Rivers v Lozeau
So let me get this straight.
* BLM takes the missing 1948 Moorhead W 1/4 corner when there is an existing mark 70 ft north where its supposed to be
* 1986 survey takes the now reestablished 1948 Moorhead W 1/4 corner to do a independent resurvey of the interior.
*1986 survey rejects an existing 1965 Moorehead C 1/4 corner and all the other Moorehead interior corners
[sarcasm]makes sense to me....[/sarcasm]
Rivers v Lozeau
> So let me get this straight.
>
> * BLM takes the missing 1948 Moorhead W 1/4 corner when there is an existing mark 70 ft north where its supposed to be
> * 1986 survey takes the now reestablished 1948 Moorhead W 1/4 corner to do a independent resurvey of the interior.
> *1986 survey rejects an existing 1965 Moorehead C 1/4 corner and all the other Moorehead interior corners
>
> [sarcasm]makes sense to me....[/sarcasm]
so let me get this straight. 1948 Moorhead survey finds original corner, takes new BTs then for some unknown reason he sets a mathmatical exact mid point between the section corners.
Then, in 1965 Moorhead uses the mathmatical midpoint corner (instead of the original glo position he had discovered in '48) to stub a c-1/4 @ 40 chs.
Sounds like Moorhead was the one who did the moving.
Rivers v Lozeau
so let me get this straight. 1948 Moorhead survey finds original corner, takes new BTs then for some unknown reason he sets a mathmatical exact mid point between the section corners.
Then, in 1965 Moorhead uses the mathmatical midpoint corner (instead of the original glo position he had discovered in '48) to stub a c-1/4 @ 40 chs.
Sounds like Moorhead was the one who did the moving.
Do we know if any of this is factual?
Is clearcut one of the players?
Rivers v Lozeau
I'm unclear by your statements as to whether you've actually reviewed the 1948 and 1965 Moorhead survey.
Have you, and if so can you provide a copy?
thanks in advance.
Resurvey?
One of the major problems I am having with the discussion of this case is the repeated definition of the 1982 BLM survey as a resurvey.
From the Manual, Chapter 6:
A resurvey is a reconstruction of land boundaries and subdivisions accomplished by rerunning re- marking the lines represented in the field-note record or on the plat of a previous official survey. The field-note record of the resurvey includes a description of the technical manner in which the resurvey was made, full reference to recovered evidence of the previous survey or surveys, and a complete description of the work performed and monuments established. The resurvey, like an original survey, is subject to approval of the directing authority.
The "previous official survey" was apparently completed in 1835 and the plat accepted by the surveyor general as "official" in 1837. I haven't been able to locate the DS's field notes but the plat is available and it's loud and clear. There are not only no protracted quarter lines, there are no terminal points from which to protract them. The plat indicates that no quarter posts were set in the official survey.
I'm puzzled of course as to how the BLM can "resurvey" points which they never officially set. Or can someone provide a record of the GLO or BLM setting the quarter posts prior to 1982 "resurvey"?
Rivers v Lozeau
> I'm unclear by your statements as to whether you've actually reviewed the 1948 and 1965 Moorhead survey.
>
> Have you, and if so can you provide a copy?
>
> thanks in advance.
I have only the clear and unambiguos statements and records of those who have reviewed the '48 & ''65 records. I tend to place the decisions and statements made by those who have reviewed all of the evidence above the speculations of those who have not.
Rivers v Lozeau
Then you must know that the BLM surveyor accepted, apparently without any existing evidence, a position that the surveyor who supposedly "proved" the W1/4 corner rejected ... actually, rejected at least twice, to be clear ...
I still don't know what Moorhead found in 1948 ... all I know is that he wasn't impressed enough with it to rely on it, and in fact, continued on with his surveys as if he considered the corner "lost". Did your sources disclose this to you? It might change my opinion.
Rivers v Lozeau
I don't buy that Moorhead found the original corner in 48 based on the difference in the resurvey notes and the original notes. The original notes have the pond as a natural monument at .5 ch north of the 40 post. The resurvey has the pond as a natural monument 1.5 ch north of the 48 corner.
Rivers v Lozeau
There is an Easement Deed into Lozeau on file at the County Clerk of Court's office.
There is a survey map attached to it, Book 1386, Page 1883.
The map is done by Whitt H. Britt dated in 1986.
The purpose of the survey was to describe an access easement from the west line of the 40 in question to the county road (132') because there is a strip of Forest Service land between the private parcels and the county road.
Britt only shows the west line of the 40. The note on the north: "FD 2-1/2" ALUM. CORNER NW COR. SE 1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF SECTION 15-14-24." The note on the south: "FD 5x5 C.M. SW COR. SE 1/4 OF SW 1/4 SEC 15-14-24." So he found both ends of the line. He gives the length of the line as 1294.03'. The Deeds in the area add up to 1323.25'.
When I find a monument I make a diagram of the stamping on the map but Mr. Britt doesn't do that so we don't really know who set the aluminum monument. Mr. Britt states he found it.
Just for fun I calc'd up the field notes. The BLM found and accepted County Surveyor concrete mon.s at all four section corners and found and accepted County Surveyor concrete mon.s at the north, south and east quarter section corner which they report in the Field Notes as being at the perfect single proportion position.
At the west quarter section corner they proportion some Moorhead notes (???) while disregarding the Moorhead monument (???). Strange but maybe there is a good reason for it that isn't apparent from the notes. The disregarded monument is on-line between the section corners and within 2 links of the single proportion position.
I subdivided the section using both west quarter section corners. I will post the picture.
If Moorhead stubbed the center quarter then he did an extremely good job of it because the calculated distances are very close to those I find in the Deeds and the difference between the two 1/16th lines.
The BLM's west quarter section corner is substantially off line to the west and that pulls the west line of the 40 in question westerly 12'. The north-south centerline of section doesn't change.
Rivers v Lozeau
The filled in squares represent the 1/16th corners calculated from the found nail/tag at the nearly perfect single proportioned west quarter. The circular symbols represent the 1/16th corners calculated from the west quarter established by BLM from Moorhead field notes. There are two areas, the N/T area is using the nail and tag...
Rivers v Lozeau
The length of the south line of the north 400' was reported to be 1327.04' in one of the Deed descriptions (and the opinion too).
Note: to be perfectly clear...the above diagram is theoretical based on the BLM notes for Section 15; it will vary from reality.
linebender
Britt surveyed in 1986 and found an "alum corner." There is no indication who set it.
Rivers v Lozeau
See explanation in post above:
Note: to be perfectly clear...the above diagram is theoretical based on the BLM notes for Section 15; it will vary from reality.
Rivers v Lozeau
> Then you must know that the BLM surveyor accepted, apparently without any existing evidence, a position that the surveyor who supposedly "proved" the W1/4 corner rejected ... actually, rejected at least twice, to be clear ...
>
> I still don't know what Moorhead found in 1948 ... all I know is that he wasn't impressed enough with it to rely on it, and in fact, continued on with his surveys as if he considered the corner "lost". Did your sources disclose this to you? It might change my opinion.
I've never claimed sources other than what is in the record and what is written of the case analysis by a testifying witness from the case.
Many have discounted the BLM use of what they deem record evidence. I am not so quick to discount their decision as others are.
I also find the BLM fieldnotes contain compelling evidence that the '48 Moorhead survey did identify the original corner. Why else would he have taken 2 new bearing trees? Why would he call out a "proven corner". I can understand the BLM not being able to discount what certainly appears to be a call to the original monument.
As far as Moorhead not using the "proven corner" position, perhaps he or his successor crews simply made a mistake in '65. Or perhaps, he/they found the "proven corner monument and '48 BTs were missing in '65 and chose to use the proportioned point? It is very interesting, but the apparent call to the original in '48 is evidence. Evidence that is hard to ignore.
Rivers v Lozeau
>....
> At the west quarter section corner they proportion some Moorhead notes (???) while disregarding the Moorhead monument (???). Strange but maybe there is a good reason for it that isn't apparent from the notes. The disregarded monument is on-line between the section corners and within 2 links of the single proportion position.
>
> ...
>
> If Moorhead stubbed the center quarter then he did an extremely good job of it because the calculated distances are very close to those I find in the Deeds and the difference between the two 1/16th lines.
>...
Thanks Dave for the math.
Makes me wonder why "Clark on Surveying" says Moorhead stubbed in the C-1/4. My guess is that Moorhead's '65 survey doesn't show the whole breakdown, only a tie. Even though he apparently did tie to all 1/4's.
As for the BLM, I'm still chewing on their field note discussion of the evidence they used, mainly the '48 survey plat which called for what they termed "proven corner" plus Moorhead felt compelled to take 2 new BTs for said "proven corner".
One thing's for sure, this is good case study of why one should provide ample narration on one's surveys regarding what was found and what the controlling evidence is. If Moorhead had done this on the '65 survey, then perhaps we wouldn't be discussing this case.
Anyways, bottom line, the '48 survey appears to show location of a found original glo corner according to the '82 BLM notes. It appears that both the BLM and the court felt that Moorhead truly found the original corner in '48 and chose not to use that evidence in the '65 breakdown of the section. I would very much enjoy seeing the trial court transcripts and exhibits. Without such, I am going to give the benefit of the doubt to those who had performed the investigations.
Rivers v Lozeau
> I don't buy that Moorhead found the original corner in 48 based on the difference in the resurvey notes and the original notes. The original notes have the pond as a natural monument at .5 ch north of the 40 post. The resurvey has the pond as a natural monument 1.5 ch north of the 48 corner.
A surveyor's statement on a plat declaring location of found evidence of original corner is firm proof of the original location. Disagreement of calls to topo is rarely considered sufficient evidence to disregard superior evidence.
Regardless, the '48 Moorhead survey appears to indicate location of an original GLO monument and the '65 Moorhead breakdown appears to disregard that evidence.
Moorheads lack of comprehensive narrative explaining his evidence and methods were obviously damaging to his credibility as far as controlling elements used in the eyes of the BLM and the court. His call to what appears to be an original corner.
I don't know why Moorhead chose to disregard the '48 position of the "proven corner". I cannot help but wonder if the '48 "proven corner" was not really the original monument, then why did Moorhead take 2 new bearing trees to it?
From the BLM's account of the Moorhead records, it does appear that Moorhead found the original, then chose to ignore it and use a proportioned position instead during his later section breakdown. To make matters worse for Moorhead's credibility, he apparantly did not depict a full section breakdown or why he disregarded the '48 "proven corner" on his '65 map. Instead he showed what Robillard described as a "stubbed out" c-1/4. I'm guessing he only showed a tie instead of the full breakdown method on his '65 map.
Certainly minimal effort in map creation was the norm by many surveyors in the era Moorhead produced these 2 maps. Unfortunately, it led to the appearance that he created a pincusion and then disregarded the true corner in lieu of a mathmatical position.
Perhaps that is not the case, but his maps show that.
I can understand that what is on the ground controls arguement. However, Moorheads '48 claim of position of the original was too strong of evidence to disregard obviously.
Lesson learned: Prepare complete survey plats with full documenting narratives of evidence found and control used.
Ya'll got this case overturned yet?
Rivers v Lozeau
You are making assumptions. With regards to the W 1/4 corner, The BLM referenced a page in Moorhead's field book, not a plat. Do you know for a fact that a plat was ever made by Moorhead, signed and sealed, that referenced this "proven corner"? Or is it all based on something an unlicensed party chief wrote in a field book? It seems to me that a plausible explanation is that Moorhead's crew found something that they called the "proven" corner, and noted it. Moorhead reviewed their work, noted the multitude of discrepancies that we've noted, and rejected their "proven" corner, considered it "lost", and ordered them to set the monument at the mid-point.
That seems to be consistent with my understanding of the record. How else can it explained that Moorhead ignored his own "proven" corner, unless it was a decision on his part, after looking at the big picture, that is lacked credibility?
Rivers v Lozeau
As for the BLM, I'm still chewing on their field note discussion of the evidence they used, mainly the '48 survey plat which called for what they termed "proven corner" plus Moorhead felt compelled to take 2 new BTs for said "proven corner".
I've been chewing on that for about 10 years it seems. This is my last post on this for this round. I don't mean to offend anyone for not jumping to the same conclusions I have re. this case. It's always best to decide or yourself and I have an opinion based on what I know. It's always a good discussion and we always end up at the W 1/4 corner. Too bad the court didn't IMO. They didn't look any further than the 86 survey as being the original line but the rest of us that have consider that line to be questionable at best.
So here is my biggest problem at the W 1/4 Corner. The resurvey corner is 109 links south of the raod per the notes at A. The corner established in the 1948 survey for reasons unknown is N 30^ E 139 link at B. B kind of looks like it could possibly be a road PI and a qrt cor. The road establishment records should be examined. The original notes offset around a pond 33 ft north of the corner and came back in 165 ft north of that. If you plug that data into the resurvey corner (red shape) you come back in at the middle of the pond. If you plug the offset data into the "reasons unknown" corner it fits reasonably well. The resurvey line enters the pond 99 ft north of the resurvey corner and comes out 264 ft. north of that. When you look at this and all the other evidence I have seen the resurvey corner looks out of place. The only new information I learned of this round was the Moorhead C 1/4 corner.
There is a BLM subdivision plat in section 16 to the west that uses the resurvey corner of course. Just reviewing some of the deeds to the west it appears the resurvey has thrown the owners to the west into quit claim deed chaos.
Given all the doubt re the W 1/4 corner it's troubling that the incorrect location crowd uses this case as a banner waving case for protracted lines controlling. 
Rivers v Lozeau
I would believe that you are right in your assumptions on how this "proven corner" was noted. It is the exact reason why BLM has the policy of destroying the field books that were noted in by the field assistants. Those notations are of course reviewed by the land surveyor and decisions made as to what constitutes the corner monument. Some notations are dismissed as not being authentic corner evidence. Obviously, the field assistant note keeper(s) are encouraged to write down what they see and the land surveyor will make the decision on what to accept. After the land surveyor's official field notes are approved, the field assistant's field books are destroyed.
Clearcut does seem to know more about this case than is publicly known and I would wonder why?
The position of the W 1/4 corner that BLM chose, just does not make sense.
Keith
