Okay sport fans, here's a little PLSS problem for you to contemplate:
We are dealing with Section 18 and a somewhat “non-standard” approach to surveying said Section (and all other Sections along the West tier of Sections in this Township).
Background:
The Range Line (West line of this Section) was run as a Guide Meridian in April of 1856 by Columbus L. Craig. The subdivision of this [partial] Township was also surveyed by Deputy Craig that same April.
Instead of starting the subdivision of the Township at the common South corner of Sections 35 & 36 (which incidentally was NOT established during this contract), he started at the common South Corner of Sections 31 & 32 (see Field Note diagram below).
When he gets to the Southeast Corner of Section 18 (page 120), he runs “West on a Random Line...” hits the Range Line at 80.07 chains, and then returns East on a “True Line” and sets the ¼ Corner at 40.03 chains (NOT 40.07 chains)!
When he gets to the Northeast Corner of Section 18 (page 121), he runs “West on a Random Line...” hits the Range Line at 80.06 chains, and then returns East on a “True Line” and sets the ¼ Corner at 40.03 chains (NOT 40.06 chains)!
Okay fine, he does what he DOES, and ALL of the Sections along the West tier are done this way!
Now when the Plat of this Township in generated back at Surveyor General HQ in Salt Lake City, we get:
As you can see, the PLAT indicates fractional Lots (40+ acres) along the West Line of Section 18. Well, that's pretty SOP, BUT that ISN'T how Craig Surveyed the Section (see above).
Now here's the Master Title Plat (MTP):
ASSUMING that all four Section Corners are existent, AND all four ¼ Corners are LOST, how would you subdivide this Section, ASSUMING there is no occupation, physical evidence of boundaries, or known surveys in the Section (or adjoining Sections)?
Oh...by the way, the “West ½ of Lots 1 & 2” have been conveyed (using THAT description) to your client, the ownership the rest of the Section is all “standard” aliquot parts, EXCEPT for a County Road (1880s), a Railroad (1917), a Military Installation (1942), and a State Highway (1943). Oh yeah, and the Mineral Rights are severed from the surface estate in some cases too!
PS, you might also notice on the Plat, that Section 17 is “platted” as 640 acres, despite the fact that it is actually BIGGER than Section 18, which was platted as 640.50 acres.
Loyal
Standard to call all normal sections 640 acres even though they are not exactly 80 chains east/west. It's hard to figure out the lots, 40.13 acres should be 20 chns x 20.13 chns. 20.13 chns????????? Where does that come from? I'd think the quarter corner has to be placed as per the notes (midpoint) but the lot proration, would you assume 40.13 chns and prorated from there? Probably time to get the landowners sanction to do what ever you do.
Heck Loyal, you know 10 times more about this than me but I though I make a post anyway.
I only have some limited experience with the 1855-56 Utah GLO surveys but the ones I have researched in central Utah (Mogo) were not done by the standard pattern of the later GLO surveys. Maybe the instructions were different but Mogo was running lines east/west through the center of the township and then going various ways from there setting the north line of the township coming north from the east/west center line (never run a line east/west along the north side of the township). Pretty weird, some day I'm gong to get the special instructions and what ever version or pre version of the manual that these guys were working from. Maybe they where just given freedom to do it the quickest way, whatever.
Subdivision of Section 12 & 13
My take on it as well Leon. If you look closely at the Field Note diagram above, you will see that Craig ran his "southernmost" line a mile North of the Township Line (which was later completed East from the Southeast of 32 in 1879 and 1896).
I was wondering IF anybody would make the logical “jump” across the Township.
YES... Deputy Craig surveyed the East tier of Sections (only two complete Sections, 12 & 13) as one would “normally” survey the West tier (see below).
So the EAST tier of Sections SHOULD have been lotted, NOT the West tier of Sections!
The Plat or the Notes? The Chicken or the egg?
Do I sense a circular argument in the making?
PS. I have seen Townships lotted on the South and/or East before, but in every case (that I can remember), the Plat was supported by (agreed with) the Notes.
🙂
Loyal
Subdivision of Section 12 & 13
I'm looking at T 15 S R 4 E. Mogo in 1856. He did it the same way started at south boundary between S 31 and S 32 went north and then west to the range line setting his quarter corners at mid point. I'll look at the plat and see what the office guys did.
My plat did the same thing, they lotted the west tier. I'm one up on you though the distance for the lot is given on the plat and if you add the north and south lot distances you get the acreage. So the 40 east of the lot got shorted? At least they are consistent!
Subdivision of Section 12 & 13
Wasn't 1855 the year of the first Manual. Maybe the office guys had it and the field guys were still working from some previous instructions.
So do you really have some of Craig's original corners? Posts or stones?
Leon
Actually this post was more about a less-than-usual PLSS scenario, than an actual survey. Something for folks to ponder over the weekend.
The fact of the matter is though, the above scenario (West half of Lots 1 & 2) the Railroad, Army Depot, etc. etc. are REAL, and we ARE trying to do a proper job of coming up with an answer. What we DON'T have, is all four Section Corners (yet).
We DO HAVE the West line of Section 18, which was recovered in 1869 by the County Surveyor (Chas. Herman), and we are reasonably certain that the stones on these three corners were set by Herman to perpetuate the Craig posts and mounds.
The Northwest Corner was recovered (Stone), in 1917 (railroad), 1942 (Corps of Engineers), 1955 (Utah Power & Light Surveyor), and 1980 (Tooele County Surveyor).
The West ¼ Corner (Stone) was recovered by the Utah State Road Commission in 1943, and possibly by the COE the year before, but was wiped out by road construction in 1943.
The Southwest Corner (Stone), was recovered by the Tooele County Surveyor in 1980, and a private firm in 1998.
The rest of the Section is somewhat of a mystery right now, but we are working on analyzing it based on every document and scrap of physical evidence that we can find. Right now we are pretty sure we have the East ¼ and Center ¼ pretty much figured out, but there is still a lot of work to do.
BTW, I have Craig's special instructions around here somewhere, and as I recall they amounted to maybe 3 or 4 pages of “no help” and nothing “special.”
Loyal
Subdivision of Section 12 & 13
> Wasn't 1855 the year of the first Manual. Maybe the office guys had it and the field guys were still working from some previous instructions.
That's what I think. Placing the quarter corner at the halfway point like that is proscribed in the 1851 instructions to the Surveyor General of Oregon.
Subdivision of Section 12 & 13
I think that the IMPORTANT tidbit of information here, is the fact that Craig did the EAST tier (see above) using the normal West tier methodology.
It appears that Craig KNEW what he was doing (right, wrong or indifferent), but the Plat draftsman was NOT following along very well.
Now where did I put those "special" instructions???
Loyal
ASSUMING that all four Section Corners are existent, AND all four ¼ Corners are LOST, how would you subdivide this Section, ASSUMING there is no occupation, physical evidence of boundaries, or known surveys in the Section (or adjoining Sections)?
Loyal, looks to me like the surveyor prepared a 'draft' plat showing total distances for the miles and topo. The office draftsman, working from the draft, prepared the final plat and just assumed it was a normal township without reading the notes and created the lotting shown. Somebody checking the work should have caught it, but did not.
There is probably enough slop in the original work that it won't make a lot of difference how you do it. As for me, I think I would survey it how it was platted given the circumstances you assumed.
Looks like the State took title from the Feds. Did they sell the land and keep the mineral estate? You seem to be working with minerals in a lot of your work. Is this some valuable mineral estate where little differences count up fast?
Jerry
Subdivision of Section 12 & 13
So you have a strange brew on the east also. So if you are going to set the quarters on the west according to the plat instead of the notes are you going to reverse and set the quarters on the east at midpoint. Maybe you could go ahead and lot the east tier so the notes would agree with how the plat should have been. Maybe it doesn't matter on the east tier as big copper probably owns the sections in total. But if my memory serves me there are a BUNCH of mineral surveys in the east portion of this township (monuments galore). Hope you are getting the big bucks! If you can't make a lot of money you at least otta have fun!
HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!
Subdivision of Section 12 & 13
Utah has always been a facinating state when dealing with the PLSS. In July 1857, David Burr, then Surveyor General of Utah (Territory) was run out of Salt Lake City by militant Mormans. John Hays of California was appointed to officially fill the vacant post but apparently never went to Utah (don't blame him). Burr (wanting to punish his son) sent his son to Salt Lake City, who turned over the Utah records to the Terrtorial Governor on April 5 1858. The Utah office remained vacant until September 29, 1859, when Samuel C. Stambaugh took over the post; but he quit in 1861 and for all practical purposes, no rectangular surveys were made in Utah until 1869. Utah gained statehood in 1894. Craig evidently surveyed the sections in 1856 without the new manual in hand and set the 1/4 corners at midway of sections considered "within limits" of being normal 640 ac. for all the sections. I would treat the westerly tier of sections as the MT plat and patents and leave the excess or deficiency in the lots. My dos centavos amigos
Pablo
Well my general take on this overall situation, is that the Field Notes [should] control the Corners that were set (the ¼ and Section Corners), and the Plat controls the Lots.
YES... the patents were issued based on the Plat, but if the ¼ Corners are LOST, then they need to go back where they WHERE (Field Notes). Of course if ALL eight of the corners are extant (existent), then the Field Notes would not factor in, and the PLAT leads the way.
Once you get all of the Corners, then the rest should be pretty easy.
There are no significant mineral resources (that I am aware of) in this Section, but I always pay attention to severed mineral/surface estates when doing ANY KIND of retracement. The actions and/or inaction's of the surface owners, should NOT be construed as being [necessarily] binding on the [senior] mineral estate (owners).
Some (but not all) of the State Patents reserved the mineral rights, and the Railroad conveyed the old ROW to the County some years back, BUT reserved the mineral rights.
There is plenty of SLOP to go around in this Section, and it is for the most part an esoteric discussion about the Field Notes v. Plat in this case.
Loyal
let the evidence be your guide
It is nearly impossible and probably irresponsible to go searching for a rule to apply to the situation at hand,without first having as complete as set of facts and evidence to support your opinion as possible. I do not suggest that anyone is doing that per se. Whatever you opinion is, you know the appropriate evidence standard that is required. In a situation, where the general rules are not applicable and neither are the exceptions to the genenral rules, then I suggest that one's evidence ought to be well north of the suntantial evidence standard.
If both sides of the line was subdivided by the same surveyor and if patents were issued to private parties close in time to the original survey, so that there could have clearly been reliance upon the original monuments, along with the notes and plat,then going across the township line may well be the best evidence of how your section was actually subdivided.
Dane
Agreed in spades!
BTW, I looked at my copies of the 1851 and 1855 Manuals, and I don't see ANY material difference between them when it comes to the West Tier & North Tier methodology (same-o same-o as today).
In fact “Diagram A” is identical in both editions of the Manual (see below), and the verbiage concerning placement of the excess or deficiency in the North and West tiers of Sections (Page 2, 1851, Page 1-2, 1855) is essentially the same as well.
It appears to me that Craig (and Mogo) “reversed” (mirrored) the standard procedure on THOSE Townships which “closed” into the Mountains on the East side, and were therefor partial Townships. In those cases, the East Range Line was either incomplete, or nonexistent.
In the cases that I have looked at so far (several other Craig Townships), this APPEARS to have been his modus operandi in such situations. I wish that I could find Craig's Special Instructions (I came across them on my desk just a month or so ago, but I can't seem to find them again... I must have put them somewhere “safe”).
Also noteworthy, is the fact that in every case (so far), the PLAT does NOT reflect this methodology change in the Field.
No biggie, the Fence Corners trump it all anyway!
Loyal
Assume you found the north and south quarters (or even assume you didn't but prorated them in per the Field Notes).
Would you give the east half of the NW and SW quarters 20 chains width and the leftover to the lots or something else?
You could prorate the 20 chains based on the measured west half of the mile divided by the field note record except that the plat was based on the west half of the mile being 40 chains.
Another solution would be too prorate an imaginary quarter corner per the Plat then prorate the west half per that imaginary quarter corner (but the found or prorated quarter corner per the Field Notes would mark the true centerline).
I'm just babbling now.
Dave
I dunno...still too early to make any rash decisions!
We are looking at about 80.6 chains East-West (verses the Record 80.06/07), so the difference is about 2 feet on the ¼ Corners (Notes v. Plat).
I just got an 1882 Townsite Plat in my hot little fist Friday, that makes reference to the Southeast Corner of Section 18, and I'm trying to get that entered and reconciled into my database today.
We have been working on this Section on and off for several months, and hope to put it to bed in the next 30 days or so. Obviously whatever we do in Section 18, profoundly affects eight additional Sections (or more).
In fact, it was the analysis of the 1955 UP&L map along the North Line of Section 18, that “led” us to the Wood Post Stump Seven miles West of here that I posted about a week or two ago. Analysis of the 1943 State Road (all 8½ miles of it), and the 1917 Railroad (all 15+ miles of it), have “led” us to some other rather interesting “finds” this fall (some near, some far).
Macro v. micro... ya gots to look outside the sandbox if'n ya wants to find all the nuts.
Loyal
Dave
The State Road data led us to this T-Post (rotted/busted off about a foot down) last Wednesday.
It don't look like much, but confirms the situs of a NW/SE fence line recovered in 1943 (within about 5 tenths of my calculations), and is only about 60 feet away from the [now] destroyed West ¼ Corner of Section 18 (Stone).
A couple of weeks ago, the same Road Drawing (and the 1938 aerial photography) led us to a broken off “cedar” Fence Post stub (E/W Fence Line on Centerline of Section 13) about 460 feet West of the same ¼ Corner (within the restricted area of the Army Depot), which also serves to confirm the 1942-1943 data (sorry no picture of that one YET).
Every little bit of evidence HELPS!
Loyal
We had the almost identical situation down here in T15S R15E.
The intent of the GLO surveyor was to lot the EAST sections, not the west.
We were working in Section 19.
The notes called for the 1/4 corners at the midpoints of the east-west lines. We are looking at 15 feet or so. All original monuments are gone, of course. And we found monuments supporting both interpretations of where the 1/4 corners "should" go.
We held the field notes for the 1/4 corner position and the lotting for aliquots within the West half-section.
Subdivision of Section 12 & 13
> > Wasn't 1855 the year of the first Manual. Maybe the office guys had it and the field guys were still working from some previous instructions.
>
> That's what I think. Placing the quarter corner at the halfway point like that is proscribed in the 1851 instructions to the Surveyor General of Oregon.
Mr. Oklahoma,
I can't seem to find any reference to placing the corner at the halfway point in the 1851 Manual. Can you help me out and tell me where to look. (My eyes grow dim and blurry after I look at that stuff)
thanx
Geezer;-)
40.13ch/20ch*10=20.06ch, The plat is drafted as if the 1/4 cor was set correctly. My first instinct is to set the 1/4 cor per the field notes (mid point) but set the lot coner per the plat (prorate 20ch and 20.06ch.
