"This is partially why I think states should look at their minimum standards and seek to modify them. If you establish a starting point with state plane coordinates (or lat/long) and use a reproduceable(sic) bearing base, a future surveyor coming behind you can follow your footsteps in the field...."
Bsed on my experience I highly doubt this. I would replace "can" with "might be able to".
> The property is wedged between a state owned river (not monumented) and a railroad (good luck finding a monument there).
It sounds like there are at least two significant physical monuments that can be used in conjunction with reproducible coordinates/lats-lons.
Maybe I am not understanding the situation, but aren't you describing a natural monument? Sure the coordinates (bearings & distances) should be reasonably both precise and accurate, but the controlling factor IS still the natural monument (wetland).
> Bsed(sic) on my experience I highly doubt this. I would replace "can" with "might be able to".
I completely disagree. As long as the surveyor is very descriptive on his/her methodology, a following surveyor will be able to follow the footsteps of the original surveyor who wrote the description. I understand it makes it more difficult if a surveyor does not have GPS capabilities, but it doesn't take away from the validity of the description if written properly.
If you set one permanent monument at each site, with state plane cords, and then use that as your basis of bearing, you can reproduce anything. Chances are that several points will survive, and worse come to worse, it can be reproduced from the coordinates alone.
Does not standards for boundary surveys if is in Texas. My opinion, not matter how many button-pushed coordinates are on it.
Agreed, Foggy. My biggest issue with the whole thing is that states should allow for this to be "legal" within the realm of state statues that pertain to surveyors. I understand at one point why most states required descriptions to start from a section corner or subdivision corner. However, in today's world, I'd be comfortable starting from a monument with a given state plane coordinate value.
Ditto Loyal...Sometimes it's better to keep the mouth shut and keep people wondering than to make a statement and remove all doubt of stupidity.
Pablo B-)
"...a following surveyor will be able to follow the footsteps of the original surveyor who wrote the description."
Perhaps you have competent surveyors in your area. I have a long list of incompetent surveyors who don't have the faintest idea how to put a Stste Plane coordinate position on the ground. Some of them work for very large international firms. One told me (after a 6-month long discussion that they had come to the conclusion that no one in their firm had ever understood State Plane conversions, and that they had come to the conclusion every project they had ever performed (in 43 States).
Two issues (both of which have been inferred above):
You said "....set a starting point (capped 36" rebar) and assign a coordinate to it."
I don't know what you meant by that, but assigning a coordinate to a brand new point is not a good plan. Maybe you meant this; but put a global coordinate on it and give enough information (metadata) to let the retracer know your ellipsoid model, etc. One of the major components of a legal description is that it must be retracable and not mistaken for any other location. If you can't find your point of commencement and it's not of record, you can't retrace it.
Second, if you are required in your state to tie it to a pre-existing point of record, why not put another global coordinate on a mark you can find. One of the property pins or something. At least to fullfill the standards of the statutes.
> "...a following surveyor will be able to follow the footsteps of the original surveyor who wrote the description."
>
> Perhaps you have competent surveyors in your area. I have a long list of incompetent surveyors who don't have the faintest idea how to put a Stste Plane coordinate position on the ground. Some of them work for very large international firms. One told me (after a 6-month long discussion that they had come to the conclusion that no one in their firm had ever understood State Plane conversions, and that they had come to the conclusion every project they had ever performed (in 43 States).
Ouch.
How can this created easement be shown in its relationship to the tract out of which it came with only coordinates, unless everyting is on the same system?
These are small (sub acre) areas within the center of the property. The river line is not monumented in any way and the RR is not (at least anymore) monumented. The property lines were surveyed by another surveyor about 15 years ago and never staked (standard practice around here...no one stakes unless specifically asked to and paid).
So after the apocalypse I can break out my Gurley and chain in the smoke filled skies and set up on that magic point and come up with some clue which direction to take off in. Bull, two points define a line, three define a crooked line.
These are SPC Coordinates
I have to ask... why are you 1) describing a wetland, and 2) monumenting a wetland? Wetlands are dynamic boundaries. They change location from year to year, season to season, and decade to decade. They are not static boundaries that should be described by brg/dist or monumented. I've mapped a lot of wetlands that were determined by wetlands specialists and pin-flagged. I've never written a description of a wetland or set a monument on one.
Just asking... why?
JBS
> These are small (sub acre) areas within the center of the property. The river line is not monumented in any way and the RR is not (at least anymore) monumented. The property lines were surveyed by another surveyor about 15 years ago and never staked (standard practice around here...no one stakes unless specifically asked to and paid).
I understand that. What I'm asking is does the railroad and/or river intersect any other natural or artificial feature (or each other) like a canal, bridge, road, culvert, etc., where you could either find or set something (preferably 2 or 3) that can be tied via measurements/coordinates that would aid in the retracement of the wetland delineation?
Example: Commencing at the centerline intersection of the UP railroad and a 16" CMP at railroad station 1125+68.5, (having a SPC of .....), from which the northeast corner of the bridge abutment of co. rd #383, where is crosses the bluegill river (having a SPC of ....) bears N 48d35'30" E a dist of 868.35 feet, thence East 1254.50 feet to a ......................
Again, you need to remember you are describing a natural feature itself, which is controlling over brgs and distances called out in your description. Any retracement of the wetland boundaries will probably require another delineation which most assuredly will not precisely match your brgs and distances.
> Again, you need to remember you are describing a natural feature itself, which is controlling over brgs and distances called out in your description. Any retracement of the wetland boundaries will probably require another delineation which most assuredly will not precisely match your brgs and distances.
My guess is that what's being described is not a natural feature, rather a piece of property where the owner is exchanging a portion of his "bundle of sticks" for a "handful of cash"; ie...a conservation easement of some sort that will place restrictions on a portion of the property.
If so, I'd find a way to tie it to the boundary, even if it was just one line adjoining the railroad.
> I have to ask... why are you 1) describing a wetland, and 2) monumenting a wetland? Wetlands are dynamic boundaries. They change location from year to year, season to season, and decade to decade. They are not static boundaries that should be described by brg/dist or monumented. I've mapped a lot of wetlands that were determined by wetlands specialists and pin-flagged. I've never written a description of a wetland or set a monument on one.
>
:good:
In New Jersey the DEP requires metes and bounds to be filed as part of the permit. But it is a permit for a set amount of time, not an easement for perpetuity.
Not to say that I haven't seen Planning Boards require them to be filed as wetland easement to the municipality.
> My guess is that what's being described is not a natural feature, rather a piece of property where the owner is exchanging a portion of his "bundle of sticks" for a "handful of cash"; ie...a conservation easement of some sort that will place restrictions on a portion of the property.
>
> If so, I'd find a way to tie it to the boundary, even if it was just one line adjoining the railroad.
That is why understanding the exact purpose and requirements will aid in providing the correct solution. I've done a few of these "bundles for cash" exchanges, and usually they are either a marked/agreed boundary or strips of land being 100 feet north and south of the centerline of XXXX creek. I've never had one that transferred using the boundary as the "edge of the delineated wetland" ...... yet 😉
The wetlands were built and there has to be specific conservation easements over them. So it would be describing something physical in the field.
