 Welcome to Caltrans LSIT LS exam preparation course. One aid in your preparation for California licensure examinations. A word of caution. Don't use this course as your only preparation. Devise and follow a regular schedule of study which begins months before the test. Work many problems in each area. Not just those in this course's workbook, but problems from other sources as well. This course is funded by Caltrans, but you and I owe a profound thanks to others, the courses instructors from the academic community, the private sector, other public agencies, and from Caltrans as well. We wish you well in your study toward becoming a member of California's professional land surveying community. A diligent, thorough, and complete search for all evidence is the fundamental essence of land surveying. Curtis M. Brown. Welcome to the boundary determination module of the Caltrans video training course. I am Robert McComb. I entered the land surveying discipline during my summer months as a student at the University of California where I studied physics. Later I became an employee at private surveying firms acquiring my professional license in 1977. Since then I have owned and operated a private cadastral surveying company in a small mountain community in Southern California. During the 80s I wrote exam problems and also served as an examiner. Today I'm going to introduce to you in the form of a story, the fundamentals of boundary surveying through the adventures of a fictitious survey party. Throughout my presentation I will comment on their discovery process and the evidence they gather. Their mistakes will be instructive. Their decisions issues for debate. Surveying is not usually as difficult as you will observe. Not usually I say because sooner or later every surveyor experiences a similar story. This lesson is not just a listing of boundary principles with a picture to go with each. That would be less than desirable. You would learn little to help you pass the exam and little to carry forward into your career. The professional exam demands that you demonstrate expertise. The test does not reward the amateur's ability to memorize a list of facts. The test will require you to solve problems exemplary of real life. The problems will require a synthesis of research, evidence, knowledge of principles and decisions which if they were made in the real world would make you financially liable. Let's experience some boundary principles in the surveyors true environment. I will begin with a series of definitions and then I will proceed to the survey of the Sundance Ranch. Watch carefully, there will be a test later. Boundary retracement is the essential task done by surveyors. A boundary is defined by a deed. Retracing a boundary involves a reconstruction of the conditions and directives that originally set down the legal description contained in the deed. A legal description is like a map without lines and arrows, although sometimes it may refer to an actual map. When a map is referenced, a legal description may be greatly clarified. To illustrate these various terms, consider the following description of buried treasure and follow it on the map shown. Beginning at the grave, then spaced due west until the palm tree comes into view. Then go 200 paces in the direction of the shipwreck to the X marked upon the sand. Dig down four fathoms. This example has all the trappings we need to demonstrate a modern boundary retracement. To find the buried treasure, we would follow the courses provided using the map to help us interpret the terms given. This map and description is fine, provided the treasure has been freshly buried. The description is recently written. The map is available and there is no confusion about the meaning intended by the description. What happens over time is quite a different story. Over time, many of the terms of the description will break down into ambiguities. For example, suppose more gravesites came into being. The palm tree cannot live forever or worse, another could grow near it. The shipwreck might never be found once it becomes submerged completely. And the X in the sand? Well, few things are less perpetual. As time goes on, it will become increasingly more difficult to find the correct information needed to retrace the description. Even with the map, there may come a day when the treasure is lost forever. That is why a surveyor depends so much on good records. The success of a search is proportional to the effort of the research. In practice, the lion's share of surveying is done off the job site, researching and reading. It would be nice if the task were as simple as our treasure hunt, but surveyors do not follow maps to bury treasure and X never ever marks the spot. Fortunately, great progress has been made since the days of treasure maps in setting down ways of finding buried objects or, more to the point for a surveyor, ways of finding a land boundary. However, at least one basic idea of the past remains the same. We continue to use everyday language to uniquely describe the location of a boundary so that it will have the best chance of being found again. A non-ambiguous deed depends upon those important words, uniquely described. Throughout history, disagreements have erupted over the intent of deeds that were thought to be clear when written, but whose meanings became lost over time, particularly in cases where the deed's physical representations, the monuments, have disappeared. With these pitfalls in mind, we stand before the entrance to what is arguably the most involved subject of land surveying, boundary determination, which involves the use of boundary principles. What are boundary principles? They are the rules needed to resolve ambiguities, arising from the loss of information, not properly perpetuated on paper or on the ground. Many boundary principles to be discussed during the next two hours were derived from land disputes brought to the courts for judgment. Among them are those cases where the written terms of a deed conflicted. Others derived from simple interpretations of common and civil law in matters not so much in conflict, but in need of a good dose of common sense. Every professional surveyor needs a personal library that includes a reference section on boundary determination. The principles of boundary determination can be found in the books listed in the reference section at the end of the boundary determination unit of your workbook. Your success with the exam will depend to a large extent on your ability to understand and use at least one of these boundary references. Let me proceed now to the story of our surveyors. The setting is a project of ranging complexity, one which contains a storehouse of traps and contradictions, which I will use to demonstrate a multitude of boundary principles. The melodrama begins on a crisp morning in the mountain community of Monument Valley. A fresh survey crew has occupied a random point on a peak overlooking a peaceful river. The party chief pours hot coffee from a thermos and opens his research package for the first time. The information seems friendly enough and innocent-looking subdivision on the assessor's map. His company has been hired by the Sundance Ranch Partnership to survey their land known locally as the Sundance Ranch. Together with a 60-foot-ride road which serves the land. The office researcher has seen fit to provide several documents that will come into play at one time or another. There are two maps. The first, a subdivision map, recorded by an L Parker in 1920. The second, an unrecorded plat, signed by an L Baltimore in 1905. The subdivision map shows nine lots surrounding the Sundance Ranch. Shown is a simplified version of the subdivision map. A little more explanation is going to be helpful. We have the following facts. The original map states that all lines of the subdivision bear at right angles to each other, except the river and highway. Most of the monuments set for the boundary consist of two-by-two redwood stakes or hubs if you prefer. The rest are iron pins, including the angle points along the sidelines of the 60-foot road which is dedicated. The lot dimensions are not particularly relevant and are not shown. This map is also a basis of a problem in your companion workbook. The crew's work seems to be cut out for them. All they have to do is find the original corners of the ranch and the 60-foot road leading to it. The party chief dispatches his chain men to the site of the Sundance Ranch where they begin to make an inspection for monuments. Nothing is turned up after two hours of pacing, compassing and magnetic searching, and of course, a great amount of shoveling. Apparently, this subdivision is about as dry as they come. While the chain men are scratching around fence corners and discovering old beer cans and pieces of barbed wire, the party chief gets down to the basic paperwork. The Sundance Ranch partnership deed is only a few lines long. He fully expects the description to refer to the Sundance Ranch as shown on the subdivision map. Regan Weep. The northeasterly, 1250 feet of L. Parker's land in section six, accepting the north 700 feet and the east 660 feet, containing an area of 8.45 acres. Suddenly, life has become a lot more difficult. Surprisingly, this deed contains no reference to the subdivision map, although corners for the ranch were set by the subdivider at the time of the subdivision. The shape and location of the Sundance Ranch partnership land is not controlled by the subdivision map, but by the north and east lines of Parker's land. Once the location of Parker's land is known, the precise location of the Sundance Ranch will follow based upon the rule that... Measurements and descriptions based upon the preposition of are made at right angles to the boundary specified unless stated otherwise. In the graphic shown, Parker's land is depicted ideally with perpendicular north and east lines. It does not matter how acute the angle between Parker's north and east lines might actually be. The right angle rule will ensure that the ranch boundaries distort in kind. Because Parker's deed is called out in the deed to the Sundance Ranch partnership, Parker's deed becomes a part of the Sundance Ranch partnership deed. The partnership deed is an example of a nested description, one which refers to at least one prior deed for its full wording. This is typical of meats and bounds descriptions where nested descriptions are a fact of life. Our party chief should consider himself fortunate if Parker's deed does not refer back to an even earlier deed. His next task is to read the Parker deed. The competent office researcher has done her homework and provided him with a copy. Parker's deed is a document recorded in 1905. The grand tour was an emcassity. It reads as follows. All that land in section six described as follows. Beginning at the old Sequoia on the hill north of town, thenstore the center of the bridge crossing the river to an intersection with the north line of said section six. And the true point of beginning. Thence continuing toward the bridge, 1,700 feet. And so on. This is only the beginning of Parker's description. It continues in a clockwise direction around the apparent boundary of Parker's subdivision. As a natural monument, our party chief realizes that the Sequoia tree must be regarded as the irrefutable beginning of the deed. Natural monuments are highest in the hierarchy of evidence used to establish lines upon the ground with the exception of senior title if it is contrary. The bridge and the Sequoia are well known landmarks in the area. Still, how can he be sure that this is the same tree in bridge that existed at the time of the deed's execution? Locating the center of the bridge may be easier said than done even for our intrepid crew. There may be some relief, however, in the form of the second of the two maps. The plat drawn by L. Baltimore in 1905, which was not recorded. Baltimore's plat appears to show certain landownerships that existed at the time of his survey. By the way, the companion workbook involves parties Smith and Jones in a difficulty involving simultaneous conveyances. Like all problems in the workbook, this is typical of test questions found on the professional exam. Unlike the subdivision map, this plat is not a simplified version. Everything is shown that the party chief sees. This means that although monument symbols may be apparent, none of them are described in a legend or labeled on the original map. The party chief notices a monument symbol on the bridge, possibly at the center of the bridge, as it was mentioned in Parker's deed. The apparent midpoint of the bridge appears to be obvious when intersecting its symmetrical head walls. These head walls are old and appear to be the original workings of the bridge. However, the chainman's magnetic locator indicates a distinct signal about nine feet off the bridge's center as placed by these head walls. After an hour of chipping through deep asphalt, the party chief's curiosity is satisfied. A six inch square iron plate bearing the inscription, Baltimore, 1905, is uncovered. Let's ponder this discovery for a moment. The obvious question is this. Does the existence of Baltimore's plat with its monument symbol at the bridge force us to accept this monument as the center of the bridge? The party chief realizes that this question carries with it a bundle of liability. He wisely chooses to pit the situation against the following important criterion. A map must be called for in a legal description to become a legal part of the description. He therefore concludes that the six inch plate cannot be taken as a point of Parker's deed. I would like to further emphasize this criterion by saying that even if Baltimore's disc were to bear the inscription, quote, this point lies on the southerly prolongation of the east line of the Parker deed, unquote. It would still have to be rejected as the written intent of the deed. The language of a deed is controlled by its written terms and all terms of the deed are assumed to be present. On the other hand, how certain can anyone be that the center of the bridge is defined by its four symmetrical head walls? For all we know, the original parties who transacted the deed may have stood at the old Sequoia tree and peered at the bridge through a transit, splitting the two northerly head walls. Does this possibility make the meaning of the term center of the bridge ambiguous? When may a surveyor suppose that an ambiguity exists and when may he not? I'll return to this feisty question a little later under the topic of intent. As to a decision regarding the bridge, our party chief chooses wisely by adopting the center derived by all four head walls. With the east line under their belt, our illustrious crew turns its attention to Parker's North Line, the other line needed to survey the Sundance Ranch Partnership deed. Parker's North Line is the North Line of section six, but this is not just any section six. This one abuts a standard parallel. The party chief recalls from his knowledge of township surveys that the sections North and South of a standard parallel are shifted east or west of each other, depending on the relative location of the meridian. This shift causes separate monuments for sections North and South of the parallel. To get started, he looks among his research materials for a map showing how the standard parallel was monumented. This map turns out to be a USGLO-dependent resurvey plat from 1912. Although not shown, the government surveyor in 1912 set the South line of section 31 along a curved line of latitude, which is the correct procedure for any parallel, whether it's a standard one or not. That being the case, the South quarter corner of section 31 would be expected to lie a little to the South of the line connecting the Southwest and Southeast section corners. Next, he looks at a 1915 USGLO-dependent resurvey plat showing how corners were set for section six to the South. He notes that this plat shows unusual monuments called closing corners at the Northwest and Northeast corners of section six. He and his diligent crew attempt to recover these various corners along the standard parallel. The crew splits up to accelerate the search. The chainman's failure to find the North quarter corner of section six is not surprising. North quarter corners usually were not set for section South of and abutting standard parallels. The chain person has better success with two of the corners of section 31, the South quarter corner and the Southeast corner. Unfortunately, the Northeast corner of section six is most certainly lost. As the party chief is scratching around for the Northeast corner of section six, a local resident approaches him, holding an official looking monument in his hand. The cap on the monument bears the USGLO stamp, date in section designation. The resident explains that a few years ago, he witnessed a blade operator hitting this monument. He points to an old tree trunk, against which he says the original corner once stood. The party chief no longer considers the original closing corner to be lost, but merely obliterated. An obliterated corner is defined as a corner that may be reestablished by some form of evidence, accurately indicating its original location, other than the original map or plat. A lost corner is one lacking any such evidence. Original government corners may be restored at the spot indicated by a resident who saw the original corner and knows where its former location was, as long as the knowledge is firsthand. The term obliterated is generally not used for monuments other than government corners, but the same rules of evidence apply for non-government corners as well. In this lesson, the term obliterated can apply to any monument intended to define a boundary. Obliterated corners can be restored by several means. The most common is by using other monuments whose relative locations to the obliterated corner are shown on acceptable plots such as recorded maps. Unrecorded plots of surveyors and in rare cases, the plots of laypersons may be used as testaments through the locations of original corners. Always scrutinize such sources carefully because... A surveyor may accept the work or a plat of another surveyor as evidence for the reestablishment of an obliterated corner, but he must accept the liability for errors and omissions in the work of others he chooses to use. Obliterated corners may also be recovered by accepting existing monuments that appear to be replacements of originals. These should be thoroughly verified by contacting the surveyor whose registration mark appears on the monument. Should there be no registration mark, as is often the case with old or damaged monuments, there may be no recourse but rejection. Certification of an unidentifiable monument carries risks that are potentially damaging. There are other, even more tenuous means of recovering obliterated monuments. For instance, an improvement built at the time the original monument was known to exist is acceptable if you can prove the original monument, control the improvement. Lines of possession, such as fences, are particularly controversial. Be especially careful here. Your evidence will need to be strong and may come under very close scrutiny by other surveyors or by the court. This method of recovering obliterated monuments has been greatly abused and is often challenged. Only the courts may decide upon land ownership. This is the fundamental limitation of the land surveyor. A surveyor locates boundaries according to legal descriptions. The courts and only the courts decide ownership and property rights issues. Unwritten rules of title may apply in similar situations, such as adverse possession defined by lines of possession. Here the surveyor's obligation to the client is one of disclosure. A surveyor's duty is to map the location of encroachments such as fences and structures that fall across deed lines and inform his client in writing as to the facts. Having taken the resident's testimony, our party chief perpetuates the location of the original closing corner in accordance with the land surveyor's act by setting his own durable monument, for example, a two inch iron pipe with brass disc bearing his registration number. That same resident also mentions that he is aware of the location of the lost North quarter corner of section six, premisesing his knowledge on information given to him by his grandfather. His offer to help is declined. It is explained to him that third party testimony is considered hearsay and cannot be used to restore monuments. Any time there is hearsay concerning evidence in the survey, it must be rejected not as a possible fact, but as a legal fact. As a possible fact, it may beg further investigation. Focusing on the North line of the section, the crew's ties to the three available monuments along the standard parallel reveal a discrepancy in their expected alignment. The Northeast closing corner of section six is a little over four feet South of the standard parallel. Does this cause an angle point in the standard parallel? For the answer to this, our party chief checks directly with the manual of instructions. In it he reads, a closing corner not actually located on the line that was closed upon will determine the direction of the closing line, but not its legal terminus. The correct position is at the true point of intersection of the two lines. Incidentally, you shouldn't be going to the test without the manual of instructions. Know it thoroughly. Several questions in the workbook will test your ability to navigate for answers deep within the waters of the manual. Our party chief thinks the recovered Northeast corner of section six might control Parker's East line as well as his North line. He knows that Parker's deed is not controlled by the section corner, but by the tree bridge line. However, he sees a puzzling coincidence. Baltimore's plat shows a distance of exactly 660 feet from the tree bridge line to the Northeast corner of section six. This is a familiar distance, exactly one eighth of a mile, and an incredible coincidence. The party chief suspects there may be a problem with Parker's deed. His next step is to verify the suspicious 660 feet by looking at a certain deed, which he happens to have among his research materials. The year was 1895, the Grand T and M Cassidy, who later passed title to Parker. Cassidy's ownership is shown in the graphic and reads as follows. All of section six, except the East one eighth, also accepting the West one half, also accepting the South one half. What remains after the three exceptions is simply a portion of the Northeast quarter of section six, now shown in relation to the river and ranch. The North line of the East one eighth would in theory measure 660 feet. Next, our party chief measures a distance of 710.5 feet from the tree bridge line to the Northeast section corner. It is now distinctly possible that Parker did not receive all that Cassidy intended to convey to him. Cassidy may still retain title to that portion of section six between the tree bridge line and the West line of the East one eighth, a gap about 50 feet wide. To confirm this gap, the true breadth of the East one eighth of the section needs to be determined. Losing sleep over the matter, our tenacious crew decides to recover the entire North line of section six. After considerable effort, because the terrain is nasty, they eventually come up with the Northwest corner of the section. Well, almost. What they actually find are two original bearing trees, both still standing. They find an oak with its blaze still intact, and a dead sycamore near a stream. Each of these witnessed the original position of the 1915 closing corner, which was originally a brass cap in a four foot diameter stone mound. The brass cap is gone and so is the mound. But this corner is only partially lost. The accessory bearing trees are defined as an integral part of the original monument, enabling the closing corner position to be reestablished from the bearing and distance ties provided in the 1915 field notes, shown in the graphic. Like its Northeast counterpart, this corner of section six is defined as a closing corner because it is subordinate to the standard parallel. It controls the direction of the West line of the section, but not its northerly terminus. Supposing that the closing corner at the Northwest corner of the section is as close to the standard parallel as was the closing corner at the Northeast corner of the section, the measured distance between the two closing corners will give the crew enough information to set up an approximate East one eighth of the section. True? Yes, no, maybe. The subject of land surveying is full of options and possibilities. Whether the answer is true or false or something in between is embodied in the legal definition of the East one eighth of the section. Certainly we can divide the measured distance by eight, but does the result give us the legal definition of the East one eighth? Also, we have to deal with the fact that we are working in section six, everybody's favorite section. A typical section six, whether it abuts a standard parallel or not, is subdivided on the government plat into lots, each lot being given a number designation. These lots were never expected to contain exactly 40 acres because they include the excess or deficiency of land in laying out the township. The government plat will show acreages for these lots based upon the field measurements of the original surveyors as they closed into the North and West lines of the township. These closing measurements constitute the fractional parts of the section. The acreages we see on the plat today were originally computed from these fractional parts. Typically, lot one might contain 42.1 acres, lot two 44.6 acres, and so on. To derive the side dimensions, a reverse calculation must be done starting with the areas. In this case, all of this boils down to saying that the North quarter corner should be established at 40 chains proportional to the overall length of the section line. So what does all of this neat section six stuff have to do with the east one eighth of the section? Nothing, probably. To understand this, we need to know how to define the terms of this legal description. And for that, we need to know whether to apply the distinction between subdividing sections under rules set by the federal manuals or use the criteria of subdivisions under state law. This is a complicated area of boundary determination, often subject to legal opinion and speculation. Suffice it to say that most situations will be covered by the general viewpoint that for government patents containing descriptions of lot one, lot two, or one sixteenth portions and larger, such as the northeast quarter of the northeast quarter and the south half, the original government plat controls the proportioning of side dimensions to create adequate parts. One eighth corners are not unheard of as government monuments. However, since there is probably no east one eighth of a section to be found in the context of government plots, such a portion might be considered a subdivision under state law. If that is the case, the description east one eighth under California law would probably refer to an area rather than an eloquent part. To be absolutely sure of oddly described section designations never hesitate to search back to the original patent deeds that conveyed the land from the federal government. Actually, in our section six situation, the federal government deeded the entire section as a whole in 1875 to a railroad. The term east one eighth was invented by private parties later. In the final analysis, our patient field crew does not need to know the precise extent of the east one eighth. However, they should pay attention to the possible theoretical overlap of Parker's subdivision into Cassidy's original land. This raises the question as to the ownership of the overlap. A subdivider cannot convey land he does not own. None of the property within this 50 foot overlap or gap, depending upon your point of view was actually subdivided or conveyed with the filing of the subdivision map. The strip remains in the estate of Cassidy, long dead, and only his heirs or successors may pass title now to this area. This does not mean that unwritten means of title transfer have not taken effect. But only the courts can say for sure. The subdivision lines for lots three and four that run west to east should be terminated at the east line of Parker's original ownership defined by the tree bridge line. The crew is finally ready to lay out the land described in the Sundance Ranch partnership deed. Refreshing our memories, that deed describes the northeasterly 1,250 feet of Parker's land accepting the north 700 feet and the east 660 feet. As you might recall, the wording in that deed ended with the extra phrase containing an area of 8.45 acres. Drawing his calculator from its holster, the party chief assumes roughly perpendicular sides for the ranch and proceeds to take the product of the sides. 550 feet and 590 feet. This yields an area of 7.45 acres, exactly one acre less than stated in the deed. A typographical error our party chief surmises. Or is it? Mistakes in surveying work, if located with certainty, should be corrected at the place of their occurrence so they do not adversely influence other portions of the work. But where is the mistake? Is it the acreage or one of the footages? The party chief now considers the fact that the footages are given as whole numbers whereas the acreage appears to be the result, erroneous or not, of a calculation based upon the footages. A general intent yields to a particular intent if there is inconsistency between them. If we accept the footages as the particular terms because they are stated as whole numbers, then the area quoted might become the general term because it is derived from computation. Finally, the party chief may settle on what is the most definitive possibility. Calls for area unless expressly intended are the least important element when considering conflicting elements in a description. Lacking a clearly stated intention, the general problem faced by the surveyor is to decide if there are other possibilities hidden in the wording of descriptions. An acceptable solution can be supported by any number of existing facts but may be refuted by only one. A surveyor's liability may be avoided by eliminating all possibilities that refute a solution. Our party chief considers the area called out in the deed to be soundly refuted. Accepting the footages as the proper terms of the Sundance Ranch partnership deed, he realizes he is now in a position to search for the corners. While he muses over this, his chainman reminds him that nothing was recovered during the earlier cursory search for monuments within the subdivision. He suggests that Parker's deed, which probably corresponds to the boundary of the subdivision might be retraced and searched for original subdivision corners on its boundary. Then the chainman suggests that from these corners on the boundary, the corners inside the subdivision might be found. This reasoning convinces the party chief to run out the rest of Parker's deed. Unfortunately, as we will all realize later, this reasoning should have been considered more carefully. Before we fully explore the dastardly deed of Parker, let's take a break. I'll resume the saga of the Sundance Ranch after these important words from our sponsor. Welcome back to Monument Valley, where the perils of boundary retracement lurk in every corner. As our story continues, we find our noteworthy crew at a point in the Parker deed along the tree bridge line, 1700 feet subtly from the north line of section six. This is the end of the first leg of the Parker deed. The graphic will refresh our memory and help us reorient to the Parker description. From here, Parker's deed turns to the west on a new heading. Reading from Parker's deed, the next instruction is, vents south, 89, 30, west, 660 feet. As displayed in the graphic, the description is en route to a certain gauging station. To our party chief, getting there appears to be straightforward once he gets pointed in the right direction. And what is the right direction? This is the first mention of a bearing in Parker's description. Although the word southerly was used earlier along the tree bridge line, this term is too general to properly orient the deed. The chain person notices something interesting, however. Here is what she discovers. The subdivision map, partially shown, indicates the bearing north, zero, 30, west for its east line. Further, we recall that the lines of the subdivision bear at right angles to each other. And since the present course of Parker's deed runs along a bearing of south, 89, 30, west, this puts us exactly at right angles to the subdivision map. A brilliant piece of detective work. The chain person has found a bearing correlation between Parker's subdivision map and his deed. With this correlation, why can't we assume that the basis of bearing in Parker's deed was meant to be his east line, as shown on his subdivision map, or vice versa? Bearing in mind, the subdivision map was recorded 15 years after his deed. To answer this, we must remind ourselves of the fundamental premise of deed interpretation. That the language of a deed is controlled by its written terms, and all terms of the deed are assumed to be present. If Parker's description had called out the bearing shown on his subdivision map for the tree bridge line, we would base the consecutive courses upon that bearing, and this would preserve a right angle where the deed turns to the west. But we are always required to base the bearings upon the first course where a particular bearing is given. If this first course falls along a monumented line, its direction would be dictated by found monuments controlling the deed. Without monuments, the assumed direction of the second course, South 8930 West, is based upon Astronomic North. In the event that a basis of bearings is not stated or otherwise implied in a deed, Astronomic Bearing should be assumed. The field crew performs a solar observation to provide the needed basis of bearing. Once a basis of bearing has been adopted, it applies to all courses following unless a new basis of bearings is stated or implied. Therefore, Parker's next two courses are based upon Astronomic North. The actual deed instructions are as follows. Thence South 030 East, 300 feet. Thence South 8930 West, 900 feet, two logans gauging station. The phrase, two logans gauging station begins with one of the most important words in land surveying. It's a little word, but it demands a lot. Two requires that both the bearing and the distance given beforehand, in this case, South 8930 West, 900 feet, yield to the object described. In a deed, objects called out are the same as monuments. Whether they are natural objects or artificial ones, such as iron pipes, always take precedence over mathematical information. Therefore, the crew's next pursuit will be to find the gauging station. When they find it, the center of the station will be taken as the deed position, since no other intent is specified in the wording. Their ground search reveals suspect remains, a cylindrical shaft suspended in the air, supported by a set of metal brackets affixed to a large rock in the cliff. Shown in part is Baltimore's plat, drawn in 1905, the same year as Parker's deed, showing a tie to a gauging station in existence at that time. Baltimore does not refer to it as Logan's gauging station, as stated in Parker's deed. Is Baltimore's angle tie sufficient to relocate the gauging station he shows on his map? Remember that an obliterated corner may be reestablished using an acceptable map, or plat if it depicts and indicates by measurement the original location of the corner. There is no apparent reason to reject Baltimore's plat as an acceptable map, although this does not mean it should not be heavily scrutinized. All maps and records, even if they are modern and seem reliable, should be thoroughly examined in all parts. A source's reliability and a surveyor's liability are forever interlocked. Noting these warnings, our party chief decides to tie the cylindrical shaft held by the metal braces and compare this position to the right angle tie shown on Baltimore's map. His measurement corroborates Baltimore's tie line to within two feet. Evidently, Baltimore's gauging station coincides with the cliff remains. Are these remains then the same as Logan's gauging station described in Parker's deed? It is possible to corroborate this further by computing the position of the station itself using the course information contained in the Parker description itself. When this is done, a 45-foot discrepancy results. In this case, it would be a good idea to solicit testimony from area residents that the cliff remains are indeed those of a unique gauging station that existed in this area of the river around 1905. Unlike the earlier principle that refuted Baltimore's monument on the bridge because it was not called for in the description, here there exists no boundary principle based upon the available evidence that requires the cliff remains to be refuted as the gauging station. Backed into this corner, the party chief cannot escape a dilemma. Are these the remains of the station, or aren't they? The jury inside his head takes a few moments to deliberate. He accepts Baltimore's plat as corroborating evidence for the obliterated gauging station. He accepts the visible remains as primary evidence. He can find none of the area residents to assert otherwise. The next course of the Parker deed is not as easy to retrace. It reads, thence along the top of the left bank of the river, north, 46, 30, west, 200 feet. In the graphic shown, this course is seen leaving the gauging station, coming to an angle point which then turns the Parker boundary to the west. Moving to the next graphic, we see a detail of the area near the terminus of this course. Here, the chainman finds the tail end of a retaining wall overlooking the river. The wall bears the date 1935, scribed on its top. Next to the date is a brass plug set in concrete bearing the stamp city engineer. The crew suspects that the wall is a public works project and where there are public works, there are public survey notes. The chain person is dispatched to the country store where she begins a telephone search for more information. During her research, the chainman who has remained at the site discovers three more monuments near the city engineer's disc. A three quarter inch iron pipe with a brass disc that is partially obscured, an open two inch iron pipe, and a two by two wooden stake. Examining the subdivision map in the vicinity of this point, the chief notes that a two by two redwood stake was originally set here for the subdivision. His first guess is that this found two by two stake is the original. He carefully removes the stake from the ground, replacing it with a nail to hold its position. Inspecting the stake carefully, he notes its deteriorated condition. At that moment, the chain person returns with a map from the city engineer's office which was sent via the general store's fax machine. Isn't technology wonderful? A detail of the city engineer's map shows clearly the replacement of the original subdivision corner. Drawn by the city engineer, there appears to be little to dispute, except for the other monuments. So what do we have? One, a city engineer's disc thought to be the replacement of an original subdivision monument, but in conflict with two, a redwood stake suggestive of being very old. Together with three, an open two inch iron pipe that for all we know, might be a sleeve to hold a real estate sign. And for a three quarter inch iron pipe set by an unknown engineer. The situation of multiple monuments is a fairly common occurrence. Conflicts between monuments should be resolved by using the one that best satisfies written intents and or can best be linked with the original using corroborative evidence. In the absence of identifiable original corners, corners such as those in the present story are near the bottom of the list as acceptable controlling evidence. What is the least acceptable evidence? That evidence left by improvements built soon after the original monumentation. What do we do if by these standards, two monuments have equal credentials as a corner? The monument in best agreement with record angle, distance or area should be used when deciding between conflicting monuments of otherwise equal status. However, this is not a case of choosing between monuments in a subdivision. What is being retraced is Parker's deed, not the subdivision. Although the two appear to represent the same piece of land, one cannot be used to reestablish the other. Why? Because a subdivision creates lots that are conveyed by action of a survey defined by monuments. Subdivision monuments are set to subdivide a piece of land within an ownership. They do not control the original conveyance that created the land being subdivided. Although the city engineer's disc might be used to control this particular corner of the subdivision, where do we place the corresponding corner of the Parker deed? We are permitted to use the written terms of the deed only. Therefore, following the deed literally, the party chief calculates a traverse from the remains of the gaging station along the course North, 46, 30 West, 200 feet. Using the basis of bearing established by the solar observation, he finds this position on the ground and compares it to the four monuments in question. Unfortunately, the point falls short of the wall and into the river. We note that the point does not fall on the quote top of the left bank of the river unquote as stated in the Parker deed. Are we bound to the top of the bank as a natural monument called for? Would this lead us to consider one of the other points as better evidence? The bank of the river is presumed to be ephemeral, subject to alteration by floodwaters and erosion. If the sudden loss of part of the bank known as evulsion were to occur, it would not constitute a change in the original deed boundary and evulsion does not change boundaries. Local residents and records in the County Historical Society Museum confirmed that floods occurring in 1910 wreaked havoc on the banks of the river and that the retaining wall built in 1935 was the last of a series of public works designed to bring the river under control. Therefore, the bearing and the distance from the gaging station remains the best evidence of the location of the bank of the river before the flood. Let's continue now with Parker's next course. We go. Thence south 8930 west to the cliff road. Thence along the cliff road. I need to interrupt the description here in mid-sentence just for a moment. These courses bring our field surveyors to and along the cliff road. The bearings continue to be astronomical. This part of the river is characterized by a deep 100-foot chasm through solid rock. The road runs along the top of the cliff and is clearly the only road that has ever existed along the cliff. In the absence of modifiers to clarify the intent such as to the first edge of the road and so on, we must use the center of the road bed for the deed line. The road may or may not turn abruptly, as indicated by the map. Although the map may depict the road, it only serves to clarify. It is not part of the legal description. The true shape of Parker's boundary would include any curves in the road's alignment. The wording along the cliff road, which was interrupted just a moment ago, continues now with a very important qualifying phrase which reads as follows. To the west line of the easterly 400 feet of the west half of section six, being the southeast corner of land conveyed to be Ketchum by deed in the year 1900. This is a double call, citing both the land of a certain Ketchum and the easterly 400 feet of the west half of the section. This sets the stage for possible conflicting terms. The call to Ketchum's land implies that its east line should be the west line of the easterly 400 feet. That's fine, providing it does. Our party chief should verify this before proceeding and should not be surprised to find Ketchum's land described differently within the section. Until we know more, Ketchum's land may or may not enjoy senior rights. Senior rights are those rights held by landowners who obtained title earlier than an adjoining party. The adjoiner yielding to the senior title has the junior rights. Between adjoiners, the senior deed is usually the one recorded first, but the date of recordation is not the only factor used to establish senior rights. The date of agreement, as well as the date of execution, may come under close inspection by title companies or the court. Between any two adjoiners, there is always a senior and junior title, except for simultaneous conveyances, in which case there is no distinction. Forever on his toes, the party chief inspects Ketchum's deed and finds that Ketchum's deed actually abuts the west line of the easterly 3,040 feet of the section. Therefore, Ketchum's east line depends upon the east line of the section, not the north-south center line as stated in Parker's description. However, there is always the possibility that Ketchum's description is incorrect. A call to an adjoiner does not necessarily indicate senior rights. A chain of title obtained from a title company is necessary to determine junior senior rights. If the legal description in Ketchum's deed were to hold up as senior in the title search, it will become necessary to survey the east line of section six to retrace Parker's deed. For the time being, Ketchum's east line will need to remain uncertain. We do not have enough information about the east line of the section at this time. The crew continues with the next instruction in Parker's deed, which tells them to go thence northerly along Ketchum's east line to Highway 10. They follow an old north-south fence until it intersects the highway right-of-way fence. A specific point on or in the highway to go to is not expressed in this wording. Do we stop at the sideline or proceed to the center line of the road to name two possibilities? The chainman combs through the research package to find an early highway document recorded in 1880, an easement to the county for highway purposes. Along a certain highway 10, granted by the original landowner of all of section six, the Flyer Railroad Company. Calls to a road are to the center line. If the grantor owns the underlying fee in the road, unless the road itself is specifically excluded. The term highway 10 is also potentially ambiguous. Checking his research package for other highway alignments that might have been granted or dedicated since the 1880 document, the party chief confirms for himself that modern highway 10 wasn't created by deed until 1930 and is therefore not relevant to Parker's description. Unfortunately, the 1880 easement document did not specify with or a mathematical position for the highway. For the sake of a good story, which of course this one is, let's pretend that neither a map nor a description exists for that old highway. Then it becomes useless to belabor the question, where is the 1880 highway? It is possible that it is lost forever. Every once in a while, a road will fall through the cracks. Not everything in the world is retraceable. Proceeding with Parker's description, however uncertain it may be in places, it next instructs the crew to go, thence along said highway 10 to the north-south centerline of section six. They are brought to a line they have up to now been able to avoid to determine the location of the north-south centerline of section six. They will need to establish the north and south quarter corners of the section. I talked earlier about how to establish the north quarter corner, which is the northwest corner of lot two. The south quarter corner, if intact, is the other point the crew needs. If it is gone, their search will need to branch out to the section corners west and east of it. Unfortunately, they cannot find the south quarter corner after a diligent search. The chainman hikes off to the east to look for the southeast section corner, finding a 1915 brass cap there. Meanwhile, the chain person explores the line to the west, finding another 1915 brass cap on the range line. From a single control point, the party chief can tie both of these section corners, as well as reset the south quarter corner at its proportional position along the 1915 line. Suddenly, it's everybody's lucky day. In Lancer vein, one gradually learns to suspect that which comes too easily. The chief warily inspects the 1915 U.S. GLO plat, showing the south line of section six. Standard brass caps were set at each of the corners. However, the situation at the southeast corner is a little strange. A set stone and a stone mound was found there in 1915 and perpetuated with a brass cap, showing that some original monumentation from the original 1870 survey was found along the south line. Perhaps a diligent search will turn up something that the 1915 survey missed. The original field notes for this south line of section six describe what was set. The southwest corner, a wood stake in an earth mound would be expected to lose favor with the elements rather quickly. The southeast corner, a set stone, which at that time was adjacent to a tree, would also need very good luck to survive. Fortunately, it was found in 1915 and perpetuated. The south quarter corner holds more promise. The notes call for a sizable stone, with a mound as well. The 1915 USGLO dependent survey of section six was ordered by the government to, quote, follow in the footsteps, unquote, of the 1870 survey, not to supersede it. It occurs to our party chief that just because the 1915 survey failed to recover two out of three of the original 1870 monuments, it is not necessarily true that those original monuments are gone from the face of the earth. While the other crew members watch, he scours a badly bouldered mountain, heavy with brush for evidence of the original 1870 south quarter corner. And, sure enough, discovers two possible candidates. One, a circular ring of stones, half embedded in the earth, with a 19 by 12 by 11 inch stone lying five feet downhill. The other, a three foot diameter, two foot high pile of rocks with an iron stake driven into the ground through its center. These are some 50 feet apart. He picks through the mounds carefully, looking for possible accessory evidence. In land surveying, we leave no stone unturned. It dawns on the chainman and he passes his idea along to his chief of party, that they might test these corners by comparing them with topographic calls contained in the original 1870 notes, if any. It turns out that the 1870 notes do contain distance measurements to topography east and west of the subject quarter corner. As detailed in the notes, the 1870 government surveyors surveying from east to west started at the southeast section corner, encountered a ridge at 30 chains bearing northwest. At 50 chains, they encountered a stream. These are two easily recognized landforms. Using the found corners of the 1915 survey as an approximate guide for the original 1870 line, the crew finds the ridge and stream to lie at distances which fit the 1870 survey notes very well within 10 or 20 feet. The exact positions for the ridge and stream are difficult to locate. This is typical of topographic calls. Measurements are at best within five or 10 feet. Using the topographic calls, the crew can place the quarter corner at the proper proportional distance between the rocky ridge and the stream. For the south line of a typical section six, the quarter corner would be placed at 40 chains. In this case, the midpoint of the rocky ridge and stream. The principal facts favoring the northwesterly circular ring of stones as the original 1870 quarter corner is the proximity of the 19 by 12 by 11 inch stone to the circular ring and its position near the midline of the ridge and stream. However, this latter condition of position need not be met. From the source, restoration of lost or obliterated corners. We have the following fundamental dictate for sexualized land surveys. The original township section and quarter section corners, but not closing corners must stand as the true corners which they were intended to represent whether in the place shown by the field notes or not. In addition to this, we need a way to positively identify a corner. A corner's acceptability in the absence of other evidence can be based upon its likeness to the original corner. The manual of instructions states three conditions. One, the character and dimensions of the monument in evidence should not be widely different from the record. And two, the markings in evidence should not be inconsistent with the record. And three, the nature of the accessories in evidence, including size, position and markings should not be greatly at variance with the record. And what if there were no topographic calls and no mounds of stone? In the absence of all other evidence, the reestablishment of lost government corners must be done by a mathematical method of proportionate measure. A lost corner is restored according to the type of corner it is, that is, standard section corner, quarter corner, closing corner, township corner, township corner on a curve parallel, meander corner, and so on. The field notes govern the actual procedure by which a lost corner must be replaced and some of the procedures are not always obvious such as three-way positioning or reestablishing section lines with angle points. Failure to consult the notes. When restoring a lost corner by mathematical methods is risky business. On the exam, expect unusual tricky circumstances like meander corners and closing corners on rancher lines. Remember that an obliterated corner is never reestablished by mathematical proportion. Only a lost corner is. A thorough surveyor will exhaust every possibility that a lost corner is not actually an obliterated corner. Using proportionate measure to reestablish an original corner should be done only as a last resort. It should be stressed that the use of topography requires very careful consideration. When used with a method of proportionate measure, topography may not be conclusive in situations where the degree of measurement certainty is poor, where topography calls prove inconclusive. Proportionate measure must be used. In a case like this, a surveyor should consult with the BLM but for now we will accept the quarter corner stone backed up by the topo evidence. Let's finish out the last two courses of Parker's description. Thence, northerly, along said north-south center line to the north quarter corner of section six. Thence, easterly, to the true point of beginning. Having completed a full retracement of Parker's deed, our weary crew is disappointed that little evidence concerning the boundary of the subdivision has turned up. There is scant to go by to establish the interior corners. Reconstruction of the interior monuments of a subdivision from its boundary monuments may not be an effective strategy, particularly in older subdivisions. Subdivision corners should be reestablished from the closest available monuments inside the subdivision. Original interior monuments will hold in all situations whereas original monuments on the boundary are subject to the effects of title discrepancy. Finally, reminding himself that a correct survey of the Sundance Ranch partnership deed depends solely on the north and east lines of Parker's deed, the party chief decides to see where these corners fall inside the subdivision. Recalling that great overlap which had formed against the east line of the subdivision, our party chief suspects that this overlap, likewise shifts the deeded location of the Sundance Ranch as owned by the partnership, 50 feet to the west relative to where it is shown on the subdivision map. He confirms this by computing the corners of the Sundance Ranch partnership deed and placing temporary ground nails. These nails fall in the 60 foot road west of the ranch, nearly to the east line of Lot 8. At the same time, this shift opens a 50 foot fissure on the other side. Who owns the land within this easterly gap? Subdivision lot lines are not extended beyond the original monuments in cases where the original subdivider failed to subdivide all his land. Title to the unsubdivided land is in the original subdivider. The land is probably still in the estate of Parker. Who owns the land within the overlap on the west side? This falls in a dedicated street. The land in this street was not in the original title of the subdivider. Therefore, it cannot be conveyed by virtue of the monumentation of the subdivision. Consequently, only the west 10 feet of the 60 foot road was actually created by the subdivision map. This does not mean that the owners of the subdivision lots would be forbidden to use this road as they may have an unwritten right in the road. Remember always that the rules of unwritten title may apply upon examination by the court. The apparent shift in location of the ranch property in relation to the monumented ranch per the subdivision should not deter our crew from continuing their search for original subdivision monuments. They need the subdivision monuments to define the access road to the Sundance Ranch. As our crew searches for the original monumentation, we'll keep track of their progress by looking at graphics based upon the subdivision map. Keep in mind that the actual location of the ranch is shifted 50 feet to the west of its position on the maps we are viewing. With a measure of luck, the crew stumbles upon an old redwood hub at the apparent northwest corner of the Sundance Ranch as shown on the subdivision map. And finding an axle near the northeast corner of the ranch, things begin to fall into place. The distance and direction between this car axle and the old redwood hub fits the map well. The chain person succeeds in obtaining the help of the owners of lots three and four, enabling the crew to add to their list of found monuments another axle at the southwest corner of the ranch, as well as four other original monuments on the boundary of lots three and four, all of which are redwood hubs, except the northwest corner of lot three, which is an iron pin. The owner of lot three is curious about the location of his southeast corner. Let's digress for a moment and demonstrate the specific manner in which the southeast corner of lot three would be reestablished, assuming it is lost. Between the subdivision map and the field measurements, we observe a difference of 4.5 feet in the overall length of the combined east lines of lots three and four. This difference should be distributed among the lots along the line formed by the found monuments in accordance with the principle of proration. Excess or deficiency in measurement of a straight line between fixed monuments within a subdivision is distributed among all the lots along the line in proportion to their record measurements. When subdivision lots are created by a map, all the lots are created simultaneously, even though actual conveyances of the lots may occur at different times at later dates. There is no senior or junior title distinction. Since no senior rights exist, mathematical proration becomes the only equitable way to distribute excesses or deficiencies in measurement. Lot three therefore receives more of the excess due to its longer line. Excess or deficiency cannot be distributed beyond any original found monument in a subdivision. For example, in a typical block, original monuments found at A, B and C enable us to set any of the intermediate points between them. Corners at D and E would not qualify for proration based upon the monuments found. However, the monuments at A and B might be used to control the direction of the north line of the block. In this way, corners D and E may be partially controlled by A and B. Monuments set beyond the original title line of the subdivider's property can control the direction of lines within the subdivision, much like government closing corners. The direction of the south line of lot three is controlled by the monuments set for the southeast corner of lot three, even though the true corner falls on the tree bridge line. Therefore, the south line of lot three cannot go all the way to the apparent east line of the subdivision map. That's 50 feet past the subdivider's original ownership. As suggested by the graphic, we would expect to find the original subdivision monuments set about 50 feet east of the tree bridge line. But life is full of things we least expect. Returning to the progress of our surveyors, their measurements show that the subdivision was in fact, monumented only 1.5 feet east of the tree bridge line, not 50 feet. The north and south lines of lots three and four should be 660 feet long according to the subdivision map. These lots are actually about 50 feet narrower on the ground. The party chief concludes that the east line of lots three and four were monumented according to Parker's deed, to within about 1.5 feet anyway. But the balance of the subdivision to the west was monumented 50 feet to the east. Regardless, the original monuments within the subdivision still hold for the lots they were intended to define, except for the senior rights of the Sundance Ranch, of course. The chain person notices that the northeast corner of lot three has been set about four feet past the north line of Parker's deed into section 31. Her first inclination is to assume that the lot as monumented is cut off by the section line. Fortunately, she has been studying diligently for the land surveyors' exam and retains a number of obscure principles in her head. She points out to the party chief that if Parker, the original subdividor, also owned this land in section 31, at the time he filed his subdivision, then he would have passed title to the land as monumented, even though it might have been monumented in error. The chief of party, disbelieving and somewhat ruffled, takes a long slow breath and combs through his favorite boundary surveying reference, where he finds that his chain person is indeed correct. As it turns out, Parker did own the southeast corner of section 31 at the time he filed his subdivision. So, lot three ends up with a projection on its north line, which lies 4.2 feet north of the north line of section six, and a foot and a half past the tree bridge line. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, let's take a look at what is available for locating the 60-foot road access to the Sundance Ranch. Remember, the road is part of the survey the crew has been assigned to perform, and the road is defined by the subdivision map. The graphic shown holds some promise for doing this. Getting started, the party chief examines the possibilities presented by the axle at the northeast corner of the ranch. First of all, he checks the overall distance between the northerly and southerly controlling monuments on the east side of lots two and five, and finds that it differs from the subdivision map by over 12 feet, but that's not unusual for older subdivisions. Of particular interest is whether the axle fits a prorated position on this line. Before testing this, he reminds himself that the position of this monument may be immaterial. Only original lines or their replacements can control original lines and subdivisions. In the absence of any proof of occupying the same position as the original corner, the party chief determines that the axle should not be used for proration or line direction. The westerly lines of lots three and four, in this case, would be controlled by the two monuments known to be originals at the north and south ends. Assuming the sidelines of the 60-foot road are lost, reestablishing the points where they intersect the east line of lots two and five would fall to the method of proration, provided the privately owned lots bear the full brunt of the excess or deficiency. Why? Dedicated streets are in the public ownership, so certain principles apply. In the absence of monumentation, their widths remain as stated on the map. On the other hand, remember that monuments always control the map. If original street monuments are recovered, they will control the width of the street, whether in agreement with the subdivision map or not. For the situation at hand, the factor of proration to apply to the east lot lines of lots two and five requires that we first subtract the two 60-foot road widths to leave them out of the calculation. Each of the private lots will receive a proportional share of the excess or deficiency. Now for an academic question. Should the Sundance Ranch, which is shown as not apart on the subdivision map, also receive a proportional share of the excess along with lots two and five? I will leave this brain teaser to you as a workbook exercise. As it is with resurveys of sectionalized land, proration of subdivision lots is the rule of last resort. It must always yield to the discovery of original monuments. No sooner is this said that our field crew finds an original two-by-two redwood stake next to the axle. This original monument supersedes the prorated position. With renewed excitement, the chainman digs around the southeast and southwest corners of the ranch. At the southwest corner, next to the earlier found axle, he turns up the trace remains of an old redwood stake two feet down. As more originals come to light, other factors controlling the reestablishment of street lines begin to develop. Proration may no longer be tenable in instances where the subdivision map shows straight or parallel lines. We also have the statement on the subdivision map that certain lines bear at right angles to each other. Considering these various options, our party chief decides to reconstruct the 60-foot road parallel to the north line of the ranch as recovered by the original subdivision monuments found on that line. In doing this, he is asserting that no other monumentation exists to place the road. This is consistent with the reestablishment of positions according to the rules of evidence as they apply to lost and obliterated corners. The evidence in this case is the subdivision map itself. The survey is not yet completed, but the hour is growing late and approaching thunderstorm will arrive any minute. Our dogged crew packs the equipment into the truck. The maps and deeds scattered everywhere are stacked, folded, enrolled, and placed into the briefcase. The chain person is gathering loose papers from the cab when she notices a small, reduced assessors map lying between the seats. It has become detached from a title report. Written across Lot 8 is a barely readable reference to a Record of Survey. Unfortunately, this Record of Survey is not contained among the research materials. The party chief races to the County Record Center just before closing. And there it is, a complete survey of Lot 8 filed as a Record of Survey in 1940. At that time, the entire boundary was recovered from original monuments. As explained on the Record of Survey, each found original was perpetuated with a three-quarter inch iron pipe with a one-quarter inch disc bearing the surveyors' registration. The crew's work concerning the 60-foot road is, of course, superseded by this evidence. With this map as a basis, they are able to reestablish the 60-foot road with confidence the following week. The moral of this story is that the harder lessons of land surveying are avoided by better research and organization. Put in a more immediately relevant way, successful passage to the other side of the land surveyors' exam will demonstrate as effectively as any tough survey your ability to perform effective analysis of evidence and to apply your analysis to the boundary problems in an efficient, organized fashion. You should not take the exam without thoroughly knowing the BLM manual and at least one of the popular boundary references, several of which are noted in the reference section of the workbook. A good rule for effective exam preparation is, it is better to know one good source thoroughly so you can find what you're looking for quickly than to flounder through many you haven't had time to read in detail. Test problems involving boundary principles can appear quite complex on the surface. Only the poorly prepared are intimidated by these. Become thoroughly familiar with your research materials before you sit for the exam. Perform the mini-research needed before solving each problem. Each boundary problem is usually composed of a set of smaller, associated problems. Pick the problem apart to expose its inner components. I would like to paraphrase a surveyor of note, Henry David Thoreau, whose sage advice applies very well to the examinee. When you find yourself laboring in the complexities of a test problem, just remember to simplify, simplify, simplify. To this I might add another principle that should make the test easy to pass, the last principle of this lesson. Study, study, study.