Retracing the north boundary of T. 9 S., R. 98 W., has been so much fun I couldn’t help but share some excepts of the notes on this 1955 dependent resurvey and my recent perambulations:
Desc. A steep, broken, NW. slope, over spurs and drains, on Pyramid Mountain.
39.02 Chains…True point for the cor. of secs. 1,2,35 and 36, at proportionate dist.: falls on a very steep easterly slope and an unsafe place for a permanent monument (my note: and humans!)
3.60 Chains…Sandstone ledge, 10 ft. high bears NNW. And SSE.;
8.55 Chains…Sandstone ledge, 20 ft. high bears N. and S.
23.80 Chains…Rocky ridge, bears SSE. And NNW.; over ridge top
27.00 Chains…Ledge, 15 ft. high, bears N. and S.; desc. a broken NW. slope, over spurs and drains
That was just in the first mile…
Continuing
47.60 Chains…Sandstone ledge, 20 ft. high, bears NNE and SSW.; desc. a steep NW slope, over spurs and drains, through scattered timber.
Over rolling bottom land in a moon shaped hollow.(my note: good place for camp and calling in a medvac if necessary)
16.40 chains E. rim of canyon, bears NE. and SW.; desc. a steep NW. slope over sandstone ledges, through timber and undergrowth.
And here’s one for Keith since this is probably during his era of PLSS survey times…
39.02 Chains…Point for the ¼ sec. cor. of secs. 6 and 31, at proportionate dist. Now reduced to function for the ¼ sec. cor. of sec. 6, T. 9 S., R. 98 W. only
40.00 Chains…Point for the independent resurvey ¼ sec. corner on the S. bdy. of sec. 31, T. 8 S., R. 98 W.
Keith: Is this a BLM pincushion? 😉
Pablo B-)
Pablo
It is definitely not a pin cushion situation and without seeing the survey plat of the township to the north (T.8 S.); the notes read as if there is an INDEPENDENT RESURVEY of T. 8 S. For whatever reason, they created another 1/4 sec. cor. in the INDEPENDENT RESURVEY.
Can you show the survey plat for T. 8 S.?
Keith
Dependent to the south and independent to the north. The odd thing for me about that is 1955 seems a bit late for an independent resurvey. They had stopped doing them around here by then. Maybe it's all federal land north of the line?
I agree Mighty, and the reason that the INDEPENDENT RESURVEY was accomplished would be in the Group File and possibly stated on the survey plat?
Keith
Nopey Nopey ..
no Independent Resurvey for T8S R98W. The specifics are: T8S R98W 6th P.M., Mesa Co., Colorado. You could probably go to the BLM GLO notes website and pull it up.
Pablo
Pablo
Your quoted field notes refer to an INDEPENDENT RESURVEY in T. 8 S.?
Keith
Pablo
Keith,
That's what is peculiar about the survey. The survey quotes a dependent resurvey on the north line of T9S R98W...the notes go along and corners are set common to the north and south sections up to the SE corner of Sec. 31, then between the SE corner of 31 and the SW corner of 31 (SW Township Corner set in 1931) the dependent resurvey turns into a independent resurvey corner for the S1/4 of Sec. 31.
Pablo
Point for the independent resurvey ¼ sec. corner on the S. bdy. of sec. 31
Pablo, that does throw me a bit.
WW1 era and before was the time for the big campains of independent resurveys around here. After awhile it must have got difficult to sign up owners for one. Imagine how many mineral owners get created in a generation or two. So they died out by 55. But the notes mention it so....
Those double corners were SOP for independent resurveys along township)range lines.
In California 98W would be way out in the Pacific Ocean.
Carry on...
That's what is peculiar...no independent resurvey..nada, zilch, no notes, no plats no mention of an independent resurvey except at the corner in the notes!
Pablo
> In California 98W would be way out in the Pacific Ocean.
>
> Carry on...
Here's a challenge for you Dave. Write the imaginary notes for a Deputy in California subdividing T1N, R 98 W, MDM.
Don
First I need Scuba gear or maybe a submarine.
Well, can't tell you what happened if there is no INDEPENDENT RESURVEY in T. 8 S., except it must have been considered and for whatever reason, the INDEPENDENT RESURVEY did not happen. The Group file will tell the story, but of course that is in the Archives back East.
The point being at this point, if you are resurveying in T. 9 S ., you can ignore the 1/4 for. to the north.
Keith
Pablo
I tried to look up info on the website and got to 8 98 and saw one plat from 2000-I think it was 2000. Did you see that one? Does it look familiar?
Anyway the site won't let me back in. You probably talked to the BLM. I would because those web sites sometimes are missing surveys and plats. There weren't any independent resurveys shown in 8 98, but the BLM office may have one laying around...who knows.
Pablo
I've got ALL the plats and notes. There were surveys around or in the township in 1931, 1955, 1971, 1999 and 2001. My thinking is that they were ANTICIPATING in 1955 doing a Independent Resurvey in a portion of 8 98 due to the fact that there were large discrepancies/distortion in finding original survey evidence and most of the land is in the federal estate both surface and mineral. Being such, they can do whatever they want. However if I was to do some of what they have done, I would be dragged over the coals or buried in an ant hill. For instance, on a portion of the Dependent Resurvey performed in 1999 check out this explanation for a corner reestablishment:
From the point for cor. of secs. 17, 18, 19 and 20, determined longitudinally at record departure from the cor. of secs. 18 and 19 only, on the W. bdy. of the Tp., and latitudinally at record latitude from the reestablished cor. of secs. 7, 8, 17 and 18; there is no remaining evidence of the original cor.
The only portion of the township that hasn't been dependently resurveyed has elevation changes over 2000'. Such fun...
Pablo
Hold on...
"I've got ALL the plats and notes."
I'd be careful about thinking that. I have three different copies of the "same" plat, including one I obtained from my State DOT that is more recent than the two that are in the State BLM office and the BLM archives.
Pablo
The corner is in the notes but never shows up on a plat?
Then it may be nothing more than a line point.
But you know and so do I that stuff can be filed at the BLM office that gets missed. Maybe it was one of those group numbered surveys that never got finished.
Pablo
Pablo, I did some well staking in that area west of DeBeque in the 1980's and we found some BLM brass caps for which no plat or notes could be found by us or the BLM. I also recall that a comparison of the topography with the original GLO plat indicated something was amiss, as in in the valleys were shown where the mountains were, etc. I also recall that the survey took only 6 days in January according to the plat. If I can find any additional data in the archives I will let you know.
Pablo
KScott,
Yep that's the area. I found some remonumented corners where there were no notes. The remonumented corners did however have a date on them and we (the BLM and I) could find no notes. Mr. Treas did the original survey Jan 2 - 8 in 1885. There is a hint by taking a look at the original plat that he did not venture into certain sections i.e. no topo relief on the plat, just blank white areas. The South Shale Rim is only 300' across the top at the most, but the plat indicates it's two miles. Beats being in the office all day anyway.
Pablo
KScott
I have heard stories about certain townships were surveyed or resurveyed with the anticipation that the township would be contracted for soon and when that time came, the deputy and crew could take a vacation?
Only a story!
I have also seen a township in Colo. that was over the Continental Divide and surveyed in 6 days.
California is not alone in fraudulent surveys by the deputies.
I have wondered though, where were the approving officials?
Keith
