NATTONAL SOCTEW OF PROFESSIONAI SURVEYORS (NSPS)

POSITION ON

THE UTTUZATTON By BUREAU OF |-AND MANAGEMENT (BLM)

OF

DTRECT pOtNT pOStTtONtNG SYSTEM (Dppsl

IN

ESTABTISHING LAND CORNER TOCATIONS IN IIEU OF PHYSICAI MONUMENTS

The Executive Committee and Board of Directors of NSPS, which represent all fifty (50) states and the US Territories, have adopted the following position in objection to the BLM plan of using DppS derived coordinate values as the monument of record for establishing land corners.

POStTtON

"Using DPPS to establ¡sh a land corner by coordinate value is not in the best interest of protecting the public and private citizens most valuable asset, land ownership, by dismissing the requirement that exists in all state laws for the surveying profession to place physical monuments at those corners, thus identifying and preserving the readily available and visible landmarks that delineate that valuable asset."

BACKGROUND

The following attached documents:

1) November L4,2016 report titled " AK DNR/BLM DPPS Report" - an in-depth analysis and report by a committee of eminent practicing professionals stating the inadequacies of utilizing DppS in the manner being promoted by BLM

2l November L7,2Ot6letter from Juliana P. Blackwell, Director NGS to Gerald Jennings, PLS, CFedS, ChiefSurveySection,Divisionof Mining,Land&Water,AlaskaDNR-describingthe concerns of NGS in supporting and maintaining the control survey points on which the long-term viability of DPPS would rely on to accurately and adequately reproduce those corner locations 3) February 16,2017 White Paper by Gerald Jennings, PLS, CFedS, Chief Survey Section, Division of Mining, Land & Water, Alaska DNR - outlining the history and process to date by BLM in attempting to advance the DPPS process

While this process is only being promoted, at this time, for use in Alaska and coined as a cost-saving measure in preparing final surveys, the above stated reference material truly discounts the efficacy of this being a survey methodology that should be adopted for the intended purpose, either in Alaska or any other state. National Society of Professional Surveyors 5119 Pegasus Court, Suite Q Frederick, MD 21704 www.nsps.us.com 240-439-4615 þhone) * 240-439-4952 (fax) AK DNR/BLM DPPS Report Novembe¡ 14,2016 lntroduction

This report was prepared pursuant to a letter from Gerald Jennings, Chief of the Survey Section for the Division of Mining, Land & Water, Department of Natural Resources, State of Ataska (DNR) to the National Society of Professional Surveyors (NSPS) requesting an analysis and comment on a new survey procedure considered for implementation by the Bureau of Land Management, Alaska State Office, Branch of Cadastral Survey (BLM). The new survey procedure is the Direct Point Positioning Survey (DPPS) which is proposed for surveys of certain lands to be conveyed to the State of Alaska under the Statehood Act.

DPPS is a method of survey and documentation that will use direct survey-derived geographic coordinates to report measurements on the official survey record. BLM proposes to use DPPS methods to fix corners by geographic coordinates referenced to the National Spatial Reference System (NSRS) geodetic datum. Physical monuments will be set at angle points on the perimeter of large tracts of state selected lands. Unmonumented corners are fixed in the official record by reporting each corner's survey-derived geographic coordinates.

BLM provided a draft plat for Group 948, Alaska as an example of how DPPS methods might be implemented. The sample Group 948 Plat covers 37 full and partial townships, 23 in the Fairbanks Meridian and 14 in the Kateel River Meridian, encompassing an area of approximately 1125 square miles. There are 49 physical monuments shown on the sample Group 948 Plat, with the remainder of the official comers identified by geographic coordinates listed in tables for each township.

The NSPS analysis and comment committee was comprised of the following professionals:

Dave Doyle, Geodesist- Maryland Timothy Kent, PLS - Washington John Ken, PLS, CFedS - Alaska John Matonich, PLS - Michigan Glen Thurow, PLS, CFedS - New Mexico Karen Tilton, PLS, CFedS - Alaska

Also contributing were the following professionals:

Curt Sumner, PLS, NSPS Executive Director Jon Warren, PLS, NSPS Past President

NSPS requested participation and comment from the National Geodetic Survey (NGS) on the DPPS proposal. NGS determined that a formal but separate response was mórè appiopriate and will be forthcoming at a later date. 2

The thrust of this requested analysis and comment sunounds the methodology and expense to define the remaining lands to be selected by the State of Alaska. The Federal Government has patented or interim conveyed approximately two-thirds of the state selected lands. A portion of the remaining lands to be identified are those that are proposed to be surveyed by the DPPS method.

The committee was provided numerous documents over the past year pertaining to all aspects of surveying the federal interest lands prior to patenting the same to the State of Alaska. These included historic documents along with other technical papers and also comments from some private surveyors in Alaska.

The committee examined the impacts of BLM's DPPS proposal with regard to: o pâst agreements between BLM and the State of Alaska regarding the survey of state selected lands; o widely accepted principles of boundary law and the hierarchy of evidence for monuments; o suffêy procedures of state lands after patent using DPPS methods; o the technical and training requirements needed to properly use DPPS now and in the future.

The DPPS method is a substantialdeparture from established federal survey practice in Alaska, which may be unfamiliar to surveyors in other states. Therefore, some background discussion is necessary to understand the context of the DPPS discussion.

Alaska Statehood and the MOU. Historv and Backoround

While it is important to understand how the lands of other states were patented and surveyed, it is essential to look at the process in place when Alaska was granted statehood. The Manual of lnstructions for the Suruey of Public Lands of the United Sfafes 1947 was in effect when Alaska was granted statehood. This 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 conveyed (102 million acres), this obviously created a tremendous federal obligation.

Congress considered this obligation when crafting the Alaska Statehood Act. Sec. 6 (g) of the Act outlined the minimum size requirements for state selections and mandated that the Secretary of the lnterior survey the exterior boundaries of the selection without interior subdivision.l

The historic documents provided to the committee indicate that immediately after statehood in 1959, the survey requirements for state selected land were a subject of vigorous dispute between the BLM and the State of Alaska. ln 1960, the BLM surveyed and platted the boundaries of seven state selections comprising all or portions of Townships 23 and 24 North, Ranges 4, 5 and 6 West, Seward Meridian as part of Group 100, Alaska.2 The U.S.

1 Alaska Statehood Act, Public Law 85-508, July 7, 1958 (72 Stat. 339). 2 BLM Plat and field notes for Townships 23 North, Ranges 4, 5 and 6 West, Townships 24 North, Ranges 5 and 6 West, Seward Meridian, Alaska, approved October 16, 1961, retrieved from http://sdms.ak.blm.oov/sdms/ on September 18, 2016. 3

subsequently issued Patent No. 1226350 in April of 1962.3 Only the perimeter of the "blocK of selected lands was surveyed. The State of Alaska protested the survey and patent as a violation of Section 6(9) of the Alaska Statehood Act.

The State's position was that each selection that met the minimum size requirements of Section 6(9) (i.e., 5,760 acres or approximately one-quarter township) was eligible for a survey of the exterior boundary. BLM concluded that such smallselections were not'reasonably compact tracts" and combined state selections for purposes of survey and patent.

Alaska's congressional delegation brought the maüer to Congress in 1962 and 1963 during hearings on appropriations for Department of the lnterior and Related Agencies. ln 1963, Senator E.L. "Bob" Bartlett of Alaska presented Alaska's case in the dispute over the survey requirements of state selected lands as intended by the 1958 Alaska Statehood Act.a The Senate's Committee on Appropriations agreed with Alaska's position that eacå state selection warranted boundary survey and directed the Secretary of the lnterior to proceed with surveying the selections according to this directive. The Senate provided an additional $300,000 in funding for cadastral surveys in Alaska.s

The House and Senate appropriation committees met in conference to resolve their differences and finalize the budget for the Department of the lnterior and Related Agencies for 1964 (H.R. 5279, passed as P.L. 88-79, July 26, 1963). House Report No. 551, dated July 11, 1969, memorializes this conference and the decisions made at the time, including the issue of the survey of Alaska State selections:

The conferees are agreed that the directive included in the report of the Senate committee with regard to surveys of Alaska land selections made under the terms of the Alaska Statehood Act (Public Law 85-508) will be satisfied by surveys of the exterior boundaries of full townships (even if composed of as many as four land selections) with monumentation at an average of 2 miles around the perimeter.6

The resulting decision by the conference committee was a compromise between the wide range of survey effort that lies between surveying the boundary of every state selection and surveying only the exterior boundaries of as many selections deemed appropriate by the Secretary of the lnterior.

BLM internal correspondence from August, 1963 describes in detail the effect of the congressional direction on the state selection survey program.T ln a letter from Secretary of the lnterior Udall to Alaska Governor William Egan dated September 4, 1963, Secretary Udall stated: "The Bureau of Land Management will proceed with the survey of State selections in a manner which follows the intent of Congress as expressed in the Conference Report on H.R. 5279" and "Monumentation will be accommodated to the State's requirements provided the

3 Serial Patent No, 1226350, April 16,1962, retrieved from http://www.glorecords.blm.qov/ on September 9,2016. a Congressional Record - Senate, 88th Congress, 1st sess. 1963, pg. 7619. 5 United States. Cong. Senate. Appropriations. 88th Cong., 1st sess. S. Rept. 181, May 22,1969. 6 United States. Cong. House. Appropriations. 88th Cong., 1 st sess. H. Rept. 551 , July I 1 , 1963. 7 U.S. Government Memorandums (BLM), August 8, 1963 and August 15, 1963, RE: Alaska State Selection Program, digitalcopies provided by State of Alaska DNR. 4

monumentation requested does not exceed the maximum of an average of 2 miles around the exterior boundaries of a selection."s

With a settled procedure in place, the State dropped the protest of the plat and patent that initiated the dispute. BLM went back in the field in 1963 and 1964 to place additional monumentation on the township lines of Townships 23 and 24 North, Ranges 4, 5 and 6 West, Seward Meridian. No changes were made to the plat. An additional set of field notes was added to the survey record to document the monuments set after plat approval and patent.e

1973 MOU Given the history recited above, it is clear that the practice of surveying state selections with two mile monumentation on the perimeter of each township was initiated 10 years before the 1973 BLM/State of Alaska Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) as a result of congressional directive and statement of intent. The purpose of the MOU was not to come to an agreement on the practice of two-mile monumentation on full townships, but rather, to provide State-elected methods to devlate from the congressional directive. The MOU outlines a number of options that the State could select including survey of the perimeter of larger tracts (multiple townships), less monumentation than at two-mile intervals, and finally, use of protracted values in lieu of monumentation.lo

Within a year after the MOU was signed in 1973, the BLM prepared and filed a 'State Selection Survey, Group No. 314, Area C, Seward Meridian, Alaska',11 a plat of 65 protracted townships. The plat cites the 1973 MOU as the'basis by which this plat was created." We do not know how many more of these large state selection surveys were filed, but according to the MOU, they must have been prepared at the request of the State of Alaska. DNR has stated that in 1981, the State ceased the practice of requesting conveyance of state selections without survey and monumentation.

As recently as the 2O12MOU between BLM and DNR, the BLM stated "Regardless of the platting method it uses, the BLM agrees to monument the boundaries of lands it conveys to the State. Monuments will be placed on an average of every two miles along the perimeter of the selection and at angle points."l2

The historic documents are clear as to the surveying and monumentation methods to be used for state-selected lands; "... in units of full townships and monumentation at an average of two miles around the perimeter." This practice did not arise from MOUs with the State, but from House Report 551 in 1963.

I Udall, Stewart L., to Governor Egan of Alaska, September4, 1963, digital copy provided by State of Alaska DNR. e BLM field notes for additional monumentation in Townships 23 and 24 North, Ranges 5 and 6 West, Seward Meridian, Alaska, approved June 6, 1966, retrieved from http://sdms.ak.blm.oov/sdms/ on September 18,2016. 10 Memorandum of Understanding between the State of Alaska and the United States on the Survey of Alaska State Selections, signed by Director, Bureau of Land Management on September 21,1973, digital copy provided by State of Alaska DNR. 11 BLM Plat of State Selection Survey, Group No. 314, Area C, Seward Meridian, Alaska, approved September 20,1974, retrieved from http://sdms.ak.blm.qov/sdms/ on September 16, 2016. 12 MOU-AK-2012-006, Memorandum of Understanding between the United States Department of the lnterior, Bureau of Land Management-Alaska and the State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources Concerning Rectangular Survey Plats Tracting, signed by the BLM State Director, Alaska on August 30, 2012, digital copy provided by State of Alaska DNR. 5

BLM has stated that "...a cadastralsurvey completed using DPPS methods meets the Federal Government's survey obligations for SOA selected lands under the Alaska Statehood Act." ln fact, the DPPS proposal before us looks very much like the methods and practice that led Alaska to protest plats prepared by BLM in 1960.

BLM proposes to use DPPS methods to survey and plat as much as 20 million acres of the State's remaining entitlement. The committee considered the implications of DPPS methods on commonly accepted survey and boundary law principles and on the institutions that will enforce these principles: state courts.

Coordinates as Monuments

It is important to note the legal definition of "comef in relationship to "monument". A comer is a point on the surface of the earth. In the current discussion, a corner refers to a subdivision point within the PLSS. A monument refers to the physical evidence of a corne/s location.

The Alaska National lnterest Lands Conservation Actr3 (ANILCA) as amended, modified public land survey law by not requiring a ground survey or monumentation on land selected by and conveyed to the State of Alaska or Native Corporation, if elected by the patentee.

Courts of competent jurisdiction have generally held that in order for a conveyance to be valid it must contain sufficient certainty of location. Surveying technology has outpaced the court's acceptance of methodology that is at odds with the currently established priority of evidence. Courts have long recognized the current ranking, which places monuments, natural and artificial, at the top. Goordinates are often ranked near the bottom. DPPS would fundamentally change this ranking.

Judicial precedent will be slow to evolve. The courts will need to be educated conceming geodetic coordinates. This is evidenced in a 2014 Supreme Court decree (United Statesof America v. State of California), which stated:

4. Plane coordinates refer to the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM). All coordinates are referenced to the North American Datum 1983 (NAD 83), which is equivalent to the World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS M¡u.

NAD83 and WGS84 are not equivalent and judges are not geodesists. A coordinate transformation must occur. Cunent transformation between NAD83 and WGS84 should be interpreted as a transformation between NAD83 (2011) and WGS84 (G1762'). The cunent usage of NAD83 is actually NAD 83(2011), Epoch 2010.0. More adjustments to WGS84 can be expected. DPPS will require future correct transformations. lt should also be noted that the National Spatial Reference System (NSRS) is dynamic and subject to refinement. Latitude and longitude are dependent on the datum upon which they are measured. Consequently, we cannot compare coordinates from a set of observations taken today to results we determined one year ago. These two sets of coordinates must be reduced to a common epoch before the comparison is made. Apples must be compared to apples.

13 P.L. 96-487, December 2, 1980 (94 Stat. 2371). 1a United States v. State of Califomia, 574 U.S. (2014), No. 5 Orig. Fifth Supplementat Decree. 6

When reference is made to latitude and longitude it almost always refers to the geodetic based ellipsoid modelof the earth. This is compared to astronomicalwhich is based on being perpendicular to the geoid. The deflection of the vertical will influence azimuth of a GPS baseline and an astronomically determined azimuth of the same line.

Getting the courts to understand the technology, when it is properly applied and when it is not, will be a challenge. Many surveyors themselves do not completely grasp the fundamentals. However, conveyances under the statute of frauds do not necessarily require a metes and bounds description to adequately identiff a parcel.ls lt must merely contain sufficient certainty of location to be valid.

In theory, the concept of DPPS will provide geographic coordinate values for corner positions that provide for certainty of location, are repeatable, and are within a well-defined limit of accuracy. The geographic coordinate values, when tied to the NSRS, fixes the comer position. The coordinates become direct evidence of a comer position when considered along with the datum upon which they are based and the relationship to other monumented corners. Additionally, environmental considerations must be acknowledged when establishing or re- establishing corners. These factors would include GNSS satellite availability, atmospheric interference such as geomagnetic storms, cycle slips, scintillation, and other natural phenomena. Higher latitudes may experience greater occunence of these phenomena. lf DPPS is to be successful and become a scientific method acceptable to the courts, the surveying community must embrace proper DPPS mechanics and competently implement its provisions. Failure to do so will have a detrimental effect on the public which it serves and be viewed unfavorably by the courts. Fortunately, many up-to-date software applications will do on the fly transformations including provisions for HorizontalTime Dependent Positioning (HTDP). Even with enhanced software capabilities, it is still advisable for DPPS practitioners to possess a foundational understanding of geodesy applications. The American Association for Geodetic Surveying is contemplating a certification program beginning in the spring of 2017 which should enable those seeking a deeper understanding of the issues related to DPPS to acquire the necessary training. lf the State of Alaska implements the provisions of DPPS, it is strongly recommended that the Alaska surveying community avail themselves of this opportunity or other similar educational programs.

Going forward, there is no guarantee that future revisions to the NSRS will always support and facilitate the necessary conversions. DPPS assumes status quo. However, in discussions with the National Geodetic Survey (NGS) in preparation of this report, it became evident that this may not be the case. lt is strongly recommended that the BLM and NGS meet at a high levet to discuss the cunent implementation requirements and future conversion requirements that will be necessary to accurately locate or relocate published coordinate positions.

The status of future NSRS revisions is just one of the issues affecting implementation of DPPS for federal surveys. There are other "downstream" impacts once a DPPS plat is approved and the land is patented to the state.

1s Coe v. Chesapeake, 695 F. 3d 31 1, Court of Appeals, Fifrh Circuit (2012) 7

Survev for Convevance of State Lands Orisinallv Platted bv DPPS Methods

Once the DPPS plat is recorded and the lands are conveyed to the State of Alaska, surveys are performed under the authority of the State of Alaska.ro

Current State of Alaska statutes and regulations related to survey methods (see Appendix A) are appropriate where monuments exist, at a minimum, on the township exterior. These statutes and regulations do not provide methods for a "coordinate only'survey corner. The State of Alaska will need to develop rules and regulations to accommodate the DPPS environment.

Group 948 - Sample DPPS Plat

The sample Group 948 Plat covers 37 fulland partialtownships, 23 in the Fairbanks Meridian and 14 in the Kateel River Meridian. There are approximately 1,146 sections in these townships including approximately 8 lots in five U.S. Surveys. Only one corner monument in the U.S. Surveys was recovered. The Alatna and John Rivers flow through these lands.

According to BLM, there are 49 surveyed monuments shown on the sample Group 948 plat.rT Portions of the platted lands are more than 12 miles from the nearest recovered/set monument.

Some unique characteristics of the Group 948 plat, in general:

. unmonumented comers shown/marked as "New Corner (Not Monumented)"; o the plat does not contain bearings or distances; o evêU corner is defined by a latitude and a longitude;18 o the monumentation is set at exterior angle points and "locations of opportunity"; ¡ the monumentation on adjoining surveys is not tied (unless necessary to monument exterior angle points); o there are no new meander comers or witness corners to meander comers; o there is no interdependence between comers; o the PLSS datumle is fixed by the coordinates on the plat; o section corners "exist'in water bodies.

The sample Group 948 DPPS Plat is a representation of computations that define the PLSS Datum (Townships and Sections) on the stated Geodetic Datum (NAD_83 (2011)

16 BLM did prepare DRAFT Federal resurvey procedures which would theoretically apply if lands were to be re-acquired by the Federal Govemment AND the State agreed to use those procedures. 17 Two-mile monumentation for this plat would require approximately 120 additional monuments. 18 Lats/Longs are NAD_83(201 1 )(EPOCH:201 0.0000). 1e PLSS Datum. Section 2-9 of the 2009 Manual of Survey lnstructions states 'A key concept is that the system is to be laid out and reported according to "the mean bearing referenced to the true meridian at the point of record." The Group 948 plat contains no bearings and no distances. Given that DPPS asserts that the geographic coordinates control the corner positions and all of the comers on the plat have defined geographic coordinates, there is no need to be concemed with lines of constant bearing or line of sight. No effort is required here except to get the coordinate published on the plat into digital character format. 8

(EPOCH:2010.0000). These computations are analogous to the original survey2o which will be confirmed at a later time.

Technical Capacity to Re-Establish a Point in Space

Using GNSS methods, surveyors with the proper education, experience, equipment, and budget can re-establish a point in space that exceeds the requirements for establishing original corners, even over the long distances between CORS stations and the Group 948 lands.2r lt will be more cost effective and accurate to re-establish these points from record DPPS monuments on/near the Group 948 lands. The ability to do so will become easier and less costly as technology and the NSRS evolve.22

It is expected that at some point after NSRS 2022is rolled out and functional, surveyors will have the ability to obtain real time positions that are sufficiently accurate2s to establish original corners without the need for ground control (assuming that it is possible to accurately model tectonic movement and that there are no seismic events resulting in significant displacement).

Currently, utilizing CORS data makes every survey a two (or more) trip survey. CORS data is not accessible at the Group 948 site, nor at most any other remote site in northem Alaska. Satellite phone coverage does not provide a reliable method of accessing data and there is no cell phone coverage in the area. Additionally, some CORS data is not available for months after being logged.2a

Abil¡ty to Re-Establish a Point on the Ground

One of the core objectives in boundary surveys is to return to the same (original) position each and every time. The BLM has recognized that the undisturbed original monument is the best

20 Letter from Donald Buhler, Chief Cadastral Surveyor, BLM to Curt Sumner, National Society of Professional Land Surveyors, January 13, 2016: DPPS fixes comer positions by coordinate evidence and ground monuments established during the survey with reported coordinates for later confirmation of the original survey, i.e., following in the "geodetic datum footsteps". 21 CORS stations nearest to Group 948 AB33 - UNAVCO-PBO - Approx. 69 miles (1 1 1k) NE of the center of the group AB27 -UNAVCO-PBO - Approx. 119 miles (191k) NWof the centerof the group A836 - UNAVCO-PBO- Approx. 139 miles (223k)S of the centerofthe group A827-A836 - Approx. 223 miles (359k) A836-4833 - Approx. 155 miles (250k) AB33-A827 -Approx. 182 miles (292k) The nearest Federally operated CORS stations are in Fairbanks - FAI (operated by the FAA and about 200 miles to the SE of the center of Group 948) and in Banow - BRW1 (operated by the FAA and about 320 miles N of the center of Group 948.) 22 Historically, Alaska is treated as a separate, secondary, effort in NGS products with a spatial component due to the geographic isolation, low population, and sparse survey data. lf that trend continues, NSRS advancements are unlikely to be rolled out in Alaska as quickly as in the Lower48. 23 Estimated to be in the 10-25cm range. 24 UNAVCO-PBO stations are typically solar powered with battery backup. When there is insufficient power to transmit data (winter/weeks of cloudy weather/etc.) the station logs data using battery power untilthe solar power is adequate to transmit. Sometimes data transmission is delayed for months. Additionally, the sites are remote and equipment faílure/malfunction may or may not be addressed in a timely manner. UNAVCO-PBO stations are placed and operated for purposes unrelated to serving GPS data; they should not be considered part of a long-term infrastructure system. 9

evidence of the original position;2s this position is the basis for many legal decisions by the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) as well as State and Federal courts. There is significant effort invested in proactively perpetuating the original position. Efforts include instructions on establishing accessories2o (including quantity, location, type, character, description, and notation), field work to establish accessories to the original corner position, and the inclusion of accessory information in the field notes.

For non-DPPS surveys, the original positions of original cadastral comers that are lost or obliterated are re-established from nearby evidence per a court-tested set of defensible rules

Re-establishing a point on the ground from distant control (as is required by DPPS) is not as certain. Tectonic activity changes the relationship between a point in space and a point on the ground. Over shorter periods without seismic activity, these changes are minor. Studies by Dr. Jeffery Freymueller2T indicate that the Group 948 lands are changing at a fairly slow rate (about 1mm/year). This rate of change is insignificant in an area of no development. Additionally, in 50 years, that's just 5 centimeters. This movement can be modeled and the corner positions can be adjusted (using National Geodetic Survey's HorizontalTime-Dependent Positioning (HTDP) utility) to mitigate the difference between the point in space and the point on the ground.

Local seismic activity will be more difficult to model as there are currently insufficient markers (monuments or other uniquely identifiable physical objects) to identiff how much the land has moved as the result of a specific seismic event.28

Re-establishing points on the ground from three or more of the 40+ original DPPS surveyed monuments (Three Plus Method)2e provides a check on the stability of those monuments and eliminates the potentialfor error related to tectonic, and most likely, seismic activity. The surveyor re-establishing the original on-the-ground positions will hold record DPPS locations for three (or more) of these monuments as well as record coordinate positions for the DPPS corners. This method eliminates the need for realization/epoch transformations, HTDP modeling, and acquisition of CORS data thereby reducing the potential for computation errors, multiple trips, and improving the potentialfor a survey in harmony with the originally platted DPPS positions on the ground.

In order to eliminate the need to repeat this effort every time that particular location is needed, it would be wise to set a monument after the position was determined.

25 BLM, Public Land Surveying, A Casebook, 2001 Revision, Page 8: Conclusive Evidence Outweighs the Record - The actual comer monument, when found and is undisturbed, is paramount; the record (field notes and plat) is subordinate to the monument. 26 The BLM has invested much energy in the last 200+/- years supporting the concept of physical evidence in the vicinity is the best evidence of the original position. ln addition to the actual comer monument the BLM has made provisions for establishing a wide variety of corner accessories including: witness points, bearing trees, pits, mounds, memorialobjects, caims, etc. 27 Jeffrey T. Freymueller, Professorof Geophysics, Geophysical lnstitute, Universityof Alaska, Fairbanks. CV at http:/þps.alaska.edu/jefflvita.html 28 Seismic movement has the potentialto be significant. On November 3,2002, an earthquake caused significant displacement over a portion of Central Alaska. Displacement of greater than I' was measured at the Richardson Highway. This earthquake is believed to be related to ongoing seasonal instability at CORS station 4836, the nearest CORS station to the south. 2e The name "Three Plus Method" is provided for convenience to this discussion. This name is specific to this document and the exact procedure for the method would need to be specified by the State of Alaska. l0

The expense of a second or more trips associated with a CORS based position combined with the added computational risk and effort of transformation to the plat's geodetic datum and HTDP calculations makes the "Three Plus Method" described above a more cost effective and accurate approach.

Currently, accomplishing a survey in this area requires significant travel in challenging terrain Alaska Land Surveyors have extensive experience working in this environment and this experience has shown that, although expensive, helicopter access is the most cost effective approach.

Densification of the Monumented DPPS Gorners After Some Monumentation is lN

Traveling to three bracketing original DPPS monuments for each corner within the DPPS lands will end up being an expensive proposition as the lands are surveyed in years to come. The Three Plus Method would be suitable for setting additional DPPS geodetic datum control in the Group 948 lands. These control monuments and other accepted Three Plus Method monuments could be the basis for corner monumentation densification.

Using the published coordinates (which may or may not be the published DPPS coordinateso) of stable undisturbed original "controlling' monuments as the basis of other surveys will reduce the amount of travel required to establish other comers as the DPPS lands are populated with monuments. Allowing this method of densification has the potential to save significant money but if improperly managed will increase the potential for the propagation of poor quality work. The State of Alaska will need to devise a strategy (and coresponding rules and regulations) that ensures the integrity of the cadastral framework and reduces cost. The approach may be something such as requiring that a corner (or multiple corners) on each of the township exteriors be monumented with controlling monuments before additional monumentation in the township can occur based on the controlling monuments.

Efficiency in Process

The current BLM methods of surveying and monumenting a number of townships at a time has evolved into a highly efficient system. Crews mobilize, establish logistics and survey systems, and execute surveys consistently and efficiently. Crews have expertise as this is their focus. o One mobilization for lots of monumentation . Consistent methods throughout those townships o Low cost per monument This is something that BLM has done very well over the years. All surveyors working in these townships know what to expect - things are consistent.

This is in contrast to the scenario that is likely to unfold when the state surveys parcels on an ad hoc basis as needed. o Multiple mobilizations for a few monuments at a time. o Multiple surveyors with varying levels of experience with DPPS. o Much lower efficiency resulting in much greater cost per monument.

30 The published coordinates will be those coordinates accepted by the State. They may be from the original DPPS plat or they may be from some other State Authority survey. ll

Surveying for Gonveyance 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 prior to 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 improvements are constructed within the bounds of lands for which they have the appropriate rights.

Prior to any State survey related to conveyance of rights, the State will need to develop: o Rules related to the density and location of required monumentation; . Approved methods for establishing monuments at original DPPS corners (original monuments) (The Three Plus Method described above is one possibility); o Rules for establishing accessories (if any); o Rules for tying into approved surveys adjacent to DPPS lands; o Rules for re-establishing lost and obliterated original monuments: o Rules related to the relationship, if any, between adjacent original monuments; . Clear and unambiguous rules regarding the hierarchy of evidence when resolving discrepancies; o State Authority Surveys in DPPS Lands training for the survey community; o DPPS lands training for title companies and banks.31

This is a bulleted list - in this form it's fairly simple. In fact each of these items represents a significant cost and each willtake significant time. lt willtake years (probably decades) to flesh out all of these elements to the point where there is a reliable system.

From a land management perspective, building a set of rules and regulations to support a new paradigm where coordinates (cunently the lowest item in the hierarchy of boundary evidence) are the highest form of evidence of the corner position is daunting. The prevailing principal of boundary law holds that the original undisturbed monument and its accessories are the highest form of evidence of boundary location. There are hundreds of thousands of attomey hours and there are thousands of cases that were held before the IBLA and state and federal courts which establish the rules and precedence that dictate how evidence is evaluated and weighted when re-establishing 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 surveyors but for state courts, land managers and users will be required in order to underst¡and its impact on state owned lands. While the cost savings to the federal government is obvious, is it equitable for one state to bear the costs of this experiment?

31 Banks require demonstrated site control. This unproven system may or may not be accepted by these institutions. lf there is any question in their minds about the quiet enjoyment of the properfy, it will be difficult or impossible to get financing for development on DPPS lands. t2

Equitv of Usinq DPPS methods onlv in Alaska

As mentioned previously, the Manual of lnstructions for the Suruey of Public Lands of the llnited Sfafes 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 totalacreage to be conveyed to Alaska (102 million acres), the survey procedure required by the 1947 Manual and used in the lower 48 states created a tremendous federal obligation.

Because of this obligation and a fundamental disagreement on the procedure for state surveys, a compromise was reached between the Department of the lnterior and the State of Alaska in 1963. This settlement, brokered by Alaska's Congressional delegation and confirmed by both houses of Congress, directed BLM to survey state selected lands by single township with perimeter monumentation every 2 miles around the individualtownship 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 Positioning Survey (DPPS) is even further from the 1947 manual. lt is proposed to be used only in Alaska at this time and no other states with any existing federal survey obligations.

This is a significant burden to the people of Alaska as there has been an acknowledgment that its use would not be appropriate in some parts of the state and that the cunent status of the mapping and land position data isn't close to the level needed to rely on the DPPS. While this situation may greatly improve in the future, it cunently is a significant problem. Employing the DPPS methodology at this time would make it extremely difficult to maintain uniform land records so criticalto the multiple land ownership types that exist in the State. Gommittee 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. lt 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 replicated with the data supplied with the survey. 13

Appendix A

Need for suruey in DPPS conveyed lands. State lands are surveyed per AS 38.04.045 Gf ) for three primary reasons: Fee conveyance, leases (under certain conditions), and lnteragency Land Management Agreements32 (ILMA) (under certain conditions). The fee conveyances and leases transfer land rights to private entities and Municipalities for a variety of uses.33 Some of these leases are for small business enterprises (such as agricultural uses (like peony farms), tourism enterprises (such as remote adventure lodges), and resource development (such as mining).

Existing methods of surveying land interests to be conveyed. These land interests can be conveyed described as loUblock subdivision or by Meridian Township Range Section (MTRS) aliquot part descriptions as appropriate for existing conditions and needs.

1. Where the conveyed lands are by loUblocUtract subdivision the survey method is mostly independent from the parent parcel's survey origin (protracted , 112 mile monumentation, or other). The state utilizes Alaska State Land Surveys (ASLS) to subdivide land into lots/blocks. The ASLS is tied to the nearest cadastral comers to show its relationship to the MTRS.

2. Where the conveyed lands are by aliquot part within a township surveyed by conventional l12 mile monumentation under a FederalAuthority Survey, the section subdivision is by Federal methods as defined in the Manual of Survey lnstructions. Lands conveyed are described by MTRS aliquot part descriptions.

3. Where the conveyed lands are by aliquot part within a "Tract A" township surveyed by 2 mile exterior township boundary under a Federal Authority Survey, the section breakdown is by Alaska State Cadastral Survey (ASCS). Special instructions for these surveys are provided by the State. The survey methods are a hybrid survey relying on a combination of recovered monumentation and record plat information as outlined in State of Alaska Administrative Code: 1 1 AAC 53.150 (E2).

Regardless of the method, the primary difference to the end user between DPPS based or monumented cadastral survey based is cost. As the distance between control and the monument being set increases, the cost increases for the end user.

All of the state survey methods require the township to, at a minimum, have exterior monumentation. To maintain the existing system of surveys of state land, exterior monumentation would need to be established or the ability to return to the same position (section corner) on the ground would need to occur.

32 ILMAs are land management agreements between state agencies. The Dept. of Natural Resources has provided ILMAs for transportation infrastructure, economic development projects, etc. 33 AS 38.04.005 defines the general policy for use of state land. l4

Appendix A Endnotes El AS 38.04.045. Survey and Subdivision. (a)[Repealed, Sec.88 ch 152 SLA 1984]. (b) Before the issuance of a long-term lease under AS 38.05.070 or of a patent for state land, an ofücial cadastral survey shall be accomplished, unless a comparable, approved survey exists that has been conducted by the federal Bureau of Land Management. Before land may be offered under AS 38.08 or AS 38.09, or before land may be offered under AS 38.05.055 or 38.05.057, except land that is classified for agricultural uses, an official rectangular survey grid shall be established. The rectangular survey section corner positions shall be monumented and shown on a cadastral survey plat approved by the state. For those areas where the state may wish to convey surface estate outside of an official rectangular survey grid, the commissioner may waive monumentation of individual section comer positions and substitute an official control survey with control points being monumented and shown on control survey plats approved by the state. The commissioner may not issue more than one conveyance for each section within a township outside of an official rectangular survey grid. Land to be conveyed may not be located more than two miles from an official survey control monument except that the commissioner may waive this requirement on a determination that a single purpose use does not justiff the requirement if the existing status of the land is known with reasonable certainty. The lots and tracts in state subdivisions shall be monumented and the cadastral survey and plats for the subdivision shall be approved by the state. Where land is located within a municipality with planning, platting, and zoning powers, plats for state subdivisions shall comply with local ordinances and regulations in the same manner and to the same extent as plats for subdivisions by other landowners. State subdivisions shall be filed and recorded in the district recorde/s office. The requirements of this section do not apply to land made available for material sales, for short-term leases, for parcels adjoining a surveyed right-of-way, or for land that has been open to random staking under the homestead program in the past; however, for short-term leases, the lessee shall comply with local subdivision ordinances unless waived by the municipality under procedures specified by ordinance. ln this subsection, "a single purpose use" includes a communication site, an aid to navigation, and a park site.

E2 11 AAC 53.150(a) (1) Category | applies if no rectangular cadastral survey comers have been set to define the rectangular survey township perimeter. The township is, therefore, legally described only by reference to the official protraction diagrams. The section comer positions along the perimeter and within the interior of the township must be established at the official protracted geodetic positions as shown on the official protraction diagram. fThts Js essenflally the DPPS scenario) (2) Category ll applies if monumentation exists on the perimeter of a township that is officially platted. All subsequent section, quarter section, and other corner positions must be located along the perimeter on line and at prorated distances between the monumentation of record. All interior section comer positions must be established at the official geodetic positions as shown on the official protraction diagrams. The interior section lines along the exterior one mile of the township must then be established as a line connecting the established geodetic positions of the interior section corners and the section corner positions as established on the exterior of the township. Whenever interior conection lines have to be established, because the configuration of the township exterior is not established at the official protraction positions, the division will issue special survey instructions for the official positioning of the conection line and corner monument positions. (3) Category lll applies if the perimeter of the township has been established and monumented, based on the official protraction diagrams, and interior monumentation defining a particular section of land also exists, based on the official protraction diagrams. When this situation exists, a section of land may be located within the interior portion of the township by continuation of the rectangular survey system in accordance with the approved protraction diagrams, using either the monumented interior section corners or the exterior perimeter section comer monuments, whichever is more appropriate. The rectangular system is then projected to within one mile of the other previously established section comer monument. Then the line connecting the existing comer and the newly established section corners¡ is made and the quarter corner is set at midpoint and on line. However, if the connecting line does not close within the survey class accuracy assigned, a conection line is required and the division will issue special survey instructions to govem its location. l5

(4) Gategory lV applies if the perimeter boundary of a township has been established and monumented, based on either an official protraction diagram or on an older perimeter boundary survey done before the official protraction diagrams were approved. lt also applies when the interior section comers have been established and monumented, based on either an official protraction diagram or an older survey done before the official protraction diagrams were approved. There are two survey data to contend with, one that controls the exterior boundary of the township and one that controls the interior section corners. Both may be physically monumented on the ground. lf two such datia exist, the division willissue special survey instructions establishing a correction line to control the basis for projection of the rectangular survey system throughout the township. These special survey instructions will govem the interior subdivision of the township. UNITE[] STATES DEPA,FITMEN]' OF COMMEtrICE ¡-V"',, Nacional Oceanic artd AÈrnosipher.ic,A.drninisÈ,naÈlor-r ij.', ]| .a, ..t-r',i : -:.i l i\j. rr r-: ,, ìt ,/ .' li .: _ , ..r

.jff¡ (--:l_',, '--. -r1; í ¡r- ,' l: i i

NOV 7 20 i6

Mr. (ìcralcl .lcnnings. l)l.S ('hicl. Sun'cr Scction I)ivision ol'i\lining. Land ancl Watcr ¡\laska l)cpartnrcnt ol' Natural llcsourccs 550 Wcst 7th ¡\r,cnr"rc. Suitc (r50 Arrchoragc. Alaska 99501 -3576

Ilc: z\ppliccl r"rsc ol'thc N¿ttion¿rl S¡ratial lìclcrcncc Srsttr¡rt (NSI{S) in l)l)l)S Nlcthotkrlog¡-

l)car i\lr. .lcnrtings .l'hc Natio¡t¿¡l Occanic antl Altnos¡rhcric r\clrttinistr¿rtion's National (ìcodctic Surr,c_r'(N(jS) has bccn contactccl b¡'pcrsonrtcl lionr thc l)c¡rartttrcnt ol'lntcrior"s Ilurc¿rr¡ l.¿ulrl I\4an¿rgcnlcnt (lll,M). thc Alaska l)epartrncrìt ol'Natural llcsourccs (l)NI{). anrl othcrs rcgartling lll.Nl's ¡lro¡rosal to r¡sc I)ircct l)oint l)ositioning Survc¡'(l)l')l'S) nrctlìocls lìrr lrre¡xrring sur\c\,¡rlats ancl tlclìning l)ublic l.ancl Survcy S)'stcnt (Pl.SS) corncrs ryith linlitecl inst¿rll¿rtiorr ol'phvsical surr,cv m¿r¡'kcrs. I)ue to lhc rlivcrsc atrcl nu¡ncrous ittclc¡rcnrlcnl rcc¡ucsts lirr infìrrnratio¡r on this to¡ric. rvc ¡rroviclc thc lblloning rcs¡rottsc to all knorvn partics rvith an intcresl in thc ucoclc.tic as¡lccts ol' thc l)l)PS nrcthocl:

"N(iS's rrrission is tt> clelìnc. rnaintairt. attcl ¡lroviclc acccss to tllc Nation¿rl Spatial lì.cl.clcncc Systcrn (NSlts)." thc lburtclation fìrr all sun'cy'ing. nra¡rping. charting. ancl ¡xrsitioning activitics i¡l tlic Ilnitccl Statcs artcl its tcrritorics. All civilian licclcral gcospatial agcncics (inclutling thc. lll.M) arc rcc¡uirccl to u,ork rvilhin thc NSlLS. As suclt. it is irnpcratir,c that N(jS. us stcrv¿u'rls ul thc NSRS. proviclc irtlìrrmation about thc capabilitics ancl lirnitations ol'a¡r¡rliccl NSIIS r¡sc rrith rcs¡rcct to tll.M's pro¡rosal.

l'hc NSIìS is tlcfìnccl unc.l acccssccl through a cornbinatiott ol'activc statiorìs and ¡rassivc contnll nrarks sct tr¡'NGS. its prcdcccssoragcttcics. artcl otltcrsurrc¡'irrg proll'ssiorrals lìrr thc purposcs ol'rnap¡'rirtg ancl charti¡19 our N¿ttio¡r. N(ìS ¡laintains an ollìcial lntcglatcrl l)irt¿rbasc (ll)ll)that supp()rts Acccss to pulrlislrc(l NSIìS coorclinatcs ol'physical Inarks in the grourrd. [:ach ¡rassirc control nrark irr tlrc ll)l] h¿rs a¡t ol'lìci¿rl NSIIS coorclinatc: horvcvcr. coorclinatcs rnav changr) ovct' ti¡nc lirr a r aricty ol'rcasons: (a) a nlark rnity ph¡'sic¿tllv tnovc rluc to sotììe g,c()phtsical phcn()r'rlulorr (scllcs ralr in tinlc ancl/or.s¡racc). (b) thc stllìrvarc used lo conlputc lltc coortlin¿ttu fir¡nr oriuinal obscrl¿rtiolrs ntar h¿rr,c cltangcd. (c) a ncr,r survcy rrrav havc bcen ¡rcrlìrt'tttccl. ¡rroviclittg u¡rclatccl ¡rositiorral illlìrrrnation. (cl) a¡r crror ill tr prcvious corl¡ruttttiott coulcl havc bcell clctectcrl ancl colrcctcd. or

i',,",,.i Iì<.r.l<.1 I"r¡'' I @ ''r: (e) the datunr to which all coordinates refer may have been updated. Because each passive control mark in the IDB has an ol'ficial NSIìS coordinate, a l+o-l corrclation cxists ternporalily between a passive conlrol mark or physical location on thc ground and some particular coordinate, but lhis l-to-l conelation could be broken if any of the above issues occur and are poorly modeled, documented, or understood.

Movenrent of the North r\merican plate in Alaslca and othcr tectonics are gcophysical processcs that are n<¡t well charactcrized. In líeu of rnodcls. direct measurement of crustal motion nray be accornplished using GNSS in one ol'two ways-by re-observing passive contrcl monuments or at Continuously Operating Ru"f'erence Station (CORS) sites. CORS are present but sparse throughout parts of Alaska; and, few have existed long cnough to provide computecl velocities. The NGS sofltware program, l"lorizontal 'firne-Dependent Positioning (ilTDP), estinrates crustal velocities and shil'ts horizontal coorcliuates bctween epochs. I{owet er. in many parts of Alaska thcse estimates are of lirnited acculacy for applying disct'cte motíon adjustnrcn.ts to the coordinatcs of survey rnonuments. Please note that as this product prcsently is available, there is no guarantee that l'l'fDP rvillremain an available NGS product.

With the upcorning rnodemization, the NSRS will rely on semi-clynamic datums wherc surveys will be time-tagged br¡t not explicitly tied to olcler surveys using geophysical moclels. In a practical sense, this means that a 5 cm netrvork accuracy is achicvable at the time of'a given sul'vey, but that ascuraey nray not be nraintained if repeat surveys are not perl.ormed ovEr time on the samc passive control nctwork. 'fo re-establish an NSRS coordinate fronr a past epoch in an area that has undergone tectonic nrotion, an adequate ¡runrber of passive control n'larks mt¡st cxist ancl remain available lbr rc-observation. NGS consistently has reconrmendecl tlrat surveyorc rc- obscrve existing passive control marks to obtain accr¡ratc c<¡orclinates in the NSRS, now and in the future.

For adoption of the proposed DPPS methodology, NGS recommends an ackrtowledgement that GNSS slrrvey tcchniques that do not ctnploy passive survey control monu¡nents havc accuracy lirnitations at tlre clecimeters to meter level. Consequcntly, for GNSS to be used rcliably as a tool to identify a unique point on the dynanric crust of thc Earth, adequate local ¡narlçs must bc 'fhis establishecl to allow clependent sutveys that follow to align with tlre original intent. provicles a rcprcscntative dataset that characterizcs the net crustal motion in the survey ârea plattccl. We therefore advise that ISLM and Patentee rcview eaclt suwey plan and mutually agrec on a minimum quantity and/or spacing of passive control, and aclcnowledge that there is a clependency on tlrese passive control rnarks to re-establislr ground positions ticd to the NSRS at a fi¡ture date. Additionally, both parties shoulcl understand that a certain pcrccntage of passive controlling marks will be disturbed or dcstroyed (lost) over ti¡ne. NGS persounel arc able to assist in thcsc discussions, but such agreenrents will require an unclerstandirrg of additional fhctors beyond the scope of NGS purview in this topic, including assessmcnts of risk tolcrance and resource lcvels necessary to establish new passive monu¡nents (inclucling I'LSS corncrs) if' densification is rcquired for subscquent purposes.

'I'o fâcilitate any GNSS survey ef'forts, NCS rccommends thc use of our OPUS-l'rojects tool for netrvork baselinc processing and adjustnrents. OPUS-Projects may be used, in combinatio¡r rvith data I'rom CORS or othcr active GNSS control stations, to produce final control networks with

2 (ìNSS obscrvaliott clata on ¡rassivc control ttrarks. [jrtlcss spccificallr,clclctccl lry thc crcator. alt Ol'}lJS-l)ro,iccts netlvclrk (including otrscrvatiott clattr) s,ill rcrtrain pcnnancnt[,archivccl at N(ìS b¡'¡rro.icct ll). Control nc'tw'ork pr'occssing results. inclucling nr¿rrk irncertaintics and otlrcr critical tnctaclata. should bc lccor

As a convenicncc. N(ìS ¡rroviclcs a basic OPLJS l)at¿rbasc (OI'}t.lS-t)ll)to "slrarc" (;NSS otrselr,¿ttions on passivc co¡ltrol rnarks. Within Ol'}tlS-l)ll. N(iS rctains rn¿rrk coorclinatcs lì'ortr thc tintc'ol'obscrvatiott. ancl autonlaticallv per¡rctuatcs thcse coorclinatss into lilturc rclcrcncc lianrciclatunt rcalizatiuns. ln aclclitiorr to thc gcoclctic NSIìS coorcli¡latc. Ol)[JS-gcrrcratecl clatashccts inclucls thc tJ'l'M ancl Statc l)lanc C-'oorclinatcs. ¡rlrotos t¡l'thc rrark. an inlcracti\c nlap. obscn'cr rccorcl. l)ll). arrd nrark clcsigt't¿ttion. N(ìS lirrthcrr rccorìm'ìcnds th¿rl an-v (iNSS obscn'atioll clata collcctccl ou ¡rassivc control nr¿uks in sup¡rort ol'l)Pl'}S lrc sultrniltc(l to Ol'tlS- l)ll lìrr c¿rsc ol'¿tcccss b¡' an¡' intcrcstccl partir.rs.

As a scicncc-bascd tcchnical authorit,v

N(iS looks f'orrvard to ¡rroviclin-e aclclitiortul gcodctic rcsources or guidarrcc. as nccrlccl. ancl w'c arc c¿rgcr to su¡rport all partics irr seekinga riablc solution that rvill bc in thc lrcst intcrcst ol'thc Nation.

Sinccrclr,.

¡/,^1,r,^, /&-4*q .luliana l'. []lackwcll l)irccttlr cc: fVlichacl ll. Schoclcr, Ilurcau ol'l,ancl Managcntcnt. Alaska (lacla.stral Srrn'c,r'Chicl' l)r. Nicolc Kins¡lan. National (ìcorlctic Sun,c1'. Âlaska lìcgional (icoclclic ¡\cli,isor

3 "Cutting Corners"

The State of Alaska Speaks Out

On BLM's

Direct Point Positioning Survey (DPPS)

System

ABSTRACT

Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR) will present its perception of DPPS in context with state history and the 3%year negotiation between the US Bureau of Land Management (BLM)and the ONR. On December L9,2OL6, a BLM News Release announced BLM's intentions of unilaterally implementing the DPPS system and effectively terminating this negotiation.

BLM conducted a pilot project covering an area 44 míles by 54 miles in width within the interior of Alaska. Under BLM's lnstruction Memorandum, dated September L3,20L6, only the angle points on the exterior boundary of the block are required to be set and DPPS is approved, by BLM, for lands to be conveyed under the Alaska Statehood Act. The BLM's Director Kornze announced plans to implement DPPS nationwide.

DPPS is a re-engagement by BLM of a State/Federal dispute over density of survey monumentation which originated over the first state land entitlement survey approved in 1961. That survey dispute was amicably resolved in 1963 with the state agreeing to 2 mile monumentation around townships.

Author:

Gerald Jennings, PLS, CFedS, Survey Section Chief, Division of Mining, Land and Water, Alaska Department of Natural Resources

L Cutting Corners - Alaska Perspective on DPPS v. 2 February L6,2OL7 "Cutting Corners"

The State of Alaska Speaks Out

On BLM's

Direct Point Positioning Survey (DPPS)

System

On April 20,20L6, The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) presented a four-hour outreach and training session on DPPS and invited public and private sector surveyors across the state to attend in person in Anchorage or by video conference in Fairbanks. Presenting in Anchorage were Alaska BIM survey staff and by video were Don Buhler, BLM National Chief Cadastral Surveyor and Bob Dahl, (editor for the Manual of Surveying lnstructions 2009).

DPPS is presented as a new technology, using coordinates as a better alternative to setting monuments to identify corners.

The DNR believes that the key features of DPPS are not new. The discussion on the number of monuments required to be set on Alaska state selection surveys has been addressed thoroughly and settled with the first state entitlement surveys in the early 1960's. The conveyance of land identified by coordinates has also been tried in the 1970's under the 1973 Memorandum of Understanding l]rg73 MOU). ln 1981, after 13.5 million of acres had been conveyed to the state using protraction surveys, the DNR notified the BLM that we would no longer accept title based on protraction surveys.

When I began workíng for DNR in 1980, Claud Hoffman was the Director of the Division of Technical Services. At statehood, he was a Cadastral Surveyor for the DNR and Maurice Oswald was the Acting Chief Cadastral Engineer as the Territory became a State.

Alaska became a state effective on January 3, 1959.

Selected quotes from the Alaska Statehood Act 6(g):

All selections shall be mode in reasonobly compact trocts, toking into occount the situotion and potentiol uses of the lands involved, and each troct selected sholl contoin ot leost five thousond seven hundred and sixty ocres unless isoldted from other trocts open to selection.

Where any lands desired by the State ore unsurueyed at the time of their selection, the Secretory of the lnterior shall survey the exterior boundaries of the areo requested without ony interior subdivision thereof and shall issue a potent for such selected areo in terms oÍ the exterior boundory survey.

2 Cutting Corners - Alaska Perspective on DPPS v. 2 February L6,2OL7 The First State Land Entitlement Survey

Hobart Hyatt and Jerry Harris Supervisory Cadastral Surveyors executed group 100 survey under speciat instructions dated June 6, 1960. Survey was approved October L6, L96L, and filed in December of 1961. This survey aggregated seven state selections and surveyed the exterior boundary ofthe group of selections.

Jan 8, 1962 DNR surveyor Claud Hoffman wrote to Maurice Oswald DNR Acting Chief Cadastral Engineer: This survey "leaves quite a burden upon the State". Followed by "Objections to survey Group 100" on Jan 10, 1962.

Questionable Points Raised by the State of Alaska - Group 100 Survey: "We are quite disappointed that the manual of Surveying lnstructions was not followed...the most important single exception to this survey is that, if íntended to be used to pass title to the state, it does not comply with (the Statehood Act) ...since this particular area has been covered by eight separate selection applications which were accepted a nd approved..."

On Feb 6, L962 Roscoe Bell, Director Div. of Lands wrote to Senator Bartlett "...the first plat received ,The from BLM on a state selection survey leaves a great dealto be desired." Statehood Act requires the survey of the exterior boundaries of selections...however, the survey covers several selections and does not mark the boundaries of the individual selections, rather, it provides monumentation at irregular intervals on the boundary of a four township block.

On Feb 26,1962 Senator Bartlett wrote to Director Roscoe Bel! 'The Bureau does not seem at all interested in expanding the extent of surveying...Obviously something must be done to correct this..."

On March 13, L962, Senator Bartlett testified before the Subcommittee on DOI Appropriations. The issue was discussed in detail.

Meanwhile, the issue was also addressed by the Dept. of lnterior. Quoted from the DNR Div. of Lands Annual Report - 1963, page 4: 'The special Alaska Railroad car, "Caribou Creek," was the scene of an important conference held in the summer of 1963 between state and federal officials. Occasioned by the Alaskan visit of Assistant Secretary of the lnterior John Carver, the conference included Carver, Commissioner Phil Holdsworth of DNR, Director Roscoe E. Bell of the Division of Lands, Roger Robinson, state director of the BLM and others. While the Caribou Creek car made a two-day tour of the rail belt area, from Fairbanks to Anchorage, the conference was able to progress without outside interruption, and major policy decisions were made which have cleared away the main obstructions to the passage of title to State-selected lands."

On August 19, 1963 John Carver, DOI wrote to Phil Holdsworth, DNR: "lnstructions conforming with our agreements in Alaska are being issued."

3 Cutting Corners - Alaska Perspective on DPPS v. 2 February t6,2OL7 Conference Committee Report HR 5279:

'The conferees are agreed that the directive included in the report of the Senate committee with regard to surveys of Alaska land selections made under the terms of the Alaska Statehood Act...will be satisfied by surveys of the exterior boundaries of full townships (even if composed of as many as four land selections) w¡th monumentation at an average of 2 miles around the perimeter."

Senate Report: The committee is concerned about complaints relative to surveys of Alaskan land selections. Reports of Senate and House Committees...on the statehood bills... (do not) indicate that each legal land selection would not or could not be subject to an exterior boundary survey''. The State of Alaska has advised that in at least one patent there are included seven separate land selections ... lumped into one tract for one exterior boundary survey. The State asks whether there is any limit on the number of selections and the total area which could be included in one exterior boundary survey... the committee believes that there is." A reading of the statute and the committee reports on the legislation which was enacted into law leads to the clear and definite conclusion that Congress intended that so long as the State selections meet the specifically stated requirements of the act there should be an exterior boundary survey of each land selection made by the State of Alaska.

'Therefore, the committee directs that the Secretary of the lnterior cause surveys of Alaskan land selections ... be executed in compliance with this report."

Aug 8, 1963 Summary from State Director BLM Alaska to Director BLM: "Carver is assuming jurisdiction over Alaska...su rvey practices..." as follows:

a Follow intent of Conference Report on HR 5279 (released in summer of 1963) o Surveys will be made for exterior boundaries of full townships (even if composed of as many as four land selections) with monumentation at an average of two miles around the perimeter. o Future selections by state will be full townships.

Sept 4, 1963, Secretary Udall to Governor Egan: "BLM will proceed with the survey of State selections in a manner which follows the intent of the Congress as expressed in the Conference Report on HR 5279." BLM will monument the two patented selection areas which were protested by the State. The protest has been withdrawn in view of thís agreement.

Additional monuments were authorized (post patent) under special instructions dated May 15 and Aug 15, 1963.

The Aug 8, 1963 summary also noted that ít was also agreed that BLM on future surveys will show monumentation plans to the State for concurrence.

50 Years Later

On February t4,20L3, DNR approved a BLM Plan of Survey for Group 948, Alatna Area. This plan specified two mile monumentation for a total of t46 new monuments.

4 Cutting Corners - Alaska Perspective on DPPS v. 2 February L6,2Ot7 ln July L8,2Ot3, BLM presented a new concept which eventually was called Direct Point Positioning Survey (DPPS). Under the new plan, they would set 31 new monuments. In attendance were executives from DNR Commissioner Office, Division of Mining, Land and Water (DMLW), and BLM Alaska State Office. Under the new plan, only the exterior boundary of the group would be monumented and except where preexisting, monuments would be placed every six miles. This was not presented as a proposal, or a negotiation, but this is going to happen". We were shocked.

As was the case 50 years ago, BLM thought that they could legally do this under the Statehood Act, and DNR does not think that it is legal, unless we agree. When asked for legal backing, BLM presented a two-page document from the Office of Solicitor, Alaska Region.

DPPS from Alaska's Perspective

From day one, we have been concerned about two aspects, first, achieving equity for the State, and second, whether DPPS is viable both economically and technically. We believe that multiple selections cannot legally be aggregated into one exterior boundary survey.

Equity

The reduction in set monuments is a major loss of value. While the State is amenable to considering any proposal, we are looking for a win-win. The State cannot accept a loss of value of this magnitude without balancing the ledger in some way. We are willing to deal with problems associated with less monuments, ¡f the State has benefitted. We firmly believe that the federal government is obligated to set monuments every two miles along the exterior boundary of each township. The proposal of DPPS is simply a cost transfer to the State. (Refer to map of Grp 948 over DC)

Another equity issue is the fact that DPPS is only authorized for use on State of Alaska entitlements.

We believe the goal of DPPS is to save money for the federal government. We question whether DPPS would make the short list of good proposals for cost reduction. Would it create more problems and costs than it would save? We question the necessity of "paper platting" every section and township. DPPS scraps legal precedent where coordinates are among the lowest of priority of calls in legal descriptions. They become the primary evidence of a corne/s location. We are concerned that the density of control is inadequate to identify unique parcels of land and protect the bona fide rights of each adjacent land owner.

BLM presents that DPPS coordinates provide more certainty of location than a monument. Ultimately, a DPPS corner will need to be surveyed and a monument set. We are concerned that the cost to survey individual DPPS parcels in many cases may be greater than the value of the land. We are concerned about the repeatability of establishing the on the ground location of DPPS corners. Cost savings realized by the federal government will be passed down the cha¡n of t¡tle and costs will increase, due to no

5 Cutting Corners - Alaska Perspective on DPPS v. 2 February L6,20t7 economy of scale to survey parcels randomly and individually and costs dealing with legal conflicts where land owners occupy their lands without a proper survey.

For the State to convey DPPS parcels, a major project to analyze and change exísting statutes and regulations will be required. This will be costly in terms of time and expenses.

There are costs to the general public and the profession. Many surveyors will need to learn a new level of geodetic surveying, and all surveyors will need to learn the new regulat¡ons and procedures which will necessarily follow implementation of DPPS. Platting authorities and approving agencies will have additional administrative costs sortíng out the anticipated and unanticipated issues that come out of DPPS.

DNR's initial reaction to DPPS was primarily negative, but due to the fact that DPPS has serious support from the federal side, DNR agreed to consider ¡t. BLM has engaged the State at multiple levels. There have been multiple meetings with DNR Commissioners (Sullivan, Balash, Myers, Rutherford and Mack). National BLM Director Neil Kornze personally met with Governor Walker seeking support for DPPS. DNR's Director of Mining, Land and Water, Brent Goodrum became intimately aware of the details of the issues and carried our concerns to the DNR commissioners, and Governo/s Office staff, as well as on multiple occasions traveling to Washington DC to meet with all three of Alaska's Congressional delegation to insure that they understood the State's perspective. Don Buhler, BLM Chief Cadastral Surveyor and Bob Dahl came to Alaska and participated in a meeting with senior officials from both DNR and BLM on the issue.

Very little occurred during the first year, but interaction started to pick up mid-2014. ln order for DNR to effectively consider DPPS, DNR requested formal documentation, an lnstruction Memorandum (lM). ln addition to the lM establishing DPP$ we also requested an lM establishing procedures which BLM would fínd acceptable for a surveyor to monument an unmarked DPPS corner. A draft lM was received in Sept 2015. An approved lM for DPPS was signed September t3,2OL6.

Commissioner Myers, past Director of USGS, bringing a scientific approach to the ¡ssue, wanted to see an independent third pafi review as well as actual field testing of DPPS. On October 6,20!5, Gerald Jennings, DNR Survey Section Chief, sent a letter to the National Society of Professional Land Surveyors (NSPS) requesting analysis and comments and provided the state's concerns. This was followed by a Jan L3,2OL6 response letter from Don Buhler, Chief Cadastral Surveyor, BLM national office; to which DNR Surveys responded on Feb 29,20L6.

The NSPS report was released on November 14, 2016 and addressed issues in detail. The Committee identified many of the same concerns that the State has and the Committee recommendation is: "The committee has reviewed multiple documents, both very technicol ond legal in noture, and concludes thot the proposed DPPS method fails to protect the rights of the citizens of the stote of Alaska through the londs managed by the Department of Natural Resources. lt also fails in the fundomental surveying principle across Americo in which monuments, once established on the ground, controlthe tocation of the pørcel of land. The in-depth review of the technical aspects of the DPPS process connot be replicoted with the doto supplied with the survey,"

6 Cutting Corners - Alaska Perspective on DPPS v. 2 February L6,2OL7 Agreement on Process

ln July 20t6,in an attempt to move DPPS fonryard, the BLM sought an agreement w¡th the State on a path to implementation. An agreement was reached "Agreement on Process to Adopt Direct Point Positioning Survey''signed on July 25,2016, by DNR Commissioner Mack and BLM Alaska State Director Bud Cribley.

The four-page agreement includes detailed steps for review of DPPS which after completion would lead to a new memorandum of understanding (MOU) to govern the use of DPPS in Alaska to complete the remaining surveys of state entitlement land as well as use in other federal land transfer throughout the state where appropriate.

The first of the steps required before entering into an MOU is to ensure that both BLM and SOA mutually benefit from the adoption of the DPPS and options to ensure equity are explored. This very important step has yet to be accomplished.

The second step is the legal, technical and practica! analysis of the proposed DPPS methodology. This includes addressing issues raised by the NSPS review (not completed at the time of agreement); engaging the National Geodetic Survey (NGS) and addressing technical concerns; and BLM and the SOA review of laws and statutes and regulations to determine whether changes are required to minimize impediments to adoption of DPPS. The last item of the required steps is related to completion of the Alatna DPPS Pilot Project (Group 948). The State will complete field testing no later than July 3Q 2017.

The Field Test

From the first presentation of DPPS, DNR wanted to see how practical it would be to actually monument a DPPS parcel when constrained by the necessity to protect the rights of a patentee (protect the plat). We wanted to know what the minimum requirements would be procedurally and how costly it would be to execute that survey.

Recognizing the geodetic survey component, we engaged David Doyle, NGS Chief Geodetic Surveyor (retired), to prepare a plan for the field test and assist ín our analysis.

The field test was commenced by Gwen Gervelis, DNR Dep. Chief Surveyor, and Nate Toothaker, Land Survey Specialist, on Sept Lg -22,2016. BLM provided a helicopter and Sean Porter, Cadastral Surveyor. Some initial data was obtained, but due to weather, completion is postponed until this upcoming season. The initialtest íncluded occupying 11 randomly selected points for up to 24 hours, to obtain "true" coordinate values, to compare with the platted values. A copy of DNR's report is attached.

Lessons Learned

Many of BLM's geodetic control stations within Group No. 948 were located on top of mountains and therefore making access by helicopter indispensable, but limiting usability in marginal weather conditions. ln large areas of Group No. 948, where there are no mountains, geodetic control is absent. This makes obtaining project datum in those areas difficult.

7 Cutting Corners - Alaska Perspective on DPPS v. 2 February L6,2OL7 We question whether Real-Time Kinematic (RTKIsetting of DPPS Section corners will succeed in meeting BLM's GPS Standards over much of the Alatna Group 948 area, due to the lack of control monumentation.

Economic Feasibility Questions. lt is critical that field test¡ng of the procedure to set monuments at unmarked DPPS points be performed. ln the event that RTK cannot be used to meet the February 2009 Standard, in lieu of RTK, it is also necessary to field test the setting of unmarked DPPS corners using static GPS procedures to determine if monumentation of individual parcels will be economically feasible.

Testing will also need to determine technical procedures to access the internet and process data without returning to Fairbanks. During this trip, the lack of cellular service and internet in Bettles precluded any processing of GPS data until returning to the office. Future surveyors will need to be prepared to fly to Fairbanks to process data, then return to Bettles and the field or explore alternative methods such as satellite data links.

Helicopter landing zones in forested areas are difficult to find. Several proposed monuments were not visited due to the lack of a landing zone nearby for the helicopter. With additional time these sites could be accessed by hiking in.

Push for MOU

With the approach of the national elections, there was a push for an MOU from the federal side and several drafts were passed back and forth. Ultimately, no agreement on a new MOU was made and on December L9,20L6, the BLM issued a press release announcing implementation of DPPS and its benefits. The DNR immediately issued a press release stating our opposition.

The BLM press release was accompanied by a letter to Governor Walker from BLM Director Kornze announcing B[M's withdrawal from the 1973 MOU, described below and intent to move fonrard with implementing DPPS both in Alaska and nationwide.

The 1973 MOU

A Memorandum of Understanding between the State of Alaska and The United States on The Survey of Afaska State Selections was approved effective 9l2ll73 (1973 MOU). The purpose of the 1973 MOU has been misunderstood during the DPPS discussion. lt has been perceived as implementing the two mlle monumentation of each township; however, it actually recognized the continued practice and authorized conveyance of lands to the state based on protraction surveys (example Attachment C). These are only allowed when the State elects to accept them.

8 Cutting Corners - Alaska Perspective on DPPS v. 2 February L6,2OL7 ln Feb 10, 1981, the DNR notified the BLM that it would no longer accept conveyances based on these protract¡on surveys. Paraphrasing, "lt was anticipated under the 1973 agreement the State would quickly gain title and was willing to accept title based upon a protraction diagram...seven and a half years later, there still remains 19 million acres not patented. The state will no longer accept patent based upon protraction plats."

Statistics from the 1981 letter: "Under the 1973 MOU, 19 separate plats were constructed, covering 1424 townships containing approximately 32,055,129 acres. 13 million acres having been patented, 10.5 million tentatively approved and 8.5 million remaining in selection status."

The authority to convey by protraction onlv with State concurrence was included in the Alaska National lnterest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) of Dec. 2, t98O. With the ANILCA provision, the 1973 MOU is essentially moot.

National Geodetic Survey

Recognizing that DPPS makes the National Spatial Reference System (NSRS) a significant factor in the land tenure system, DNR on numerous occasions recommended that NGS be engaged. On Nov L7,2Ot6 Director Juliana Blackwell sent a letter discussing NGS's role and brief assessment of the NSRS capabilities and limitations with respect to DPPS. The letter points out that coordinates may change over time for a variety of reasons: a) a mark may physically move; b) software used to compute the coordinate may change; c) a new survey may update the position; d) a computational error may be corrected; e) the reference datum may be updated.

NGS recommended to maintain network accuracy, an adequate network of passive control be re- observed over time. Without this, they predict accuracy limitations at the decimeter to meter level. NGS recommends BLM and DNR negot¡ate the quantity and spacing of passive control. NGS further recommends that data be submitted to NGS to make available to interested parties.

The following weeþ DNR and BLM met with Dr. Nicole Kinsman, NGS Alaska Regional Geodetic Advisor. The concept of "shelf life" of coordinates was explored. NGS stated that over time, the coordinate value and the physical point on the earth will drift away from one another. Through t¡es to passive control, the drift can be estimated. BLM clearly stated that the accuracy of the coordinate is only at the time of survey and they do not guarantee the tíe to the NSRS. Michael Schoder, Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Alaska indicated that addressing drift of the coordinate through passive controlobservations, to insure that the location on the earth is repeatable ís the State's obligation.

The upshot is that a future patentee will not be able to rely on the coordinates shown on the face of their deed survey because an analysis and adjustment of those coordinates by a professional that is versed in geodesy will be required. BLM presents DPPS as providing greater certainty of location than monuments in the ground, however, DNR believes the contrary.

9 Cutting Corners - Alaska Perspective on DPPS v. 2 February L6,2OL7 BLM - DNR Technical Workgroup

ln April 2015, BLM surveyors Bob Dahl and Blair Parker met with DNR surveyors Gwen Gervelis, Paul Hickey and Gerald Jennings to discuss DPPS issues. This was among the first of what became weekly meetings of the BLM - DNR Workgroup. Blair came up with the brilliant idea of creating mock scenarios in which the state would oversee approval of surveys subdividing DPPS parcels which DNR received patent. These scenarios have helped bring issues to the surface such as the fact that under state law, in the Unorganized Borough, subdivision of a DPPS parcel would require monumentation of the DPPS parcel itself. There are numerous statutes and regulations which make the segregation of parcels from within a DPPS parcel costlier where BLM does not monument the original parcel. These meetings often addressing other DPPS issues have been quite productive in helping both DNR and BLM better understand the issues.

National Society of Professional Surveyors

The NSPS analysis and comment committee included Dave Doyle, Geodesist- Maryland; Timothy KenÇ PLS - Washington; John Kerr, PLS, CFedS - Alaska; John Matonich, PLS - Michigan; Glen Thurow, PLS - CFedS - New Mexico and Karen Tilton, PLS, CFedS - Alaska. Also contributing were Curt Sumner, PLS, NSPS Executive Director; and Jon Warren, PLS; NSPS Past President. The report comprehensively discussed the history, Coordinates as monuments, Survey for conveyance of state lands originally platted by DPPS methods, technical capacíty to re-establish a point in space and ability to re-establish a point on the ground. The report coined the term 'Three Plus Method", a method which provides a check on stability and provides a method to re-establish an original on-the-ground position without transformations, modeling and acquisition of CORS data.

The report also addresses densification of monumented DPPS corners; efficiency in process (lack of economy of scale - e.g. multiple mobilízations and inefficiency resulting in greater costs); surveying for conveyance or lease; equity of only using DPPS in Alaska; and the Committee's recommendation: "DPPS method fails to protect the rights of the citizens of the State of Alaska."

Summary

Having engaged in the DPPS discussion tor 3lzyears, the DNR's concerns have become more focused and clarified. We believe that the method could be implemented, however it would involve a high cost to the State and the citizens of Alaska. Costs include developing and implementing new statutes, regulations and procedures; training for surveyors and other land professionals; higher costs for setting of monuments after bona fide rights have been conveyed; and higher costs to survey parcels which are tens of miles away from controlling poínts. We are concerned that every DPPS parcel survey will effectively require a helicopter and we are concerned about the Pandora's Box of legal issues that may ensue.

10 Cutting Corners - Alaska Perspective on DPPS v. 2 February L6,2OL7 DNR remains unconvinced of the following contentions made in the September 16, 2016 lnstruction Memorandum:

o DPPS method generate a greater certainty of corner positions that are correct, consistent and repeatable.

o DNR comment: Anyone can ascerta¡n a corner location when it is marked with a monument. A land owner will be much more confused about a coordinate value which requires transformations, modeling and acquisition of CORS data. o DPPS method introduce an economy of resources in the future for leaseholders and tandowners when additional parcel boundary demarcation is required. Geographic coordinates referenced to a known national datum are directly reported...and do not need to be calculated... o DNR comment: Unmarked coordinate locations will need to be monumented and this will require a surveyor versed in geodesy. With the extreme distances to the nearest control and costs to bring a helicopter on site, we don't believe the savings have been demonstrated. o Adoption of DPPS method avoids spending substantialfunds on unnecessary procedures like recovery, maintenance, rehabilitat¡on, and measurement between controlling adjacent monuments in future survey work. o DNR comment: DPPS parcels will eventually need to be monumented for the land owner to fully occupy. Those monuments will require recovery, etc. Ties between adjacent monuments will be fully necessary particularly when corners have been monumented by different surveys. o Surveys conducted using DPPS method can be completed much more quickly than surveys completed using historical methods, thereby facilitating quicker patent to the State. o DNR comment: This would be true for the BLM survey wherein 80% of the survey is postponed for the future. o Resurveying of lands surveyed by DPPS method can be completed much more quickly than resurveys of lands surveyed by legacy methods, thereby decreasing the survey time resulting in savings to leaseholders and landowners. o DNR comment: As stated above, we believe this has not been demonstrated.

BLM has completed field work and platting of Alatna (Group 948) and is poísed to approve and file. lf this occurs, DNR will protest the survey. Meanwhile, BLM has conducted initialfield recoveries for 8 additional large DPPS project areas. The State will continue to engage in the discussion regarding how to achieve their goals while mutually benefítting both parties.

We are unsure that DPPS is the best vehicle.

LL Cutting Corners - Alaska Perspective on DPPS v. 2 February L6,2Ot7