I just got hired to survey a small tract (260 acres) in a section 18. The township line appears to have a large excess along the west line of section 19. The original notes call for the township to be run from the SW township corner to the NW corner. It appears that two crews actually ran two separate surveys one north from the SW township corner and one south from the NW township corner and met in the middle. Not all that unusual in this part of the world, but they also may have overlapped each other. There are two set stones for the W1/4 and the SW corner of section 18. Only the north of the two W1/4 corners is marked but it doesn’t match the original call for the type of stone. The NW and E1/4 corners are also set marked stones. All the other stones are not marked. Topo calls fit the marked W1/4 and the NW section corner but do not fit the other monuments. It is quite possible that one or two of these stones were set by retracers, but at this point it is difficult to tell. No evidence of accessories is remaining (set stone in mound of earth and dug pits)-there are no bearing trees. Because all the historical breakdowns of both Section 13 and 18 used the more northerly of the stones that is what I have decided to do. But it is a head scratcher.
It seems that the GLO when rejecting the work of a contractor would let a contract for a new independent survey to be done. The original rejected work was left in place on the ground because no money was spent to remove it but the records of it were destroyed. I have been told once that the rejected records were not destroyed but not how to recover them. You may be dealing with an underlying rejected survey.
jud
It's possible; but unlike most areas around here, at this particular site there is no remaing federal interest(about 4 miles east until some coal reserves show up). They usually did independent resurveys when there was extensive federal interest in this area. They did however, do some "investagations" during the 1920's and those got lost in the Federal filing system. I can't imagine them setting new monuments during that time. If it wasn't double originals it probably was a private surveyor trying to "square up" Section 18. But they all sure look like originals!
Can we see the original and resurvey plats of T___ R___?
Keith
Where is the center 1/4 sec. cor. established for the first time, in a current retracement/resurvey?
This could be, should be, a lively discussion on center 1/4 sec. corners. Even those who believe in Chapter 3 only, can join in.
Keith
Moe:
Give me the Township & Range, etc. & I'll check my records & Jesse Spielmans old notes.
Don't be silly, Keith. The center quarter section corner is a mythical and mysterious point at the intersection of centerlines which can never be monumented. We can make poor attempts at it but it's just never good enough.
So there!
But good point, what if the Center was monumented off the version of the west quarter to the south but years later it was determined that the true original west quarter was the north one then now what?
It would be nice to know what has been accepted s the center quarter corner, it might shed some light on the remainder of the section. Apparently no remaining government lands involved. Might end up throwing the BLM manual out and use internal occupation and intent to maintain harmony. It is the exteriors that need to be recovered so new descriptions fitting occupation lying along them or even crossing them can be based upon the foundation of the GLO and recovering those GLO lines looks like a bit of a problem that might require extensive research in order to retrace them with confidence.
jud
The double corners are on a Range Line. Could it be that one set of corners is for the Range to the East and the other for the Range to the West?
DJJ
That happens but usually the quarter corners set were set while running in the standard corners, not closing corners. Quarter closing corners were seldom set during the running of the lines within a township.
jud
The only set interior 1/16 corner in the west 1/2 is the CN1/16 which I did not set but found; there is a C1/4 WC north of the C1/4 100' plus (yes there is a Section Breadkown on file with the county showing all the math and corners). The Section has been broken down 1/4-1/4 for at least 60 years and all old property lines follow that section breakdown. My breakdown math did not quite fit the existing corners in the interior, but I'm holding all the retraced monuments anyway. The GCDB and the county show a different type of breakdown-more of a due west bearing from the E1/4 to the C1/4 and then NW to the W1/4. My opinion is that it's much too late to break down the Section that way. If I was the first one into the Section I would have looked at it.
I might be able to give a location but right now it is with a client and may be filed if there is a sale, if they do sale I could. All the corners have corner records filed.
No, there are no closing corners for one of the townships-it is strictly a regular set of two townships with a "kink" in the west tier of Sections in the easterly township. I personally think the GLO has two sets of monuments. After dealing with a similar set of monuments a few townships north and seeing how the BLM is resolving that situation (that plat should be released next year) I feel what I'm doing is the only solution.
jud
I see this all the time and it is really misleading; "Might end up throwing the BLM manual out and use internal occupation and intent to maintain harmony." as it really means Chapter 3 only!
Do not throw out the BLM Manual, but look at the rest of it for guidance in retracing and resurveying section subdivision lines.
The rest of the Manual is clear that internal occupation and local corner monuments can be accepted.
If you are a BLM land surveyor and you are the first surveyor to subdivide a section that has no evidence of occupation or previous surveys; then you should use the requirements in Chapter 3 to subdivide the section. Matter of fact, if you are a private land surveyor and are the first to subdivide the section that has no evidence of occupation or previous surveys; then you should use the requirements in Chapter 3 to subdivide the section.
Keith
Charles, thanks for the offer. I have to leave for the weekend (no computer for a few days), when I det back I'll send an email and pick your brain about the area. I also should tell you that I saw one of your (I think 1960's era) surveys for a township near Casper that I may be working in. Looked like you found a bunch of corners. Don't know if I'm headed that way or not but I may be asking you about that one too.
If you need anything, I'll be glad to see what I have in my old files. I worked all over the state from one end to the other.
On the one you posted here, I assumed it was/is in Campbell county, as it looked like some of the stuff up in the North end.
Kieth
Don't worry Kieth, my manual is on the shelf where I can grab it quickly. Sometimes people forget about the provisions of the manual to use local evidence or are afraid of doing some thinking of their own and add to the mess, that is the reason I worded my statement as I did.
jud
> That happens but usually the quarter corners set were set while running in the standard corners, not closing corners. Quarter closing corners were seldom set during the running of the lines within a township.
> jud
Yes, that's true.
I was thinking more on the lines of a completion survey or Resurvey on one side or the other where they ran the line once for both sets of corners and later decided to use those for only one Tp. and re-run the line for the other one.
Not too common, but it happens.
I've also seen three sets of corners where the line as originally run was accepted for alignment and new corners were established for each Tp.
DJJ
Go back and look again at the opening thread with the sketch of the section. Would a "straight" line on the east-west centerline, be appropriate?
As in the guidelines of Chapter 3 of the Manual?
Keith
jud
I know what you are saying, but.....usually when that statement is made, it is the intent of the writer that the Manual methods are only in Chapter 3, when it comes to subdividing a section.
And that is the fallacy of the statement.
Keith
If someone could post the plat of the resurvey of T. 11 N., R. 26 E., Principal Meridian, Montana, it will show some similar quirks!
Keith