PREFACE
Others have suggested “the 73 manual” as inappropriate for use in Alabama since few of the section corners can be identified to a standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt”. Recent published opinions have suggested this modification to our practice when closing a section or relying on a section corner. The following comments address this issue for your consideration. Also, we delve into the innate accuracy of the GLO surveys using modern methods and the actual field measurements.
And don’t think just because I wrote this article that I know everything about survey measurement, GPS, BLM manual or the original 1818 survey, or think I do. In this article I am merely sharing what I know as an engineer-surveyor, my 43rd year. Good surveying is most complicated and as the years go by I learn everyday and hopefully I can continue. Now if you care to critique what is presented, please do so at jmh8743@bellsouth.net. Remember, I am not a lawyer; therefore, as I have been told, I can only read the law, not interpret it.
CURRICULUM VITAE
A large portion of my early professional career was devoted to county government. Those years, 1963 until 1980, formed much of the basis of my professional philosophy and ethics. These character traits were set by the engineers and surveyors in that organization, one of the largest in the state, and of course my graduate level professors. My undergraduate and graduate studies enhanced my ability to successfully sit for civil service examinations. Many of my competitors had the advantage of adding their “service years” to their score which made a top score difficult. My final position, as a division head, required politics, budgeting, preparation of examinations, design activities and response to one of the three commissioners.
1980 began my private practice and I formed a partnership with a prior county government employee. The company had at least 8 survey crews, at the time, as the development surge of the ‘70s began to wind down due to inflation that finally lead to 20% interest rates. This was not a good time to enter private practice. My meager income was augmented by teaching surveying, a 4 course series, at UAB for Dr. Joe Appleton. One of my first Company duties was to help our lawyer develop a defense for a surveying related lawsuit. The site was adjacent to Highway 79 south of Tarrant, Alabama. Upon review of the field notes, plat, my personal investigation and other discovery documents, I concluded we were wrong. The crew used a non-verified monument for a “mortgage survey” and extended east, set half inch rebars. Not good.
EXAMPLE ONE DETAILS
Months later, we received a copy of a resurvey of the Company survey prepared by a Birmingham surveyor. His survey disputed our work and in lieu of a mortgage survey, he performed an actual boundary survey with a 24"x36" format that made our 8.5"x11" appear childish. His point of commencement was a section corner, proceeded along the section line and finally to the lot corner. We were 12' too far east; except, the original plat was a recorded Jefferson County subdivision approximately 40 years old that Highway 79 had bisected. He had crossed five streets to set the corner(s). Few of his measurements were directed toward re-establishment of the block and the basis of his opinion was aliquot section data. The surveyor measured more than 4000 feet to set a partial lot corner. I convinced my partner to hire Walter Robillard 1 as our expert witness. Walter clearly disputed the survey premise and procedure during court proceedings in spite of the inept questioning by our attorney. We lost. The judge awarded $12,000 to the plaintiff. Four years later, the judge told me he was wrong.
THEN WHY ALIQUOT A SECTION?
A rogue case? The above was my first personal experience with the law and not the last. Prominent personalities and experienced practitioners at the time of our early surveying studies, accepted texts that explain similar situations and periodicals dictate our background to a large degree. Obviously, the prior situation was affected by simultaneous conveyance rules and any definition of the actual section offered deeper footsteps. I do not suggest this violates the need to close a section.
Secondly, were my instructors wrong? Are the texts outdated? Is the ‘73 manual of negligible value? More recent comments I have heard suggested closing a section is unnecessary and the ‘73 manual is inappropriate. Other references describe a similar procedure. Let us address the latter first.
“The Manual” is still part of the land surveying examination. It must be or so many aspirants would not be eager to “borrow” or “liberate” my copy. We must, then, consider its value in our decision process. I once stated “The Manual” specified preponderance of evidence for defense of a section corner. It does not; I was incorrect. The criminal evaluation of “beyond a reasonable doubt” has been stated by others as the evidence criterion. Does this warrant the entire publication invalid2? Not in my opinion and not in the opinion of others.3
Continuing on the former topic and in my humble opinion, surveying is both theory and judgement. The mathematics aspect is much more complex now than in 1963 when all I had available was a rotary calculator and trigonometry tables (not the good old days). Electronic distance measurements, then total stations with data collectors (actually a desktop computer) and then Global Positioning have changed the complexity of the trigonometric computations. A large portion of my land surveyors exam, one of the first 2 day exams, was related to plane trigonometry. Now spherical trigonometry is desirable.
The remainder is an understanding of the of the field procedures predominant at the time of the survey and interpretation by the courts. Division of a section is a necessity. We should realize “how important it is to occasionally, if not regularly, remind our younger peers of past developments affecting our profession”4. Tape and transit surveys were so time constrained, the division of a section was not a viable alternative except by large entities5 until the EDM was available in the early 1970's, although very large and required a car battery. My discussion submits an alternative to less experienced and/or interested surveyors concerning division of a section. I offer the following for your consideration.
EXAMPLE TWO: RAINBOW CROSSING, BLOUNT COUNTY, ALABAMA
CHEROKEE BOUNDARY 1839
For example, Blount County has large areas that include the Cherokee Indian Boundary of 1819. The original government survey notes of 1819 show the survey terminating on the Indian Boundary. Then in 1839, the townships originally omitted were surveyed. The ‘73 manual, for this situation and others, becomes a guide developed by more learned professionals to assist the practitioner with his decision making process.
Unusual circumstances were found. The north and south section distances are 4650 feet and my competitors set 1333 feet for a quarter section point from the west. The GS ran from east to west. The first vector to the “quarter section post” would have been 40 ch. in 1839. Beyond the Indian Boundary, the southwest corner was not reset or shown in the field notes in 1839. “The Manual” is not the only reference utilized. Any other source which can assist a determination is applicable, my entire library.
The U S government survey can be thought of as a simultaneous survey. The sections of a township are the blocks of the survey and the each block is further subdivided into lots, 16 of them or 40 acre tracts. I apply generally the same rules to a section as I would a block of a simultaneous conveyance. This is my own way of establishing rules, or guidelines, for my monument placement activities and from purely a practitioners point of view. I’m sure some smart lawyer can find hundreds of court cases which dispute my procedure. We, as surveyors, require methodology that one of our contemporaries would think practicable, reasonable and retraceable.
The conditions I found a Rainbow Crossing were unique. The client owned, or would soon own, by inheritance, 270 aces more or less adjacent to the Cherokee Indian reservation and the original commissioned surveyor would not return6. The boundary was comprised of a fractional section and a standard 1819 section. This property had not been surveyed, since the original government survey. The fences found were “as a cow would wonder”. Only the newer fences had any resemblance to linearity. The descriptions were simple 40 acre and 80 acre tracts based upon aliquot division of the section.
Shown is an aerial photograph with the sections lines portrayed. Reconnaissance time is reduced significantly and additionally, existing boundaries, contiguous and beyond are easily seen. The scale on the photo when downloaded was 1:10000. Some you will find in urban areas that are 1:3000 or less. 1:10000 maps are frequently the standard. The server did not specify whether the map was a rectified orthophoto or not. Generally, features become the item used to locate a specific position, i.e. the Northwest section corner is located approximately 15' west of the lone oak tree which was apparent in the photo before I messed it up with the broad line.
SECTION 11 Blount County
The figure named “Blount County north of Rainbow Xing” is a portion of the final plat delivered to the client. Section 11 measures approximately 4650 north line, 5265 west line and 5305 east line. The south line has been further compromised by a survey which set the Southeast corner of the Southwest of the Southwest quarter 1333 feet east of the Southwest corner. That corresponds to half the distance to the “rock” as shown by the official plat7 found along the Cherokee Indian Boundary Line8; whereas the rock was assumed to be the quarter section post. All of these issues had to be resolved before corners could be established in the north half of the section.
The “Original Survey, 1819"
THE PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE A BOUNDARY SURVEY
Presume for this discussion you are commissioned to set the Southwest corner of the North half of the Southeast quarter. Reconnaissance will result only in a meandering fence line. From my experience in Cullman and the adjacent counties, you will find two procedures in practice. The first would be 1) along the south line measure 1333' to the capped rebar, then another 1333' to the half mile, once again assumed as the rock, then turn North along the fence line and set a point at the end of the fence. Seven times out of 10, item 1) will be quoted over the phone as $1200 to $1800. The client is happy, the surveyor pays his crews and has a profit.
Then there is item 2): close the section, if required. Also assume, for this example, the ASPLS Board has, by resolution, declared “the manual” as inappropriate for use in Alabama since none of the section corners can be resolved to a standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt”. As previously stated, published opinions have suggested this modification to our practice when closing a section or relying on a section corner; and, in the strictest sense, the “quarter section posts” as described by the field notes, would have to be located comparably. How do you determine the 40 corners?
WHAT DOES THE MANUAL REALLY SAY?
Chapter V, Restoration of Lost or Obliterated Corners, describes the process a surveyor, and not necessarily the BLM surveyor,9 utilizes:
5-1 The rules for identifying an approved official survey differ from those under which the survey was originally made. The purpose is not to “correct” the original survey by determining where a new or exact running of the line would locate a particular corner, but rather to determine where the corner was established in the beginning. The methods described here follow leading judicial opinions and approved surveying practice.10
Three monuments are described 1) an existing corner, 2) an obliterated corner and 3) the lost corner. An existent corner is one that is commensurate with the original monument or its accessories. In other words, you must find the corner (i.e. the position thereof) based upon the references, parol evidence or the monument itself. Second, an
“obliterated corner is one at whose point there are no remaining traces of the monument or its accessories, but whose location has been perpetuated, or the point for which may be recovered beyond a reasonable doubt by the acts and testimony of the interested landowners, competent surveyors, or other qualified local authorities, or witnesses or by some acceptable record evidence.”11
Lastly, the Manual defines the lost corner. “ A lost corner is a point of a survey whose position cannot be determined, beyond a reasonable doubt ...”. Now remember, a corner is the position and the monument is the object placed at the point or position. This situation prescribes “double and single proportionate measurements” to restore a lost corner. Only once or twice, in my checkered and dissipated career, have I digressed to this procedure.
 |
| INFORMATION ONLY |
preponderance of the evidence
n. the greater weight of the evidence required in a civil (non-criminal) lawsuit for the trier of fact (jury or judge without a jury) to decide in favor of one side or the other. This preponderance is based on the more convincing evidence and its probable truth or accuracy, and not on the amount of evidence. Thus, one clearly knowledgeable witness may provide a preponderance of evidence over a dozen witnesses with hazy testimony, or a signed agreement with definite terms may outweigh opinions or speculation about what the parties intended. Preponderance of the evidence is required in a civil case and is contrasted with "beyond a reasonable doubt," which is the more severe test of evidence required to convict in a criminal trial. No matter what the definition stated in various legal opinions, the meaning is somewhat subjective.
beyond a reasonable doubt12
adj. part of jury instructions in all criminal trials, in which the jurors are told that they can only find the defendant guilty if they are convinced "beyond a reason- able doubt" of his or her guilt. Sometimes referred to as "to a moral certainty," the phrase is fraught with uncertainty as to meaning, but try: "you better be damned sure." By comparison it is meant to be a tougher standard than "preponderance of the evidence," used as a test to give judgment to a plaintiff in a civil (non-criminal) case.
reasonable doubt
n. not being sure of a criminal defendant's guilt to a moral certainty. Thus, a juror (or judge sitting without a jury) must be convinced of guilt of a crime (or the degree of crime, as murder instead of manslaughter) "beyond a reasonable doubt," and the jury will be told so by the judge in the jury instructions. However, it is a subjective test since each juror will have to decide if his/her doubt is reasonable. It is more difficult to convict under that test, than "preponderance of the evidence" to decide for the plaintiff (party bringing the suit) in a civil (non-criminal) trial.
Therefore as I stated in “WHY ALIQUOT A SECTION?” above maybe the criterion is in fact “a preponderance of evidence” to promulgate the position of a section corner and maybe this time I was not wrong. What do you think? Can we not, as professionals, ascertain the most applicable evidence appropriate for the conditions?
“The retracing surveyor should never have an attitude that since the survey is an ancient survey, there is no possibility of finding evidence.
In a GLO survey that was conducted in 1805 in Alabama, deputy surveyors established a section corner and marked four trees as witness trees. One of the trees, a 6" yellow popular, was blazed and scribed. Applying all the rules of longevity, the tree should have a life span of approximately 150 years. Thus in a 1996 retracement, the surveyor would not have expected to find the tree still alive. But in the 1996 retracement, a 60 in diameter yellow poplar was found with the proper blazing at the correct bearing and distance. Yet in the same township, no other trees from the original survey were found. One tree survived the odds”.13 This is fine and commendable, but how do we allocate the time for this research?
WERE THE ORIGINAL SURVEYS REALLY THAT BAD?
EXAMPLE THREE, ALONG THE HUNTSVILLE MERIDIAN
My practice has been fortunate enough to measure “existing monumentation” along the Huntsville Meridian. Once again, the Rainbow Crossing project was in partial Sections 11 and 13, R1E, 5 miles distance. The points shown below are positions along the Meridian in Twp10S, Sections 18 & 19. The Manual defines the initial point of the Meridian as shown below.14 Quite useful is the fact that the variation in two miles is 7.32-5.77 = 1.55 (or 131 feet at this latitude) seconds based upon existing points, but I have to be careful using that term.
Thus the variation in longitude is a westward 51 seconds average. From the Initial Point Meridian of 86-34-16, the point for ROCK2 (See below 86-35-07.32) yields the Huntsville Meridian has translated 4313 feet west by latitude 34-09-07.17", assuming the Initial Point position15 could be reasonably approximated by the present GPS spheroid. The 1807 methodology was based upon Polaris.
Table -1-
RBR1 34-09-07.428168 86-35-38.769291 766.26
RBR2 34-09-33.960539 86-35-44.185500 799.17
RBR3 34-09-59.689160 86-35-06.246460 773.63
RBR4 34-09-59.425579 86-35-06.291176 772.86 39.2' SOUTH OF HALF SEC 18
ROCK1 34-08-40.822340 86-35-07.712189 700.37 SW OF 19
ROCK2 34-09-07.171951 86-35-07.320484 714.33 HALF WEST LINE 19
ROCK2@Mer 34-09-07.172000 86-34-16.000000 714.32 FOR CALCULATIONS
Continuing this line of thinking, how close was the latitude? Let’s take ROCK2 coordinates, found at the quarter section post on the West line of Section 19. This point is 9 townships and 3.5 miles south of the initial point, 57.5 miles.
S = rθ, 57.5 = 3963.3xθ; => θ = 57.5/3963.3 = 0.014508112 rad
θ = 0^49''52.51" subtracting this from the initial point yields
Lat = 34^09'34.49" North 1807
vs.
Lat = 34^09'07.17" North measured 1983 spheroid.
Using 27.3", about 0.52 miles North or 0.52/57.5 = 0.009 mi per mile Latitude
Utilizing USGS Holly Pond quadrangle plats and scaling techniques ROCK2 scales 34^09'08"North, 86^35'07" West. Ok no bad blunder there. The initial point scales from USGS quadrangle Fisk as 34^59'27" North and 86^34'16"W, OK.
ALONG THE WINSTON COUNTY LINE
(A) Assess the internal township measurements
Below I have compiled from the original 1818 survey the measurements made in Township 11, Range 6 West, the east boundary of which constitutes the Cullman County-Winston County boundary. Further, recent observations have determined the Northeast corner of Section 13 (on the East township line) as:
NE-13 34-05-40.689695 87-06-43.016408 764 Planted Rock W/X
The geodetic position was based upon simultaneous observations of CORS stations WMEL, EDFF AND DRUM with dual frequency receivers and post processing.
Data from the original notes was reduced into the format required by a least squares adjustment tool the writer has been using for 10 years, STAR*PLUS PRO. The results of this numerical experiment is contained herein.
The data shown in the figure represents the distance shown to the “1/4 section post”, not the “half mile”, East to West and North to South. Interestingly, only five(5) random lines appear for the interior lines. Normally, for this area, the south line of the section will be shown as 40+ 40 chains to the “1/4 section post” and the “half mile”. From that point the west section line will show a non-integer value indicating the west line was run and then trued. Notice from the figure the closing distances on the south tier of sections. Remember the distances shown are
to the quarter section point.
Also from my experience, section lines that are close to 5280 feet have been adjusted by others later. The adjacent mile will then be 5340'. Consequently, all dimensions have been scaled by 5307/5280 = 1.057. The township boundaries are all listed as 80.0 chains by the original notes. One township line has to be random if I understand the procedure they used. I submit to you, how could the township boundaries all be 80.0 chain miles? As you can see the North-South lines of the south Tiers of lots are very long. The double lines shown represent the measured vs. the least squares adjusted. The numbers to the side of the corner are point numbers used by STAR.
The adjustment results are as follows:
Parallel Latitudinal Lines Residual = 11.2 ft one standard deviation
Average Residual = 15.5 ft
Meridional Lines
One Standard deviation = 23.0 ft
Average Residual = 22.7 ft
Minimum Residual = -67.5 ft
Maximum Residual = 110.7 ft
Earlier I mentioned the procedure utilized in 1807 and 1818. The writer once possessed a original copy of James M Faircloth’s survey notes. The full text describes the instructions. At this time, the text is listed in my library card catalog, but, alas, missing or liberated. Memory serves me no written record of the instructions to surveyors has survived until about 1830 which excludes Freeman and Coffee. Next, my intention is to locate any data available concerning the prime meridian and the parallel. The Manual indicates the meridian was initiated in 1807.
(B) Assess the Positional Location of NE corner of Section 13-Twp11S-R6W
ROCK
34-05-40.68970
87-06-43.016408 Observed position
The sphere in the upper right hand corner of the figure represents the Initial Point (IP) at the geodetic coordinates as originally determined and as shown above at the Huntsville Meridian. Each one of the standard parallels represents a distance of 24 miles at the orthometric height. The Third Standard would be 3 X 24 = 72 miles south of the initial point. Then traversing West along this parallel TO the east line of Range 6 West would be 24 (i.e. 4 - 6 mile townships) miles + 6 miles = 30 miles.
Ascertain the “theoretical” longitude and latitude of the Southwest corner of Township 12 South, Range 5 West (i.e. along the standard parallel). Then North.
Latitude:
S = r2, 72 = 3963.3x2; => 2 = 72/3963.3 = 0.0181666793 rad
Where 3963.3 miles is the radius of the earth
2 = 1^02'27.15" then, subtracting this from the initial point yields
Lat = 33^56'59.85" North 1807 for the SW corner of Tp12S
From here, we must traverse 10 miles along the guide meridian north to the NE of 13
S = r2, 10 = 3963.3x2; => 2 = 10/3963.3 = 0.0025231499 rad
= 0^08'40.44" deg
33^56'59.85"
0^08'40.44"
34^05'40.29" Theoretical for 1818 sphere
34^05'40.69 Measured from the 1983 spheroid
Diff
0^ 00'00.40" too far North = 0.000001939 radians
S = r2, S = 0.00000194X3963.3 = 0.008 miles North in latitude
(From the desired point)
Now the Longitude: The position is 30 miles west of the Huntsville Meridian.
Remember on the meridian at Twp10S the meridian was 4313ft West. Assuming a linear relationship continues to the south line of Twp 12, 14.5 miles hence; therefore,
4313/5307 = 0.813 X 72/63.5 = 0.921 miles
so for 30.921 miles add this to the IP Longitude.
2 = 30.921/3287.66 = 0.009405318 rad
2 = 0^32'20" further West along the Standard Parallel
(Standard Parallel radius at Northeast 13 =3287.66 miles)
Long of the IP
86^34'16"
0^32' 20.0"
87^06'36.0" Theoretical
87^06'43.01" Measured from 1983 Spheroid
The difference =0^ 00'07.0" West as expected.
= 0.0000340842 radians
Thus S = r2 = 0.000034082X3963.3
= 0.135 miles
The Northeast corner of Section 13, Tp11S, R6W is substantially north and west of the theoretical point to be set by the GLO contracted surveyors as compared to our day.
CONCLUSION
(A) THE MANUAL ISSUE
The suggestion that all section corners in Alabama lack sufficient chain of custody and integrity and, thus, are invalid may be legally correct. Higher authorities in our legal system can establish this precedent. My humble opinion is the courts would not be so irresponsible. The practice of surveying in rural areas would change dramatically; whereas urban surveying would not be affected as much due to the abundant data available with recorded surveys and various legal jurisdictions “define” a section corner. The suggestion, purely from a practitioner’s view, is unconscionable.
History has shown, however, The Standards of Practice will not prescribe a procedure for the professional to follow, except required location of a minimum of 2 land corners, which is not being followed. Each practitioner then must “assume” or develop a means to fulfill his obligation. The “new” standard would digress to Item 1) . This does not cause a conflict until a survey is authorized and promulgated from a point north of the “end of the fence”. Should our methodology become obsolete, a surveying “black hole” will originate; and additionally any prior monumentation will present conflicts.
My concern is related to consistency and repeatability. Presently, those groups that utilize item 1), fence surveys will continue to do so, regardless of ASPLS, the State Board or any standard legislated (without some aggressive review board). The establishment of interior “lot corners”, i.e. 40 acre tracts, in rural areas must continue in the manner of normal present practice. The color of the capped rebar, when found, is an indication (to me personally) whether the survey meets Item I or Item 2 (from previous experience) standards of care. My effort is dictated accordingly.
Finally, should we abandon our current practice, some authority must prescribe a substitute methodology. Interestingly, BLM’s website information indicates The Manual is in the final process of being rewritten. The writer found a section by section recommendation of the expected revision material. The document is expected this year and BLM’s Director is to present the new edition material to the Kansas Surveyors Association early in 2007. Mr Dahl has stated the revised Instructions to Surveyors is a high priority with BLM.
My procedure, prior to promulgating the procedures required for a “lost corner”, is to assume the corner is an obliterated corner. Research is then initiated adjacent to the corner for any deed that references the corner, especially those with specific calls. Judgement is used to ascertain a reasonable distance from the corner. I begin my search at the coordinates given by the USGS quadrangle map. Then investigate north-south and east-west depending on whether the obliterated corner is along a township or range line or not. This always results in determination of whether a point exists at the “quarter section post”. The oldest evidence is given a higher weight during my determination. The most useful tool during reconnaissance is a recent aerial photograph and then my Magellan eXplorist. Scaled points are to approximately 100 feet; whereas, computed points can be assumed to be within 15 feet. Accuracy enhancement is enabled by computing the exact coordinate; then compute the fractional part correction to be made north and south from that integer value of the “seconds”. First, find the point in the field that represents the integer value; then pace the correction off in the field.
(B) ALL GLO SURVEYS EXHIBITED SUBSTANDARD ACCURACY
On March 30, 1807, Gallatin instructed Seth Pease, the new Surveyor of the Lands South of Tennessee, to begin the rectangular surveys in the Chickasaw Cession, in what is now Alabama. The baseline was to be the 35th Parallel, the south boundary of Tennessee. The initial point on the state boundary was at the vertex of a triangular shaped tract in the Cession. The records indicate that this point was established by Deputy Surveyor Thomas Freeman in late 1807. Freeman ran the Huntsville Meridian south.
The above approach to assess the accuracy of an original GLO survey, from the authors experience, has not been seen in any periodicals or books. Often I have heard the GLO surveyors were “blowing, going and letting the rough end drag”. Maybe they were, but as today, not all of them. Once again, in my opinion, you cannot ignore the original notes. First, I constructed the spherical geometry with Microstation XM Edition in conjunction with a Quattro Pro spreadsheet as a self check. I may have all the errors found and corrected.
This brief discussion does show the unusual precision with a township on the Winston County line. The internal measurements of the section had amazingly low residuals and did not resemble the time honored assumption of little confidence. Will all townships have similar tendencies due to the rectangular system? I don’t know. Furthermore, the actual position of the township is close to the intended location (if all my computations are correct). At the time of the aforementioned survey of Section 13, I found a corner near the Southeast corner of Section 13 I believe to be the original. Others have conspicuously ignored the other rock and its witness trees. Further investigation is warranted with this and several other matters mentioned above.
FINALLY:
Regardless of what you are told, as a surveyor you do not have any official or judicial capacity.
Although title attorneys and others who regularly work with them develop expertise as to land descriptions, the only professional authorized to locate land lines on the ground is the registered land surveyor. In fact, the definition of a legally sufficient real property description is one that can be located on the ground by a surveyor. However, in the absence of statute, a surveyor is not an official and has no authority to establish boundaries; like an attorney speaking on a legal question, he can only state or express his professional opinion as to surveying questions. In working with the client, a surveyor can, in the first instance, layout or establish boundary lines within an original division of a tract of land which has therefore existed as one unit or parcel. In performing this function, he is known as the “original surveyor” and his survey results in a property description used by the owner to transfer title to the property that survey has a certain special authority in that the monuments set by the original surveyor on the ground control over discrepancies within the total parcel description, and more importantly, control over all subsequent surveys attempting to locate the same line. Second, a surveyor can be retained to locate on the ground a boundary line which has theretofore been established. When he does this, he “traces the footsteps” of the “original surveyor” in locating existing boundaries. Correctly stated, this is a “retracement survey”, not a “resurvey”, and in performing this function, the second and each succeeding surveyor is a “following” or “tracing” surveyor and his sole duty, function and power is to locate on the ground the boundaries corners and boundary line or lines established by the original survey; he cannot establish a new corner or new line terminal point, nor may he correct any errors of the original surveyor. He must only track the footsteps of the original surveyor. The following surveyor, rather than being the creator of the boundary line, is only the discoverer and is only that when he correctly locates it.
1) Robillard, Walter G, BSF, MAPA, RLS, LLM, FSMS; Atlanta, Ga.
2) Since, in the strictest sense using the latter definition, every section corner I have described does not have the proper credentials, except maybe four? Further, all of those along the Bankhead Forest Boundary at the Cullman -Winston County line are also invalid I would presume. This subject will be further discussed.
3) Wilson, Ian, Point of Beginning, The Great Sage Stone Expedition, page 14, Sept 2004.
4) Greulich, Gunther, PE, PLS, Point of Beginning, page 6, Point of View, September, 2006.
5) The ones I know personally of are limited to 1) government boundaries and 2) entities such as Tennessee Coal & Iron. TCI held large portions of Alabama and prepared plats of their holdings. Copies I have seen dated back to the 1940's. Individuals now with these have an excellent source of data.
6) Should have taken hint
7) http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/SurveySearch/Default.asp
8) no longer valid
9) Lucas, Jeff, Traversing the Law, Point of Beginning, Pg 56, October, 2006
10) The 1973 Manual, Pg 129
11) ibid pg 130
12) http://dictionary.law.com/
13) Brown, Wilson & Robillard, Evidence and Procedures for Boundary Location, pg 105, Fifth Edition, Wiley
1) ibid pg 61
2) 1807
3) Many of the monuments I have set are rejected by the ground overnight and they too become missing. An interesting phenomenon.
4) See Example Two
5) Recently I received a copy of a survey that commenced at the intersection of two roads near Holly Pond, then traversed on an assumed bearing east for 560 feet dated 2001. Impossible to retrace.
6) Robert W. (Bob) Dahl
Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
Minerals, Realty & Resource Protection Directorate
Lands & Realty Group (WO-350)
Cadastral Survey
US Mail: 1849 C Street NW, LS 1000
Washington, D.C. 20240
FEDEX, UPS & Street Address: 1620 L Street NW, LS 1000
Washington, D.C. 20036
robert_w_dahl@blm.gov
(202) 452-5132
Fax: (202) 452-7708
