I thought it best to start a new thread instead of replying to KScottÛªs discussion on virtual pin cushions. As a follow-up for Colorado surveyors, here is a recent article (Page 8 of the May 2016 issue) in the PLSCÛªs Side Shots by Earl Henderson, a member of the State Board. Earl writes a regular column for Side Shots entitled, ÛÏRule of the MonthÛ.
http://www.plsc.net/docs/SideShots_May16_web.pdf
While I generally agree with KScott and Mr. Henderson takes on this, I find that the state statutes and Board Rules sometimes fall short with respect to the situations encountered retracing original mineral surveys. To illustrate my point, below are three situations that I encountered in a retracement/dependent resurvey of one mineral survey in the rarified air of Park County.
I have had the unique opportunity to conduct the survey over many years, specifically at the request of the land owner. I realize that most will not be afforded 16 years to complete a survey, but it has provided me with the opportunity to monitor the ambulatory nature of monuments in mountainous terrain. I welcome any and all comments folks may have.
Case 1:
I found several solidly embedded stone corners on a mountainside. The area that the corners are located has a moderate grade of approx. 10-15% with a developed soil and trees. Higher up the mountainside it is a bare scree slope. Snow melt percolates down through the scree and eventually emerges as springs and seeps near the bottom of the slope where the stones are. Based on record information all of the stones are 1 to 3 feet out of position (my, my, my).
Original accessories to the stone corners include five multi-ton bearing rocks, two live bearing trees, and the remains of three bearing trees. The maximum discrepancy among the five multi-ton bearing rocks WRT the record is 0.24 feet! When I look at the topography , I note that the 1 to 3 feet discrepancies are down the fall line. In other words, the current position of all five stones is directly downhill from where the ties from the bearing rocks would place the corner positions.
So, what to do. (1) Accept the current positions because it is simple, straight forward, wonÛªt confuse the owners, nor hurt my brainbone much. (2) Dig up the stones and move them uphill using the ties from the bearing rocks based on the notion that they are extant corners (the original bearing objects) where the stones have been disturbed over time. (3) Place a new, shiny monument at the ÛÏtrueÛ position and confuse everyone about why I rejected original monuments (not to mention that it will likely travel downhill with the stone over time)! (4) Hold the stones and include an extra sheet with the Land Survey Plat showing the conflicts between the found corners and original bearing objects. The sheet would include a statement that it is likely that the original stones have moved downhill by soil creep, frost heave, and/or other mass wasting processes (sorry IÛªm also a Professional Geologist in Colorado) and that the multi-ton bearing rocks appear to still be in their original positions. This avoids the issue of virtual pin cushions but puts a future surveyor of the property on notice that these stones are likely ambulatory and based on our combined work he/she may decide to reject the stones. (5) Other scenarios?
Case 2:
I found a corner that was purported to mark a corner of a mill site. Mill sites are not supposed to overlap other claims like lode claims commonly do. On the other side of the stone I found the chiseled marks for a lode claim. However, I found an odd note in the field notes that the true position of that lode claim was 0.89 away. The bearing rock for that lode claim verified that position.
By happenchance my client had the mineral surveyorÛªs field notes, sketch maps and computation sheets for the survey of the mill site. I found an error of 30 arc-minutes in the solar computation and that error was shown in a sketch and that error was the reason for the 0.89 foot boo boo. For whatever reason the mineral surveyor decided to pluck the lode claim corner out of the ground, rotate it 180 degrees, chisel the other side with the mill site info and plant it 0.89 feet away!
So, what to do. (1) Call the stoneÛªs current position the common corner to both the lode and mill site and ignore the bearing rock tie. (2) Place a modern monument 0.89 feet away and call it the common corner to both the lode claim and mill site. (3) Place a modern monument for the lode claim only, hold the stone as the corner of the mill site and CREATE a 0.89 foot by 246 foot gore between the two. (4) Curse that mineral surveyor for makingn my brainbone ache!
Case 3:
The mineral surveyor in Case 2 also surveyed up into the scree slope and found a corner to a previous survey that he reported to be 14 feet out of position. His field notes stated that the stone was properly marked and firmly set in a mound of stone. I show up 70 years later and find the same stone in an upright position with a mound of stone and set two steel ÛÏTÛ fence posts flush with the surface as monument record accessories.
A comparison with the original survey show the stone to be 26 feet out of position WRT to the record dimensions. Three years later, I set a pin at the record position of the lode claim, but did not call it the corner because the stone had moved an additional 1.5 feet. Seven years later, I go back and measure the stone, fence posts and rebar again. All have moved down the hill, but there is no indication that any of the monuments are leaning or disturbed, just my multiple RTK and static GPS measurements that differ from each other.
In this case, the movement is again straight down the fall line of the slope. Of the multiple working hypotheses that I have for this ÛÏcornerÛ, the one that I am leaning towards is that this part of the scree slope is moving downhill en masse in fits and jerks. This is borne out by observing a slight concavity in the surface when standing uphill and looking downhill at the pin and stone. My opinion as a geologist is that this is fairly conclusive that a large wedge of scree is moving as a single block downhill.
So, what to do. I donÛªt have any idea on how to monument this corner. Later this week, I will shoot the stone, accessories and pin one more time and most likely note additional movement. I will likely place a statement on the plat that neither the stone nor the pin has any utility except to show the instability of the slope in the area and the past movement. Setting a witness corner or reference monuments several hundred feet away really doesnÛªt serve any purpose as to where in the scree slope the corner lies. Instead, I may decide to reference the true corner position (some may call this a virtual pin cushion, so be it), with ties from my GPS control network along with the SPC coordinates of the ÛÏtrueÛ corner position.
While these scenarios are subject to ColoradoÛªs statutes and Board Rules, I would hope that any state board would acknowledge that professional judgment has its place when situations fall outside the norm.
Gene,
I would think in your case one, you would hold the accessories that you have a higher-level of certainty have not moved. Now I have heard guys speak of a pin that moves slowly and imperceptibly down a slope should be accepted. However, I would think based on the fact that you have a history of observing the monuments, and the fact that the accessories haven't moved, they are the stronger indication of where the corner goes.
As to Mr. Henderson's article, I generally agree with him. I think if you find ambiguous evidence, you should be able to show why you picked the solution you did. And explaining it in your narrative or on you plat, will more likely protect you and give a following surveyor enough information to see your logic and hopefully agree with you.
As to his referencing to the "virtual" pin cushion by referencing the monument to the "true corner". I remember Gary Kent giving a lecture (on ALTAs actually) but showing his plat where he did just that. I raised my hand and argued that one should use the "record vs measured" method of annotating the lines. However one does need to recognize that his method was the generally accepted methodology for certain areas and certain times. He argued that he was just showing the difference between "measured" and "found" as well, but the verbiage in doing so implied that the "true" corner differed from the monumented corner.
Just some random thoughts on this.
Tom
Gene - I have no problem with any of those scenarios. I have witnessed the very same thing on many different scales. Not only in the mountains where I have found GLO monuments that moved downhill 150 feet but in subdivisions where the pins move tenths due to frost, irrigation, machinery, fence builders, landscapers, and so on. In some cases it may not even matter what decision is made as long as a record of that decisions is left for future users. The "0.1 South, 0.2 West" has always seemed to me like a non-decision.
Every case is unique. If we wanted absolutes we should have been accountants!
I hear ya Gene!
Matt & I are in the middle of a survey (8-10k feet Elevation) that requires the retracement of all or part of about 110 Mineral Surveys ranging in age from 1879 to 1932 (over å? of them prior to 1890) Nearly ALL of which are aspen and/or pine posts. There has been just enough amateur surveyor work in the area to REALLY complicate matters too (not to mention the dozen or so "Binger" Surveys).
As you point out above, an Original Monument that isn't in situ, is just a monument! , A monument (especially an Original Monument) that no longer marks the CORNER is a recipe for disaster down the road. Exactly how one goes about documenting these situations is NOT a "one size fits all" scenario.
Loyal
the surveyor's nightmare, a healthy looking wandering monument 🙁
Sounds like it's a good thing earthquakes aren't as prevalent in Colorado as some other places.
I suppose all of us near mountainous country have a moving monument. The one I keep running into is the C1/4 of a Section 9.......
It keeps sliding to the SE; between 0 and .5' a year, depending how much rain and snow the winter/spring produces.
Good to see you on the Board again Gene. Hope all is well with you.