Sections 25 & 26 were surveyed in 1883 by W.H. Norway. Sections 23 & 24 were not due to precipitous terrain. The range line on the east line of 25 was surveyed the year before.
The line between 25 & 26 was run north to the quarter section corner (found be CDF Surveyor Charles Walker, an excellent surveyor, in 1956) then north to 70.08 chains where a witness corner was set (not found in 1956). Then Norway ran east 40 chains then north 9.92 chains to the temporary 1/4S then east to the section corner on the range line (found by Walker in 1956). He returned, set the true 1/4S (not found in 1956).
Later on Norway worked his way to the NW corner of 26 then east 40 chains, set the 1/4S (found by Walker in 1956) then to 72.00 chains where he set a witness corner (not found by Walker). There is no tie in to the witness corner east 8 chains and south 9.92 chains.
The north corner between 25 & 26 looks like 2 point control. Walker noted the corner itself is ??difficult access? and he did not set it.
We are going up there the week after next to do the recon. The three corners on the south line of 25 are in, I??ve seen them during past work.
An interesting hodge-podge of aliquot parts. I presume that you will be out there to retrace the prior work for Cal Fire, Dave? Or is this a recent burn area?
Good to see you back posting and I look forward to your story of the "unusual situation."
Most of Mountain Home State Forest burned over last year, I don??t know the extent of the burn in Section 25. Will find out in a couple of weeks. The 2 current fires down there aren??t close to it right now.
We have another project to finish next week. Yet another section with more than one subdivision scheme. Same thing, different county last week.?ÿ
Helicopter.?ÿ Get me a helicopter, STAT!
I'm used to seeing the heavy black forest boundary on a quad denote a surveyed line. I'm not used to seeing it denote a state line. Is it surveyed? And is that what Walker's survey did??ÿ
@holy-cow we are finishing this one beginning tomorrow??the traverse is in and approximate line laths set, laths need to be moved to the boundary, the first two lines chop hacks and paint, the second two lines were hacked by Georgia Pacific in the 1970s, so find, verify, paint, flag and add hacks as needed.
?ÿ
@mightymoe Sections 23 & 24 are unsurveyed. Blue is Walker??s 1956 survey of Section 25 and the north 1/4S of 26. Walker was surveying the boundaries of the east 1/2 of the SW1/4 of S25 which was a private in holding that has been acquired into the state forest since then. Red is the boundaries requested to be posted, dashed red is requested but my management is holding off until BLM responds to a request for a cost estimate of surveying it by them.
Green is other state forest boundaries in the area.
BLM would regard Walker as a private surveyor but they could accept his survey. The National Forest has a Record of Survey over several Sections done by a private surveyor which accepted Walker??s corners on the south line of the Section (SC 1/4S SC). None of it is official except the 19th century original surveys.
I??m going to go ahead and work on the CFedS this spring so that maybe some day we can get special instructions from them.
?ÿ
Too much up and too much down for this flatlander.?ÿ Very interesting PLSS issues, though.
?ÿ
Green is G.S. Collins original survey of the range line in 1882. Corners have been found up to the NE of 25. The E1/4 of 24 is a marked stone with 2 BTs so there??s a good chance of finding it.
Red is W.H. Norway??s original survey of the township in 1883. Some of the originals have been found, some reestablished. The only corner without a monument is the NW of 25 which Walker computed but didn??t set due to difficult access.
The W.C.s are not shown as found in 1956 but he doesn??t say he looked either so we will search for them.
For all the flatlanders this is a 40' contour map. Often these maps make the uninitiated flatten the area. Looking west there is a 5200' contour line rising up quickly to almost 8800'. That's a serious mountain.?ÿ
Hey Dave,
Interesting that the GLO allowed a Cash Entry for the S1/2 of the SE1/4 of Sec. 24 since it was never surveyed (according the Historical Index for the township the patent was issued in 1897).
As for special instructions, in the past I queried the now-retired Colorado Cadastral Chief about that. His general response was that a landowner could request that the BLM prepare special assignment and special instructions that a "qualified" private land surveyor would conduct the survey under. The client would pay the BLM for this. As long as the surveyor abided by the instructions, the BLM would place a copy of the survey plat in their files and if later there was a need to revisit the survey, the BLM would not challenge it. This assumes that the BLM also reviewed the work of the surveyor.
I don't know if the Cadastral Chiefs of other states or the current Colorado Cadastral Chief hold similar positions, but I was told that my CFedS training would be a plus as far as being qualified to conduct the survey work.
I have not heard of a private surveyor (CFedS trained or not) doing this, but I haven't inquired about that either. Perhaps someone here has done one and will comment on the process. Otherwise, perhaps a present/past BLM Cadastral Surveyor/Chief who posts here has some guidance/suggestions regarding its possibilities.
Regardless, I think you would enjoy and benefit from the CFedS training, esp. with some of the "unusual PLSS situations" that you encounter working for Cal Fire.
I agree with MightyMoe that the area is steep, but it is well below timberline, so not too intimidating. 🙂
?ÿ
Gene,
I have surveyed BLM lands for a Withdrawal from public domain for the expansion of the Grand Junction Regional Airport. I was summoned to Denver for an interview to determine if I was 'qualified'. I was to meet with Randy Bloom but he was off fighting a fire and others conducted the interview. I performed the survey and recorded it in Mesa County. The BLM then prepared the official map based on and credited to my survey and after about six years the created lots were transferred to the Airport Authority. I do not recall any written instructions, just the admonition to prepare the survey in geodetic coordinates. I also prepared and deposited a plat with information based on the local county projection.
I am not a CFED and at that time I was told that would never be a requirement for surveying for the BLM. I think that has or is changing.
Always found it "interesting" to retrace Norway and Collins.?ÿ BLM Sacramento used to refer to him as "No Way Norway"
or maybe it was "Wrong Way Norway"...not sure
@kscott Thanks for the reply. My chat with Mr. Bloom was very general as I didn't have a project that might benefit from conducting the resurvey under BLM special instructions. For me that scenario would be a mineral survey(s) containing fictitious ties and/or theoretical exclusions in the patent(s) with with a bunch of attorneys and a title company or two involved. 🙂
I was informed that being a CFedS would be a plus, but not a requirement.
@gene-kooper?ÿ "For me that scenario would be a mineral survey(s) containing fictitious ties and/or theoretical exclusions in the patent(s) with with a bunch of attorneys and a title company or two involved."
Gene, Be careful what you wish for...Mineral Survey 2424 is right up your alley ???? :
?ÿ
?ÿ
?ÿ
@geo-u-young That plat has seen better days!
@gene-kooper Sure has. There are a few different versions. This original belonged to patentee....
@ric-moore in 1934 the GLO retraced the north line of T19S, R30E, MDM. It looks like a house roof, runs NW for about half then SW about the other half. They found one GS Collins 1/4 corner on the east side. Others have been found south on the east side down to the Township corner but the terrain is better. Collins surveyed the R31E township boundaries.
A lot of Norway??s interior corners have been found.?ÿ