Recovery of GLO Section Line-Does Evidence Rule?

[Rick_McCullough]

Greetings Surveyors,

Hard to find land surveyors that are experienced in this recovery of ancient survey lines so to get some independent opinions I'm posting here. Well I guess 130 years ago is not truly ancient, but when I discovered what controlled my clients boundaries and what was happening, I was astounded.

I'm a builder/designer helping an owner (who is also a landlord) in some very steep land north of the coastal community I live in. The adjoiner is the Forest Service (FS). Some years back the neighbor had a survey done and all the owners thought they knew exactly where the north line of their parcels were, which is the east west line through the center of the section between 1/4 corners. The 1/4 corner was not found, and wasn't found in 5 surveys before that. They used some proportioning to locate it and used that position to determine the north line of the lots in the map they filed.

The FS hired a private surveyor on contract to survey a number of square miles. He claimed to have found an + mark, which all the neighbors say is not described in the old notes from 1873. The FS contract surveyor basically speculates that the 1873 surveyor who says in the notes, "marked rock as W.P.", actually set an + mark but didn't write it down. Now, here is where is gets hinky. The last survey is 1891 and that was a continuation from the "W.P" , but that surveyor says he found a "W.C."! And also does not say he found or set an + mark.

Based on all that, and that the + mark has no profile, no depth. Not a visible carving but rather a stain in some cracks that has lichen in it making a line, the contract surveyor sets the 1/4 corner and connects it across the section. This moves everyones north boundary 30+ feet south cutting through houses and building pads. His map was submitted for filing in the county.

Meanwhile previous local owners have thought for years that one topographic feature is actually where the 1/4 corner is. Because of the impacts of the line created from the newly set 1/4 by the FS surveyor. My client discovered that all of the local information of position was ignored when shared with the contract FS surveyor. Based on that, and that the surveyors who had filed the map some years back with proportioned corners had no ideas, my client hired another surveyor with experience in recovering the old survey lines.

Now, this is where it gets interesting. These new guys just pretended no one had come along before them and they were only looking for the original monuments, or evidence of them. Apparently they inspected all of the corners described in the 130 year old hand written notes and checked topography against the notes and found that the south 1/4 corner described in the notes of one of the sections had absolutely no resemblance to the topography of the actual 1/4 corner location. What was odd was that the topographic features of that south line were pretty accurate they said. Further, the south 1/4 corner was supposed to be a "redwood post in a mound of rock", and they said there was no suitable rock whatsoever in the area for building a "mound of rock:" They compared the east lines topography to the actual and found it badly erroneous. They also said there was no topographic calls for the 1/4 location on the east side and the description for that corner was "post in a mound" but the area was all hard stone suitable for building a mound.

After some checking around they found crew members of retired or deceased surveyors and learned that the 1873 surveyor kept 2 sets of field notes, one for monuments (which I guess is how he was paid) and another for topography. It seems the issue of the materials being present at the east 1/4, written as the south, not being present at the south, made the potentials for the wrong corner description getting transcribed in the final record for the south 1/4, a real possibility. So based on that, they speculated that the south 1/4 monument description was actually the east 1/4 description and they were, prompted to clear some brush and look.

Apparently sharp edged rocks with tool marks were found right away. This encouraged them and there was a tree described too, I guess it was called an "accessory to the monument" in their report. They felt there might be roots still. They dug where the south 1/4 notes said the tree was located and found redwood roots. Samples taken to a botanist were compared to other local redwoods and stated the roots found were redwood. These surveyors then said they were correcting the 130 year notes! They went northwards to look for the "W.P". and found a rock with a relatively fresh, intentionally broken face where someone had removed the face and "W.P.". All this stuff was almost due north of the south east corner just as the old notes said they were, in fact the line they used to find the W.P. was made by connecting the south east corner to the east 1/4 newly found and extending it to the area of the W.P.

This was all presented to the FS contract surveyor and he ignored it all, so they have filed a map and set the 1/4 corner. I happened to be along when they did that. One of them had learned out that redwoods had no tap root and had determined that the larger roots, about 3/4 inch diameter were pretty much always growing downwards from the trunk perimeter. He then approximated the center from that, then the face by using the tree diameter from the 1873 notes, remeasured the bearing and distance to the 1/4 from the tree, only about 15 feet, and dug down to find a soft zone, 6 inches in diameter about 16 inches deep. He was using a gardening trowel to loosen the bottom and pulling dark reddish soils out with his hands. Six inches away the trowel was useless for digging, The new monument was set in that hole.

So what is my client to do? There are now 2 lines. Which one is real and how does the owner treat it? What if they need to interact for permits with the FS and the FS only wants to recognize the line their surveyor did but that surveyor has no new evidence described in the old notes and rejects what the new surveyors found by correcting the notes and searching in the right place?

[SGROBER]

In San Bernardino County, T3N R6W CTR SECTION 28 was surveyed for the US Forestry per R.S. 84/57 . The original monument for the center quarter was found per R.S. 50/38. R.S. 84/57 did not like the position of the monument and set their own monument 57 feet south.

The County rejected the position of the monument set by R.S. 84/57 for the same reason why I rejected it and held the original monument. Property rights would have been affected. Also all the deeds including those for the State Highway right of way were based on the position of the original monument. There's a good chance that the County where your survey was done will reject the survey done for the Forestry for the same reason.

[E_Page]

It sounds like the surveyor your client hired did a very thorough and thoughtful job to find the original corner. Looking so closely to compare the variance between topo calls, corner descriptions, and ground conditions with respect to availability of monument materials speaks to a great deal of real world experience at this type of retracement.

If that point is verified as the original corner, then that is what the original property rights are attached to, not the proportioned corner, and not the FS contract surveyor's re-established corner based upon an (apparently) erroneously identified WP.

That is not to say that current property rights definitely have not attached to the proportioned corner, especially if it has existed for a very long time. There is not enough info here to really get into that, and is a question better addressed by your client's attorney with the assistance of his surveyor who is familiar with all the local evidence.

IMO, under most circumstances a reputable surveyor would consider evidence brought to one's attention even after having filed their map. Boundaries are retraced according to the best available evidence. One cannot determine the best evidence if one does not consider all of the evidence. Most of us are humble enough to realize that we are fallible and capable of missing pertinent evidence from time to time, and so while not happy that we may have missed it, are at least willing to consider what is brought to us, especially if it is brought by another knowledgable surveyor.

But then, there are also those whose egos are to fragile or big, or who are more concerned about who will be paying for their time to review and possibly correct their survey to bother considering newly discovered evidence.

There are few surveyors around who have the experience and knowledge of the work habits of some of the original GLO surveyors to have made the assumptions your surveyor did in order to find original evidence others have missed. Those I know of, having claimed to have found someting I missed, would cause me to drop whatever I was doing to revisit that project.

Since it is the federal govt (USFS) on the other side of the line, this issue can't really be put off to be dealt with at a later time. Maybe the next step should be to have the supervising surveyor for the USFS region, or whichever USFS surveyor was overseeing this contract, look over all the evidence your surveyor uncovered.

[D Ryan]

I'm not sure if the Small Tracts Act is still in play, but the Forest Service has been willing in several cases I've seen where a private survey and their own survey disagree, and they are willing to grant out their interest via the Small Tracts Act in the event of an encroachment or overlap. It's sort of a federal version of a lot line adjustment, but being the feds, they are not subject to state law.

To button it up for future notice, it's a good idea to monument the specific "encroached" area, file a survey, and even ask the County issue a Certificate of Compliance on the resultant lands (of the private ownership, of course) with some kind of merger language, so there's no unintended creation of a separate parcel possibly viewed later as a violation.

Dave Ryan
Humboldt County

[E_Page]

Not subject to State law? Are you certain of that? I think it would depend upon how the USFS came into possession of these lands. If these lands were once in non-federal ownership, then the boundaries would be subject to State law.

My understanding is that the USFS has authority to survey their boundaries only because those boundaries are no longer boundaries of unpatented federal land. Otherwise, they would need to be surveying those boundaries under the authority of the BLM. As it is, I believe they are surveying boundaries in accordance with CA law and using CA licensed surveyors because of that.

[E_Page]

Woodcutter,

Thanks for clarification on the Small Tracts Act. That makes sense to me that the feds would not be subject to our SMA.

Before that could be utilized, the affected landowners would first need to accept the USFS survey. The boundary identified by the USFS is open to challenge under CA law. If is to be challenged, it makes no sense to establish a claim under the federal STA until the result of that challenge is determined.

[Rick_McCullough]

SGROBER wrote: There's a good chance that the County where your survey was done will reject the survey done for the Forestry for the same reason.




Thank you SGROBER,

Your account of an alternate position being more preferable, for no stated reason, may very well apply here and the evidence, from our discussion amongst various consultants, appears to be dominant, just as in your case.

I would suspect that it might be the same with the county for other reasons that are also brought up. Again thanks for your input!

[Rick_McCullough]

E_Page wrote:
It sounds like the surveyor your client hired did a very thorough and thoughtful job to find the original corner. Looking so closely to compare the variance between topo calls, corner descriptions, and ground conditions with respect to availability of monument materials speaks to a great deal of real world experience at this type of retracement.

............
IMO, under most circumstances a reputable surveyor would consider evidence brought to one's attention even after having filed their map. Boundaries are retraced according to the best available evidence. One cannot determine the best evidence if one does not consider all of the evidence. Most of us are humble enough to realize that we are fallible and capable of missing pertinent evidence from time to time, and so while not happy that we may have missed it, are at least willing to consider what is brought to us, especially if it is brought by another knowledgable surveyor.

.........
Maybe the next step should be to have the supervising surveyor for the USFS region, or whichever USFS surveyor was overseeing this contract, look over all the evidence your surveyor uncovered.



Hey, I'll pass those words on to those that took the time to do it right. The rejection of it had them a little upset for a while, but when we saw what they found, and they set the corner then filed, . . well we thanked them and told them we would carry on knowing that they had done the very best possible because they found all of it!

This thing of evidence, and intentional removal of markings on rocks has an element of intrigue. I've attached 2 images of the rock face and a close up showing what I am quite sure are sledge hammer head facets at the impact points with a trifacial crush zone right below it to the underlying stone layer.

I had exactly the sense of what you say about fallibility in the couple of times I spoke with the surveyors recovering the line. In the beginning, bfore finding the redwood, they were not totally sure just with some sharp edged heavily tools rocks. They were trying to stop, and save the owner the expense by getting the FS surveyor to look at the evidence and take over with the recovery process. But they were ignored and kept finding more and their respect for their own fallibility, in this case, fell away. To bad that wasn't mutual.

Thanks for the advice. SGROBERS point and yours seem both very real possibilities or routes to more effort at resolution towards one line. Very glad you've been willing to read and comment. THX!

[Rick_McCullough]

D Ryan wrote:
I'm not sure if the Small Tracts Act is still in play, but the Forest Service has been willing in several cases I've seen where a private survey and their own survey disagree,

............ so there's no unintended creation of a separate parcel possibly viewed later as a violation.

Dave Ryan
Humboldt County


E_Page wrote:
Not subject to State law? Are you certain of that? I think it would depend upon how the USFS came into possession of these lands.

...........
I believe they are surveying boundaries in accordance with CA law and using CA licensed surveyors because of that.




Wow, hard to thank you people enough for your comments. Both issues have come up at meetings as neighbors considered options. The survey party chief mentioned that IF the FS survey was accepted, THEN the Small Tracts Act would be the only recourse. In which case D Ryan's point of being sure to not allow the creation of a parcel is very valuable to simplify compliance later.

But E_Page's point has me thinking about something an archivist records analyst said that put together the deeds and other documents, . . . I've just now looked up the copies. Indeed, both sections involved had "State Indemnity Selections" for the support of schools from 1899.

Meaning, I think, that the county surveyor may have more verifiable authority here than we might have thought.

Again, gratified for all the help in trying to see where this might go.

[Rick_McCullough]

Woodcutter wrote:
Yes Dave, the Small Tracts Act is still available for encroachment resolution within its specific guidelines.

Evan, the Small Tracts Act is Federal Statute providing for disposal of lands (by quitclaim deed according to the CFR) under the the control of the Department of Agriculture (such as USFS) to resolve encroachments and some other items.
And yes, those disposals of federal land are under federal law, state law has no authority. Not necessarily "exempt" but of the same effect as being exempt. The CA Subdivision Map Act has no authority over these land partitions.

The USFS surveyor or a private surveyor is specified by the Act to survey those boundaries affected. Those surveys are under the authority of the CA LS Act.

For a complete reading of the law, see Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Chapter II, Part 254.

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/wais ... 54_09.html

Rick, I think the best advice I can give is for you to talk to the USFS land surveyor in charge of that area. The nearest USFS office should be able to direct you. They are pretty knowledgeable bunch and will work to resolve the issue. Unfortunately, they are spread pretty thin with limited budgets. From the sounds of things, the Forest Lands Surveyor is already involved and aware of the situation, at least from his contractor's perspective. Certainly would be best to get his take on the discrepancies at this point in time.




Excellent, it seems that your info could really be the clear complete path if the County is not the authourity here that it may be because of that "indemnity list" status. And that cite may save these folks a lot of time in their application for the Small Tracts Act. Much appreciated!

[Rick_McCullough]

E_Page wrote:
Woodcutter,

Thanks for clarification on the Small Tracts Act. That makes sense to me that the feds would not be subject to our SMA.

Before that could be utilized, the affected landowners would first need to accept the USFS survey. The boundary identified by the USFS is open to challenge under CA law. If is to be challenged, it makes no sense to establish a claim under the federal STA until the result of that challenge is determined.


E_Page, we are indebted for making this potential clear, which because of the "state idemnity list" I feel the FS contract survey is very likely to be open to challenge. I think this was the point that records analyst made, which did not hit home at the time.

I wish to thank the CLSA for making this forum available and those contributing surveyors for their input. The integrity of getting these things done properly, or at least the scope of what be entailed, really shines here!

[RAM]

I did't know a County could accept or reject a survey, The County may check to see that a map complies with the LS ACT, the Co Surveyor may note if they do not agree with the boundary solution. Lots of info here to digest, but having found orginal evidence overlooked by others in the past, It could be possible, I hope it either case it was not a decision made lightly.

[Rick_McCullough]

SteveGardner wrote:
I have found that the USFS is more than willing to discuss boundary issues with their adjoiners. They just hire private surveyors to delineate their boundaries like any other landowner and if sufficient evidence is brought to their attention that a particular survey is questionable, they take it seriously. I recently pointed out a potentially huge discrepancy in one of the surveys they had done and they agreed it was probably wrong and offered to pay half the cost of having me retrace the lines in question but my client, the private property owner didn't have the resources to fund the other half, so it never got resolved. The problem I foresaw with that scenario was that I, as a private surveyor, could file my own survey (assuming that I found enough evidence to dispute the previous one with any certainty) but it would still not have any more effect on title than the previous one.

The USFS representative that I was dealing with told me the USFS had no means of entering into a boundary agreement to acknowledge one survey or the other. This was a case of a boundary between patented mining claims (surveyed under BLM jurisdiction) and the parts of sections that were left after those patents were cut out. There had been BLM resurveys of these boundaries even before the USFS surveys and I tried to get the BLM interested in checking out the validity of those resurveys but they said that even though the evidence I presented showed that their surveys were questionable, they could only get involved at the request of the USFS since there was really no BLM land involved anymore.




This is particularly useful right now SteveGardner. Thoughtful of you communicate some sense of policy you've learned. Between what E_Page E_Page has shared about the county surveyor, and what you put forth, there is potential for significant, relevant objective opinion that can influence the FS surveyor towards using evidence.
The policy you suggest is about what I had speculated to the effected owners so they are fairly prepared already to go forward with exactly you suggest. My opinion of the legal and political situation is at least verified relating to that aspect THX!:).

The contract surveyor wanted to meet with new surveyors who did the recovery of the monuments and line with several others in tow, but we said no because the contract surveyor had produced nothing new in support of what was already filed. Those guys did their job with the line recovery and very well. With something new to evaluate, yes, but with none, seems a waste.

One of the most curious things is that this + mark, not of record, cannot even be seen to have any depth. I'll attach an image of it. Some people see nothing.

[Rick_McCullough]

RAM wrote:
I did't know a County could accept or reject a survey, The County may check to see that a map complies with the LS ACT, the Co Surveyor may note if they do not agree with the boundary solution. Lots of info here to digest, but having found orginal evidence overlooked by others in the past, It could be possible, I hope it either case it was not a decision made lightly.




We had the same discussion some weeks back with the party chief, and his point was that if procedure was not followed, and evidence is part of that, the county surveyor could reject on the grounds, that the map could clearly not stand legally in court on procedure. He said it was probably rare where the issue would be that clearly delineated, (overlooked may qualify as you point out) but the County has an obligation to maintain a legal standard for everything it approves and the County counsel can be consulted for a legal opinion relating to precedent to determine IF the county incurs liability under case law by rejecting, and if that is not present, then okay, make a better record.

Yea, the decision to pick up the ball and run with it was hard for those guys because they really did not want to oppose, they wanted to share the process and get the FS surveyor involved with the original finds. Not at all a decision made lightly. In order for the owner to see any product or protection of interest from the work, they had to file, and did.

I warned the owners rather loudly nearly a year back that they should immediately start a survey with the crew that eventually did the work when I learned of the + being found and used. I explained to them that it was courtesy thing to the contract surveyor who gets perhaps emotionally invested as well as economically for owners in the + (pic attached to the last message), so changing things is that much less welcome later, rather than sooner. Working later takes more work to convince. THX!

[Rick_McCullough]

Woodcutter wrote:
Rick,
A county surveyor cannot reject a record of survey. He can note his disagreement on the map, but he is specifically prohibited from rejecting it.



I appreciate the concrete knowledge on that. Nice to know there is a specific prohibition.
I had suspected so because of copius notes seen in the past not accepting aspects of a map, but wondered if a major failing in fundmental procedure, as the party chief thought might dominate, would prevent a record that could not be made to meet a standard or fouled lines so badly that legal challenges were certain. Again, thanks!

[Rick_McCullough]

Dhanrion wrote:
In my 25+ years of experience, I have generally found BLM/USFS surveyors to be far more cooperative in providing/evaluating survey information, ie evidence, notes, plats, etc than private surveyors. And there are more VERY good private and federal surveyors than not.




That is good to know. Seems like the first order of review in this case. Hopefully we get that review. Then the county surveyor applies a note if the final recordation still does not show resolution of the matter.

[E_Page]

Rick,

Your early post had me evaluating your client's surveyor as very knowledgable and experienced in retracing the old GLO surveyors, but some of your later comments about what "the party chief" said regarding the authority of the County Surveyor has me wondering if this party chief is a licensed surveyor.

As RAM and Woodcutter have already pointed out, Neither the County Surveyor, nor any other official at the county or state level has any authority to prevent a survey from being filed. The extent of the County Surveyor's authority in this regard is that he may add a note of disagreement on the face of the map. Even then, the surveyor who prepared the map has the opportunity to respond to that note prior to filing with the County Recorder.

When I said that the USFS survey could be open to challenge, I meant that it could be challenegd in the State courts under CA law. I in no way meant to imply that you could exhort or compel the County Surveyor to block its filing.

My questions to you at this point are whether or not your surveyor is licensed, and are the party chief, opining that the CS could reject a survey, and the licensed surveyor responsible for your client's survey the same person?

I know that there are a few foresters out there who are more knowledgable than many surveyors with regard to the GLO surveys, but also notably lacking in other knowledge required to become a PLS. I personally know one who is one of the premier expert witneses in the state of CA with respect to GLO retracemnt, but he has always worked with a licenced surveyor when boundaries were at question. If your guy is not a licensed surveyor, your first step is to find one who is expert at GLO retracement and have him review your guy's findings (and be ready and willing for the surveyor to do field work of his own).

[E_Page]

After looking at the photos, I can see where the other surveyor saw a +. It's faint, but visible just into the upper left portion of the photo. It's very difficult to tell from a photo. It may be an old manmade mark or a naturally occurring one. No one, on the basis of the photo alone could credibly refute or support a claim either way.

Your first set of photos, purporting to be a defaced rock, get pretty much the same qualifier out of me.

I see what appears to be a crush from a recent hammer blow near the top of what appears to be a missing roughly 2' wide by 3' high portion of the rock face. But I also see that the rock surface in this area exhibits a similar amount of weathering and lichn growth as the other rock around it. That will only happen after several years of exposure. Additionally, with the possible exception of a few inches here and there, the edges of this apparenlt broken away portion are rounded and discolored rather than sharp and bright as one would expect of a recently broken rock edge. The sedimentary (dirt) accumulation at the bottom of this broken face also speaks to having been in this condition for several years.

The photos actually raise more questions than they seem to clear up for me.


I would also like to visit an earlier comment you made:
"The contract surveyor wanted to meet with new surveyors who did the recovery of the monuments and line with several others in tow, but we said no because the contract surveyor had produced nothing new in support of what was already filed. Those guys did their job with the line recovery and very well. With something new to evaluate, yes, but with none, seems a waste."

If I am not mistaken, it is you and your surveyors who have something new to share and for th other surveyor to consider and therefore, the burden to share, not the USFS contract surveyor. If the other surveyor is showing a willingness to meet in good faith to discuss what your surveyors found, you should meet with him.

IMO, when one side refuses to meet with the other for the purpose of discussing the evidence considered in the surveys, while at the same time claiming that the other surveyor refuses to cooperate, they are lacking credibility in that claim.

My advice would be to agree to meet for the purposes of the surveyors discussing the evidence and its relative significance, and not to attempt to pre-litigate the matter. If either side does attempt to pre-litigate, the clients and attorneys are pushing their respective surveyor to dig in his heels regardless of the validity of evidence used. That may be productive as far as advancing toward litigation, and the attorneys may want to use it as a form of unofficial discovery, but it is not helpful in a good faith attempt to locate the corners and boundaries in the same locations as originally established. Allow your surveyor to attend with the goal of re-establishing the corners and boundaries in their true original positions according to th best available evidence. Hopefully, the USFS contract surveyor would be doing the same. In fact, it is probably best if ONLY the surveyors meet and the clients and attorneys stay home for that one. It is most often the case that at this point, the client has nothing additional to offer except emotion, and the attorneys interests may be simply for attaining the best possible outcome for his client, which may run counter to a search for the truth.

If it appears the other side is there simply for pre-litigating, that is they are arguing for their results without giving any consideration to what your surveyor has found, then you or your surveyor can end the meeting in the knowledge that you and your surveyor attempted to share and discuss evidence, and with the credibility of not having refused such meeting.

Often when such a meeting is refused on the advice of either the surveyor or the attorney, it is because one or both of them lack confidence in their evidence, the results of their survey, or both. You may want to consider that.

[SGROBER]

After reading my response and the subsequent responses by others, I owe everyone on this thread, especially Mr. Cullough an apology. It was never my intention to mislead anyone. However, poor wording on my part resulted in some misunderstandings. The Surveyor contracted by the US Forestry stated, with a thorough explaination on his Record of Survey, why he decided to set his monument for the Center Quarter Corner at a different location. The County Surveyor on the same Record of Survey (RS 84/57) stated why he rejected that location and held that the location recognized by the previous Record of Survey (RS 50/38) was where the Center Quarter has always been.
I always learn something when I go to this site, even if it's from my own mistakes. When it comes to Land Surveying whether one is in the field or the office or on a forum, never take short cuts.

[RAM]

Just a few more thoughts,

There is no US Forestry Service, it is the US Forest Service under the Dept of Agriculture, (sorry pet peeve due to my father working for the USFS for 28 years)

Topo call and prop. are last resorts, the Manual is specific that topo calls are not reliable and prop. is a last resort.

Record of Survey is the surveyors opinion, sometimes more than one solution that may or may not be valid. The final boundary has to be decide by someone wearing a black robe. Not all R/S are contested as the solution is straight forward.

Look at the chain of title, who came first, if federal ownership with patents, the remainding Gov't land is Senior.

A lot of what if's. Hopefully someone at the USFS can meet with you and address your concerns.

[Rick_McCullough]

E_Page wrote:
Rick,

Your early post had me evaluating your client's surveyor as very knowledgable and experienced in retracing the old GLO surveyors, but some of your later comments about what "the party chief" said regarding the authority of the County Surveyor has me wondering if this party chief is a licensed surveyor.

As RAM and Woodcutter have already pointed out, Neither the County Surveyor, nor any other official at the county or state level has any authority to prevent a survey from being filed.




Yes, you are correct. I checked with the owner earlier this evening and I heard it wrong or only part of it. There are two licenses working together. One specializes in gps and the other in getting good records and interpreting them. Pretty important part and he knows the old surveys, he's chief.
What the owner recalled was that the USFS might have standards that reject a map within the contract requirements when county surveyors notes indicate more than a certain level of contradiction with procedures.
Just learning about this side of land development, permit procedures are my only experience besides being on the sidelines during construction staking for setbacks etc.

[Rick_McCullough]

E_Page wrote:
"After looking at the photos, I can see where the other surveyor saw a +. It's faint, but visible just into the upper left portion of the photo. It's very difficult to tell from a photo. It may be an old manmade mark or a naturally occurring one. No one, on the basis of the photo alone could credibly refute or support a claim either way.

Your first set of photos, purporting to be a defaced rock, get pretty much the same qualifier out of me.

I see what appears to be a crush from a recent hammer blow near the top of what appears to be a missing roughly 2' wide by 3' high portion of the rock face. But I also see that the rock surface in this area exhibits a similar amount of weathering and lichn growth as the other rock around it. That will only happen after several years of exposure. Additionally, with the possible exception of a few inches here and there, the edges of this apparenlt broken away portion are rounded and discolored rather than sharp and bright as one would expect of a recently broken rock edge. The sedimentary (dirt) accumulation at the bottom of this broken face also speaks to having been in this condition for several years.

The photos actually raise more questions than they seem to clear up for me."





They do for me too. We are getting an archeologist to look at it who specializes in stone tools. The opposite side of the flakey crust had a natural edge heavily weathered. I'll attach a pic of it for comparision. The surveyors thought about 15 years maximum for the break and impact points.





E_Page wrote:
I would also like to visit an earlier comment you made:
"The contract surveyor wanted to meet with new surveyors who did the recovery of the monuments and line with several others in tow, but we said no because the contract surveyor had produced nothing new in support of what was already filed. Those guys did their job with the line recovery and very well. With something new to evaluate, yes, but with none, seems a waste."

If I am not mistaken, it is you and your surveyors who have something new to share and for the other surveyor to consider and therefore, the burden to share, not the USFS contract surveyor. If the other surveyor is showing a willingness to meet in good faith to discuss what your surveyors found, you should meet with him.

IMO, when one side refuses to meet with the other for the purpose of discussing the evidence considered in the surveys, while at the same time claiming that the other surveyor refuses to cooperate, they are lacking credibility in that claim."



We were willing to walk the contract surveyor through all the finds made, no problem.
The point is that the contract surveyor had nothing new and a full accounting with photos and perhaps ten pages of the process and methods had been provided to him and absolutely no comments regarding the justification our surveyors had used for correcting the old notes and actually making them work and finding more stuff had come back. Only rejection with no good reason.
About the time he stated in writing as a response, which was forwarded to us by the surveyors making this recovery, that there were no redwoods in our area 130 years ago, we realized that he had not read the general description in the notes of 1873 stating an entire canyon system nearby was filled with them and they were good for fence posts.
They sent the roots to a botanist who stated unequivocally that surveyors in the late 1800's knew rocks and trees better than surveyors today did.

There was a statement in there too that the party chief had remarked upon and he called it "circular reasoning".
The 1873 survey left a WP north of the east of the 1/4 corner, which was found north (about 1/4 degree off I think) from the SE section corner, the 1891 survey finds a WC(?) and runs north and sets the NE corner continuing the earlier survey. The NE corner is about 2 degrees off of north from the south east corner, and the + happens to be on the line. The contract surveyor said the logic that the + was on the line was not supported because the 1891 resurvey does not describe going from the SE corner but does describe north from the WC, not an +.

Based on these kinds of things, and the fact that there was nothing new that the contract surveyor had provided to reinforce the +, we decided an objective, independent review of both surveyors work was the only real way to proceed because the work finding record monuments was not getting reasonably considered in any shape or form.

We are still hoping for the meeting structured something as you suggest, which seems very straight forward and absolutely proper, but the group opinion was that such a meeting was really not possible with this surveyor working for the FS. Maybe after independent review by a third party with expertise in these ancient retracements.

I will copy and paste the process you describe and suggest we get it going that direction if possible. Getting it started that way, some how, some way, seems to be the problem. Thanks!

[Rick_McCullough]

SGROBER wrote:
"After reading my response and the subsequent responses by others, I owe everyone on this thread, especially Mr. Cullough an apology. It was never my intention to mislead anyone. However, poor wording on my part resulted in some misunderstandings. The Surveyor contracted by the US Forestry stated, with a thorough explaination on his Record of Survey, why he decided to set his monument for the Center Quarter Corner at a different location. The County Surveyor on the same Record of Survey (RS 84/57) stated why he rejected that location and held that the location recognized by the previous Record of Survey (RS 50/38) was where the Center Quarter has always been.
I always learn something when I go to this site, even if it's from my own mistakes. When it comes to Land Surveying whether one is in the field or the office or on a forum, never take short cuts."


The complexity of trying to understand the offical duties and capacities, and jurisdictions interacting are daunting. If you feel you must apologize, by all means it is accepted. Mostly my fault in the inexperience, but passionate effort to understand this semi mysterior process of you guys finding stuff in the mountains over 100 years old and knowing for sure, with evidence that is pretty dynamic, that indeed the original monuments are found, and then trying to get it recognized by authority.

Always impressed to by a surveyor who can easily admit mistakes . . . of any kind. The party chief said, "The only surveyor who makes no mistakes is the one not working" and, "Surveyors invented mis stakes". But E_Page is keeping us straightened out as to the real (im) possibilities. Thanks everyone!

[Rick_McCullough]

RAM wrote:
"Just a few more thoughts,

There is no US Forestry Service, it is the US Forest Service under the Dept of Agriculture, (sorry pet peeve due to my father working for the USFS for 28 years)

Topo call and prop. are last resorts, the Manual is specific that topo calls are not reliable and prop. is a last resort.

Record of Survey is the surveyors opinion, sometimes more than one solution that may or may not be valid. The final boundary has to be decide by someone wearing a black robe. Not all R/S are contested as the solution is straight forward.

Look at the chain of title, who came first, if federal ownership with patents, the remainding Gov't land is Senior.

A lot of what if's. Hopefully someone at the USFS can meet with you and address your concerns."




Hmmmm, that chain of title thing with the state "indemity land" status fits in here with the points made, and seems to make both the private and the public with the same status under state ownership orginally. Later the USDA, (good point) ended up as owner. Thanks! We'll see what happens.

[E_Page]

If these lands had been listed to the State, and then the feds later reacquired some of it, the federal land no longer enjoys the status of seniority as it would if it had remained unpatented.

Still sounds like an interesting case, Rick. I'd like to see how it turns out.