California Surveyors Forums

I think you guys (KW & DI) are talking about 2 different things.

Dane, I think that you are referring to 2 sets of corners along a particular section line (actually two lines - i.e. where mons may define the E line of Sec 9 as being different from the W line of Sec 10). I recall Ron Scherler showing an example where there were two 1/4 corners that created a narrow diamond shaped gap between adjacent sections as one of the 1/4 corners was recognized for the section to the West and the other for the section to the East.

What Keith is talking about is the aliquot lines within a divided section. GLO (or BLM) surveyed the section as a complete section, having set the exterior section corners and 1/4 corners. At some later point, another surveyor (or surveyors at different points in time) divide the section into various aliquot parts.

Viewing one of these understandings in the context of the other can make for a nasty mess if there were ever facts of such a case, and considerable confusion in discussion whether such a fact set exists or not. I have a hard time imagining that the BLM would recognize two different sets of aliquot divisions as both being valid within a section.



DoubleProportion,

I think you misunderstood some of my questions, but thanks for being the only one to have enough confidence to provide answers.

Questions 2 & 3 weren't intended to imply that a more recent survey had set monuments to override or void any monuments set or lines marked during the original GLO (or BLM) survey. Instead, view them in the context of the more recent survey using the original GLO monuments to set more minor corners not monumented in the original GLO survey along the section lines or interior to the section (Center of Section, 1/16 corners, 1/64 corners, etc.). Or perhaps the more recent surveyor may have found one of the original corners to be lost and had reset it.


Your answer to #5 suggests that you may have had the bulk of your experience in parts of the midwest where in many of the earliest PLSS surveys, 1/4 corners were not typically set. Of the plats and notes I have reviewed in western states, 1/4 corners were almost always set.

#7 was actually a 3 option multiple choice, but your answer seems to indicate that you would go with the 1st option, that the corner positions are fixed when they are placed on the ground.



Are there any other takers?

Evan, I made a simple statement of fact. I did not suggest any application.

But since the BLM admits confusion exists from time to time in their own original surveys, it may not such a far fetched notion to consider that there may exist confusion in PRIVATE surveys that proport to retrace,and/or further subdivide lands that were once surveyed under federal authority.

You're right, you did not specify a particular application, that's why I filled it in with the only examples I have ever been aware of. I think the example shown by Ron Scherler was where a partial Twp had been surveyed and there was a later completion survey performed with the section line in question being at the end of the partial Twp survey and at the beginning of the completion survey. If my foggy memory isn't failing me, the completion surveyors found the section corners but did not find the 1/4 between them, and so reset it. It was later found and held to control for the section in the original partial Twp Survey and for the division of that section, while the 1/4 set during the completion survey was held valid for the section within the Completion survey. As I recall, the two 1/4 Corner monuments were about 150' apart.

Certainly there is confusion among private surveys w.r.t. subdivided sections in many locations. There is even confusion between BLM surveys and private surveys in many locations.

But I doubt that there are any sections for which the BLM recognizes any section subdivision other than the one they performed or those private points and lines they incorporated into their own as being validly representing the aliquot lines. For any particular aliquot division line, I doubt that the BLM, in any case, would recognize more than one line as being the true line.

In any case I made the point that I wanted to make and facts in each case ought to dictate the outcome.

True of all surveys. Care to answer the questions I posed in Post #7? They shouldn't require more specific facts to be able to answer in a general sense, but you're always free to qualify your answers as you like.

In the case where there are two or more sets of existing monuments for the 1/16th corners then we must attempt to figure out which set the evidence suggests is in actual use.

In the case where there is only one set of 1/16th corners then the problem is somewhat simpler (but by no means a slam dunk). I have been to a lot of places where re-subdividing the Section would create havoc for the local property owners. Advocating for little strips of land between the "true" lines and the established lines is just insanity and defies common sense.

I can think of one little town in Northern California where using Lentell's 1922 1/16th corners fits with the occupation and the Deeds tied to them but rebreaking down the Section would cause unnecessary trouble. There is no expectation of perfection.

Besides the common private surveyor procedure of running straight lines is not technically correct if you are going to do the math (it is justified in some circumstances). You should be correcting to the latitudinal arc on east-west lines.

Dave posted: "In the case where there is only one set of 1/16th corners then the problem is somewhat simpler (but by no means a slam dunk). I have been to a lot of places where re-subdividing the Section would create havoc for the local property owners. Advocating for little strips of land between the "true" lines and the established lines is just insanity and defies common sense."

This bogus theory of "true subd. of sec. lines" and "property lines" is on parade and being discussed with a "judgement" soon. I cannot believe what I have heard and read about this concept. It simply does not rise to the level of land surveying 101. It is at the top of measuring 101!

For land surveyors to actually believe that they can subdivide a section in the PLSS by simply running straight lines between 1/4 sec. cors. and set the absolute really really true C 1/4 at their intersection, while ignoring all other evidence of land ownership within the sec.; is ludicrous!

And that bogus theory apparently is adhered to by many!

Yes, Dave and the other fact is that the east-west center line of a section is a curved line, as explained in the 2009 BLM Manual.

Looks like nobody wants to talk about subdividing PLSS sections?

Keith: It has been beat to death, unless you have a specific topic... more vague discussion would be simply bloviating.
tener un buen Viernes Santo

right Peter, "tener un buen Viernes Santo".

Does not seem to me like it has been beat to death.

I was really looking for substance in supporting the Robillard/Bouman theory on double lines in the PLSS sections as a result of their theory that the subd. of sec. lines can only....only be at the exact intersection of the center lines and all other evidence is ignored.

I have not seen that....sorry!

I am thinking that you know what we are talking about?

It really looks like to me, that surveyors just don't want to talk about it?

Why is that?

"It really looks like to me, that surveyors just don't want to talk about it?

Why is that?"

Maybe because you do?

I do Ric and why don't you?

so I guess I will have to print this post and figure out what is being discussed?

I guess you could do that, but the issue is surveying 101!

How about this quote from the Bureau of Land Management pamphlet, "RESTORATION OF LOST OR OBLITERATED CORNERS & SUBDIVISION OF SECTIONS a guide for surveyors"

Page 27 and 28:

"What has been written on the subject of subdivision of sections relates to the procedures contemplated by law, and refers to the methods to be followed in the initial subdivision of the areas, prior to development and improvement. It must be borne in mind that care should be exercised to avoid disturbing satisfactory conditions as to roads, fences or other improvements marking subdivision-of-section lines and which may define the extent of property rights."


Read it carefully and understand every word.

Our office just completed a couple of large surveys (one via contract, the other in-house) where interior aliquot monuments (16ths, etc) were found to be erroneuously set, but the BLM plats showed (of course) correctly. These are surveys in remote areas abutting NFS lands. In the more severe instance, there were 15 corners in one section that were discovered out of position (avg. +50') and bear different directions. after review and concurrence with BLM staff, FS monuments were placed at the 'correct' locations. Eight of the corners were common to NFS and to private lands.

The other instance has two BLM interior corners out of position over 100' in an elongated section. BLM has reviewed and accepted the FS resolution/monuments locations. However, they are visiting the site this summer to investigate a few outlier annomolies in an adjacent area. In this case, NFS lands abutt either BIA or BLM lands.

It should be noted that these are unique cases and in low rural or remote areas, and may not 'qualify' within the current context of this thread. As a private surveyor, I have also dealt with cases of representing private land owners whose property was held in postion "on the ground" via BLM honoring bona fide rights, irregardless of where the lines "should have been". One was an extremely curious/interesting case, but no room here to discuss it.

David Hanrion
USFS

I am curious? What State are you in, David?

Keithwill wrote:I am curious? What State are you in, David?

I am in a state of euphoric bliss! :)

Okay, seriously ... I am a Forest Service Regional Lands employee currently detached to Sparks, NV.

And the BLM surveys are in Nevada that are in error?

How does the FS do the surveys of Public Land in-house?

Keithwill wrote:And the BLM surveys are in Nevada that are in error?

How does the FS do the surveys of Public Land in-house?

One in CA, one in NV.

FS staff perform boundary surveys under State license authority. Many of our staff (myself as well) are also CFedS, which equates to excellent training. On rare occasion, we perform Federal Authority surveys via Special Instructions from BLM. Only BKLM (Fed authority) can survey previously un-surveyed lands, or subdivide Public Domain lands.

Thank you for your answers and I take it that your private license is for the survey/resurvey of private land?

Is it possible to show the BLM survey plats here that have significant error?

I would really like to see that "error".

Keithwill wrote:Thank you for your answers and I take it that your private license is for the survey/resurvey of private land?

Nope. We survey and post (signage, brush line, blaze trees) along FS boundaries. In most cases the boundaries abut private lands, so obviously the private abut-er benefits, however, that is not the purpose for using our State licenses. We are not federal surveyors; no authority, so no exemption from State ROS requirements. But we follow PLSS rules per the Manual(s).

We also survey administrative boundaries, such as Wilderness areas, recreation boundaries, etc..

We have the best of both worlds, IMHO: we often recover and re-monument original GLO corners in remote areas, following the foot steps of original surveyors, and often in areas where no one has since trod. We also refurbish GLO/BLM brass cap corners to federal specs. We provide a public record through high quality ROS's.

Pretty much a 'dream job' for me. After 25+ years in the private sector (3 recessions & 18 months unemployed during the start of this one), I tired of the development aspect of surveying.