I am staking for some pipelines and oil wells in West Texas and I have a question...
I have located all the pertinent controlling corners for the blocks that I am working in.
The block corners fit well within one another but the interior corners do not. Do I go with where the calculated corners are or where the "occupied" corners are? The occupied interior corners are not original corners and are iron rods with caps or pipes in stone mounds . The interior corners are not consistent in the distance or bearing from the calculated corners. They all average about 50 feet from the calculated corner with some outliers around 110 feet out.
From what I learned about West TX surveying on this forum for many years from members like Kent McM.,Greg Shoults, Andy Nold and others.... Is that original monuments and Senior Rights are paramount in boundary determination. Plus it takes a wagon load of research to set lines.
So, I would say that Choice 1 is somewhat appropriate followed by Choice 4.
If you are a slam bam RTK survey then choice 3 is the only and appropriate reply,
I do need to clarify that using the controlling corners on the block, I am finding corners on the perimeter within 10-15 feet of the calculated corners. Its just in the area that I am going to stake a well, the calculated corners vs found corners are about 100+ feet from each other and in opposite directions.
You can see the bearing difference that using the found monuments will make.
Welcome to the jungle... er the desert.
What Block and Township?
Don't ignore bona fide rights. Don't ignore patented sections. Unless the patents are the original "office field notes" protracted by Kuechler.
I'll answer E. It depends.
Clark 25 for your viewing pleasure:
It is Block 58 Township 2.
That looks like a good place to do the hokey pokey!
If a section is patented out of position, do you honor its location or do you bring it to the attention of the GLO?
Not saying that is the case here, just a question in general.
Haha. I just got notice to proceed on a project in Block 58 Twp. 2. Literally 5 minutes ago. I am reviewing my maps and previous work as we speak.
Kuechler monuments control on the north. K0 was knocked out recently by a new driveway to a padsite. It is possible that there is an underground mark that is still in place. I will have my crew looking for it this week or next. I was just looking for it last weekend. Did you recover K0, K2, K3 or K4? Not sure if Kuechler references. As for the south line of Township 2, I believe there are some McCombs later monuments that control the distance, especially at the southwest corner I think we recovered something. As for the interior, I review the patent notes if any. If the field notes are newer and I can identify the patent corners, then I hold them. I also look at occupation but I'm not necessarily saying that the fence builders are any less lost than some of the surveyors who have been out there. But if you put a well location 100 feet on the other side of a long established fence, you might get some feedback from the adjoiner. And yes, there are wrong corners out there and there are multiple wrong corners at some locations. I would not hesitate to ignore a corner with no pedigree that varies wildly from the construction based on block lines and the K monuments.
Sorry for the delayed reply. I've gotten interrupted by 6 different projects since I started typing.
Is that a Luchini Map from the GLO? I'm trying to make things fit based off of the patent notes and those distances are definitely not the called distances in the patents. The patents I have call the north south distance to be 1900 varas and the east west distances vary from 1447 varas to 1960 varas.
Where can I find information on the K monuments?
That would be funny if we were contracted to do the same thing 😀
Nope, I'm not staking wells. The K monuments should be called for in Kuechler's original field notes. The McCombs distance Corrections should be interlined in red. McCombs was not allowed to correct the bearings.
Thanks Andy! I just ordered that book.
What map is that image you posted?
It appears that when he really set a mound, Kuechler calls for a stake and stone mound. When he didn't really set anything he calls for a stake and mound, which I take to be a dirt mound. But he never set the interior corners unless they fell on his traverse line.
I did not say where the map is from. I'm not sure if it is Luchini's work but I suspect it is. It is consistent with his style. Greg Shoults would probably have a few opinions on the map and this topic.
I just found one of McComb's "lost" field books.
Really?! What's it look like?
The General Land Office told me on Tuesday that there was only 1 field book by Paul McCombs for the T&P Reservation West of the Pecos River. I found Volume 2 yesterday in the Irving H. Webb Texas Surveyors Collection, 1836-1976, Dolph Briscoe Center for American History, The University of Texas at Austin.
Damn this new forum software is cranky.
Wow. That's a pretty nice find! Does that include the field notes in Block 60 and 61 of township 2 area?
I'm waiting on the book that you recommended to get here 😀
Yes, I believe it does. It is the field book for his work between the Guadalupe Mountains and the Pecos River. There's not as much detail as you would want and I think most of his work is represented on other plats and field notes.
I noticed you did a location at near the southwest corner of 58. Did you find anything monumented there? I notice that McCombs never set anything along the south line of Block 58 T2 except the southeast corner. Just wondering if anyone set anything later. We'll be out looking this weekend I think.
I did find a 1" iron pipe in concrete at a fence corner. It appears to have been set by Fred Armstrong or CC Cool.
A 1/2" iron rod in a rock mound 2575' to the north from the southwest corner (unknown origins)
A 1/2" iron rod in a rock mound a mile to the north from the southwest corner (unknown origins)
then to the east of the last monument to a capped rod in a mound roughly 9275'
Looking back at these old posts, I'll say that I have learned a lot about working in the T&P 80 Mile Reservation over the last 3 years and I acknowledge that there is a lot more to learn. Most of my work has been in the Delaware Basin in Reeves County, which overall is not much of the reservation that stretches all the way to El Paso.
A problem that I have not experienced but heard 2 other surveyors mention in recent months is the problem where Paul McCombs, a special surveyor for the State of Texas and being paid by the T&P Railway, was retracing the original 1879 survey work by Jacob Kuechler and failed to hold Kuechler's original monuments, placing his own as much as 500+ feet away.
As I recall, Kuechler was with McCombs in the field in 1884 and would help identify original monuments a scant 5 years after completing the original work. McComb's work was used as the basis for the settling Texas v Canda in 1891, so his work has the weight of adjudication with it. At this point, I'm inclined to ignore the original Kuechler monuments although I wish I knew why McCombs did the same.
Looking back at my post almost 3 years ago, looking back at "these old posts". Still wondering why Kuechler and McCombs did what they did. Headed back to the field tomorrow. Hope to find some original footprints on the ground. Taking my best McMillaneter out there. I'll find those rock mounds and some good bbq.
?ÿ
