-
Fractional Sections, Triangulated
The east 1/4 corner of Section 22 of a typical township ended up in a lake. All of the other corners for this section were set during the original survey. The original GLO surveyors set a meander corner on the south side of the lake, and triangulated around it, and set a meander corner on the north side of the lake, then continued on to chain to the NE corner. The plat shows a distance across the lake, and a total for the whole east line of the section.
Is it correct to say that the east 1/4 corner was never fixed, since they never actually ran the line, and never called out a distance (even in passing) to the 1/4 corner and as a result, the east-west 1/4 line bearing should be determined by mean bearing method?
I’m not 100% sure, since there is a distance shown across the lake, but it was a calculated distance, and doesn’t specify where the 1/4 corner would have been (presumably at 40.00 chains). The manual says a line is actually run “when a bearing and distance of the line is returned in the official survey record”. Then if that’s true, we can fix the position of the 1/4 corner, midway between section corners.
-
26 Replies
-
I am given this a bump. I could see this being a question on an exam. Hopefully someone will chime in. This looks like it could be a great learning experience.
-
This is too difficult for a FS or PS question (for now), because so many states are not part of the PLSS. Maybe a state specific would ask this. I am planning on planning on preparing for the CFedS so I will hopefully have an answer to this in a few years.
-
Section 22 fractional? The plat shows a distance across the lake, and a total for the whole east line of the section.
Is the east – west line ever established by owners actions or some other survey?
Is there any evidence of it in the field?
All the methods proposed are lost corner methods -Last resort.
The first lost corner method I would look at would be proportion between meander corners. I wouldn’t use mean bearing when there is a distance returned in the original survey.
Also remember that lost corner methods can be sometimes prioritized to fit the situation if a preferred method produces a poor result.
That should get things off and running. This would make a poor question btw as there are always too many variables in real world situations. This has no cookie cutter answer.
-
These type questions may not pop up in the state specific portion of the original 13 colonies, but to get licensed in a Colonial state, you are toast if you don’t have a firm understanding of the PLSS system.
-
Meander corner online? Or witness corner?
I would use the two as angle breaks in the section line, prorate the 1/4 corner in the lake and figure out the E-W center line, then defer to all the old surveys along the E-W line presuming they are reasonable retracements.
Before anything I would get the OG and MT plats, see what Imperial entanglements there might be in the section. If there are some I would give the local office a shout.
If this is a virgin section in 2024 near a lake, I’d be surprised.
This actually may not be considered a fractional section.
-
“Is the east – west line ever established by owners actions or some other survey?”
No.
“Is there any evidence of it in the field?”
No.
I guess my question is, is a line considered to be “run” by the original surveyor if it was a calculated distance, and not directly measured with compass and chain? If so, then I guess you’d probably use lost methods between the NE and SE section corners (assuming the meander corners are also lost, as is the case here).
-
This reply was modified 2 months, 1 week ago by allen-wrench.
-
This reply was modified 2 months, 1 week ago by allen-wrench.
-
This reply was modified 2 months, 1 week ago by
-
“Before anything I would get the OG and MT plats, see what Imperial entanglements there might be in the section. If there are some I would give the local office a shout.”
I assume “MT” is “master title” plat, but what do you mean by “OG” plat?
-
OG plat is the oil and gas plat. It often times has more information that can be useful.
If there isn’t OG development in the area there probably isn’t a plat for it.
US minerals come in different flavors. Coal has a completely different effect on surface ownership than oil and gas.
No MC monuments? Were others set along the lake or was it simply a no-monumented traverse?
-
The GLO originally set MC monuments. I haven’t gone out to search for them yet (I will at some point) but I’m going to say there’s a 95% chance they are gone, being an 1870’s wood post out on the prairie along a slough of fluctuating water levels. So, I’m operating on the assumption there is only the NE and SE section corners in place (perpetuated by road intersections, as is typical on the plains) for discussion’s sake here.
-
Sounds like a fun project, I’m guessing that you’re going to prorate the 1/4 and use that location for the terminus of the E_W centerline. Beyond doing that you’ll need to reestablish the two MC monuments using found evidence.
That can be iffy, but I’ve recently found a number of MC corners, so never say never.
-
Alternative thoughts (as usual)…
The quarter corner was not legally created in the original survey and does not exist. It is beyond my authority to create it now. I’m not performing a federal authority survey and can’t retrace something that never existed. Keep in ming I’m saying ‘created’ and ‘existed’, not monumented..
Barring evidence to the contrary the East-West center line will be run on a weighted mean bearing of the lines to the North and South, terminating either at record distance (using an index if determined) or the properly restored meanders (if run).
As has been said, this is a lot of hocus pocus that will be tossed aside in the face of evidence. I still encounter many sections without any record of subdivision, but it is rare to find one devoid of evidence of subdivision. In Idaho we had 100 years between GLO and recording in much of the State. It’s fun to discuss mathemagical cookbook wizardry, but it’s high time we stopped imposing it on owners in the face of earned and established rights…
-
The MT and OG plats are always something I pull like I said above, I forgot to include patents.
-
I know there’s a lot of variables, but for the sake of discussion, let’s assume that there is no evidence on the ground, or in any records, of the east-west 1/4 line or of the east line of this section ever having been surveyed after the original GLO survey. Of course, I will search in the field at these various points, but it is extremely unlikely that I’ll find anything, based on my experience in this particular area. The entire section is just one big farm field, and there are gravel roads along the north and west lines, with a field trail along the south line. There are in-place monuments at the other corners, but no history for any of them of record.
I guess the answer I can’t seem to get out of the manual is whether the E1/4 corner was established, according to BLM methods. Part of me thinks “no”, since it was never called out in the running notes. Others have said that as long as you have two section corners in a situation like this, the 1/4 corner in between can always be established, regardless of whether a distance is recorded between meander corners. It’s a common situation, and in practice, I’ve seen it done both ways in lost methods situations (though rarely mean bearing). It’s just frustrating me that I can’t get a straight answer from the manual, since the language they use is very intentional, but not well-defined, in my opinion.
-
any chance we could get a TWP and Range? Or post the plat with T and R redacted?
-
I’ll post just this snippet, since I really should know this, and I don’t need anyone ID’ing me.
-
This reply was modified 2 months ago by allen-wrench.
-
This reply was modified 2 months ago by
-
thank you. I favor single proportion unless the distance along the east line is way out of whack (as in chains). Every situation can never be addressed in the manual. The fact that a distance was given means the east line was measured somehow. Even if the monument wasn’t set the corner was established for the purpose of protracting lots, acres, etc. Use the method that most closely follows the intent of the plat and don’t sweat it. You are apparently the first surveyor which makes you a leader rather than a follower.
-
After reviewing the manual some more, it seems that the key is whether or not the 1/4 corner in question is “fixed” or not. The manual says that a line is considered to be “run” if there is a bearing and distance returned – which there is in this case. But on the other hand, they say a corner is not “fixed” if a line has been run, but the corner in question is not monumented – which of course it wasn’t and couldn’t be here.
I doubt I’ll get a definitive answer on this particular situation here or anywhere else. I thought this is a common situation where everyone would know what the “typical” procedure is, but maybe not. I guess I’d have to say in this case since you can calculate the point (assuming lost methods is appropriate), you can use the point for your section subdivision, even though they never said where that 1/4 corner should be. If there was no distance returned across the lake, I think you’d have to do a mean bearing.
-
<div>
</div>any chance we could get a TWP and Range? Or post the plat with T and R redacted?
People and their thinking that everyone cares who they are is annoying.
Like the OP is the only surveyor that might have interest in the entire BLM plat.
-All thoughts my own, except my typos and when I am wrong.-
This reply was modified 2 months ago by dmyhill.
-
This reply was modified 2 months ago by
-
Maybe the line was ran and measured; in the winter when the lake was frozen?
Impossible to set a corner in a lake…the twp field notes, if any may detail more information.
Depending on the date, different manual or no manual with little to no standard.
-
From the plat I’d probably prorate that one in. The option of a mean bearing will create two E-W center lines that won’t meet at the section line. That might be fine, but I would like to know. It sounds like both sections are blank, with no records, no subdivisions ties, no county survey records, two true blank sections from an 1870 era original.
Log in to reply.