PLSS Issue

S1/4 Section 30 at mid-point? What's the record measurement. Normally this is a proportioned position. I'd contact the one that made the corner record before contacting the board.

> Do you think the surveyor should be contacted by our State Board concerning his or her field procedure?
Before you alert the board you should contact the other surveyor. That is according to the minimum standards, too. If you don't you could end up in hot water yourself.

Proportioning that particular line in accordance to the GLO dimensions would tend to push the proportioned point further from the fence corner, not closer.

The fence really wasn't the issue, nor was reporting anyone to the board.

Several of us (surveyors) were having a discussion concerning this corner. I was surprised at the number that wanted the "guillotine" as recompense! My opinion was to contact the filing party and ask if he just let one get away, or did he really want it set in that manner?

What evolved was a long discussion on whether Oklahoma Surveyor's Minimum Standards actually required adherence to the BLM's Instructions, or (verbatim) "use as a guide". Although this isn't a very good example for my argument, I'm always a proponent of minimizing the rigidity of rules under which we operate.

I was just surprised at the unforgiving ire that was fostered by what could have been an honest "uh-oh".

Always contact the other surveyor.

Nate

> What evolved was a long discussion on whether Oklahoma Surveyor's Minimum Standards actually required adherence to the BLM's Instructions, or (verbatim) "use as a guide".
Free exercise of professional judgment cannot be carte blanche to do whatever jackwagon procedure comes to mind. There has to be some reasoning. And if some non standard procedure is followed the surveyor is supposed to explain his reasoning on the CCR.

Looking at the aerial photo it sure looks like a strong case for holding the N/S fence.

Reminds me of the time I questioned a quarter-quarter corner being set similarly in something like a Section 30. Turned out the Field Notes indicated the original distance was a perfect 80 chains. Rare, but it can happen.

>
> Looking at the aerial photo it sure looks like a strong case for holding the N/S fence.

A fence with a steel fence post corner? Although it might carry some weight, I wouldn't automatically deem the fence was built to an existing corner at the time of construction. I would be asking questions about the history of the fence. It may have been stopped 30 feet short to avoid a possibility of encroachment or to reserve a strip for a road or access. Who knows?

As far as the monument record itself, it is a report of the monument. Questioning the monument location should be reserved for another document, like a survey plat. Most monument records do not even indicate how the monument was set or distances to anything other than the local references.

Norman..

the fences are definitely something to look at. It appears as though this surveyor discounted any occupational evidence and ran with a calculated point to place a monument. You probably also realize that the difference between a split and a prorated distance is only 5 lnk., or a derivation thereof; definitely not a lot.

If I were re-establishing that corner, I probably would have first attempted to rerun the T.L. on the west side of Sec. 30. If you looked at an aerial you can see why that might not work very well.

My original post was actually to find opinions on whether our Minimum Standards should be interpreted as strict adherence to the BLM Manual or not. While in this case I feel that BLM procedure would have located the corner in a slightly different location; it still appears that the occupation lines don't agree with either method.

I do agree with you that "blank check" freedom for our professional decisions is something that should be avoided. But then it begs the question, "Where do you draw the line?" I, for one, believe that the less encumbering verbiage that exists in the Minimum Standards, the better. But I guess there will always be one "jackwagon" that slips through the fence.

What is the correct answer?

Coming from a guy who is currently studying for his FS.

Is the only mistake that the surveyor forgot what section he was in?

Wouldn't you just proportion using the record distance between the SW and SE corners and maybe use the fence for line?

> Proportioning that particular line in accordance to the GLO dimensions would tend to push the proportioned point further from the fence corner, not closer.

How did you come to that conclusion? (I am thinking you looked that original plat up?)

I am in total agreement about contacting the person. Always call the surveyor. Find out why he did what he did, and tell him why you are wary of it.

As to following the manual or not...I don't know about Okla. Statutes, but I would think a foundational principle in surveying anywhere, so to try to come up with the original location. If the original calls were 40 chains on one side and another number on the other side, given no additional evidence, you would have to try to proportion to those dimensions I would think keeping with the original intent.

What is the correct answer?

> Is the only mistake that the surveyor forgot what section he was in?
IMO, if the surveyor had taken the step of downloading the GLO notes & plat he would have seen that the section dimensions were non-standard. So the real problem here is failing to perform a routine search of record data.

> Wouldn't you just proportion using the record distance between the SW and SE corners and maybe use the fence for line?
I'm suggesting fixing the E/W position using the N/S running fence line. And once that is decided, why not call the fence corner the section corner and dispence with proportioning? I'm not saying that is the only way to go, or even that it is the way to do it, but I am saying that it looks like a possible reasonable solution.

> How did you come to that conclusion? (I am thinking you looked that original plat up?)
I did. That line measured 80.15 chains on the plat.

> I am in total agreement about contacting the person. Always call the surveyor. Find out why he did what he did, and tell him why you are wary of it.
It is required by OK Minimum Standards. It was discussed at the annual conference, which was just 2 weeks ago.

Norman..

> I do agree with you that "blank check" freedom for our professional decisions is something that should be avoided. But then it begs the question, "Where do you draw the line?"
The problem here is not so much the departure from BLM practice, but the failure to explain the departure in the CCR. This sort of thing is very common with OCCRs, but below minimum standards, nonetheless.

It may be that he set the monument by the common BLM practice, and just let a CCR get out of his office poorly checked. That is not a good thing, but forgivable if it is not a regular thing.

What is the correct answer?

> I'm suggesting fixing the E/W position using the N/S running fence line. And once that is decided, why not call the fence corner the section corner and dispence with proportioning? I'm not saying that is the only way to go, or even that it is the way to do it, but I am saying that it looks like a possible reasonable solution.

IMO, if your going to hold the fence corner you better have either traversed the whole fence line running northerly, making sure that the line runs into the 1/16th, center, or north quarter corner; or have testimony from the surrounding land owners that they except that fence corner as their property corner. Again, IMO just because a fence corner is there you shouldn't automatically accept it, unless you can answer the who, what, why, when, where, and how.

Is no one considering the 54" tree at RP to be the 8" burr oak BT?
(I don't know anything about Burr oak, so maybe it doesn't get 54" in diameter, and the ccr doesn't call a species....)

If it were - it would only be about 6.6 ft from the midpoint...2.9 ft N/S and 5.8 ft E/W

> Is no one considering the 54" tree at RP to be the 8" burr oak BT?
That has to be a typo. There are no 54" trees in Oklahoma. Nevertheless it could be the bearing tree, and that would put the corner much closer to the fence.

In defense of proportioning - in Oklahoma the GLO dimensions generally match the survey dimensions much, much better than they do in the Northwest. Being mostly flat to rolling grassland. It is common for a half mile to measure out within 3 feet here. In Oregon and Washington 200 feet is considered pretty good.

While most surveyors use diameter at breast height I have encountered some who insist on attempting to provide the circumference instead. No comment to this particular situation. Just pointing out that one must consider more than the obvious sometimes.

> While most surveyors use diameter at breast height I have encountered some who insist on attempting to provide the circumference instead. No comment to this particular situation. Just pointing out that one must consider more than the obvious sometimes.
Since the other tree is noted as 6", with a 6" spike in it, I doubt that circumference is meant here.

For any who are interested in seeing this site ,it's at 34°57'25"N, 97°14'21"W.

Does that north-south fence continue straight through those two green trees? At first glance it appears there is a fence offset a bit north of the coordinate.

Here^^^^^^^^