Section 18...

Scaredy-cat

Eom

Is there an established boundary between the NE & SE 1/4's?

Did the USFS gain title from a private entryman or was the NE 1/4 unsold fed lands?

If the SE 1/4 is privately owned, how long have the boundaries been in place?

Need lots more info.

Richard Schaut

Some pictures would be nice, plat, aerials, patents, etc. 🙂

The description of your problem is legitimately gross error, of which we hear now from the Dept of the Interior. It is very likely that the west half of the section was not connected to the range line, thus the heavy bearings on the non existant lines west of the 1/4 corners.

Consider that the C 1/4 cor is at midpoint on the north-south centerline, that is if there is no evidence of occupation?

That position would follow the pattern that was surveyed in the east half of the section.

Also consider that many in the Forest Service believe in the Manual chapter three procedures for the subdivision of sections! Their line would be straight on the east - west centerline.

But, not to worry if you are not doing subdivision work in the section.

Keith

I'm not taking on the project so I only have an Assessor's map. California doesn't have on-line BLM/GLO Plats and Notes.

The 10acre aliquot doesn't border on the USFS but it is affected by the breakdown. It really isn't a full 10 acres.

The client would be better served by a local Surveyor who has PL coverage for this type of work especially given the potential for litigation. I gave him a referral to a Surveyor who is in private practice.

This type of section subdivision has lots of potential for trouble......especially if you have a State Board that has not read the Manual beyond Chapter 3.

Keith

We need to know what was patented, it is concievable that there are no legal 1/4 sections created here.

If the section was sold by patents for the W1/2 and the E1/2, it is possible the owner of the E1/2 split it into the N1/2 of the E1/2 and the S1/2 of the E1/2 by running a mean brg from the E 1/4 cor west to the N/S 1/4 line. Then no 'center of section' or 1/4's were 'created' in the E1/2 of the section and the 'usual' aliquot part descriptors should not be used.

Remember, Chap 3 of the '73 manual dictates the survey procedure that must be used to 'create' the boundaries of the regular aliquot part descriptors; therefore, if that procedure was not followed, use of the regular aliquot part descriptors is wrong and possibly fraudulent.

Richard Schaut

What you are describing compares well to the Section 24 shown in the link. In this case the east half of the section is horribly skewed suggesting there was no effort made by the original surveyors to set any of the quarter corners one-half mile west of the range line.

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=37.68219,-95.169986&spn=0.022654,0.033088&t=h&z=15

I don't see any harm in giving the STR which is Section 18, T11N, R14E, M.D.M.

I don't think the NE quarter was ever patented out (this is common in California public lands). It is subject to "Withdrawal Power Site Classification 178."

The SE quarter was patented out in one patent. The west half was patented out in various pieces.

In yours it appears the bent the east-west centerline of section which makes common sense.

First off, if you do not use the Earth Survey plugin, you may want to go get it. This is a free Google Earth viewer with lots of great data, including national coverage BLM GCDB data. You can search by M,T,R among other things.

You can find it at: http://www.metzgerwillard.us/plugin/plugin.html

Turn on BLM townships, and when you zoom in enough you will see Sections, and section subdivisons in the BLM GCDB. This is a good substitute now that GeoCommunicator is off line, but will not be current as it is a private party, and probably based on the last data set in GeoCommunicator before we brought it off line. However, coverage is here for Section 18

Here is a snapshot of the subject section in the Earth Survey Plugin:

A section only image

And one last recommendation, even though this is the BLM GCDB coverage and should represent the federal view of subdivision, confirm with your California BLM State Office. They are there to work with the State licensed surveyors on difficult situations.

Dave's description sounded like an interesting problem, but this picture isn't what I envisioned. The east half of the north line is not close to cardinal.

Given the quarter corners in that picture, I don't see much reason to dislike the straight lines connecting them.

"heavy bearings"

I've never heard that phrase before. It makes sense that only a surveyor could appreciate. I like it.

Don

You may be right Bill,

I understood that both the north and south easterly section lines were cardinal?

My above recommendation may not be right?

Keith

.??? Maybe I just made that up?

Here is one for ya.

Back in the 60's a BLM surveyor found the situation as described here in all of the secs. In the west tier of sections and the BLM draftsman protracted the east-west centerline with a bend at the C 1/4, thus with protracted lines to follow in the same pattern as the section lines.

So, the question is; how would you now subdivide the section? Obviously, the resurvey plat does not look like the original plat!

And of course, yours truly was the draftsman! Now can a GS-5 draftsman change the boundaries? The resurvey plat was subsequently approved by BLM in Washington DC.

I am not at home so I can't give the township and range?

Keith

I was only looking at the AP map. I am not doing any research because no one is paying me to do so since I declined the project.

The OP was just a curiosity; not really meant to be a minute dissection of this particular section.

> .??? Maybe I just made that up?

Then I think you are a poet; a surveying poet.

Don

" Now can a GS-5 draftsman change the boundaries?"

Was the GS-5 exceeding his authority? And if he was, would it matter in the end?
I'm asking...

Don