If you try to proportion across a township like this, you are certainly not following any book I know of.
Along the township line, not across it.?ÿ And assuming it was truly laid out as written.?ÿ Definitely not truthful when there is a nearly 300 foot jump sideways along the northeast quarter of Section 1.
How do you think it came about? Was the twp line not marked before the subdivision into sections?
There is a township in the mountains of Tulare County where the sections are consistently 85 or 6 chains wide east-west. The east range line of the next township north runs 30 degrees or so west of north to the first quarter section corner on the east of Section 36 making it about 80 chains wide. ?ÿIt looks like they surveyed north from the north corner of 1&2 then set up a standard section probably not even checking into the township corner (southeast of 36). The notes say they ran the range line North but I find that doubtful, the first half mile isn't all that difficult.?ÿThen the range line veers signicantly to the west after a few miles. Standing out there you can see why, big very high and steep rocky ridge right where the range line "should" be.
My guess and it is only a guess. An Indian Treaty line runs approximately 1.75 miles north of this township line and sort of parallel with it. They might have started at the NW corner of that Section 25 and measured South the standard two miles to arrive at the NW of Section 1. Stubbed in a half mile to the east, then turned and went west until they hit an existing NE corner of the next Section 1. The return along the township line probably never happened. The fractional township north of the treaty line was run from north to south ending on the treaty line, so extending those lines may have seemed reasonable at the time.
An alternate is that they already had the township line six miles to the south. They worked from south to north along the west lines of 36, 25, 24, 13, 12 and 1 and set the NW of Section 1 from there then stubbed a half mile east. Kept repeating this from the south from east to west across the township. That sounds incredibly stupid but it could have happened that way. There are a couple of very long half miles along the range line in the township going south from the NE corner of this Section 1. That chaining error was never caught. Thus chaining one mile to the east and one mile to the west without running the full miles( E-W to the range line) and returning created kinks in the east-west section lines.
Figures don't lie, but liars figure.
Attempting to guess at the short cuts available to the original surveyors is entertaining but frustrating.
I have tried to be careful in my posts, esp. the ones related to mineral surveys and the guidance on when it may be appropriate to use proportionate methods to reestablish lost mineral survey corners. Both Meldrum's guide and Sec. 10-213 are clear that proportionate methods should only be considered when the primary methods do not give a good result.
While I do not know you, your posts indicate that you are an experienced BLM Cadastral surveyor with many years of experience in reestablishing lost and obliterated rectangular PLSS corners. It is not my intent to banter, but mineral surveys are very different from the rectangular PLSS.
I made a special point to distinguish mineral surveys conducted after September 1904 (at least in Colorado). That is when the Colorado Surveyor General issued circular instructions to U.S. Deputy Mineral Surveyors to include a "Report" section in their field notes. One of the items often described in the "Report" section was which lines were actually run on the ground. In some cases, the mineral surveyor stated that all lines were directly run; i.e. the lines of the survey were run as described in the metes-and-bounds section of the field notes.
Prior to September 1904, the official field notes do not include any statement about which lines were run. Without a preponderance of evidence showing otherwise, I will hold that the lines of the mineral survey were run as described in the official field notes for surveys done before 1904. Perhaps if I was a BLM Cadastral surveyor who only requires substantial evidence as the burden of proof, I'd adopt your position. Since I'm 67 now, I doubt I'll have that opportunity.
This is not intended to equate our training, but in the CFedS training Bob Dahl spent a lot of time explaining that the dependent resurveyor is responsible for knowing three things. What was the original surveyor supposed to do (i.e. the Manual and official circulars, instructions, etc.), what did the original surveyor say they did (official field notes), and what evidence did the resurveyor find that the original surveyor did.
In the mid 1930s the Colorado Surveyor General Office hired a young draftsman by the name of John V. Meldrum. I have done quite a bit of research on mineral surveys in Colorado and one facet of that research was to build a database of all 2000+ connected sheets and Mr. Meldrum drafted nearly 90 connected sheets. Later, as the acting CO Cadastral Chief he approved numerous mineral surveys. In 1980 as a retired U.S. Mineral Surveyor, he wrote the guide. So, when Mr. Meldrum suggests that double proportion is a possible method of reestablishing interior corners to a block of claims, I will certainly look at DP as the method to choose.
I restrict my surveying practice to mineral survey resurveys. I doubt that I will ever set a lost rectangular PLSS corner by double proportion. Regarding mineral surveys of lode mining claims, the use of proportionate methods to reestablish lost corners is definitely the method of last resort. I have used one of the "standard" proportionate methods once to reestablish a lost lode claim corner. I was fortunate to have the original field tablet of the mineral surveyor and he had conducted a 140+ station traverse. I used the Grant Boundary method to reestablish a lost corner between two found corners based on his traverse notes. As you stated above, the purpose of a dependent resurvey is to reestablish the original survey lines. I wasn't interested in establishing that lost corner where it was intended to be, but rather where the original surveyor established it to be.
This statment certainly rules out double proportioning, but do you think it rules out all proportioning?
In my opinion, the use of the proportionate methods listed for the rectangular PLSS, should be avoided at all cost when tasked with reestablishing lost lode mining claim corners. The unique exception is when one of those proportionate methods gives the best answer. I've seen too many of my peers who have extensive experience in the rectangular PLSS, resort to what is familiar when they do the occasional resurvey a mineral survey.?ÿ In other words, they pound square pegs into rectangular holes.?ÿ Sometimes it works; other times it doesn't!
This discussion is restricted to lode mining claims. Lode mining claims grant the mining claimant rights to the subsurface mineral estate. Therefore, protecting the bona fide rights of lode mining claims involves protecting the claimant's full right to the subsurface mineral estate, including extralateral rights of dipping mineralized veins. That is why parallelism of the lode claim lines, esp. the end lines is so often the best answer.?ÿ
Also, the instructions for mineral surveys require the mineral surveyor to make connections to nearby and/or conflicting mineral surveys.?ÿ Those short ties are often the best available evidence for the lost corner position. That does not mean that they should always be used.?ÿ The mineral surveyor is restricted to only retracing prior official surveys.?ÿ If the corners of the prior official surveys cannot be found, the mineral surveyor is not authorized to reestablish the lost corners. Instead, the mineral surveyor is required to show the approved position(s) of the prior official surveys.?ÿ In those cases the ties are computed, and must not be used. Prior to the "Report" section being included in the field notes in 1904, it can be difficult to determine if the prior official surveys are shown in their record position or as located on the ground.
Thanks for the great discussion here. I read all suggestions and was able to check my work against what was posted and feel more comfortable with the procedure now. Lots of great advice here for taking tests in general. Two week to go for me! Keep your fingers crossed y'all coronavirus doesn't postpone it again for the 3rd time!
It sounds like we are mostly in agreement. My one concern is you seem to be saying that the primary proportioning methods can be used when they give the best answer. I think it would be better to say they can be used when the solution , "is the most justifiable guess as to the true location of the corner". How any particular method "looks" is only a secondary justification. It could help choose between two or more relatively equally justifiable solutions, but it cant be the justification on its own. If it were, we might as well just put the corner in wherever we think it looks best.
From corner to corner sounds like across and along to me. My point was that if you tried to proportion on that line you would be doing the wrong thing according to the Manual.
It sounds like there is plenty of occupational evidence, so at least some of the corners are not truly lost, and thay occupational evidence seems to be evidence that the book procedures were not followed, therefore a retracing surveyor who resorted to proportioning from township corner to township corner would not be following the instructions in "the book".?ÿ
