What constitutes a "monument"?
The first thing I would consider would be the rebar, the wood marking it's location is meaningless as evidence. I would, however, question heavily the position of the rebar for the simple fact that it is sticking 4" out of the ground. That's a huge liability that I doubt many surveyors would assume.
I would invoke Justice Potter of the supreme court. I can't define a monument but I know it when I see it.
In 1964, Justice Potter Stewart tried to explain "hard-core" pornography, or what is obscene, by saying, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced... [b]ut I know it when I see it ..."
To me, to qualify as an artificial monument it would need to meet some very basic requirements. Is there a record associated with it being placed and has it been accepted as representing a boundary divide. The material and condition are irrelevant. Many original corners in older subdivisions here were hub and tack, some just a scribed stick of spruce, others a cedar post or a chiseled x in a rock. Without some degree of provenance and acceptance, it doesn't necessarily carry any weight. I don't believe any artificial 'monument' can exist completely free of the context in which it was set and agreed upon.
I may have confused the issue with my question (What constitutes a monument). I would have assumed that the rebar, monument or not, marking a boundary line, even though uncapped, would be considered illegal to remove. The main question was whether the lath adjacent to it served any marking purpose other than to announce more easily, the existance of the rebar.
I've seen such lath (or similar wood stakes) all over the woods around here, in various states of dis-repair over the years. It's sounding like the question of legality of touching, moving or otherwise disturbing those would result in the answer: "It depends".
Do I see another orange rebar under the grass to the right of the protruding rebar?