What surveying can't a civil engineer do?

[Ric7308]

Montana,

You stated: "This section seems to indicate that a Post-82 civil engineer could do all types of surveying, with boundary surveys being the one (1) notable exception."

I read it as Post-81 Civil Engineers are ONLY authorized as described in this section.

Question: Do those construction plans depict improvements and/or existing conditions that are referenced to a boundary or right-of-way?

Ric

[Ric7308]

So in your office, only 1 Civil Engineer has seen the error of his ways and became a Land Surveyor?

[Ben Lund]

PE defined vs PLS defined
6731.1 (a)(b)(c) overlaps with 8726 (a)(b)(m) (not all of 8726 (m) is encompassed in 6731.1(c).

In my opinion, I don't think it matters whether the building the PE is staking is shown a certain distance away from PL or RW as long as the PE is not establishing the PL.

I believe the PE has the right to locate, relocate, establish, reestablish, or retrace the alignment or elevation of any of the fixed object in order to determine the position of the fixed objects in relationship to each other and the earth’s surface by using photogrammetry, trigonometry, and measuring lines and angles.

PS, I have seen the error of my ways.

[E_Page]

How does one show the distance of a fixed work from the PL unless one establishes the PL?

Establishment is not equivalent to monumenting or staking the PL.

[Ben Lund]

The surveyor shows the PE where PL is and the PE measures from the fixed objects representing PL (whether it's a stake or 2" IP).

[Ian Wilson]

Ah, Ben, so the engineer DOES require that the Surveyor sign the plat, too, then.

The correlary to this would be for me to hire you to design the drainage structure under a road I'm showing on my map. You send me the drawing. I include it on my map and drop your signature off. No problem. I didn't do the engineering. I merely copied your work into my own. By your reaoning, there should be no need for you to sign my drawing.

[subman]

Ric,

An 11:1 ratio of PE to PLS/PE probably isn't too bad.

Does anyone have the databases for licensed surveyors and licensed civil engineers in the State. It would be interesting to merge them, sort them and find out how many professionals in the state have both a PLS & PE. In LA County Public Works there is only two of us out of about 400 licensed civil engineers. If I had to pick a number, I would say less than 3% of the licensed civil engineers in the state are also licensed as a land surveyor.

[subman]

And lets not forget Board Rule 415 in addition to what 6731.1 may allow:

415. Practice Within Area of Competence.
A professional engineer or land surveyor licensed under the Code shall practice and perform engineering or land surveying work only in the field or fields in which he/she is by education and/or experience fully competent and proficient.

Just because I have a drivers license doesn't mean I am going to drive a
40 ft Class A motorhome pulling a speed boat on the 405 freeway thru Los Angeles during rush hour...

[PE_PLS]

Hypothetical.....

As a PE I set out to design a road within an existing, established right-of-way. The ROW is clearly defined on a Final Map (or any other map or document showing the ROW) for a new development with plenty of street monuments, etc. to know precisely the location of the ROW. I go out and tie in the monuments and proceed to do a topo survey to get my road design data. I design the road, submit the improvement plans, get approval, and stake the road. Road gets built. Not once did I hire or engage a PLS at any stage of the process.

In my opinion I have not violated any portion of the Land Surveyor's Act. It is my opinion that the sufficient monumentation shown on the Final Map (or any other map showing the ROW) is such that it is existing "control" for the ROW line. If I as a PE go out and shoot these monuments and they match record data, I don't see the need to go out and hire a PLS to give me a "control" survey that is just a copy of another existing map showing the ROW. IMO I don't see myself "establishing" the ROW, I see myself shooting existing "control"...even if the "control" was set 20 years ago. Alas, if there isn't sufficient monumentation, or the monumentation is contradictory then that is another story.....

What do ya'll think?

Dylan Gonsalves, PE, PLS

[Ric7308]

Dennis,

Both points well taken. And yes, I would like to see that comparison also. My guess is you are pretty accurate in your estimate.

Dylan, you presented a good scenario, but there seems to be a common theme to the discussion with regards to the property or ROW lines. Many individuals seem to want to draw the line only at "establish". Take a look at 8726(c) and then your scenario.

8726(c) Locates, relocates, establishes, reestablishes, or retraces any property line or boundary of any parcel of land, right-of-way, easement, or alignment of those lines or boundaries.

Wouldn't you agree in your scenario that you are "locating", "relocating", "reestablishing" or "retracing" the alignment and boundaries of that ROW, not to mention the fee parcels coincidental with the ROW?

Ric

[Ian Wilson]

OK, Dylan. Let’s look at another situation.

A Real Estate agent tells the client that the tag on the curb is the property corner and so is that rebar at the back. The new owner builds a short brick wall topped off with a short teak fence. Very expensive.

The only problem is that the tag in the curb at the front was actually the BC point of the cul-de-sac and the rebar at the back was the rear property corner for the lot in the subdivision next to the one in question. This beautiful wall is built four feet into someone else’s property. All the monuments in this story appeared on recent record maps. OOOPS!

The point at which anyone looks at a monument and makes any statement about that monument is the practice of land surveying. That’s very clear from the stautes.

The engineer who shoots their own top and relates that topo to a property is practicing land surveying and, unless a pre-’82 civil or a PE/PLS such as yourself is practicing land surveying and in violation of the PE and PLS Acts.

Can a topo survey be performed that does not show property lines? Absolutely. How about a topop for ADA compliance? No boundary. Just topo. Done to determine compliance with ADA and to design upgrades as necessary.

[PE_PLS]

Ian and Ric, here's where I have trouble......

Lets assume again the situation I presented, but this time I hire a PLS. The PLS goes out and surveys the monuments and presents me as the PE with the coordinates of the monuments and their relationship with the ROW lines. How is that ANY different than me using the Final map? Is the difference that I must hire a PLS to tell me? I can't use a map to get my solution?

To add another shade of gray....I go to the local Caltrans office and pick up one of their ROW and monumentation maps. Usually the Caltrans maps list the SP coordinates at every BC, EC, tagent etc. along with the SP coordinates of all the monumentation. I as the PE go out and shoot the monuments and everything matches the control on the Caltrans maps exactly. In spite of all this do I need to hire a PLS to tell confirm that the control is good? Seems silly to me. I think everyone would agree that if I hired a PLS to set control for my road survey that I would be in the clear. Where is the line crossed? When I use control set by someone I didn't hire, ie Caltrans or a Final Map? Is the fact that I hire the PLS the line that needs to be crossed? If I get my data from someone else's map or Caltrans does that mean that I somehow "established" the ROW.

I know I am naive, but I am just saying these things for the sake of argument. I've made this argument and so have many others before me....help me understand where the line gets crossed.

Ian, you made a statement: "The point at which anyone looks at a monument and makes any statement about that monument is the practice of land surveying."

It seems to me that is where the line is crossed. But if a map tells me that the monument I see in the field marks X,Y, or Z, then why do I need to hire a surveyor to tell me that? The surveyor who made the map already tells me. From your logic Ian, then it would seem that to be perfectly legitimate I would actually have to go out in the field with the PLS, and he would then point to a monument and say "that monument over there, is this monument on the map"....and point to the map we're looking at together. Is that why I as the PE need to hire the PLS? To walk the site together and confirm that the points I see on the map are indeed the points I see in the field?

If I go out and hire a PLS to set control so I can do my topo, the PLS gives me the control data and shows me where it lies with respect to the ROW. When I go out and shoot the control that the PLS set I am making a determination that the control I see in the field is exactly the control that the PLS I hired set. How does that differ than me going out and setting up on street monuments that show up on a final map? The same sequence of events takes place. I set up on the control i.e. monument and I determine that the monument I am on is the monument that shows up on the final map. The only difference I see is that I don't have any interaction with the surveyor who produced the final map. From this logic it would seem that if the surveyor who prepared the final map hands it to me as the PE and says that the monuments shown hereon are the points in the field you shot for your topo than everything is legitimate. Is that the interchange that needs to take place? It seems that the surveyor who signed the final map has already made that clear...thats why the map exists! If that is interchange that is required I guess as the PE I will get the final map, go to the surveyor who prepared the map and ask him: "Are the monuments shown on this map the ones you set in the field? Can the monuments on this map be used to delineate the ROW shown hereon?" If the surveyor replies yes then have I taken the appropriate steps? Again, seems very silly to me. That is exactly the reason the map was filed, to show control on which to locate the ROW or other elements shown thereon.

Help me out here folks....What is the difference between the two scenarios in which one is illegal, and the other isn't???

Dylan Gonsalves, PE, PLS

[Ian Wilson]

When I look at a map to figure out how to get from here to there, the map shows me the relationship between those two points.

When I want to see a map of California, a map of Roseville is of no value.

And so it is with any survey map.

A map of a single point is of no value because it shows no relationships between it and other monuments.

The parcel of land you own does not sit isolated. It sits in relation to every other parcel around it. It is a single piece in a jigsaw puzzle. It is almost impossible to tell what the entire picture looks like from a single piece.

And so it is with a survey monument marking a property corner.

It is impossible to look at a monument and state without question that it is the monument marking a particular corner.

That can ONLY be done when measurements are taken to other points to PROVE the relationships between the monuments found match those of record on the maps.

In short, you CANNOT go to the field, look at a point and state unequivocally that you have found a particular point without examining the relationship between it and the others surrounding it.

THAT is the line you cross because THAT is the very definition of boundary surveying.

As a classically trained scientist, when I find a monument, I set up experiments to prove my initial hypothesis. If this is the monument I think it is, then there will be another monument that bearing and distance from this and another over there on that bearing at this distance. If this monument is NOT the one I think it is, then those monuments will NOT be there. Without performing those experiments, I cannot say anything about one monument. To do so would be like me stating that because I’ve seen many people with eyes, I can state that YOUR eyes are green. I might be right. I might NOT be right.

To state that a particular monument is that one on the map is no different. You might be right. You might not be right. The Licensed Land Surveyor is authorized to perform those experiments, draw those conclusions and make those statements. The post-’82 civil is not.

Boundary surveying has NOTHING in common with engineering. Engineering is a mathematical pursuit. Boundary surveying is a legal function. It is the gathering of evidence, the analysis of that evidence and the drawing of logical conclusions based on that analysis. It is NOT an engineering function.

Unfortunately, most engineers see surveyors only as technicians in terms of providing them with information to prepare designs and in staking those designs on the ground for construction purposes. Engineers do not see the other functions we perform nor are they trained to understand those functions.

As an engineer, you do not presume to think that you can act as your own attorney in the prosecution of a difficult legal matter. Why do you think you can act as a Land Surveyor in an equally complex boundary matter?

[subman]

Ian,

I assume you meant the post-82 civil engineer is not. or have I missed something?

[Ben Lund]

In Dylan's example the ROW has been established; the control is in place. The PE has the right to locate, relocate, establish, reestablish, or retrace any fixed objects. In order to do this, the PE needs control.

What horizontal and vertical control is the PE allowed to use? Is he NOT allowed to use any control that is related to PL, ROW, or easement alignment? What control is NOT related to these things? Is he limited in relating the building to face of curb or storm drain manholes and not be able to relate the fixed works to ROW monuments?

Maybe all that is needed is a note that states, “This is not a boundary survey.” Would that satisfy everyone?

[Rob_LS]

Compare B & P 6731.1 and 8726 f & g... Can a non PLS Post-81 PE even consider using SPCs or equipment (GNSS) that takes into account the
"the figure and size of the earth ".

Dylan as a PE PLS is ok, but as a Post-81 PE only, "I go to the local Caltrans office and pick up one of their ROW and monumentation maps. Usually the Caltrans maps list the SP coordinates at every BC, EC, tagent etc. along with the SP coordinates of all the monumentation. I as the PE go out and shoot the monuments and everything matches the control on the Caltrans maps exactly."

To compare your ground measurements to the SPC grid distances, you "take into account the "the figure and size of the earth ". Bingo - Someone write out that BPELS complaint!

What do I know - I'm only a PLS, EIT (for now)

6731.1. Civil engineering also includes the practice or offer to
practice, either in a public or private capacity, all of the
following:
(a) Locates, relocates, establishes, reestablishes, or retraces
the alignment or elevation for any of the fixed works embraced within
the practice of civil engineering, as described in Section 6731.
(b) Determines the configuration or contour of the earth's surface
or the position of fixed objects above, on, or below the surface of
earth by applying the principles of trigonometry or photogrammetry.
(c) Creates, prepares, or modifies electronic or computerized data
in the performance of the activities described in subdivisions (a)
and (b).
(d) Renders a statement regarding the accuracy of maps or measured
survey data pursuant to subdivisions (a), (b), and (c).


vs

(f) Geodetic or cadastral surveying. As used in this chapter,
geodetic surveying means performing surveys, in which account is
taken of the figure and size of the earth to determine or
predetermine the horizontal or vertical positions of fixed objects
thereon or related thereto, geodetic control points, monuments, or
stations for use in the practice of land surveying or for stating the
position of fixed objects, geodetic control points, monuments, or
stations by California Coordinate System coordinates.
(g) Determines the information shown or to be shown on any map or
document prepared or furnished in connection with any one or more of
the functions described in subdivisions (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and
(f).

[PE_PLS]

....and for that I truly am sorry. Again, I know I am licensed to do both since I am a PE and PLS, I was making my arguments as if I was just a PE. Before I put this argument to bed a few more thoughts....

Most PE's are fairly good with math. They understand trigonometry, etc. PE's who work with design of roads usually create alignments that have both horizontal and vertical components and most will understand bearings, distances, tangents, deltas, etc. I think it is reasonable that if I handed a PE a final map that they could calculate the lines shown thereon and relate those lines to the monuments. In fact, PEs do this all the time when they do construction staking. Again, I am only stating that a competent PE could accomplish all these tasks from a mathematical standpoint. Of course they may not understand how the ROW was created, who dedicated the land, how it was surveyed, etc. But given the end product of a final map, or some other mapping product a competent PE could calculate everything on it. Some may disagree with me on this point, but for the sake of argument lets accept this point as being true.

Again, my question, and I have yet to receive a direct response... How is this mapping product any different than what a PLS would produce if I hired them to set control before I went out and shot topo? The PLS would hand me something that would look VERY similar to the final map. In fact, the PLS may set no control of his own and just show the monuments. Aside from giving coordinates to the monuments, how are the products any different from each other. Why is one a "control" survey that the PE can now use, while the other as a final map the PE is barred from using because it violates the Land Surveyor's Act? What gives? Mind you that we all know that the final map was already prepared by a PLS, why do I need to hire another PLS to give me control data which the original PLS already showed when he created the final map?

By the way everyone, I am not asking this question to be argumentative. Next time a PE asks me why he can or can't do something, I want to give him a good answer. Right now I don't have a good answer, maybe ya'll can help me figure out a good answer.

Dylan Gonsalves, PE, PLS

[7702]

"Next time a PE asks me why he can or can't do something, I want to give him a good answer. Right now I don't have a good answer, maybe ya'll can help me figure out a good answer."

A good answer would be "because it's illegal".

[Ian Wilson]

Dennis: you’re right. I’ve edited my post.

Dylan: The difference is that a POST ’82 civil is NOT authorized to establish, re-establish or make ANY representations about the boundary. Only a PRE’82 civil or a PLS is allowed by law to do that. End of story.

When I do a topo for a Parcel Map, many jurisdictions now want to see that a pad can be graded on that site. In MicroSurvey, I can draw the outline of a pad, set the elevation of the pad and have the software create cut slopes and fill slopes from that pad to the existing topo. In short, I can create a rudimentary grading plan. It’s not hard. However, I need to have a PE sign off on that because it is engineering.

Calculating the Q for a watershed is really very simple. It requires defining the watershed area and establishing the size. The run-off for that particular soil type and vegetation comes from a table. From that point on, it’s a 10th grade math exercise. However, because I don’t have PE behind my name, I have to hire a PE to review my work and sign off.

As a PLS, I have re-engineered countless grading plans on the fly to fit the existing conditions. These re-engineered situations cover everything from single family residences to parking lots to building sites to roadways. And yet, because I don’t have a PE after my name, it’s not a valid engineering plan with just my PLS stamp and signature.

In the office, I’ve designed roads, grading plans, retaining walls and countless other fixed features. Without a PE behind my name, I can’t sign or stamp the plans.

Do you see where I’m going with this?

I can’t sign those engineering plans because I’m not an engineer.

The POST ’82 PE can’t show boundary on his design because they’re not authorized to practice land surveying.

It’s very clearly defined under the current laws.

And, “What Mark said!”

[Ian Wilson]

Incidentally, one engineer I used to work with did shoot his own topo in the field for design of custom home grading plans. He would set a pair of hubs in the ground and use them for his topo control.

Then, he would hire me to locate the boundary and tie in his control.

After the grading plan was completed, he would come to me to stamp the plans under a statement that said I had located the boundary and the control from which the topography was collected.

It was a great arrangement.

It was what was (and still is) necessary to comply with the law.

[PE_PLS]

Its apparent to me that I won't be satisfied...thats okay though.

The surveyor who signs the final map establishes the boundaries and sets the monuments. A PE comes through and shoots the monuments to design a road, and performs a set of mathematical calculations to SHOW the ROW for the road from the final map. The PE didn't establish anything. The PLS who created the map was the one who did the establishing. The PE merely performed a set of calculations to recreate the ROW lines as shown on the final map. But alas, apparently I'm wrong. There's nothing to say that the ROW as shown on the final map is correct...thats where the PE could really screw things up. Maybe there have been dedications, or something else that changes everything. Thus it would be good to have a surveyor as the beginning, then you would have some confidence that the map is correct. Thats what I'll tell a PE next time they ask ;)

[7702]

This is off topic a bit, but I wonder why pre '82 RCE's weren't issued separate LS numbers? Seems like doing so would have been a less confusing path, especially when a pre '82 RCE's rights to practice land surveying are revoked and then the registrant is issued a new post '81 RCE number by the Board.

[PE_PLS]

I guess every architect and designer is in violation of the Land Surveyor's Act when they go and ragtape a house and show it on a site plan with property lines. Better get the governer to ramp up enforecement...this could be a good new source of income for the state

[PE_PLS]

I very rarely see a PLS stamp on improvement plans for public works projects that show ROW lines. Would this also be a violation, even if the civil firm hired a PLS to provide the data? Seems like it would since the stamp doesn't appear on the plans.

Greg I see your point, and after playing devil's advocate I do agree with you.

Lets get to the root of the issue though. Up here in Nor Cal maybe its a different story, but many times you can submit plans without a surveyor's stamp. All of these plans whether it be improvement plans or house plans show prop lines or ROW lines. From the law it appears that all of these plans are in violation of the LSA if they do not contain the seal of the PLS.

Example...I provide survey data to an architect. Architect uses my data for his site plan. On only 1 occasion have I been asked to stamp the site plan. Mind you there is a survey sheet in the submittal, but who says the site plan matches the data I provided? Is the architect violating the LSA since I didn't stamp the site plan?

The law may say one thing, but if 99% of the time it is violated, then what becomes of the law?

[PE_PLS]

Murchie...thanks for the letter. Doesn't get any clearer than that. I learn something new everyday. Cities and other agencies really need to get their ducks in a row as the improvement plans I've been seeing aren't been stamped by the LS.