OK, I am retracing a 1937 GLO dependent Resurvey. The GLO notes, say: "Proportionate distance; there is no remaining evidence of the original post, or bearing trees."
Now, I have tied the Section corner to the east, and to the west, and I have the mid or proportionate location. So, I go to look for the GLO mon, and I find the mon laying on it's side, mangled with a bushhog or other farm equipment. I look for the bearing trees, and I find one stump hole. HOWEVER, it places the monument about 5' from from the MID point. Now, which location is the corner?
Is it where the 1937 GLO tried to place, (At the mid point) or is is where the monument got set, that is 5' from the mid point? What if we actually found the monument and accessories, and it was BLUNDER set 50' away?
What we are talking about here is procedure. And, legality.
Nate
> OK, I am retracing a 1937 GLO dependent Resurvey. The GLO notes, say: "Proportionate distance; there is no remaining evidence of the original post, or bearing trees."
>
> Now, I have tied the Section corner to the east, and to the west, and I have the mid or proportionate location. So, I go to look for the GLO mon, and I find the mon laying on it's side, mangled with a bushhog or other farm equipment. I look for the bearing trees, and I find one stump hole. HOWEVER, it places the monument about 5' from from the MID point. Now, which location is the corner?
>
> Is it where the 1937 GLO tried to place, (At the mid point) or is is where the monument got set, that is 5' from the mid point? What if we actually found the monument and accessories, and it was BLUNDER set 50' away?
>
> What we are talking about here is procedure. And, legality.
>
> Nate
One possible bearing tree on a Quarter Corner is not much to go on. Are there are any surveys that might have used that monument to help you figure out where it was originally placed? As far as blunders go on monumentation, I tend to subscribe to the hold the monument philosophy (especially if it is relied on by the public for subsequent surveys).
No Immediate surveys to go on. The stump hole is pretty obvious. I think it is the original. We have dug down, (at the monument) and found sort of remains of the concrete.... or else the broken pieces of concrete wound up in a nearby post hole. Not alot of it, just enough to suggest it.
N
> No Immediate surveys to go on. The stump hole is pretty obvious. I think it is the original. We have dug down, (at the monument) and found sort of remains of the concrete.... or else the broken pieces of concrete wound up in a nearby post hole. Not alot of it, just enough to suggest it.
> N
So, there are no center of section monuments on either of the sections that you could look at with the opposite 1/4 corner?
It is out near Big Fork AR, and is rural, and not a whole lot of activity.
N
Did you find any scribing in the stump hole?
We are looking for what we call MC-23 which is a meander corner set on top of a ridge by George Lammers in about 1917 roughly. This is two timber companies adjusting the boundary to the ridge top (swapping lands) for more efficient harvest operations (e.g. logging).
One of the BTs is a Tan Oak which there is a large Tan Oak lying down which has been down for some time, no sign of a blaze or scribing. There is a stump hole which could have been the Madrone BT. We swing the arcs and find one or two small chunks of concrete from the concrete monument which replaced Lammer's wooden post. It's right next to the logging road along the ridge top and I assume a big yellow machine hit it at some time in the last 40 years. To verify we measure a half mile east to a quarter section corner and hit within 0.15' which is way better than most of the surveys that were done in the 1960s (usually more like 2' in a mile). It also fits the section corner 1600' south along the section line but I haven't measured the distance yet, just ran a compass line down there. An inmate crew is going to brush through 800' of solid huckleberry for us (one advantage of working for the State Fire Department, lots of inmate fire crews available).
So I would say your concrete chunks are probably in the same spot the 1937 GLO survey set the monument.
If you find the original GLO monument let us know, that's another problem.
The Dept got a new Surveyor in 1970, Jim Conkright. I ran along a mile he had traversed and hit his distance flat, I was amazed. His distance to the quarter corner is 5 hundredths long on one half mile and 5 hundredths short on the other, what an incompetent job!
No other signs. The area has been pasture for a long time. The stump hole is there... but if you were not looking for it, it would not be obvious. I think the bits of concrete are the strongest evidence.
Life is like that.
My plan is WHATEVER I do, leave footprints.
Most good surveyors will care.
N
Nate,
Reset the corner at midpoint and make new ties if available to BT's etc. File the record and move on. The stump hole of a BT with 5' difference is 5' difference and not sufficient enough evidence to use in resetting the corner from found corners east and west.
Pablo B-)
I think the presumption has to be that the GLO surveyor had more of the original evidence in 1937. That is corroborated by the notes. I would presume the stump hole was a tree that they had an opportunity to examine in 1937 and found it was not the original bearing tree. I think you need more than the stump hole in order to overcome the presumption and set it somewhere other than midpoint. That's the legal part.
Procedurally, one should start with a presumption that the previous retracement is correct. Evidence to overcome it should be clear and convincing rather than a mere preponderance (which is also the law in some jurisdictions if there is a filed map unchallenged for a certain number of years).
>...I find the mon laying on it's side, mangled with a bushhog or other farm equipment. I look for the bearing trees, and I find one stump hole. HOWEVER, it places the monument about 5' from from the MID point. Now, which location is the corner?
>
One foot of the monument relatively vertical and the rest laying on it's side or just plain mangled and entirely on it's side? If the former I would place it 5' off, if the latter I would proportion. Either way, I would note it on my plat, and either way I would honor if I followed you.
One of those coin toss judgement calls we all loose sleep over cause we care, but at some point, as my mentor would say, you've got to make a decision.
Steve
If you can find the original position, go for it. Normally the monuments are flanged and I have found broken off portions of the flanges which would indicate the original position.
Pablo B-)
Thanks everybody. Looks like we are going with the remains of the mon in the hole, that fit the stump hole. There are enough pieces of conc that I believe we have the position.
That's life.
N
I concur. The stump hole is an accessory and sufficient to re-establish the corner position.
My main question was about how much tolerance would be acceptable. 5' I'm fine with. But 50'? or 100'? I am saying that large errors do stuff, far away. Makes me start thinking thoughts of HARMONY. That is, keep harmony, and let her ride.
Sometimes that could mean many things.
Nate
I rejected a N1/16 between sections 31 and 32 recently that was off line by 25' west. It was monumented during a 1970's era dependent resurvey. It was also 25' west of a fenceline which predated the resurvey and was on the section line
For 5' I would accept it and move on. If you have the position (concrete bits in a hole) of the resurvey monument then I would use it. If the monument is in good condition I would probably reset (rehabilitate) it in the found hole and locate it.
Thanks Moe. That's my take too.
N
