Pub. 12 2017 Issue 1

www.ucls.org 24 Issue 1 2017 / UCLS Foresights contrast to the scenario that is likely to un- fold when the state surveys parcels on an ad hoc basis as needed. • Multiple mobilizations for a fewmonu - ments at a time • Multiple surveyors with varying levels of ex - perience with DPPS • Much lower efficiency resulting in much greater cost per monument Surveying for Conveyance or Long Term Lease At some point the State will convey land into municipal and private ownership/ leases. Alaska Statute AS 38.04.045 requires that lands be surveyed before the issuance of a long-term lease or patent. Even if AS 38.04.045 were rewritten to accommodate conveyance of land without monumentation, end users will, for the foreseeable future, need monuments to ensure that improve- ments are constructed within the bounds of lands for which they have the appropriate rights. From a land management perspective, building a set of rules and regulations to support a new paradigmwhere coordinates (currently the lowest item in the hierarchy of boundary evidence) are the highest form of evidence of the corner position is daunt - ing. The prevailing principal of boundary law holds that the original undisturbed monu- ment and its accessories are the highest form of evidence of boundary location. There are hundreds of thousands of attorney hours and there are thousands of cases that were held before the IBLA and state and federal courts which establish the rules and prece- dence that dictate how evidence is evaluated and weighted when reestablishing corners. These cases and existing law form a body of knowledge that is the basis of professional competency testing, reference books, college courses, and ongoing court decisions. None of this exists for the DPPS model. The State would be best served to put monuments in the ground as soon as land is put to use and to hold those monuments as outlined in the current body of boundary knowledge and law. Our review of DPPS demonstrates that a higher level of expertise, not just for survey - ors but for state courts, land managers and users will be required in order to understand its impact on state owned lands. While the cost savings to the federal government is ob- vious, is it equitable for one state to bear the costs of this experiment? Equity of Using DPPS methods only in Alaska As mentioned previously, the Manual of Instructions for the Survey of Public Lands of the United States 1947 was in effect when Alaska was granted statehood. The manual directed that survey monumentation would be placed at intervals of every half mile around the exterior boundaries of townships. Given the size of the total acreage to be con- veyed to Alaska (102 million acres), the survey procedure required by the 1947 Manual and used in the lower 48 states created a tremen- dous federal obligation. Because of this obligation and a funda - mental disagreement on the procedure for state surveys, a compromise was reached be- tween the Department of the Interior and the State of Alaska in 1963. This settlement, bro - kered by Alaska’s Congressional delegation and confirmed by both houses of Congress, directed BLM to survey state selected lands by single township, with perimeter mon- umentation every two miles around the individual township boundaries. This is still significantly different than the system in place in the lower 48 states, but was agreed to by the State of Alaska. The current proposal of Direct Point Po - sitioning Survey (DPPS) is even further from the 1947 manual. It is proposed to be used only in Alaska at this time and no other states with any existing federal survey obligations. Committee Recommendation The committee has reviewed multiple documents, both very technical and legal in nature, and concludes that the proposed DPPS method fails to protect the rights of the citizens of the state of Alaska through the lands managed by the Department of Natural Resources. It also fails in the fundamental surveying principle across America in which monuments, once established on the ground, control the location of the parcel of land. The in-depth review of the technical aspects of the DPPS process cannot be repli - cated with the data supplied with the survey. Recent NSPS Actions About DPPS The BLM at this point is still proposing to use DPPS for surveys in Alaska. At the March 17, 2017 NSPS Board of Directors meeting, Steve Dale of Utah presented a motion from the Western States Directors Council of NSPS, which was seconded by Paul Burn of Nevada, stating the following: Therefore, I move for the NSPS Government Affairs Committee without delay draft a position paper restat - ing NSPS opposition to the BLMDPPS method of Public Land Surveys in Alaska and elsewhere. The motion received unani - mous approval of the NSPS Board of Directors. t Steve Dale NSPS Director