Oklahoma Survey

Wow you just found out about two different Federal agencies that surveyed/resurveyed land for a short time and was found to be unworkable.

I do not know and have not researched all the particulars of the time period when the USGS was granted authority to survey and/or resurvey Federal boundaries. I take it that it was sort of an experimental practice and did not work.

From what you posted and some of what I know about it, the USGS came in and completely "resurveyed" the township and destroyed previous GLO contract survey monuments.

Maybe a factor in the 1909 resurvey act where it was directed that the resurvey would not effect previous bona fide rights to the land. I do know that there were resurveys done that completely "redid" the township to do it as it was supposed to be done.

And to the question of which survey to hold to.....GLO or USGS: well I guess take the monuments on the ground from the subsequent survey/resurvey?

Keith

I've never encountered any USGS subdivision surveys, so I can't comment on that. But I can assure you that there were no questions remotely touching on such issue in the Oklahoma state test I took in February.

Ehud Darling was responsible for the establishment of the Indian Meridian and Base Line. Darling was also responsible for a good part of the monumentation of the township corners. The township subdivisions were completed afterwards by a number of people including Barrett and Hackbusch. Most of these were, at least here in central Oklahoma, completed before 1880.

There are a number of resurveys that can be confusing. Lincoln and Payne Counties, for instance, has a good number of Dependent Resurveys, by the GLO, and are recorded as such. The 1875 to 1885 GLO Dependent Resurveys are usually very good documentation and reliable.

But some southern counties have USGS surveys from 1890 to 1905 that are considered 'original surveys'...with no mention of the 1870s original survey from the GLO. Technically the later are considered the original survey, however numerous original GLO monuments exist in these areas. It can get weird.

The good thing about the USGS surveys is that they set 3" iron pipes with brass caps on township exteriors. A number of those exist today. Most of the earlier GLO monuments were sandstones, marked per instructions, or just wooden posts, pits and mounds. A lot of those still exist.

I have seen later USGS surveys in areas that no monuments survived and the earlier GLO surveys seem to have survived. Despite later USGS notes stating "no evidence of previous survey".

And there are areas that the later USGS monuments exist today and fit like a glove.

When working in an area where there have been multiple surveys, keep a copy of both surveys with you. No telling which is dominant. And yes, it can get really confusing.

You'll probably find that most of the questions you've asked would take a career to answer. Good luck.

EDIT: Look up Twp. 5N, 1E, I.M. on the GLO website. You'll find the original GLO survey approved 5/12/1871. And you'll find the original USGS survey approved 8/10/1899. Most BLM employees will tell you that the later survey supercedes the previous. But as Keith stated, you have to go dig a few corners up and make up your own mind.:-S

Mr. Cash:

Thanks for the nice history lesson.

Regarding the statements: 'Most of the earlier GLO monuments were sandstones, marked per instructions, or just wooden posts, pits and mounds. A lot of those still exist.'

That is nice to hear. I wonder how many Oklahoma PLS believe that.

USGS doing boundary surveying is a new one for me. Most states exempt government
employees from their registration laws (unfortunately). I have known the following
federal agencies to have a registered surveyor on staff:

Bureau of Indian Affairs
Bureau of Reclamation
US Fish and Wildlife
US Department of Agriculture
NCRS
US Department of Housing
Internal Revenue Service
Bureau of Land Management
Department of Interior (not working in the BLM division)

Many of these federal agency surveyors did not do much or any land surveying
but were employed there.

A quick factual note:

Many of us in BLM were licensed by a State and in Montana, our supervisors encouraged us to become licensed, but was not needed to be qualified to be a land surveyor 1373 with BLM.

The main reason: when we were criticized for being a BLM unlicensed land surveyor, we could say that we were also licensed. I was licensed in 1969 but the license was never used.

Keith

You should receive a study guide that will help you study the right materials. Took the Oklahoma exam in April 2011 and like Norman above I too had no questions covering that. Good luck in your studies.

Hello Keith,
Thank you for getting back to me. I appreciate your input. To provide futher history on the USGS subject please go to:

http://digital.library.okstate.edu/chronicles/v003/v003p081.html#fn2

I agree with your practice of holding found monuments and together with Mr paden cashes comments about what type of monuments are likely to be found and having reference to both sets of documents sounds like the best possible solution. In my limited opinion it sounds like the preponderence of eveidence from no matter where the source with good documentation should give the right answer.

Thanks again, rlshound

Hello Norman Oklahoma,

Thanks for getting back to me. I appreciate your input. To provide more background on the USGS please see:

http://digital.library.okstate.edu/chronicles/v003/v003p081.html#fn2

As you know on the outline provided by the state board one of the topics was "History of the original surveys in Oklahoma"...I have been reviewing original plats and field notes, 3 mile method, Indian allotments, breaking down sections, fractional lotting...

And preparing per the other topics. Can you tell me what the test was like? What to prepare for more specifically?

Thanks Again,
rlshound

p.s. "God help me to be the person my dog thinks I am" hm hm hm To funny hm hm!

Hello paden cash,

Thanks for getting back to me. That is exactly what I needed to know. I respect your experience and willing to share that. I will work with your recommendations in mind. You probably already know about or have seen this but I found this while researching:

http://digital.library.okstate.edu/chronicles/v003/v003p081.html#f

Could you answer a couple more questions?

Given the two sets of possible monuments with documentation what is your practice for restoring lost monuments?

There were a lot of corner records missing on the projects I've worked on in Washi ta, Beckham and Canadian counties? Is this accurate and idicative of the rest of the counties?

Thanks again for your help,

rlshound

Hello profsurveyor,

Thanks for getting back to me. I have the outline and have been trying to prepare. I've reviewed original plats and field notes both from the glo & USGS, 3 mile method, double proportion, single proportion, 1 point, 2 point 3 point, irregular sections....etc...have studied the statutes from the outline....Can you tell me what the test was like? What to prepare for? anything outside of the outline?

Thanks Again, rlshound

Hello paulplatano,

Thanks for your input...to provide some background please see attached:

http://digital.library.okstate.edu/chronicles/v003/v003p081.html#f

I'm interested in "common knowledge" and because I'm studying every waking moment I can not speak to the political side of surveying at this time.

Thanks again,I appreciate your input,
rlshound

Hound..

Never really ran into an area that had two existing conflicting monuments from original surveys. What I was implying is that in some areas the older GLO survey seems to fit the found (perpetuated) evidence better than the later USGS notes. One has to keep in mind that the USGS surveys occurred after some of the area had been patented.

There is a perpetuated quarter corner in 5N, 1E, however, that an existing bearing tree from the GLO notes fits the (reset) iron pin and occupation lines, but doesn't fit the USGS notes 1/2 mile east or west. At that location I did accept the existing rebar as the quarter corner.

When you say missing corner records, are you referring to the D.O.L. Certified Corner Records? If so, that is common. There are still plenty of corners out there that we haven't ever filed on. Personally, I'd rather survey where there weren't any filed corners than where there are three or four filed corners that all miss each other by a good ways. Boundary work in rural areas of Oklahoma almost always includes locating the section line evidence a couple of miles in each direction. It can get tedious.

I was in Beckham County earler this year. We restored a good chunk of the 2nd. Standard Parallel North of the Indian B.L.. The original notes were junk, at least in the recordation of 'closing' on the original line. Some of their distances wouldn't fit by a chain, or more. It was a headache.

Normally the GLO was very diligent about following the laws.

The Federal government can survey and 're' survey their own lands to their hearts content as long as no lands (possible some other rights in the land) have been passed relating to those surveys.

It would appear that most of the USGS (re)surveys were approved by the GLO, by the commissionar, as I recall.

The basic principal is that any land that is patented is controlled by the LATEST PLAT and SURVEY in effect at that time.

So any patent before the later surveys would be controlled by the earlier survey, and any subsequent disposals would be governed by the later official surveys.

The fact that both records exist in the GLO records 'may' reflect those unique situations. Absent any prior conveyance the latest survey and plat always control.

What you have to decide is by time which survey is controlling and not by what evidence you might be able to find from the non controllingsurvey.

There are possiblities in this scheme of junior-senior rights if there is a conflict between those two chains of disposal as to position on the ground. There do not appear to have been any widespread conflicts that I am aware of.

I have run into this in LA where there also exist multiple "original" surveys in some areas. What you got in your patent is dependent on the last official GLO survey and the evidence thereof on the ground.

- jlw

Hound..

Hello paden cash,

Thanks for getting back to me. Again your experience and common knowledge is invaluable. The things you've talked about I'm finding in the field to be true. We had to go some distance along a township line to find corners or evidence. We were lucky to find a rail road spike in a tree at the township corner from the 1940s. See attached image, if it goes through...I will check out the township plat you mentioned. Yes I'm referring to the Corner Records,I believe a lot of the pins we were looking for were bladed up. From what you've said and from my limited experience in Oklahoma I can see that surveying here is going to be more interesting.

If you don't mind can I check in with you from time to time?

Thanks again,
rlshound

Hound..

Drop me a line anytime.

Hello jlwahl,

Thanks for getting back to me. Thank you for clarifying the record/patent/time verses monumentation issue.Junior senior rights is a common concept that I have not usually applied to the acceptance of PLSS monumentation. I can see that if a clear timeline is created and you have respective documentation then that should help solve record verses measured. I appreciate your input and together with the other surveyors who have contributed I'm much farther along then I was.

Thank You,
rlshound

Hound..

Thank you