Subject: Re: mnndsd ideas
Date: Jul 16, 2003 @ 02:06
Author: acroorca2002 ("acroorca2002" <orc@...>)
Prev Post in Topic Next [All Posts]
Prev Post in Time Next
> You're right, an avulsion at any time after 1858 could accountfor the
> USGS line, assuming that was the accreted boundary positionat the
> time of the avulsion. I just checked BUS&SS. It simply statesthat
> "The first mark was placed 9 chains west of the Bois des SiouxRiver
> bed", and makes no claim that the river was or was not theactual or
> presumed DAMN boundary.maps of
>
> I am intrigued by the 1912 program you mentioned. My USACE
> 1937 indicate that extensive reclamation work had been doneearlier,
> partially resulting in Traverse Lake and other features. Wheredid
> you find information about this?me
>
> And, finally, I am kicking myself for not arranging my trip to put
> in Wheaton on a weekday when I could more easily checkrecords. Damn!
><orc@o...> wrote:
> BJB
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "acroorca2002"
> > another possible source of the difference between the usgswitness
> > tripoint position & the tripoint position suggested by the
> > monument could be an avulsion occurring not after but priorto
> > the ndsd surveychains
> > yikes
> >
> > after all
> > the damn line had been a thalweg boundary here since
> > minnesota statehood in 1858
> >
> > & the witness rock doesnt actually claim the tripoint is 9
> > easteast
> > but only that the point of beginning of the survey is 9 chains
> >the
> > & the surveyors may or may not have even known whether
> > thalweg they identified in 1891 was the unavulsed & still9ce
> > accreting original 1858 border thalweg
> > nor does the witness marker attest to the authenticity of the
> > position as a tripoint position then or at any timeoccurred at
> >
> > obviously a damn freezing avulsion could easily have
> > this location at any time between 1858 & 18911869
> > just as easily as the one suspected for 1912
> >
> > & there is the added clue that the boundary of the sisseton
> > indian reservation created in 1869 also follows the same dry
> > former channel a few miles upstream from mnndsd
> > rather than the contemporary channel
> > so that could date the defining avulsion to between 1858 &
> > yikesthe
> >
> > not making an outright claim but some hard data to dismiss
> >
> > & such a prior avulsion could just as easily be the source of
> > alternate channel & tripoint depicted by the usgs topohave
> > as any similarly hypothetical 1912 adjustment
> >
> > & if a pre1891 foreclosure of damn by avulsion is found to
> > actually been the casebed
> > then ndsde aka mnndsd was already fixed in the dry former
> > 80 feet east of the witness rock even as the 9 chains werebeing
> > measured off across itbeds
> >
> > so if a pre1891 topo could be found already showing both
> > or any similarly definitive documentationold
> > say in the land offices etc
> > then that alone might suffice to nail the tripoint position to the
> > bed as depicted by usgsit
> > even before the ndsd demarcation began by skipping across
> >marker
> > & such a bizarre eventuality cant be ruled out just because it
> > didnt occur to us for so long
> >
> > for it might have been obvious at the time
> > at least to somebody
> > or might have been recognized as an unresolved issue then
> > tho forgotten today
> >
> > indeed it might even solve the mystery of why the witness
> > is so enigmatic & noncommittal about what it is attesting tofarmlands
> >
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "acroorca2002"
> > <orc@o...> wrote:
> > > good idea
> > > maybe even better than asking the tax assessors
> > >
> > > also i keep bumping into references to a so called
> > > adjustment of 1912
> > > performed on the bois de sioux river bed
> > > possibly in conjunction with a regional wetlands to
> > > programthe
> > >
> > > so thats my present best guess as to the date & cause of
> > > mnndsd position indicated on the topoMcManus"
> > > as well as the year i would begin looking into
> > > wherever & however actually proceeding on this search
> > >
> > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G.
> > > <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:domain)
> > > > Whenever the US federal government undertakes such
> > works
> > > as mentioned below, it
> > > > has to obtain (either through negotiation or eminent
> > > the necessary landtitles
> > > > titles or easements from the private owners. Since land
> > > and easementsgovernment
> > > > are held under state law, even when the federal
> > isthe
> > > a party, the
> > > > pertinent deeds would be recorded in the courthouses of
> > > three counties.to
> > > > They could be revealing, not only as to what the feds did
> > thepresented
> > > river and when,
> > > > but also which states have jurisdiction where.
> > > >
> > > > Lowell
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "bjbutlerus" <bjbutler@b...>
> > > > To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2003 7:52 PM
> > > > Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: mnndsd ideas
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Some time ago I thought the analysis you just
> > > would accountthe
> > > > > for all known facts about MNNDSD, and that it could be
> > > verified by the
> > > > > USACE maps made prior to channeling and leveeing
> > > Bois de Sioux. Iin
> > > > > was surprised to see, on those maps, that the river was
> > > exactly themaps
> > > > > same position then as it is now. The date on those
> > isabout
> > > circa
> > > > > 1930. The date on the witness monument is what,
> > > 1890? I alsoto
> > > > > believe an avulsion changing the river course from the
> > USGS
> > > DAMN line
> > > > > to the current river course would have to be man-made
> > > because there is
> > > > > not enough curvature on the cut bank of the DAMN line
> > > result in aevidence of
> > > > > natural avulsion. So, maybe we are looking for
> > aas a
> > > > > paleo-straightening between 1890 and 1930, perhaps
> > > prelude to the"acroorca2002"
> > > > > more extravagant work performed by the USACE, and
> > > perhaps to rectify
> > > > > shifting boundary lines.
> > > > >
> > > > > BJB
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com,
> > > <orc@o...> wrote:has
> > > > > > also it may actually be useful to bear in mind here
> > > > > > the term
> > > > > > indefinite boundary
> > > > > > has a definite meaning
> > > > > > or rather at least 3 possible definite meanings
> > > > > >
> > > > > > either
> > > > > > a boundary that has been approximated because it
> > notoutdated
> > > yet
> > > > > > been officially surveyed
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > a boundary that has been approximated from
> > infoof
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > a boundary known to exist but for which accurate
> > > verification is
> > > > > > lacking
> > > > > >
> > > > > > in this case damn could belong to either of the latter 2
> > > these 3witness
> > > > > > categories
> > > > > > since it is known to have followed the bois de sioux
> > > thalweg
> > > > > > which was at the time of the first survey & may
> > > coincidentally now
> > > > > > be again exactly 9 chains or 594 feet east of the
> > > markback to
> > > > > >
> > > > > > & that original thalweg could easily have accreted
> > > withinusgs
> > > > > > 80 feet of the witness mark as presently depicted by
> > > > > > before being frozen there forever at the time of the firstthe
> > > avulsion
> > > > > > subsequent to the monumentation
> > > > > >
> > > > > > & no matter whether it was a natural or manmade
> > > rechanneling
> > > > > > or if other avulsions followed it
> > > > > > etc etc
> > > > > > mnndsd was presumably frozen forever there & then
> > > > > >
> > > > > > but we & the usgs just havent yet been able to identify
> > > > > > moment or circumstances of that supposed firstavulsion
> > > > > > tho they continue to depict it as if it might be verifiableassessors
> > > somehow
> > > > > >
> > > > > > & that is why i think we may find the county tax
> > > quitecircumstances &
> > > > > > able to describe more or less exactly not only the
> > > geographic
> > > > > > proportions & results but even the exact
> > > date ofany
> > > > > > that presumptive avulsion
> > > > > > since it was & is their business to keep track of such
> > things
> > > > > >
> > > > > > & their data may therefore not only be as definitive as
> > > that arevindicating
> > > > > > available anywhere
> > > > > > but they also stand a chance of validating &
> > the80
> > > usgs
> > > > > > tripoint depiction here
> > > > > >
> > > > > > in the meantime
> > > > > > i believe the most presumptive position we have
> > > > > > remains & is likely to continue simply as follows
> > > > > >
> > > > > > the fact that the usgs mnndsd position appears to fall
> > > feetit as
> > > > > > east of the witness post along the trace of a historic
> > > channel
> > > > > > does strongly suggest it accreted there 514 feet
> > westward
> > > from
> > > > > > its original position by the time the first avulsion froze
> > > > > > depictedof
> > > > > > probably many decades ago
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "bjbutlerus"
> > > > > > <bjbutler@b...> wrote:
> > > > > > > We have noticed it. In fact there are many examples
> > > > > > "indefinite"three
> > > > > > > state lines on the topo maps. I know of at least
> > > statethe
> > > > > > > tri-points that are incorrectly depicted on the maps.
> > Your
> > > > > > comment
> > > > > > > raises an interesting issue - is the boundary really
> > > indefinite, or
> > > > > > > did the USGS simply not know the definition when
> > > mapUSGS
> > > > > > was drawn?
> > > > > > > Boundaries seem to be the weakest element in
> > > toposhow up
> > > > > > maps, no doubt
> > > > > > > because they are imaginary features that don't
> > > onmap
> > > > > > aerial photos.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > BJB
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G.
> > > McManus"
> > > > > > > <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Has anybody noticed that, along MNND about two
> > miles
> > > > > > north of the
> > > > > > > tripoint and
> > > > > > > > along MNSD about 3.5 miles south, the same
> > > saysput
> > > > > > "indefinite
> > > > > > > boundary"? This
> > > > > > > > is a disclaimer by the feds saying, "Hey, we only
> > thistake
> > > > > > dotted
> > > > > > > line were we
> > > > > > > > did because we had to put it somewhere. Don't
> > ittripoint
> > > to the
> > > > > > bank!"
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Lowell
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > From: "m donner" <maxivan82@h...>
> > > > > > > > To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2003 8:00 AM
> > > > > > > > Subject: [BoundaryPoint] mnndsd ideas
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > just noticed on the mnndsd topo
> > > > > > > > > http://tinyurl.com/grbw
> > > > > > > > > wherever the elusive damn line & with it the
> > > mayother
> > > > > > actually
> > > > > > > fall
> > > > > > > > > today in terms of the ndsd line
> > > > > > > > > whether 594 feet east or 80 feet east or some
> > > > > > distance eastrespectively
> > > > > > > of the
> > > > > > > > > witness monument
> > > > > > > > > nevertheless
> > > > > > > > > in terms of the underlying public land system
> > > > > > > > > the tripoint will still fall along the south edge of a
> > > mnnd
> > > > > > > section & the
> > > > > > > > > north edge of a mnsd section
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > these interstate sections btw & fyi are
> > > > > > > > > section 34 of range 47 west in township 129north
> > > > > > > > > to the north of the tripointnorth
> > > > > > > > > & section 3 of range 47 west in township 128
> > > > > > > > > to the south of the tripointland
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > so first i have to wonder if the 2 sections or
> > > subsections
> > > > > > > involved have
> > > > > > > > > ever been legally subdivided by the river
> > > > > > > > > or by the damn line
> > > > > > > > > if different
> > > > > > > > > to produce in either case 4 unistate parcels of
> > allsubsections
> > > > > > meeting
> > > > > > > at the
> > > > > > > > > tripoint
> > > > > > > > > or whether the public land sections or
> > > involvedriver
> > > > > > remain
> > > > > > > undivided
> > > > > > > > > by the damn line
> > > > > > > > > & produce interstate parcels of land merely
> > > sandwiching
> > > > > > the tripoint
> > > > > > > > > while continuing to incorporate & straddle the
> > > &or theland
> > > > > > damn line
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > but more to the point
> > > > > > > > > i also have to wonder exactly how the county
> > > officesup
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > distributed
> > > > > > > > > or delineated the affected sections for dividing
> > thecases to
> > > tax
> > > > > > bills
> > > > > > > > > regardless of whether the acreages are split
> > between
> > > > > > different
> > > > > > > landowners or
> > > > > > > > > merely allocated for the benefit of single
> > landholders
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > & since these 2 sections arent the only mnnd &
> > mnsd
> > > > > > sections
> > > > > > > requiring such
> > > > > > > > > treatment
> > > > > > > > > they should not present obscure & difficult
> > > > > > researchroutine
> > > > > > > > > but rather i would expect them to represent
> > > > > > instances of a taxthe
> > > > > > > > > allocation method that must be used all along
> > > bois dedivided
> > > > > > sioux
> > > > > > > > > where the public land sections are routinely
> > > by thebe
> > > > > > river
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > so my guess is that the tax assessors will not
> > putavailable
> > > out or
> > > > > > > embarrassed at
> > > > > > > > > all by our questions
> > > > > > > > > but will have the answers to them readily
> > for34
> > > us in
> > > > > > > their standard
> > > > > > > > > verbal &or platted descriptions
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > we simply need to ask in wheaton mn
> > > > > > > > > where is the sw corner of the mentioned section
> > insection 3
> > > > > > minnesota
> > > > > > > > > & where is the nw corner of the mentioned
> > > inpoint
> > > > > > minnnesota
> > > > > > > > > while making sure that it is indeed the same
> > > they givethe
> > > > > > us
> > > > > > > > > & then to ask for the corresponding corners on
> > > othersdne
> > > > > > side of
> > > > > > > the damn
> > > > > > > > > line
> > > > > > > > > in wahpeton nd & in sisseton sd respectively
> > > > > > > > > which will incidentally be the same as ndse &
> > > > > > respectivelyidentify
> > > > > > > > > making them that much easier to refer to &
> > > > > > > > > but again& a
> > > > > > > > > being careful that there is indeed full agreement
> > > singlemay
> > > > > > > geoposition
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > & with any luck all these data should agree &
> > > well beor
> > > > > > > obtainable by
> > > > > > > > > phone
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > but in any case what fun even if they dont agree
> > > cant be__________________________________________________
> > > > > > had so
> > > > > > > easily
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > any thoughts
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > >
> >
> > > > > > _______________2
> > > > > > > > > STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get
> > > months
> > > > > > FREE*
> > > > > > > > > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > > > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >