You just got to love an 1880 GLO survey

Was this by any chance a completion survey? It looks like the surveyor was protecting some land that had been protracted in a previous survey and patented based on the protraction.

Those situations are always interesting to reconstruct.
Jerry

Jerry, did you ever see any section lines that were this far off cardinal?;-)

No, just a typical township out here. It took a while to find because I was looking 2640 from the northwest corner. Stumbled on it headed back towards the NW corner to get on a hill and look for old fences, drove the 4-wheeler right into it.

The bearings are UTM and it's actually close to DUE WEST from the NE corner. Maybe it was "stubbed out" from that stone. Who knows.

Keith, in parts of Arizona and Nevada those kinds of measurements would not be unusual. But as he states later, the bearings are actually closer to cardinal.

Jerry

My mistake. I thought you were giving original plat bearings and distances. Most likely was stubbed out as you suggest.

Jerry

180' in a half section seems a bit excessive, but it's not terribly surprising to find such a discrepancy between GLO plats & notes and what's actually in the field.

It amazes me that modern surveyors will look right past those discrepancies, but the reject monuments set by a surveyor 50 years ago to mark aliquot divisions because the recent surveyor's calco positions are a few tenths (or sometimes a few hundredths) different than where the 50 year old mons are.

The politicians in congress were smart enough, over 200 years ago, to realize that no two surveyors are likely to exactly duplicate the measurements of the other and so statutorily protected the as-set positions from future correction by well meaning but uninformed surveyors to the as-called positions per the dimensions shown on plats, in notes, and in descriptions associated with those corners.

I know a lot are stuck in their ways, and law be damned, will argue that any private surveyor's monument is open to collateral attack. But hopefully some will actually think about it and research it against primary legal reference (actual cases) when I say that:

1) some of those private monuments at aliquot subdivisional corners are considered to be original monuments (the GLO did typically not set mons or run lines along section subdivisional lines), and

2) a later surveyor must consider the equipment and methods in use when the previous survey was performed, the conditions existent at that location at that time, and the typical accuracies of surveys run under similar circumstances in the same area around the same time when evaluating whether to hold any previously set monument.

Monuments are set primarily for the landowners to use to identify the limits of their land. They are only secondarily for use by following surveyors. Maps and notes are primarily for following surveyors to help them find the corners previously marked by monuments.

Landowners have a right to be able to rely on the monuments set by a licensed surveyor. If those monuments were set per the standard prevalent at the time they were set, they mark the corners. We have no right to move them based upon a standard that did not exist and perhaps could not be met when the previous monuments were placed.

Sorry Moe, if that's a hijack, but the set up was too demonstrative to pass up.

Humm... now you're going down the Section breakdown road. That's another whole big discussion. I will say this; the new BLM plats out in this area show every 1/41/4 of each section with new lots and acreages if they have any interest in the 40. Each one I've seen is based on a perfect breakdown from 1/4 to 1/4 and midpoints.

Here's a new example that just came out-maybe this week-it's dated June 22:

If I do a survey in one of those sections do I use this plat to breakdown the section or do I hold old corners?

This is private land with Fed coal rights.

I like to look at what 90°-2640 does, from ONE of the section corners. AH! There it is!

Nate

Acreage is at the bottom of the list of ranking evidence.

I've got some just like that.

Start at the south line of a township, head north turn 90 to the east at each section corner, go 2640 set 1/4, continue to the north township line, set section corner on that township line, turn 90 to the east, continue through the next township until you get to the state line. At the state line move over a mile and head south turning 90's through two townships. Anyway, I've got a couple of townships stacked on one another and that's what I think they did. The stones are there-they just don't fit any of the notes or plats

it would be interesting to see a copy of the 1880 map

Here it is-they tend to look alike:

True, but they have accepted payments (HUGE PAYMENTS) for the coal leeses based on those acreages. If I go into an area like this-I'm not changing those Lot areas with a survey.

In fact, I've run into this issue already and did not try to dispute the BLM resurvey Lots even though there is evidence of long held acceptance of a 1/16 line that predated the BLM resurvey in conflict with the lotting.

I went over it with my clients and the title people involved with the sale and they all aggreed to punt and just buy their parcel to the existing landowner line because there is a large overlapp.

My point being that the BLM did not even look at interior section line history when they created the Lots.

They really didn't have to, as the Feds are a bonafide claimant to ownership of minerals based on the original surveys as executed and are not bound by where the erroneous lines were placed for private ownership where the individual(s) thought they were.

That's not what the manual says.

And it's not just minerals it's also surface. If the first monument inside the interior of a section to mark a 1/16 creates the 1/16 corner, then it's the 1/16 corner for the federal estate as well. The feds need to honor it.

The leases are based on where the original GLO survey says they are, not where some erroneous line was established. Minerals are not just below the ground and can also be found on the surface. If you will recall, several years ago, gravel and scoria was considered a mineral and was no longer just free for the taking and using.

Mighty Moe,

You just may have opened a big can of worms!

I am not sure what the present BLM policy on the acreage determination is on private land where the Feds own the subsurface, but....I do know there is IBLA decisions on mineral lands and subsurface rights.

I cannot tell you at this point, what the Dept. of Interior's decision is on the difference in boundaries between surface and subsurface rights.

Which State are you in?
Keith

Erroneous lines?

Locally established lines?

Exact intersection of center lines?

Keith

That's one of the quirks about the split estate regarding minerals and designated surface ownership, whether the minerals are federally held or retained or former private surface ownership and retained. The lines sometimes are not the same for the mineral rights and private surface. The results of the bastardization of the original PLSS system layout.