In each of my examples , the interior 1/16 lines were properly subdivided by competent, respected surveyors in good faith with either transit or total station in rugged, thickly treed mountains. the procedures were in accordance with BLM manuals in effect, and for the most part, well documented within state statutes. In each of my examples, the first surveys constitute ORIGINAL subdivisions, without any dispute as to retracement, for decades. In some of the examples, the lines were retraced several times and additional properties laid out and used by the public. It was only decades later, with GPS, did the subcontractors come in and tell me, in writing, that when locating federal interest lands, my retracement of imperfect lines is an inferior and unacceptable procedure. (only in once of my examples is there a valid dispute on a C1/4). If my memory serves me correctly, one gentleman wrote to me: "your survey does not rise to the level of quality expected for federal interest lands" (meaning that I had retraced an imprecise, but previously monumented line).
since no one on this board has responded by telling me that yes, federal interest lands have senior rights over our goofy, imperfect and inferior interior section surveys done with inferior instruments such as transit and chain, by ignorant, stupid and incompetent, lowly private surveyors, and since this board has the best minds out there (I always come here first before hurting myself), I can now rest assured that the Founding Fathers did indeed create the PLSS for the main purpose of disposing lands to the private sector, and always considered the private, interior subdivisions to be senior to whatever the federals were left wtih.
Too bad that one large company, based on the number of pincushions they set in my one county in one summer, is out there setting about 1,000 pincushions per year, based on the procedures they vehemently defend. Nothing I can do about it.
Sounds like the penultimate Federal vs. States rights. Once public lands are transferred to private domain, the statutorilly derived rights from organic law (state constitutions) take precedence. The remaining federal interest in vested land rights is merely what is left from the original divestment - similar to the recognition of land grants from treaty protocol. Key to all of this is the acknowledgement of bona fide efforts with respect to location. Confirmation of land grants, Donation Land Claims, and the like are premised on this principle.
Good threads like this make me late getting started on my own work.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
the contractors are private surveyors, licensed in my state, doing numerous federal lands retracements around the state and other states, for a federal agency. the federal agency has survey crews, but they are subbing these jobs out by bid.
warren ward PLS CO OK, post: 433199, member: 12536 wrote: the contractors are private surveyors, licensed in my state, doing numerous federal lands retracements around the state and other states, for a federal agency. the federal agency has survey crews, but they are subbing these jobs out by bid.
Warren - This is contrary to my experiences when performing surveys for Federal Agencies, both BLM (limited to 1 project) and USFS (contracted numerous times, and with Dennis Mouland as C.O.) and consulting with BLM Surveyors on numerous projects. I suggest that as County Surveyor you approach the agency and the contracting officer and open a dialog regarding the practices of their contract surveyor.
I am also interested in what explanation they are using for the rejection of the previously set monuments as now required by law.
aliquot, post: 433120, member: 2486 wrote: I've never worked in CO, but in OK the main culprit for pin cushions seems to be the corner record system. The vast majority of them contain absolutely no information on how the mag nail that was set was established, they also seem to ignore the records of any BLM or GLO resurveys.
The last OK survey I worked on was the breakdown of one section. All 8 corners had corner records that described new mag nails or rebar that were set with no explanation as to how. At 7 of the corners we found the original monuments, 1 to 60 feet from the corner record position. The 8th, of course did not fit well with the originals, the other corner records, any improvement, or occupation. There is a "pin cushion" at each of those corners now.
I am not sure that the monument record system is responsible for pin cushions as it seems there are those to which measurement is the final solution and pin cushions will result regardless. I do agree that the monument record form should include a description of how the monument location was determined if set. There are way too many monument records stating "nothing found" and with no clue as to the procedure used to establish a location. Even worse are the ones that refer to found monument with the recording surveyor's number!
warren ward PLS CO OK, post: 433184, member: 12536 wrote: In each of my examples , the interior 1/16 lines were properly subdivided by competent, respected surveyors in good faith with either transit or total station in rugged, thickly treed mountains. the procedures were in accordance with BLM manuals in effect, and for the most part, well documented within state statutes. In each of my examples, the first surveys constitute ORIGINAL subdivisions, without any dispute as to retracement, for decades. In some of the examples, the lines were retraced several times and additional properties laid out and used by the public. It was only decades later, with GPS, did the subcontractors come in and tell me, in writing, that when locating federal interest lands, my retracement of imperfect lines is an inferior and unacceptable procedure. (only in once of my examples is there a valid dispute on a C1/4). If my memory serves me correctly, one gentleman wrote to me: "your survey does not rise to the level of quality expected for federal interest lands" (meaning that I had retraced an imprecise, but previously monumented line).
since no one on this board has responded by telling me that yes, federal interest lands have senior rights over our goofy, imperfect and inferior interior section surveys done with inferior instruments such as transit and chain, by ignorant, stupid and incompetent, lowly private surveyors, and since this board has the best minds out there (I always come here first before hurting myself), I can now rest assured that the Founding Fathers did indeed create the PLSS for the main purpose of disposing lands to the private sector, and always considered the private, interior subdivisions to be senior to whatever the federals were left wtih.
Too bad that one large company, based on the number of pincushions they set in my one county in one summer, is out there setting about 1,000 pincushions per year, based on the procedures they vehemently defend. Nothing I can do about it.
Warren, I've been dealing with similar issues for a while now, although the "book" tells us to honor entrymen and their good faith when retracing, I've never, ever seen the BLM do that (discussing interior lines). The nearest I've seen is a handful of accepted 1/16 corners along exterior lines that are within a link or two of "perfect", these of course were not set by an entryman, they were set usually in the late 1900's by local surveyors. They have retraced 5-10 thousand sections in the Power River Basin and unless the prior 1/4 1/4 with federal interest and the new one match acreage exactly they gave it a lot # or a new lot #. Each and every new Lot I've ever seen was a prefect math breakdown, of course it's impossible to do that if you honor entrymen and their land location as laid out from the patents. We are talking here about land with very mixed fee and federal interest, mixed surface, mixed minerals, it's impossible to detach the location of the title between fed and fee.
I've followed and honored BLM retracement for interior section corners, and until GPS came along I didn't find them to be all that great from a location perspective, but just because they are a bit "off" doesn't mean they should be thrown out. Sounds like the reverse isn't happening.
There is one thing to consider, the rancher/farmer in 1895 laying out the CE1/16 with a 1/4 mile roll of barbed wire, or using his kids to lay out line had way more authority to establish that 1/16th corner than a private surveyor years later did. It's easier, or should be easier, for the BLM surveyor to reject the private surveyor than the 19th century rancher particularly when it isn't throwing out long established lines.
A survey monument done in good faith on "virgin" lands should be honored if it was done using good procedures. But, an established corner, done by the entryman, also in good faith and in harmony with the original survey, even when it's not perfect or all that close to perfect, has way more authority attached to it. So you are in a situation where the BLM comes in and resurveys interior lines rejecting private surveyor monuments, which were established I presume within the last 50-60 years, all I can say is I'm not surprised, you aren't the only one this happens to.
And lets hope the private guy and the BLM guys aren't both rejecting entryman establishments.
I can say the first thing I do when breaking down a section is to figure out how much government is attached to any corner I set. 77 percent of the state being fed, then add in the state land, doesn't leave much fee land without government entanglements.
This all of course is what Keith was complaining about, getting it to change, well............all I can say is good luck!!
warren ward PLS CO OK, post: 433089, member: 12536 wrote: The reason we have a PLSS, since 1785, and a BLM Manual, is to establish property lines for PRIVATE SECTOR LANDOWNERS! The US gave or sold this land and it had to be surveyed so that those lands could be accepted and settled.
When patents are laid out on the ground in good faith, and those lines can be identified years and decades later, my job is to retrace THOSE property lines for the private sector, who have "senior rights?" as contemplated by the Founding Fathers, even though those lines often abut Federal lands.
Or, am I completely mistaken? I am now told by surveyors, quite younger than I, that when laying out "Federal Interest Lands" with GPS, long-existing private surveyor lines set with transit and chain constitute "gross errors" and therefore can not be accepted by the Government. Because of this reasoning, I now have pincushions all over my county, over the matter of a few feet here and there.
Please advise.
In my opinion, the only accurate map of those tracts of lands was the original full-scale map out there on the ground, way too big to dig up and file in the courthouse or state land office. The subsequent measurements and stuff on paper (plats) are nothing but an attempt to reproduce conveniently on paper the full-sized thing out there on the ground. The resurvey records on paper (field notes and plats) contain natural, instrumental and personal errors. The use of GPS to get better measurements, supposedly reduces natural, instrumental and personal errors but those measurements should be to the old evidence of the original stuff on the ground. If the original stuff cannot be found, then procedures to re-establish its location should be follows. When someone says they can do better retracements with GPS, I am fine with that, but it had better be a retracement instead of a re-creation of reality. The better instruments simply give the surveyor a more accurate representation of the full sized map out there on the ground.
Internal section corners like for 40s, etc, should be done the first time by proper technique, but once they are inscribed on the ground, they become the map unless grossly erroneous based upon the standard of the day when they were first set.
In my opinion a good test that sometimes works for gross error determination is if the measurements or survey was so bad that it change intent or would have caused the vendor and vendee to have been different had there been no significant error--that is, was it bad enough for them to have wanted to do something different than they would have if it was correct (intent).
Warren, I know in CA, if federally-employed or contracted land surveyors were to survey the "exterior lines" of federal lands that are common with adjacent state or privately held lands, those land surveyors would need to be licensed in CA and this situation could be considered as a complaint under the authority of the California licensing board. You may want to check with the CO Board to see if there is something similar there so you have that option to consider. Sounds like a bad deal based on what you are describing.
Also in CA, if one looks at BLM surveys from the mid 80s and previous, they seemed to reject anything and everything not set by GLO or BLM that didn't land within a half link of their calculated and measured position of where a corner should be. That was on surveys largely if not wholly performed by BLM personnel.
There seemed to be a shift in thinking taking place starting in the late 80s to where they would look into the origin of the monument and judge its acceptability on whether the surveyor made a reasonable attempt to follow correct methodology according to the Manual. In later surveys, I've seen them accept non-federal monuments at interior locations that are not on the boundary of remaining public domain lands, yet hold monuments for lands abutting public domain lands to a higher standard. The reasoning being that "the public" can't be made to suffer loss due to the poor surveying occurring on the private parcels and that the BLM is identifying only the boundaries to those lands it intended to retain.
Seems to me, that being the case, the Federal government would have had a duty to positively identify the lands it intended to retain prior to allowing (requiring) the first entryman in the section to identify their own boundaries. Seems that there would be an element of estoppel preventing the federal government from coming in later to claim any portion of such privately marked lands when they were marked in good faith. I'm not fully certain where the BLM cadastral folks in CA are on this. It may largely fall to what they define as "good faith" and whether that definition lies more in modern practices by the BLM, or lies more in a recognition of the actual practices of the GLO in 18xx and the reasonably expected skills and abilities of the entrymen told to go forth and identify their boundaries as part of perfecting their patent.
In my short time working with the BLM, I did see an attitude among some that only BLM surveyors were presumed competent and all others were presumed to be less so, if at all competent. I also briefly worked in a field office, with at least one recently from the private sector, where they seemed to have a good respect for local surveyors. In the former example, it was in a setting where there were a lot of young college students and seasonals, and the BLM full-timers were also relatively young, none with more than 10 or 12 years of actual experience. In the later, there were several older surveyors with 30+ years of experience.
Reminds me of a show I saw on Animal Planet or Nat Geo some time ago. In a South African Game Preserve where the elephants had been virtually exterminated from poaching, the game wardens attempted to repopulate the preserve by importing several adolescent elephants from another preserve. After a while, the elephants seemed to be doing just fine adapting to their new home. But a new mystery began in the same time period. Something or someone was killing adult rhinos. It wasn't poachers because nothing normally of value to the poachers was taken from the carcasses. It seemed to be random and without reason. The mystery was solved when one of the researchers witnessed adolescent male elephants attack & kill a full grown rhino without any provocation.
The way they eventually solved the situation was by transplanting a couple of fully grown herd bulls from outside elephant populations. Those older, wiser, and much more authoritative elephants knew the value of coexisting with the other critters in the same territory and put a stop to the reckless, needless, and decidedly adolescent behavior in very short order. The rhinos stopped getting killed, or even harassed, and the unruly adolescent bulls began growing into respectable herd bulls with a proper respect for the other critters around them.
Maybe these young GPS whiz-kids with attitude need a couple of well experienced and knowledgeable boundary surveyors to be assigned to more closely oversee their day to day work. Just because one works for the biggest outfit on the plains and has the most resources at their disposal, it doesn't follow that they know how to use the resources properly, or even recognize all of their resources. Nor does it follow that they are right simply for their association as the biggest critters on the plain.
Ric Moore, post: 433245, member: 731 wrote: Warren, I know in CA, if federally-employed or contracted land surveyors were to survey the "exterior lines" of federal lands that are common with adjacent state or privately held lands, those land surveyors would need to be licensed in CA and this situation could be considered as a complaint under the authority of the California licensing board. You may want to check with the CO Board to see if there is something similar there so you have that option to consider. Sounds like a bad deal based on what you are describing.
This isn't true. Congress gave the GLO/BLM authorization to survey federal interest lands per Article 4, Clause 2 of the Constitution. Most states specifically exempt the BLM, but even if they didn't the Supremecy Clause of the Constitution does it for them.
That being said, I think it would be a good idea for federal surveyors to be licensed in the correct state when surveying aquired land, because state law was applicable between the time of the original patent and the acquisition.
One thing to remember is that a line run by the BLM for control, between non federal parcels has no authority to establish a boundary between any two non federal parcels.
It's also important to realize that a federal survey of a parcel in which that the feds only have an interest to the minerals has no authority to establish boundaries between surface interests.
thanks to all for your response. I believe we all know how tempting it is to "fix" a section - but we all understand that it is not our job or our legal right to fix a section.
I can see that we all take our solemn, legal duty to protect the rights of the PRIVATE sector very seriously (as do all the BLM professionals I've talked to).
FYI, my GPS colleagues offer detailed, written explanations on their plats, which they have not only deposited in the county surveyor index, but also chose to RECORD - so it is all out there for the public to view. In essence, they explain that the BLM Manual, state law and board rules REQUIRE them to set pincushions.
ps - the Manual, board rules and statutes say no such thing.
While I am somewhat hesitant about adding additional information to this thread, I would like to provide another perspective regarding comments by some not familiar with the situation and/or the issues raised by Mr. Ward.
First, I'd like to ask Warren to clarify his statements that the problems come from young, inexperienced surveyors that are apparently not well versed in the nuances of retracement surveys. Warren's earlier posts state that the culprit is a "large company" and they are likely responsible for setting up to 1000 pin cushions per year. I know the surveyor that owns the "large company" that Warren references and he is not a young, inexperienced surveyor. In fact, he is an "old hand" who obtained his license 10 years before Warren became licensed. Past minutes of the Colorado Board's monthly meetings state that this old hand surveyor has made presentations to the Board euphemistically called, "Surveying 101", which exposes the architects, engineers and public members of the Board to the basics of land surveying.
So, if there are young surveyors spouting off what you posted earlier in this thread Warren are they employees of this "large company"? I know many of the young surveyors at that company and cannot imagine that they confronted you with language similar to your earlier quote. Or are you lumping several surveyors, some young and one an old hand from different companies in this thread?
[Y]ou low life, incompetent, inferior PRIVATE surveyors are unacceptable. (this from a private surveyor licensed in my same state, much younger than I)
Several posters have suggested that Mr. Ward contact the Board and/or file a complaint against the surveyor. Mr. Ward did that, submitting several plats as examples of what he regarded as substandard work by the old hand surveyor. An Aside: I continue to bring up the fact that the other surveyor is an old hand (older than Mr. Ward) because I find it disheartening that young surveyors were drug into this thread, as if that in and of itself is reason to excoriate them because they are obviously not experienced enough to know that what they are espousing is plainly done in ignorance of the law and simply wrong. In my previous post I tried to address this by relating my experience that young surveyors in Colorado are very conscientious. Part of my assessment is based on my time with the Bill McComber Mentoring Program and giving workshops on mineral survey retracements for 13 years.
Also, I want others reading this post to know that I do not have any special or private knowledge of the complaint. My comments and facts are based solely on the information included in the publicly available Board monthly meeting minutes (yeah, I know! I'm an odd duck that reads the Board's minutes to stay abreast of what the Board is doing). The complaint was filed in 2013. Mr. Ward's concerns were duly reviewed by the Board. At the February 12, 2016 AES Board meeting, the Board "dismissed the complaint for lack of an apparent license law violation."
The federal agency that contracted the work is the one responsible for oversight of the Public Lands within our national forests. I don't know the particulars of the survey work conducted, but I have a difficult time believing that the "good faith location rule" as described in Sec. 6-45 of the 2009 Manual was completely ignored by the "large company" and as a result the contractors "erroneous" actions were implicitly condoned by the federal agency. I won't speculate as to who is right in this case. IMO there are insufficient facts presented to form an opinion either way. Formulating an opinion without seeing the offending plats is a bit too pusillanimous for my taste. Surveyors often lament that the public does not respect surveyors. Hell, even surveyors don't like surveyors!
This general topic about accepting or not accepting monuments has been debated on this and earlier forums ad nauseum. Folks have brought up the concept of the first surveyor doctrine based on the belief that subdividing a section does not constitute an original survey as the interior lines are protracted; therefore the first surveyor is charged with employing the correct method(s) and accurately setting those monuments. We've even had folks from Texas provide their sage opinions on how PLSSia surveyors should proceed.
In Colorado, many surveyors subscribe to a principle that if the interior corners were not set by the accepted methods and within allowable accuracies of the time, the corner must be rejected. The rejected corner was often termed a corner of common report, which to me meant that even if the corner had been relied upon by the land owners that was insufficient to accept the corner. The surveyor then set the "legal corner" employing the proper methods and today's accuracy standards. One surveyor now deceased that both Warren and I hold in high regard subscribed to this principle. There are many Colorado surveyors that were trained and follow this principle. I have always had issues with the principle and the fact that it permits multiple corners of common report and one legal corner when in my mind there should only be ONE corner.
[/end rant]
Thank you Mr. Kooper.
aliquot, post: 433276, member: 2486 wrote: This isn't true. Congress gave the GLO/BLM authorization to survey federal interest lands per Article 4, Clause 2 of the Constitution. Most states specifically exempt the BLM, but even if they didn't the Supremecy Clause of the Constitution does it for them.
That being said, I think it would be a good idea for federal surveyors to be licensed in the correct state when surveying aquired land, because state law was applicable between the time of the original patent and the acquisition.
One thing to remember is that a line run by the BLM for control, between non federal parcels has no authority to establish a boundary between any two non federal parcels.
It's also important to realize that a federal survey of a parcel in which that the feds only have an interest to the minerals has no authority to establish boundaries between surface interests.
Absolutely agree. Fed law doesn't limit fed surveyors to interior bdys and trumps state law.
I wonder if Ric has successfully enforced CAs law? I know it hadn't tried to be enforced during my tenure in CA BLM. I think that is still the case.
Even if state law wasn't superceded by federal law, I would venture that its history of non enforcement has rendered it desuetude.
I, as a young surveyor, with my license for about 3 months (circa 1981), was asked to survey a tract that was one acre in the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter. I had a copy of a survey plat done by a local surveyor I think about 8 years earlier. I also had a USFS survey that showed that all section corners and quarter corners were surveyed and monumented by USFS by concrete posts. Recalling my PLSS exam that covered law and principles of law, I subdivided the section using BLM techniques, and my recollection is that I found the corner set by the previous surveyor approximately 9 feet off. I set a new center of the section and staked out the one-acre lot. I showed the previous surveyor's corners as well. I felt good about what I had done--by the book so to speak (in my mind). Later I was asked multiple times to survey additional parcels right there in that same location and adjacent to it. Several years after that, I asked myself why in the world I had reset the corner at se cor of NW quarter because of the mess it created. And as time when on, that question became why the hell did I do that. It messed up everything in the quarter. Then not too long ago a USFS surveyor came through and set another monument different from mine and the previous surveyor, and USFS painted the line red, and now there is a real mess.
While this issue of about 9 feet is significant, one way to evaluate this issue is what I call the theory of continuum. Is 9 feet to much? 8 ft? 7 ft? 1 ft? 0.1 ft/ 0.01? Where is the break in the decision? What if the Mariott Hotel is going to be tied and have a common wall on that line one day (exaggeration)? At some point, the monuments have to be recognized, and sometimes the interpretation of that is better based upon decisions by those who have have experienced this. I should have used the corner by the previous surveyor since it was an original subdivision of the internal parts of the section. Personally, I do not think that whether the survey met a state-regulated threshold for accuracy is automatically a good criteria for rejection. I have seen many GLO surveys that do not meet the requirements of their contracts.
I am not saying that a young surveyor is not competent; that is a bad generalization. But one generalization I do not hesitate to make is that experience for surveyors, engineers, and surgeons is a good thing. It is also possible for a highly experienced company to have an inexperienced party chief in the field. For someone who has run many hundreds of miles of woodland lines, the realization is often gained as to how important it is to use common sense and the most important thing in the natural hierarchy--intent.
Frank - I "fixed" a 1/16 corner when I had been licensed for about 3 years. I actually set the original 1/16 corner about 10 years earlier as a crew chief, for another licensed surveyor, knowing there was some sort of math problem (too long of a story). After I set the "bad" corner, it was relied upon for several new tracts, by several surveyors and landowners. I come along at the tender age of 31, and decide to re-run the section line, finding the previous error, and corrected this 1/16 by about 3 feet. This act - "fixing" an imprecise monument with a better measurement, has haunted me for twenty six years. It is now a permanent mess. I fixed nothing. I made legal problems for innocent people that did not exist prior to me "fixing it". there is a 1/2 mile long new barb fence along the perfect line, but there are at least 6 properties laid out from the "bad" corner.
I hate myself for doing this, because it is the wrong thing to do. It is not what the BLM Manual, board rules or statutes say I must do. I talk about it at the beginning of all my presentations around the country. What I did causes HARM to the public and profession. My own experience as a young, eager surveyor, turned humble, experienced, mistake-prone, far-from-perfect professional who has learned the necessary and valuable trait of BEING ABLE TO CHANGE MY MIND, is explained to audiences of fellow surveyors in person.
When we go home with our new license, we are considered "minimally qualified" by the state board. Colorado has no "continuing education" requirements, but EXPECTS surveyors to continue their development. Youth is a factor in my stories, and I hold myself out as an example. (I was licensed at the age of 27).
As a young surveyor, I did not fully understand the PURPOSE OF THE PLSS, even though I was able to pass a long test.
I now know that the purpose is to lay out private properties, so that the US can function as a free society. Federal Interest Lands are what is left over when my colleagues subdivide a section in good faith, regardless of how perfect their measurements were. The private sector essentially has senior rights as contemplated by the Founding Fathers.
Frank Willis, post: 433339, member: 472 wrote: ...And as time when on, that question became why the hell did I do that..
I've felt the same way several times in my career. And while it is an incorrect generalization in saying a "young" surveyor is not competent I would like to point out most of "them" have yet been seasoned with having to "eat what they've cooked". It is a humbling experience and makes us all better surveyors.
Frank Willis, post: 433339, member: 472 wrote: I, as a young surveyor, with my license for about 3 months (circa 1981), was asked to survey a tract that was one acre in the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter. I had a copy of a survey plat done by a local surveyor I think about 8 years earlier. I also had a USFS survey that showed that all section corners and quarter corners were surveyed and monumented by USFS by concrete posts. Recalling my PLSS exam that covered law and principles of law, I subdivided the section using BLM techniques, and my recollection is that I found the corner set by the previous surveyor approximately 9 feet off. I set a new center of the section and staked out the one-acre lot. I showed the previous surveyor's corners as well. I felt good about what I had done--by the book so to speak (in my mind). Later I was asked multiple times to survey additional parcels right there in that same location and adjacent to it. Several years after that, I asked myself why in the world I had reset the corner at se cor of NW quarter because of the mess it created. And as time when on, that question became why the hell did I do that. It messed up everything in the quarter. Then not too long ago a USFS surveyor came through and set another monument different from mine and the previous surveyor, and USFS painted the line red, and now there is a real mess.
While this issue of about 9 feet is significant, one way to evaluate this issue is what I call the theory of continuum. Is 9 feet to much? 8 ft? 7 ft? 1 ft? 0.1 ft/ 0.01? Where is the break in the decision? What if the Mariott Hotel is going to be tied and have a common wall on that line one day (exaggeration)? At some point, the monuments have to be recognized, and sometimes the interpretation of that is better based upon decisions by those who have have experienced this. I should have used the corner by the previous surveyor since it was an original subdivision of the internal parts of the section. Personally, I do not think that whether the survey met a state-regulated threshold for accuracy is automatically a good criteria for rejection. I have seen many GLO surveys that do not meet the requirements of their contracts.
I am not saying that a young surveyor is not competent; that is a bad generalization. But one generalization I do not hesitate to make is that experience for surveyors, engineers, and surgeons is a good thing. It is also possible for a highly experienced company to have an inexperienced party chief in the field. For someone who has run many hundreds of miles of woodland lines, the realization is often gained as to how important it is to use common sense and the most important thing in the natural hierarchy--intent.
One of our on-going issues involves a 1/16th corner set in 1890 (which is still there) and "corrected" in 1980. The correction is 90' and it has created a major headache with everything in that section. Sad!
Another mish-mash happens in Swamp & Overflow segregated surveys. The County Surveyor would perform surveys at the request of applicants by tying to the Township corners under instructions issued by the State Surveyor General for patent. When the Townships were subdivided, the segregation lines would become senior, and the interior "section" corners would hold - with the excess or deficiency taken up in a similar fashion to irregular lots.
One local example (recently adjudicated) had a 110' difference in the reestablishment of an S & O corner. Without a clear understanding of the different methods, protracting corners can get messy.