Questions for the PLSSers

better...

James

You can do better than kent.

try it.

Keith

linebender

You say, "I don't subdivide many sections. Most were subdivided 100 years ago. I use chapter 3 as a guide when the corner is lost."

HOw about using the rest of the Manual if the land has been subdivided 100 years ago?

Keith

Carl

So, no subdivision of sections is accomplished now?

No surveying of the aliquot part lines within the section?

Keith

linebender

When it comes to surveying previously marked lines other parts of the manual offer good advise in defining best evidence.

Keith, which Manual, the latest or the 1973 version?

James

> You can do better than kent.
>
> try it.

Not until I can walk the rice paper path without leaving a trace.

Keith

> So, no subdivision of sections is accomplished now?
>
> No surveying of the aliquot part lines within the section?
>
> Keith

In the areas I have worked the land had passed from the US to private hands and Federal Subdivision rules don't apply... other than for determining the methods of that original survey.
The manual in effect at the time of the Patent is all I really care about.

Carl

> So, no subdivision of sections is accomplished now?
>
> No surveying of the aliquot part lines within the section?
>
> Keith

None today by the GLO. They have been gone for 160+ years and not missed. Any aliquot part lines not already surveyed aren't going to be surveyed by any manual. None is legally in effect here.

Mostly it was done 150 or more years ago, by county surveyors. The Federal Government owns no land in Ohio which had not already been patented. The Post Offices and National Forests were "reacquired" by the Feds. Now they are under state law.

Difficult concept for some out west who thought that their states were admitted with all of the rights and privileges of the earlier states, per the US Constitution. But y'all seem to like it that way out there without those rights, and just waiting for the next manual to come out.

And I live in a PLSS township that is five miles square. That is a new topic for me to post separately.

True

I am most familiar with the 73 but they are all basically the same.

Keith

Peter and others

Maybe you are saying more here than most, in that, once the land is patented and in private ownership, the current Manual means nothing!

Now think about that for a bit. Those that are espousing Chapter 3 only, are those from the private sector and you don't hear that from the Feds.

And why would the private surveyors ignore the Manual and hence....Chapter 3?

There are a few Feds who will only read Chapter 3 for their guidelines in subdividing the section where there is mixed ownership of the lands, but the huge majority of Feds will use all of the Manual when subdividing the section that has private and public ownership. Chapter 3 provisions for the original survey of the subdivision of sections is exactly that...original surveys.

Yet, some cannot get out of Chapter 3 and firmly believe it is the only guidelines for retracing boundaries that are established on the ground, either by survey or by private land owners.

To those who only deal with private ownership within the PLSS, Chapter 3 means little and in fact as some have stated, the Manual has little effect on their methods.

Yet, we have those who are determined to tell us that only Chapter 3 has guidelines for subdividing a section of the PLSS.

I have not heard personally, but have been told that national speakers have in fact advoctated that Chapter 3 be used only. Why would that be?

Maybe the reason I bring this up is to try and determine the rationale of those who advocate original survey procedures for retracing established boundary lines.

Some here are very helpful in stating their opinions and how it is in their areas and for the most part, this discussion has to be of interest to many and maybe we all can learn a bit from it.

I am simply fascinated by the rationale of some in their hard and fast opinions on how to survey. The argument that, that is the way it is done here, does not fly.

Dust off that Manual and review the retracement/resurvey procedures, even if it seems like it does not apply to your surveys.

After all, this is more interesting than photos of the dead guy.

Keigh

True

I agree with Carl and Peter. The 1973 Manual rarely applies. The rules at
the time of the original notes applies.

It depends.

:coffee:

I have a friend that was raked over the coals in court

recently for not "properly subdividing" a section ( I assume the Chapter 3 method).
He instead held long standing and relied upon 1/16th and other corners for his resolution.

Apparently a more convincing surveyor convinced the judge that this was an improper method.

Ironic part is that this was in the same county as the Dykes v. Arnold case. Different judge however.

The method of subdivision really wasn't a factor in the matter at hand but you know
how lawyers like to throw stuff at the wall to see what sticks.

I just subdivided a section as the first surveyor to do so. There were 3 parcels with their current deeds showing aliquot part descriptions. (2) eighties by private parties and the remainding 480 owned by a timber company.

My first task was to determine the origin of the eighty acre parcels. Once I traced them back and found they were patented through the GLO, I then used federal methods.

If they had been split out by deed I would have considered area as being a possible solution for meaning of the solution, but would have weighed that with all the evidence.

If I'm the first, I use Chapt. 3 to subdivide. That happens occasionally. If there is evidence of a previous subdivision, I use chapt. 3 along with other techniques and evidence to evaluate the previous subdivision. The 2009 Manual, second to last paragraph 3-137 gives some factors to consider when evaluating a previous subdivision of section. I believe the 1973 Manual was written during a time when surveyors were emphasizing the "science" (EDM for measurements) of surveying and forgetting the "art" (the stability of boundaries). In the 1960s & 1970s we were still subdividing sections for the first time. By the 1980s we were often the 3rd, 4th, or 5th surveyor in the section.

Boundary law is not static. A manual that is written in only black & white statements can be outdated as soon as it is released.

Evelyn

False - Many Manuals relevant including most current one

I would tend to disagree with both points (that all the Manuals are the same and that only the Instructions or Manuals in effect at the date of original survey are pertinent). The 2009 Manual is significantly different and contains much more guidance, particularly for resurvey than prior editions. The 2009 Manual takes into account IBLA and Case law pertinent to the survey of the PLSS since prior editions. The Manual and Instructions in effect at the time of survey is important to take into account for understanding the how and why the original survey or subsequent resurveys were done, but the guidance in the 2009 in regards to resurvey and subdivision of Sections is completely relevant for a modern day resurvey and subdivision of a Section. At least from the Federal perspective. I would never expect one of our Federal Surveyors to only rely on one Chapter of any BLM Manual. Foolishness in my opinion.

Speaking now for my thoughts as a State licensed surveyor (I am one, and have decades of experience operating under my state license), I always try to have the most knowledge base and research available for me for surveys I would be performing. Information in the 2009 Manual Chapters IV (Monumentation), V (Principles of Resurveys), VI (Resurveys and Evidence), VII (Resurveys and Restoration) and VIII (Resurveys and Water Boundaries) would all be important and valuable knowledge and information for the State-licensed surveyor. Prior to subdividing a section, the section needs to be resurveyed and properly established.

I have a friend that was raked over the coals in court

Is it possible to get the court case that you refer to?

I would very much like to read it.

Thanks

Keith

I have a friend that was raked over the coals in court

I'd like to know more about the survey also. You would not have the same judge as the Dykes v. Arnold decision was in the State Appellate Court. County judges are supposed to follow the state appellate cases, but strange things happen. A surveyor's survey is really only as good as his/her ability to persuade other to accept it.

Evelyn

Northern

Thanks Northern for your response. I may have went too far when I said that the Manuals are basically the same! The original survey methods are basically the same.

Your statement; I would tend to disagree with both points (that all the Manuals are the same and that only the Instructions or Manuals in effect at the date of original survey are pertinent). The 2009 Manual is significantly different and contains much more guidance, particularly for resurvey than prior editions. The 2009 Manual takes into account IBLA and Case law pertinent to the survey of the PLSS since prior editions.

I am in complete agreement with that statement and have often wondered about the reliance on only the Manual in existence at the time of the survey, that is now being resurveyed. If that were the case, there have been many court decisions, Interior decisions that would have to be ignored. Obviously, the Manual in effect at the time of the original survey is important to know how the that survey was conducted, but resurvey procedures have been addressed in subsequent courts and the Department of the Interior.

Maybe that argument is for another time as this thread is about:

When you subdivide a section, do you go with the guidelines in Chapter 3 only?

Or do you have your own guidelines?

Keith