What do you think of this...

[Dave Karoly, PLS]

Mountainous timberland...

Description (1906) Lumber Co. A to Lumber Co. B:

All of the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 19 lying southerly and westerly of the following described line:
Begininning at a point located south 13.75 chains from the quarter corner to Sections 19 & 20, thence through 5 courses and distances northwesterly to the east west centerline of Section 19, thence along said centerline so many chains to the center east 1/16th corner.

No calls to monuments, natural or artificial other than the PLSS corners.

In 1955 Division of Forestry (successor to Lumber Co. B) Foresters find a wood post marked LCA on the north side and LCB on the south side on top of a ridge "assumed to be on the east line of Section 19" and witnessed to a blazed redwood scribed LCB & LCA then they run the 5 courses and distances with tape and staff compass. Roughly on the east west centerline of Section 19 they find a wood post also marked as above and a four foot redwood stump blazed and scribed LCA &LCB, they state the bearing and distance to the stump from the post. Their falling is about 30' but if their survey is rotated about a degree northeasterly then they fit within a few feet.

In 1963 Division Surveyor Knute Nelson finds a concrete monument, wood post and iron pipe with tan oak bearing tree (no data given) near the section line and a concrete monument at the northwest end of the five courses near the east west centerline, I have good reason to assume the concrete monument replaced the wood post.

Knute sets the quarter corner by proportion then sets a mon on the ridge about 81' northeast of the found pipe, post and conc post. He moves the monument on the east west centerline about 8' south, (yes he pulls the monument and moves it). Then later he does a new calculation thusly, beginning at the post, post and pipe he runs northeast on the record bearing about 81' to intersect the section line and moves his monument previously set here (about 10' south, his conc mon is still there on top of the ridge). Then he runs the five record courses (starting from the post, post and pipe) to the end which falls about 23' south of the east west centerline so he produces the last bearing to its intersection with the east west centerline and moves the conc mon again to this spot. It is still there. The only other things still there is a depression where the monument at the northwest originally was located and the stump. His notes say he pulled out the post, post and pipe at the southeast end on the section line.

He filed a Record of Survey showing where he set the two concrete monuments with no explanation at all, just data. He shows the meander with record data and a note saying he didn't retrace the boundary. I only know what he did because we have his files and field notes and the Forester field notes. I can absolutely re establish where the original Lumber Company posts were located from information in our files. The data in the 1906 Deed fits a ridge pretty good and that was pretty common practice in the neighborhood to make the ridges boundaries for convenience of logging the land.

So which is it, the naked data without regard to terrain, lumber company posts with no record relationship to the Deeds or the Nelson pseudo record solution holding one monument and ignoring the other?

[steffan]

Sounds like you already know the answer Dave. I don't have much of a counter argument against reestablishing the LCA/LCB positions the deed appears to be crafted after.

[btaylor]

Was anything relied upon, or are these just monuments sitting out there looking pretty?

[LS_8750]

It's where the title lines were supposed to be.

[bruce hall]

at first blush. Those LCA/LCB posts are pretty conclusive, one would think. And the math doesn't seem to fit to bad either considering what you are surveying.

So that's my answer to "Which one is it?" Luckily for me I have no skin in the game.

[Dave Karoly, PLS]

I am still investigating, don't know yet.

[PLS8153]

Dave,

Knute Nelson filed several maps in Humboldt County in the mid to late 1950's. I haven't retraced him enough to get a feel for him but there is a local retired surveyor here that I believe knew him and or his work. If you would like his contact info then send me an email pjackson@greendiamond.com
Pete Jackson

[Dave Karoly, PLS]

I've followed him quite a bit at Jackson Demonstration State Forest (east of Fort Bragg). The work mostly is about 2' in a mile precision wise which isn't too bad considering it's rough, brushy terrain and they were using transit and tape. I have found a couple of monuments connected by a ridge that are much better than that.

He seemed to be a diligent surveyor. We have his files and field notes. I have stacks of calculations but really nothing in the way of "here is why I did it this way." His boss, Dyer (an Engineer), wrote the memos but most of the work is not backed up by explanations. Usually it isn't really a problem, he was retracing Sections, you can see what he did.

I can see why he punted on this ridge boundary. His solution is a little too far south but holding the old monuments (gone but I know where they were located) and doing various adjustments (R&P, compass, rotate and compass) seem to push it too far north. I've got a contact that has the other Lumber Company field notes and files, he says they may have the field notes but there are a lot of missing books and files. I'm hoping for the field notes of the ridge meander which resulted in the 1906 Deed description. I have a feeling there is a blunder somewhere but I'm guessing if I place it somewhere.