Hello all,
I have been unable to find a specific example with regard to my question and am hoping some of you can help.
I am working in the NE 1/4 of Section 5 that abuts a correction line.
The northeast corner of Section 5 is 8' south of the found original closing corner monument at the northeast corner of Section 5 (the intersection of the senior east-west correction line is 8' south of the original closing corner).
There was no original corner found at the northwest corner of Section 5, and it was therefore set at the intersection of a north-south occupation line (south of the corner) and the senior east-west correction line.
The north quarter corner of Section 5 was not set during the original GLO survey and was established at the lost position on the senior east-west correction line.
Assuming that there are no existing interior monuments or occupation how would you establish the northwest corner of the S 1/2 of the NE 1/4 of Section 5?
The northeast corner of the S 1/2 of the NE 1/4 was establish at the prorated distance between the east quarter corner and the original closing corner, which is 8' north of the corrected northeast corner of Section 5.
Normally the northwest corner of the S 1/2 of the NE 1/4 would be established at the prorated distance between the center and north quarter corner of Section 5, but being that the north quarter corner is established on the senior east-west correction line, would it be more inline with the original survey measurements to prorate this corner between the center and a position 4' north of the north quarter corner of Section 5 (straight line between the northwest corner of Section 5 and the original closing corner, which is 8' north of the corrected northeast corner of Section 5 would be 4' north of the north quarter corner of Section 5)?
Thank You
Oh, my, this one will be entertaining to follow. All working in PLSSia should follow this thread.
If you put all of that on a quick plan, I could probably offer an opinion from across the pond but I'm a bit lost in the US technical jargon and imperial distances.
The northeast corner of Section 5 is 8' south of the found original closing corner monument at the northeast corner of Section 5 (the intersection of the senior east-west correction line is 8' south of the original closing corner).
My only question is that if you've found a corner monument, why aren't you adopting it instead of using a line from somewhere else? Sorry if that's a stupid question but that's the only thing that stuck out to me from reading your description.
I don't run into situations like this often enough to remember the answer, but I'm sure the BLM manual has the solution.
If I get some free time I'll see if I can poke around a bit.
What is the latitude of this correction line? What were the special instructions applicable to the layout of this standard parallel and the year of that survey. What were the special instructions applicable in the layout of the sections south of this parallel and the year of that survey. In my case locally, there is a thirty year gap between the establishment of the standard parallel and the creation of sections.
There are different eras of PLLS plats, it's difficult to decide how to proceed without viewing the plat and knowing the era and seeing the plat.
But a couple of items would be: no I would not create a fake point 4' north of the N1/4 to prorate from, also if there are 4 lots with acreages along the north line it would be important to make those acreages "whole" if possible.
The question is to calculate the CN1/16 which could be done by using the fallings along the east and west section line and prorating it in by a "split" of those numbers and creating a line between the C1/4 and the N1/4, you will not end up with a straight line between the N1/16th corners along the east and west Section lines.
Hopefully that would cause the acreages to also proportion in. I always see if there are imperial entanglements associated with the breakdown, a call to the gov office would not be out of line if there is.
Please explain who and how the found original corner was found to be eight feet off if that is where the original surveyor placed the stone.
@holy-cow I think they are just stating the CC stone is 8’ north of the correction line between the SC’s
i agree with mightymoes method. If the N 1/4 was not established in the original survey, your standard sectional breakdown (with lotting) would apply, using the true position of the n1/4 on the correction line and the calculated c1/4, proportion in the CN1/16 using the distances from the east and west lines/lotting.
The NE.Cor.Sec5 was not set because that would create a no-mans-land. Using a split between the SE.Cor.Sec32 and the E1/4.Sec5 to set the NE.Cor.S1/2 was correct and I would hold all 3. The rest is a normal section breakdown like @absurveyor18548 said.
The N1/16th on the east line of Section 5 will be a proration between the E1/4 of Section 5 and the found Closing Corner. The NE corner of Section 5 should not be used to prorate.
@mightymoe 👌🏻 spot on! Original CC position for the N1/16 proportion. The distance to the CC from the E1/4 are what the field notes and measurements were to.
Thanks for the replies, greatly appreciated.
The intent of a CC is that they thought they were on the township line when they set the stone. The next GLO survey states that the CC is 8 ft south of the actual section corner. Therefore, like the OP wrote "The northeast corner of the S 1/2 of the NE 1/4 was establish at the prorated distance between the east quarter corner and the original closing corner, which is 8' north of the corrected northeast corner of Section 5" is the correct procedure IMHO.