FIELD EXAMINATION AND RECORD: For consistency, the South 1/4 of section 28 was examined in the notes and on. Page 1 of 13

Transcription

1 September 2010 Retracements of 1873 GLO survey of South and East lines of Section 28, T5N-R28W, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian Records analysis and field search. RECORD OVERVIEW: Legible copies of W.H. Norway's field notes commencing November 14th 1873 were obtained and the notes of the survey of the South and East lines of section 28 were examined. Norway states that the East 1/4 of section 28 was set with a redwood post in a mound. It was noted that the East line of section 28 has a topographic call to the West Fork of San Jose Creek (36.50ch) that is over 1,000 feet long in error horizontally and over 500 feet vertical to the actual 1/4 location. Chaining up the average 1:1 slope on the section line is not practicable if not impossible. Triangulation and/or offset were the most feasible methods likely employed in the original survey. SEE PANEL 1 & PANEL 2 There are no other topographic calls on the East section line to mention until a "W.P.", later identified as "W.C." by Harrington in 1891 at 63 chains North of the Southeast corner of section 28. No topography is recorded in Norway's note at the record East 1/4 corner location for section 28 and there are no accessories. It was noted as unusual because the area has a great deal of topographic variety. This further indicates that the line most likely was not actually ran on the line and the topographic call to the creek was either a guesstimation or it also was misplaced in the notes. W.H. Norway, November 27, 1873 Page 19 of notes, the 1/4 between sections 27 and 28: Set redwood post 5x5 3 feet long in a mound as per instruction for quarter section corner. FIELD EXAMINATION AND RECORD: For consistency, the South 1/4 of section 28 was examined in the notes and on Page 1 of 13

2 the ground. The survey of the South line of section 28 went West from the Southeast corner. Topography conforms acceptably through the temporary 1/4, to the Southwest corner then returns running East to set the 1/4 corner. W.H. Norway, November 27, Set a redwood post 4x4 in 3. 1/2 feet long in a mound of rocks as per instruction on Summit of Spur for Quarter Section Corner from which a Redwood tree 6 in dia. bears N18 o 1/2W, 21 links dist. Examination of the area of the South 1/4 of section 28 consists of mostly sandy, silt and clay soils. No rock adequate for monumentation is present, only very soft sand rock is found. The 1/4 location is on a steep Southwest slope. The topography for the South 1/4 Corner monument is described as a "summit of a spur", and that feature is not present at that location. SEE PANEL 3 In comparison with the notes of the East 1/4 of section 28, where it is seen that the 1/4 monument is set "in a mound", with no rock, there are quantities of hard sandstone present. Also, at the East 1/4 location of Section 28, a "summit of a spur" is present very close to North of the Southeast corner of section 28 at a distance acceptably close to 40 chains. There is a North - South oriented ridge, a proper "spur" that the East section line as surveyed by Norway of section 28 follows. On that spur there is also a summit point that is acceptably level for placement of a monument and near the location of 40 chains. SEE PANEL 4 RECORD MONUMENT SEARCH: A surface search was made while clearing vines following the Gap Fire. SEE PANEL 5 Found on the center of the ridge or spur, was a very hard sandstone rock with a sharp Page 2 of 13

3 broken edge. SEE PANEL 6 A deep gouge is present on this stone as if pried from the formation by the point of a pick axe and it is stained darkly by being buried in topsoil when it is a subsurface stone broken relatively near in the past from the naturally weathered formation about 2 feet East of the small pit. SEE PANEL 7 The opposite side, or surface is heavily weathered. Several other stones in the area on the surface have much sharper edges than the naturally weathered, rounded stone corners found in the area on the summit of the spur SEE PANEL 8 COLLECTED OBSERVATIONS OF NOTEKEEPING ERRORS: Surveyors have noted on a fairly regular basis, that descriptions have been inserted into the notes for incorrect corners, topographic calls are misplaced on various section lines, etc. This has been confirmed by BLM that these errors occur on a fairly regular basis. Accordingly, with justification, the notes can be questioned and with reasonable consideration be corrected. There are more examples of similar issues within Santa Barbara County. The occurrence of bearing trees having the same bearing and distance from a monument where a different monument note is applied, have very poor chance of fitting. RECORD MONUMENT EXCAVATION UNDER CORRECTED RECORD: Based on the collected observations of note keeping errors and the corner location examinations with the related inconsistencies, it was considered likely that Norway s notes for the monument and location features for the South 1/4 of section 28, belonged on the East side of the section. The record notes were considered corrected by application of the South 1/4 monument description to the East 1/4 corner. Since both the South 1/4 corner and the East 1/4 corner were both set from the Southeast corner of section 28, it makes it more feasible that the two Page 3 of 13

4 descriptions may have got inserted into the final notes on the wrong lines, particularly if the East line was never actually ran on the ground. Decision was made to excavate the potential mound and pit location under the broken and clustered smaller stones on the flattest portion of the summit. An appearing soft depression in the soft ground of the minimal pit, containing broken fragments of rock, guided the excavation downwards. The native formation below was yellowish, sandy material with occasional tightly bedded stone in formation. The Western side showed redwood stains and decayed fibers with a soft zone 6 in diameter excavated to a depth of 15 easily. The decision to further excavate the more western position was based on the APROX tree center as derived from the location of the larger perimeter roots of the redwood tree. SEE PANEL 9 A pinkish stain was found at the bottom and center of the approximately 4 inch diameter low point. SEE PANEL 10 EXCAVATION OF CORNER ACCESSORY TO CORRECTED RECORD: As confirmation for this correction of the record, evidence was sought by searching for the accessory redwood tree noted in the 1/4 note of the sections South line. W.H. Norway, November 27, Set a redwood post 4x4 in 3. 1/2 feet long in a mound of rocks as per instruction on Summit of Spur for Quarter Section Corner from which a Redwood tree 6 in dia. bears N18 o 1/2W, 21 links dist. The area in the direction at the distance of the accessory of the corrected monument record was cleared then excavated. SEE PANEL 11 and 12 Redwood roots were encountered at APROX. 5 inches depth, the largest having a diameter of about 3/4 inch. Small roots, 1/4 +/- DIA. were found uniformly Page 4 of 13

5 through the area excavated. Preliminary analysis of samples were taken and sent to botanist David Magney of Ojai who has identified the roots as redwood. (SEE LETTER, ATTACHMENT A at end of photo panels.) Many soft small reddish brown spots dotted each layer. SEE PANEL 13 and 14 SEARCH FOR W.P. USING FOUND 1/4 OF CORRECTED RECORD: The direction from the South East corner of section 28 to the found 1/4 corner was prolonged Northwards to 63 chains and a search of the many large rocks worked South from that point. W.H. Norway, November 27, To a large Sand Rock at the foot of high range of Santa Ynez Mountains which I mark as per instruction W.P. to corner to section 21, 22, 27, 28. Originally in ascending the section line between section 27 and 28, a very large sand stone rock perhaps 25 feet tall over the surroundings, was noticed standing at the North edge of a flatter area below an imposing field of sandstone. Norway describes the general topographic conditions of the area of the W.P. Land rough 2 nd and 3 rd rate. The mountains to the North are too rough to measure further. SEE PANEL 15 In searching we went South from chains, just above the described 25 foot tall rock at the foot of a steep rocky slope, a point on line with G.P.S was located for search purposes. Perhaps 5.5 feet East a large piece of the hard mantle was noticed to be missing with the interior stone about 2' x 3' tall, triangular in shape, standing out brightly. In subsequent measurement it was found to be 5.73 feet East of the prolonged line from the 1/4 corner. Not merely by coincidence, this sandstone also has approximately the same dimensions that Harrington later described in his field notes. Page 5 of 13

6 The removal of the portion of the shell or mantle is estimated to have been done more than 15 years or longer in the past. SEE PANEL 16 Closer examination revealed numerous impact points with a uniform width of 1" at intervals along the approximately vertical line of the North East edge making a jagged fracture that facilitates removing a 2" thick layer of weathered mantle which previously had a natural fracture along the South West edge as the sub mantle plane daylights to the left or South. The impact points created trifacial fractures with an unnatural 90 degree corner of the surface mantle between impacts along the 2" thick fractured shell edge. The edge made is sharp and unweathered in comparison to the South West natural fracture of the daylighting sub mantle plane. SEE PANEL 17 It is hard to imagine why anyone would go to such a remote location, (it is a very long and difficult hike from any civilized area), to break off pieces of a rock, just for something to do. Particularly given that there are so many rocks in the area closer to homes. Because this rock just happens to be on line with the other objects previously mentioned, we can only imagine that whoever destroyed the evidence on this rock must have owned a portion of the land that would be affected by the location of the Section Line or perhaps the Section Corner common to Sections 21, 22, 27 & 28, and wanted the line to be elsewhere for whatever reason. Perhaps the Northeast corner of Section 28 was moved by the same person many years ago for personal gain of property. By prolonging this section line we have recovered, it would have made the distance to the North 1/4 and the Northeast Corner of Section 27 closer to the record distances of feet and the feet respectively than the current accepted position for the Section Corner common to Sections 21, 22, 27, & 28. This, like many other solutions offered by the other party involved, cannot be proven or disproven, but it does start to make more sense with the evidence recovered. FOR MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS SEE PRELIMINARY EXHIBIT ATTACHED WITH PHOTO PANELS. Page 6 of 13

7 Based on this comparison and analysis alone, it is logically justified to not utilize the record of resurvey by Harrington, which does not describe an X found or set as is found then used by the new resurvey of Mr. Franks which has prompted this retracement. With consideration that the original survey does not set such a mark, it is concluded that the original records of the original survey with its monuments and accessories as found, or logically verifiable locations of obliterations, are the only competent record and monumentation available for recovery of the section line. Many people cannot discern there even is an X carved in the stone. SEE PANEL 18 FURTHER CONSIDERATION TO THE RECORD DIMENSIONS OF THE SECTION USING THE MONUMENTS OF THE ORIGINAL SECTION LINE What if we consider for a moment, that someone had defaced the W.P., as we believe and can show substantially that it has happened, and moved the corner common to 21, 22, 27 & 28 to its present position prior either to Flournoy s survey or to the County Surveyor replacing the corner? What would that mean in relationship to our found evidence. Using Harrington s distance of chains from the Northeast corner of Section 27 going West, the distance to the prolongation of the Southeast corner of Section 28 and our 1/4 corner and W. P. rock, the distance is about 69 feet short of intersecting. This would explain the shortage of the distance along the North line of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 27. Following Mr. Frank s comments we have responded below to some of the points of his criticisms of our methodology. Page 7 of 13

8 General analysis of and rebuttal to Mr. Frank s response to Preliminary Exhibit and September 2010 Retracements. Page 1 of 10 Mr. Frank writes: "We have found the original GLO Witness Corner monument in the 1893 plat" How can the above be true when neither Norway or Harrington has described setting an X? Mr. Frank writes: "We believe the evidence is at least "Substantial Evidence" as described in the 2009 manual." Can the term substantial be used to describe an X marking a point, that is not described in the record, particularly when this record only provides the description, which I mark as per instruction W.P."? Does this justify belief when compared to subterranean stone on the surface, fractured, with tool marks from removal and redwood roots located as an accessory described in the record for the 1/4 corner? The "likelihood of this is less than winning the lottery" as described by one surveyor consulted. All items of record, coupled with use of the 1/4 location to find obvious, truly substantial stone removal large enough to remove a properly deep and sized "W.P." monument. Mr. Frank writes: "That is the law" On this point we agree with Mr. Frank, however he is applying it to the wrong point. The law is that the monument descriptions of the original survey notes must be used, not fabricated reasoning fitting what is found. If the notes can be used to find original monuments, then they must be used even if comparisons must be made and logical solutions drawn when justified to effect corrections to the notes and use them successfully. Page 2 of 10 Mr. Frank writes: "There is no basis of bearings shown on Mr. Barton s Exhibit:" As it was verbally explained to Mr. Frank before his response, in regard to the exhibit prepared early on, that the exhibit was not meant to be a final document. It was sent to Mr. Frank for his review for comparison to what he had prepared so he might see the evidence and relationship for the purposes of demonstrating distance or alignment between found monuments described in the original notes of survey. It was reasonably assumed he would want to know of these findings as soon as possible, as sharing of information in this profession is generally done on a cooperative basis to resolve the issues. Page 8 of 13

9 Page 3 of 10 Mr. Franks writes: Why did Norway stop at the rock? "a fairly gentle rise on both lines" Along Norway's line was found substantially damaged rock adequate to bear the "W.P." with far steeper and rougher terrain immediately Northward particularly when you compare it to the location Mr. Frank has chosen. Page 4 of 10 Mr. Franks writes: "Most of us believe the X was made by either Norway or Harrington." The law is that the monument descriptions of the original survey notes must be used. Belief on the other hand cannot be used until all other options of substance are logically well considered. We cannot condone that an unidentified group of believers in a mark on a stone; which actually has no description in the original notes making it a monument, prevail over objects in locations matching monument locations as well as numerous descriptions of features of monuments comprising the notes with consistent evidence; be perceived as action meeting the full measure of the law. If the X is a manmade point (PANEL 18), as it has almost no profile and consisting mostly of a lichen stain in a crack, it was perhaps an offset point to get around the large field of house sized sandstones to the North of the found W.P. Certainly he wouldn t have chained over them. Ladders would have had to be made to do so. It was much easier to offset and traverse around them. Even at that, it would not make it a GLO original monument since it not called for in the notes so it cannot even be an accessory of any kind. It is noticeable in reading Harrington's notes that he is very detailed in the monument descriptions both found or set. The W.P. he says he found was a Sandstone 8 x 10 x 12 ft marked W.C. He doesn't say he found or set an "X". If his other descriptions of monuments, either found or set are read, he is very explicit in what he scribed on each stone or post. Why would he leave out setting an "X" on the W.P. if he did it? He would not. So logic from a study of Harrington s practices would dictate that the X on the rock Mr. Frank has used, having no signs of a W.P. or W.C. scribed on it, would automatically be eliminated as a candidate for the Witness Point set by Norway or Harrington, since he says he found Norway s W.C. This rock that we found that Norway marked is the same dimensions as the one described by Harrington as shown above. Logically consider that the single topographic call of the East line of Section 28 to San Jose Creek is in extreme error while the South line of Section 28 topography is more accurate and intact in the notes. Combine this with local knowledge and history that Norway used 2 sets of notes, one for topography and one for monuments and the fact Page 9 of 13

10 that the South 1/4 of Section 28 has no rock and no summit of a spur while the East 1/4 does have both. The logical conclusion, in light of the found broken and marked rock with accessory tree in testing potential correction of the notes, would be that topography for the East line was lost in the notes and 1/4 corner descriptions are swapped between South and East lines. The notes are being used completely and logically in this analysis assuring proper, legal retracement. At 2) it is suggested that direct chaining on the line was done upon the 1:1 slope the section travels over. See PANEL 1. At 3) The slight 15 minute bearing Northwest from the Southeast Section Corner of 28 to the found East 1/4 on the summit of a spur is not mentioned, (based on Mr. Frank s shown bearings), in the response by Mr. Franks but conforms far better to the limit specified by the 1855 manual (mentioned) rather than the line drawn over the non record X, which is more than 3 degrees Northeast to the Northeast corner of section 28 as shown on Mr. Frank s Record of Survey. Mr. Frank insists that our bearing is closer to N 1 o W, although Mr, Frank s map make no reference to a conversion from Grid North to True North. Page 5 0f 10 Mr. Franks writes: "Norway did find a tree of some species" It is not credible Norway is setting redwood posts every 1/2 mile but does not know a redwood tree when he sees one. The notes confirm Norway knew of redwoods in the area. On page 20 in the "General Description" provided by Norway he describes redwoods. "The hills are rich though high in places without water and nearly covered with redwood poles which is a very durable timber for fencing, seldom exceeding 8 inches in diameter." It is fairly common knowledge that the early surveyors knew the tree species very well and also what was suitable stone for constructing monuments. Mr. Franks writes about, "Protecting the plat" "we know that he was supposed to set that "witness" corner on the prolongation of the line to the witness corner, and that is where we find it." Mr. Frank leaves out that Harrington does not state he prolonged the line from the SE corner of 28 through the East 1/4. That there was a prolongation is pure conjecture, something Mr. Frank objects to (see below). Harrington states he went North from the W.C., not on a prolongation from any found point or it would have been stated so and certainly not N 2 o W or N 3 o W. See rebuttal of page 10. Page 10 of 13

11 Page 6 of 10 Mr. Frank writes: "I do not think that a maybe, a possibility, a hunch, a theory, a conjecture, could be used to ignore the original notes of the original surveyors." Mr. Frank actually ignores the original notes by not examining the totality of them with regard to the complete section and observing that the South 1/4 of section 28 has no rock suitable and no "summit of a spur." Then we find conjecture that Harrington actually found the 1/4 corner to prolong the line, something that is not stated in the 1891 notes, this will not stand reasonable scrutiny in this case. To demonstrate in comparison, how can a retracement be criticized for conjecture when it has material substantiation derived from objects described in the government field notes. Has he not theorized and conjectured with no more than circular reasoning conveniently placing the X, not of record, on the line between section corners? Doing what is right also means one cannot have it both ways. The retracement we have performed uses the notes to locate numerous evidence matching record monuments. In this case, such lawful consistency is not seen in the work of Mr. Frank. Facts: "Set a redwood post 5x5 in a mound" Mr. Frank does not mention examining the other notes for lines of the section so cannot incorporate the logic of comparable facts of the notes and discrepancies on the ground between descriptions and topography; 1. No summit of spur at the South 1/4 location. 2. No suitable rock is available for a mound at the South 1/4 location. 3. Quantities of quality rock are available at the East 1/4 location 4. There is a classic "summit of a spur" at the East 1/4 with very little earth available for a mound at the East 1/4. Page 7 of 10 Harrington s notes do not indicate finding any points of Norway to prolong. Page 8 of 10 Mr. Frank writes: "Harrington found Norway's section line by finding the section corner to the South or possibly the 1/4 corner to the South, along with Norway's witness point rock, set up on the found witness point/corner" Page 11 of 13

12 Is this not conjectured? It was never stated in the notes. Where is the proof of this? Again, Harrington is very detailed in his field notes as to what he found, observed, set or did. The 1/4 corner between Sections 27 & 28 is NEVER mentioned in Harrington s notes. Page 9 of 10 Mr. Frank writes extensively upon the history of unsuccessful historical searches for the Norway 1/4 corner we have found. This original corner was found simply by using the notes and observations of the topography and features of the corner locations contained in them and deducing that the South 1/4 description of section 28 fits very well with the East 1/4 location while not at all with the South location. The researched history indicates to the investigative mind that perhaps the preceding resurveys were not doing something right in their uses of the notes. The retracement documentation we have presented details the correct and successful uses of notes in such a situation. Page 10 of 10 Beginning on page 9 is a paragraph finished on page 10, Mr. Frank writes: "2009- We find a sandstone boulder which matches the size called out by Harrington in 1891, who states is "the Witness Corner". The remainder of the paragraph on page 10 omits the fact that Norway did not describe a boulder size and did not describe setting an X and did not define "Witness Corner". Norway describes marking "as per instruction W.P. to corner", then was stopped from measuring North when Harrington was not stopped, indicating possibly two different line locations. Harrington writes very detailed descriptions of monument markings found or set. The WP he says he found Sandstone 8x10x28ft marked W.C. He doesn't say he found or set an "X". If you read his other description of monuments he found or set, he is very explicit in what he scribed on each stone or post. Why would he leave out setting an "X" on the W.P. if he did it? Logic dictates he would not. The paragraph continues with circularity to assert that because the X falls on the line between the Northeast corner of section 28 and the Southeast corner of Section 28, that it is the "W.P.". Not considering that the Northeast corner was set in 1891 by measuring from the X using a direction not North, and not based on a found point of 1873 from which to prolong a line, and a direction not found in the original notes describing the setting of the 1/4 and "W.P.". Page 12 of 13

13 I would be glad to answer any questions that anyone may have. My contact information is shown below. Sincerely, Bruce D. Barton, PLs Land Surveying 3504 Trojes Ave. Bakersfield, CA Home Office/ Fax # (661) Cell # (661) pls5555ca@gmail.com Page 13 of 13