Activity Feed › Discussion Forums › Strictly Surveying › PLSS question for those of you in recording states
PLSS question for those of you in recording states
Posted by holy-cow on February 19, 2021 at 3:25 amEvaluate the following scenario. Are you seeing this in your area? If so, is it growing or diminishing?
A recent survey was conducted in the northwest and southwest quarters of a standard PLSS section. The firm has worked previously in that section. The new surveys shows the six (so-called Government) corners required as existing. However, in every case there is a note saying, “Not uncovered this survey.” That means they are working from stored coordinates only and showing the bearings and distances to be identical to what they were XX number of years ago when they did prior surveys. The new tracts were established without comparing current measurements to record measurements. If corner records are produced and filed, they will be identical to those from XX number of years ago.
WA-IDSurveyor replied 3 years, 2 months ago 18 Members · 43 Replies- 43 Replies
If it’s the same surveyor signing I don’t mind using the old measurements too much, but not even making sure the monument is there and undisturbed is problematic, and illegal in some places.
I dont have a very good feel for whether this practice is increasing or not.
The simple fact you’re bringing it up, and have say 30+ years in the field indicate to me its growing……
- Posted by: @holy-cow
“Not uncovered this survey.”
This is very common in Clark County, Washington. I’m OK with reusing old measurements, but I believe that the monuments should at least be visited to determine their current status.
I’ve seen it around here. I personally think it’s poor practice.
Our statutes tell us a m&b survey must be (basically) tied to a section line. They do not say it has to be at the same time as the survey.
I would think a prudent surveyor would want to verify the locations. But I guess he or she was pretty damned sure they hadn’t “moved”.
- Posted by: @holy-cow
“Not uncovered this survey.”
In Florida that statement would get you an audience with the Board of Land Surveyors. ????
In Idaho that can be a career ender. We recover and LEAVE evidence..
@flga-2-2
Hopefully with rotten fruit and vegetables too…
That new survey rests upon the controlling monuments. Not visiting them and at least verifying that they are undisturbed (and have not been reset) is negligent. Unfortunately, “Found Section Corner, May 1992” on a 2009 record of survey is not uncommon around here.
Depending on locality and where the actual mons are located, I would be measuring them again. In busier areas with more development and frequent road upgrades it’s not uncommon for monuments to be disturbed, blown out completely, or reset within a year’s time of recovery.
Edit to add: a monument recovery note should include everything about the monument, from size and material to stamping to whether it was in a case or not, to how far up or down from grade it is, to its condition. If it’s 2 feet off road centerline, note it. If it’s at the base of a tree, note it. Not including all that information is just…lazy. I have to get on some of our crews constantly about this. The smart ones understand that all that info makes their next recovery job easier.
“…people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.” -Neil PostmanAll this depends on timing. Do we go out and check corners when we sign a plat. Nope!!
Normally a county subdivision takes a year from start to finish. Section corners may have been visited in May and the plat signed in Dec. So it that wrong, has the monument been disturbed?
Rare but possible. If you stake a lot on Friday and sign a plat for the lot two weeks later should you know if the pins were disturbed during those two weeks. Or even a few hours, what’s the time limit? Anyone know?
This question has been debated endlessly, the board never came up with a good answer. The state and county sure don’t want you digging through pavement or concrete each time you wish to tie a monument in the middle of a road cause you have a new survey 2 months after the last one.
I used this argument when the higher ups questioned why I didnt go out into the intersection of HWY 119 and Hwy36 ( Iris and 28th for those in the know…) And recover the section corner…..i used the CDOT provided ties and stayed alive and uninjured from such a stupid idea.
In the days of influencers and lack of faith in the truth I feel that this will become a real point of contention…..
Okay, lets take this scenario a little further. Say I tied all of the government land corners for a section 10 years ago and have a robust control network in the area. Now lets say I go back this year and find several of the monument destroyed but the control is still good. I would say that based on the BLM manual these monuments are merely ‘obliterated’ and that my ties are the best evidence of their location original location. Using the rational for reasoning that I need to retie every monument every time, the monuments would be ‘lost’ and my old ties would not be evidence of their location. If the monuments were merely just disturbed during the time between the original ties, wouldn’t the original tie be closer to the location of the ‘undisturbed monument’ and thus better evidence?
- Posted by: @rover83
That new survey rests upon the controlling monuments. Not visiting them and at least verifying that they are undisturbed (and have not been reset) is negligent.
Why is the disturbed location better than the original location? Since the OP specifies recording states, I would have notice that the monument was reset. At that point I would determine if the new location effected my resolution. If it did, I would negligent if I did not tie it. Any way it went, I would document my reasoning in my narrative.
Clearly, if you set or locate the corner in 1989, then come back 30 years later and use the same coordinate file tie, that’s a problem.
And your example is also a valid. Safety and damage are both issues to consider.
dried prunes only, we??re talking old farts here. ????
You know I may be more guilty of this practice that I know. I remember years ago falling into this habit when residential subdivisions were the lion’s share of my work.
“Section One” of a subdivision included all the section boundary and investigative practices. “Section Two thru Section Kazillion” got platted, filed and pinned over a period of time without hardly a trip out to the section boundaries.
So I guess I’m saying I wouldn’t do it nowadays…but have been very guilty of this in times past. Live and learn.
The obliterated monument and the disturbed monument should be rehabilitated.
Common sense could go a long way in ending this conversation.
- Posted by: @john-putnam
I would say that based on the BLM manual these monuments are merely ‘obliterated’ and that my ties are the best evidence of their location original location. Using the rational for reasoning that I need to retie every monument every time, the monuments would be ‘lost’ and my old ties would not be evidence of their location. If the monuments were merely just disturbed during the time between the original ties, wouldn’t the original tie be closer to the location of the ‘undisturbed monument’ and thus better evidence?
Speaking for myself, I wasn’t implying that the need to check monuments means that one can only use monuments to re-establish other monuments. I agree that your ties would be the best available evidence.
That’s why it is critical to have a solid control network with enough redundancy to be confident in the positions of the original monument ties we made – so we can reconstruct their positions or rehabilitate them if disturbed.
My point was that if there is a significant time lag in between surveys, and we intend to call out those same monuments, we still have a responsibility to revisit them and make sure they are still there and in good enough condition to serve as controlling monumentation. And if they are not up to that task, we have a duty to re-establish or re-habilitate them before we can, in good conscience, call them out on our current survey.
“…people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.” -Neil Postman Where did I say that the disturbed location would be better?
“…people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.” -Neil PostmanIn fairness too, the intersection Had recently been completely rebuilt and the ties were added to avoid all traffic and ROW incursions.
Log in to reply.