?ÿ
Surveying new parcels in Section 24.?ÿ Does Section 24 have north and south quarter corners??ÿ They are closing corners against the Tracts.?ÿ I need to tie to them for the descriptions.?ÿ What would they properly be called??ÿ My four new parcels are cut out of Lots 3 and 4.
GLO Notes:
?ÿ
Look at the Recorders map!!?ÿ Yup, every section is 5280 x 5280 square, no bother about Tracts, Lots and GLO surveys!!
?ÿ
?ÿ
What I would really like to use for my commencement and tie points are the the Tract corners. Corners 2 and 3 of Tract 53 and Corners 2 and 3 of Tract 54. I found undisturbed all these corners. Not sure the recorder or the title companies will even understand what I'm referencing. Probably get rejected!
That looks like lots of fun!
should be a walk in the park, provided that you recover all the corners....
No, no 1/4s for that section, only the W1/4. All the info is there to "breakdown" the lots. I don't have enough info to know if there is an East 1/4 but it doesn't look like there is. Just use the tracts for the East line of section24, the cc's for the W1/16th corners on the north and south section lines and there are dimensions to figure out the NE and NW corners of lot3.
The West tract lines are the East line of sec24, probably the dominant estate is still federal, I would look at the MT plat.
Call them "key points" in Section 24.
Commencing at the original iron post (or whatever), the southwest corner Tract 54,?ÿ designated as corner 3 upon the official township government survey plat, thence N....on the west line Tract 54 and the east line of GL1, section 25 to a super duper LR DAY monument, the southeast corner GL4 on the line between sections 24 and 25, the point of beginning,?ÿ thence...... (or something of the sort)?ÿ
As far as a valid legal description being rejected... This would be a good opportunity for educating the recorder and the county attny if the recorder will not cooperate.?ÿ
?ÿ
If the tracts preceded the section layout, the section lines (or aliquot lines) would truncate at the senior tract.?ÿ?ÿ
I would say that Sec. 24 is both irregular and fractional and agree with Mighty Moe that there are no N1/4 and S1/4 corners.?ÿ The retracement of the range line indicates that the E1/4 was found, but it was not used to control the E-W centerline of Sec. 24 in the 1918 survey. There are four original plats that predate the 1916-18 original plat.?ÿ Those early surveys basically surveyed the eastern 1/2 mile of Secs. 1, 12, 13, 24, 25 and 36 (to the mountain front) and portions of the eastern 2 tiers of sections.?ÿ The 1916-18 survey created a sectional guide meridian.
This is a bit different from what I would expect.?ÿ There are two supplemental plats for the township done at the same time as the 1916-18 original survey.?ÿ They depict the resurvey of the tracts. The plat you show is the supplemental plat for the southern half.?ÿ Here's a link to the original plat approved on the same days as the supplemental plats that close onto the tracts.
The above plat includes a table showing the segregated tracts and their original aliquot parts descriptions.
Have fun explaining this to the Recorder, Leon.?ÿ
If the tracts preceded the section layout, the section lines (or aliquot lines) would truncate at the senior tract.?ÿ?ÿ
The west side of the Tracts is the termination of an earlier GLO survey about 1872.?ÿ This is the west edge of the mountains.?ÿ The rest of the township hadn't been subdivided.?ÿ Many but not all of "Tracts" had gone to patent.?ÿ So the 1914?ÿ GLO surveyor tracted all the previous survey and then subdivided the rest of the township?ÿ setting CC's along the tract boundaries.?ÿ I not sure but think the reason the Tracts west boundary is so jagged is due to the?ÿ some of the land patented and some not at the time of the final GLO survey.?ÿ I've found all the GLO monuments along he tract line except the CC on the north side of Section 24.?ÿ I'm thinking to attach a copy of the GLO plat to my survey to show the evidence.?ÿ Kind of blows the recorders map out of the water.?ÿ Generally our rules say we have to tie a description to a section corner.?ÿ Are tract corners section corners??ÿ Are the CC's section corners?
Are tract corners section corners? No
Are the CC's section corners? No
However, they may be regarded as such in your statutes and/or board rules.
Doesn't look very difficult you have bearing and distance to every tract in Section 24 oh and field notes.
Call the Corners by the proper names given in the notes. They are GLO Corners and would satisfy the Statutory requirements everywhere I work.
Don't let the fact that it's unusual lead you astray. It is also critical that you don't allow non-professionals to force you away from proper terminology. That is the first step in failing to protect the manner title was created. Local terms are for the campfire, not records dealing with real property rights...
My. 02, Tom
Looks like material for a great 6-hour seminar on the Vegas trip.?ÿ ??ÿ
This is an independent resurvey (guessing but pretty sure without looking it up, sometimes you need the instructions), these were done cause there were probably large issues with the original survey. Usually the original was fraudulent. The independent resurvey was tasked with protecting existing patentees, hence the Tracts which will be related to the original by the index to segregated tracts. That index will be filed with the plats or may be shown on one of the plats. The index will explain what those tracts were before the resurvey. Sometimes tracts shown in a township may have been patents from a different township.
There will be surveys in the notes for each tract, usually the rest of the township is still federal or made up of patents that haven't been occupied. There should be a?ÿsectional correction line running east-west, and a?ÿcorrection line?ÿnorth-south and then the sections laid out from those, the point being that the new sections have little to no relationship to the original lines, sometimes shifting up to a mile. Section 24 is basically the remainder of what was laid out from the sectional correction lines and the tracts. It's a fill in section. I will assume that it was all federal and then when later patented the feds would usually retain the minerals which means you will be also doing a mineral survey when you lay out the lots and 40's. It looks like there has been development,?ÿthe recorder's map indicates that there is,?ÿso lines on the ground?ÿare?ÿprobably laid out.
Anyway, there is lots to consider, but don't worry about the missing 1/4's just work inside 24 which is 160 acres plus Lots 1-4. Sometimes those plats will show an acreage under the Section label. This one doesn't for some reason.
The acreage is shown as 296.38, slightly separated but there.
This is the sum of lots 1 to 4 plus the 160. The tracts are 'segregated' and therefore not included in the area. I have seen some references to 'tract x of Section x', but the Section number is not necessary. Tracts were numbered starting at 37 to avoid confusion with Section numbers.
What a mess. For that I think I'd be enlisting the help and advise of BLM staff. But I'd be looking for the one-armed surveyor who could not say "on the other hand..."
For me at least, I found it helpful to look at the two plats approved on Feb. 25, 1857 (labeled "original survey").?ÿ They show that only the easterly 1/2 mile to 3/4 of a mile of the township was surveyed (i.e. the nice "bottom" land to the east of the N-S mountain range).
The "original survey" plat approved Dec. 30, 1871 depicts a retracement of the east range line and the eastern two miles of the north and south township lines.?ÿ In addition to retracing/resurveying the eastern 1/2 to 3/4 mile of the township, portions of Secs. 2, 3, 11, 14, 23, 26 and 35 were surveyed.
An updated "original survey" with three additional miles of subdivisional lines was approved on July 3, 1874.
On the back of the 4 above plats are notes that entry was suspended on Sept. 24, 1914 and suspension revoked on Dec. 9, 1918.
The tracts certainly look as if they were part of an independent resurvey.?ÿ However, the retracement/resurvey of the tracts were shown on two supplemental plats.?ÿ Here are links to those two plats.
The two supplemental plats and the original completion plat have two "approval" dates; approved May 30-31, 1916 and accepted Aug. 12, 1918.?ÿ None of the 13 sections that were surveyed before the 1916 completion survey had all of their lines surveyed.
You certainly have some interesting examples of "simple PLSS squares" near you, Leon.?ÿ I hope posting the early plats isn't too much of a hijack.
For me at least, I found it helpful to look at the two plats approved on Feb. 25, 1857 (labeled "original survey").?ÿ They show that only the easterly 1/2 mile to 3/4 of a mile of the township was surveyed (i.e. the nice "bottom" land to the east of the N-S mountain range).
The "original survey" plat approved Dec. 30, 1871 depicts a retracement of the east range line and the eastern two miles of the north and south township lines.?ÿ In addition to retracing/resurveying the eastern 1/2 to 3/4 mile of the township, portions of Secs. 2, 3, 11, 14, 23, 26 and 35 were surveyed.
An updated "original survey" with three additional miles of subdivisional lines was approved on July 3, 1874.
On the back of the 4 above plats are notes that entry was suspended on Sept. 24, 1914 and suspension revoked on Dec. 9, 1918.
The tracts certainly look as if they were part of an independent resurvey.?ÿ However, the retracement/resurvey of the tracts were shown on two supplemental plats.?ÿ Here are links to those two plats.
The two supplemental plats and the original completion plat have two "approval" dates; approved May 30-31, 1916 and accepted Aug. 12, 1918.?ÿ None of the 13 sections that were surveyed before the 1916 completion survey had all of their lines surveyed.
You certainly have some interesting examples of "simple PLSS squares" near you, Leon.?ÿ I hope posting the early plats isn't too much of a hijack.
I've pretty much figured it all out and found the 1914 GLO markers I need.?ÿ I'm breaking out four 5.5 acre parcels and a road parcel about 1 acre.?ÿ They all come out of the lots and the lots boundaries are not needed other than the boundary with the Tracts.?ÿ The new parcels are to be about 300 feet N/S and 800 feet E/W, well inside the PLSS Lots.?ÿ So?ÿ just need to tie it out, mark it and write the descriptions.?ÿ I'm thinking of just?ÿ using the found Tract corners.?ÿ They exist on the ground and are described in the record.?ÿ Heartburn to the recorder and title folks, but that's just how it is.?ÿ I can show where they are and even give lat and long to well within a tenth of a foot or so.?ÿ A reference to the Tract number in the township should do it but rarely see this in the records.
I'm sure the section corners along the west boundary of Section 24 are there half way up the mountain above the cliff.?ÿ I was hoping to not need to measure to them, as this time of year they would be hard and dangerous to get to.
YUP, PLSS is just a nice, simple, neat set of one mile squares.?ÿ Nothing could be further from the reality, at least where I work.
I'm thinking of just?ÿ using the found Tract corners.?ÿ They exist on the ground and are described in the record.?ÿ Heartburn to the recorder and title folks, but that's just how it is.?ÿ I can show where they are and even give lat and long to well within a tenth of a foot or so.?ÿ A reference to the Tract number in the township should do it but rarely see this in the records.
?ÿ
Good luck with that, Leon.?ÿ It may be helpful to them if you list the tract number(s) and the corresponding earlier aliquot parts that are in the segregated tracts table on the 1916 "original survey" plat.?ÿ For example, the NW Cor. of Tract 51 was the N1/4 Cor. of the earlier surveys.
If they need a section corner tie use the cc, it would be the SE or NE corner of 24. You need to treat it like other closing corners, accept it or move it to the line. But they are section corners