PG&E Easement Requirements - Tool for Projected Township and Range?

Post Reply
JoshPLS
Posts: 19
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2009 11:00 am

PG&E Easement Requirements - Tool for Projected Township and Range?

Post by JoshPLS »

Hi All,

Any of you have recommendations for a speedy, but accurate way to determine projected township/range in Rancho areas?

I seem to remember a slick KMZ or KML that overlayed in Googleearth Pro awhile back, but I cannot seem to locate it.

What do you guys/gals use?
Josh Woelbing, PLS, sUAS Remote Pilot
CSW/Stuber-Stroeh Engineering Group, Inc.
http://www.cswst2.com

CLSA Marin Chapter President
http://www.MarinCLSA.com
User avatar
David Kendall
Posts: 687
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2014 1:45 pm
Location: Ferndale

Re: PG&E Easement Requirements - Tool for Projected Township and Range?

Post by David Kendall »

JoshPLS wrote:What do you guys/gals use?
For PGE easements you should ask them to determine the projection. I have spent a great deal of time on this in the past and made some determinations only to have them come back and tell me they are in a different projected quarter section.

It turns out they have their own ancient overlays that they have been using for decades and that is how they want it arranged. They are loosely based on the USGS topo quads but you are better off just letting them tell you how to designate. If the site turns out to be close to a line or if you strongly disagree with them and are not comfortable certifying to the "wrong" projected quadrant then they are usually pretty flexible about letting you designate two different quarters.

Short answer is just take a guess and let them correct you on their plan check is the easiest way. I use EarthPoint for my guessing:

https://www.earthpoint.us/TownshipsCalifornia.aspx

https://www.earthpoint.us/TownshipsCali ... atLon.aspx
mpallamary
Posts: 3466
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:12 pm

Re: PG&E Easement Requirements - Tool for Projected Township and Range?

Post by mpallamary »

Look for some old Rancho maps at the BLM. They often show them depending on when the rancho was confirmed.
JoshPLS
Posts: 19
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2009 11:00 am

Re: PG&E Easement Requirements - Tool for Projected Township and Range?

Post by JoshPLS »

David Kendall wrote:
JoshPLS wrote:What do you guys/gals use?
For PGE easements you should ask them to determine the projection. I have spent a great deal of time on this in the past and made some determinations only to have them come back and tell me they are in a different projected quarter section.

It turns out they have their own ancient overlays that they have been using for decades and that is how they want it arranged. They are loosely based on the USGS topo quads but you are better off just letting them tell you how to designate. If the site turns out to be close to a line or if you strongly disagree with them and are not comfortable certifying to the "wrong" projected quadrant then they are usually pretty flexible about letting you designate two different quarters.

Short answer is just take a guess and let them correct you on their plan check is the easiest way. I use EarthPoint for my guessing:

https://www.earthpoint.us/TownshipsCalifornia.aspx

https://www.earthpoint.us/TownshipsCali ... atLon.aspx
Thanks David this is likely the same KML/KMZ I was using before that I somehow lost.
RAM
Posts: 770
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 8:16 am
Location: Central Cal Mountains

Re: PG&E Easement Requirements - Tool for Projected Township and Range?

Post by RAM »

here, all projected sections are shown on our APN maps. Has nothing to do with PGE.
User avatar
Peter Ehlert
Posts: 717
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 2:40 pm
Location: N31°43', W116°39'
Contact:

Re: PG&E Easement Requirements - Tool for Projected Township and Range?

Post by Peter Ehlert »

Sonoma County, Healdsburg area

Township/Sections laid out and platted by GLO...but later, same land accepted as a Rancho.

I forget the particulars, but i did many aliquot part surveys of "Sxx, Txx, Rxx, xxxRancho".
Ask the locals... Bob Curtis if possible
Peter Ehlert PLS 5116 (retired)
Post Reply