The Bottom Line
Sometimes, that is the only choice you have for the corner location.
Loyal
Anymore I take a quick look at the Fed's interest before surveying. It often doesn't mean all that much, but it's information. I've been working in one Township where there are just 2 checherboard 40's in the southwesterly corner that have minerals and that's all. Really unusual in this area.
Mighty
Does Federal Interest mean there is still public domain never patented out in the Township?
If so, we have many Townships mainly west of the Sierra Nevada that have been 100% patented out. I think there are remnants of public domain left in the coast ranges, though.
The Bottom Line
I guess when there is no evidence left you prepare a sacrifice to the survey gods?
Mighty
Federal interest includes mineral rights when the surface has been patented.
> So, in attempting to retrace the original surveyor's work and restore lost corners, wouldn't we get closer to the original monument location by using the same "cardinal directions" that the original surveyor held (error and all)?
First, recognize there are only two instances where you would use double proportionate measure to restore a 'lost' corner: Lost corner common to 4 townships, or lost corner common to 4 interior sections.
Second, know that a corner re-established by double proportionate measure is done so on the basis of measurement only, disregarding the record directions. As with any proportioning, its a last resort, likely to have little correlation to where the original monument may have been placed.
Mighty
I didn't think of that.
Probably most of the early patents included the mineral rights such as in the central valley.
Dave
That pretty much makes my point...
The Township that I'm playing around in right now has only 33 Sections (the Great Salt Lake “invades” the Northeast ¼ of it), and ten (10) of the Sections contain Federal Minerals amounting to about 2,200 acres, even though there are ZERO Federal Surface Lands in the Township. As Townships go in this area, that is about as “free from Imperial entanglements” as they get! Of course you don't even have to be working in one of the “involved sections” to be “entangled” with the Federal Interest Lands.
It takes about 30 seconds to look at a Master Title Plat, but some of the "land" surveyors that I run into don't even know what one is.
I always start at the BLM with the MTP and historical Index BEFORE even going to the County records (guess which PATENT trumps if there is a descrepancy?). Of course the ORIGINAL Patent Document presnted to the patentee does, but that AIN'T (usually) in the Court House, unless it is a VERY recent patent.
Loyal
Mighty
> I didn't think of that.
That's one of the things I like about you, Carolee. I can think of dang few on this board that would make that statement.:-)
Don
Loyal
It sounds like the MT and OG plats aren't available on-line like they are in Wyo.
You're right Don...
Dave is a stand up guy (no pun intended), and isn't afraid to speak his mind!
It's been my experience that very few Land Surveyors pay ANY attention to Mineral Rights, and that is a consideration that often plays into a boundary determination in this part of the world (Federal or otherwise). Ignoring one of the entitlement OWNERS (and a senior estate to boot), is a recipe for disaster. In many cases, the owner of the Mineral Estate was NOT a party to whatever the surface estate owners may or may not have agreed, stipulated, or fenced/built to.
Loyal
> Here is excerpt from that document:
>
> "By double proportionate measurement, the lost corner is reestablished on the basis
> of measurement only, disregarding the record directions."
>
> Direction or bearings mean nothing in double proportion. You proportion along
> each of the lines and then intersect perpendiculars.
Hi Paul,
I don't agree with your statement that you should proportion ALONG each of the lines. By running along the line, you are letting the direction of the line influence your calculations. Obviously, the greater the line differs from a cardinal direction, the greater error you would have in your calculations. The manual indicates that lengths of proportioned lines must be reduced to cardinal equivalents in order to be comparable.
This pdf from the BLM explains it more cleary than I can. http://www.blmsurveymanual.org/documents/Double_Proportions.pdf
Jeff
You're right Loyal....
In other words; the subsurface does not necessarily follow the surface boundaries!
Keith
The Bottom Line
I have made similar statements on the discussion board, and have been shot down. But I agree in general; there are very few times that I think double-proportionment would apply. It does, apparently, and several on this board have said they have had to do it.
I work in mostly land that has had some kind of ownership, and therefore has some kind of evidence. I consider double-proportionment a solution of last resort, and I approach jobs with the attitude that the corner is never lost. (Maybe it is, but I think one should start on the assumption that it isn't and only make that determination after all effort is exhausted). Fences, occupation, other local corners that were dependent on the missing monument's location, parol testimony, etc.
If there is absolutely none of that, no accessories, no bearing marks, no original monument, or monument that is there but does not have apparent notes or history, I a wonder if no development whatsoever has gone on there, and no improvements have ever been installed, what action could have destroyed the monument? It just feels like there should be a monument or evidence of occupation at least.
Sometimes, i think evidence is overlooked due to the proportionment rule.
However, not everyone surveys where I do, and I am only speaking from my perspective. Regardless, I would advise going to great extremes prior to "double-proportioning".
RADAR
I don't agree with your statement and that one should not do it!!
When there is no evidence, the proportion is the only thing left and the post below by adamsurveyor is very much on the mark, so to speak.
It is quite possible that private surveyors doing work in areas that have been subdivided and the land used for various reasons, that there will be some sort of evidence available.
But, the BLM land surveyor that is resurveying the outlying areas may not be able to find that little wood post with mounds. There were numerous times in my own experience that there was absolutely no evidence and the proportion was the last resort.
In those instances, if the surveyor does not proportion, then there is no monument set and no boundary established.
In legal contemplation the proportioned corner is identical with the original corner.
Keith
The Bottom Line
> So don't do it.
As others have noted, sometimes there's no better choice. In 2000 I surveyed a 2500-acre farm in the Dunnigan Hills on the west side of the Sacramento Valley. The GLO monuments had been wooden stakes with pits and mounds as accessories, and there were no trees for miles around. It had been in one ownership for most of a century, and for much of that time had been farmed for wheat as a more-or-less contiguous unit. There were very few fences in the interior, and the owner told me that the fences that did exist were installed after parts of the ranch were converted from grain farming to cattle grazing in the 1940s, with no reference to the section lines. Decades of farming operations had obliterated any evidence of the GLO work.
There was one line that ran N-S through the whole ranch. I accepted an old fence corner at the south end, but had nothing except open farmland for 5 miles to the north. I double-proportioned 4 section corners along that line, not because I wanted to but because I had no superior evidence from which to locate them.
I handled the cardinal offsets was by working directly in NAD83 lat/long.
Loyal
The MTPs and Historical Indexes are available on-line via California BLM. That is one of the few things we have on-line.
