Activity Feed › Discussion Forums › Strictly Surveying › No comment?
No comment?
Posted by Keith on January 13, 2011 at 4:52 pmI don’t believe a word of this?
by Keith, On the Central Coast of California, Tuesday, January 11, 2011, 13:46 (1 day, 19 hours, 4 min. ago) @ Keith
“The Cadastral Branch of the BLM in California no longer takes bearing trees. At least not in the contracts they are performing for the USFS in northern California.
The areas of which are heavily timbered. You can’t spit without hitting a tree in this area.
Even more disturbing is they are doing a lot of work without setting 1/4 corners. Only section corners. Their arguement is that the 1/4 corners are work more needed by the private side. Somewhat true as most of the USFS lands are full sections around here. But it shouldn’t be that way. The BLM “should” be surveying in to the 1/4 corner positions as part of their search for original GLO, so they “should” be visiting those positions anyways. However, they are not setting them, and I am beginning to question just how diligent they are in their searches for the 1/4 corners.”I want to see proof of this nonsense!
Keith
Keith replied 13 years, 4 months ago 16 Members · 36 Replies- 36 Replies
I’ve heard this but don’t know if it’s true or not. You could contact Lance or someone else in cadastral in Sacramento to find out.
I’d guess a guy like you would have numerous contacts……if it’s bothering you so much, why not investigate and let us know what you find out.
I’d do it myself, but I don’t do BLM work here in NY/NJ
Cowboy
Is it too much to expect the accuser of proving his accusation?
Keith
Cowboy
> Is it too much to expect the accuser of proving his accusation?
>
> KeithFrom the original post it looks like you are the accuser. Who is?
I think that it is ok that Keith brought this TTT from a previous thread that went off on a lot of tangents.
It is an interesting comment by the anon ClearCut that needs to verified and possibly tossed around here.
It is an interesting thought that CORS staions could be used as accessories to a monument which would have some meaning in Non-plss statesKeith,
Thanks for the message, it took me a while to find the topic string with this statement in it from “Clearcut”, whoever that is? But I will just say the statement is totally untrue and I’ll leave it at that. If Clearcut would like to discuss this further he can reach me by phone anytime.
Why is the BLM surveying these large tracts anyway, is there a demand to survey and section off these tracts? Of is this sort of just a Federal make work project? Just asking.
Thanks Lance
Well there you have it gentlemen!
Keith
Sam
BLM does resurveys on Federal lands to identify the boundaries for the land managers.
Some of these areas are large.
Keith
Comment!
BLM gets enough crap thrown at it, and does not need anonymous nonsense posted here.
Keith
Most BLM resurveys I know about are mainly to determine mineral estate. Generally the largest portion of the land is fee surface with a small amount of Public Land surface and a mix of mineral ownership.
really now?
Sam, what would you propose? Should we just fold up shop and stop everything? It is probably much more costly to allow federal boundaries to fall into disrepair, than to resurvey them from time to time and perpetuate boundary evidence.
I can verify the statement about not setting 1/4 corners is 100% true. If you want proof, look at the township subdivision T35N R1W, MDM in CALIF.
This has been a longstanding practice and this is not the only township were no 1/4 corners were set by the BLM. There are many others. I will post a copy of the field notes here later for proof.
As for the bearing trees, the source of this information was from a recent conversation with one of the field office branch chiefs. The branch chief is a highly experienced and competent person, whom I’ve enjoyed knowing on a personal basis for many years. However, as Mr. Bishop has denied this being true, I will pursue further discussion with the branch chief to understand if this was a miscommunication from my conversation with the branch chief, or otherwise.
Please understand that I was relaying information from a reliable source within the organization (regarding BTs). If my future inquiry into this provides any information contrary to Mr. Bishop’s statement, I will provide that information here with supporting backup. Unless and untill then, I apologize for any consternation this may have caused.
really now?
If Lance is still around, he can correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think BLM just roams around freshening up old surveys for something to do. I think there has to be a good reason like a potential encroachment, maybe an error in an old survey or they can be “hired” by other agencies like the USFS. True or false?
Keith could straighten me out on this too. There are probably other good reasons for BLM to do resurveys I haven’t thought of.
I should have said the dependent resurvey of T35N R1W MDM performed in 2000, not subdivision.
The BLM did resurveys of quite a number of townships in the Shasta Lake vicinity in the 1980s-1990s. In the mid 1990’s the joint decision by USFS (owner) and BLM (surveyor) was made to not set any 1/4 corners where the section interiors were not also subdivided. This has been a problem for me in locating private tracts within the sections as I have had to establish 1/4 corner positions that the BLM skipped. In some recent situations, it has been quite a bit more work for me to establish the center 1/4s and interior 1/16ths, as I have had to tie all section corners instead of just the 1/4 corners. Particularly disturbing since the BLM surveyed the lines and it would not have been that much additional effort to set the 1/4 corners.
really now?
Much of the BLM surveys I have been involved in various capacities were independent and dependent resurveys of entire townships that were originally fraudulently performed during the Benson syndicate days of the 1880s.
As I recall, there were 6 or more townships in the Shasta Lake area which were performed by BLM for the forest service and the adjoining lands owned by SPI. The USFS funded most of this work, but the timber company may have also participated monetarily as they made up over 90% of the private ownership.
Lance
T35N R1W MDM, among several others. T36N R1W. T36N R2W. T35N R2W as I recall.
No 1/4 corners were set, only section corners.
Perhaps you were only replying to the no BT part??As for the no BT part, I’ll get back to you on that, I want to talk to my source of that recent revelation first.
We’ll discuss further the next time we meet.
“This has been a longstanding practice and this is not the only township were no 1/4 corners were set by the BLM. There are many others. I will post a copy of the field notes here later for proof.”
I was a Cadastral Surveyor for BLM in California from 1976-1987 and a technician before that. Not setting 1/4 corners and not searching for them was never a “practice”, longstanding or otherwise.
I didn’t participate in any surveys in the Shasta area, but did plenty throughout California and Wyoming. All corners were thoroughly searched for and remonumented or set by the appropriate method if not found, bearing trees were taken if within limits, bxo’s marked or RM’s set if not.
If the FS specifically reqired that 1/4 cors to not be set as part of the survey request, that may have been the case, but I never heard of it.
DJJ
The practice started in the mid to early 1990s. It is possibly unique to the Lake Shasta Area area, I’m not sure.
I am aware of at least 4 or 5 entire townships that were re-surveyed by the BLM in recent history with no 1/4 corners set. Well over 100 sections, closer to 200 sections.
Clearcut
Can you post the plat here?
Keith
Log in to reply.