The r/w plans rule over the location of their monuments.
In AK, the ROW plans are essentially index maps. They are NEVER the document that acquires the interest but, typically, do point you to the document, or in the case of PLO ROWs, show you the surveyor's (who's preparing the ROW plans) assessment of where the PLO centerline is. Some of the ROW plans were prepared by folks that didn't have the education, experience, testing, and motivation to take and pass the exam (and didn't know enough about boundary law). This isn't true of recent times but there was a period when ROW plans were pretty squirrely - so... some of them are a very poor representation of where the PLO centerline is. ROW Plans - a great tool that shows an aggregation of title docs, ties to cadastral corners, centerline data - they may be defensible and they may not - either way they are not the doc that transferred title/created the ROW.?ÿ
Regarding the concrete ROW mons - some were set to be the ROW boundary and some were set to be clearing/maint limits. You have to assess the mons to determine whether or not you are justified in accepting them. It would be hard to defend concrete ROW mons when the majority of them in the area didn't correlate well to the original centerline or other record evidence - these were probably just pushed out of the back of a truck by the lowest paid person on the construction crew. On the other hand - if the conc ROW mons in the area fit well enough to suggest that they were intended to represent the ROW, you better accept them or be prepared to explain why they weren't held. You're looking for harmony among a number of conc ROW mons and other evidence - a single concrete ROW mon isn't enough to say hold/don't hold.
This. Sums up my experience in dealing with these pretty well. The quality and reliability of these concrete ROW monuments varies from excellent to patently false. The original document(s) acquiring the interest is essential to evaluating their location. Since acquiring my license in 2006 I can honestly say the only surveys that have left me completely stumped have been some of these older ROW maps. Nothing set, sparse ties to US Surveys and aliquot part corners, and at the end of the day? Nothing computes. I often find the descriptions in the acquisition documents are in conflict with the stated physical evidence.
If there was one area where AK surveyors could benefit from an in depth CE seminar I would hold this subject up as the poster child. I recall a conversation with a DOT surveyor a decade ago when I was trying to work out the ROW through a half dozen subdivisions and I reached out for some guidance. "Well, all of those surveyors took their best shot and got it wrong." How reassuring. ?ÿI often don't have the luxury of retracing an entire route for miles in order to determine the location of 20' of ROW for placement of some infrastructure and in some instances I've been forced to but in the end have?ÿhad to fall back to the physical centerline because the math doesn't work and what little evidence there is on the ground is in conflict with the documents. I can think of several instances where DOT's actions have only further muddied the water. One instance in this same area as the photo where a 1969 TNH primary monument controlling the intersection of two major roads, was?ÿmysteriously replaced with?ÿthe type of drive rod encased in PVC pipe typically used by DOT for a BM. No record of it, no way to verify that it occupies the same location as the original, though it's within a foot?ÿof?ÿmy computed location for the original?ÿTNH monument. I sometimes wonder if I'm just a glutton for punishment.
The location of the ROW has been the biggest sources of conflict in my work, particularly in areas where we have unpaved gravel roads and the property owner has cleared their land right up to the ROW leaving a strip of trees in the ROW as a dust buffer. Here we come and our permit is to be 5' inside the ROW and we clear that strip. The result is often one furious property owner.?ÿ
