E_Page wrote:
"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."
I will post the outcome. It gets more interesting everyweek or so. You had it pegged earlier, with this,
"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."
When I read that I remembered the "State Indemnity Lands" had these sections listed. Still waiting for independent review. Looks like the contract surveyor is coming through next week with an FS surveyor.
I was sent an image of the hole or "pit" that had been dug for the 4x4 redwood. The account they provided, in addendum, was that they figured very closely where the center of the 6" redwood was and then measured the record distance back to the monument and dug about a foot west and found a rock jammed in the top of this hole with fluffy red dirt in it.
Recovery of GLO Section Line-Does Evidence Rule?
-
Rick_McCullough
- Posts: 17
- Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 7:59 am
-
Rick_McCullough
- Posts: 17
- Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 7:59 am
Dhanrion wrote:
"Perhaps I missed something in all of the postings, but I assume that the surveyor(s) took samples to verify that the 'fluffy red dirt' is in fact redwood post decay? Just asking as it looks to me the 'evidence' is now destroyed."
Yes I did hear that some very small pieces of more woody material was found and saved that would be analyzed if needed. I think the basic concencus was that after the pit for the post was found there was no need for further analysis.
Here is a pic of the naturally weathered edges adjacent to the intentionally removed faces of the stone where the WP was. I thought I had attached it earlier.
"Perhaps I missed something in all of the postings, but I assume that the surveyor(s) took samples to verify that the 'fluffy red dirt' is in fact redwood post decay? Just asking as it looks to me the 'evidence' is now destroyed."
Yes I did hear that some very small pieces of more woody material was found and saved that would be analyzed if needed. I think the basic concencus was that after the pit for the post was found there was no need for further analysis.
Here is a pic of the naturally weathered edges adjacent to the intentionally removed faces of the stone where the WP was. I thought I had attached it earlier.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-
Rick_McCullough
- Posts: 17
- Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 7:59 am
DWoolley wrote:
Mr. McCullough:
From the 1st
" In the type of work you have described, the surveyors first priority is to establish the location of the original monuments set over 130 years ago, this requires the surveyor to consider and exhaust all evidence available."
From the 2nd
"It was disturbing the other surveyors did not feel it was important or wasteful to meet and discuss the surveys without new evidence."
From the 3rd
"As mentioned before, the USFS has the Small Tracts Act, the BLM has the IBLA. The key to working out a solution is patience. This will not be resolved quickly.
It is understood this is your land, your home, it is an emotional matter. Act in good faith, be patient and these things get worked out."
Dave Woolley
Thank you Dave,
Relating to the quoted from the 1st.
That f"irst priority" item rules the recovery of the original section line because of the original monuments/acessories found that are verifying. From what I can tell on the sidelines, is that the "consideration" was duly "exhausted" in successful correction of the swapped corner descriptions, then continuing with the use of the position to find more evidence of monuments matching the 1873 notes.
Relating to the quoted from the 2nd.
From what I heard, the surveyors who did the recovery needed good reason to travel and look at either their own work, well documented, or look at the contract surveyors work again, not good reason. Ultimately the owners said they weren't paying for that which nixed it.
The owners can show the contract surveyors everything needed as easily as the surveyor can and he already wrote and extensive account with many photos, which was not properly addressed, of the search and discovery. Consider, the owners should not have to be paying for a proper survey when it should have been done that way in the first place in the recent contract resurvey.
The use of a mark that was described by no surveyor in any record was used to move the line 30 foot south and cut building pads in half where no options existed.
The owner will pay these surveyors to examine new evidence in support of that mark with no record, but nothing has been offered. I see they must draw the line somewhere. When their surveyor filed their map, it seems the real need for official involvement was over.
Consider also they already payed out about $70k in 2005 for a record of survey which did not find the originals, but did the proportioning so well that it worked out within 10 feet of the original line in the critical direction relating to setbacks and building pads.
Relating to the 3rd.
Perhaps unless review by a robed man is forthcoming, which I doubt, the small tract act will be used. No one can conceive that the situation would go that way because of all the evidence found. Comparing all of that to a mark not even described in the record puts the issue in proportion.
Your comments are much appreciated. Insightful projections that I will pass on. Thanks!
Mr. McCullough:
From the 1st
" In the type of work you have described, the surveyors first priority is to establish the location of the original monuments set over 130 years ago, this requires the surveyor to consider and exhaust all evidence available."
From the 2nd
"It was disturbing the other surveyors did not feel it was important or wasteful to meet and discuss the surveys without new evidence."
From the 3rd
"As mentioned before, the USFS has the Small Tracts Act, the BLM has the IBLA. The key to working out a solution is patience. This will not be resolved quickly.
It is understood this is your land, your home, it is an emotional matter. Act in good faith, be patient and these things get worked out."
Dave Woolley
Thank you Dave,
Relating to the quoted from the 1st.
That f"irst priority" item rules the recovery of the original section line because of the original monuments/acessories found that are verifying. From what I can tell on the sidelines, is that the "consideration" was duly "exhausted" in successful correction of the swapped corner descriptions, then continuing with the use of the position to find more evidence of monuments matching the 1873 notes.
Relating to the quoted from the 2nd.
From what I heard, the surveyors who did the recovery needed good reason to travel and look at either their own work, well documented, or look at the contract surveyors work again, not good reason. Ultimately the owners said they weren't paying for that which nixed it.
The owners can show the contract surveyors everything needed as easily as the surveyor can and he already wrote and extensive account with many photos, which was not properly addressed, of the search and discovery. Consider, the owners should not have to be paying for a proper survey when it should have been done that way in the first place in the recent contract resurvey.
The use of a mark that was described by no surveyor in any record was used to move the line 30 foot south and cut building pads in half where no options existed.
The owner will pay these surveyors to examine new evidence in support of that mark with no record, but nothing has been offered. I see they must draw the line somewhere. When their surveyor filed their map, it seems the real need for official involvement was over.
Consider also they already payed out about $70k in 2005 for a record of survey which did not find the originals, but did the proportioning so well that it worked out within 10 feet of the original line in the critical direction relating to setbacks and building pads.
Relating to the 3rd.
Perhaps unless review by a robed man is forthcoming, which I doubt, the small tract act will be used. No one can conceive that the situation would go that way because of all the evidence found. Comparing all of that to a mark not even described in the record puts the issue in proportion.
Your comments are much appreciated. Insightful projections that I will pass on. Thanks!