A recent survey of property boundaries by the Helena National Forest in Grizzly Gulch has some property owners thinking the earth’s moved under their feet.

Don Schmit lost about 50 feet from the south side of his Grizzly Gulch property, but gained another 50 feet on the north side after the survey, which is being done in preparation for some wildfire mitigation work on the forest.

“I’ve lived here since 1973 and had three surveys done now, and with this one they moved my boundary in about 50 feet on one side and moved it out about 50 feet on the other side,” Schmit said, a bit puzzled. “I don’t know if I lost some land or not, but apparently my land isn’t where it was 10 years ago.

“Then they said part of my barn was on their property, but then they changed their mind and said it’s on mine.”

Mark Johnson said at least one of his boundary markers — sometimes called “pins” —was moved as part of the survey, and isn’t sure if he’s lost or gained acreage. Another neighbor’s driveway now is partially on Forest Service property.

Charlie McKenna, the Helena forest engineer, said they’re just correcting mistakes made by previous surveyors. However, both he and Helena District Ranger Duane Harp readily acknowledge that anytime a survey is done, there is room for error.

“I do know that you can have three or four surveys come in and they go to three or four conclusions,” McKenna said. “But Becky (Sitch, who works for McKenna) said they went over this very carefully, and double-checked all their numbers. They’re very confident that where they put the pins are truly the right locations, and the others were wrong.

“But like all things, sometimes people make mistakes.”

That worries Johnson and his neighbor, Pete Kavran. Their properties were surveyed only 10 years ago, when Johnson sold Kavran a parcel, and they don’t like the shifting property lines or the potential ripple affect.

“My property is 200 feet wide and about a half-mile long. If you change the angle by even half a degree, that’s a lot of land,” Johnson said.

The neighbors also are irked at the size of the blazes — basically, a chunk of bark stripped from a tree to mark a boundary — and the bright red/orange spray paint on them.

“Talk about overkill,” Schmit said, looking at a blazed tree on his boundary. “I don’t think this one’s going to make it.”

If Schmit’s 100-year-old barn turned out to be on Forest Service property, chances are he would have had to either tear down the structure or buy that portion of the property from the Forest Service for fair market value. That doesn’t sit well with people who think they already own that land, but McKenna said in similar situations it typically is just a fraction of an acre and not very expensive.

“If the improvement is not on a permanent foundation, we ask them to take it off in a reasonable amount of time, like a few years,” McKenna said. “If it’s a permanent structure, we actually sell them that little piece of national forest.”

If a person’s driveway is on Forest Service property as a result of the new survey, they probably would need a special use permit, he added.

“The landowner would have to get a travel variance, and go through the special use permit process,” he said. “There is a small fee, but it’s transferable if the property is sold.”

McKenna said the landowners also can pay for their own survey, and if it turns out the Forest Service is incorrect, the federal agency probably would be liable for the cost of the survey.

“But surveyors are pretty expensive, and we’re pretty certain the boundaries are right,” he said. “It’s unfortunate, but this isn’t uncommon in old mining areas. We ran into it in Unionville and in Rimini.

“It’s too bad that people in good faith thought they owned a piece of property, and when it gets resurveyed they find out they don’t.”

Reporter Eve Byron: 447-4076 or eve.byron@helenair.com