> There were 2 B.T.'s but I can find know evidence of their position.
Of course the textbook method would be to run to an estimated position for a B. T., strip off a large area of topsoil, and look for discolored soil indicating the former position of the stump. Never done it, but it's said to work sometimes. Even one stump position would help a lot.
If you can't find the "X" and you know the sandstone is eroding at a rapid rate, then you have nothing. Could be the "x" was on part of it that eroded away.
Again, you have nothing. Absent other evidence, you have a lost corner. Do what is appropriate.
>The point for 1/4 sec. cor. falls on a sandstone in place 10x12x8 ft.
Uggh. Missed the "ft". Still, the rest of my advice remains. Drill a hole in the rock and grout in an iron rod or brass disk that will last. Who will argue? What else is there?
Most of us will do the happy dance when we find that our problem has been solved. The rest are licensed measurers.
> Again, you have nothing. Absent other evidence, you have a lost corner. Do what is appropriate.
Any solution that doesn't fall somewhere on the rock has got to be wrong. So that is something.
As I understand the situation, unless you can find suitable evidence of a bearing tree that would place the corner on the boulder,following the BLM Manual results in a position where it obviously could not have been located. While following the manual would seem the prudent thing to do,I suggest you consider using the painted ball procedure described by Holy Cow; provided you can come up with a suitable note to describe the method. Perhaps, “brass tablet/rebar/drill hole set on/in boulder in accordance with thread #206883 on beerleg.com" would work.
Lost? I thought he found the original monument.
Make sure you've done your due diligence with the bearing trees.
Lost corner??? No way. He found the original, controlling monument. If all else fails in finding the exact point on the monument measured to by the original surveyors, the presumption would be the center of the monument.
We know three things
1. The corner is obliterated, not lost.
2. The boulder has not moved significantly.
3. The corner was/is somewhere on the boulder where an "X" could have been placed.
The painted ball's mark will be just as precise as any other location.
Now, put a permanent marker on that boulder and roll on to other adventures.
Assume The Original Surveyor Knew It Was Not Perfect
The boulder is so evident it could never be missed.
Finding a natural marker that close to a corner I would center the mark not worrying about some future precise surveyor complaining about an angle point.
Were he originally near the N, S, E or W face of the rock it would have been easy to so note.
Paul in PA
We know three things
We also know that even though his accuracy wasn't great:
4. The GLO surveyor intended to put it on a straight line between section corners.
5. The GLO surveyor intended to put it midway between section corners.
So instead of "just anywhere on the rock" why not put it as close on the rock as possible to fit (or compromise between) those intentions?
> There were 2 B.T.'s but I can find know evidence of their position.
You don't say what species the BT's were, but if you have the locus of the corner nailed down as closely as the boulder, you should be able to find the stumpholes with a tile probe. Stumpholes persist as a change in the texture of the soil for quite a long time. If you can find them, you should be able to locate the corner.
If there is no evidence of any stumphole, I think I'd want to know why.
Bill, Bill, Bill
Some of us live in the real world of the PLSS where entire townships were supposedly surveyed and marked with huge stones in two days.
I don't believe I have ever found three consecutive original GLO monuments along a side of a section that are in a straight line with the middle monument being at half distance. It just doesn't happen in this corner of the world. It COULD HAVE HAPPENED somewhere else ONE TIME, but, I have no idea where that somewhere is.
And no matter what certain authorities on this site will tell you, the east-west interior section lines are not curved. Most of the time they didn't even run all the way from the northwest section corner to the northeast section corner and back in order to set the north quarter corner at true half distance and on the corrected alignment. Many, many such corners were stubbed in.
I can show you township lines supposedly run from south to north consecutively from one standard parallel to the next with a 300 foot jump to the side somewhere along the way between a section corner and the next quarter corner. I'm thinking this isn't to be attributed to the passing by of a meteor which drew the needle off to one side so terribly as to make that one half-mile segment so erroneous while all the others actually run somewhat consistently in some direction close to NORTH (capitals used to signify real norh as opposed to kinda real north).
Assume The Original Surveyor Knew It Was Not Perfect
I like Paul's way of thinking. The reality is that in rough country the surveyors knew their precision was not ideal. Fudging a few feet to use a fantastic natural monument would have made a great deal of sense to them.
Recently, I encountered my first discovery in the Government Field Notes that a section corner just happened to fall where a tree was located on the edge of a small, rocky stream in the 1850's. At that time, the surrounding area was noted by virtually all reports to have been nothing but a sea of grass as far as the eye could see and the grass was commonly as high as the eye of a rider on horseback. Finding a tree anywhere was a true rarity. The tree was listed as the corner monument.
I agree with Kent- the search area can get pretty big as a function of the distance out to the BT, but it'd be worth giving it a shot. another thing to do is the same with any stone with difficult marks to discern. vary your lighting, use water. get close- get back- ask a peer to come and look, too- a few years back, we were looking for an "x" with 1/4 very similarly. but there were several possible boulders in the vicinity. it turns out one of the crewsters was standing on the mark looking at the other boulders....
I must disagree with Mr. Wells about how the Manual would place the marker. This is most definitely not a place where proportionate measurement is appropriate. The Manual requires the surveyor to follow the footsteps of the original surveyor. Any procedure that places the corner at a position not on the boulder is not in compliance with the Manual. Proportionate is the very last method that is used and only as a last resort. In this case you have the boulder. What better monument could you have. Granted it is little larger than the usual monument, but it is still a monument. I would not argue with any of the procedures mentioned herein that selects a specific point on the monument for the corner.
My 2-bits.
Jerry
No, there is no presumption, other than it's the center of the "X". The chances of the "X" having landed on the center of the sandstone are negligible. However, I admit I was baiting a bit with my comment. Disregarding the sandstone in favor of a purely mathematical solution would be further from the truth than using the sandstone in some manner. I think I would classify the sandstone as an accessory. It leads to the corner and may be the best evidence even if not precisely defining the original location. A spot on the sandstone that fits best with other corroborating evidence would make sense.
To follow up on Mr. Knight's post...
Although not binding on private surveyors IBLA decisions are sometimes informative as to surveying principals and legal reasoning. There is an interesting IBLA case with the moniker of Dominico Tussio et al, which was about a survey in New Mexico as I recall. The IBLA rejected a BLM restoration which placed the corner NOT on a lava flow which is where the original record says it was.
Thus, although that call was not definitive as to where the corner should be placed, it did reject a solution which did not meet the location as described in the original description. Perhaps in that case it could have been evidence for weighing a possible blunder.
In your case not so clear cut, but your area of uncertainty is small whereas in Tussio it was large.
You would be amazed at how 'fell on the rock' could place it, and there could be marks, but it is hard to find without lots of scrutiny. I have looked for marks on small rocks that took weeks for us to finally see them.
Absent that you can probably come up with a method. I would not necessarily say top of rock or center, but in the absence of any findings to the contrary use your best judgement and explain it.
- jlw
> No, there is no presumption, other than it's the center of the "X".
Who suggested that the exact point of the corner would be anywhere else other than the X if found??? Certainly not me. Put the straw man back in the barn.
>The chances of the "X" having landed on the center of the sandstone are negligible.
No smaller a chance than it landing in any other point on the boulder, such as any point chosen by purely mathematical methods.
>However, I admit I was baiting a bit with my comment. Disregarding the sandstone in favor of a purely mathematical solution would be further from the truth than using the sandstone in some manner.
I couldn't agree more.
>I think I would classify the sandstone as an accessory.
If the boulder is an accessory, what is the monument? The chiseled X? No, the X is the exact point on the monument, which is the boulder. It is a common principle of law that the center of the monument is presumed to be the corner/line, in question, unless evidence to the contrary is found.
> A spot on the sandstone that fits best with other corroborating evidence would make sense.
Absolutely. Not only would it make sense, if there is evidence of the location of the X, it would be required to be used.
yes
When I read this post I thought that a pair of fresh eyes looking for the X was an option. Maybe someone who is not associated with surveying even like a kid who are good at this find the missing whatever..
Sometimes your mind plays tricks by looking for some pre-conceived image of the X and you do not see the obvious mark on stones, sidewalks streets and trees.
I know to find old chisel marks on sidewalks and streets, we would soak the area like Jerry Penry does on his stones.
Another thing. I always thought that a section that was monumented was an 8 sided figure.
These square sections do not compute with me. If you are placing a 1/4 section on-line with the section corners, you know that it isn't where it was set.
Jerry, I did not mean to imply that the corner should be set by proportion, but instead to emphasize the conundrum of the situation. Left to the BLM or a BLM disciple, the corner would probably be established in an erroneous location. And, while it seems to be obvious that the corner is more likely obliterated than lost, apparently there is no evidence to support such a determination other than the boulder itself; otherwise, this thread would be about how an obliterated corner was reestablished.
If it was me and I was satisfied that the “X” did not exist and there is no evidence of the B.T.’s, I would use the center of the boulder as advocated by Brian Allen. It makes the corner much easier to explain and more professional than my suggested reference to this thread, which nonetheless would be valid. And, just for kicks I would see how far a “painted ball” falls from this position, as I believe this procedure has promise in how to think outside of the box.
