The current location of Temecula (now known as Old Town) came about with the establishment of a railroad depot by the California Southern Railroad.  The railroad was founded by a group of Santa Fe Railroad stockholders in 1880.  The line began in National City (San Diego) and eventually would end in Colton where it would meet up with the Southern Pacific line.  The railroad ran north up to Oceanside and then headed east through Temecula Canyon.  It emerged from the mouth of Temecula Canyon (where Temecula and Murrieta Creeks meet) went north along the west bank of Murrieta Creek to Lake Elsinore.  There the line headed east again through the canyon where its namesake road runs through (Railroad Canyon Road) on to Perris and then eventually Colton.

 The construction of the line was completed in August 1882, the same year the Town of Temecula was surveyed by Fred T. Perris.  The official survey map was completed December 4, 1882 but not filed until August 24, 1892 in the San Diego Recorder’s Office.  The timing of the map filing coincided with the formation of Riverside County in 1893 which Temecula is now part of.  The land that the Town of Temecula sets on was owned by Mercedes Pujol, the widow of Domingo Pujol who had purchased the land in 1879.  Besides providing a right-of-way for the railroad, the Pujol family also provided 17 acres for the train depot, 200 acres for the townsite, and 3 acres for the cemetery.  Eventually another 6 acres were donated by Mercedes (2 for a school, 2 for a church, & 2 for a plaza).

A review of the original map of the Town of Temecula shows that each lot was 25 feet wide by 140 feet deep.  The east-west streets were named First through Sixth and Main Street.  The north-south streets were named Mercedes, Front, River and Pujol.  Main and Front Streets were 80 feet wide while all other streets were 60 feet wide.  An interesting aspect is that River Street does not exist today and may never have existed.  In 1884 and 1891 there were large floods that eventually caused the tracks through Temecula Canyon to be destroyed.  When this happened the railroad no longer ran to National City, the line started and stopped in Temecula.  As proof of this the width of the Murrieta Creek on the map is approximatley 115 feet, today the width of the creek at the bridge is 155 feet.

Today Old Town Temecula is a vibrant reminder of the past.  Many of the original buildings exist in the historic district that encompasses the area of Main and Front streets.  It is still a significant stop between San Diego and Los Angeles and remains a wonderful reminder of where the past meets the present.  

TrigStar has attracted hundreds of students from Orange County high schools making it the largest of its kind in California. This year’s prizes include cash awards of $500, $300 and $200 for first, second and third place in the high school trigonometry competition. Winners in the Surveyor’s Challenge will receive gift certificates, and one grand prize will be awarded.

A TrigStar winner is a mathematics student who has demonstrated in competition that they are the most skilled among classmates in the practical applications of trigonometry. The competition for the honor is simply a timed exercise solving trigonometric problems that incorporates the understanding and use of right triangle formulas, the law of sines, and the law of cosines. Nationally, the contest helps to promote professional careers in land surveying and mapping to students in High Schools across the country.

The competition is managed nationally by the National Society of Professional Surveyors and sponsored locally by the Orange County Chapter of the California Land Surveyors Association. The event is facilitated by: Kathy Johnson of Vital Link of Orange County; along with additional sponsors from the Caltrans Foundation the Professional Engineers in California Government; the Port of Long Beach; The Orange County Surveyor’s Office; Johnson-Frank & Associates, Inc.; and RBF, Inc.

CONGRATULATIONS TO OUR ORANGE COUNTY TRIGSTARS!!! This year’s winners are:

Local winners have the opportunity to participate in the National TrigStar competition for scholarship awards.  ALL Orange County participants qualify for scholarships if they choose to major in Survey/Mapping Sciences at Santiago Canyon College, Geospatial Technologies at California Polytechnic University at Pomona, or Geomatics Engineering at California State University at Fresno.

Santiago Canyon College is a public community college, part of Rancho Santiago Community College District. It serves the residents of Anaheim Hills, Orange and Villa Park. The college provides education for academic transfer and careers, courses for personal and professional development, and customized training for business and industry.

I also would like to express a very special thanks to: Juan Vazquez, President of Santiago Canyon College; Steve Kawa, Vice President of Administrative Services; Tricia Evans, Dean of Career Education at Santiago Canyon College; Amy Styffe and Julie Peeken of Career Education at Santiago Canyon College who are the greatest and hardest working office staff any college could have.

And lastly, thanks to the great professionals from Southern California who traveled from Sylmar, Riverside, Los Angeles, and places in between to help proctor this exam.

by James Holter, Whowon.com

PICKERINGTON, Ohio — Western states governors have added their voices to the chorus of vocal critics of the new federal “Wild Lands” policy that gives administration officials the power to ban responsible off-highway riding on millions of acres of public land, the American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) reports.
On Dec. 22, 2010, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar signed Secretarial Order 3310 creating a new land-use designation called Wild Lands that essentially allows officials in the federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to manage public land as if it had received a “Wilderness” land-use designation from Congress, but without requiring congressional approval.

A Wilderness designation is one of the strictest forms of public land management. Once Congress designates an area as Wilderness, nearly all forms of non-pedestrian recreation are illegal. The AMA supports appropriate Wilderness designations that meet the criteria established by Congress in 1964, but anti-access advocates have been abusing the legislative process to ban responsible off-highway vehicle (OHV) recreation on public land.

In December, the AMA and OHV enthusiasts won an important battle when U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) dropped his effort to pass a massive omnibus public lands bill that would have inappropriately designated millions of acres of public land as Wilderness. With the new “Wild Lands” policy, anti-access advocates are now seeking an end-run around Congress.

Federal lawmakers quickly called the Wild Lands policy a “land grab” and a blatant attempt to usurp congressional authority. Off-highway riders sporting “Stop the Land Grab” stickers produced by the AMA and distributed by the Utah Shared Access Alliance (USA-ALL) turned out in droves for a meeting of Utah’s Governor’s Council on Balanced Resources that featured BLM Director Bob Abbey trying to explain the new policy.

Ed Moreland, AMA senior vice president for government relations, sent a letter to Salazar asking him to explain whether the new Wild Lands land-use designation will block traditional routes of travel for off-highway riding. It can be viewed at http://www.americanmotorcyclist.com/Libraries/Rights_Documents_Federal/Salazar_WildLands_1-11-2011.sflb.ashx.

Governors who have come out against the Wild Lands policy include Wyoming’s Matthew Mead, Idaho’s C.L. “Butch” Otter and Utah’s Gary Herbert.

“This letter is to advise you that I firmly oppose Secretarial Order 3310, which was released just before the Christmas holiday and while many gubernatorial offices, like mine, were in a state of transition,” Mead wrote to Salazar on Jan. 17. “Though you will seek feedback from state BLM offices prior to issuing final agency guidance, the opportunity for public input on the policy itself was never afforded.”

Mead went on to say that the people of Wyoming “want and deserve” a say in land-management policies that affect them.

Otter, meanwhile, called on Salazar to immediately withdraw the order.

“Without any state or public input, the Interior Department has circumvented the sovereignty of states and the will of the public by shifting from the normal planning processes of the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) to one that places significant and sweeping authority in the hands of unelected federal bureaucrats,” Otter said in a letter to Salazar.

In asking Abbey to appear before the Governor’s Council on Balanced Resources, Utah’s Herbert complained: “There was no policy discussion with the state. There was no formal notice this was being considered. The federal government suddenly administratively locked up additional Utah lands without even consulting us, and we want an explanation.”

Herbert remained opposed to the Wild Lands policy following the Jan. 14 meeting.

Salazar’s order has far-reaching implications because the BLM manages about 245 million acres of public land nationwide, primarily in western states.

Under Salazar’s order, BLM officials will look at the land they manage and decide which land should be labeled “Lands With Wilderness Characteristics.” Once those decisions are made, the officials will go through a public land-use planning process before designating land as “Wild Lands.”

http://www.whowon.com/sResults.asp?SanctionID=186&StoryID=302638

Salazar, Abbey Restore Protections for America’s Wild Lands

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/newsroom/2010/december/NR_12_23_2010.html

Remarks of Secretary Salazar and Director Abbey – Announcement of BLM Wild Lands Policy

http://www.doi.gov/news/speeches/Remarks-of-Secretary-Salazar-and-Director-Abbey-Announcement-of-BLM-Wild-Lands-Policy.cfm

Beach Replenishment and Eminent Domain
by William E. McGrath, PLS

On June 17, 2010 the United States Supreme Court handed down a precedent ruling as it relates to the establishment of property lines along littoral properties. The case is known asStop The Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. This case is of particular interest to land surveyors who are charged with the responsibility of establishing property lines along littoral boundaries.

Case Background

This Supreme Court case involved beachfront property along the Gulf of Mexico in the town of Destin, Florida. After recent hurricanes along the gulf coast, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection undertook several beach replenishment projects to add sand to severely eroded beachfront areas. They dredged sand offshore and deposited it along the beachfront, adding about 75 feet of beach beyond the mean high water line.

Because the State of Florida, in trust for the public, owns everything offshore of the ordinary mean high water line, they concluded that they owned the 75 feet of additional beach. This action made the upland private property no longer waterfront property. In addition, it added a 75-foot-wide strip of public beach area between the former mean high water line and the new mean high water line.

The property owners filed suit to claim their littoral rights have been taken and sought compensation under eminent domain. They specifically cited two rights: (1) to receive future accretions to their property, and (2) to have their property’s contact with the water remain intact.

The mean high water line is the ordinary boundary between private beachfront, or littoral property, and state-owned land. It is a local elevation datum that is determined by averaging all the high tides over a tidal epoch (18.6 years). Where this datum intersects the beach is the mean high water line.

Littoral owners have, inter alia, rights to have access to the water, to use the water for certain purposes, to have an unobstructed view of the water, and to receive accretions (the silting in of former tidelands that occurs naturally over time) and relictions (the natural, gradual lowering of sea level) to the littoral property. Therefore the littoral owner automatically takes title to dry land added to his property by accretion or reliction.

An accretion occurs gradually and imperceptibly, while a sudden change is an avulsion. Accretions most often occur after an avulsion event from a storm or hurricane; the sand that erodes off a beach to an underwater shoal offshore is gradually, via natural littoral flow, re-deposited back on the beach.

There are two types of avulsion: natural avulsion (e.g. erosion by a nor’easter or hurricane) and artificial avulsion (e.g. beachfront replenishment projects). Note that after avulsion, the seaward boundary of littoral property remains what it was: the mean high-water line before the event. Thus, when an avulsion has added new land, the littoral owner has no right to subsequent accretions because the property abutting it belongs to the owner of the seabed (ordinarily the State).

(The above terms and data have not been taken from a land surveying textbook; they were taken from the U.S. Supreme Court’s oral argument transcripts and written documents of the above referenced case.)

Case Results

Initially the plaintiffs, being the private property owners (Stop The Beach Renourishment, Inc.) brought an unsuccessful administrative challenge. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection approved the permits, and the suit followed. The State Court of Appeals concluded that the department’s order had eliminated the property owners’ littoral rights 1) to receive accretions to their property and 2) to have their property’s contact with the water remain intact. Concluding that this would be an unconstitutional taking and would require an additional administrative requirement to be met, it set aside the order, remanded the proceeding, and certified to the Florida Supreme Court the question whether the act unconstitutionally deprived the property owners of littoral rights without just compensation.

The State Supreme Court answered “no” and quashed the remand, concluding that the property owners did not own the property supposedly taken. The property owners sought a rehearing on the grounds that the Florida Supreme Court’s decision effected a “taking” of the property owner’s littoral rights contrary to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The rehearing was denied by the Florida Supreme Court. The property owners then appealed to the federal courts, ultimately the United States Supreme Court.

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously upheld the Florida Supreme Court’s ruling 8 to 0. (Justice Stevens recused himself, presumably because he owns a beachfront condo in Florida.) Although the ruling was unanimous, the justices were divided on the notion that a court itself, being a branch of government, can effect a “taking” of rights by its mere ruling on rights. Hence, it is subject to the provisions of eminent domain compensation.

Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito strongly endorsed the notion that the Constitution prohibits judicial takings. As Justice Scalia observed, the text could not be clearer: “The Takings Clause … is not addressed to the action of a specific branch or branches.” The Fifth Amendment states that the government must provide “just compensation” whenever it takes private property for “public use.” There is no exception in the constitutional text authorizing a court, as opposed to a legislature, to take private property without compensation.

Justices Kennedy and Sotomayor did not dispute the absence of any such limitation in the text of the Constitution. However, they were hesitant to decide the question, finding that it was not necessary for resolution of the case and that there were potential complications inherent in recognizing judicial takings. Likewise, Justices Breyer and Ginsberg found that such questions were “better left for another day,” worrying that recognizing a judicial takings doctrine would “open the federal court doors to constitutional review of many (perhaps large numbers of) state-law cases in an area of law familiar to state, but not federal, judges.”

Implications for Surveyors

The above case relates to most states with beach replenishment projects, both completed and contemplated. It would behoove the public to know where the natural mean high water line is just prior to any beach replenishment project. In that way, the public will know the bounds of its future public beach. Adjacent private property owners would also want to know at what point the public would be trespassing on their property.

It would be an easy matter to establish the existing mean high water line and, to a lesser extent, a historic mean high water line by aerial photography. Unfortunately, aerial photography would not produce the required degree of accuracy. A quick audit of the last dozen or so sweep grants claims—recorded in my county clerk’s office to clear state tidelands—ranged in fair market value price from $42 to $107 per square foot. I don’t pretend to be an appraiser, but I think it would be safe to say that property along the Atlantic Ocean would be valued at least $100 per square foot. At $100 per square foot, a degree of accuracy would have to be far more than what aerial photography could provide.

The 18.6-year tidal epoch mean high water line elevation datum simply can’t be accurately depicted along a beach with a very slight slope. The correct method would be field measurements at various intervals along the beach to determine the coordinate points of where the local mean high water line elevation datum intersects the slope of the beach. Unlike the establishment of the New Jersey Tidelands Claims Line back in 1984, this work should be documented and certified by a licensed professional land surveyor using the correct method. Somehow back in the mid 1980s the State of New Jersey bypassed our entire profession to prepare those “survey” maps of land previously flowed by tidal water.

Several years ago I had the occasion to appeal a tidelands claim whose source was an 1886 USC&GS topographic map. The width of the mean high water line at the map scale, when rectified to the actual ground, resulted in a line 25 feet wide. Furthermore, the tidelands claims delineation protocols, established by the NJDEP Office of Environmental Analysis in 1977 and subsequently approved by the courts, state: “Locate all delineation lines so that the landward edge of each line is placed along the landward edge of the area delineated as now or formerly below mean low water.”  When you do the math using that somewhat unjust protocol: at $100 per square foot along 100 feet of frontage times 25 feet of uncertainty equals plus or minus $250,000.

Accuracy matters, and sometimes it absolutely matters. Lucky for us, the State issued a letter of non-interest (quit claim) because of a very old riparian grant that we weren’t sure would apply. If they hadn’t, we would have appealed to the courts based on that unjust protocol, and I would be busy searching for the plane table field notes used to prepare the 1886 map that actually exists somewhere deep in the bowels of the federal archives in Washington, D.C.

In view of the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling, I am in favor of passing legislation to have a licensed professional land surveyor measure, document, and certify, using the proper methodology, the ordinary local mean high water line prior to any beach replenishment project.

http://www.profsurv.com/magazine/article.aspx?i=70829

Eight words that have long been associated with land surveying, “$250 Fine or Imprisonment for Disturbing This Mark” were intended as a serious warning to anyone who considered tampering with one of our valued survey monuments. The imprinted wording that appeared on many monuments not only brought attention to their importance, but also foretold of the potential consequences if the warning was not heeded.

The reality is that the statute containing the warning, which has been in place for well over a hundred years, seems to have been, for the most part, a threatening yet harmless paper tiger through lack of enforcement. Thousands of survey markers have been removed, yet finding a single case where anyone has actually been fined under the provisions of that statute, let alone sent to prison, is difficult.

What will the future reveal in regard to the usefulness of the permanent geodetic survey markers that have been painstakingly established by government agencies? With most agencies no longer systematically establishing new monuments, or perpetuating those in danger of removal, the future indeed seems uncertain. Some surveyors are already relegating them as icons of the past within a changing world where new positions meeting their precision needs can be established virtually anywhere while utilizing the Online Positioning User Service (OPUS). Questions arise as to who is actually responsible for safeguarding these markers and what role the markers will play in the future of surveying.

Construction, whether through urban developments or through the expansion of transportation systems, will inevitably continue to take its toll on permanent survey monuments. We may also be facing a relatively new competitor that has risen during the past decade  Internet auction sites. The Internet is now providing a worldwide outlet for the buying and selling of survey markers  a concern not even conceivable in the past.

In the eyes of the public, our permanent survey markers have always been one of the most visible aspects of our profession. They have been the subject of curiosity, conversation, and unfortunately, the victims of vandalism and theft. Human nature seemingly drives many to covet and possess something that emulates an interesting or rare character. Bronze, aluminum, and cast-iron survey markers imprinted with various figures certainly fall into the realm of the unusual category. People have removed or attempted to remove survey markers ranging from small disks to larger monuments weighing several hundred pounds. The removal of survey markers has been a problem since their inception as was noted in the 1889 Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers, United States Army, who specifically detailed the work of the Missouri River Commission surveys. This agency was a forerunner in the establishment of large cast-iron markers that were designed to have lasting permanency, but the Commission soon discovered that they became visible objects that quickly drew attention.

“The necessity for these new bench-marks [in 1892] is shown by the almost utter disappearance of the old marks, which were established mainly in 1878, 1879, and 1880.”

“Of the four bolts leaded into rocks, all bolts were missing, probably caused by the destructive tendency of mankind.”

The driving factor behind establishing the statute designed to deter theft or the movement of survey monuments has its origins with the Indian Appropriations Act of June 10, 1896 (c. 398, 29 Stat. 321, 339). The United States Geological Survey, as directed by the government, found itself in the rare role of establishing township and section corners in the Indian Territory that would later become the State of Oklahoma. The General Land Office was still prescribing the use of natural material such as stones or wooden stakes for corner monuments; however, USGS took the lead in establishing monuments of a lasting permanency that would also bear an inscription warning against their removal.

“That hereafter it shall be unlawful for any person to destroy, deface, change, or remove to another place any section corner, quarter-section corner, or meander post, on any Government line of survey, or to cut down any witness tree or any tree blazed to mark the line of a Government survey, or to deface, change, or remove any monument or bench mark of any Government survey; that any person who shall offend against any of the provisions of this paragraph shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof in any court, shall be fined not exceeding two hundred and fifty dollars, or be imprisoned not more than one hundred days.”

The $250 fine imposed in 1896 was certainly enough to warrant the attention of anyone contemplating the removal of a survey marker. The fine or imprisonment wording immediately began appearing on newly designed USGS brass caps and soon other government agencies likewise followed. A bounty of $25 was also offered to informers as a reward upon conviction of anyone found guilty of monument theft.

New monuments continued to be produced with the same monetary amount without respect to inflation even into the late 20th century. The clause was amended by the act approved March 4, 1909 (35 Stat. 1099, Sec. 57) revising and amending the penal laws of the United States to read as follows:

“Whoever shall willfully destroy, deface, change, or remove to another place any section corner, quarter-section corner, or meander post, on any Government line of survey, or shall willingly cut down any witness tree or any tree blazed to mark the line of a Government survey, or shall willingly deface, change, or remove any monument or bench mark of any Government survey, shall be fined not more than $250, or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.”

The main change appears to be the length of imprisonment that was changed from 100 days to six months. This statute wording began appearing in publications such as the 1909 version of Restoration of Lost or Obliterated Corners and Subdivision of Sections produced by the General Land Office. Inflation had not greatly increased from the original 1896 statute date, and according to the Consumer Price Index the penalty would have only increased to around $270.

The 1930s introduced various Public Works programs which brought large-scale surveying never before seen in the United States. Brass and aluminum disks of many government agencies were produced into the tens of thousands with many still being embossed with the $250 fine statement. Those new markers manufactured for USGS, however, now were void of any warning, but merely stated “For Information Write to the Director Washington, D.C.” Later the wording “Unlawful to Disturb” became standard for USGS. Inflation, though continuing to grow, remained slow and the penalty amount should have been closer to $420 by 1935.

The statute wording was again slightly modified on June 25, 1948 (Ch. 645, 62 Stat. 789; 18 U.S.C. 1858) to read a bit more fluently with no major changes:

“Whoever willfully destroys, defaces, changes, or removes to another place any section corner, quarter-section corner, or meander post, on any Government line of survey, or willfully cuts down any witness tree or any tree blazed to mark the line of a Government survey, or willfully defaces, changes, or removes any monument or bench mark of any Government survey, shall be fined not more than $250 or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.”

The monetary amount remained at $250, but inflation should have now brought it closer to $750. The final revision occurred in 1994 which read the same as the 1948 statute but replaced the words “fined not more than $250″ with “fined under this title”. Today’s monetary amount, when compared to the original penalty amount of $250 in 1896, would be more than $6,000.

Having the dollar amount imprinted directly onto the marker was a good idea in theory, but those responsible perhaps never considered a changing financial world. Some areas in Canada were a bit more stringent, having certain markers placed in British Columbia bearing the words “Penalty For Removal  7 Years”. According to the Alberta Land Surveyors’ Association, tampering with boundary markers in Alberta can currently result in fines up to $10,000.

With some bronze and aluminum survey markers now more than a century old, their antique value has become a greater attraction for unscrupulous individuals wanting to exchange them for cash. Many have been bought and sold on Internet auction sites such as eBay, even though this company attempts to stop these auctions to discourage theft of other markers. Not only are the actual markers being sold, but also witness, boundary, and bearing tree signs are appearing for sale with increased frequency. Others show up at flea markets, in antique stores and at garage sales. These markers, which were once only revealed in chance encounters with the general public, are now a focus of several hobbyist groups including GPS geocaching. The geocaching.com website devotes a section to searching and finding geodetic markers with a direct link to the NGS database. The number of survey markers recovered by geocachers is near the one hundred thousand mark. The Internet encyclopedia Wikipedia describes “Benchmarking” as a sport in which participants individually go out and find bench marks. Of course the majority of people using hand-held GPS receivers for this sport are very caring individuals who are doing a great service to surveyors by helping us to update the recovery datasheets. It has nevertheless revealed the exact locations of the markers to many people who have nothing to do with surveying and who often do not have a true understanding of their continued importance in our profession.

So where do the markers come from that are now showing up for sale? Many land surveyors have legitimately obtained markers during the course of their work when they found a monument knocked over due to construction. Usually they reside on office shelves as a historic reminder of our profession. Others being offered for sale are possibly the direct result of theft by the public. Unfortunately possession of a survey marker by a non-surveyor is apparently not a criminal offense, so unless the act of destruction is actually witnessed, there is probably little chance for prosecution. When personnel were contacted at both USGS and NGS, neither had any record of a person ever being prosecuted for monument destruction by their respective agencies. Criminal cases of this type are often hard to prosecute when the plaintiff, the owner/establisher of the marker, is not readily available to assist when a surveyor brings the matter to their attention. In the past, a marker could only be classified as “destroyed” by government agencies if the actual disk was sent to them for complete verification. To discourage others from removing survey markers, a few surveyors have continuously contacted sellers on Internet auction sites and asked that the survey markers be removed. They are considered a banned item on the eBay site, but due to the volume of items being sold every day, this company has often been slow to react to requests that the markers be removed. Therefore, many continue to be bought and sold  often at high prices with some in the hundreds of dollars. Some of the early GLO and BLM brass caps used for section corner monuments have also been offered for sale. The obscure issue is whether unused markers that have made their way into private hands should be allowed for sale. By tracking the frequency of markers appearing for sale, it is estimated that over a thousand survey markers have been placed for sale on eBay since its beginning in 1995. One antique dealer, when politely asked to discontinue an auction selling an older brass disk, responded with his own interpretation of how he viewed survey markers.

When markers of any sort are obsolete, meaning not used anymore, they can be owned and sold! This is obviously obsolete. Over 50 years old, when it only needs to be 10 or more years. So go educate yourself!

Despite the efforts of individual surveyors, government agencies are often in the best position to deal with monument destruction. A case involving a Nebraska Department of Roads (NDOR) project concerned having a contractor specifically protect a High Accuracy Reference Network (HARN) point that was previously established by NGS. This contractor ignored the request and deliberately tore out the monument, thinking it would be easier to just set it back after the construction project was completed rather than having to work around it. NDOR, while working with their attorneys and the local NGS representative, withheld paying the contractor $10,000 of his contract when the project was completed.

Every surveyor can assist in the future protection of markers in several ways. First, determine if an existing marker is potentially in danger of accidental destruction by someone who has no idea that it is even present. Most of the older markers did not originally have warning signs placed near them. If an appropriate warning sign cannot be obtained, a simple painted steel post driven near the marker might be enough to alert someone of its existence. Many markers such as those established by USGS and other government agencies are not in the NGS database, so it is essential that these also be found and protected. When you do locate a marker that is in the NGS database, take time to update the recovery sheet. This will help keep track of its location when physical surroundings change, and may also help determine if a marker has been recently removed if it is later offered for sale. Some surveyors have even suggested the idea of having geodetic markers involved in the “One Call” system, similar to locating buried utilities so contractors can be alerted to their existence.

The responsibility for safeguarding survey markers, whether accepted or not, has to rest with everyone using them. Survey markers are a lasting impression of our profession. Let’s all do our part to ensure that they remain intact for future surveyors, regardless of the changing ways in which they may be used.

Jerry Penry is a Nebraska licensed land surveyor. He is a frequent contributor to The American Surveyor, and has written numerous articles for this magazine.

The Great Depression of the 1930s, largely triggered by the stock market crash of 1929, affected virtually every occupation including land surveying and civil engineering. Engineering companies that thrived in the roaring 1920s found themselves searching for any work. By the fall of 1933, the Federal Emergency Relief Administration contacted the United States Coast & Geodetic Survey (C&GS), the predecessor to the National Geodetic Survey (NGS), to administer a relief measure with the primary objective of creating employment for needy surveyors and engineers.

The initial goal was to employ up to 15,000 workers with the project to begin immediately upon approval. C&GS accepted the worthy assignment from an altruistic motive, but not without some serious reservations. The key concern was that insufficient personnel with their own workloads would not be able to provide adequate supervision. C&GS also knew that instruments of the type needed for precise survey work would be hard to obtain on such short notice. Providing the vehicles needed for the work was an almost insurmountable task since funding for the project was to be primarily used for wages with strict limitations placed on the purchase of equipment and materials. The final concern was that work was to begin during the harsh winter months–the least productive season for survey work.

On November 27, 1933, formal approval was established and the project became part of the Civil Works Administration (CWA) with work immediately beginning in all states with no delay. A serious drawback was the fact that federal funding was available only until February 15, 1934, giving the project less than three months; however, there was every indication that Congress would approve further funding when that time arrived.

By January 19, 1934, the CWA issued orders to cease hiring new employees for the project. This greatly hampered operations since some states were still in the initial hiring process and were not even close to the quota of workers they had hoped to employ. Congress did provide more funding as the February deadline arrived, but prohibited the direct participation of any Federal Bureau after that date. With 10,000 employees in the project, each state was given the option to continue if they could be represented locally. C&GS personnel were relegated to an advisory capacity where they did their best to insure that the work was meeting acceptable standards. All but four states decided to continue the project with local representation. In the state of Nebraska, for instance, Willard J. Turnbull who was the professor in the Mechanics Arts Building at the University in Lincoln, assumed the role. Turnbull was well suited for the job since he had been a former officer with C&GS. Other states were less fortunate and relied upon the best available person who would agree to assume the responsibilities. Generally the state representatives did the work with no pay and continued working at their other jobs in addition to the work devoted to the State Survey projects.

On March 31, 1934, the CWA program ended with certain relief measures provided which would now be under the State Emergency Relief Administration. New rules stated that workers remaining in the projects had to work without any outside financial compensation. This naturally meant that some of the most skilled surveyors and engineers involved in the projects could no longer participate since they were finding fragments of other work to keep their struggling businesses open. Some exceptions were made to keep instrument operators on the crews where their expertise was needed most.

The state projects were often waterrelated, such as establishing horizontal and vertical control for rivers, canals, or dams. In many instances these projects would not have been considered had there been no need to create employment. Workers were generally assigned to projects in their own areas to eliminate the need for travel, food, and lodging expenses. To provide instruments, an appeal was made to railroads, state highway departments, construction companies, and municipalities to borrow unused equipment. C&GS agreed to assume the responsibility for their care and calibration upon return. The appeal was well-received, but the equipment was a mixture of various types of instruments of differing precision and certainly not what the C&GS was used to operating. Traverse closures were set at a minimum of 1:10,000, but some work was accepted at 1:5,000. Level loops were set at 0.05′ per the square root of the number of miles run. Connections in the surveys were usually started and stopped at known C&GS monuments if possible. Horizontal control was adjusted to the North American Datum of 1927 (NAD27), and published in state plane coordinates. Elevations were adjusted to the Mean Sea Level Datum of 1929 (MSL29), which was renamed the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD29) by NGS in 1973. Transportation needs were met mainly by having workers use their own vehicles, with C&GS agreeing to maintenance when needed unless caused by negligence.

Statistics up to June 30, 1934, just seven months after the beginning of the project, showed the completion of 14,000 miles of traverse, 20,000 miles of levels, and 1,200 miles of triangulation. The permanent monuments resemble the familiar bronze disks set in concrete used by C&GS, but were lettered with the additional words “State Survey”. The states of North Carolina and Pennsylvania decided to have disks cast with legends peculiar to their representative states. Due to the abrupt termination of the project, many monuments that were set in the projects ahead of the traverse and leveling crews were never used. Parts of the project struggled on until 1939, but the work continued less than a year in many states.

The project had both positive and negative aspects. Certainly the most positive was the employment of thousands of surveyors and engineers. This not only provided financially for the workers and their families, but also helped them to better understand how geodetic surveying was performed. One initial negative aspect of the project was the poor planning on the part of the federal government, who basically threw the project into the lap of C&GS with little warning. Only the final positions and elevations were submitted to C&GS, while the majority of the actual field work was never seen by them. With the development of the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83) and the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88), NGS has taken the position that they will not publish any information unless they have the original observations. This leaves thousands of the CWA monuments with precision uncertainty since the actual field work cannot be verified. Although some of these monuments were later used by NGS during their own work and therefore published, many are hard to find since they are not available in the NGS datasheets.

Jerry Penry is employed by Lancaster County Engineering in Lincoln, Nebraska. He has been a licensed surveyor since 1994 specializing in section corner monumentation and GPS surveying.

http://www.amerisurv.com/content/view/3640/153/

Maricopa County, Arizona, is the 14th largest county of roughly 2,950 counties in the country. It contains roughly 5,904,616 acres within its bounds, over 25 municipalities and communities and more than 3.5 million people who call it home. It is approximately the size of Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut combined. We surveyed over 14,000 section corners and quarter corners for this project. The Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) decided to undertake this project to help in managing the right of way of their projects as well as increase the accuracy of the geodetic fabric of the Geographical Information System (GIS).

The Need
The survey was known as “The Geodetic Densification and Cadastral Survey” or GDACS for short. The project was undertaken for a twofold purpose: 1) to create an accurate and reliable foundation for all GIS’s in Maricopa County Government, and 2) to help resolve, clarify and prevent future land boundary issues within Maricopa County.

There is an increasing demand for accessing accurate information, specifically from GISs. GISs are playing a huge role in running cities, counties, utility companies and private firms. Since most of the land boundaries in the western United States, more specifically Maricopa County, are tied to the Public Land (Rectangular) Survey System (PLSS), accurately locating the section corners and quarter corners is a must for land parcel rectification.

A GIS is an avenue for accessing nearly any type of information graphically, making complex data retrieval quickly accessible. Examples range from querying how many trees are on a given parcel to accessing in-depth engineering plans for additional road design. We have already become dependent on GIS and our need for these systems will continue to grow. A key component of any GIS is the foundation on which it is based. This foundation is a layer made up of points that other layers or features depend on for spatial orientation. The accuracy of these points can directly impact the usability of the GIS. The origin of these points have come in many forms in the past, from digitized maps to obtaining miscellaneous land survey information, often from varying and questionable sources. Currently many GIS control layers are in error up to 200 feet. This project has improved the precision and accuracy of the geodetic fabric up to 1,000 times resulting in control point error ellipses within 0.20 feet or less.

Another important goal of the project was monument/corner preservation. Even though Arizona has fairly strict rules on recording plats, we knew that if we could survey endangered section corners and quarter corners it would be doing a service to the surveying community, and thus, the public. Since the establishment of the original surveys in Maricopa County in 1860s through the 1920s, many of these corner monuments have been destroyed or lost only to be replaced oftentimes by several “competing” monuments attempting to represent the original corner. In situations where this has occurred, copious amounts of time and money are spent in attempting to resolve discrepancies in land boundary lines. With this project surveying preserving the original monument positions will hopefully reduce future conflicts.

The Project
The initial project began in August of 1998 and was completed in August of 2005. The following consultants were contracted to perform the work: AMEC Inc., A-Team and Associates, David Evans and Associates, Robert Bein William Frost and Associates, Entranco, and Wood Patel and Associates. There have been several large addendums and subsequent work since then with help from Alpha Engineering. Altogether there were 87 corner determination plats and 42 inventory plats recorded, covering 129 townships. With more than 14,000 monuments surveyed and nearly 9580 section and quarter section corners determined, the work continues to this date.

Control
The first task was to establish a high accuracy survey control point every four miles throughout the county. The Barry Goldwater Military Gunnery Range, Indian Communities and the Tonto National Forest were excluded from this coverage. This network enables any private or public land surveying activity to be rectified to one common coordinate system. Before the project began, there were only seven “B” order or above, nationally recognized control points in the county. Choosing new locations where we had permission to install, clear of sky obstruction, easily accessible and yet secure enough to leave a GPS receiver were our primary goals. Most of the stations have a forged eyebolt set in concrete to lock a receiver to it if so desired. With the successful completion of this project, there are now 484 new control monuments. The monuments have been added to the Federal database held by the National Geodetic Survey, and are available for public use. The total cost to establish these monuments was $715,298.76 or $1,477.89 per monument.

Even though Continuously Operating Reference Stations (CORS) and Real Time Networks (RTNs) are currently operating in the Phoenix area with more stations proposed in the future, these monuments will continue to serve as control points to those clients that require projects to be completed in the NAD83 1992 datum adjustment, as well as great physical checks to the overall system.

Section Corners and Quarter Corners
The second step was to locate all of the PLSS monuments in areas where development is proposed or currently under way. Proposed, includes areas that MCDOT is anticipating development over the next 20 years. The consultant was required to survey, photograph, physically describe, determine, refurbish, replace (if needed), and record. This was more than simply locating and surveying the monuments. Corner determinations of lost corners were performed by the consultant’s, incorporating legal documents, applying boundary principals and procedures, resulting in the best efforts for properly determined corner positions. The results were then gathered, organized and uniformly documented on an officially recorded survey plat. Each plat would cover one township, but some plats span more than one or a partial township. A great deal of time and energy went into formatting the plats so that uniformity among them regardless of survey firm, would yield to create a consistent and easy-to-use product. Each plat contains:
• A cover page(s) of the overall township boundary with bearing and distances between all accepted corners.
• A coordinate table with latitude, longitude, ellipsoid height, State Plane coordinates, elevation, convergence angle, combined grid scale factor, last date the monument was visited and a detailed monument description.
• A township history timeline from inception to current day, detailing when the GLO originally created the township and any resurvey work completed since then. This area also included an index error, the difference in distance between the latest GLO/BLM survey and today.
• A record table containing all the records used in making corner determinations.
• A corner determination table containing a detailed explanation of the analysis, methodology and records used to accept the monument as the corner (essentially, the footprints of the signing surveyor).

Consistency
Due to the size of the project, six surveying firms were assembled to complete the project under the management of MCDOT. One of the most complicated tasks throughout the entire project was to create consistency among all the firms. A successful project would not only be one that was accurate, but also seamless in nature, to give the public the appearance that one unified firm produced it. Given the competitive nature and individual style of six different surveying firms, this was not an easy task. The problem was overcome by a strict and articulately thought-out set of specifications that would guide the project from beginning to end–a “book of rules” that all the firms would agree to follow. This 52-page manual, including five appendices and an example plat, explained everything from how to survey a monument to what size fonts to use.

Monument Attributes
Even with the in-depth specifications, keeping field crews entering the physical attributes of the survey monuments proved a challenge. A system was devised by creating a menu-driven application in the field data collectors that prompted the field crew by asking specific question at each monument. This reduced, and nearly eliminated, the chance of forgetting certain attributes and miskeyed information. Once the data was gathered in the field data collectors, a separate program was written to extract the information and generate easy-to-read monument descriptions. The system saved countless hours of hand editing and dramatically increased consistency.

Record Analysis
To properly evaluate each monument for a corner determination, all available survey plats, field notes, previous corner ties and related documents needed to be analyzed. In a typical township, (6 miles by 6 miles) there would be on average 600 records with some townships reaching over 2,000, many with multiple pages. We estimate that approximate 48,000 records (plats) were printed, organized and analyzed. In order to manage not only the volume of records, including the content contained within, spreadsheets were utilized. This proved the most efficient and effective for referencing and analyzing final corner acceptance and/or placement.

Corner Determinations
A key motto of a land surveyor is “Follow in the footsteps of the previous surveyor.” This is a fundamental element of successful corner determination. Unfortunately, records seldom explain the thought process that land surveyors went through to reach a conclusion. One of the most innovative features of a recorded GDACS survey plat is that for every corner determined, a detailed explanation of exactly which records were used and why they were used is a part of the final document. When a corner was not found, the determination explains what mathematical process was used to reestablish it and with what records. In doing this, a twofold benefit was realized: 1) All subsequent surveyors using the plat know the thought process of the determining surveyor, and 2) It has dramatically reduced the number of inquiring calls to all the firms.

With over 558 separate deliverables to be submitted, tracking completion and delivery of product became an issue. An innovative procedure was implemented by utilizing the web for delivery tracking. Each of the surveying firms would go online and see which products have been received and accepted by MCDOT and which deliverables were still outstanding.

Data Access
Depending on the format of the data you are requesting, a variety of ways are created to access the data.

If you are looking for the officially recorded plat for a particular area, you could access the Online Plat Index site (http://www.mcdot.maricopa.gov/ SURVEY/). Simply use the pull-down options to direct you to the area in question, and it will build a section list wherein you can choose the plat, view, download and print the plat.

If, on the other hand, you are interested in a more hands-on approach with the data, it has been loaded into an ArcMap Geo-database that is being served through an interactive online map. (http://www.mcdot.maricopa.gov/SURVEY/). This allows users to do the standard zooming in and out to areas of interest, but it also has many other options that are helpful to users:
• Zoom to intersection with error trapping
• Zoom via Latitude Longitude
• Zoom via point number or name
• Zoom via Township, Range and Section

Once located to your area of interest, you will notice the quick and clean orthophotography that blankets the background. On the map, several options are at your disposal. You can select one point at a time and double click to retrieve the data regarding the point, including positional information and associated photos, or you can window and download a coordinate list. All of these features make it one of the most advanced survey websites available.

Project Cost
Even though change orders were issued on some of the individual sub-phases, the actual cost of the entire project came within 1% of the estimated budget. The original cost estimate for the project was $7,440,000 without the change orders. With the change orders it came to $7,660,000. Not only was the amount unprecedented for a land surveying project, but finishing under budget was quite an accomplishment.

Brian Dalager is a licensed surveyor in Arizona and New Mexico, and also as a CFedS. He works at Maricopa County DOT in Arizona. He is a graduate of California State University Fresno and has been surveying for 15 years.

http://www.amerisurv.com/content/view/7635/153/

• New York had completed the Erie Canal in 1825.
• Ohio had completed the Ohio and Erie Canal in 1833.
• Ohio was constructing the Miami and Erie Canal, to be completed in 1845.
• Indiana had begun constructing the Wabash and Erie Canal.

Many areas of these states that were bypassed by the major canals built their own smaller canals either to connect with the major canals or to connect with major rivers.

Origins
After Indiana obtained statehood in 1816, the farmers of the Whitewater River Valley in southeastern Indiana wanted their own canal to transport their crops and livestock to the Ohio River. At this time, the Whitewater Valley was the most populated and the most politically and economically influential part of Indiana.

In 1822 to 23, representatives of the Indiana counties of Dearborn, Fayette, Franklin, Randolph, Union, and Wayne met to discuss building a canal in the Whitewater Valley. They incorporated Whitewater Valley Canal Company, which was run by a board of seven directors and sold 40,000 shares of stock at $25 per share.

On January 6, 1836, Indiana’s governor Noah Noble signed the Mammoth Internal Improvement Act that used $10 million dollars of state money to fund canals, turnpikes, and other internal improvements in Indiana. The Whitewater Canal project received $1,400,000 from the state.

Construction

This canal was to extend from Cambridge City south to Lawrenceburg, which was located upon the Ohio River. On January 6, 1835, surveyors William Gooding and Jessie Lynch Williams completed the survey. On September 13, 1836, construction began in Brookville, Indiana, and in 1839 the canal was completed from Brookville to Lawrenceburg.

From the beginning, the Whitewater Canal was plagued with numerous financial problems. The Mammoth Internal Improvement Act had depleted much of Indiana’s state treasury, and on August 18, 1839, Indiana announced that it was nearly bankrupt and was $18,469,148 in debt. Construction of this canal and other public works were halted until 1842.

In 1841 to 42, the Whitewater Valley Canal Company was granted a charter with $400,000 in capital stock. The state transferred all of its interests to the company that was required to raise $500,000 and to complete the construction of this canal within five years.

Construction of the canal finally resumed. It reached Laurel in 1843, Connersville in 1845, and Cambridge City in 1846, for a total distance of about 68 to 69 miles. From Cambridge City to Laurel, the canal followed the west side of the Whitewater River. At Laurel, it crossed over to the east side of the river and followed that side until it reached the Ohio boundary.

Hagerstown Canal
In 1846, the Hagerstown Canal Company was also granted a charter to complete the canal from Cambridge City to Hagerstown, a distance of about seven to eight miles at a cost of $100,000. This section was completed in 1847. Unfortunately, in November of 1847, this section was destroyed by a flood and was never rebuilt.

When completed, the canal measured 26 feet wide at the bottom and 40 feet wide at the top water line. The water depth was about 4 feet. On one side of the canal was the towpath that measured 10 feet wide, and on the other side was the berm bank that measured 6 feet wide. Both banks were to be at least 21 inches above the top water line. The slopes of the embankments were 21 inches horizontally for each 12 inches vertically.

The entire Whitewater Canal from Lawrenceburg to Hagerstown covered 76 miles. The drop in elevation totaled 491 feet, with 56 locks, 7 feeder dams, and 12 or 13 aqueducts. It cost about $1,164,665 or slightly more than $15,000 per mile.

Richmond and Brookville Canal
On January 27, 1837, the Indiana legislature ordered a survey along the East Fork of the Whitewater River for a canal between Richmond and Brookville. This new canal would connect with the main Whitewater Canal at or near Brookville.

On January 27, 1837, the survey under Colonel Simpson Torbet was completed. This new canal would be about 33 miles long and would have a drop in elevation of about 273½ feet. It would require 31 locks, two guard locks, two aqueducts, seven culverts, and two water weirs with gates. Each lock would be 90 feet long and 15 feet wide.

In January of 1838, the Richmond and Brookville Canal Company was chartered to build this canal. The estimated cost was $507,966. Unfortunately, this project did not succeed; only four miles were completed before it was abandoned.

Cincinnati and Whitewater Canal
Due to the extensive hills of southern Indiana, approximately seven to eight miles of the Whitewater Canal were located in Ohio, near Harrison. Because part of the canal was in Ohio and the Cincinnatians feared losing business to this new canal, they built their own branch. They called it the Cincinnati and Whitewater Canal.

In 1834, these Cincinnatians founded the Cincinnati and Whitewater Canal Company. In 1836, Darius Lapham, who was the resident engineer on the Miami Canal, was hired to survey a route. It would travel 25 miles from Harrison to Cincinnati, with three locks, two aqueducts, 17 culverts, and one tunnel. Because it crossed state lines, much of the funding would come from private sources.

On March 24, 1837, Ohio passed the Ohio Loan Law, which allowed the state to lend private businesses up to one-third the cost of constructing a canal. To be eligible for these loans, the company had to raise the other two-thirds of the cost. This law was commonly known as the “Plunder Law” because it plundered much of Ohio’s funds.

The Cincinnati and Whitewater Canal Company raised about $90,000 in stocks and bonds. Ohio contributed $45,000 and Cincinnati pledged $40,000. The actual costs would be about $542,928.

On March 31, 1838, ground for this canal was broken upon the estate of William Henry Harrison, a supporter of this canal and the future ninth President. The canal was built between 1839 and 1843.

Because of a large hill situated between the towns of Cleves and North Bend and the high costs of building a series of locks on both sides of that hill, Lapham recommended building tunnel through this hill. A tunnel would cost about $30,000 less than a series of locks.

This tunnel was 1,782 feet long, 24 feet wide at the water line, and arched at 15½ feet above the water line. Its water depth was four feet. Both entrances were lined with stone and the tunnel’s interior walls and ceiling were lined with soft bricks.

Although the towpath was built along the western wall, most of the animals walked over the hill. The men pulled their boats through the tunnel using rope threaded through a series of rings hanging upon the tunnel ceiling.

Canal tunnels were not often built in America. This tunnel was the fifth one built in America and the first one built in Ohio. At the tunnel, the canal was near the same elevation as the Ohio River. At the south end of the tunnel, the canal followed the Ohio River to its terminus at the foot of 5th Street in Cincinnati.

Demise of the Canal
Most of the canals in America enjoyed a prosperous era. Unfortunately, their prosperous era was a short-lived era. The arrival of the railroads drove the canals out of business; railroads were faster and could operate year-round.

Aside from financial problems and competition from the railroads, the Whitewater Canal was faced with numerous flooding problems. The Whitewater River’s narrow valley was especially prone to destructive flooding. Floods in 1847, 1848, 1850, and 1852 all caused extensive amounts of damage, and the last flood permanently ended the canal. In 1856, the Whitewater Canal was finally abandoned. Shortly afterwards, the Cincinnati and Whitewater Canal was also abandoned.

On July 22, 1863, the Indianapolis and Cincinnati Railroad bought much of the canal right of way for $63,000 and placed its tracks upon the canal towpath. Until 1884, the railroad also used the tunnel. On December 5, 1865, the rest of the canal right of way was sold to the White Water Valley Railroad Company for $137,348.

References

History of Dearborn and Ohio Counties, Indiana. Chicago, Illinois: F.E. Weakley & Company, 1885.

History of Fayette County, Indiana. Chicago, Illinois: Warner, Beers & Company, 1885.

Fatout, Paul. Indiana Canals. West Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University Press, 1972.

Garman, Harry Otto. Whitewater Canal: Cambridge City to Ohio River. Indianapolis, Indiana: Indiana Department of Conservation, 1944.

Potterf, Rex M. The Whitewater Canal Story. Fort Wayne, Indiana: Public Library of Fort Wayne and Allen County, 1963.

Reifel, August J. History of Franklin County, Indiana. Indianapolis, Indiana: B. F. Bowen & Company, 1915.

Shaw, Ronald E. Canals for a Nation: The Canal Era in the United States, 1790-1860. Lexington, Kentucky: The University Press of Kentucky, 1990.

Trevorrow, Frank W. Ohio’s Canals. Oberlin, Ohio, 1973.

Triplett, Boone. Canals of Ohio: A History and Tour Guide. Scotts Valley, California: CreateSpace Publications, 2008.

Young, Andrew W. History of Wayne County, Indiana. Cincinnati, Ohio: Robert Clarke & Company, 1872.

www.canalsocietyohio.org/cincinnati.html

www.cincinnati-transit.net/whitewater.html

www.geocities.com/Heartland/Prairie/6687/cinci.htm?20099

www.indcanal.org/canals-whitewater.html

www.ohiohistorycentral.org/entry.php?rec=682

www.ohiohistorycentral.org/entry.php?rec=1445&nm=Plunder-Law

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Mammoth_Improvement_Act

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewater_Canal

About the Author Gordon Mitchell
Gordon graduated from Ohio State University in 1973 with a B.S. in Natural Resources. He is employed by the Columbus Metropolitan Park District in the area of Resource Management where he is involved in eradicating invasive vegetation and restoring prairies and wetlands. He has a strong interest in both natural and cultural history of Ohio and adjacent states and is a contributing writer for the magazine.

(AP) — PIKES PEAK, Colo. – After an hour of finicky excavating, Wayne Hancock pries a granite slab from the tundra below Pikes Peak’s lonely South Slope.

“Come on, give me an ‘X’,” he mutters.

A few scrubs with a wire brush and Hancock, a U.S. Bureau of Land Management surveyor, finds his X and more.

Etched into the weathered granite slab is a clear “118.” That’s enough to know he has found his treasure: a surveyors monument buried in 1897, marking the corner of a property boundary.

“It’s a little bit of an art, finding these vague marks,” he says, holding a mirror to the granite to illuminate the etchings. “Sometimes the numbers just jump out at you.”

Hancock is one of a few hundred BLM surveyors scouring rugged, remote federal lands as part of the Cadastral Survey, the most sweeping, longest-running land survey in history.

Since 1785, federal surveyors have overseen the establishment and confirmation of boundaries on 650 million acres of public land that can anchor property lines miles away.

For the past half-century, surveyors such as Hancock have sifted through historic maps and documents to guide efforts in the field at re-establishing those often antiquated lines that still-and always will-define ownership.

“There is high demand for this,” says Randy Bloom, chief Cadastral surveyor for Colorado’s BLM. He cites increasing stresses on the state’s public lands, including oil and gas development, recreation, mineral leases and expanding urban areas. “How can you manage the land unless you know where the boundaries are?”

Preserving and protecting public-land boundaries is the goal of the Cadastral Survey. Even with today’s space-based mapping technologies, the job requires digging through both archives and dirt.

Recently, Hancock packed a sleeve of hand-scrawled maps dating to the late 1800s along with his satellite-supported navigation equipment and went hunting for property markers, some first set and last seen more than 130 years ago.

It’s part of a several-year project on the southwest side of Pikes Peak, where Forest Service land and Colorado Springs Utilities land intertwine between a network of reservoirs that store the city’s water supply.

Hancock has studied the meticulously scripted notes from the original surveyor, Edwin Kellogg, who in October 1874 described the former military reservation high on the south-facing slopes of Pikes Peak as “by far the most rugged and difficult of my career.”

Back in Kellogg’s day, survey teams traveled for weeks, cutting lines across mountains and valleys. They measured distances with 66-foot chains; 40 lengths of that chain equal a half-mile.

Using hatchets and solar compasses, surveyors such as Kellogg and his more famous pioneering peer, Maj. D.C. Oakes, established the first-ever property boundaries and marked them using primitive monuments such as etchings on trees and perfectly positioned, X-marked rocks. Their field notes-seemingly always scribed in perfect, if not flowery, cursive-describe each monument and guide to today’s surveyors.

Global Positioning System satellites help modern-day surveyors find their way across scabrous country, but they cannot help find markers set 130 years ago. And those markers, not satellite coordinates, define the property lines.

“The original survey holds and controls,” says Jeff Wahlgren, a surveyor in training who is assisting Hancock on the project near Pikes Peak. “Can you imagine the can of worms that would open if that law changed?”

Indeed. The ripple effect of shifting century-old property lines to mirror today’s exceedingly precise pinpoints could trigger boundary chaos for miles and miles.

“We don’t move boundaries,” Bloom says. “We restore the original survey. Monuments control over measurements.”

Even so, today’s amply gadgeted surveyors profess amazement at the precision of their predecessors. Not only were Western surveyors like Kellogg hardy, they were able to handle pretty complex calculations in the field.

They were rarely off by more than a foot or 2, even though measurements often required painstaking days of chain dragging. They set millions of corners across millions of acres. Even though they might not have been worrying about the longevity of their work, it has remained pertinent and detectable for more than a century.

“When you think about what they did, it’s just incredible,” Bloom says.

The old-school methods of surveying still guide today’s surveyors. They have to. The first line is the only line. Although the tools have changed, the marking of corners designating township sections, mineral claims and patents is still done almost exactly the same way, measuring down-to-the-inch distances from adjacent corner monuments.

In many ways, today’s surveyors have an equally demanding task as their chain- dragging predecessors.

They serve as a sort of super-detective, practicing forensics, archaeology, anthropology, geology and math-heavy surveying in their search for a treasure.

Further down the line and feeling lucky with his latest find, Hancock drops to his knees and begins pulling up clumps of grass from around a small block of granite.

It looks just like the other blocks surrounding him. He unfolds a copy of an 1873 map and adjusts his reading glasses. Should be here, he says, glancing around a field of identical rocks.

Something catches his eye: a piece of wood. He is well above timberline, and there is not a tree for several hundred yards. Could the original surveyor have anchored a wood post as a marker?

About 6 inches into the loamy tundra, he discovers the rotted remains of a post, buried in 1874. He turns his attention to the granite rock piled next to the post hole. He yanks it up from its grassy embrace. Sure enough, there hidden in the lichen is a faint ‘X.’ Hancock then switches to new-school methodology and sets a tripod directly over the X.

He spins his “Rover” GPS computer onto the tripod and pulls a hand-held data logger from his sleeve. The computer tells the Rover GPS to take a digital measurement, or “shot,” which is then conveyed to another tripod-mounted GPS receiver at his base about a mile away. He is essentially taking a geo-spatial picture of the property’s corner, which will end up in his final plat survey of the property.

For more than a century, the Colorado Springs Utilities’ 45,000-acre watershed below Pikes Peak’s bald southern flank has been guarded and locked, closed to public access. A recent decision by Colorado Springs leaders is opening portions of the reservoir-dotted highlands to hikers and trail development, making meticulous mapping more important than ever.

“We need to know more precisely the boundaries of our watershed,” said Colorado Springs Utilities spokesman Dave Grossman . “Some of our land descriptions date back to the late 1800s. We need to make sure, when we are accessing our … reservoirs and pipelines up there, we know what’s our property, what’s private property and what’s Forest Service property.”

TUSCALOOSA, Ala. — On the maps, the line between Alabama and Florida appears as a bold black line. There are signs on the highways marking the spots where cars cross from one state into the other.

But for many years, the original state line was lost. Now, a Tuscaloosa man working with Auburn University has helped rediscover it.

“Ever since I’ve come to Tuscaloosa, I’ve heard people talk about the mound line,” said Milton Denny, a surveyor who works part time with Auburn. “The line was probably the least defined line between the states because nobody knew where the mounds were.”

Discovery of the original line doesn’t change the official state line. Alabama and Florida have settled on 31 degrees latitude as the border, which can be easily located with modern technology. But most land surveys on either side of the border are based on the original line.

“We’re hoping to come up with a map that will show good locations where the mounds are,” Denny said. “And record that map in courthouses on both sides of the line.”

The mound line, known as Ellicott’s Line, was established by Andrew Ellicott, a prominent surveyor for the government in the republic’s early years. He also worked on the Mason-Dixon line and the original survey of Washington, D.C.

To establish the boundary between Spanish Florida and the United States at the 31-degree line, Ellicott surveyed a line from the Mississippi River to the Atlantic Ocean. The line would eventually become the Alabama-Florida state line east of Baldwin County to the Georgia state line, Denny said.

In Alabama, the best known marker for the line is Ellicott’s Stone, a stone monument at the Mobile River.

“It’s probably one of the oldest monuments in Alabama,” Denny said. “Anything before 1800 in Alabama is pretty old.”

To mark the rest of the line, the survey crew erected mounds about 4 feet tall about every mile. Over the years, farming and logging operations and ordinary erosion took their toll. Wooded areas grew up, the landscape changed and the mounds disappeared from sight.

By last year, only two were actually known, one near the Conecuh River and one near the Chattahoochee River. That gave Denny something to work with.

The line had been resurveyed in 1854 and a map created of the mounds. A historical researcher discovered the map of the resurvey and passed it on to Denny.

Using the map, the two known mounds and technology including Google Earth, Global Information System and Global Positioning System, Denny devised a formula to determine where the mounds are. He tested the theory by using the formula to locate the two known mounds and was dead on.

But going out and physically finding the mounds was a different matter. The area where they are is filled with swamps, marshes and beaver ponds.

Part of Denny’s work with Auburn includes conducting workshops in the field for surveyors who need to renew their certification or get extra training. He decided to make finding the mounds the exercise for the Dec. 3-4 workshop.

Forty surveyors signed up for the project. Using Denny’s formula, they searched the swamps and woods of South Alabama and North Florida for the mounds.

“We were excited because we were finding them where I thought they would be,” Denny said. “We were finding them to a 10th of a second of where we thought they would be. And they were surveyors and when they found them, they could recognize what they were.”

Warren Brown, a registered professional engineer from Tuscaloosa, took part in the project. His crew started out slowly. The first few sites they searched were agricultural fields or pine plantations, and it was obvious that the mounds would no longer be there.

Then they went to another site that hadn’t seen as much human disturbance. They used hand-held GPS units to find the coordinates that Denny had provided and then began a circular search pattern around the coordinates.

“That first mound that we found, it was extremely exciting,” Brown said. “We had literally just about given up and were heading back to the vehicles. I just kept my eyes on the ground and I saw it. I didn’t know it was the mound. But I got up and stood on top of it and looked around 360 degrees and said, ‘I think this is it.’ “

The entire party began looking at the ground and Tuscaloosa resident Ike Espy pointed to the center of the mound.

“Right under my feet was a stake or what surveyors call a hub,” Brown said. “It was a hand-hewn fat pine stake that some surveyor had put in the ground. Chances are it was pretty old. This was obviously the work of a surveyor from many, many years ago.”

Brown’s crew located two mounds with certainty and two more that appeared likely. They were usually within 50 feet of Denny’s coordinates, but were well camouflaged by their surroundings.

“They don’t pop out at you,” Brown said. “You kind of look for a uniform depression in the ground that forms a 10- to 12-foot circle. Once you found the depression, the mound kind of pops out at you. The giveaway was the depression around the mound.”

When the original survey crew made the mounds, it appeared that they stood in a circle and dug a trench around the point they were marking and used the dirt to make a mound. Not only would there be a mound, there would also be a depression around it. More dirt was added to them during the 1854 survey.

“It was like a doughnut when they finished,” Denny said.

Later surveyors often drove stakes into the mounds as markers, making them easier to identify. But time took its toll on the mounds and changed their appearance.

“It’s been a long time,” Denny said. “There were a few of them where a surveyor had put a cedar post in them. That made it pretty easy. Most of them now are between 1 foot and 2.5 feet tall. They are generally round.”

In some places, farming and logging obliterated the mounds. The more remote the location, the more likely the mounds were to still be there.

“The place that you find most of them is the most undesirable, undisturbed ground, the swamps,” Denny said. “If it’s been timbered and they’re running all the machines over them, it probably ruins them.”

Originally, there were 120 mounds. Denny expects to eventually be able to document 35 to 40.

“We have 24 of the mounds that we are absolutely certain of, and we put concrete markers on them,” Denny said. “We have 10 locations that, because of flooding and problems with property owners, we haven’t searched yet.”

Denny is also working with a division of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources that is responsible for state boundaries. They are trying to locate the spots where mounds have disappeared as well.

“Eventually, we would like to put a monument back in, even though the mound is gone,” Denny said.

Working to find the mounds adds to Denny’s appreciation for Ellicott’s work. He had to sift his way through politics as well as swamps.

Ellicott discovered that Natchez, Miss., was above 31 degrees. When the Spanish found that they had ceded an important river port, they were angry. The two countries almost came to blows over it.

The wrangling with the Spanish delayed his work for a couple years. When he did start, he found the swampy terrain difficult to cover, Denny said. Ellicott got a schooner so that he could sail down the coast, run up rivers and use it for a base to survey from.

And trying to survey the line was technically difficult.

“The line is not technically a straight line,” Denny said. “It’s a latitude and it goes around the earth. The earth is a sphere and it’s a curving line. He’s in the field in 1799 sitting in a tent and he’s using spherical trigonometry to calculate the difference between a straight line and a latitude. That’s amazing.”

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/florida/AP/v-fullstory/story/1457565.html