Closure of Meander Line for Lake

What does the manual say to do?

?ÿ

I don't think using any kind of adjustment is appropriate with that large of a bust. First thing I do is inverse through each of the legs and double check nothing got fat fingered. Second is to look at the bearing of the misclosure and compare to all the record meander bearings to look for one that comes close to matching. If I find one that matches fairly close, I drill in on the distance called for and see if I can make sense of the discrepancy, a transposed number or something. The next thing to keep in mind is that the meanders are typically not controlling on anything and are just an approximation and the true boundary is the existing MHW line. I've paired up meanders in the past with aerial tiles and found they were just blatantly wrong, sometimes by hundreds of feet. At the end of the day the meanders are just used for calculating areas and don't control over the actual physical shoreline. Sort of one of those 'it is, what it is' things.?ÿ

Good luck!

@dougie?ÿ

The 2009 Manual of Surveying Instructions states the following:

Angle Points of Meander Lines
7-53. (The previous edition of the Manual referred to this method as the Angle Points of Nonriparian Meander Lines.) In some cases it is necessary to restore (or possibly to locate for the first time) the angle points, within a section, of the record meander courses for a stream, lake, or tidewater, required under the special rules applicable to meander lines. This is commonly called the compass rule adjustment.

What I'm getting at is that technically the shape closes if using significant figures, but there's a lot of wiggle room.

@williwaw?ÿ

I agree with trying to find a error in the description rather than closure. That being said, I am under the impression that the Meander Line doesn't control the boundary either, rather the OHWM, but I'm trying to establish it in case lawyers get involved and want to argue it based on the deed.

@williwaw?ÿ

I agree with trying to find a error in the description rather than closure. That being said, I am under the impression that the Meander Line doesn't control the boundary either, rather the OHWM, but I'm trying to establish it in case lawyers get involved and want to argue it based on the deed.

I figure you got it, do it like the book says and you can at least slap it down in front of a lawyer and have an official source to defend the procedure. Like any of the adjustment techniques from prorating to broken boundary we all know the result will be different than the original.

?ÿ

@williwaw?ÿ

I agree with trying to find a error in the description rather than closure. That being said, I am under the impression that the Meander Line doesn't control the boundary either, rather the OHWM, but I'm trying to establish it in case lawyers get involved and want to argue it based on the deed.

In the case of the OHWM, unless it's been unnaturally altered, it's a natural monument and without error, making the meanders not closing academic. Don't know about there but here it's also a State boundary and in most cases they hold title to submerged lands under the Equal Footing Doctrine.?ÿ

?ÿ

I don't think using any kind of adjustment is appropriate with that large of a bust. First thing I do is inverse through each of the legs and double check nothing got fat fingered. Second is to look at the bearing of the misclosure and compare to all the record meander bearings to look for one that comes close to matching. If I find one that matches fairly close, I drill in on the distance called for and see if I can make sense of the discrepancy, a transposed number or something. The next thing to keep in mind is that the meanders are typically not controlling on anything and are just an approximation and the true boundary is the existing MHW line. I've paired up meanders in the past with aerial tiles and found they were just blatantly wrong, sometimes by hundreds of feet. At the end of the day the meanders are just used for calculating areas and don't control over the actual physical shoreline. Sort of one of those 'it is, what it is' things.?ÿ

Good luck!

If I am interpreting the OP correctly there was no bust:?ÿ

"I can technically get the shape to close when considering significant figures." Sounds like it closes perfectly.?ÿ

?ÿ

I followed a 1949 survey which partitioned a ranch between mother & daughter. It meandered along a creek but not exactly following the creek, it followed fence some of the way but deviated here and there according to the wishes of the clients. It tied a section corner still there and some old pipes on the north end still there. The intermediate angle points were 2x2 redwood hubs. Looked but couldnƒ??t find any, wet pasture in the middle of a drought (not irrigated). So I used a Compass Adjustment which was pretty satisfactory, it put one of the angle points inside of a 4 foot diameter cottonwood shown on the R/S although not specifically called for in the description.

So I believe a compass adjustment is the best solution for missing angle points.

I don't think using any kind of adjustment is appropriate with that large of a bust. First thing I do is inverse through each of the legs and double check nothing got fat fingered. Second is to look at the bearing of the misclosure and compare to all the record meander bearings to look for one that comes close to matching. If I find one that matches fairly close, I drill in on the distance called for and see if I can make sense of the discrepancy, a transposed number or something. The next thing to keep in mind is that the meanders are typically not controlling on anything and are just an approximation and the true boundary is the existing MHW line. I've paired up meanders in the past with aerial tiles and found they were just blatantly wrong, sometimes by hundreds of feet. At the end of the day the meanders are just used for calculating areas and don't control over the actual physical shoreline. Sort of one of those 'it is, what it is' things.?ÿ

Good luck!

If I am interpreting the OP correctly there was no bust:?ÿ

"I can technically get the shape to close when considering significant figures." Sounds like it closes perfectly.?ÿ

?ÿ

?ÿ

This is where I wanted to see peoples opinions on. If it technically closes per significant figures, then what is there to ƒ??adjustƒ?? Iƒ??m still going to use compass rule as others have pointed out due to the reasons previously stated.

?ÿ

@tim-libs It's the use of the word "mis-closure" that is throwing me off. I agree that the first choice should be composs rule. Has the lake really not changed since the GLO survey?

I will start by saying that I know very little about PLSS rules and procedures but aren't the words on paper a guide to get you close to finding the lines on the ground??ÿ In the "fence line" states, an 18' bust isn't uncommon daily but I would never consider pencil whipping a closure on that.?ÿ Maybe laying it over an aerial and seeing if there were an easily detectable blunder in one or more of the calls, i.e. writing NW when meaning NE.?ÿ That seems pretty defensible.

@aliquot Instead of giving an example, I'll just post the bearing and distances stated in my scenario.

The Meander Corners for the Lake were staked as follows:

Beginning at common corner to Sections 1, 6, 7, and 12;

S89-54'E 2.60 Chains (171.6') to the Meander Corner on the NW side of Lake;

S89-54'E 13.87 Chains (915.42') to the Meander Corner on the NE side of Lake.

The Meander Line around the Lake was described as follows:

Beginning at Meander Corner of Lake between Sections 6/7 on the NE side of Lake;

N65W 7.00 Chains (462');

West 7.50 Chains (495');

South 2.96 (195.36') Chains to Meander Corner of Lake between Sections 6/7 on the NW side of Lake ;

South 10.00 Chains (660');

S29E 27.00 Chains (1782');

S52-1/4E 5.70 Chains (376.2');

N35E 15.00 Chains (990');

N51E 9.00 Chains (594');

North 6.30 Chains (415.8');

N56W 23.00 Chains (1518') to POB.

?ÿ

Typing this into CAD produces a mis-closure to POB by 18.67'. But adjusting some of the bearings while still staying within the significant figure of the whole Bearing (such as from S29E to S28-35'E) can create a closure.

?ÿ

I will start by saying that I know very little about PLSS rules and procedures but aren't the words on paper a guide to get you close to finding the lines on the ground??ÿ In the "fence line" states, an 18' bust isn't uncommon daily but I would never consider pencil whipping a closure on that.?ÿ Maybe laying it over an aerial and seeing if there were an easily detectable blunder in one or more of the calls, i.e. writing NW when meaning NE.?ÿ That seems pretty defensible.

I don't believe in this case any of the Meander Line was set on the ground, yet alone occupied, rather to gather acreage. Unfortunately deeds around this Lake make mention to the extents of the Meander Line, which my Client is adamant is the extents of his property. I'm not a Land Use Attorney, therefore I will produce the lines on the map and let the Attorneys argue it.

?ÿ

@tim-libs

If you can place a closed figure over whatever is already being occupied then maybe you can keep some panties from getting into a bunch.

Can you also create these meander lines in the way you describe and meet the significant figures test for the acreage also? If that produces closure, I don't think anyone can argue with you.

@tim-libs I understand you clearly and agree with your choice of method to mathematical close the figure using higher precision reporting. It's the people who keep bringing up the "blunder" who I think are confused.?ÿ

There is no blunder. The original survey closes. This is just an exercise in how to translate the original survey into a new survey/description that uses more precision.?ÿ

I don't have all the details, but just showing the adjusted record meanders, unless they match where you actually think the boundary is would make me uncomfortable.

?ÿ

I will start by saying that I know very little about PLSS rules and procedures but aren't the words on paper a guide to get you close to finding the lines on the ground??ÿ In the "fence line" states, an 18' bust isn't uncommon daily but I would never consider pencil whipping a closure on that.?ÿ Maybe laying it over an aerial and seeing if there were an easily detectable blunder in one or more of the calls, i.e. writing NW when meaning NE.?ÿ That seems pretty defensible.

There is no blunder. This is just an exercise in translating precision.?ÿ

?ÿ

A few thoughts.. Depending on size and latitude, true mean bearings may contribute to the 'misclosure'. Placing the meander properly can be important if the shoreline has changed. This, of course, depends on governing water boundary law in your jurisdiction. Many situations call forcan angle point at the original meander...