History of Government Land Ownership Survey Systems Land Information GIS and Mapping Oil & Gas Issues Legal Issues Version 7.2

Transcription

1 Introduction to Land Information History of Government Land Ownership Survey Systems Land Information GIS and Mapping Oil & Gas Issues Legal Issues Version 7.2

2 Table of Contents Topic Page History: History of Government Land Ownership 3 Survey Systems: The Public Land Survey System 13 The Metes & Bounds Survey System 31 The State Plane Coordinate System 35 Other Types of Surveys 37 Platting 41 Property Boundaries 40 Table of Measurements 44 Land Information: Types of Land 46 Homestead Land 50 Land Record Databases 51 Geographical Information Systems: 56 Mapping: 66 Oil & Gas and Mining Issues: Petroleum Geology 71 The Oil & Gas Leasing Process 83 Maps of Key O&G Areas 89 Mining 94 Legal Issues: Legal Aspects of Data Distribution 95 Legal Aspects of Land Conveyance 96 Legal Instruments for O&G Transactions 98 Related Lawsuits 99 Related Laws 100 Page 2

3 History of Government Land Ownership Early Land Grants The cause of many of today s land ownership problems traces back to founders of the original 13 colonies, who were not overly concerned with the proper documentation of property boundaries. For example, the amount of land grants claimed in Georgia in 1796 was more than three times greater than the actual amount of land in the state. Even as of 1960, 40 counties in Virginia had land ownership records for 554,000 acres more land than they actually had. It is instructive to briefly examine the causes of some of these early land grant and boundary problems. The granting of land to settlers differed markedly between the various colonies of the present-day United States, and so are noted separately in each of the following bullet points: Maryland and Delaware. These two states were originally included in the charter for Virginia, and were administered by Lord Calvert under a separate charter as of He divided up the land under the feudal system of a few large manors, and allowed immigrants to work as indentured servants on these manors for a number of years, after which they were granted 50 acres of land. Boundary descriptions were rarely documented. New England. The Plymouth Company was granted the first charter for New England. Original land grants in this area tended to be both of considerable size and poorly defined boundaries. Grants later tended to be given for entire townships (generally of about six square miles), which were then subdivided into individual holdings. Some of the land was held in common and then subdivided into a group of owners, resulting in many small slices of land. New York. The Dutch West India Company was granted the first charter for New York in Initially, very large grants were handed out in a feudalistic manner, resulting in minimal incentive for anyone to advance into new territories. This approach was changed in 1640, when the head of a family of 5 could claim 200 acres of unappropriated land. Preplanned village sites did not occur until 1650 (and sporadically even then), resulting in very poor boundary documentation for villages founded earlier than this date. Pre-planning of boundaries was much more common in the western half of the state, but the lack of boundary markers still makes it difficult to determine land ownership. Pennsylvania. William Penn was granted the charter to Pennsylvania in He authorized the creation of 78 manors, consisting of thousands of acres each, in the southeastern part of the state. He attempted to enforce land grants of 5,000 acres per township and five hundred acres per household, but these rules were largely ignored. Instead, settlers squatted on land without any accompanying survey. The legal title to much of the land in the state is based on land claimed by the squatters. Virginia. The London Company was granted the first charter to Virginia in It granted 100 acres of land to the holder of each share of its stock. Large land grants (called plantations or hundreds were also made to groups of settlers. The head right concept was also used, under which the head of a family could claim fifty acres per head for each member of his household, including servants, Page 3

4 for whom he had transportation to the colony. There was no systematic settlement pattern in the colony, and initial land descriptions were vague, resulting in boundary disputes that continue today. Of particular interest is the unique Virginia Military District, located between the Scioto and Little Miami Rivers in the current state of Ohio. This land was granted to Virginia in exchange for its dropping of all claims to other lands further west; the Virginia legislature then handed out this land to revolutionary war veterans, leaving site selection to the recipients, resulting in highly irregular land parcels. This is the reason why only a portion of Ohio was later laid out in the standardized grid pattern of the Public Land Survey System. Federal Land Acquisition Federal land ownership began when the original colonies ceded title to more than 40% (233 million acres) of their "western" lands (between the Appalachians and the Mississippi River) to the central government between 1781 and Federal land acquisition from foreign sources began with the Louisiana Purchase in 1803 (523 million acres) and continued via treaties with Great Britain and Spain in 1817 and 1819, respectively (76 million acres). Other substantial acquisitions, via purchases and treaties, occurred between 1846 and 1853 (620 million acres). The last major land acquisition by the federal government in North America was the purchase of Alaska in 1867 (365 million acres). The largest acquisitions by the federal government are noted in Exhibit 1: Exhibit 1: History of Federal Land Acquisitions. Method of Acquisition Date Acreage (million acres) Public Domain Total Area Cost/Acre (cents) Ceded by 7 original states to the federal government Louisiana Purchase Red River Basin Convention Florida Purchase Annexation of Texas Oregon Compromise Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo Page 4

5 Texas Purchase Gadsden Purchase Alaska Purchase TOTAL ACRES 1,797 1,965 In some states Maine to Georgia the central government originally owned no land. Except for Florida (which was obtained from Spain), federal ownership of lands east of the Mississippi River was ceded by the original states, and additional states were formed from them. West of the Mississippi River (except Texas), lands were primarily acquired by the U.S. federal government from foreign governments. How the federal government came to own its lands can affect which laws govern the lands' management. The "public domain" lands, primarily those obtained from a foreign sovereign, typically are governed by different laws than are lands "acquired" from states or individuals. Constitutional Basis for Federal Land Ownership Two provisions of the U.S. Constitution address the relationship of the federal government to lands. Article 1, 8, Cl. 17 requires cession by the states of exclusive jurisdiction over certain federal enclaves and consent of the legislature of the state in which the lands lie to the exercise of that type of jurisdiction by the federal government. Section 8 reads: [Congress is authorized] To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-yards and other needful Buildings;... This part of the Constitution addresses the question of when and how the United States enjoys "exclusive legislative jurisdiction" over lands which is to say when the United States has full legislative authority over lands such that state and local laws do not apply, except as Congress permits. Other types of jurisdiction are "partial" (when a state has withheld some part of full cession of all jurisdiction), or concurrent (when both the state and federal government have general legislative jurisdiction). Lastly, the federal government may have mere proprietary jurisdiction, in which case state and local laws apply, except to the extent the laws are preempted by federal law. Absent the consent of a state to any other degree of jurisdiction, the federal government has proprietary jurisdiction. Note, however, that when Congress acts within its granted powers, the federal laws are valid regardless of the type of jurisdiction the federal government may have, and under the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the Constitution, federal law may preempt state and local law either expressly or by implication from federal purposes. State law can be pre-empted in either of two general ways. If Congress evidences an intent to occupy a given field, any state law falling within that field is pre- empted... If Congress has not entirely displaced state regulation over the matter in question, state law Page 5

6 is still pre-empted to the extent it actually conflicts with federal law, that is, when it is impossible to comply with both state and federal law,... or where the state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. Therefore, the Article I provision speaks to the subject of jurisdiction and the extent to which state law applies to an area. The Article I provision means that the federal government may not unilaterally give itself legislative jurisdiction over an area to the exclusion of state law, but rather must have the consent of the state in question to exercise that jurisdiction. The Article I provision does not address the authority of the United States to hold or manage property. Article IV, 3 does speak to this more general authority over property, and states: The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States;... This provision gives Congress authority over the lands, territories, or other property of the United States. The Supreme Court has described this power as "without limitation" and distinguished it from the Article I provision, stating that:... while Congress can acquire exclusive or partial jurisdiction over land within a State by the State's consent or cession, the presence or absence of such jurisdiction has nothing to do with Congress' powers under the Property Clause. Absent consent or cession a State undoubtedly retains jurisdiction over federal lands within its territory, but Congress equally surely retains the power to enact legislation respecting those lands pursuant to the Property Clause... And when Congress so acts, the federal legislation necessarily overrides conflicting state laws under the Supremacy Clause... At times, it has been asserted that Article IV was intended to provide only temporary authority for the government to manage federal lands and properties pending prompt disposal to states and individuals. However, Article IV is not so worded and has not been so interpreted. Support for the position of limited federal authority rests on the implications of certain dicta in Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, which indicated that the federal government held the lands ceded by the original states only temporarily pending their disposal. Some have argued that this language combined with the "equal footing doctrine" that new states come into the Union on an equal footing with older states means that the federal government may only hold lands temporarily. However, other Supreme Court cases negate this argument. The equal footing doctrine does not mean that physical or economic differences among states are precluded, and the doctrine only transfers title of tidelands and submerged lands beneath navigable waterways to the states. It is accepted law that the federal government may own and hold property as Congress directs. Whether some or all of the remaining federal lands should be retained or be disposed to the states, or whether to acquire additional federal lands, appears to be a. policy question that Congress may answer as it chooses. Federal Land Disposal The initial policy of the federal government generally was to transfer ownership of many of the federal lands to private and state ownership to pay Revolutionary War soldiers, to finance the new government, and later to encourage the development of infrastructure and the settlement of the territories. In October 1780, even before the Articles of Page 6

7 Confederation were ratified, the Continental Congress adopted a general policy for administering any lands transferred to the Federal Government: The lands were to be "disposed of for the common benefit of the United States," were to be "settled and formed into distinct republican States, which shall become members of the Federal Union, and shall have the same rights of sovereignty, freedom and independence, as the other States...." The lands were to "be granted and settled at such times and under such regulations as shall hereafter be agreed on by the United States in Congress assembled...." The need for revenues to pay off the national debt was a driving force in the debate over land disposal systems. The Continental Congress balanced the need for revenue with other needs (e.g., compensating veterans and providing for public schools) in enacting the Land Ordinance of May 20, 1785, to address the lands in the Ohio Territory (north of the Ohio River and west of Pennsylvania). After extensive debates, the Continental Congress essentially followed the New England approach for land disposal, and included several provisions that were used in most federal land disposal legislation over the subsequent 50 years, including: prior rectangular survey before disposal; public auction of the surveyed lands; a minimum price ($1 per acre, but typically payable in highly depreciated securities); and at least one section (1/36 th ) of every 6-mile square township "for the maintenance of public schools within the said township." Questions about the governance of these lands (including potential statehood) were resolved by the Continental Congress in the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, and at nearly the same time and in nearly the same manner, by the Constitutional Convention drafting the new U.S. Constitution. The decision was for initial administration by a federally appointed governor, followed by shared authority between an appointed governor and a representative assembly, culminating in statehood on an equal footing with the original states. The new federal government took various actions regarding lands, including settling conflicting claims, granting lands for military service and other purposes, and selling the remaining lands under various programs. The first land offices to resolve land claims and sales were established by Congress in Ohio in 1800, and the General Land Office was established in 1812 to administer the disposal of federal lands. Congress enacted numerous laws to grant, sell, or otherwise transfer federal lands into private ownership, including the Homestead Act of 1862, the General Mining Law of 1872, and many others (see detailed descriptions in the Related Laws section). Land sales were a significant source of federal revenues during the 1830s, while grants to railroads in the 1870s were major incentives to improve the nation's transportation system. Nearly 816 million acres of the public domain lands were transferred to private ownership between 1781 and Most (97%) occurred before 1940; homestead entries, for example, peaked in 1910 at 18.3 million acres, but dropped below 200,000 acres annually after 1935, because the best agricultural lands were already taken. The federal government also granted 328 million acres to the states. The single largest state grant was in 1958; under the Alaska Statehood Act, the State of Alaska could select up to million acres (under certain constraints). Also, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act authorized various regional and village native corporations to select 40 million acres of federal land (within the constraints identified in the Act). Page 7

8 Federal Land Withdrawals As noted, throughout much of our early history, the policy of the federal government was generally to dispose of many of the lands it acquired, particularly to raise revenues. However, from the earliest times, the government also reserved or withdrew for retention (thus preventing their sale or transfer) certain federal lands or interests in lands for future grants or various federal purposes. The Land Ordinance of 1785 reserved not only section 16 of every township to maintain public schools, but also a "third part of all gold, silver, lead and copper mines, to be sold, or otherwise disposed of as Congress shall hereafter direct." The Act of 1796, that made permanent many of the provisions of the Land Ordinance of 1785, also provided that "Instead of reserving scattered sections for future disposal by Congress, the four central sections [of each township] were to be retained." In 1798, Congress authorized and funded military reservations for the erection of fortifications, at the discretion of the President. Additional mineral reservations and special disposal provisions were also enacted. Increasingly over time, Congress withdrew lands (removed lands from disposal under some or all of the disposal laws) or reserved lands (withdrew lands for a particular national purpose). Early withdrawals were primarily to preserve lands for future disposals or for Indian trading posts, for military and mineral reservations, or for other public purposes. In 1817, Congress authorized the selection and reservation of lands to supply timber for naval uses. The establishment of Yellowstone National Park in 1872 led the way to preserving certain lands for recreation and for the future, with other national parks designated later, and eventually leading in 1916 to the National Park Organic Act and to the National Park System (which in addition to the parks includes monuments, recreation areas, battlefields, historic sites, and numerous other designations). In 1891, the President was authorized to protect other federal lands by proclaiming forest reserves; this eventually led to the creation of the National Forest System. Then, in 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt began the practice of withdrawing federal lands to protect wildlife habitats that led to the National Wildlife Refuge System. Today, the National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service manage the lands to preserve parks, conserve forests, and protect wildlife and wildlife habitat, respectively. These three agencies manage 357 million acres, or 54% of all federal lands. Additional, though more modest, withdrawals have been made for military reservations and for other federal facilities. Federal Land Retention As noted earlier, the General Land Office had been established in 1812 to oversee the disposal of the public lands through land sales, homesteading, grants to railroads and to states, and other means. The Office's Division of Forestry was responsible for the forest reserves beginning with their establishment in 1891, but in 1905 this division was transferred and merged into the Department of Agriculture's Bureau of Forestry to form the new U.S. Forest Service. The General Land Office remained in the business of principally overseeing the disposal of many of the remaining federal lands and maintaining federal title records and documents. The U.S. Grazing Service was created in 1934 to administer many of the public lands for livestock grazing under the authority of the Taylor Grazing Act of This Act was intended to remedy the deterioration of the remaining public lands apparently Page 8

9 due to overgrazing and the drought and depression of the 1920s and 1930s. It was the first direct authority for federal management of these lands which previously were freely available for transient grazing, and reflected the significant decline in homestead entries (because most of the lands that could support a family farm had already been transferred into private hands). Although the Act referred to management of the grazing lands, "pending their disposal," the Act implicitly began the shift in federal law toward ending disposals and retaining lands in federal ownership. In part because of controversies over its management efforts, the Grazing Service was terminated in 1946 by merging it with the General Land Office to form the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The debate over federal retention of the remaining public lands endured for decades. The shift toward explicit federal policy to retain these lands continued with two laws enacted in One created the Public Land Law Review Commission (PLLRC) to review existing public land laws and regulations, and to examine the policies and practices of the federal agencies which administered the federal lands. The 1970 PLLRC report contained 137 specific legal and policy recommendations for improving federal land management. The first recommendation was that the existing federal lands should generally be retained in federal ownership: We, therefore, recommend that: The policy of large-scale disposal of public lands reflected by the majority of statutes in force today be revised and that fixture disposal should be only those lands that will achieve maximum benefit for the general public in non-federal ownership, while retaining in Federal ownership those whose values must be preserved so that they may be used and enjoyed by all Americans. The other 1964 law, the Classification and Multiple Use Act, directed the BLM to classify lands for retention or for disposal and to manage the lands for multiple purposes, pending the PLLRC recommendations. By 1970, when the PLLRC report was released, the BLM had classified more than 90% of the remaining unreserved public domain lands for retention. This reflected the decline in federal land disposal (to near zero in the 1960s), because virtually all the lands that could support agricultural operations had already been claimed. The future of the public lands, including the issue of retention or disposal, was debated in three Congresses following the release of the PLLRC report. Finally, enactment of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) formally ended the previous disposal policy, expressly declaring that the national policy was generally to retain the remaining lands in federal ownership. Section 102(a) of FLPMA states: The Congress declares that it is the policy of the United States that (1) the public lands be retained in Federal ownership, unless as a result of the land use planning procedure provided for in this Act, it is determined that disposal of a particular parcel will serve the national interest;... FLPMA also amended many previous management authorities and public land and resource laws and repealed most land disposal laws. Section 702 repealed the many statutes and sections authorizing homesteading, although the effective date of the repeal was delayed for 10 years in Alaska. Section 703 similarly repealed (and delayed the effective date in Alaska) most other statutes authorizing land sales or transfers. FLPMA did authorize the sale of some specific tracts of public lands "at a price not less than their Page 9

10 fair market value" under conditions specified in the Act (and discussed below, under current federal land disposal authorities). The BLM currently manages 267 million acres of land 40.6% of all federal land and 11.8% of all land in the United States. A third of the BLM lands, 88.3 million acres, are in Alaska. The remainder are substantially concentrated in 11 western states, and account for significant amounts of land in most of those states. The BLM also manages 1.5 million acres in states east of the Rocky Mountains, including more than 100,000 acres in each of six states: Louisiana, Arkansas, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Alabama. BLM lands are administered for the sustained yield of multiple uses (including recreation, livestock grazing, timber harvesting, watershed protection, and wildlife and fish habitat management), although users typically want higher outputs than the BLM provides, while environmental groups typically want more protection (and lower outputs). The following exhibit summarizes the current federal lands reserved for, or otherwise retained or acquired by the four major federal management agencies. Exhibit 2: Federal Lands Administered by Major Agencies as of 9/30/97. (in millions of acres and percent of total land) State/Region National Park Service USDA Forest Service Fish and Wildlife Service Bureau of Land Mgmt. Federal Total Alaska % Western % Other % Total % "The Sagebrush Rebellion" At various times, concerted efforts have been made to have the remaining unreserved public domain lands turned over to the states. Until 1976, many westerners retained the hope that the substantial federal presence might be reduced through additional federal land transfers to private or state ownership. However, FLPMA repealed most of the authorities for such ownership transfers, and established an official policy of retaining the remaining lands. Thus, these western interests faced a future with a substantial and permanent federal presence more than 50% of the land in the western states, and as much as 83% in Nevada, 68% in Alaska, 64% in Utah, and 62% in Idaho. The "Sagebrush Rebellion" was largely a reaction to these facts. In 1979, Nevada enacted a state law asserting state title and management and disposal authority over public (BLM) lands within Nevada's boundaries. Similar state laws asserting state authority over the public lands were passed in Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. Other attempts to enact similar state laws were less successful. A 1979 California bill was vetoed (and the veto was sustained), and a Washington State measure contingent on an amendment to the state's constitution failed. Page 10

11 Questions of title have been litigated several times in Nevada. One 1981 case challenged the constitutionality of the federal land retention policy in 102(a) of FLPMA. The state argued that the federal government could only lawfully hold public lands in a temporary trust pending eventual disposal, and that retention of the lands violated the Tenth Amendment and "equal footing doctrine" rights. The court dismissed the case for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, finding that any limitations on holding the lands ceded by the original states did not apply to western lands acquired after the Constitution went into effect, and that the equal footing doctrine did not mean that the newer western states were entitled to the public lands. The court cited the cases discussed previously in the Constitutional Basis section of this report and noted that the equal footing doctrine applied only to political and sovereignty rights, and not to economic or geographic equality, and that the Constitution reserved to Congress the authority to decide which federal lands to sell or to keep. This case was affirmed on appeal. Title issues arose again in a case in which the plaintiffs asserted that they did not need a grazing permit to graze in a national forest because the state of Nevada owned the lands. Both the lower and appellate courts again rejected the arguments that Nevada was entitled to the lands under the equal footing doctrine, or that the federal government had any obligation to turn lands over to states. In 1993, Nye County, NV, began to take actions with respect to federal lands, including bulldozing roads on federal lands without permits, based on the assertion that Nevada held title to the lands. The United States filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment that it owns and has authority to manage the disputed lands within Nye County and that a county resolution regarding roads and rights of way was preempted as to roads and corridors for which no valid right of way exists. The United States was granted summary judgment on these issues. County governments in several states also have asserted authority over federal lands and attempted to specify management of those lands, following the example of Catron County, New Mexico. Laws that impose direct management requirements on the lands or require local approvals for land use changes in conflict with federal laws, regulations, or purposes, etc. almost certainly are preempted under the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Cl. 2) of the Constitution. The cases make it clear that a new initiative to reduce federal land ownership would require an Act of Congress, an avenue that has also been pursued. Bills were introduced in the 95 th, 96 th, and 97 th Congresses to change the retention policy in FLPMA. In general, these bills would have authorized transferring the unreserved lands to the states upon application, if the state had a land management agency with a multipleuse mandate. However, none of these bills was reported by a committee, and thus, none saw any floor action. President Reagan attempted to address the issue administratively in the early 1980s. That Administration's concept of reducing federal influence in the west slowly changed from transferring the lands free of charge to selling the lands at fair market value. Several factors stimulated this shift, including pressure from Congress. Eventually, President Reagan issued an Executive Order establishing the Property Review Board to review federal real property for potential disposal. It was not clear how this initiative related to existing laws such as FLPMA that provide statutory criteria for reviewing lands Page 11

12 for disposal and which contained an express policy of retention. The "Asset Management" program eventually stalled, however, because the Administration demanded clear congressional authorization for land disposal before it would identify which lands might be disposed of, while Congress demanded that the Administration identify which lands might be disposed of before it would consider legislation to authorize such disposal. Page 12

13 The Public Land Survey System All lands in the public domain are subject to subdivision by a rectangular system of surveys called the Public Land Survey System (PLSS), established and regulated by the Bureau of Land Management. The original public domain includes the land ceded to the Federal Government by the Thirteen Original States, supplemented with acquisitions from native Indians and foreign powers. It encompasses major portions of the land area of 30 western States. The states in which the PLSS system is used are noted in Exhibit 3: Exhibit 3: States Where the PLSS and Metes & Bounds Systems are Used. PLSS States Metes & Bounds States The PLSS was authorized by the Land Ordinance of 1785, experimented on in what is now the state of Ohio, and later used as the basis for comprehensive surveys in the states of Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, all states north of the Ohio River, and all states west of the Mississippi River, excluding Texas. These cadastral surveys of public lands form the basis of patents issued when public lands pass out of Federal ownership. Legal descriptions in the PLSS states still refer to the PLSS either by reference to aliquot parts or to the land corners created and placed under the PLSS. The term aliquot parts refers to the approximately square subdivisions of the township and section. PLSS land corners are generally monumented at township and section corners and at quarter section corners, when they are present. The PLSS is a rectangular survey system that typically divides the land into 6- mile square townships, which are further subdivided into 1-mile square sections 1. Under this system, there is a starting point called the initial point, whose position is determined by accurate field astronomical methods. Lines known as meridians and base lines are extended from these initial points. A total of 36 meridians and baselines were 1 The Act of June 1, 1796 allowed for the creation of special townships that were five miles square, located in the United States Military District and the Connecticut Western Reserve (in Ohio). Page 13

14 created in various parts of the country, as noted in Exhibits 4 through 7. The listing of which meridians and baselines were used for various parts of the country are described in detail in Exhibit 8. Exhibit 4: Map of Principal Meridians & Baselines for the Eastern United States. Michigan Mer. Baseline Second Principal Mer. Baseline First Principal Mer. Baseline Baseline Choctaw Mer. Chickasaw Mer. Baseline St. Stephens Mer. Huntsville Mer. Baseline Baseline Tallahassee Mer. Page 14

15 Exhibit 5: Map of Principal Meridians & Baselines for the Central United States. Black Hills Mer. Baseline Fourth Principal Mer. Baseline Baseline Baseline Third Principal Mer. Cimarron Baseline 6th Principal Mer. Indian Mer. Baseline Fifth Principal Mer. Baseline Baseline Louisiana Mer. St. Helena Mer. Washington Mer. Baseline Page 15

16 Exhibit 6: Map of Principal Meridians & Baselines for the Western United States. Willamette Mer. Baseline Principal Mer. Boise Mer. Baseline Baseline Wind River Mer. Baseline Baseline Humboldt Mer. Mt. Diablo Mer. Baseline San Bernardino Mer. Baseline Baseline Gila & Salt River Mer. Salt Lake Mer. Baseline Uintah Mer. Navajo Mer. Baseline Ute Mer. Baseline New Mexico Principal Mer. Baseline Baseline Page 16

17 Exhibit 7: Map of Principal Meridians & Baselines for Alaska. Baseline Umiat Mer. Baseline Kateel River Mer. Fairbanks Mer. Baseline Baseline Seward Mer. Baseline Copper River Exhibit 8: Meridians and Baselines of the United States Rectangular Surveys. Meridian Adopted Governing Surveys in States of: Latitude Longitude Black Hills 1878 South Dakota Boise 1867 Idaho Chickasaw 1833 Mississippi Choctaw 1821 Mississippi Cimarron 1881 Oklahoma Copper River 1905 Alaska Fairbanks 1910 Alaska Fifth Principal 1815 Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota First Principal 1819 Ohio, Indiana Fourth Principal 1815 Illinois Fourth Principal* 1831 Minnesota, Wisconsin Gila & Salt River 1865 Arizona Humboldt 1853 California Page 17

18 Meridian Adopted Governing Surveys in States of: Latitude Longitude Huntsville 1807 Alabama, Mississippi Indian 1870 Oklahoma Kateel River 1956 Alaska Louisiana 1815 Michigan, Ohio Mount Diablo 1851 California, Nevada Navaho 1869 Arizona New Mexico 1855 Colorado, New Mexico Principal Principal 1867 Montana Salt Lake 1855 Utah San Bernardino 1852 California Second Principal 1805 Illinois, Indiana Seward 1911 Alaska Sixth Principal 1855 Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, Wyoming St. Helena 1819 Louisiana St. Stephens 1805 Alabama, Mississippi Tallahassee 1824 Florida, Alabama Third Principal 1805 Illinois Uintah 1875 Utah Umiat 1956 Alaska Ute 1880 Colorado Washington 1803 Mississippi Willamette 1851 Oregon, Washington Wind River 1875 Wyoming * There are two Fourth Principal meridians listed, because their longitudes differ slightly on either side of the Iowa border. The principal meridian of a survey is a north-south line from the initial point. Along this line, regular township corners are established at intervals of 480 chains (one chain is 66 feet long) and regular quarter-section and section corners established alternately at intervals of 40 chains. The base line runs east-west from an initial point. Along this line, quarter-section and section corners are established alternately at intervals of 40 chains and standard township corners at intervals of 480 chains. This segmentation results in a grid of townships, each of which is six miles square. As specified by the Land Ordinance of May 18, 1796, the townships are marked with progressive numbers, north or south from the baseline, while ranges are numbered east or west from the principal meridian. Townships are divided into 36 sections, each one being one mile square and containing 640 acres. Sections are numbered beginning with 1 in the northeasterly-most section and proceeding west and east alternately through the township, with the last number being 36. The numbering system used to identify townships is noted in Exhibit 9: Page 18

19 Exhibit 9: Modern Section Numbering System. Township Line The township numbering system that was originally used, as per the Land Ordinance of May 20, 1785, is shown in Exhibit 10, where we see that it was the exact reverse of the current system. This is of more than historical interest, since much of the surveying in Ohio was conducted under this earlier system, and so some of the land descriptions in that state still retain the reversed section numbers. Also, Canadian townships continue to use this format. Exhibit 10: Section Numbering System of the Land Ordinance of Page 19

20 Each section under the modern section numbering system can be further subdivided into quarter sections of about 160 acres, which became the basic unit of land transfer under the Homestead Act of Quarter sections can be divided into half quarter sections of approximately 80 acres and further subdivided into quarter quarter sections of approximately 40 acres, and so on. These subdivisions are called aliquot parts, meaning contained in something else, an exact number of times. Corner monuments are placed along all lines as they are surveyed at 1/2-mile (quarter-section) intervals. The monumentation is intended to establish a permanent marking of the lines and to fix the corner positions so that the location of the surveyed lands can always be definitely known. The typical monument used to mark a corner is zinc-coated iron pipe, 2 ½ inches wide and 30 inches long, filled with concrete and driven ¾ of the way into the ground. If there is a rocky surface into which the pipe cannot be driven, then a 3 ¼ brass tablet can be embedded in rocky outcroppings. Native rock may also be used, as long as the monument has at least 1,000 cubic inches of volume and has suitable dimensions for permanent markings. A fully matured tree can also be used, being marked with a minimum of an X at breast height on its south side. If it is impossible to create a corner monument (perhaps because it would be in the middle of a road or stream), then at least two reference monuments can be placed nearby, with notations in the survey notes showing how they relate to the position of the true corner. Exhibit 11 shows the normal division of a section into aliquot parts. An aliquot part is always described in relation to the four points of the compass. For example, a quarter quarter section could be described as the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter, section 14, township 2 west, range 3 west (and the name of the principal meridian). Contiguous units may be combined. For example, if both NW ¼ section 10 and SW ¼ section 10 are included, the symbol W ½ section 10 is used. Page 20

21 Exhibit 11: Aliquot Part Naming System. NW 1/4 160 Acres W 1/2 NE 1/4 80 Acres E 1/2 NE 1/4 80 Acres NW 1/4 SW 1/4 40 Acres NE 1/4 SW 1/4 40 Acres W 1/2 NW 1/4 SE 1/4 20 Acres E 1/2 NW 1/4 SE 1/4 20 Acres N 1/2 NE 1/4 SE 1/4 20 Acres S 1/2 NE 1/4 SE 1/4 20 Acres SW 1/4 SW 1/4 40 Acres SE 1/4 SW 1/4 40 Acres N 1/2 NW 1/4 SW 1/4 SE 1/4 5 Acres S 1/2 NW 1/4 SW 1/4 SE 1/4 5 Acres 2 1/2 Acres 2 1/2 Acres 2 1/2 Acres 2 1/2 Acres W 1/2 NE 1/4 SW 1/4 SE 1/4 5 Acres SE 1/4 SW 1/4 SE 1/4 10 Acres E 1/2 NE 1/4 SW 1/4 SE 1/4 5 Acres NW 1/4 SE 1/4 SE 1/4 10 Acres SW 1/4 SE 1/4 SE 1/4 10 Acres NE 1/4 SE 1/4 SE 1/4 10 Acres SE 1/4 SE 1/4 SE 1/4 10 Acres Normal Division of a Section Because the system covers such a large area, adjustments to allow for the curvature of the Earth were needed to allow the system to be locally square. Before each extension of the PLSS, surveyors established and monumented an initial point, and determined an accurate latitude and longitude for it. As shown in Exhibit 12, surveyors then ran two lines from this point, one north-south and the other east-west. The northsouth line, called a principal meridian, and the east-west line, called a base line, act as the reference index for the rest of the survey. The township lines are intended to be run as true parallels of latitude and the range lines are intended to be true meridians. Meridional lines (lines of meridian) will converge as they are extended towards either pole. This convergence is 20 to 50 feet per township in the United States. To compensate for this convergence and to keep townships full size, standard parallels are established every 24 miles (which is every four townships). Page 21

22 Exhibit 12: Layout of Townships from an Initial Point. First Standard Parallel North T.4N Meridian West First Guide Initial Point Base Principal Meridian T.3N T.2N T.1N R.4W R.3W R.2W R.1W R.1E R.2E R.3E R.4E Line T.1S T.2S T.3S First Guide Meridian East T.4S First Standard Parallel South A more summary-level view of the structure of the Public Land Survey System is shown in Exhibit 13. Exhibit 13: Summary of the Public Land Survey System. Page 22

23 One must make corrections in the parallels and meridians of the rectangular system, due to the curvature of the earth. This is done with correction lines (or standard parallels), extending east-west from the principal meridian, at intervals of usually 24 miles north and south of the base line. Similarly, guide meridians are extended northsouth from the base line at intervals of 24 miles east-west of the principal meridian. The fractional measurement associated with correction for the curvature of the earth is made in the last half mile of the guide meridian. In order to make the largest amount of surveyed land in a township perfectly square, all meridional lines are run from south to north from the south boundary, and parallel to the east boundary; these are called true lines. This means that the sections along the north and west boundaries of a township will absorb the deficiency or excess in measurements and convergence. Fractional townships or sections can occur when meanderable bodies of water or metes & bounds claims intrude on regular rectangular divisions. Metes & bounds surveys may involve prior grants of land, mineral claims, small-holding claims, private Page 23

24 land grants, forest-entry claims, national parks and monuments, Indian reservations, lighthouse reservations, trade and manufacturing sites, homestead claims in Alaska, etc. It is subdivided into as many regular aliquot parts as possible down to the quarter quarter section, and the remaining parcels are numbered. Situations in which fractional townships or sections can occur are noted in Exhibit 14. When fractional parts are described, one can substitute the lot number (as numbered in the next exhibit) in place of the aliquot part descriptor. A legal description of such a lot would be Lot 7, Section 22, followed by the township, range, and meridian information. Exhibit 14: Examples of Fractional Townships or Sections. National Park Intrusion of Metes & Bounds Lake Lake Intrusion of Navigable Water Page 24

25 Section North and West Township Boundary Condition Certain lands were excluded from the public domain and not subject to survey and disposal. These lands include the beds of navigable bodies of water, national installations such as military reservations and national parks, and areas such as land grants that had already passed to private ownership prior to subdivision by the Government. Data describing the PLSS is required by Federal surface and mineral management agencies, as well as any organization concerned with land ownership in the 30 western States that were formed from the public domain. Additionally, many agencies have encoded natural resource or environmental inventory data based on the PLSS. With respect to the ideal rectangular plan, a survey of the public lands is accomplished by establishing, in order, the following: Independent initial point. This is the point from which the survey of the principal meridian and base line, controlling the survey of the public lands in a given area, is initiated. There are 46 separate surveys in the nationwide system. Of these, only eight in Ohio and Indiana (commenced between 1785 and 1805) have no initial point as defined. Principal meridian. This is a line extending north and south along the astronomic meridian passing through the initial point. It serves as the origin for the survey of township boundaries along the parallels. Base line. This is a line extending east and west along a true parallel of latitude passing through the initial point. It serves as the origin for the survey of meridional township boundaries. Standard parallels (correction lines). These are auxiliary governing lines that extend east and west from the Principal Meridian, generally at intervals of 24 miles (four townships) north and south of the base line. In many surveys run before 1850, correction lines were run at intervals of 30, 36, or 60 miles. Standard parallels are used to take up error in the rectangular plan caused by the convergence of meridians. Page 25

26 Guide meridians. These are auxiliary governing lines that are projected north from points established on either the base line or standard parallels, generally at intervals of 24 miles east and west of the principal meridian. Guide meridians terminate at the point of intersection with another standard parallel. Township exteriors. These are lines surveyed at 6-mile intervals that conform to meridians and parallels within established limits. Meridional township boundaries (range lines) are run from south to north and terminate at the point of intersection with a standard parallel. Latitudinal township boundaries (township lines) are run from east to west through corners established on the meridional lines. Townships are numbered to the north and south commencing with number 1 at the base line, and with range numbers to the east and west commencing with number 1 at the principal meridian. The township number is used in conjunction with the range number to indicate the coordinates of a particular township with respect to the initial point. Subdivision of townships. The south and east boundaries of a township are normally the governing lines of sub-divisional surveys. Meridional section lines are initiated at the section corners at the south boundary of the township and are run north parallel to the east boundary. They are not continued north beyond a section corner until the connecting latitudinal section lines have been surveyed. Latitudinal section lines are run west to east parallel to the south boundaries of the respective sections. Any fractional measurement is placed in the north or west 1/2 mile of the township. A normal township is divided into 36 sections numbered commencing with number 1 in the northeast section of the township, proceeding west to section 6, then south to section 7, then east to section 12, and so on, to number 36 in the southeast section. Half townships may be created in instances where the distance between the regular position of township boundaries is so great that the application of normal rules of subdivision would result in sections elongated in excess of 120 chains (7,920 feet). Half ranges may be created in instances where the distance between the regular position of township boundaries is so great that the application of normal rules of subdivision would result in sections elongated in excess of 120 chains (7,920 feet). Subdivision of sections. Subdivision of sections into aliquot parts or irregular lots is controlled by the previously established section and quarter-section corners. This subdivision may be accomplished by field methods or protracted on the official plat. Subdivision lines and corners are shown on quadrangle maps, usually to the section level with some quarter section corners shown, to the extent that their positions can be determined from evidence on the ground. During field work, enough corners are located to accurately position the network of public land lines from official plats. Although the PLSS is mapped to meet National Map Accuracy Standards, its depiction is not intended to be official or authoritative; it is presented as useful reference information. The only legal basis for determining land boundaries remains the original survey. The specific type of survey used to create the PLSS is called a cadastral survey. This survey creates, reestablishes, marks, and defines the boundaries of tracts of land. Page 26

27 Unlike surveys that collect information about resources ad conditions in the field, cadastral surveys cannot be ignored, repudiated, altered, or corrected. Other surveys can be redone to collect current information, or to use more accurate methods, but the boundaries created or reestablished by cadastral surveys cannot be changed so long as they control rights vested in the lands affected. The official record of a PLSS survey ordinarily consists of a drawing (a plat or map) and a written description of the field work. The drawing represents the lines surveyed, showing the direction and length of each such line, and the boundaries, description, and the topography, culture, and improvements within the limits of the survey. Cadastral surveys under the PLSS fall into two main categories, which are original surveys and retracement surveys (or resurveys). Original surveys for the PLSS have been completed for the majority of all land in the lower 48 states, with the remaining work being done in Alaska. Resurveys are needed to restore obliterated or lost original survey lines and monuments. Legally, resurveys must not impair the bona fide land rights of affected claimants. Corners established in original cadastral surveys are forever fixed in position even though they may not fall precisely at a stated bearing and distance from the previous point. In sequence of priority, the monuments set in the field and then the approved original plats and original field notes control the reestablishment of original boundaries and corners. In those states where the public land surveys are essentially complete (known as closed states), the field notes, plats, and other papers related to those surveys have been transferred to appropriate state offices for safekeeping as public records. The records of 13 states are still held by the Bureau of Land Management in its state offices. Survey corners are points on the surface of the Earth that represent extremities of a subdivision of the public lands, generally at the intersection of two or more surveyed lines. The classification of a corner describes the relative corner location, type of survey, or the controlling aspects of the corner. A survey corner is identified by unique symbology or labeling on the map only when the monumented point has been recovered in the field. The Act of March 1, 1800 initiated the key principle that the corners set by the original public land surveyor in the field were to be considered the true corners, even though later surveys even though later surveys might show that they had been placed incorrectly. The Act of May 10, 1800 required that monuments were required at ½ mile intervals(quarter corners) on the north and south boundaries of the sections; however, no monuments were required to be placed at the quarter corners on the east and west boundaries of the sections. The following is a list of the types of survey corners found on USGS quadrangle maps: Angle point. This is a point on a survey where the alignment or boundary deflects from a straight line. Amended monument. A survey monument whose position no longer marks the true position for the corner, but which is connected by course and distance to the new corner. There are two primary applications of amended monuments: (1) If another survey such as a mineral survey, homestead entry, small holding claim, or right of way or reservoir survey has been tied to a monument that has been found to be out of position, the monument is marked "AM" and connected by course and distance to a new, correctly positioned monument, and (2) If a recovered closing corner is not at the true point of Page 27