Subdivision of Section 18
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!!!!!!!!!!!!
