Subdividing sections in the PLSS

Keithwill · Post by **Keithwill** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 6:24 pm

I am curious as to why surveyors are not responding to my posts on the mathematical procedure of subdividing sections in the PLSS?

Double_Proportion · Post by **Double_Proportion** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 6:35 pm

I have never subdivided a section that was in federal interest; most sections I have broke down have been passed on to private ownership. Are we discussing the manual or are we discussing the manual and latter evidence and its effect. I don't think to much math is involved if we are talking private ownership; aside from the ability to measure the pipes you found, what you do from there, well thats more of a challenge and it might make your wife a tad bit upset while your eating dinner thinking about it while she's explaining her day to you and you didn't hear a word, as you were enticed in the problem at hand. The manual does emphasis on bonefide rights.

Keithwill · Post by **Keithwill** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 6:43 pm

Thanks Double,

Obviously, there are private lands involved when a private surveyor is called in to subdivide the section and determine the clients boundaries.

And of course if the BLM is involved, then there are Public Lands in the section that need the boundaries marked for the management of the Public Lands.

RAM · Post by **RAM** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 9:08 pm

Alot of places all of the ownership has passed into private and there is no Gov't interests left.

cals6406 · Post by **cals6406** » Wed Mar 21, 2012 4:45 am

Keith

Don't forget to look at your private messages (top right hand corner)

You could have asked one of us to post copyrighted material that we are not comfortable adding here.

Keith

Keithwill · Post by **Keithwill** » Wed Mar 21, 2012 7:39 am

Thanks Keith.

RAM....all the more reason to subdivide the section right and not just by the bogus method of the mathematical intersection ONLY!

E_Page · Post by **E_Page** » Thu Mar 22, 2012 3:14 pm

Questions for all: (Keith Williams: Please hold your answers for a while to see how others answer this first. I bet we get a pretty broad set of opinions reflecting a widely varying understanding of the Manual's instructions and of the fed & state laws involved)

1. How will it make a difference in your methodology in a section that has been divided by survey (1/4s or smaller aliquot divisions created on the ground) if all the parcels are private vs if there is a mixture of private and remaining public domain parcels?

2. What difference does it make to you if the surveys precisely followed the methods described in Ch 3 of the 73 Manual or not?

3. What difference does it make to you if it appears the surveyor did follow the Ch 3 methods but measured poorly?

4. Does it make a difference in your consideration of a survey if the map was filed or not?

5. Does it make a difference to you whether the surveyor to first subdivide the section was GLO/BLM, a county surveyor, or a private surveyor?

6. What consideration do you give to the vintage of the survey by which the subdivision of the section was first marked on the ground?

7. Do you consider the original survey of the aliquot divisions to be the first in which they were marked on the ground, the official GLO/BLM plat if it shows protracted aliquot (or Govt Lot) division lines, or the official GLO/BLM plat whether or not it shows protracted divisions?

Keithwill · Post by **Keithwill** » Sun Mar 25, 2012 8:54 am

For whatever reason, surveyors are really skittish about taking this issue on and debating it?

Why is that?

If you think it is a problem, then talk about it; if you don't think it is a problem, then think about it!

Ian Wilson · Post by **Ian Wilson** » Sun Mar 25, 2012 9:23 am

I'm not sure what issues you are raising for debate, Keith. Can you outline your points, please?

Keithwill · Post by **Keithwill** » Sun Mar 25, 2012 9:55 am

Ian,

I have been posting about the issue of double subd. of sec. lines, as theorized by Robillard and Bouman in their books.

They believe and I know a minority of surveyors also believe that the only true and legal subdivision of section lines are those that are mathematically run on the ground according to Chapter 3 of the Manual that has guidelines for original surveys.

Any other evidence of those lines that have been established by the landowners over a long time, are simply "property lines" and are not those really really true and exact lines as run on the ground at the exact intersection of the subd. of sec. lines. Thus there are two sets of subd. of sec. lines on the ground that have been created by the surveyors who believe this bogus theory. The problem is then turned over to the landowner and told to fix it in the judicial system, as "we as surveyors can not fix those problems"!

Sorta the problem in a nutshell.

Keith

Keithwill · Post by **Keithwill** » Sun Mar 25, 2012 3:23 pm

Course one has to then ignore the Oregon case!

Double_Proportion · Post by **Double_Proportion** » Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:53 pm

I'm mearly a field tech in an urban area. These are my best answers to the questions raised. These types of questions are difficult to answer on a forum, all it it takes is one small bit of additional information to askew an answer.

1. How will it make a difference in your methodology in a section that has been divided by survey (1/4s or smaller aliquot divisions created on the ground) if all the parcels are private vs if there is a mixture of private and remaining public domain parcels?

This would require additional the additional corners to be searched and the survey may very likely result in angle points in the section line which are not shown on the on official government plat. There is also the likelihood of additional maps to consider as evidence. For instance, one may have a 1985 tract map in the NE Cor of section 2, surveyor finds the NW Cor, NE Cor Se cor and several points on the south line of the tract but not the SW Cor, the southwest tract corner (center of the section). This scenario opens the door for much to ponder in addition to the protracted center shown on the 1812 GLO plat.

2. What difference does it make to you if the surveys precisely followed the methods described in Ch 3 of the 73 Manual or not?

None. A private surveyor has no authority to void GLO/BLM monuments (or a survey) set (or performed) in accordance to the official subdivision of a section.

3. What difference does it make to you if it appears the surveyor did follow the Ch 3 methods but measured poorly?

Same answer as 2.

4. Does it make a difference in your consideration of a survey if the map was filed or not?

This would depend on the review of the map and the reliance that has been placed on it.

5. Does it make a difference to you whether the surveyor to first subdivide the section was GLO/BLM, a county surveyor, or a private surveyor?

Yes. GLO/BLM surveyors likely did not set the Â¼ corners, they should be set in accordance to the manual. County surveyors and private surveyors may have employed different methods once the land passed to private ownership, review of the plat is necessary in choosing which method to use for retracement.

7. Do you consider the original survey of the aliquot divisions to be the first in which they were marked on the ground, the official GLO/BLM plat if it shows protracted aliquot (or Govt Lot) division lines, or the official GLO/BLM plat whether or not it shows protracted divisions?

Yes. The protracted lines are only the plan of subdivision.

Keithwill · Post by **Keithwill** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 5:56 pm

Ian,

Did my response answer your questions?

It is a fairly simple argument and very surprised that more surveyors have not responded?

dmi · Post by **dmi** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 6:11 pm

Perhaps discussing which came first the chicken or the egg is a discussion most won't spend a minute engaged in, but that's just a wild guess.

Keithwill · Post by **Keithwill** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 8:28 pm

Dane,

Does your post have anything to do with subdividing sections?

dmi · Post by **dmi** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 9:04 pm

"I am curious as to why surveyors are not responding to my posts on the mathematical procedure of subdividing sections in the PLSS?"

I thought that was a question you posted, thus my reply.

I would cast aside the Dykes case, chapter3 and/or any other irrelevant manual section(s) in a New York minute or I would cling to the Dykes case, chapter3 and/or any other relevant manual section(s) depending upon the facts of the section retracement or section break down at hand.

So chicken or egg?

Keithwill · Post by **Keithwill** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 9:08 pm

yep, makes a lot of sense!

dmi · Post by **dmi** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 11:08 pm

I knew you would agree. Once I explained it.

Keithwill · Post by **Keithwill** » Tue Mar 27, 2012 8:08 am

I guess I should have had a (wink) sign after that post!

dmi · Post by **dmi** » Tue Mar 27, 2012 8:35 am

I should have included a wink as well.

Keithwill · Post by **Keithwill** » Tue Mar 27, 2012 9:12 am

Do you want to be serious about double subd. of sec. lines?

dmi · Post by **dmi** » Tue Mar 27, 2012 9:26 am

I am always opening to learning. The BLM recognizes double section lines when there are two different sets of monuments that were set for the purpose of marking the same line. So I conclude that there are times when double lines exist.

I have not made a study of the teachings of Brown or any other text author on the matter of the PLSS except to look to the BLM for guidance and training in the PLSS. I do not think I would argue with Brown on the matter of boundary surveying under state authority.

Keithwill · Post by **Keithwill** » Tue Mar 27, 2012 10:55 am

If in fact BLM is recognizing two lines where there should be only one; that is news to me!

Who in BLM ever said that?

dmi · Post by **dmi** » Tue Mar 27, 2012 11:15 am

Steve Parish has given a talk in the past on finding double sets of monuments and a gap, some place around Reno.

CfeDs continuing education

This course will examine special boundary problems associated with multiple surveys along a common line. Three basic topics will be discussed:

Corners established in a junior survey,
Gaps or hiatus' between surveys, and
Overlapping surveys.

Several precedence setting cases will be examined and specific principles developed for the resolution of title issues, determining the control exercised by corners and preparation of the record.

Some of the cases discussed in the course are Signal Corp and Russell v. Maxwell. Sorry I do not have the case files handy.

Keithwill · Post by **Keithwill** » Tue Mar 27, 2012 12:45 pm

I don't doubt that Steve Parish found double sets of corners as you post, but that is a long way from having a practice of accepting double set of lines for the subd. of sec . lines. One being the exact really really true subd. line and any other evidence, simply property boundaries.

California Surveyors Forums

Subdividing sections in the PLSS

Subdividing sections in the PLSS

Private Messages

maybe

I thought so