California Surveyors Forums

Was is standard procedure to set (orig) a monument on the north 1/4 cor of sec 2 on township lines or only section/closing corners? What about south 1/4 cor of sec 35 above (different township)? Are they related? I understand need to consult orig. BLM notes, but what is "Normal" procedure.
Thanks
TIB

It is normal to set the north 1/4 cor. of sec. 2 when the corners are common with the corners to the north. Normally, on the sections that closed on the north boundary with closing corners, it was not normal to set the 1/4 cors.

Same with the south boundary of the township, if the corners were common to the township to the south, all corners were set and were common.

Wow we were looking at the same thing today. Section 2. Closing corners were set, south quarter of Section 35 was set, no north quarter of Section 2.

see sec 3-87 of 74 manual (I just fd it). It seems to indicate neither. Time to dig up orig BLM notes

The 1973 Manual, sec. 3-87 has guidelines for subdividing sections!

1973 Manual (like all others except 2009) is obsolete.

All manuals except 2009 are available in pdf format on line in various places.

Should dig up the BLM notes with initial research for the survey, not just when you are scratching your head over why a found monument doesn't seem to match the others on the section line or why you aren't finding anything on previous filed maps for that corner.

What I see most often in the original GLO notes from the mid to late 1800s is that one surveyor would run the Standard Lines, setting the 1/4 Corner monuments along the way. The same surveyor or another would then run other township lines, sometimes from one Standard Parallel, north (or sometimes S) along several townships to the next Standard Parallel, or sometimes zig-zagging up along a Township Line to a Twp Corner, then E or W a Twp or 2 to another Twp Corner, then N again, and so on until eventually closing on the next Standard Line. they would set Section Corners and 1/4 Corners along the way.

The lines around any one township may have been established by one surveyor during one survey, or may have been established over the couse of a few years by several different surveyors.

Yet another surveyor would subdivide the township and run any meanders that may be required, using monuments set by the surveyor of the township lines as beginning and closing points.

I've seen many variations for sequence for which lines were surveyed when, and I don't know how the decisions were made as to those sequences (particularly for the zig-zag pattern of the Twp lines), or to which surveyors would be assigned to which particular surveys. I suspect the pattern had something to do with trying to encompass farm lands within valley bottoms, but that's a guess on my part. Maybe Keith Williams (frmr BLM) or someone else more familiar with the survey history of that period knows.

I can't recall ever seeing a GLO crew setting a 1/4 Corner monument between Closing Corners, but having seen many other deviations from what is standard, I wouldn't be at all surprised if there is one or two such somewhere in the State, set due to uncommon circumstances.

The Chapter 3 in the 1973 Manual has the combinations as to how township lines are to be run and how the subdivision lines are to be run. There are rules when certain previous measurements were "out of limits" and then specific procedures were established.

There are many ways that the PLSS was surveyed and a casual glance at the diagrams in Chapter 3 will show many ways when certain conditions are found on the ground.

And nowhere in the Manuals, will you find the bogus theory of subdividing PLSS sections by using only the protracted section center lines for evidence of those lines. Those dashed lines are not marked on the ground!

(I had to do it)

Keith

I stated above that the dashed protracted lines are not on the ground, yet the bogus theory is to use them as the only evidence of boundary lines within the section.

So, are you not doing a resurvey of the section subdivision lines if there is previous evidence of those lines? The evidence has to be on the ground.

Therefore, how could a retracing/resurveying land surveyor only use those dashed protracted lines as evidence of the boundary lines?

Think about it!

Keith

The best I can tell is a zig-zag pattern as Evan mentioned. The township line was run in 1856 and the section was subdivided in 1881 (sec 2 T18s r3e sbbm).
But the result puts a kink in the township line between the 2 north section corners. Is that OK?
Any advice on the EZest way to get gov't notes? The CS office wasn't much help. Are they available on-line?
TIB

Not really a novice after 34 years but I get your point, Woodcutter. Besides, I was hoping to get some friendly advice (mentoring) from the helpful folks on this forum. That's what it's for, isn't it?
Thanks for the link info. It doesn't appear to be very user friendly. (I do admit to being a cyber/web novice). I was hoping to be able to just enter township info and easily find original GLO notes

You mention a kink in the north line. You aren't treating the closing corners between S1 & S2 and between S2 & S3 as Section corners are you?

Although the term for them is Closing Corner, they aren't really corners of anything, but merely line markers of the east end west lines of section 2. the actual corners are at the intersections of the line between the CC 1-2 & the 1/4 1-2 and the Standard Line as monumented by the corners set along it during the survey of the Standard Parallel.

There should be no odd kinks unless they occurred completely as a result of the survey of the Standard parallel.

Keith, I'm not sure where you're seeing any discussion that protracted lines should be the overriding concern, or discussion about subdividing the section at all. So far, I thought it was just about whether the GLO would have set a 1/4 corner between the closing corners for the closing section.

Did I miss something?

There is no short answer, as there are caveats. Perfect scenario? If I leave something out, its because I am short on time, so forgive me and correct me.

First, I have never seen 1/4 corners set between closing corners (CC) via original survey. (I am sure there are some historical exceptions, but I have never seen it) And I have never found an original CC that fell EXACTLY on its corresponding township/range line; they ALWAYS fall long or short of the township/range line. So the simple answer is actually multifaceted. ;)

Usually, the GLO surveyor would tie his CCs to the closest standard section or 1/4 corner of the opposing township. They were set prior to his survey and are senior. If the original CCs are recovered, you also need to recover the opposing standard section & 1/4 corners. The opposing standard section and 1/4 corners are the senior line, and the projection of the closing section lines from the nearest controlling corner (usually 1/4 corners) thru the CCs to the point of intersection (POI) with the township/range line are the true CCs positions. Using these POIs, you then single proportion. However, its rarely that simple (but one can always hope).

Issues like:

Found standard section & 1/4 corners along the township/range line are actually bearing break points along the township/range lines.

Missing CC's (or not set ... I am beginning a Forest Service resurvey where the GLO stopped short of the closing Township line in a 2 mile section due to terrain)

Missing standard section and/or 1/4 corners on township/range line

The 2009 Manual is the guideline. I have never been so proud as to not ask a BLM cadastral surveyor for their input in difficult surveys, to ensure I am on the right path.

Not really a novice after 34 years but I get your point, Woodcutter. Besides, I was hoping to get some friendly advice (mentoring) from the helpful folks on this forum. That's what it's for, isn't it?
Thanks for the link info. It doesn't appear to be very user friendly. (I do admit to being a cyber/web novice). I was hoping to be able to just enter township info and easily find original GLO notes

a 1981 ROS (SD County #8839) there are monuments on both north corners of sec 2 and the the N1/4 cor also that are perpetuations of of orig GLO section and 1/4 corners. There is no mention of closing corners or s 1/4 of sec 35.
This seem odd (to me) as I would have expected a CC instead of sec corners for sec 2. I would also expect the s1/4 cor of sec 35 more likely to have been set along the township line since they generally subdivided from the south to north. Does that sound correct?
I'm still working on getting the original notes.
Thanks to all for your input/mentoring//help.
TIB

the orig notes. It appears that Mr. Woodcutter is exactly correct. Even an "old school dog" like me can learn goodies from this forum.
Thanks for the help, er, mentoring WC!
TIB

Interesting stuff. Mention of the standard parallel.

Woodcutter wrote:

Dhanrion wrote:........ The opposing standard section and 1/4 corners are the senior line, and the projection of the closing section lines from the nearest controlling corner (usually 1/4 corners) thru the CCs to the point of intersection (POI) with the township/range line are the true CCs positions....QUOTE]


The 2009 Manual has taken a more broad look at this issue, and in fact no longer states that CC's off of the senior line need to become amending corners. The manual now allows the CC to be accepted as a monument of the township line, even if it creates an angle point. The consideration being as to whether today's retracing surveyor believes the original surveyor setting the CC did so as part of a diligent retracement of the senior line. This is somewhat subjective, but can often be substantiated by a careful analysis of the evidence and record.

Thank you for bringing that up. I was rereading Chapters 7-20 thru 7-31, as well as Chapter 9-27, para. 7. I had this very instance arise in 2011. I have also received a recent BLM Dependent Resurvey of the exteriors of a Twnshp, where BLM found (and rebuilt) numerous CCs that fell N or S of the Twnshp line. They did not break the Twnshp using these CCs, but rather called the departure of the found CCs from the respective lines between found std & qtr corners.

I think it was wise for the 2009 Manual to allow for the use of junior corners to restablish senior corners, but we need to ensure that those junior corners were in fact "established in the course of an obvious careful resurvey or restracement, ...". There are instances where those junior corners may be the only best available evidence of the senior survey. I also had a case where the junior surveyor set a CC by only running to the nearset std or qtr corner of the adjacent (senior) twnshp. Because there was nothing reported (in either the notes or the official plat) for a distance to the opposing std or qtr corner, (per consulting with BLM) it was necessary to proportion the missing CC using the reported brg/dist to the tied std or qtr corner.

Good stuff

Good post and a quote: "I think it was wise for the 2009 Manual to allow for the use of junior corners to restablish senior corners, but we need to ensure that those junior corners were in fact "established in the course of an obvious careful resurvey or restracement, ...".

Key words at the end of the quote!!

Some will never accept a junior corner to reestablish a senior corner, but it is BLM policy to do so.

Sorta like my 1/16 sec. cor. remarks.

(Thinking of a particular Texas surveyor)

Keith

I probably made thing more confusing with my incorrect usage of the term "closing corner". Per GLO: The south township line (not on Standard Parallel) was run in 1856 and the south 1/4 and both south section corners of Sec 35 were set at that time. A different surveyor subdivided the township to the south in 1881. The east and west lines of section 2 were run north to township line and temporary points were set. (I incorrectly called these out as closing corners). The 1881 surveyor finds the original corners set in 1856 for Sec 35 reasonably close to his temporary points and enters distances in notes.
He then corrected east and west lines of Sec 2 to match south corners of Sec 35. then placed E & W 1/4 cors on corrected line. No mention of N 1/4 cor.
In this case, the south corners of Sec 35 are common to the north corners of Sec 2 No original double corners