Suppose you've got a closing section (Section 5) with found original off-line closing corners at the northwest and northeast corners. There is lotting against the north line with acreages provided and record distances to be inferred from those acreages. The north quarter corner is a 1/4 corner of minimum control and was never set.
What controls the location of the C-N 1/16? I understand the found original closing corners control the N 1/16s on the west and east sides of the section, but I can't find the technically correct way to locate the C-N 1/16. Is the C -N 1/16 at an intersection of the N 1/16 corners with the midsection line, or is it correct to take a mean of the northings of the found original closing corners to position the C-N 1/16?
Never Hold A Closing Corner For North Latitude
The North Latitude is controlled by the section line to the North. Closing Corners control the Easting values.
Paul in non PLSS PA
Never Hold A Closing Corner For North Latitude
Found closing corners control the proportionate position of the N 1/16s. It's part of the whole laying your chain by the their chain deal.
Yes East West, But Not North South
Paul in PA
It's probably in the manual somewhere..AND one of the most confusing PLSS subdivisions to perform in my opinion.
I'll probably get the electric chair for telling you this:
What I do is subdivide section 5 (using the found closing corners) in the proper pro-rational positions..then truncate the entire section with the senior south line of section 32. 1/16 corners of course falling at the intersection of the calc'd N-S protractions and terminating at the senior line. North-South distances calculated using the closing corners before "truncating" the whole affair.
..right or wrong that's how I've always done it.
EDIT: In Oklahoma, although the original GLO surveyors (1870s) set Closing Corners, they did NOT actually close upon the senior line in a true fashion. The fallings reported in their notes are sometimes grossly in error. Most of the CC I've found gore into the senior section, some by a half a chain or more.
Very rarely have I seen a CC that fell short of the senior line. It's almost as if they wanted to be sure and gore the section to the north.
Yes East West, But Not North South
Have to agree with Said lot on this one, the N1/16ths on the east and west lines of section 5 are prorated between the E and W 1/4s and the found closing corners
> ... What controls the location of the C-N 1/16?
The section was loted per the procedures at the time, yes. I'd think the relative position of that would be on your mid-section line, a proportionate 1320 from the center based on your sectional breakdown, and not the split of the half mile. Then again, I've had situations before where the 1/16th line went from the W section line to the E section line between the 1/16 corners, and on the mid-section line, regardless of the impact to the center. Let the lots be what they are, according to the manual of that era.
As noted, confusing to say the least. Maybe you have some good fence posts to lean against while you scratch your head about whether or not to call them the corners... 😉
Excellent question. I have stumbled onto varied solutions by prior surveyors. First the north quarter corner and center corner need to be found or established. Then comes the variations. I have found a monument that is on a line running between the W 1/16th and the E 1/16th where it intersects the QSL going north from the center. I have found a monument at a proportioned distance based on the lot acreages listed on the original survey map. I have found a monument almost exactly 1320 feet north of the center corner. Then the joy comes when finding a long-established fence line running across the section where the adjoiners have always thought the south line of the lots was located and that number is in conflict with all of the above methods.
I hope I remember this right.
First, the S. bdy. of the township to the north will control the N bdy. of the section. The CC's on the E and W boundaries will control the longitudinal position, unusually midpoint but controlled by lotting, of the NS centerline of the section at this point. From the S. 1/4 cor., thourgh the longitudinal position, to intersection with the S. bdy. of the township to the north returns the N 1/4. The CN 1/16 is proportioned between the north 1/4 and the C 1/4.
If I remember right this is technically the correct way. If there are many variables the technically correct method quickly goes out the window and turns into professional judgement.
Good luck.
If I was retracing another surveyor or had some occupation I could work with, I would just be grateful someone had gotten to it before me. But I don't have that.
The best documentation I can lean on is limited. This link floating around on the internet is a handout by Jim McCavitt of the BLM for Caltrans: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/row/landsurveys/LSITWorkbook/12.pdf . On page 12-19, it shows a scenario similar to mine. Question H on page 12-21 is answered as an intersection of the North 1/16ths with the mid section line on 12-25.
I'd accept any equitable subdivision backed up by some sort of logic. Just curious about the way it's supposed to be done.
You Have Yet To Mention Sect 31, 32, 33 Monuments
What have you recovered?
Is your Section 5 to the East or West of Section 32?
Are your closing corners to the North or South of section lines to the North?
On the South side of your survey have you recovered monuments such that you have NS lines to extend or shorten?
Paul in PA
You Have Yet To Mention Sect 31, 32, 33 Monuments
For the sake of my question, assume that I have found monuments on the senior line that was closed upon. That's what I meant by the found original closing corners being "offline."
You Have Yet To Mention Sect 31, 32, 33 Monuments
> For the sake of my question, assume that I have found monuments on the senior line that was closed upon. That's what I meant by the found original closing corners being "offline."
Now we're getting confused. Closing corners are not "offline", they just aren't on the line you want. Therefore they determine "the line". No problem with a tie to the real line just because we can, but don't set anything. No doubt the contrary can be shown but that's another topic.
In MI with all their Re-Mon stuff they decided to come up with a "property controlling corner", in an effort to maintain historical title. Then they set the "actual corner" where it says it is supposed to be according to the super measurer doing it. Then the survey and new and improved M & B description gives a tie to the PCC, with a reference to the AC. Yes, two monuments are in place and sometimes only a foot or so distant, sometimes 30 or 80 ft plus. Center of sections got real iffy, especially since none of them are original GLO corners. Homework time on that stuff.
They did the same thing in Mohave Co, AZ. Sometimes only a few tenths for some dumb reason. I guess it all goes back to the original GLO manual in effect at the time it was completed.
Whatever that is supposed to fix I still don't know, but I just followed footsteps.
I hope I misunderstand the answer or the question.
If the answer to positioning the CN 1/16 is at intersection of lines between the C 1/4 and the N 1/4, and a line between the
N 1/16's, then I have to disagree, in my 30+ working for the BLM I have never used(or allowed) this method or seen this method used to establish a CN 1/16.
Something I should have said to begin with. Call the BLM State office and ask their opinion of how to establish this CN 1/16. They will even put it in writing if you send your question in writing.
Good Luck
Thanks for the sound advice. I took similar measures last night. Your original answer was consistent with my what I had assumed was the correct answer, but we'll see what the section subdivision pros say.
> Suppose you've got a closing section (Section 5) with found original off-line closing corners at the northwest and northeast corners. There is lotting against the north line with acreages provided and record distances to be inferred from those acreages. The north quarter corner is a 1/4 corner of minimum control and was never set.
>
> What controls the location of the C-N 1/16? I understand the found original closing corners control the N 1/16s on the west and east sides of the section, but I can't find the technically correct way to locate the C-N 1/16. Is the C -N 1/16 at an intersection of the N 1/16 corners with the midsection line, or is it correct to take a mean of the northings of the found original closing corners to position the C-N 1/16?
What controls the location of the C-N 16th (assuming is hasn't already been established on the ground in good faith) is the N1/4 & C1/4. Once these 2 corners are found or set, the usual method is to place the C-N 16th at the proportional distance, on line, and between the C1/4 and N1/4. The proportional distance is calculated using the controlling plat via record distances, acreages, etc., depending on the information provided on the plat & in the notes.
Refer to figure 46 in the 1973 Manual or figure 3-40 in the 2009 Manual.
I really like paden's method.
It just seems right to break the section using it's own original corners to establish the interior corners. Only after that do you lay the south boundary of Section 32 on top of it.
Don
Thanks Brian.
For posterity (if someone else Googles this and stumbles across this thread), I've determined Brian's answer (and others before him) is the technically correct one. It was corroborated by another well-informed source.