Center-East 1/16th corner, Section X:
- There are two monuments at the Center-East 1/16th corner of Section X. The first was set by the Archer County Surveyor in 1949; the second was set on a BLM Dependent Resurvey in 1970.
- In 1949, Samuel Spade, LSxxxx, Archer County Surveyor, set the first monument which is a 1-1/2" iron pipe in a stone mound.
- In 1970, Caspar Gutman, BLM Cadastral Surveyor, subdivided Section X on a dependent resurvey and set the second monument which is an iron post with 3-1/2" BLM cap stamped for the corner.
- The conflict results from two locations for the South Quarter Section Corner of Section X. Spade used a live oak stump said to be the original monument (since destroyed); BLM used a monument set by a successor County Surveyor by single proportion in 1966.
- The Spade monument was set in good faith from evidence apparently deemed reliable by Spade. It was also used and accepted by the BLM Cadastral Engineer on the 1954 Mineral Survey of the Falcon Lode.
- The Spade monument has been used and relied upon by surveys of the North-South Centerline of the Northeast quarter of Section X by Spade (unrecorded), Dyer (CDF), and Smith (recorded map 1970).
- BLM did not Survey the north-south centerline and there is no material conflict in the latitude of the east-west centerline of section X between the two monuments.
- Accordingly, this survey accepts the 1949 spade monument as controlling the north-south centerline and west boundary of the state forest.
Dave,
From the provided information, your solution sounds reasonable, as long as there is no federal surface interest on the other side of the line from the state forest. BLM surveys have no authority as to the line between two parcels of non federal interest land unless state law gives them that authority.?ÿ?ÿ
If, on the other hand, the adjoining parcel is federal interest land, you have made the wrong decision. An official BLM survey is more than the opinion of the surveyor who preformed it. It is an official federal decision.?ÿ It can only be overturned if you can show gross negligence or fraud. While your opinion sounds like it may be a better opinion than the BLM surveyor, that is not enough.?ÿ
P.S. I think you probably know all this, but many reading this do not.?ÿ
I've met these "fed surveyors".?ÿ
Good guys, as far as personalities go.
But, they don't even have a state license.
Weather you are wrong, or right, NO unlicensed person, from out of state, should out rank a licensed person, from that state. Period.
N
An official BLM survey is more than the opinion of the surveyor who preformed it. It is an official federal decision.?ÿ It can only be overturned if you can show gross negligence or fraud.
I consider willful disregard of locally accepted prior surveys to be negligence or fraud, no matter who does it.?ÿ I am told that the Interior Board of Land Appeals will take up a case like this (assuming the discrepancy is meaningful).
Will you defend a single proportion location over documented evidence of an original corner location because it is a "federal decision"?
I've found the BLM very receptive to revising their monumentation if you present a good case. When you're surveying Federal property on a military base, or Indian Reservation sometimes your State License doesn't mean much. Before rattling your saber I'd contact them and discuss it. The Interior Board of Land Appeals is a good place to go if they don't agree with your synopsis. The BLM seems to be top heavy with alot of back east graduates that don't have alot of common Sense.
The BLM surveys lines.?ÿ The reason for the Survey was a couple of metes and bounds tracts in the southwest quarter.?ÿ They needed the east-west centerline of the Section for that.?ÿ Instructions were to set the 1/16th corner on their way by.?ÿ They also surveyed all of the Section exteriors and accepted all of the local monuments including the south quarter section corner (those waters were muddied by the County Surveyor before BLM arrived, maybe with justification).?ÿ The Cadastral Surveyor did not have the 1949 County Surveyor's Plat (unrecorded) in his file so he probably didn't know about it.
Fortunately the east-west centerline is in the same latitude either way.
Onto the north-south 1/16th line through the northeast quarter:
BLM did not survey this line other than set a monument on the south end.?ÿ On the north end they found a monument precisely on line and precisely at the mid-point (per the Notes) between the northeast section corner and the north quarter section corner BUT they do not call it the east 1/16th corner (probably because it was on private land they decline to opine).?ÿ The NE1/16th corner was set in 1949 too, it was not mentioned in the Notes.
The southwest quarter of the northeast quarter is a remnant of unpatented public domain, not worth much.?ÿ The northwest quarter of the northeast quarter is private.?ÿ The east half of the northeast quarter is State Forest.
So we feel we are not conflicting with them by holding to the original 1/16th line and the chances they will ever survey that line are extremely low.
We have discussed this with the Cadastral Surveyors over there.
It's a very well written corner note, thanks for sharing
It's a very well written corner note, thanks for sharing
2nd that.
N
How far apart are the 16th corner monuments?
22 feet
I've met these "fed surveyors".?ÿ
Good guys, as far as personalities go.
But, they don't even have a state license.
Weather you are wrong, or right, NO unlicensed person, from out of state, should out rank a licensed person, from that state. Period.
N
Although the law doesnt demand it, it's getting rare here to see a BLM surveyor who isnt licensed.?ÿ
While I get the idea for your comment, flip it around. Why would the BLM want a state authority surveyor making decisions about federal lands? Just food for thought...
Aliquot raises good points.?ÿ The 1970 Cadastral Surveyor was instructed to set the center east 1/16 likely because the SW1/4 of the NE1/4 is Public Lands.?ÿ You would have to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the 1970 BLM survey suffers?ÿ from gross error or fraud.?ÿ You would have to show that the Cadastral Surveyor's dependence upon a single proportionate position for the S1/4 instead of the true corner position 44 feet away constitutes gross error.
What, if any evidence remains today for the original position of the S1/4 being 44 ft. from the proportioned corner??ÿ I would imagine that evidence of a live oak stump circa 1949 would be slim today.?ÿ That leaves you with evidence of occupation, roads or if that old mineral survey was tied to the S1/4 as the few likely candidates.?ÿ Is the BLM interested in exploring the possibility of a corrective dependent resurvey of the section??ÿ Or is there some other reason to resolve a possible gore that is 22 x 2640 feet??ÿ What does the private land owner in the NW1/4 of the NE1/4 think about his 11 x 1320 possible gore?
I'd be inclined to hold the BLM monument and move on, but what the heck do I know about simple squares; I just deal in simple rectangles!?ÿ ?????ÿ
This is an almost forgotten remnant of public domain. They aren't too interested in spending funds on Surveying it again. They just said I could disagree with their monument (which under their current practice they would not set) and please give them a copy of the survey. Maybe if we started mining gold that might get their attention but that isn't happening and the timber isn't of much value.
If they ever Survey the 1/16th line they will have an opportunity to change their mind again. ?ÿMeanwhile we will do our fuels management up to the original line. IBLA isn't happening, we have no reason to do that.
The reason for the survey in 1970 was for a couple of small tracts that the Congress authorized them to patent, that started in the 1930s. Pincushioning our southwest corner was kind of a sh-tty thing to do but no one around today had anything to do with that. There is stuff my predecessors did back in that era that I sort of say to myself, really, you did that? too.
The solution I like would be to get Congress to authorize them to patent the remnant to the state. It's sort of an orphan no one really wants.
Dave, not trying to be argumentative here, but why all the hand wringing over 1/3 of an acre.?ÿ You keep saying that the area is marginal so why not settle on the west line being defined by the 1949 east 1/16 and NE 1/16 corners set in 1949 and the 1970 BLM cap.?ÿ I'm assuming that the BLM cap is 22 feet east of the 1949 east center 1/16 corner.?ÿ Doing it that way would preserve the 1949 location of the privately held NW1/4 of the NE1/4.?ÿ The state would end up "losing" a gore of 11 x 1320 ft which is 1/3 acre.
Without evidence that the S1/4 corner is 44 feet west of the single proportion position, the BLM survey should be held.?ÿ The time for the State of California to protest the 1970 BLM survey has long passed.?ÿ Now if the CA BLM office says it's fine to ignore their pin and cap because they don't care about this remnant, fine and dandy.?ÿ Otherwise, you will need a preponderance of the evidence to support the 1949 pipe over the 1970 BLM cap.?ÿ At least that's my opinion from what you've provided.?ÿ That is why I ask about the mineral survey in the SW1/4 and if it was tied to the S1/4 corner.?ÿ If the mineral survey was conducted after 1904, the field notes should include in the "Report" section a description of the PLSS monument.?ÿ You can also look at other mineral surveys in the area that might have a tie to that corner.
"The solution I like would be to get Congress to authorize them to patent the remnant to the state. It's sort of an orphan no one really wants."
As I read the above statement the Gutman corner does not overlap the Spade corner. Since there can only be one corner, accept the Gutman monument with Spade as a reference and accept the 1/3 acre of land that Gutman has ceded to you. I doubt Congress has to get involved. Were it an overlap accepting Gutman would save the State a few bucks for maintenance.
In essence you are setting the record straight, you are not transferring land. I am pretty sure Spade would have accepted the Gutman position had Gutman informed him of where it was to be. BTW, how many medallions on trees would have to be moved?
A map would be nice to clear up our assumptions.
Paul in non PLSS PA
