Government Lots

[Rail Dawg]

Note:

Just made another donation to mylandmatters.org

Question:

If a government lot shows up in the mylandmatters database but does not show up in the Earthpoint Townships database which one is correct?

A section I'm working on in Earthpoint Townships has aliquot parts shown whereas mylandmatters.org has it shown as Government Lot 1.

I knew this answer a couple months ago but like a dummy I didn't write down the answer like I do almost every time.

Any help appreciated.

(mylandmatters.org is close to their goal. Let's help them reach it. They are invaluable!!)

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Rail Dawg]

The mistake I made is that I thought a lot was a "legal subdivision" so it wasn't about it conforming.

So , if you want part of a lot that is not "conforming" so your naming what you claim by metes and bounds to locate it within those lot boundaries?

That is what I did.

I took the lot under 40 acres and cut it in half so there was a north and south.

I then used the survey marker in the corner of the lot and used that as my monument for metes and bounds.

From that monument I described each corner of the first half of the lot.

For the second lot I simply tied into a corner of the first lot.

As long as the lots are contiguous you can keep tying one to the other.

Every government lot will have survey markers associated with it in the NW and SW corners.

You simply build your metes and bounds from one of them.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[Goldwasher]

"Every government lot will have survey markers associated with it in the NW and SW corners."​

That there is a neat tid bit


I have only found markers from an adjacent subdivision. I have copies of that survey on paper.


So, every lot has stakes/pins in the ground?

 

[Rail Dawg]

"Every government lot will have survey markers associated with it in the NW and SW corners."​

That there is a neat tid bit


I have only found markers from an adjacent subdivision. I have copies of that survey on paper.


So, every lot has stakes/pins in the ground?

Clay of course will correct me if I'm wrong but yes every government lot will have a survey marker in the NW and SW corners.

I assume it is because they are irregular in size and needed to be surveyed.

 

[Goldwasher]

yea the one we claimed is bounded by a patented lode. The patent
runs between two lots

 

[Rail Dawg]

yea the one we claimed is bounded by a patented lode. The patent
runs between two lots

Trust me this has been a huge learning experience and I'm STILL learning every day.

We're lucky here to have guys like you and Clay as mentors to teach.

Without these insights we would be lost in these land matters.

 

[Rail Dawg]

Looking at the documentation for the PLSS doesn't show any protracted survey in that Township. The entire Township has been surveyed including government lots and aliquots. That's why they assumed the strip was a government Lot. I think they may be wrong because I think I saw something in those survey field notes about instructions not to survey particular 80 acre strips. *wink ahh!*

Clay in looking at the MTP for T32N R32E it's interesting to note that the 80-acre strips are still in place on some of the odd-numbered privately-owned sections to the north and south of Section 18.

Not sure who makes the decision to say that what was once "Government Lot 1" is now part of the PLSS aliquot system.

The answer is most likely buried in the field notes you mentioned and I'm reading those fully.

Takes time lol!

 

[Goldwasher]

Trust me this has been a huge learning experience and I'm STILL learning every day.

We're lucky here to have guys like you and Clay as mentors to teach.

Without these insights we would be lost in these land matters.

Believe me I'm always learning

On paper and in practice can be different

Its nice when threads are about real subject matter that others can learn from


I'm getting ready to hit the claim for the day

But, I'm gonna PM you this evening I want to make a trip out and visit sometime before March hopefully.

My store will reopen weekend first weekend of March. I will be busier every weekend until summer kicks in.

 

[Rail Dawg]

Believe me I'm always learning

On paper and in practice can be different

Its nice when threads are about real subject matter that others can learn from


I'm getting ready to hit the claim for the day

But, I'm gonna PM you this evening I want to make a trip out and visit sometime before March hopefully.

My store will reopen weekend first weekend of March. I will be busier every weekend until summer kicks in.

Due to the cold Northern Nevada weather we won't be out to our Rye Patch claims until March 22-26.

It's an open-invite for you but I know you have a business to run.

 

[Clay Diggins]

Clay in looking at the MTP for T32N R32E it's interesting to note that the 80-acre strips are still in place on some of the odd-numbered privately-owned sections to the north and south of Section 18.

Not sure who makes the decision to say that what was once "Government Lot 1" is now part of the PLSS aliquot system.

The answer is most likely buried in the field notes you mentioned and I'm reading those fully.

Takes time lol!

Those 80 acre strips run all the way through the Township. I've seen no evidence that they have been surveyed as aliquots in any of those sections including Section 18. The USGS Cadastral survey has never classed them as aliquots as far as I can tell and the MTP has no such indication. It's still a mystery I'm hoping you will solve with your research.

You can tie your claims together by the corners but it's really not a good idea. What happens when one claim is closed? Yep your claim location descriptions go out the door for all the claims tied to that location. On Rich Hill several dozen claims were all tied to one old claim post that no longer exists. The claim was abandoned in the 1950's but a lot of the claims that were tied to that claim post are now scattered around the countryside with no reference point to tie them to. The original claim post they were tied to has been gone for more nearly 50 years. Might seem like a minor point until you get the notice that your claim location is invalid because it "does not describe a claim sufficiently so it can be found on the ground".

Consider that your claims are valuable and may exist for generations and shortcuts such as block claiming make less sense. It's easy enough to describe a starting claim corner from the known pin anywhere in a Section. Do the work to describe each claim individually and you won't end up with a stranded claim location. Just a suggestion not a law.

Heavy Pans

 

[Clay Diggins]

good to know. The guys at the state office made it sound like you had to claim the whole lot. I'm not the only one they told.

I guess they wanted to make it "easier" for both parties.


My question is when you read what I copied about the exceptions that doesn't quite seem like it says that.

No gulch claim... no non mineral land adjacent.. there is a survey.

so why name exceptions?


It is frustrating that the guy behind the counter just says " oh that's a lot you have to claim the whole thing"

Reading up on it seemed to come up with the same conclusion.


I couldn't find anything that said.

"in order to claim a portion of a gov. lot the locator must make a description based on metes and bounds.

Only the aliquot part or complete lot info I shared.


when we did it, it was ok cause we wanted all of it any way.

I've always been confused about it couldn't get a strait answer or example to compare.

It sounds like you've got that cleared up in your understanding now Goldwasher.

Here are some details to help you explain it to others.

The BLM has it in their regulations but seldom do they understand the terminology used as well as they should. While they are pointing you to the unofficial baby talk eCFR in the actual Code of Federal Regulations the definition is right up front and clear:

Aliquot part means a legal subdivision of a section of a township and range, except fractional lots, by division into halves or quarters.

Metes and bounds means a method of describing a parcel of land that does not conform to the rectangular U.S. Public Land Survey System, using compass bearings and distances from a known point to a specified point on the parcel and then by using a continuous and sequential set of compass bearings and distances beginning at the point of beginning, continuing along and between the corners or boundary markers of the parcel's outer perimeter, until returning to the point of beginning.

Clearly when you subdivide a government lot you are "describing a parcel of land that does not conform to the rectangular U.S. Public Land Survey System". Fractional Lots by definition do not conform to the survey. It's all right there in the beginning definitions.

Heavy Pans

 

[Clay Diggins]

More from the USGS Cadastral Specifications for Descriptions of Land manual.

The sections along the north tier and west range of a regular township are typically irregular sections and contain lots. These lots are a legal subdivision of a section and designated by section and lot numbers such as “sec. 3, lot 1.” Lots cannot be described as aliquot. For example, an irregular section 3 will normally contain four lots adjoining the north boundary of the township. A contiguous unit, such as lots 1 and 2, and S1/2NE1/4 should not be combined as NE1/4. The latter description is ambiguous and subject to more than one interpretation. When a whole section containing lots is to be described, just the section number should be cited.

Lots have been erroneously patented in halves or quarters. Without explicit evidence of the Federal Government’s intent, the location of the division line is uncertain. For example, is the division line to be determined by a straight line between equally divided opposing lines, or at proportionate linear measurement of opposing lines, or with regard to equal areas? If the latter, it is still a question of how the equal areas are to be achieved, i.e., whetherthe division line to be determined is parallel with the opposing boundary or run to form a parallelogram, etc.

Lots and other irregular tracts/parcels do not have aliquot characteristics. When they are subdivided there is a remainder. The uncertainty of the location of the remainder intended by the subdivision renders the description ambiguous and subject to more than one interpretation. When subdividing lots or tracts, an official survey will be conducted or a supplemental plat will be prepared with lot numbers assigned to each subdivision to clearly show the intent.

Heavy Pans

 

[Assembler]

One also may want to read or talk to a surveyor about the following:
"Subdivision of Fractional Sections, Subdivision of Quarter Sections, Subdivision of Fractional Quarter Sections, Subdivision of Fractional Sections Resulting from Fractional Surveys and Fractional Townships".


In the administration of the surveying laws it has been necessary to establish a definite relation between rectangularity (square miles of 640 acres, or aliquot parts thereof) as contemplated by law, and the resulting unit of subdivision consequent upon the practical application of surveying theory to the marking out of the lines on the earth's surface.

 

[Rail Dawg]

OK Clay I've got dozens of "field notes" about staking a claim.

Now I'm going to add:

When staking claims on Government Lots don't tie the metes and bounds into an existing claim. Only tie into the survey marker. This will prevent a claim becoming invalid should the claim it was tied to cease to exist.

 

[Assembler]

OK Clay I've got dozens of "field notes" about staking a claim.

Now I'm going to add:

When staking claims on Government Lots don't tie the metes and bounds into an existing claim. Only tie into the survey marker. This will prevent a claim becoming invalid should the claim it was tied to cease to exist.

The big factor is what is being "Located"?

 

[Rail Dawg]

The big factor is what is being "Located"?

In my case it's only placer claims.

 

[Assembler]

In my case it's only placer claims.

Usually the 'Placer deposit' does not conform to a "Public system of rectangular surveys" once drill hole test grid proves the real size and shape of the "Mineral deposit". Also most creak or stream placer "Mineral deposits" do not configure to a "Public system of rectangular surveys". This is where a "metes-and-bounds or Mineral Survey" can play a roll of say a drill hole test grid of the "Mineral deposit" size and shape.
In this day in age where not very many "Mineral Surveys" are being done due to a lack of "Congress" funding. The "Discovery points" can play a role as a "Mineral Surveyor" is required to map out all "Discovery points" in the "Field Notes". This of course is a general over view and a "Surveyor" could go more into the details.

This one would like to ask the question again what is being "Located" without a "Discovery" or "Discovery points"?

 

[Rail Dawg]

Usually the 'Placer deposit' does not conform to a "Public system of rectangular surveys" once drill hole test grid proves the real size and shape of the "Mineral deposit". Also most creak or stream placer "Mineral deposits" do not configure to a "Public system of rectangular surveys". This is where a "metes-and-bounds or Mineral Survey" can play a roll of say a drill hole test grid of the "Mineral deposit" size and shape.
In this day in age where not very many "Mineral Surveys" are being done due to a lack of "Congress" funding. The "Discovery points" can play a role as a "Mineral Surveyor" is required to map out all "Discovery points" in the "Field Notes". This of course is a general over view and a "Surveyor" could go more into the details.

This one would like to ask the question again what is being "Located" without a "Discovery" or "Discovery points"?

I usually just find some placer gold in the field that justifies a claim.

Then I go down and file the placer claim.

If I tried to follow what you just said my head would pop lol.

And the BLM would pop me upside the head.

 

[Assembler]

I usually just find some placer gold in the field that justifies a claim.

Then I go down and file the placer claim.

If I tried to follow what you just said my head would pop lol.

And the BLM would pop me upside the head.

Good for you as this is what most people will do.
Just talking a little deeper then the 'Surface' as this is the "System of Rectangular Surveys". If one starts to read about a "Mineral Survey" one will see that this type of 'Survey' marks the legal boundaries of mineral deposits or ore bearing formation on the public domain, where the boundaries are to be determined by lines other than the normal subdivision of the public lands. This is a different view of the land.
The configuration of the "Mineral deposit" is the key difference as this will not usually conform to the "System of Rectangular Surveys".

Yes BLM can correct the "Plat" if necessary. Do not think the BLM will "pop me upside the head"......LOL
Thank you for your great post.

 

[Rail Dawg]

Let’s keep the thread to Government Lots and how to file mining claims on them correctly.

No need to go so deep it only confuses an already tough issue.

 

[Assembler]

Let’s keep the thread to Government Lots and how to file mining claims on them correctly.

No need to go so deep it only confuses an already tough issue.

All of this topic can be a tough issue because of the confusion of both "Administration or disposal of the public domain" that is outlined in a number of sections of "Code".
What is being "Located" is a important question and will be corrected by the BLM.