Say you were doing a Record of Survey as-built for a State agency for an aerial fiber on a 60 year old pole line, say for your friendly DNR who had management authority over the land and it happened to be in a very difficult area to work, like mountains and glaciers difficult, in the middle of winter because that's the only time allotted to you to work on the project because the rest of the year your fully committed to construction related activities. Nothing on?ÿthe pole line has ever?ÿbeen surveyed.?ÿAnd say another?ÿState agency, maybe?ÿthe DOT/PF had already done a very?ÿextensive survey?ÿthrough?ÿthe entire?ÿproject?ÿarea and tied in all of the control you would?ÿneed and set reference control monuments roughly every thousand feet through the highway corridor and recorded their coordinates along with the rest of their survey data. So the question is how would you react if DNR told you that you would be required to reinvent the wheel and survey all of it all over?ÿagain?ÿbecause that survey was done for DOT/PF and this one is for DNR. Everything that you've tied in matches the DOT/PF data with +/- >0.1'. One particular corner is separated from the traveled way by a 200' deep vertically walled canyon covered in ice. When you ask if you had can hold the DOT/PF values for the corner on the far side of the canyon, you're told 'we don't dictate when you do this survey. Maybe look into one of those flying squirrel suits.'
Sigh... hypothetically.
It will be nothing short of a miracle if I don't become the most cynical surveyor on the face of the?ÿplanet before I hang it up and that part isn't hypothetical.
Hypothetically, good luck!
Once I explained the issue and the cost differential, I would do whatever they are willing to pay.
That's just it Imbrls. The agency I'm hypothetically performing the survey for, isn't paying a nickel. It's entirely on my client as a condition of their permit.
The thing about government bureaucracies. They will gleefully spend your?ÿclient's money all day long and ask for the moon and if it happens to completely duplicate the work of another of their sister agencies, they see it not as their problem but yours.
Way I look at it for my work to be of the greatest value down the road, it needs to be done in harmony with other State work done in the area using the same control. IMHO the monies that the State?ÿhas already expended in establishing that control has lost a significant amount of it's value if it's treated as exclusive to that one State agency.?ÿ
I suppose I shouldn't b1tch. Work is work. Just need to double check my Aflac death and dismemberment insurance is paid up. I can piss money away with the best of them?ÿwhen?ÿI have to, but my body is a little less forgiving.?ÿ
?ÿ
?ÿ
?ÿ
"Bureaucracy: the process of converting energy into solid waste." (second time I've used that phrase today!)
If I was DNR I wouldn't necessarily trust anything DOT did either.
Just like BLM is bound by federal statutes that dictate certain things about how an official survey needs to be done, DNR is bound by state statutes when performing (or writting instructions for) an ASLS. In both cases the regulations usually work well, but there are always particular situations in which more flexibility would be preferable.
An ASLS is one thing Aliquot. There's a conveyance of title involved and survey instructions are very specific to protect bona fide rights. In this case I'm talking about an easement diagram, no conveyance of title, yet is being held to a similar standard, without the benefit of specific survey instructions. Why? Because they can. I understand they don't have the resources to prepare specific instructions for every utility that crosses DNR land. In the past the standards were fairly low, but that has evolved along with technology and I haven't any?ÿissues with that. What I do have issues with is if?ÿexisting survey control is good enough for DOT/PF to control their ROW locations, it?ÿshould be good enough to control easement diagrams on the?ÿadjacent State Lands without adding unnecessary costs associated with reinventing the wheel every time a user applies for a permit to cross State Lands. Do you think I'm off base? I'm inclined to believe at the end of the day we are all on the same team, but some days I think I could be wrong! Hypothetically of course.
Was the DOT survey prepared by government staff or did they sub to a private firm??ÿ It'd be nice to hypothetically subcontract another survey outfit to fulfill requirements expeditiously...
On the surface, that does sound unreasonable. If you've checked enough of the DOT work to know it's reliable, and you are willing to certify it, then it seems like DNR has little risk. On the other hand - if I were DNR - I'd be reluctant to accept the DOT survey without knowing it was good. Just because it controls a ROW doesn't mean that it's geospatially valid. When was the DOT survey done and who did it??ÿ
How long is the pole line? If it's longer than a typical DOT project 6-10 miles or so, then the DOT survey was probably done by multiple surveyors.?ÿ
spledeus?ÿhas a good point - if the work was done by a single private firm and that work was done to the required standards, then sub the work to that firm - they're the ones that can seal it. And it'll save money.?ÿ
?ÿ
OK I get it. Sounds like one of those cases where if there is a problem, they?ÿmay be able to?ÿhold your company accountable and probably not the DOT.
How does this sound to you JK. I've recovered 22 monuments in total. I show my coordinates along with the DOT coordinates for same. So far nearly all are within 0.1', with the exception of?ÿa 1/4 corner which is out .4' in the northings from my measurements. This over a span of three sections. I've have two rectangular controlling monuments I haven't recovered due to high exposure, in my mind the risk of injury just can't justify their recovery in winter. The error of closure requirement for this survey is 1:5000. I could wait until next Spring or Fall, peak of construction season and take another stab at them, but?ÿI want to hold the DOT values for those two corners. Would I be negligent in doing so??ÿ Here's the thing. The DOT values match the original BLM plat well within those closure tolerances.
Some good feedback. Much appreciated.
Carry on and have a great weekend.
Cheers. Willy
Were I to do a survey I may well give great weight to adjacent mapped monuments and lines. I would never rely on them 100% but would sure verify and agree as much as possible.
That being said I have also disagreed with well monumented and documented surveys.
Paul in PA
No I don't think you are off base. I just think the blame should be on the "system" the individuals you are dealing with. Their hands may be tied by the wisdom of the Alaska legislature.
"wisdom of the Alaska legislature"
Not sure those three words belong in the same sentence.
