I hope this doesn't get too wordy, but I'm wondering what others here may think...
East line Line Section 36. The SE Sec. Cor. (twp. cor.) falls in river at the time of the original survey. Township survey line begins three chains north of actual corner at a MC.
Along east line of 36 setting 1/16th cors. all the way until 18 chains shy of NE Cor. 36. a MC was set.
Section was subdivided at this time into allotments (40 acres) by three mile method. Notes reflect 80 ch.+/- from west line of 36 to east line of 36 across the section in all three sub lines.
The NE cor. of 36 has a 'horseshoe' bend of the river on the W, S & N, completely isolating it from the rest of the section.
Notes reflect (this is the only time I've seen this in 35 years) that the corner common to 36,31,30 & 25 was set 80 chains west of the NE cor 31 (in the twp. east) on a 'west' bearing. No ties were recorded to the west, north or south. Just chained 80 and dumped a stone.
This places the NE cor of 36 about 100' west of where the N-S township line would intersect the north line of 36 or 31 for that matter.
No original corners or accessories survived. The river is still with us but has wiggled over the years. Where is the PI in the east line of section 36?
When no original corners or accessories survive, you are left with attempting to reconstruct the patented parcels if there is evidence of their boundaries in the surrounding sections, then 'backing in' from those parcels to see if you reach a common point within the probable acceptable error at the time the patent boundaries were established.
Richard Schaut
Post a pic. of the usgs for us. I like a visual.
Or, tell us S/T/R
N
36 11N 2E I.M., Pottowatomie County, OK
You have a good question and we need to see the township plat or somebody post it from your description. The MC's are going to be your controlling corners in sec. 36; if I am thinking right about the sec. cors.
Keith
Is this the place?
Ah ha..........If you are working in sec. 36, the corner that you refer to as the NE corner of 36 does not control any land lines in sec. 36. You need to restore the Meander corners by following the footsteps of the original surveyor and they will control the interior sec. 36 subdivision lines.
Obviously, if there is other evidence of the lines, you will have to make a judgement on that evidence.
As in junior corner monuments!
Keith
Keith,
I agree with you.
Locating the east line of 36 from the original survey wasn't difficult.
The theoritical question that I have kicked around in my mind is:
Would you restablish the MC near the E1/16 of the NE/4 as it was located originally, or establish a new MC wherever that line intersected the river today?
Luckily the survey was actually in the SW of the NE so this was just a muse on my part.
dat's it
"Would you restablish the MC near the E1/16 of the NE/4 as it was located originally, or establish a new MC wherever that line intersected the river today?"
In any event, you would need to reestablish the MC and am assuming it would be a line extending through the E 1/16 sec. cor. (if that was originally set)and at record distance; if there is no other evidence. A new MC could be set on that line if the position for the original MC ends up in the river. If the river is further away, then after restoring the original MC, a normal line to the river could be run until reaching the OHW mark for a new MC.
Keith
By the way...........do you have a name?
I agree with Keith and Richard as to technique. Good points.
When faced with this type of situation I prefer to work from the DS's notes rather than the plat, if available, and I try to find a number of accepted points in the township which were surveyed by the original DS within the same time frame of a week or so. The objective is to test for consistency in his measurements and get his chain.
RTK GPS is a great tool for this and the results can be analyzed quickly and easily.
If a consistency is found, you have got his chain and can retrace his footsteps with greater confidence in looking for his monuments. In any case you are well positioned to defend your conclusions in court or elsewhere. This has worked for me.
Well unless I am missing something the MC were set at the time of the subdivision of section or perhaps some were a set when the range line was run so they would be considered ORIGINAL CORNERS...... NOT JUNIOR MONUMENTS.... SO THERE WILL BE KINKS IN THE LINE BUT NOT BECAUSE YOU ARE BENDING SENIOR LINE THROUGH A JUNIOR CORNER.....
IT WAS MENTIONED THE FACT THAT THE THREE MILE METHOD WAS USED AND THIS WILL CHANGE THE RETRACEMENT METHOD
Pay attention Dane,
Nobody said the Meander Corners were junior corners, in fact they have the same significance as 1/4 corners or section corners for control.
But, there probably are junior corner monuments that have been set over the years and are considered to show the boundary lines and they have to be looked at.
Keith
Richard
Agreed.
I know the notes will show where the MC is in relationship to the N 1/16 sec. cor. on the east bdy. of sec. 36, but the plat shows the SE1/4NE1/4 as possibly being fractional and is not lotted?
Keith
Keith,
I believe if you look hard enough on the plat image, there is a "1" directly to the right (and a bit lower) from the "30.10" in the NE NE. But the SE NE is fractional and wasn't named as a gov't. lot. I believe the meander corner (near NE cor SE, NE) is 1.09 ch. south of the 1/16th. cor., making the SE NE a fractional lot.
Oh well, things you learn. The North and East side of the river was surveyed in Feb.1873 and the South and West was Aug.1873 . The latter being surplus allotments of the Pottomatomi Nation, North of the river was apparently not part of the Pott Treaty, as it was surveyed in standard quarters.
This was one of the more unique ones I have ran into in a while. The real bugger of it all was how the NE cor of 36 was set. Darling made no attempt to intersect the East Boundary of the Township, he went 80 ch. on a "Due West" brg. from the NE of 31(3E) and stopped.
thnx for your interest.
The NE1/4NE1/4 is obviously fractional and if the MC is south of the 1/16 sec. cor., then it makes the SE1/4NE1/4 fractional, but apparently not enough to worry about?
Close enough!
I take it that you agree with my statements about going normal to the river from the original MCs? The section line does not cross the river in general cases, and in this case, stops at the MCs.
Keith
> I take it that you agree with my statements about going normal to the river from the original MCs?
> Keith
Depending on how the river "moved" and any subsequent retracements, I would agree to that you would go normal to the 'last junior' corner.
Take for instance a retracement survey in 1955 that located the East line of Section 36 including the position of the original MC, and then struck a line normal to the 1955 river location. Today's survey should recover the 1955 normal line and run from its terminus, normal, to the current river. Thus bending through the 'junior corner'.
DDSM
Hmmmm, your method of running normals
has been debated within BLM and the 2009 Manual has the procedure to follow in the case of additional accretion or reliction.
The 2009 Manual, sec. 8-136 states the method that you describe and I agree with that method.
The argument has been that with additional accretions/relictions, that you would disregard the previous SMC and start again at the original MC. Well, I have disagreed with that procedure as it really ignores the monumented line that could/should have been used to plow the field, build the house, fence the barn etc. A subsequent survey of the additional accretions should start at the SMC and continue on a new normal to the river. That is what is described in the 2009 Manual.
Keith
Hmmmm, your method of running normals
Keith,
Would this be another example of a senior line 'bending' at 'junior' (or subsequent) monuments? 😉
Would the description be Lot 1 (NE NE) Section 36 etc... PLUS accretions?
or
That part of Sections 30 and 31 (of the TWP to the East...etc..metes...etc...bounds?
What Section does this accreted land lie in?
DDSM
