PLSO The Oregon Surveyor Nov/Dec 2018

26 Vol. 41, No. 6 The Oregon Surveyor | “fir stub” and at Trutch’s corner 4.76 chains {314 ft} to the north, he marks 2 new BTs for the corner of sections 24 and 25 each of which he calls a “dead fir”. To me that suggests that the “dead firs” were still snags, possibly from the 1888 fire, while the “fir stubs” were the remains of trees killed in a much earlier fire.) At any rate, that steep hillside was now covered with thick vine maple and 20-year-old Fir re- growth, which took a lot of brushing to subdue. After trying about 3 combinations, I finally found 2 big “stubs” that were at the appropriate distance and bearing apart. I then “backed off” from the south BT to the closing corner position and checked the record to the north BT. It fit within a foot or so, I then chained north 314 ft and tied a ribbon for the location of Trutch’s corner. Brushing out to the NW, I found a snag of about the right size, so I measured back S 55° E, record distance and adjust- ed my earlier “corner ribbon” by about 3 feet. Then I started to brush out an “alley” towards the SW BT. As I neared it, I could see the top 30 feet of a 40 ft high snag ahead onmy line. As I cut away the remain- ing “vineys” that had been right against it, I was flabbergasted to see partial scrib- ing on a weathered, worm eaten-face. I measured the distance back to the corner ribbon, adjusted it again, using the inter- section of both BT distances, and stuck a temporary spike in the ground for the corner. I never expected to find original 1898marks, given the fire history, but also knew it wasn’t going to last much longer. The slab was about ready to fall off, so I took it into “protective custody” where it still remains in my basement. (see Figure 5). In hindsight, it is probable that earlier fires killed the big firs; first in about 1860 (resulting in “fir stubs”) and in 1888 (result- ing in the “dead firs”). Given that, the BIG fire of 1902 didn’t have a lot of heavy fuel left on this hillside and probably ran up the hill quickly, mainly consuming brush and as such, didn’t destroy the scribed BT found in 1973. T4N, R4E, W.M.; Northeast Corner of Section 22, Clark County, WA This corner was established by Homan on June 20,1898, who set a wood post with 3 green Fir BTs (30”, 40”, and 50” diameter) and a 20” Fir stub. Homan later replaced the post with a stone as per Special In- structions dated August 16, 1899. That stone was “a trap rock 12x10x6 ins., 8 ins in the ground…marked with 3 notch- es on S. and 2 notches on E. edges”. (see Figure 6). In September 1948, Clark Coun- ty Engineer Charles Deakomade a survey which depicts the East line of Section 22. He shows monumenting the SE corner, E quarter corner, and NE corner of Section 22 with 1” iron pipes. The E quarter and NE corners were each set from an “orig- inal tree” while the SE corner appears to have been projected “south, 2640.0 ft”. (the north ½ mile being shown as “north, 2610.2 ft”). In 1975, a Vancouver surveyor subdivided Section 22 and notes finding 3 BTs at the NE corner (see figure 6). In August of 1991, I was tasked with sub- dividing Section 22 to locate cutting lines for a local timber company. I saw the 1975 survey and decided to look at the NE cor- ner to satisfy myself in regard to original evidence, since no stone was reportedly found. In looking at the “BT stubs”, they were exactly that, badly rotted, but loose- ly fitting Homan’s 1898 BT calls. However, three things troubled me about the 1975 iron pipe location: First, the “BT stubs” were interspersed with burnt snags, 30 to 50 inches in diameter, that were ob- viously much younger than the “stubs.” Firs of that size usually will be from 200 to 400 years old. The “stubs” seemed to be remnants of a previous timber stand and I surmised that they were probably already dead and decayed in 1898 when Homan was there. It is unlikely that he would have marked any of them as BTs if green trees were available. Second, the 1975 corner position was on a slight west slope and a corner stone wouldn’t have been susceptible to “soil creep” and/or rolling downhill to the west as it would on a 40% to 80% slope. Third, Homan’s 1898 notes running west from the cor- ner read “N 89° 58’W on a true line bet secs 15 and 22 Descending from corner through heavy green timber and dense underbrush, 1.31 chains (which equates to 86 feet) to branch 1 link wide course south”. From the 1975 corner, the creek is only 50 feet to the west. Given those “issues,” I felt the corner was further east and spent several visits over a two-week span trying to find a pattern of snags that matched Homan’s “geometry”. After many frustrating searches I finally found the original stone quite by accident. I had visited the section corner one mile north and noted the character of that stone and its notches. Back at the NE corner of section 22, since I couldn’t correlate any BTs together, I started looking for a stone that fit the dimensions called for, since the stone at the NE corner of section 15 was accurately described by Homan. My survey crew and I must have rolled over a hundred rocks to no avail. I happened to be going back over one of them since it was about the right dimensions. It had no marks, but had a chunk missing from the corner. I started looking around for a fine grained, grey andesite piece about the size of a coffee cup that would fit the void. I picked up a crumbly, yellowish rock fragment that obviously wasn’t a part of the rock with the chunk missing and was about to discard it when I noticed that it had three distinct notches on one edge and two on the other! I started looking for another yellowing piece that wouldmatch the jagged fracture line on the notched chunk, which was about the size of a one- pound coffee can. Within a foot, I found the matching piece that fit perfectly, but I could see that these two pieces had bro- ken from a larger rock which I theorized Figure 5: The “slab” from the 1898 BT. (partially showing “R3 S25 BT”) Figure 6 Figure 7: The first piece found of the “chocolate colored rock.” Featured Article