bvrballs

A call to the CA Parks Dept. (several actually, but finally got to the right person) shows that this is indeed the tank. They remember an entrance to the tank (this was probably the "superstructure"), but that was removed when the roof to the tank was replaced in 84 or 85. I agree with your statement that we do it for ourselves more than the pros. If the NGS really didn't care at all, I suppose they would remove the intersection marks from the database, so there is at least SOME interest on their end as well. Scott

In recovering FV1653, I have run into a question. The mark is a 4 foot high, 7 foot diameter, wood hexagonal superstructure on top of a water tank. The water tank is there. The wood superstructure is not. Based on my past experience with NGS (Deb Brown suggested reporting EW2395 as recovered in poor condition because all that was there was the mounting stem and half a circle of epoxy), I am inclined to report the recovery as poor for the same reason. The mounting location is still there, the tank, but the mark is gone, the superstructure. Suggestions? Scott

I'll make the same suggestion I did in a previous thread. Since the AZDT owns the marks, ask them. They may be willing to give you information about the disks. I've had success with the USGS and the City of Long Beach getting information about marks. It's worth a try. Scott

Well, having read everything posted, I'd have to say that, if you want info on the mark, go to the source. Don't know if they will respond, but since the mark is owned by AZ Dept. of Trans., you might try contacting them. So far I have has some success when contacting the USGS (who indicated that they don't mind us asking and would love to have recovery reports for their marks) and the city engineer for Long Beach. On both occations I was able to get them to give me information to verify either the recovery or loss of the mark I was looking for. Scott

For anyone still following this thread, I finally got a response from the USGS. What they tell me is that I DID recover station BISSEL. The original disk was placed in 1902 with no station name, as was common at the time. It was later that a leveling was done and the stamping of 7284 Canyon was added to the tablet. As far as the USGS is concerned, Zuni Point used to be Bissel Point. As for the reference I found to Comanche Point once being Bissel point, the dangers of the Internet with a single reference. Still unable to find any other reference on Bissel. Anyway, mystery solved! I actually enjoy the research. I've enclosed the reply for your enjoyment. Scott Scott Kanzelmeyer, This is in response to your questions concerning the benchmark that you recovered in the Grand Canyon Area. The benchmark that you recovered is the U.S.G.S. triangulation station "Bissel" set in 1902 by H.L. Baldwin as explained below in the information from U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 216 as a part of a control network for the Grand Canyon Forest Reserve. As you will note in the original description that a bronze B.M. tablet was set in solid rock with no stamping indicated. This was a normal practice at the time since many times no name was selected for the station designation when the work was being done. If a name was determined or other designation for the mark during the field work the mark was stamped with that information. In about the same time period spirit leveling was being done by John T. Stewart and as a part of his work he established the elevation for the mark on Bissel Point (Zuni Point) and stamped the mark with the designation " 7284 CANYON". The elevation 7284 was the elevation that was in his field book that he had determined for the benchmark at the time he was doing the work. As for the difference between Comanche Point and Zuni Point both being known as Bissel Point I do not have a good explanation. The only reason that the triangulation station "BISSEL" was named such is "Zuni Point" was given to the field personel as also being known as "Bissel Point". Copied from U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 216, PRIMARY TRIANGULATION AND PRIMARY TRAVERSE, Fiscal Year 1902-03, pages 151 &152. ARIZONA. TRIANGULATION STATIONS. Mr. H. L. Baldwin, topographer, was engaged in March and April, 1902, in extending triangulation northward from the base New River-Union for the purpose of furnishing control for the survey of the Grand Canyon Forest Reserve. He, established and marked the position of 18 primary stations which control 7 thirty-minute quadrangles and 5 secondary stations which control the Jerome special quadrangle, observing for azimuth at two stations. BISSEL, COCONINO COUNTY. About 7 miles northeast of Grand View Hotel; reached by wagon road. Lines of sight were cleared - to San Francisco Mountain and Kendrick. Station mark: A bronze B.M. tablet set in solid rock. [Latitude 36 00' 52.00" , Longitude 111 54' 45.20"] Copied from U.S.Geological Survey Bulletin 463, SPIRIT LEVELING IN ARIZONA, 1899-1909, pages 79 & 80. Bright Angel, Shinumo, and Vishnu Quadrangles. COCONINO COUNTY. The elvations in the following list are based on an aluminum tablet in rim rock north of Bright Angel Hotel at Grand -Canyon, stamped " 6866 CANYON." The elevation of this bench mark is accepted as 6,861.409 feet, as determined by primary levels along the Grand Canyon Railway, corrected to the unadjusted elevations of bench marks at Williams determined by precise leveling of Coast and Geodetic Survey in 1909. The leveling was done by John T. Stewart in 1902 and 1903, and by M. S. Bright in 1904. BRIGHT ANGEL QUADRANGLE. Grand Canyon southeast along stage road via Grand View Hotel to Zuni Point (Bissell Point). Grand Canyon, station, point on rim of canyon, 100 feet north of )Bright Angel Hotel, in rim ledge; aluminum tablet stamped "6866 CANYON" ---------------------------------- Feet. 6,861.409 VISHNU QUADRANGLE. Head of Red Canyon or New Hance trail to Bissel Point (Zuni Point), Morans Point, northern point of upper strata of limestone at rim; aluminum tablet stamped " 7157 CANYON" ----------------------- 7,151.974 Bissell Point (Zuni Point), top of strata of limestone at rim; bronze triangulation tablet stamped "7284 CANYON" -------------------- 7,279. 387 Copied from USGS files for horizontal and vertical control in Arizona: LINE 2. FROM GRAND VIEW NO.2 QUADRANGLE (395) NORTHEAST TO MORAN AND ZUNI POINT (by J. T. Stewart, 1902-1903; Book 9462) Moran Point, 0.2 mi. N. Of jct. Of State Highway 64 and rd. to Moran Point; at rim of canyon; in E. end of limestone ledge; standard aluminum tablet stamped "7157 CANYON" (recovered by USC&GS, 1934,) elevation 7150.530 Zuni Point (Bissell Point) in limestone stratum at rim; bronze triangulation tablet stamped "7284 CANYON" elevation 7277.920 The benchmark is published on the U.S.G.S. 7 1/2 min topographic map "Cape Royal, AZ" as BM 7278 located on Zuni Point. I hope this helps in you with the history of the benchmark Junipara Henkel/RGIO/USGS/DOItablet that you found at Zuni Point. John John Sellars US Geologcial Survey, NGTOC II Bldg 810, MS509 Den Fed Ctr Lakewood, CO 80225 (303)202-4371 e-mail jrsellars@usgs.gov ----- Forwarded by Brenda K Barski/RGIO/CONT/USGS/DOI on 08/23/2006 11:51 AM ----- "Scott W. Kanzelmeyer" <scott@kanzelmeyer.com> 08/22/2006 02:45 AM To: infoservices@usgs.gov cc: Subject: Questions About Grand Canyon Benchmarks USGS, I was recently in the Grand Canyon and recovered a benchmark that now has me curious. The mark is listed with NGS as PID GP0514 and has a listed designation of BISSEL. Their datasheet gives adjusted coordinates of 36 00 56.54731(N)111 54 43.62538(W). The mark was described in 1902 by USGS as located about 7 mi NE of Grand View Hotel (which no longer exists). When I made my way to the end of Zuni Point, my GPS placed me directly on top of a USGS BM, but the disk was designated as Canyon and showed an elevation of 7284. My question is this, did I find the 1902 BM or was a later mark placed on Zuni Point? If this is a replacement disk, do you have any information as to the fate of the original disk? The thing I find most curious about this issue is that the only reference to BISSEL I can find near the Grand Canyon is that Comanche point, about 10 miles NE of Zuni Point, is said to have once been called Bissel Point. It would make more sense to me that a station named BISSEL would have been located there. Anyway, any information you can shed on this mystery would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your help in this matter. Scott W. Kanzelmeyer -- - ******************************************************** Scott W. Kanzelmeyer scott@kanzelmeyer.com Kanzelmeyer Family Homepage - http://www.kanzelmeyer.com Personal Homepage - http://scott.kanzelmeyer.com "It is better to have lived vicariously, then to never have lived at all." - Scott W. Kanzelmeyer

Agreed, your first assertion is unlikely. That the typist types 4 instead of 6 does not fly either. The reasoning for that is that ALL the surrounding marks were recovered/set in 1934. Some were recovered after ot set prior, but 1934 was a big year for NGS in the area. There is not a SINGLE mention of 1936 in any recovery in the area, period. I would beleive that the coordinated were changed after 1936 but not properly documented, thus explaining why they point to the current tower and not the one observed in 1934. I have decided to report the tower as recovered, but added the information about the date that the current tower was constructed thus leaving the reader to draw their own conclusion. As for GP0514, re-reading the datasheet, there is nothing in the description to indicate what is stamped in the benchmark disk. In fact, there is nothing in the datasheet to indicate why the designation of BISSEL is given at all. The name BISSEL would more likely refer to Bissel point, now know as Commanche Point about 10 miles away, rather than this mark on Zuni Point. I have not yet received any contact back from USGS, but will follow up with a phone call next week to try to figure this issue out before I make my report. Overall, I found my trip to the Grand Canyon rewarding and was able to recover 6 (7 if GP0514 is correct) marks, two of which had not been recovered since 1934 (one of which is still there but has been disturbed - FQ0360) and another last recovered in 1958. The latter, FQ0361, had a description about being next to a small pine tree in 1934. I took a picture of the now large stump and fallen log. I was also able to add information that may be helpful to future searchers for two marks not found and report a mark that is likely lost. All-in-all, a good weekend. Scott

OK, I know I've beaten this one to death, but just want to sum up what has been discussed. Two marks I found were both adjusted in term of horizontal placement, about as good as can be, and well within the accuracy of a handheld unit. The tower, FQ0712, despite the obvious fact that the originally observed tower in 1934 was destroyed and replaced in 1936, should be considered recovered because the coordinates match the existing tower. The assumption is that somehow the 1934 party must have made a mistake as to what year it was that they were there, not that the coordinated were changed later to match what existed later, since there were no additional entries to the datasheet (even though we know that additional parties were there because of a 1958 entry to FQ0713). USGS disk GP0514 should not be considered recovered because the disk that resides in the exactly correct spot does not match the description in the datasheet. Obviously no mistake would be made in the datasheet for a benchmark disk like name, but the year of an observation might be incorrect. Also adjusted coordinates are always correct, unless we are talking about a disk. Also, the fact that s reported station name would more appropriately be used 10 miles away is unimportant. One more thing I have learned, basically from experience, is that the USGS probably doesn’t care much about the many disks it has left around the country, at least not enough to respond to my questions. Scott

I've not been benchmarking very long, but what I have learned from this forum is that the description in the datasheet is the mark, more or less. My first posting to this forum was a mark that appeared correct (it was right where the coordinates said it should be), but had a 1988 stamp on it. It was origionally described in the 60's. There were a number of found recovery notes on geocaching.com. I must say that, besides the date, the mark did not appear to match the goto description. The mark was a local city mark, so I eventually called the city engineer to have them confirm that the original mark had been destroyed and the existing mark was a new mark. Having said that, I would say that, since the NGS already reported no find, and since you yourself have confirmed that the mark is not the one in the datasheet, this most likely is a no find. Scott

Thanks for the info. I was searching the web last night and located a FAQ that provided an e-mail address (actually two, one east and one west). I have sent an inquiry to that address. Don't know if I'll get a reply. In any case, I will have to be happy with a no find until I can satisfy myself of the correct facts. Scott

OK. Despite what I have been told in this forum previously, it would appear that the conclusion here is that, despite the fact that the tower was not built until two years after the reported observation, since the coordinates now match the tower that is there, it should be considered recovered. The assumption being that there may be an error in the datasheet. However, the adjusted coordinates of a disk that landed me right on top of one can NOT be considered a recovery because it is unlikely that an error would have been made in the datasheet and since the station names don't match (the station name in the datasheet would seem to belong 10 miles away based on location of the same name, but whatever), it is unimportant that the mark found was dead on. I will try one more time, because so far, I have receive no answer to this question. Where can I do research on USGS marks? I may be able to figure the problem out if I can do some research on it. Anyway, is there somewhere that research can be done on USGS marks? A website maybe? Thanks for your help. Scott

Sorry, the more I read about this, the less I can buy anything I have seen posted here. The original mark, FQ0712, is a tower observered in 1934. The station mark Grandview, FQ0713, was first described at the base of the tower in 1920. It was recovered in 1934 at the same time the tower was recovered (I would assume the same expidition, but feel free to disagree, though your disagreement would mean nothing). I place no faith in your adjusted coordinates (OK, not yours, but someone's) because I don't know how the '93 adjustment. Obviously they did not re-survey, so I don't know what they did. You put a lot of faith in what is in the datasheets. but then you also are willing to abandon what is there. So, the question is, should I try to follow what is there or follow what is in the real world? What part of the datasheet should I consider golden and what part should I disregard because it doesn't fit my observation? Here is my problem. I have consulted this forum on a couple of issues, and so far, the answers have been ansers of convinience. The datasheet is golden, or maybe they made a mistake. In this case, since ALL the other recovery reports in 50 miles happened in 1934, I choose to accept that this one did too and that they did not make a special trip in 1936 just to see this tower. Everything else about this mark would seem to be moot, including the fact that NGS recovered the Grandview station mark a number of times and failed to pay any attention to the tower since 1934. the tower is gone. FQ0712 is gone and needs to be reported as such. Scott

Opps. Tower is FQ0712. Observed in 1934 with no additional information. Since the new tower was not built until 1936, can't be the one observered in 1934. Scott

John, Thanks for the comments. Specific answers: The disk which is Grandview was recovered (FQ0713). It will not be reported as destroyed. The question is about the tower (a separate mark). By description, the tower should stand above the mark. The tower (FQ0713) was described in 1934 and has no additional descriptive text. This tells me that the tower described is not the tower that exists. I have been previously told in this forum, and I would quite agree, that the description is the station. With no other information, I can determine that the observed station, the tower seen in 1934, no longer exists. I don't know who submitted the adjusted coordinates, how they were adjusted, etc. I DO KNOW that the 1934 observation of a tower could not possibly be the tower that is currently there. I'm still in a turmoil over the GP0514. The more I learn, the more I don't know what is going on. There was a Bissel point at one time in the Grand Canyon area. I found a few references to it. It is now Comanche Point and is 10 miles from where GP0514 is. This information does not help me solve the puzzle. Is the description for Bissel somehow transposed to the location of Canyon? The elevation I read on the unit was within 6 feet, but since I had not calibrated it within the last few weeks, I have no confidence in that reading. Just earlier this week, it told me that a disk I recovered was -6 feet. I do have some confidence in the location of the disk for GP0514 since I found and marked a road survey mark next to where we had parked the car (about 1/2 a mile from GP0514) and did an average reading to find the estimated accuracy was 7-8 feet. I don't recall the actual accuracy at the time I found the mark, but since I was on a point with nothing around me in almost every direction, I would suspect that it was within 10-12 feet. I did look further to see if I could locate any additional marks in the area at the canyon rim, but did not locate any. Again, since I was at the end of a rather narrow point, I have trouble believing that there were any other marks out there. I found a topo on-line at ASU that shows a BM at the end of the point, but the elevation listed does not match the one stamped on the disk. Maybe it has been adjusted, after all, the original disk was supposed to have been placed in 1902. Anyway, I am not so concerned with proving that I found the mark, I would rather find out the correct information so that I can report correctly. Another geocacher posted to geocaching.com that he found the mark, but I am not willing to do so until I can convince myself that I have, or have not, found the mark. then, and only then, can I report correctly. So my question continues to remain unanswered. Is there anywhere that I can research USGS marks? I doubt that I will ever be able to answer these questions without doing some intensive research. I'm willing to put in the effort, if I can find out where to do it. As for the two un-recovered ones, I think I was in the right area. Yes, more research and searching is required. Following the info provided during the last recoveries put me in the right area. If I had had a metal detector, I am certain that I would have been able to locate one or both of them. I have photos of the features described in the previous reports that I can post to geocaching.com. I think my question was more of a question of if I SHOULD report the no find. I think I'm getting the impression that those in this forum would suggest that, IF I think I have information that may be of use to future searchers, I should probably report it even if I did not find the mark. I guess it all comes down to experience and judgment. I'm 45, so I won't jump to conclusions. I do feel that I should report information if I think it will help. Of the two I was specifically talking about, I an certain I was in the right area because i did the measurements based on the previous reports. One of them, I found what looks like a location where a culvert probably existed (in the right location based on the description and mileage described), but since they have done considerable upgrading to the highway, it was probably removed (checked a half-mile in each direction to make sure there were no other culverts). From that location, I was able to locate a small rock pile in the exact location described (looked like it anyway, and how well can you be sure of a 1934 description? One of the ones I recovered had a 1934 description of being next to a small tree - I took a picture of the large stump and fallen tree trunk that was undoubtedly the "small tree" from 1934. Anyway, I think that I have already, though only benchmarking for a month or so, moved on from the casual search to a more methodical examination before I am willing to say if I found or not a mark, and before I am willing to record that fact, especially to the NGS. Scott

My assertion is based on the fact that the tower was observed in 1934, two years prior to the current tower being built. This, in and of itself, would tell me that it was the old tower that was observed, don't you think? I don't think they would have made an error in the date of the first observation since 1934 matches the reporting date of many of the other local BMs, and when they set quite a number of new ones. Scott

Guess I could have replied to both of these points at the same time, but . . . GP0514 IS listed as ADJUSTED. When I made it to the spot that the unit told me to look, I was standing on this disk. It was about 5 feet or less from the end of the point, and there was no more than about 10' on either side of the narrow point right at the end. For the last 100 yds of the hike, the point was no more than 100' wide. It would seem to make no sense to have a mark here unless it was at the end of the point where it could be used to reference other points along the canyon rim. In other words, it just felt right. Now that's not to say that something might have happened, like the end of the point eroded and this might be a new mark. I'd just like to know where I can research this and, maybe, see the original notes or some further information on this station. The info provided by NGS is very minimal. I suspect that I need to contact USGS for the information I am looking for. Any help would be appreciated. Scott

Well, as posted originally, the description of the tower being built in 1936 was also confirmed on a seperate website that speciallizes in fire towers for AZ. Also, another benchmark in the area is described in 1920 as being under the tower. It is again described in 1934 as being under the tower. In 1953, it is described as being 100 feet north of the tower and speculates that the tower was torn down and a new one built. In 1956, the mark is again described as being north of the tower and also describes the new tower as having been built in 1936, now a third confirmation of this fact and within the NGS reports. The old tower, which is the mark for FQ0712, has been destroyed. I guess I should have read the other mark's description in greater detail. I now know that I should report the mark as destroyed, which is what I suspected anyway. Scott

OK, but where do I find the information about these marks? I searched NGS for Canyon in AZ and found only 7 or 8, none of which were in the correct county. Where can I search to find out about USGS marks that are NOT listed with NGS. I may be able to find this one and answer this mystery. Since the original mark, GP0514, was set in 1902, I can certainly imagine that it may be lost due to the rim of the canyon having broken off, and a new disk may have been set. How do I research this? Scott

OK, have a couple of new questions. Just spent a weekend at Grand Canyon and did a bunch of benchmarking. Here are my questions. First: The Grandview Fire Tower is a BM described in 1934. It has been reported as recovered on geocaching.com and has also been reported to NGS as recovered by a geocacher in 2005. Problem is, the tower now standing was built in 1936 (told to me by the fire watcher on duty and confirmed on a website discussing known towers in AZ). Even a nearby BM is reported as being 100 feet north of the new tower where the old tower once stood (1958). I know that this isn't really a problem because, since the station described, the old tower, no longer exsists, I should report both as destroyed. Just wanted your opinions. Second: While attempting recovery of a USGS disk described in 1902 with no additional recovery notes, I did locate a USGS disk right where the GPS said it should be. This was out at the end of a point. There are no additional listing in the area by NGS. The problem is that the BM is supposed to have a designation of BISSEL, but the only markings on the disk (besides USGS, elev, etc.) is CANYON. I am having trouble believing that the USGS would have placed more than one BM on this point (about 100 ft wide and only about 20 feet wide at the point where the mark was). I would be happy to report a recovery of the mark and a correction to the 1902 report, but is there somewhere that I can search the USGS to find out for sure that this is the mark I was looking for and not a second mark? Oh, yah. I'll have to update the To Reach since all the original report has is Take the Wagon Rd. Oh, and the location is described as about 7 mi NE of a non-existant hotel. Oh, one more thing. Two of the marks I looked for were not located. Each was last described in 1934. The descriptions were sufficient to make sure that I was in the correct area, but in both cases, it would appear to me that the mark may be buried. One location the mark was described as in a limestone ledge, but the rubble has slid down the hillside and covered the ledge. The other was in a low lying area and was described as being 2" above the ground, but I suspect that the mud and plant matter may also have obscured this one as well. I would suspect that the marks are still there, but I didn't have a metal detector to search. Should I report the no recovery to NGS for these, or just leave well enough alone? Thanks for your help in these matters.

Thank you. As for the coordinated being off. I realize that. My comment was kind of tongue in cheek. I was actually surprised to walk up on the listed coords and find a disk. This is actually harder then geocaching, but I think I will find it more rewarding in a way. I run with a club and have found it easy to load caches in the GPS without any hints and have been quite successfull. Can't do that with benchmarking. I think this will be a hobby that requires considerably more planning. Scott

I never got the city engineer to admit it (maybe he didn't know the full history), but the area looks to me like they did road and/or sidewalk work in the area about that time. I suppose I could measure it out and take a picture of the new sidewalk where the underground mark used to be, but somehow I doubt they would buy it. So the message I get is, the mark is the mark. Any other mark is a different mark. Got it. Will report correctly. Now if I could just get NGS to accept the new mark . . . I suppose they don't have a way for us to report new marks to them. Oh, well. Scott

This would seem to answer two questions I have, since I have recently started benchmarking. The first was about getting .gpx files for benchmarks. Nope, for now. The second was how often GC.com updates the data for the BMs, and it would seem that they don't. Would be nice if they did. Scott

I am new to benchmarking and have recently started submitting recovery notes to NGS. I am not sure how to recover this one, so I thought I would ask here. When approaching the BM, the coordinates on GC.com were surprisingly accurate, which made me think there was a problem. Te description from '54 indicates the mark to be underground. The mark I recovered is not only set at curb level, but is also stamped 1988. The number (it is a city of Long Beach mark) matches the description. Placed a call to the city engineer who told me the original mark was destroyed in 1987 and replaced, in a slightly new location. It is now about 10' south and 1.8' West of the original. I have the correct updated description and height (in NGVD 29) direct from the city engineer. So, how do I report it. Is this a destroyed BM and a new one, or is this a recovery with an update of a reset mark?