2009 progress update boundary considerations
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
2009 Progress Update Boundary Considerations ______________________________________________________

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 66

2009 Progress Update Boundary Considerations - the Indiana-Michigan ... - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 359 Views
  • Uploaded on

2009 Progress Update Boundary Considerations ______________________________________________________ The Indiana-Michigan Boundary Retracement Survey of the Indiana-Michigan State Line Jack Owens – John McNamara [email protected] & [email protected] Indiana Supreme Court Lecture Series

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about '2009 Progress Update Boundary Considerations - the Indiana-Michigan ...' - JasminFlorian


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
2009 progress update boundary considerations

2009 Progress UpdateBoundary Considerations______________________________________________________

The Indiana-Michigan Boundary

Retracement Survey of the Indiana-Michigan State Line

Jack Owens – John McNamara

[email protected] & [email protected]

Indiana Supreme Court

Lecture Series

Indiana Supreme Court, Indianapolis, IN

July 13, 2009

©

introduction
INTRODUCTION
  • Indiana-Michigan boundary surveyed in 1827
  • Mile Posts set on entire 110-mile length (104.5 miles E-W)
  • Fully 11 years after U.S. Congress approved still current border

- defined as part of enabling legislation

for Indiana’s admission into the Union in 1816

  • As of 2008 much of boundary remains not remonumented

or either partially or completely not resurveyed

  • In spite of fact that nearly all the original controlling

wood monumentation mile posts have decayed decades ago

  • Yet boundary remains definite and certain

But much of location is obscured, only apparently

uncertain, because the evidence of the posts are not yet recovered,

with a currently unknown number obliterated, or lost

  • We will review current status of progress to have the original line retraced and what is our role as surveyors.

©

1827 plat of the northern boundary line of the state of indiana
1827 PLAT OF THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY LINEof theSTATE OF INDIANA

Map prepared by Surveyor General’s Office at completion of the survey

in a report to the Commissioner of the General Land Office and to Congress

the line a u2 overview in cad 2009
The Line – a U2 overview in CAD - 2009

A wide range of material to cover with you

Hard to see all the details all the time

glo rectangular township surveys indiana michigan
GLO Rectangular Township Surveys – Indiana & Michigan
  • GLO Twp Surveys: Contracted for immediately after N. Line surveyed

(President Monroe directs N & W lines of Ohio surveyed per 1812 act)

  • Michigan surveys: 1828-29 Fractional T8S run South to N. Line

Dep. Surveyors instructed to close south so only closing sections fractional

Tier of Sections 19-24 are the fractional sections

Instructed to note falling distance of Range Lines to nearest Mile Post

Typical statement for interior section lines, “intersected N. boundary Indiana”

Within 2 years of N boundary survey; “visual intersection” = standard of practiceSame standard as Closing Corners for Twps. under Tiffin’s 1815 Instructions

GLO Line Marking: blaze trees near line, double notch line trees (Fig. 6)

At least one County Surveyor notes line trees 50 years later

W. half of line has nearly all Closing Corner ties to MPs; much closer

3 Dep. Surveyors for Michigan; may be personal standard of two?

  • Indiana surveys: 1828-31 Fractional T38N run North to N. Line

Dep. Surveyors closed north so closing sections fractional to north, as is typical

Tier of Secs 7-12 for R4W to R13E, Secs 13-18, R14 & 15E are fractional sections

Also note falling distance of Range Lines to Mile Posts; same Surveyor General

Same statement for interior section lines, “intersected N. boundary Indiana”

Within 4 years of N boundary survey; same “visual intersection” standard

W. half has most ties to MPs, E. half see MP78-104 ties also, two ties IN to MI Clos Cors

5 Dep. Surveyors (one duplicate from Michigan)

county survey records of mile posts 19 th century county surveyor records
COUNTY SURVEY RECORDS OF MILE POSTS19TH Century County Surveyor Records
  • County Survey Records – Adjoining counties; not more than dozen Mile Post recoveries

Low priority to Co. Surveyors: Two factors: Relatively few surveys along line; remote area.

Saw fractional section surveys as requiring section corners & closing section corners (not Mile Posts)

State Line Closing Corners, just as on twp lines, are the junior corners

BLM Manual, Sec 5-35 focuses on proper view of the three sets of corners on the State Line,“Where single set of corners established the line (Mile Posts) and closing corners subsequently established at intersections [with it]…The line is regarded as having been fixed in position by the senior survey…”

1832: IN St Jo Co Sur Recs: tie from Range Line 1 & 2E to MP-25 (combines closely with GLO tie to MI Range Line 17 & 18W). Also second tie from IN Range Line 2 & 3E to MP-30

1859-1861: IN St Jo Co Sur Stokes makes about 7 surveys along line (leader among county surveyors). Identifies “line trees” not in GLO record; likely blazed trees; one line tree; vicinity MP-31-33. MP-37-38 finds errors in GLO ties to Mile Posts (~ 6 to 8 chains). Also tie from Closing Corner to MP-39

1871: MI Hillsdale Co Sur Mark performs retracement survey Sec 20, T8S-R4W. Recovers original evidence for closing corners on N & E Lines of IND as well as NE Cor IND itself

1875: IN La Porte Co Sur Burner retraces State Line from MP-1 to 2 in subdividing Sec 8, T38N-R3W. Recovers both Mile Posts but misidentifies MP-1 as MI Closing Cor (31 links away).

Indicates he had both sets of GLO notes

1884: IN Elkhart Co Sur Ward runs between IN Closing Corners vicinity MP40-41 without noting Mile Posts (may not have been evidence of them at that time?)

1886: MI Berrien Co Sur LaDrew recovers Mp-16 & 18 and a line tree, re-establishing MI-17 at proportionate distance and re-establishing Closing Corners in subdividing Sec 22, T8S-R19W.

Correctly identifies two line trees (60 years later, one a Beech)

1892: IN St Jo Co Sur Alter surveys between MP-16 &17, perpetuating one and surveying part of Sec 10, T38N-R1W

position of line fixed by senior survey
Position of Line – Fixed by Senior Survey
  • Example is for a township line, but identical conditions hold for State Line.
  • State Line is the Senior Survey.
    • Location established by original survey and monumented with Mile Posts, the senior corners.
  • Identical to township lines surveyed in Indiana & Michigan following Surveyor General Tiffin’s 1815 Instructions.
    • Standard of practice then was a ‘visual intersection’ of blazed line in timber.
    • Intent was to intersect senior line during subsequent township subdivision surveys with junior Closing Section Corners.
    • If found to be not on the Senior Line, then set the true Closing Corner at the intersection of junior line with Senior line.
county survey records of mile posts 20 th century county surveyor records
COUNTY SURVEY RECORDS OF MILE POSTS20TH Century County Surveyor Records
  • Surveys seem to taper off (we have many records, not all)

Some closing corner records shortly after turn of century

– same County Surveyors as 19TH Century (carryover of practice)

  • 1950 records disclose recoveries of stones and pipes

Stones to perpetuate and monument section corners begin in 1850s-1860s (even 1840s) in Indiana Co Records; 1860s – 1880s in Michigan Records

Confirm that section corners have been long perpetuated

Use of pipes (& tiles) for survey monumentation begin in 1890s

Such recoveries support long history of perpetuation (close to GLO)

E1/2 has much fewer records (more rural with less survey needs?)

Stones very durable; just hard to find; digging best method

I conclude the few records are because the evidence for the Mile Posts disappeared from view and surveyors did not search for them

Appears Closing Corners began to be used as de facto monumentation of the State Line since such corners were part of their surveys. Such a view precludes need to search for real controlling monumentation

rekindling of interest in the state line location county surveyor efforts
REKINDLING OF INTEREST IN THE STATE LINE LOCATIONCounty Surveyor Efforts
  • St. Jo Co, IN – large population centered in South Bend close to line:

Long serving Co Sur John McNamara (with interest in line) runs program to recover/re-establish all section corners

– integrated as control for county GIS mapping program

– transcribed Kendrick’s notes; hopes to use to find Mile Posts

Funding Capabilities of Abutting County Surveyors

  • More recoveries/perpetuations later in 20TH Century:

Indiana’s corner perpetuation act funded by designated surcharge on recorded documents at RODs. Funds controlled locally (by each county individually).

Michigan’s 1991 Remonumentation Program also generated surge to recover and remonument section corners from statute-specified dedicated surcharge also on recorded documents at RODs. Funds go to statewide-controlled fund.

(2006 -we learned in painful shock Gov & Leg could raid without regret)

W1/2 - has included and recovered/restored many Closing Corners

E1/2 - see less recovery and perpetuation; lower populations generate less

recording fees. Some counties logically concentrate efforts on more

populated areas where need is more urgent.

ad hoc state line study committee
AD-HOC STATE LINE STUDY COMMITTEE
  • MSPS Licensure Exam Review Class

(1992: Status of Indiana Line)

Norm Caldwell appointed to MI PS licensing board; I replaced him teaching refresher class:

- Covered original GLO surveys, Retracement procedures, BLM Manual

Questions on how state boundary was marked

- MI/OH line resurveyed 1916(granite posts); MI/WI boundary 1927(conc posts)

- IN/NI line: Maynard Dyer (Dir MI Remon Program) stated original wood posts

  • 2002: I prepared paper on boundary for MSPS Annual Meeting

Maynard correct – still original wood posts; but no controversies of other 2 lines

Also defines jurisdictions of two states, has done it quietly, almost benignly

Advocated a retracement and procedures that could be used

BLM Manual caveat (Pages 79 & 133) [applies to licensed surveyors also]

BLM has no general authority to resurvey state boundaries [must be specific]

Original surveys specifically authorized by Congress under their power in

§4, Sec3, US Constitution (form new states, dispose of property of US)

Resurvey under direction of Supreme Court (§3, if a conflict)

Or may be authorized by States involved (§4 & 10TH Amendment)

No other statute needed

  • 2004 Oct 24: little response seen; George Warnke, PS, called for a meeting

Attendees formed the ad hoc committee: Main Guidelines – private surveyors can’t re-establish ‘lost’ Mile Posts, proceed as private-sector activity as long as possible, make public aware of our activities, encourage search for Mile Posts

suggested procedures for mile post recoveries
Suggested Procedures for Mile Post Recoveries
  • Advocating retracement of original line (Kendrick’s 1827 survey)

Basic search protocol adopted in 2005: (During a search, by excavation or other means)

- 2 Licensed PSs (one from each state) observe and/or actively participate (not 1 dual license PS)

- DO - for preparing records, selecting references (BTs), other relevant issues

- DO - prepare/record MI LCRC and IN Surveyors Report

  • 2008 Status determination criteria – put in survey contracts

Retracement surveyor must decide Mile Post status – subsequent actions depend on it

- Follow 3 long-used GLO/BLM categories of evidence (found in BLM Manual)

- ‘Existent,’ ‘Obliterated,’ or ‘Lost’ – focuses attention on the evidence

  • Mile Post search positions determined through careful evaluation of recorded evidence

Such as adjacent Mile Posts, Closing Corners (IN & MI PLSS), original Line

Trees, County & private survey records, etc.

Several levels of effort 2005 to 2008

Status criteria presented in following slides

indiana michigan legislative efforts
INDIANA & MICHIGAN LEGISLATIVE EFFORTS
  • Legislation passed in IN/ in process in MI intended to serve several purposes:

1) Authority to replace and “lost” Mile Posts along the original alignment.2) Supply adequate funding for contracted efforts in resurvey of original alignment.3) Establish a review “Commission.”

  • OBJECTIVE: Retrace original survey to reconfirm its original 1827 location.

Then preserve location with new more imperishable monumentation (than posts) Only seeking legislation whereby the two states authorize & fund the retracement survey to recover and remonument all recoverable mile posts and replace any missing ones. When completed the two states can report their achievement to Congress and get an additional confirmation of their efforts in preserving line as originally defined by Congress in 1827 (& originally described 1816).

Common misconception: Congress has to approve everything.

US Supreme Court has directed states seeking changes in their existing common boundaries through the Court to instead go back to the authority which established the boundary, i.e. – Congress, such as New York recently seeking to change its boundary with New Jersey around the Statute of Liberty. 4TH Article Constitution gave Congress power to create states, define boundaries.

Under Article 10 (so-called Reserve Clause, or States’ Rights Clause) all rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution for the Federal Government are reserved for the States. Thus two states may resurvey and remonument a common boundary on their own initiative without any other approval, if they agree, by passing joint authorizing legislation.

Some states have sought boundary resurveys through Supreme Court which has turned aside such attempts (no underlying legal issues) saying resurveys are a matter of survey, not a matter of law. Ohio and Kentucky attempted to pursue the resurvey of the North bank of the Ohio River, their defined boundary, through the Supreme Court. When they complained of the difficulty (several dams on the river with locks for barge traffic which raised, overflowed and covered the North bank) the Court response was that it might now be difficult, but it didn’t change that it was a matter of survey.

status of legislation bill compilations initiating impetus
Status of legislation bill compilations – Initiating Impetus

We started with resolutions that also were adopted by some County Commissioner Boards (Need more).

John Kamer, Berrien Co Sur, arranged meeting with Sen. Ron Jelinek (represents district along line) & Roger Stephenson, Norm and myself. After discussion he agreed to sponsor bill & have his staff ask Legislative Service Bureau to draft bill. ISPLS has engaged their lobbyist to work on introducing similar legislation. Rex Pranger, Lagrange Co Sur, has spoken with Sen Marlin Stutzman (represents his area). He is receptive to sponsoring the legislation.

We need to have ISPLS & MSPS members ask their representatives to be co-sponsors of these bills. Money is big issure. May have to separate survey bill from funding bill.

suggested legislation for retracement remonumentation indiana sb 530
Suggested Legislation for Retracement/RemonumentationIndiana SB 530

The resolutions (including those adopted by some County Commissioner Boards; need more) were very helpful in getting attention of key legislators.

Rex Pranger, Lagrange Co Sur, has met with IN Sen Marlin Stutzman (who represents his area). He was receptive to and sponsored the bill at left. It contains several similar items proposed for the Michigan bill. It was submitted in time to meet their two-year legislative cycle [for which we are thankful].

This bill passed both the Indiana Senate and House with no dissenting votes and was then signed by the Governor.

Money is big issue. Separated survey bill from funding bill.

suggested legislation for retracement remonumentation michigan senate bill sb 374 375
Suggested Legislation for Retracement/RemonumentationMichigan Senate Bill SB 374 & 375

Even though strongly supported by Committee members, present pace of recovery efforts by private practitioners will take years to recover the Mile Posts. Consequently, Committee decided to go to the States and seek legislation to have them take over the responsibility, which is theirs legally, to authorize and fund a retracement survey of the line. We should not and cannot wait for years now that we have so fully explored the issue to understand it. Our Committee looked at three possible directions for legislation.

The one that seems best is shown as Table 4. The basic premise is that (as with other similar legislation) the State grant the authority to resurvey the line to a commission which contracts to have the survey done. Making the County Surveyors for the 10 counties adjoining the line, 5 in each state, the commissioners and authorizing them to contract for the retracement survey services seems best. They are elected and would be answerable to the residents along the line, the ones most intimately impacted by the retracement survey. They would give careful review of the survey work being done to support the retracements. This has passed Senate with no dissenting votes. Reviewed by House committee which recommended passage.

[We do not want someone like the engineer that resurveyed the Ohio-Michigan line in 1916. He did not seem to recognize obvious evidence, even when describing it in his procedures, seemingly intend on speed rather than retracement.]

slide18

Indiana/Michigan ad hoc State Line Committee

2009 Corner Status Summary

Closing Corners

COUNTY Total Recovery Recovery Co-ords

(E-W) Corners as of as of as of

2006 2007 2008

BERRIEN, MI. 60 60 60 54

CASS, MI. 44 41 41 34

ST. JOSEPH, MI. 51 11 11 20

BRANCH, MI. 43 11 11 5

HILLSDALE, MI 2 0 2 4

LaPORTE, IN. 31 1 14 14

ST. JOSEPH, IN. 48 31 33 33

ELKHART, IN. 40 5 18 8

LAGRANGE, IN. 47 15 15 9

STEUBEN, IN. 38 6 6 5

353 181 191 173

Mile Posts

Mile Posts 110 5 13 13

Line Posts (Paired 18 0 0 0

at 7 Lakes/ 2 Rivers)

slide19

2007 State Line Summary (example)State Line Summary updated as relevant data compiled. Also have original records and subsequent surveys formatted into 101 pages.

slide20

RECOVERY CRITERIAFOUND AND OBLITERATED MILE POSTSINDIANA-MICHIGAN STATE LINEN.B.- In these examples showing retracement procedures and corners,we have defined positions using a variety of GPS survey data.Retracement surveyors may adapt our suggestions but must dodue diligence and verify positional data such as SPCs.We have displayed SPC data from three/four adjustments (NAD83: 1986, HARN (96), CORS(98), 2007), some being transformed from another state to the MCS-SZ for the demonstration purposes shown.

status
STATUS:

The status must be decided – so proper actions can be determined and applied.

Follow three acceptable BLM/GLO (1973 BLM Manual) categories: ‘Found,’ ‘Obliterated,’ or ‘Lost.’

  • Mile Post search positions will be determined through careful evaluation of recovered evidence such as adjacent Mile Posts, Closing Corners of both the Michigan & Indiana PLSS, original Line Trees, County & Private surveyors records, etc.
  • Many search positions can be defined with specificity for west 50 miles from recovered surveyed GLO

Closing Corners due to the numerous record GLO ties from PLSS Closing Corners.

(Not nearly so extensive a record of available ties for east 50 miles.)

  • Joint Indiana/Michigan State Line Committee therefore chose to concentrate on W. 50 miles in 2007.
  • Initial 2005 effort of Committee = collect position locations of points by hand - held GPS

Higher quality positions were required so the work could advance.

We had several sources for survey quality positions (SPC) for existing Mile Posts & numerous closing corners in west 50 miles.

    • Long-term efforts St. Joseph Co IN Co. Sur., John McNamara, tied in both IN & MI Closing Corners (MP17-38).
    • LaPorte County, IN contracted with former Co.Sur. Jim Keil to provide SPC values on selected positions.
    • IN/MI PS Chris Marbach volunteered services & provided GPS values on numerous IN monuments (MP 38-55) & IN/MI PS Don Andrews provided numerous MI/IN monuments (MP38-55, 84-86, 92, NE Cor IND); also provided licensed copy of C&G CAD software for computations (works well with SPCs).
    • SW Chapter MSPS volunteer efforts organized by Art Brintnall tied in known Closing Corners (MP 0-15/38-55).

Assignments to: Brian Reynolds (3-4), Don Gilchrist (5-6), David Gariepy (6-7), Jim Lietch (8-9), Brad Beal (9-11), Jim Wildrom (12-13), Art Brintnall (14-15).

    • Tom Stephenson has provided GPS values of positions he has occupied along southern boundary of Cass Co., MI.
    • Rex Pranger, Lagrange Co IN Co. Sur., has provided several GPS values for his county.
    • Duane & Daniel Brown provided GPS values on several IN monuments (MP 102-104, NE Cor IND, NW Cor OH)
  • As Chairman of the Committee, I want to acknowledge the efforts of and thank all these volunteers and the many others who have continued to make the effort to attend our meetings.
  • The following diagrams will indicate how these survey quality positions can be applied to actual field conditions in the search for Mile Posts.
slide22

2005 State Line mapping evaluationMapped by Norm Caldwell and John Quine (handheld GPS receiver)Not smooth curve, drifts ~630’N-S (140’N to 490’S)

survey quality positions
Survey Quality Positions

Now that we have them; how can we evaluate them?

status existent
STATUS: EXISTENT
  • 1) Recovery of original monument.
  • (1973 BLM Manual - “5-4.The terms “corners’ and “monument” are not interchangeable.
  • A “corner” is a point [or position or specific location] determined by the surveying process.
  • A “monument” is the object or the physical structure which marks the corner point.” P 129)E.g. - MP52, NE Corner Indiana, both original Kendrick corners.
  • 2) Accessory recovery (all Mile Posts had two record bearing tree accessories) - must look.(1973 BLM Manual - “The several classes of accessories, such as bearing trees, are aids in identifying the
  • corner position. In their broader significance the accessories are a part of the corner monument.” P 129)
  • E.g. - MP86: Tree at GLO record bearing/distance from stone monument; tree age analysis supports
  • 3) Recovery of a perpetuated monument. Either by Co. Surveyor or private practitioner.
  • Recorded or preserved.
  • (1973 BLM Manual - “or located by an acceptable supplemental [subsequent] survey record.” P 129)E.g. - MP17
  • 4) Recovery of Closing Corners within 6 chains of position with GLO tie (range of GLO BTs)
  • Consider as an accessory to Mile Post position.
  • E.g. - MP49? Will it be recovered? Lines between two sets of Closing Corners also accessory

- MP15? What’s there? – MP 7? Which is it?

  • 5) Topographic record features within 3 chains of position. Must define specific position.
  • (1973 BLM Manual - “5-16. The proper use of topographic calls of the original field notes may assist in

recovering the locus of the original survey.” P 131.

  • (1) The determination should result in a definite locus within a small area.” P 132) No examples yet
  • (1973 BLM Manual - “5-8. No decision should be made in regard to the restoration of a corner until every means has been exercised that might aid in identifying its true original position. The retracements will indicate the probable position and will show what discrepancies are to be expected. Any supplemental survey record or testimony should then be considered in the light of the facts thus developed.” Page 129)
mp 52 original monument recovery in tacked
It can’t get any better than –

recovery of the original monument.

2004: Tom Stephenson recovered just prior to Committee’s existence

His retracement survey evidence:

Not agree with remonumented position of MI Closing Corner.

Recovered original; then searched for MP-52 using GLO record tie (both in large swamp).

Need to narrowly define search area to find evidence.

MP-52 Original monument recovery in tacked

Tom

Norm

MP-52

ne corner indiana

MI Hillsdale CS Lodzinski added Sec 20 to remon program to use 1871/1905 CS Mark’s surveys that tied in NE Cor. Six trips finally found corner 0.2 of foot from proportionate position, based on corners of Mark’s surveys.

NE Corner Indiana

Found 3 Mar 2007

Found CS Mark’s 1905 “long stone”

Found CS Mark’s 1905 “set concrete block” Closing Corner

Where is it?

ne corner indiana recorded with lcrc

Retraced Sec 20 - found Closing Corners & NE Cor & record positions for Mile Posts (plus record & measured distances between corners)

NE Corner Indiana (recorded with LCRC)
ne corner indiana original monument recovery organic traces
NE Corner IndianaOriginal monument recovery – organic traces

“N.E. Corner of Indiana” – found at last

Norm straddling location for second time

Found 1 Nov 2007

“Set 6” Sq W. Oak Post”

E. P. Kendrick (1827)

ne corner indiana29
NE CornerIndiana

“Monument” the “corner” finishes the retracement, for one Mile Post; we only need about 100 more to finish the job!

Tall Set-up

ne corner indiana recorded in county records
NE Corner Indiana – recorded in County Records

I recorded all the steps and who participated in recovery. Also included several of the preceding pictures so evidence recovered can be seen, as best as possible. LCRC recorded 12/03/08 Lib 4, P168-180, HCR.

Ross Ruckel, IN PLS, filed Survey Report in Steuben Co Records.

The recovery and remonumenting of the corner results in the destruction of this very fragile type of evidence.

2007 state line monuments
Mile Posts markers: (In-Line) NE Corner marker: (only one)

Designed by Norm Caldwell Designed & cast

(shown below).

Mold/cast by Berntsen Markers = 110 Fee is ~$750.

Available at St. Joseph Co. Surveyor’s Reduced, thru

office (Shown below). MSPS Foundation

Paid for – but upon placement expect paid by donations &

reimbursement for 2 caps ~$67. Bernsten reduciton

Set on poured-in-place conc. Mon. Set in poured-in-place Mon.

(similar to NGS & MDOT mons)

2007 State Line Monuments
mp86 and glo record ties original accessory recovery
MP86 and GLO record ties Original accessory recovery
  • Original GLO Bearing Tree & boulder at position for Mile Post 86:

Don Andrews, IN-MI PS retraced fractional Sec 24, T8S-R8W, Branch Co, MI

– issue: recover closing corners on State Line

– recovered evidence & also checked GLO tie to MP

– checked for MP; found large stone & large Hickory (at proper brg & dist)

  • More comparisons:

Rex Pranger, Lagrange CS, tied in Clos Cor for Range Line 11-12E, Lagrange/

Steuben Co Line, IN.

Use GLO record tie W’ly (28.31ch) as position for MP-84, revealing 2-mile measurement

to MP-86 that averages 5278.38ft, equivalent to 79.97chs.

Dividing computed distance established from surveyed Corners by 80 chains

(GLO record) = 65.98ft/ch; value typical for GLO work/ sounds like a real chain.

Strongly recommended evaluation in GLO retracement surveys.

GLO record tie from Range Line 7-8W E’ly to MP-86 = 40.89ch (2698ft)

Measured distance = 2769.64ft (41.96ch), divided by GLO record = 67.73ft/ch

Not close to real chain; signals likely blunder

Conclude DS made miscount of full chain; actual GLO record = 41.89ch (2765ft)

Results in chain value of 66.12ft/ch, sounding like a real chain

BLM Manual says must consider this possibility in retracement work

Have seen both half-chain and full-chain miscounts in both Kendirick’s and Deputy

Surveyor’s measurements

More rarely see full tally miscount s (10 half chains = 330 feet)

Norm and I have identified two possible such miscounts (not verified)

mp86 and tree age analysis
MP86 and tree age analysis

Upper left:

(from cor) Orig. BT on right

Right:

Recovered faceted boulder

Left:

Tree age analysis – pins set every 10TH year

mp86 and tree age analysis core sample
MP86 and tree age analysis – core sample
  • Committee examined Tree Age.6 Jan 2007

Probable Hickory BT recovered is a Pignut Hickory. Core shows area was logged in 2004. Both cores taken 3 inches apart about 4 ft. above grade. Extrapolate following estimates (short core sampled relative to diameter tree (less than 1/12 of radius).

  • Core Sample 1: Core Sample 2:
  • Length Annual Rings Annual Dia Growth Rate Length Annual Rings Annual Dia Growth Rate

0.90” ÷ 17 = 0.0529”x2= 0.1059”/yr 0.70” ÷ 10 = 0.0700”x2= 0.1400”/yr

(1.10” ÷ 19 = 0.0579”x2= 0.1158”/yr 0.90” ÷ 12 = 0.0750”x2= 0.1500”/yr)

(0.20” ÷ 2 = 0.1000”x2= 0.2000”/yr 0.20” ÷ 2 = 0.1000”x2= 0.2000”/yr)

  • (Last two years since logging show doubling of growth rate due to reduced competition)

X = 24”D÷ 0.1059”/yr = 227 yrs A = 24”D÷ 0.1400”/yr = 171 yrs; Ḿ=199

X’ = 26”D÷ 0.1059”/yr = 245 yrs A’= 26”D÷ 0.1400”/yr = 185 yrs; Ḿ=222

(Y = 24”D÷ 0.1158”/yr = 207 yrs B = 24”D÷ 0.1500”/yr = 160 yrs; Ḿ=183)

  • (Dr. Barnes, co-author of Michigan Trees, confirmed ring count and loaned increment borer.) (Pignut Hickory has oval cross section, 26” x 22” (mean=24”); cores taken on end of long axis)
  • (For comparison: Teck & Hilt USFS paper on Tree Diameter Growth for NE US
  • Gives 0.097”/yr in Table 5 and 0.104”/yr in Table 6 for Hickory.)
  • Hickory too hard for borer; best to return to the woods and count ages for hickories cut down in timber harvesting, as representative of hickories. Dr Barnes concurs and also thinks site would exhibit growth rates representative of all similar sites along boundary, e.g. – sandy soils, fairly level, and well drained sites. Therefore, might be worthwhile to check and count other species that were cut down, as well. This would take half a day or so to accomplish.
mp86 and tree age analysis tree ring count
MP86 and tree age analysis – tree ring count
  • Post Script: 18 Oct 2007
  • Jack Owens at MP-86 made tree ring counts in hickory stumps.  One about 160 years old, 1.5ft Dia at the stump (4"-6" high) - 200ft north of GLO BT.  Another 100ft ENE was 1.9ft Dia - ‘Cut Hickory Stump’ about 180 years old (outer edge sap wood rots very fast in hickories and growth rate for last 10 years assumed same as preceding 10 years). The rings were counted, with color-headed straight pins placed every 10 years, and photographed. GLO BT at same stump height was 2.2ft Dia.  Thus extrapolates to 208 years old, dating from 1796 (allowing that logging took place in 2004).  At 30 years ‘Cut Hickory Stump’ about 0.5ft Dia which, with the bark, makes it close to GLO BT 7" Dia reported in 1827.  ‘Cut Hickory Stump’ showed one slow growth period (70-80 years ago) - only grew 0.06ft in 30 years, much slower than the other times.  Appears to confirm that the recovered Pignut Hickoryat the record GLO bearing and distancelikely is the 1827 GLO BT.

See the following analysis:

Cut Hickory Stump (6” high): |Probable GLO BT Hickory: Estimated Age

  • DIAM. ÷ ANNUAL RINGS= Annual Dia Growth Rate| DIAM. ÷Annual Dia Growth Rate = AGE .

1.9 ft ÷ 180 (yrs) (this is 6” stump Diam.) | 2.2 ft (this is at 6” above ground Diam.)

=22.8” ÷ 180 (yrs) = 0.1267”/yr | =26.4” ÷ 0.1267”/yr = 208 yrs

[1.5 ft ÷ 160+/- (yrs) (this is 6” stump Diam.) | 2.2 ft (this is at 6” above ground Diam.)]

=[18.0” ÷ 160+/- (yrs) = 0.1125”/yr | =26.4” ÷ 0.1125”/yr = 235+/- yrs]

  • Probable GLO BT Hickory:
  • Diam. ÷ Age/Annual Rings = Annual Dia Growth Rate .

24” ÷ 208 (yrs) = 0.1154”/yr (this is DBH)

[24” ÷ 235 (yrs) = 0.1021”/yr (this is DBH)]

  • Growth rate close to extrapolated rates from core sample analysis above (0.1059”/yr & 0.1158”/yr). ‘Cut Hickory Stump’ gives the greater age, overly influenced by slow growth period, considered less reliable. 2004 (date of logging) – 1827 (year of GLO survey) = 177 years. 208 years (estimated age) - 177 years = 31 years (age of BT in 1827); 31 x 0.1154”/yr = 3.5 ins., approximately. Less than GLO BT record diameter (7”) but ‘Cut Hickory Stump’ about 6” Dia. at 30 years and closer to the BT dia.; it apparently germinated about 1824, for comparison. ‘Cut Hickory Stump’ not counted as carefully since it was obviously smaller and younger.)
  • Another analysis - GLO 7” BT about 60 years old, (growth rate of 0.1154’/yr). 60 years + 177 years = 237 years old GLO BT in 2004 (again within range seen in above analyses).
status existent38
STATUS: EXISTENT
  • 1) Recovery of original monument.
  • (1973 BLM Manual - “5-4.The terms “corners’ and “monument” are not interchangeable.
  • A “corner” is a point [or position or specific location] determined by the surveying process.
  • A “monument” is the object or the physical structure which marks the corner point.” P 129)E.g. - MP52, NE Corner Indiana both original Kendrick corners
  • 2) Accessory recovery (all Mile Posts had two record bearing tree accessories) - must look.(1973 BLM Manual - “The several classes of accessories, such as bearing trees, are aids in identifying the
  • corner position. In their broader significance the accessories are a part of the corner monument.” P 129)
  • E.g. - MP86: Tree at GLO record bearing/distance from stone monument; tree age analysis supports
  • 3) Recovery of a perpetuated monument. Either by Co. Surveyor or private practitioner.
  • Recorded or preserved.
  • (1973 BLM Manual - “or located by an acceptable supplemental [subsequent] survey record.” P 129)E.g. - MP17
  • 4) Recovery of Closing Corners within 6 chains of position with GLO tie (range of GLO BTs)
  • Consider as an accessory to Mile Post position.
  • E.g. - MP49? Will it be recovered? Lines between two sets of Closing Corners also accessory

- MP15? What’s there? – MP 7? Which is it?

  • 5) Topographic record features within 3 chains of position. Must define specific position.
  • (1973 BLM Manual - “5-16. The proper use of topographic calls of the original field notes may assist in

recovering the locus of the original survey.” P 131.

  • (1) The determination should result in a definite locus within a small area.” P 132) No examples yet
  • (1973 BLM Manual - “5-8. No decision should be made in regard to the restoration of a corner until every means has been exercised that might aid in identifying its true original position. The retracements will indicate the probable position and will show what discrepancies are to be expected. Any supplemental survey record or testimony should then be considered in the light of the facts thus developed.” Page 129)
mp 17 perpetuated monument recovery
Berrien County: CS LaDrew perpetuation’s c. 1886; recovered MPs-16 & 18 and re-established MP-17 at proportionate distance. Recovered in Remon Program work. CS LaDrew’s retracement survey noted two line trees as “station tree” and “Beech sight tree with hacks on each side,” agreeing with Kendrick’s statiioning & identification of line tree species.MP-17 Perpetuated monument recovery
mp49 use record glo tie distance from mp as accessory
MP49:use record GLO tie distance from MP as accessory
  • Two GLO Closing Corner GLO ties to MP-49; both CCs perpetuated:

MI CC = 6.06ch E’ly + IN CC = 38.70chs W’ly = 44.76chs (2954.2ft) GLO record.

– GPS measurement between CCs = 2953.66ft (44.752chs), nearly identical

– Can use GLO 6.06chs as accessory to restore position

In this case also supported with close agreement to farther CC

– If not found after search, restore as Existent Corner (to define E-W location)

  • Lines between Closing Corners can be used as second accessory

(since defines N-S location) [in all cases] :

2002: I postulated two set of CCs, if each held as line without regard to the other,

will show two lines nearly coinciding.

Clearly show the two DSs did well intersecting Kendrick line.

Mostly see as gaps to overlaps in 3 to 6-foot range.

Therefore, the evidence of these two lines can and should be considered an accessory

also because the band defined by the closing corners is so narrow.

Taking the midpoint between the two lines cuts the amount in half,

a value that applies to both existent and obliterated recoveries.

This case: IN Closing Corner is 1.32’ N of line, a gore, between MI CCs to each side;

MI Closing Corner is 3.13’S of line, a gore, between IN CCs to each side.

If not found, place MP-49 at split of 2.77’ gore at that location, being only 1.39’

from each line defined by CCs.

Once final line is determined and defined by Mile Posts, Closing Corners can be

handled by Amended Monument procedure in BLM Manual.

mp 49 will it be recovered
MP-49? Will it be recovered?

Road built by Elkhart Co S of State Line, apparently at N R/W. May possibly be area suitable for recovery. Houses in Michigan use Indiana road for access. (Do they contribute to maintenance in any way?)

mp 15 what did they know to build the road
MP-15? What did they know to build the road?

Lake Rd runs S on 1/8th (1/16th) line to 1/4 Line, then SE’ly to State Line; East Rd runs N on 1/4 Line to 1/8th line, then WNW’ly to State Line - Why? Seems likely the MP location was known at time of road construction. Position fits proportionate position from GPS reconn of Line.

mp 15 what s there fits existent criteria
MP-15? What’s there? Fits existent criteria.

Existent MP position determined from MI CC 10.05 chains E gives location 36 feet S & W of GPS reconn proportionate position. Appears to fits road closely at State Line. Since Road built to apparent location, did they know of MP at time? Is it collateral evidence for MP?

mp 7 which is it fits existent criteria
MP-7? Which is it? Fits existent criteria.

The MI Remon CC is area with little evidence & distance to MP-8=short. Determined MP-7 proportionate position (2 alternatives since 1 mile is half chain short of record) . Also gives alternate position for CC [evaluate 2009.]

dedication to the cause leaf off gps conditions
Dedication to the cause! – “leaf-off” GPS conditions

Closing Corner to Secs 23 & 24, T8S-R21W, Berrien Co

173 ft E. of MP-6

“a brushy B. Ash swamp” - Kendrick October 13, 1827. Ditto – Dec, 2007

What it took to make the previous evaluation possible!

status obliterated
STATUS: OBLITERATED
  • Consideration of conditions implying existent or obliterated corner:

Founddenotes (implies) the object, monument/accessories - therefore the exact position of the corner,

Vs.

Recovereddenotes the position, implying the monument, may not have been found - , therefore, position so determined not as exact as that signified by the monument set to mark the corner position. Can be applied to obliterated corner.

=========================================================1) Adjacent Closing Corner(s) with record GLO tie to Mile Post greater than 6 chains distant.

  • Use GLO tie distance for E-W location (May be only information available). Consider as accessory A) N-S alignment for State Line as defined by Closing Corners (narrow band). Consider as accessory

B) Consider in conjunction with other evidence, e.g. - proportion State Line closing section line dimension

recorded by subdividing U.S. Deputy. (Not always match Mile Posts close to Closing Corners).

C) May have to use ‘average-mile’ distance for twps with just range-line GLO ties to Mile Posts.

  • 2) County Surveyor tie(s) from adjacent monuments of record.

(unless substantiated by other evidence).E.g. - MP38 & MP31; what is the status of each of these retraced positions?

  • 3) Monument recovered, not of record, but in close agreement with record data and positioning.Assumption - set by a Surveyor.
  • E.g. - MP19
  • 4) Parol evidence.

This evidence must be in proper written affidavit form, with witnesses and notary signature & seal.

[ - must be recorded in certified form when obtained and reviewed.]E.g. - Act 23, PA1915MI, Real Property Affidavits, Act 74, PA1970MI. (No examples: NE Cor owner had no info)

  • 5) Original survey topographic call within 5 chains distance.

- position not contradictory as to interpretation.

  • Must be used in conjunction with alignment as defined by Closing Corners. (1973 BLM Manual - 5-16. (Continued)
    • “(2) The evidence shouldnot be susceptible of more than one reasonable interpretation.

(3) The corner locus shouldnot be contradicted by evidence of a higher class or by other topographic notes.” Page 132)

e g mp 52 clos corner greater than 6 chains
e.g. - MP 52 Clos. Corner greater than 6 chains

The Mile Post & Closing Corner are original, but distance is 20 ft less than record (30 links). Remon location is 7 ft. longer than record.

Shows why a restoration based upon longer distances in GLO record needs to be obliterated; still is best evidence, better than record mile distance.

e g mp 51 52 alignment of mp with closing corners
e.g. - MP 51-52 Alignment of MP with Closing Corners

One Closing Corner is original, other is old perpetuation, a stone. Terrain is one of rougher locations along State Line yet MP-52 is only 0.9 ft S of line defined by Closing Corners.

Shows Dep. Sur. did well in intersecting line and Closing Corners can be used as good accessory for N-S position of line.

mp 37 43 what to use for reference case for obliterated status
MP 37-43? What to use for reference?Case for Obliterated Status

Use the ‘average-mile’ for twps with just range-line ties, as for MP56-78 with only range-line ties. Here ties are 39+ chains.

E1/2 of Line has records of only ties at Range Lines for 4 townships, then Indiana CCs (MP78-104) ties in the range of 30 chains. Will have to consider an ‘average mile distance’ for the townships to define search areas and restored positions for Lost mile post positions.

status obliterated50
STATUS: OBLITERATED
  • Consideration of conditions implying existent or obliterated corner:

Founddenotes (implies) the object, monument/accessories - therefore the exact position of the corner,

Vs.

Recovereddenotes the position, implying the monument, may not have been found - , therefore, position so determined not as exact as that signified by the monument set to mark the corner position. Can be applied to obliterated corner.

=========================================================1) Adjacent Closing Corner(s) with record GLO tie to Mile Post greater than 6 chains distant.

  • Use GLO tie distance for E-W location (May be only information available). Consider as accessory A) N-S alignment for State Line as defined by Closing Corners (narrow band). Consider as accessory

B) Consider in conjunction with other evidence, e.g. - proportion State Line closing section line dimension

recorded by subdividing U.S. Deputy. (Not always match Mile Posts close to Closing Corners).

C) May have to use ‘average-mile’ distance for twps with just range-line GLO ties to Mile Posts.

  • 2) County Surveyor tie(s) from adjacent monuments of record.

(unless substantiated by other evidence).E.g. - MP38 & MP31; what is the status of each of these retraced positions?

  • 3) Monument recovered, not of record, but in close agreement with record data and positioning.Assumption - set by a Surveyor.
  • E.g. - MP19
  • 4) Parol evidence.

This evidence must be in proper written affidavit form, with witnesses and notary signature & seal.

[ - must be recorded in certified form when obtained and reviewed.]E.g. - Act 23, PA1915MI, Real Property Affidavits, Act 74, PA1970MI. (No examples: NE Cor owner had no info)

  • 5) Original survey topographic call within 5 chains distance.

- position not contradictory as to interpretation.

  • Must be used in conjunction with alignment as defined by Closing Corners. (1973 BLM Manual - 5-16. (Continued)
    • “(2) The evidence shouldnot be susceptible of more than one reasonable interpretation.

(3) The corner locus shouldnot be contradicted by evidence of a higher class or by other topographic notes.” Page 132)

mp 38 what is status of retraced position
MP-38? What is status of retraced position?

Determining position for MP-38 pulls together several pieces collateral evidence.

Closest Closing Corner = 13.62 chains E’ly (898.92 feet).

Hold as collateral evidence supported by following additional evidence?

IN Closing Corners = 4.08’ & 5.94’ N, both gores, of line between MI Closing Corners to

each side; MI Closing Corners = 6.64’ & 1.98’ N, both gaps, of IN Closing Corners

Placing MP-38 at split between the two sets of lines most logical conclusion (gap of 0.43’)

because Kendrick made a Polaris observation at MP-37 (adjusted vernier of his compass

for different magnetic variation to the east.

Restoring the mile posts in the area using this same obliterated corner procedure shows

the bearings of the two miles coming into MP-37 are S89°00E and S89°01’E while the

next miles after the correction are S88°48’E and S88°28’E.

Last evidence is County Surveyor record by Stokes, c. 1860

Measured from MP-38 E’ly to IN Closing Corner (Secs. 8 & 9, R4E) = 42.06 ch (2776.0’)

GLO tie inexplicable at 48.36 ch (3192 ft). Computed distance from computed MP-38

location to perpetuated Closing Corner = 41.986 ch (2771.07 ft), only 4.9 feet less

Have subsequent survey to support the GLO tie.

Hence, could hold the GLO tie as collateral evidence/restore as obliterated corner.

Alternatively, take the mean position or a weighted position

(Stokes’ distance is 3X further; both are reasonable).

Lastly, also recover the next section corner out from the Line/determine closing distance

to the Line. Then proportion the record and measured values for that distance

against record tie distance to the Mile Post.

This indexing process, suggested in the 1973 BLM Manual, would likely change the

position by a few links, but require more extensive recovery efforts in such areas. It gives

mixed results where already have such data to evaluate; inconsistent DS measurements?

mp 31 status position as part of mp31 37
MP-31 status/position? – as part of MP31-37

Miles average 5260.0 (5255-½ - 5263-½) ft/mile, using Co.Sur. position for MP-31 and GLO record ties to MI CCs for MP32-37. Get good consistency since using the average gives positions within 0.5-5.5 links per Mile Post. Using GLO record tie for MP-31 changes average to 5257 ft/mile with positions ranging up to 20 links per Mile Post.

mp 31 what is status of retraced position
MP-31? What is status of retraced position?

MP -31, based on CS’s 1860 tie to Mile Post tree from perpetuated N¼ Cor, shows agreement within 5 ft to IN CC. Using GLO tie to MI CC has agreement dropping to 22 ft, which is consistent with other ties MP32-37. But mile distances MP30-31-32 are closer to other miles using Co Sur tie; miles jump to 5289 ft (not seen for any Kendrick ‘miles’) and 5243 ft.

Location 56ft N is not Cor!

First mon tied in 14.5ft S was not Cor

Best conclusion appears that MP-31 could be obliterated but Co Sur record restores position most consistent with other evidence. Do not know at this time if any evidence of tree marking MP-31 is recoverable.

mp 31 what is status of retraced position55
MP-31? What is status of retraced position?

As with MP-38, determining position for MP-31 pulls together several pieces collateral evidence. MI Closing Corner = only 3.40 chains E’ly (224.4 f).

Conflict: collateral evidence of IN “N¼ Cor” set by Co Sur 1860; which holds?

IN “N1/4 Corner” = 2.03 chains (134.0’) W, set on retracement of State Line.

Co Sur recovered original tree monumenting MP-31 to make measurement.

Set N1/4 Cor 40.00 chains west of IN CC; retracement = 2645.88’ (40.089 chs), close to

1860 Co Sur record.

Restoring the mile post at Co Sur tie from N1/4 Cor gives position 243.09 ft (3.683 ch)

from MI CC. Could speculate it has moved 20 E feet since distance from GLO record tie

position to IN CC = 2492.91’ (37.771 chs) cf 38.11 chs (2515 ft), -22 ft short.

But the GLO ties from CCs to MPs are about -20’ to -25’ for three other MPs.

Three other GLO ties to MPs measure within 1-5 ft of record.

However, the Co Sur position gives mile measurement that agree with 5 other mile measurements for Mile Posts restored as obliterated corners using GLO ties of less than 6 chains (6.19 to 10.32 chs)

Conclusion is to accept position that gives most overall consistency = Co Sur record.

Not possible to have total resolution and congruency of all records. Would lead to second

conclusion that GLO tie is in error to some extent; not sure what is the explanation.

Besides agreement with other miles have agreement with tie to IN CC, a long distance.

Give preponderance of evidence by agreement between two sets of records.

mp 19 monument not of record
MP-19?Monument -Not of record.

Discrepancy: location is 73 links E (47 ft) of GLO tie position from Closing Corner & 7-8 ft S of lines between Closing Corners (which are only 1 ft+ apart

Somewhat like RR rail

at MP-17 = also old light

60-pound rail

Rail is nearly on W’ly projection of IN CCs of section to east, but not in agreement with IN CC alignment of IN section on S side of line at location of Rail. Seems to be one likely explanation of N-S position for it.

status obliterated57
STATUS: OBLITERATED
  • Consideration of conditions implying existent or obliterated corner:

Founddenotes (implies) the object, monument/accessories - therefore the exact position of the corner,

Vs.

Recovereddenotes the position, implying the monument, may not have been found - , therefore, position so determined not as exact as that signified by the monument set to mark the corner position. Can be applied to obliterated corner.

=========================================================1) Adjacent Closing Corner(s) with record GLO tie to Mile Post greater than 6 chains distant.

  • Use GLO tie distance for E-W location (May be only information available). Consider as accessory A) N-S alignment for State Line as defined by Closing Corners (narrow band). Consider as accessory

B) Consider in conjunction with other evidence, e.g. - proportion State Line closing section line dimension

recorded by subdividing U.S. Deputy. (Not always match Mile Posts close to Closing Corners).

C) May have to use ‘average-mile’ distance for twps with just range-line GLO ties to Mile Posts.

  • 2) County Surveyor tie(s) from adjacent monuments of record.

(unless substantiated by other evidence).E.g. - MP38; what is the status of this retraced position?

  • 3) Monument recovered, not of record, but in close agreement with record data and positioning.Assumption - set by a Surveyor.
  • E.g. - MP19
  • 4) Parol evidence.

This evidence must be in proper written affidavit form, with witnesses and notary signature & seal.

[ - must be recorded in certified form when obtained and reviewed.]E.g. - Act 23, PA1915MI, Real Property Affidavits, Act 74, PA1970MI. (No examples: NE Cor owner had no info)

  • 5) Original survey topographic call within 5 chains distance.

- position not contradictory as to interpretation.

  • Must be used in conjunction with alignment as defined by Closing Corners. (1973 BLM Manual - 5-16. (Continued)
    • “(2) The evidence shouldnot be susceptible of more than one reasonable interpretation.

(3) The corner locus shouldnot be contradicted by evidence of a higher class or by other topographic notes.” Page 132)

status lost
STATUS: LOST
  • 1) No evidence found which will meet the Existent or Obliterated criteria.E.g. - Found stone in Sunset Blvd. (between MP 51-52), even if old; stone likely c. 1860s-1880s.

Has no evidentiary value for line.

- Also MP-0; appears very recent installation of CB & outlet storm sewer destroyed

evidence. Need authorization of States to re-establish.

  • 2) Authorization of both the Michigan & Indiana Legislatures will be required for a surveyor to install a Mile Post, i.e. - re-establish position.
  • *Committee has worked with MSPS and ISPLS to successfully gain passage of legislation for such authorization.
mp 0 determined to be lost need authorization of states

IN Range Line CC only 0.45’S of Line: MP-1 to C/L X’n Rds (1920 plat position). Hold all three as parallel is curve bowing 0.15’ S/ mile. Apply ‘mile’ measurement MP1 to 2 as best evidence. Recent CB/storm sewer construction destroyed any evidence.

MP-0 Determined to be lostNeed authorization of States
mp 0 checking for evidence determined to be lost
MP-0: Checking for evidenceDetermined to be lost

MP-0 on top/bank

MP-0 on top/bank

Just be glad you weren’t running the instrument on this crew with all these bosses giving orders!

CB far left that wiped out the evidence

1920 plat mon: C/L – C/L X’n

[Is this survey by committee?]

CB

MP-0 on top/bank

Plat Mon

Plat Mon Perpetuation

closing corner 13 ft n of line what is status
Closing Corner 13 ft N of line – What is status?

Need to check position of IN Closing Corner. Verify if it is 13 ft N. of apparent State Line?

Largest gore of an IN Clos Cor across line between MI Closing Corners.

Also retrace line between Secs 10 & 11 to compare its location to record distance from section corner to south.

slide63

Kendrick notes “…to lake, set post” – what is legal alignment in lake?[distance given, e.g.- 30.00 chains, across lake] “… leave lake, set post…” [typical statement in original notes] (such posts will be reset in survey).

What is alignment of State Line in a lake? Riparian case law governs bottom land boundaries in Michigan and Indiana; they are not extensions of the upland boundary lines into the water. Can become issue with dock placements.

Is there case law for state lines? The 1827 map portrays the line, as do the notes, as going straight across each lake to the post set on the opposite side. Agrees with 1816 US Congress legislation (and 1816 Indiana Constitution) describing the W. line going up the Wabash R. to latitude of Vincennes, then due North to point 10 miles north of southern extreme of Lake Michigan [which is in Lk. Michigan], then due East to W. line of Ohio. Is there any reason to challenge these documents established at and from time of formation of Indiana? (International boundary also has point-to-point alignments in Great Lakes.)

rights of way examples
Rights of Way examples

E.G - Along state line the public road located in one state yet provides access to adjoining properties in adjoining state. Road appurtenant to the enjoyment of the use of parcel whose title is under the laws of the state in which the parcel is located yet the road is under the jurisdiction of a county in the adjoining state. How are the property rights of the parcel protected? Does the county in adjoining state where parcel is located provides joint revenue maintenance to the cross-line county with jurisdiction over that stretch of road?

Second example: House in Indiana Access is a road on the Michigan side of the line. Reasonably new (not mapped at time the quad map was made) and only house served by the MI road. What if MI adjoiner petitioned the Michigan county to vacate the road since he would gain use of the abandoned Michigan-only right of way? What status would the owner of the Indiana parcel have in the hearing? How was road created?

slide65

Why we want retracement surveyors[We do not want someone like the engineer that resurveyed the Ohio-Michigan line in 1916. He did not seem to recognize obvious evidence, even when describing it in his procedures, seemingly intend on speed rather than retracement.]

S. S. Gannett, Topographic Surveyor, resurveyed the Ohio/Michigan Line in 1915. He gives example of proportioning GLO record distances from Sec. Corners. Only problem is mile is 1.55 chains long, being 81.55 chains rather than record mile of 80.00 chains. By strictly proportioning to 80.00 chains he is about half a chain north of a fence to west (26.0 ft S). The most logical reason for a fence at that location is that it was placed by a land owner who knew location of State Line at some time prior to 1915. By evaluation the fence shows the 1838 measurement miscounted the full half-chains in the incremental measurement from the section corner S. to the line.

Proportioning to the corrected GLO measurements (81.50 chains as suggested in BLM Manual) places the position within 2.5 ft. of the fence, supporting its value as collateral evidence for the location, rather than something to be noted [but not used], then ignored. The bearings then are much closer to the 1817 record and deflecting much less.

©

slide66

Why we want retracement surveyors[This 1916 map of the resurvey shows the ownership along the State Line and his expertise, topographic mapping of features; nice addition, adds little. All the owners for the two sections owned both sides of the line, in each state. Unlikely they would catch the line being moved 26 ft. North. ]

N87°27’25”E 5286’ Calc

N88°00’18”E 5545’ Calc

©

ad