Oky doky... update on Wednesday's little stone-safari into the Oquirrh Mountains in and around Section 38.
We searched for nine specific stone corners, and found 6½ of them (the ½ being a fairly well defined mound, but no stone). Sorry no pictures yet, the “cameraman” had to drive to a meeting 300 miles away, and won't be back until tomorrow.
Well, that's a pretty good day, BUT here's the real kicker:
We also found TWO OLD Stones that we were NOT even looking for, and we don't even have a clue (yet) why they are there, or what they might represent.
Both are “professionally” marked by someone that really knew what they were doing. The first was a hard gray fine grained quartzite, marked:
C°
I
It is situate about 13 feet North of the South Line of Section 38, and about 132 West of the Southeast Corner thereof.
The 'C' & 'I' being about 2 inches high, and the '°' being about 1 inch in diameter.
The second stone was a hard yellow/brown sandstone marked:
C°
K
This stone is situate VERY close to where we were looking for the “C¼” of Section 17 (Northwest Angle Point of Section 38).
Obviously the same guy marked both stones, and I suppose that there is a 'C° J' somewhere in the neighborhood too (but we as yet have no clue where to look for it). Shucks, there's probably [at least] a C°A thru C°H as well.
I've seen a lot of marked stones in the last 43 years, but nothing quite like these two babies. Both were in the middle of compact, well defined and embedded mounds of stones (all fairly small). And there was no indication that anybody has seen them since the day they were set (whenever THAT might have been). There are a few old mining claims in this area (of which we recovered a few corners as well), so we could be looking at something that was related to the old smelter (long gone) that was located about a half a mile southwest of here.
These stones may or may not mean anything in the current scheme of things, but we will of course try and chase down their origin and/or meaning none the less.
Loyal
P.S. I'll post some pictures as soon as I get them.
Interesting stuff Loyal. Looking forward to the pictures.
Doug
So what happened? Did the Township escape the usual bounds of 36 Sections and spawn more Sections?
Dave
There are quite a number of Townships in Utah (for example), that contain more than 36 Sections. This is due to the Act of March 3, 1891, “An act to establish a court of private land claims, and provide for the settlement of private land claims in certain States and Territories,” as amended by the Act approved February 21, 1893 [27 Stat, 470].
Some Townships have 38, 39, 40 or MORE Sections, and in some cases, these Sections actually “cross” Township/Range Boundaries.
See the Section 37 Post from last week, for a view of the Section 38 in question here (portion of original GLO Plat).
Loyal
Loyal
There is one township, maybe Nevada, that has sections 38-43 located in between the north half and south half of sections 1-6. This was a result of two different surveys that did not come together as they should have. The unsurveyed land between them was surveyed as new sections.
The PLSS has many varied and interesting situations that are not widely known. Your case is one.
Jerry
Dave
I seem to remember a post from WAY BACK where Dan McCabe was talking about section 76 or something with lots of sections in their township in South LA. Evidently, it is common place in his region.
I have never worked in a township, so I really don't know.
Jerry
That's a good one, don't think I have seen that before. Seen a LOT of ½ Townships though (T.y_N., R.x½_W etc.).
Loyal
Dave
Here's a scan of the Federal Patent conveying title to Section 38.
As you can see above, the Legal Description is simply:
Section 38, T.3_S., R.3_W., SLM, containing 137.85 acres.
It don't get much simpler than that. In fact, many of these “extra Sections” have their own Abstract Books in the County Recorder's Office.
Here's the plat in case you missed it before:
Loyal
Kris
> I seem to remember a post from WAY BACK where Dan McCabe was talking about section 76 or something with lots of sections in their township in South LA. Evidently, it is common place in his region.
>
DDSM-LA works amongst the Arpent Sections.
In Louisiana, parcels of land known as arpent sections or French arpent land grants also pre-date the PLSS, but are treated as PLSS sections. An arpent is a French measurement of approximately 192 feet, and a square arpent (also referred to as an arpent) is about 0.84 acres. French arpent land divisions are long narrow parcels of land usually found along the navigable streams of southern Louisiana, and also found along major waterways in other areas. This system of land subdivision was begun by French settlers in the 1700s, according to typical French practice at the time and was continued by both the Spanish and by the American government after the acquisition of the Louisiana Purchase. A typical French arpent land division is 2 to 4 arpents wide along the river by 40 to 60 arpents deep, while the Spanish arpent land divisions tend to be 6 to 8 arpents wide by 40 arpents deep. This method of land division provided each land-owner with river frontage as well as land suitable for cultivation and habitation. These areas are given numbers just like standard sections, although the section numbers frequently exceed the normal upper limit of 36.
DDSM-AR
DDSM
Thanks for the confirmation. That's actually very cool. In fact, now that you mention it, it was along rivers and such.
Sort of knowing where you are working and whom owns most of the mountain, is Section 38 in separate ownership from the surrounding land?
Leon
Don't really know. The 800 lb. gorilla that you are no doubt thinking about, does own the Lots to the East of Section 38 for sure, but there ARE other players in the game. We are basically just trying to recover, georeference, and document as many Original GLO Corners as possible (practical) before the new Rocky Mountain Power access roads wipe them out FOREVER.
Loyal
Leon
Looks like you at least had Craig, Jesson and Stewart in Section 17. I'd never looked at that townhship before. With all the mineral surveys it looks like every surveyor that worked in Utah between about 1890 and 1950 did some work in there. Some monuments should be polished shinny from all that!
Are you guys going to file your records in the AGRC PLSS database? You can do that online now. I'm doing some this week.
Leon
Yupper yupper.
We have been collecting a lot of data this last year, and are pretty close to finalizing a “Certified Corner Record w/ Geodetic Data Sheet” for everything that we have done so far.
Some PLSS Corners will also be going into OPUS-DB as well.
Loyal
Dave
I have been working in Section 40, Block 38, T 1 S, (no range) for about two months now in Midland Tx. I guess the surveyors just got excited pulling chains and decided to keep going.
The "Alphabet Stones"
Well, I finally got the photographs from last weeks Stone Safari.
Here are the pictures of the “Alphabet Stones”
The “I” Stone:
The “K” Stone:
Anybody want to take a run at Identifying these babies?
On a somewhat related note, the "team" was out in the field today (I stayed at Computer Central and participated via cellphone), and found NOT ONE...BUT TWO SET-MARKED-STONES at the S¼ of a Section that we are interested in (only about 80 feet apart). It ain't any fun when it's EASY!
🙂
Loyal
HMMMM...not sure what's with the "I" Stone Photo, it didn't look that was when I uploaded it...oh well, you can still read it.
The "Alphabet Stones"
Update:
A couple of weeks ago “we” (I was here computing theoretical coordinates as the crew hiked from point to point) were out in this same area (adjoining Section), and guess what?
Yup...MORE “Alphabet Stones!”
I don't have pictures (yet), but the crew found:
CoA, CoB, CoC, CoD, and CoE.
These Stones “mark” three 1/16th corners, as well as a C ¼ and E ¼ of a PLSS Section. Who set them and when????
One point of interest:
The Stones found this time, OBVIOUSLY mark the exterior Boundary of an 1899 Homestead Entry Patent.
Now I need to figure out where CoF, CoG, CoH, and CoJ are! I also wonder if there are CoL – Co? stones lurking about out there. Maybe someday an old map/plat will show up...
Fun and Games.
Loyal
The "Alphabet Stones"
Was Emma M. Whitehouse already there before the original survey or something else?
I'm curious how someone could get an odd shaped private land claim like that.
Dave
Yes and no!
The Private Land Claims in this area are on what WAS "unsurveyed" Public Domain as of 1896, BUT (in most cases) ADJOINED land that were surveyed in 1856 and/or 1879. The 1896 GLO Survey (Plat above) was a Completion Survey, and the "Original Survey" of the "unsurveyed" lands that where not included in either the 1856 or 1879 Surveys.
I'm a little fuzzy on why some of the Private Land Claims have some these irregular boundaries, but I suspect that it has to do with acerage limitations (or not).
Loyal
