PLSS question

How do you think we would know?

Keith,
I guess the thing that bugs me is that while he says he proportioned his location, he specifically excludes anything to the north.

I was just trying to come up with some quasi-BLM Manual situation where this might be the thing to do.

If it's a Standard Corner, if he's going to proportion, it should only be SP by the corners to the E & W, no?

He Found The First Pin...

...and thinks he properly reset the corner the second time around.

The above does not require PLSS experience to understand.

However not being a PLSS surveyor my only reliance would be to the Manual. How could he reset it without ties to standard corners in all 4 directions?

Paul in non PLSSania

It sounds to me that in August 2011 he found a monument that looked good with the surrounding improvements and accepted it without measuring to any other corners. Then after finding out the monument was 30' off the standard parallel, he set his own monument in February 2012 to be safe mathematically. I think he decided the 1/2" rebar was probably a piece of junk and that he would rather use recorded surveys to put the corner back where is was by record measurements instead of blindly accepting a piece of iron stuck in the ground.

> The next filed corner to the north of this location is two miles north, 1 mile north of a township line.

So it would seem that a regular double proportioning would be appropriate, after the corner at the township line was found or reestablished.

I don't get using the corner to the south.

Is it possible he is just showing the tie to a found corner to the south to help confirm his east-west prorate?

Is there a possibility that he had a complaint filed against him in 2011 that went to your BOR? Most probably filed by another surveyor who accused him of setting the "found" bar and who knew the record corner would fall a long distance from where the "found" bar was located. Or quite possibly knew the roads were established offline intentionally: a fact that he would have learned had he investigated the road records.

> Can anybody come up with a good scenario that would give credence to his method?

Obviously, the evidence that was recovered the first go-around was found, upon further investigation, to have been placed there in bad faith. That's the only way to have dismissed all the evidence in favor of the rule of last resort, i.e. apportionment.

Must have had to dig pretty hard to prove there really was no reliable evidence and overcome the existent (at first glance) monument.

JBS

My dad gave me a lot of great advice over the years. This is one of those little gems that I hear in my head over and over:

"You need to be the one person that knows more about that line (or corner) than any other person on the planet to make the proper determination."

> the pin is relatively centered within the r/w fences, which appear to be close to the 66' statutory distance apart.

[sarcasm]Gee, doesn't that fence thingy kinda clinch the deal in PLSS?[/sarcasm]

Although I must say, I find it interesting that one poster who so adamantly writes about the Manual, and rails about deviations therefrom, has nothing to offer ("How do you think we would know?"), not even conjecture.

Whew....there's just too much information to make any sense at all. First the iron pin was found that fit close to all improvements such as right of way fences, road intersection etc. ....Keep in mind that, and I quote from BLM references: "In many cases DUE CARE has been exercised to place the property fences on the lines of legal subdivision. It has been the general practice in the prairie States to locate the public roads on the SECTION LINES. These are matters of particular interest to the adjoining owners. It is reasonable to presume that care and good faith were exercised in placing such improvements with regard to the evidence of the original survey in existence at the time. Obviously, the burden of proof to the contrary must be borne by the party claiming differently." I would contact the surveyor and ask him questions such as why his decision to apportion from corners E/W/S? Which is contrary to the rules utilizing proportinate measurement and a last resort method. Why the circumvention of evidence in the immediate vicinity? Keep in mind that surveyors many times get caught up in the measurement distances and the does not fit mentality when the courts have shown that measurements/does not fit is the last thing to be utilized in proper adjudication in a boundary decision.

Pablo

What did he say when you called and asked him?

And why wouldn't you want to be critical? It's your job to be critical...

> "I have not contacted him. There are some circumstances that will keep me from speaking to him, at least at the present time."

He Found The First Pin...

> ...and thinks he properly reset the corner the second time around.
The question is not what he did, but rather why and how, isn't it?

Always bad once it gets to lost corner status. Not enough info for me to really comment.

The real question is what else has happened. Are there surveys (or occupation) based upon the "rebar" and now are there new surveys based upon the restoration of a lost corner. Also, is the whole section going to move? Don't know much about the area but there should be a lot of old occupation lines out there that might be used to restore an "obliterated corner" maybe. Yeah, but that is a lot of work and nobody seems to ever be willing to pay for that. It's always great when the road no longer is within the ROW also. Not saying that can't happen but how long has this road been in place?

> Although I must say, I find it interesting that one poster who so adamantly writes about the Manual, and rails about deviations therefrom, has nothing to offer ("How do you think we would know?"), not even conjecture.

After spending years paying attention to what Keith and other experts have said about the Manual and the PLSS, it is fairly easy to understand his somewhat sarcastic comment. Either the surveyor in question is one of the types that believes measurements (proportions) are correct until definite proof of another position is found, or he found solid evidence that the monument was not a valid representation of the section corner and therefore overcame the presumption that it represented the best available evidence. Either way, until more information is obtained, how would anyone know?

> It sounds to me that in August 2011 he found a monument that looked good with the surrounding improvements and accepted it without measuring to any other corners. Then after finding out the monument was 30' off the standard parallel, he set his own monument in February 2012 to be safe mathematically. I think he decided the 1/2" rebar was probably a piece of junk and that he would rather use recorded surveys to put the corner back where is was by record measurements instead of blindly accepting a piece of iron stuck in the ground.

From a guy who has dug in hundreds of roads to find the original corner. (no offense, but just surprised).

I don't know how deep one should dig. I like to find original corners and I know you do. If I don't find it after a good dig, I would tend to want to use local control to try to establish the corner. I don't know if this road was built with (say) the north right-of-way line on the section line, or if it was intended to be centered on the section line. But assuming the latter, and the iron in the road (and the fences along with the descriptions of what they bound) I would sway toward the rebar. Assuming the former, (the north side of the right-of-way on section line), it could explain his new monument.

I don't think I know enough here. If I were "paden cash"*, I would suggest some real diggin' (literally and metaphorically) to try to resolve the ambiguity. I don't know how, but someone needs to talk to the surveyor who referenced the rebar and set his own monument. *I mean "if I were paid-in cash" that is. 😛

> ...February of 2012 the same surveyor files another CCR for this corner, plainly stating that this is a re-filing of the Aug. 2011 corner. The latter corner is a new pin he states he set by proportioning method using corners "east, west and south".....
There is a section on these CCR's for describing "Corner Evidence Found" and another for "Statement of Method Used to Determine Corner Location". I'd sure like to see people make far greater use of those sections to detail their thought process than they typically do. What we do usually get differs in the extreme from what is required in Oregon.

I'd go so far to suggest that failing to fully describe the method used (including the reasons for rejecting the found monument) on the February '12 refiling might be substandard practice.