these sections include the mineral rights, or do the lode mining claims continue to exist as a right to extract the minerals after the patent was issued?
Loyal, does the patent of these sections include the mineral rights, or do the lode mining claims continue to exist as a right to extract the minerals after the patent was issued?
Peter,
The Patent in this example conveyed all mineral rights under the subject parcels to the Patentee. The Lode Mining Claims that cover the remaining land within the subject sections (+95% of the acreage within a given section) also have full mineral rights under the 1872 General Mining Law. There were some lands covered by that patent in which Mineral Rights were retained by the Federal Government, but those lands are clear on the other side of the state, and not part of "my" project.
Loyal
