As Built Utility Surveying

[kwilson]

I have heard somewhere (Can't exactly remember where) concerning a requirement that underground utilities must be located by a licensed surveyor. I have a couple of questions.

Is this new legislation? Or proposed legislation?
What is (or could be) included? Utilities in public ROW? Does it include any service lines? What happens to the data?

[CBarrett]

PLS act. Anyone that practices land surveying must be licensed.
Land surveying is defined as:
... and as-builts are done for civil engineering purpose.

pls act snip.JPG

[DWoolley]

Senate Bill 865 requires that utility purveyors put their utility detections into a GIS system beginning January 1, 2023. Government Code 4216 requires the marking of utilities, presumably in the field, to be within 24”. The utility locating companies and contractors will begin collecting their locations and as-built data to populate the mandated GIS system.

Uncorrelated, but at the same time, ASCE is finalizing their Standards 38-XX and 75-XX which prescribes the standards for documenting underground utilities in the process of subsurface utility engineering (SUE). The SUE standards specify the accuracies, Standard 38-XX, section 2.4.1.6 states the horizontal locations will be 0.2’ and be tied to the “Project Survey Datum”. Section 3.3.1 defines Project Survey Datum and requires very similar information to that required by the California Public Resource Code. Section 3.3.8 requires and signature and seal as to the compliance with the standards. Few things come to mind as being more dangerous than believing the location of an underground utility is known within a centimeter and being in a location several feet away.

The utility locating folks believe their GPS equipment – mounted to their detector – is “sub-centimeter”. Generally, these folks have no sense of reference frames i.e. epochs or datums.

The ASCE standard 75-XX has accuracy ratings zero through five that range from 0.1 feet to 3 feet with zero being indeterminate. Many of the folks reading this forum understand there is more than 24” between 1991.35 and 2017.5. Vertically there is 2.5’ between ’29 and ’88.

Land surveyors should understand that a GPS/RTN system is a maximum capacity to achieve 0.1’ at 95% - providing the base is reasonably close and the PPM doesn’t factor. Factor in grid versus pseudo ground and they’re out of spec again.

Business and Professions Code 8726 (n) authorizes a licensed land surveyor to certify as to accuracy. The licensed engineers have the same authority. The authority does not exist for contractors, unlicensed technicians, utility detectors etc.

In closing, we are looking at an industry, underground utility detection, becoming highly regulated with specifics as to GIS, GPS and mapping to specifications. This is 100% the land surveyor’s wheelhouse, both in expertise and by statute. In my experience, the land surveying community could use training to be of service to this industry, hence, the push for accuracy statements becoming standard for land surveying work product becoming a makeshift professional bootcamp.

Again, a licensee under 40 years of age should ask “what am I going to be doing for a living in 15 to 20 years?” Smart money says licensees will not be construction staking or topographic mapping in a sufficient quantity to earn a living. What about unlicensed folks not on the path to licensure? Better research UBI and ask your former chainman if she can put in the good word for you at Walmart as a greeter.

DWoolley

[David Kendall]

Senate Bill 865 requires that utility purveyors put their utility detections into a GIS system beginning January 1, 2023. Government Code 4216 requires the marking of utilities, presumably in the field, to be within 24”. The utility locating companies and contractors will begin collecting their locations and as-built data to populate the mandated GIS system.

Uncorrelated, but at the same time, ASCE is finalizing their Standards 38-XX and 75-XX which prescribes the standards for documenting underground utilities in the process of subsurface utility engineering (SUE). The SUE standards specify the accuracies, Standard 38-XX, section 2.4.1.6 states the horizontal locations will be 0.2’ and be tied to the “Project Survey Datum”. Section 3.3.1 defines Project Survey Datum and requires very similar information to that required by the California Public Resource Code.

Thank you for this summary Mr Woolley. If these are the legislated tolerances then I agree that there should be a statement required on the document pertaining to the accuracy of the data derived for this purpose. This necessity has been very difficult to convey to our membership in any coherent manner.

I feel that the proposal to mandate accuracy statements on all work product as a response to this proposed legislation may be an overreach. This idea does not have broad support in the CA land surveying community. I find that the concept is cumbersome to explain and the intent is difficult understand.

It might be time to update the Walmart greeter metaphor as well, it doesn't have the same bite that it did a few years ago

We might do better to start with advocacy for an accuracy statement included on documents produced in relation to SB 865 only

[mpallamary]

Once again, the surveying profession needs to protect its arena. This is another example of how we are losing ground. We need to protect the profession and we need to reach out at every opportunity like this.

[PE_PLS]

The importance of locating jet fuel lines correctly:

https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/ ... 636376.php

https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/ ... 539356.php

My understanding is that the area was hand dig only, because they knew the jet fuel line went around a large oak tree that was no longer there, but did not know the exact location of the jog in the jet fuel line. Apparently they were using the backhoe in the hand dig area. Multiple screw-ups, but ultimately Kinder Morgan, who owned the jet fuel line, paid the settlement.

5 people died.

[Peter Ehlert]

We might do better to start with advocacy for an accuracy statement included on documents produced in relation to SB 865 only

I agree
one step at a time
Bull in the China Shop has not worked well in the past

[CBarrett]

No need for walmart, unlicensed people can just pick up a GPS and GPR and go to town GIS-ing at 2 dollars more than what walmart pays. :p

[kwilson]

Thank you for your answers on this topic.
So according to Sec. 8726 (a) surveyors and surveyors alone should already have been “locating, relocating, establishing, re-establishing and retracing the alignment or elevation of any of the fixed works embraced within the practice of civil engineering”. Utility locators have in their very description a requirement that a licensed surveyor be in responsible charge. “Utility locator” is basically a synonym of the above statement from Sec. 8726(a). How many companies out there have an LS overseeing the spray painting of utilities for USA or DIGALERT? I am guessing near zero. And who can diminish the importance of the accurate location of high pressure gas lines, high voltage lines and trunk communications lines for safety and economic reasons.

What about utility replacement projects – How many contracts are there for providing staking and as-built surveys for water line replacements in existing subdivisions? A large water line replacement project just happened in my neighborhood. I never saw any surveyors or any location markings by surveyors in the street.

How about replacement of electrical conduit in city streets? Gas line replacement? Sewer replacement is likely more often staked because the contractor usually needs expert help for grade. But are in trench as-builts done on the pipe?

If our surveyors have been involved in all of these projects then why are there so many examples of patches left over from such work destroying our street monuments?

Some utility companies do have their installations surveyed. I have worked with one such gas-oil pipeline company and for the last 15 years have provided as-builts on their new installations by actually measuring the pipe in the trench before backfill. However, I am also aware that on some of their projects no surveyor was involved where they replaced pipeline.

So is there any reason to believe that the utility locating for GIS mapping per SB 865 will be handled exclusively by licensed surveyors and those under their direction? Will we be seeing requests from cities, counties and service districts for field surveys of their utilities? If the past is any indication, I am guessing no again. What’s the point of laws that are not enforced?

[DWoolley]

Thank you for your answers on this topic.
So according to Sec. 8726 (a) surveyors and surveyors alone should already have been “locating, relocating, establishing, re-establishing and retracing the alignment or elevation of any of the fixed works embraced within the practice of civil engineering”.
...
So is there any reason to believe that the utility locating for GIS mapping per SB 865 will be handled exclusively by licensed surveyors and those under their direction? Will we be seeing requests from cities, counties and service districts for field surveys of their utilities? If the past is any indication, I am guessing no again. What’s the point of laws that are not enforced?

Actually, professional engineers have the same authority.

CA Bus & Prof Code § 6731.1 [PE Act]
"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)."

We should simply let the engineers do the work by "supervising" and signing the contractor's work? You're probably right, it appears to be to difficult for the land surveyors. We should let those behind us fend for themselves.

In my experience, the engineers will have no issues doing the work - generally, they welcome opportunity. Maybe that is the missing element, the surveyors need to be told what to do and how to do it by the engineers (with an unreasonable corner cutting budget). Professional independence is probably overrated. The engineers, as is the practice today, can technically sign off on the contractor's as built plans and forego the surveyors all together.

DWoolley

[LS_8750]

Let's not forget 8726(6)(A).
If it needs to be on a coordinate system, well then........

[DWoolley]

Let's not forget 8726(6)(A).
If it needs to be on a coordinate system, well then........

LS_8750:

You are technically correct. However, that particular law does not seem to concern the equipment manufacturers, technology and software companies or the contractors and other unlicensed folks using the equipment.

The upshot is an epic opportunity to satisfy any schadenfreude proclivities. Who has the ability to look away from watching someone gathering speed down the highway to hell, windows down, no seat belt, empty bottle of Jeremiah Weed, passing every available off-ramp, Detroit Rock City blaring at level nine and a the k-rail that sits just beyond the beam of the headlights? I am an optimist - the k-rail is the silver lining.

You can lead a horse to water...

DWoolley

[Jim Frame]

How many companies out there have an LS overseeing the spray painting of utilities for USA or DIGALERT? I am guessing near zero.

Last year I did an ALTA on a parcel that looked to me like it had quite a few underground utilities, so I decided that I needed to get them marked out before starting my field work. Knowing that a USA North callout without an intent to dig can result in serious fines, I engaged a utility locating company that's affiliated with a nearby surveying firm (for which I used to work). The cost was $1,600.00, but I decided that it was worth it not to have to open a USA ticket in violation of the rules.

I figured the locating outfit would somehow do the marking without calling USA, but I was wrong. While they did beep up and mark out some private onsite utilities, they also opened a ticket and got all the public utilities marked by their owners. The PG&E crew complained that a lot of their markout work was for bogus digs, and that it cost the company a lot of money.

My opinion of utility locating contractors isn't as high as it once was.

[CBarrett]

So, a GIS company going after these types of projects should employ a few PLS's to organize and oversee their data collection services, and they will have a leg up on the competition?

[DWoolley]

So, a GIS company going after these types of projects should employ a few PLS's to organize and oversee their data collection services, and they will have a leg up on the competition?

I think there are different models that will work. The models that I see as being most likely are:

1. Underground utility detection companies will hire GIS folks or subcontract the GIS work and may or may not hire land surveyors; or

2. The engineering/survey businesses will go into the underground detection business and provide the GIS or subcontract the GIS under the banner of SUE work. The engineers may or may not hire land surveyors.

Number 2 is less likely. There are vast disparities between the regular underground detection folks i.e. 811, Utiliquest, ticket takers, contractors etc. and the professional communities. I cannot foresee the professional community supplanting the regular detection folks. The regular detection folks have about a 45% turnover rate according the the DIRT report. They are known for low pay, low bid work.

I believe the professional folks are currently extraordinarily busy and may not develop the inroads for the surveying community to assert their role in management of the underground detection process. Although this forum only provides anecdotal information, I do not see much interest developing the surveyor's professional role in a new market. It may be better received if the engineers handle the work/management and delegate the work to the surveyors in the backroom (those folks will do practically anything). It is an interesting dichotomy the surveyors do not want to be told what to do professionally, but they will readily take direction, willing to break the law and act negligently, to serve an engineers budget.

One last nugget, google "LiDAR for automatous cars" and offer prognostications as land surveyors providing topography for design in the future. Imagine if every other car or everyone 1000th car is collecting LiDAR data sets. Everyone here knows you can pull reasonably accurate surfaces in urban area from Google Earth now, right? And that most drone operators are unlicensed and routinely violate the laws associated with air space use, right? Outside of dipping manholes, which the utility detection folks are already doing, it is highly unlikely land surveyors will be providing sufficient topographic mapping to earn a living in future.

...speedo pegged, empty bottle of Jerimiah Weed and Detroit Rock City through the speakers...

DWoolley

[CBarrett]

So, a GIS company going after these types of projects should employ a few PLS's to organize and oversee their data collection services, and they will have a leg up on the competition?

I think there are different models that will work. The models that I see as being most likely are:

1. Underground utility detection companies will hire GIS folks or subcontract the GIS work and may or may not hire land surveyors; or

2. The engineering/survey businesses will go into the underground detection business and provide the GIS or subcontract the GIS under the banner of SUE work. The engineers may or may not hire land surveyors.

Number 2 is less likely. There are vast disparities between the regular underground detection folks i.e. 811, Utiliquest, ticket takers, contractors etc. and the professional communities. I cannot foresee the professional community supplanting the regular detection folks. The regular detection folks have about a 45% turnover rate according the the DIRT report. They are known for low pay, low bid work.

I believe the professional folks are currently extraordinarily busy and may not develop the inroads for the surveying community to assert their role in management of the underground detection process. Although this forum only provides anecdotal information, I do not see much interest developing the surveyor's professional role in a new market. It may be better received if the engineers handle the work/management and delegate the work to the surveyors in the backroom (those folks will do practically anything). It is an interesting dichotomy the surveyors do not want to be told what to do professionally, but they will readily take direction, willing to break the law and act negligently, to serve an engineers budget.

There's an easy answer for that, a lot of surveyors are doing support work for engineerings projects (land development and public works and similar), so in a large percentage of cases, your engineer is your client. Work where a surveyor interacts with a client directly is not as frequent. This relationship very often results in tremendous amount of pressure to 'do it this way or lose your job'. Surveyors get stuck between 'do I lose my job now, or do I risk my license later', and try to figure out a compromise. Then they lament how the company doesn't care about surveying. Of course they don't, they care about the bottom line, and servicing the clients, and not getting exposed to legal problems (because those are costly), and can sometimes affect your reputation, if they are bad enough. Life in a big city, eh. Surveyor in these situation is usually the tail trying to wag the dog.

One last nugget, google "LiDAR for automatous cars" and offer prognostications as land surveyors providing topography for design in the future. Imagine if every other car or everyone 1000th car is collecting LiDAR data sets. Everyone here knows you can pull reasonably accurate surfaces in urban area from Google Earth now, right? And that most drone operators are unlicensed and routinely violate the laws associated with air space use, right? Outside of dipping manholes, which the utility detection folks are already doing, it is highly unlikely land surveyors will be providing sufficient topographic mapping to earn a living in future.

...speedo pegged, empty bottle of Jerimiah Weed and Detroit Rock City through the speakers...
DWoolley

I'm at a company that does a variety of GIS, Surveying, Lidar, GPR trying to figure out if it is possible to create a service that accommodates both worlds. I know we usually do highly precise work, but the beauty of understanding datums and measurements and precision levels etc, we can tailor procedures to do lower precision work, and still be able to certify it has required accuracy, even if that is 24 inches. We don't HAVE to do everything to 0.01'.

Did I see you use SCHADENFREUDE the other day? That was M-W.com word of the day for Feb. 5th
... I'm petting a cat and plotting how to take over the world .... Ok, back to billable work now.

[Steve Martin]

Employee newsletter from a few years ago.
Check out Page 8

"Jorge was able to get map coordinates to within 1/8 of an inch of the pipe location"

[mpallamary]

It is abundantly evident that the land surveying community needs to reappraise its role and relationship with other disciplines. That requires education and a better understanding as to how things need to be reconfigured.

[mpallamary]

We should really have a conferenced about surveyors standing up. We are getting crushed. How many surveyors have studied contracts and management?

We are perceived as blue-collar, unsophisticated technicians because we make no effort to elevate our professional standing. This is one of the main reasons we are being left behind and letting hobbyists take over our work.


https://pll.harvard.edu/course/contract ... ct?delta=8

[CBarrett]

It is abundantly evident that the land surveying community needs to reappraise its role and relationship with other disciplines. That requires education and a better understanding as to how things need to be reconfigured.

How do we improve this?

I'm looking at the atmosphere in here, and getting few people interested in this forum to go beyond "this PLS rule" and that "SMA rule" and we are proposing a new rule, is painful.
We need to look up on occasion, away from the survey desk full of minutia.

[Edward M Reading]

...How many surveyors have studied contracts and management?

Everyone with a four year degree (from OIT at least).

[mpallamary]

Well said Ed!

[mpallamary]

CONTINUING EDUCATION WITH TRANSITIONAL LICENSING REQUIREMENTS. IT WILL TAAKE 7 TO 9 YEARS BUT IT CAN BE DONE.

[DWoolley]

Employee newsletter from a few years ago.
Check out Page 8

"Jorge was able to get map coordinates to within 1/8 of an inch of the pipe location"

We can be certain Jorge has been positioning within 1/8" since July 5, 2016 without incident. He can claim whatever accuracy he chooses, why not? The surveyors have expressed little interest in claiming the domain. We can be sure he has replaced one field crew and a licensee's oversight. (Steve Martin, maybe this crowd would be interested in how engineering was circumventing their own inhouse survey crews on the work for your former employer - don't leave out the part about foregoing QBS).

I was speaking with an equipment manufacturer last week about this very topic of positioning and he relayed that a large public agency, not Caltrans, was purchasing GPS for their field construction crews to as build utilities as they put them in the ground (I simply smiled as he crossed his fingers in anticipation of the commissions). You see, he thought I was potentially another sale - he had no sense of my understanding of his words. Why would he? He has probably never had someone explain to him a land surveyor's role.

This week I attended another legislative meeting with the underground detection folks. I am not there to represent the land surveyors interests or to explain they do not have sub-centimeter accuracy or to explain epochs and datums. Generally, I am interested in tracking their path of travel. This week they were discussing liability, disclaimers, writing standards and the "mapping" of utilities. One of their members spoke up and said "we can't call it 'mapping'", but did not elaborate. I suspect he has some knowledge as to why, but nobody asked. I resisted the urge to explain their underground detection community need not worry about the land surveying community rising up if they call it mapping or choose to claim an accuracy. Equally, I resisted the urge to tell them they cannot legally determine depths - the engineers and geophysicists may choose to defend their ground or follow our lead and shrug it off.

I will keep you posted...ah, wait, why would I think there is any interest now?

DWoolley

[Steve Martin]

(Steve Martin, maybe this crowd would be interested in how engineering was circumventing their own inhouse survey crews on the work for your former employer - don't leave out the part about foregoing QBS).

It was quite a determined effort to replace the Surveyors who are trained, equipped, and licensed to do the work with sub-professional Engineering staff for preliminary pipeline engineering surveys and Inspectors/Plumbers for as-built surveys. There was, and maybe still is, an anti-surveyor bias in the engineering-is-supreme culture in the Senior Management Team. The former Director of Engineering was the brainchild of this plan, called a geospatial master plan. His anti-surveyor prejudice kept him from seeing the irony of a geospatial master plan that seeks to marginalize a whole class of geospatial professionals. I could write a whole thesis on this experience.

The Wastewater Department regularly includes construction surveying in their low bid contracts, even though those tasks could easily be handled in-house. Both the Wastewater Department and the new Manager of Construction point to the hole in our mini-Brooks Act GC 4529 "...services needed are more of a technical nature and involve little professional judgment..."