CLSA's Suggestions on handling 8771.6

[Mike Mueller]

8772 already requires line points be set with licensing information... the problem is NO ONE else in my neck of the woods does this. Even those who preach 8762 from the mountain tops set wood lath on the line when they are coming back down the mountain. I set monuments on the line as required, but I might be the only one doing this out here. I

Perhaps I am misunderstanding this, but I personally have not seen anything in the PLSA that requires temporary stakes set for a short term purpose like fence building to be tagged. My understanding of that topic is that there is a distinction between setting a "monument" aka something durable and intended to mark a boundary permanently, and everything else. If something that is set is considered a "monument" then I agree that it must meet the criteria of 8772 (tagging) and then shown on a CR at the least. So if you are setting pipes, then yeah, they need to be tagged. Part of the distinction I make in my mind is the 6" ginny I set is not stable enough to represent the position I am staking for very long as it wobbles in the dirt, nor do I expect to find it in a year or two in most places I set it. That is also why we only set pine or fir or some other soft wood that rots easy. Same idea goes for a hub set for form boards when you consider all the ways it will get knocked out by the building efforts.

The caveat to that is.... I have heard a good arguement that the only way a survey satisfies the "facile reestablishment" required in 8771(a) is if there are permanent monuments on either side of any temporary wood stakes that are set. This is why our office adds a "If needed" clause on most of our retacement contracts explaining how we will need to set a monument on the ends of any line we stake that is missing a monument. Since we have adopted that practice we have lost out on jobs, and spend more time explaining why we will do it, but by having it as an extra cost it makes it easier to show that our staking prices are competitive with an apples to apples comparison. Plus we ask the client to ask the other folks how they will handle 8762 triggers and 8771(a) requirements. Our hope is that if they ask, and the other surveyor can't handle it with confidence then the prospect will "not feel right" about those other folks. Or not :)

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[No_Target]

Perhaps I am misunderstanding this, but I personally have not seen anything in the PLSA that requires temporary stakes set for a short term purpose like fence building to be tagged. My understanding of that topic is that there is a distinction between setting a "monument" aka something durable and intended to mark a boundary permanently, and everything else. If something that is set is considered a "monument" then I agree that it must meet the criteria of 8772 (tagging) and then shown on a CR at the least. So if you are setting pipes, then yeah, they need to be tagged. Part of the distinction I make in my mind is the 6" ginny I set is not stable enough to represent the position I am staking for very long as it wobbles in the dirt, nor do I expect to find it in a year or two in most places I set it. That is also why we only set pine or fir or some other soft wood that rots easy. Same idea goes for a hub set for form boards when you consider all the ways it will get knocked out by the building efforts.

Hmm I had never considered this, and appreciate your view. The difference between a temporary reference point and a monument will be something for me to mull over.

A thought experiment:
8762(c) The record of survey required to be filed pursuant to this section shall be filed within 90 days after the setting of boundary monuments during the performance of a field survey or within 90 days after completion of a field survey, whichever occurs first.

Should I not set any monuments at all, and only set temporary stakes, markers like hubs or 1" concrete nails at property corners with no tags (makes me cringe to think about)... I would be required to do a RS pursuant to 8762(b), however I would have no time limit on my survey provided I never stop my field survey (visit once every few years to check in). I am not setting monuments and my field survey would be incomplete.

Maybe the people I see as bad actors are just still working on wrapping up their field survey so they can get around to that office work and meet their 90 day requirement.

Thoughts?

Kyle Brook, PLS 9686
Confluence Land Surveying

[Mike Mueller]

Should I not set any monuments at all, and only set temporary stakes, markers like hubs or 1" concrete nails at property corners with no tags (makes me cringe to think about)... I would be required to do a RS pursuant to 8762(b), however I would have no time limit on my survey provided I never stop my field survey (visit once every few years to check in). I am not setting monuments and my field survey would be incomplete.

This is were I personally believe the PLSA comes in and says you are required to have permanent monuments at the corners and some sort of documentation. The flowchart is different depending on if you accept that a corner shown on a map as having no monuments, and then you set a monument there, does that constitute a "change in character" as outlined in the Corner Record stuff in 8765(d). Generally speaking, I believe that a corner record (at the minimum) is required when anything is set by a surveyor to represent the terminus of a boundary/property line. Either you fall in to the facile retracement category, or you fall in the change of character, or you fall into a trigger under 8762 for a RoS.

There is always the odd case, like a line extending into a lake, or something weird, but generally speaking I think termini need monuments. Monuments need tagging and documentation.

Maybe the people I see as bad actors are just still working on wrapping up their field survey so they can get around to that office work and meet their 90 day requirement.

Thoughts?

You are more generous then I :) While I normally subscribe to Hanlon's Razor, I do not think that is the case there ;)

Crazy thought experiment back at you:
We all agree that a "permanent monument" requires tagging. 8772 is pretty clear. If you do a survey of a line shown on a parcel map, were all monuments are found to match record perfectly, and you set an iron pipe with your tag as a midpoint between two monuments 50' apart, what needs to be filed and under what section of the act is that requirement laid out?
BR 464 (7) specifies corners as outlined in 8765(d).
8765(d) says corner records are required for "property corners" that are set, reset or different character.
8773(c) is a "may"....


Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[DWoolley]

I support land surveyors regulating the industry through legislation, regulations and published guidelines - the more that better in most regards.

I appreciate the Monument Preservation Committee having taken the time to organize their thoughts into writing guidelines for new legislation.

After so many past posts about a fabled land surveyor’s camera stellata working the backroom to clean up the profession, the irony is not lost on me that a group of less than 6 or 7 land surveyors wrote a guide with the expectation that the Board of Directors would adopt it without vetting it through the membership for input.

I recommend the proposed guide is taken back to the chapters and simultaneously given to BPELSG for consideration of regulations. The guide can be implemented sometime in 2025 after going through the membership.

Pearl clutching and hand wringing at the prospect of a map checker requiring compliance with 8771.6 is donk. The County Surveyor is limited to checking 8764, 8762.5, 8763, 8764.5, 8771.5 and 8772.

Besides, the bullseye counties that file records of survey with boundaries established by two monuments would not foreseeably impact the cost by having to replace one of the two found monuments. This is especially true when the second monument (sometimes from the same map) is held for line only and called out of position, no rehabilitation required, right?

Rehabilitation of a found monument accepted as controlling (8771.6) would be required to be tagged (8772) or a tagged reference point. Thoughts?

DWoolley

[David Kendall]

Pearl clutching and hand wringing at the prospect of a map checker requiring compliance with 8771.6 is donk. The County Surveyor is limited to checking 8764, 8762.5, 8763, 8764.5, 8771.5 and 8772.

Besides, the bullseye counties that file records of survey with boundaries established by two monuments would not foreseeably impact the cost by having to replace one of the two found monuments. This is especially true when the second monument (sometimes from the same map) is held for line only and called out of position, no rehabilitation required, right?

Rehabilitation of a found monument accepted as controlling (8771.6) would be required to be tagged (8772) or a tagged reference point. Thoughts?

Agreed on all counts.

If I rehab, memorialize or reference a monument that is controlling my survey then I will tag it. The committee might consider that 8772

[hellsangle]

I would disagree with tagging the point for the following reasons:

1). Leave it as you found it. Would you, after viewing the Mona Lisa - accepting it as: "I approve" . . . then tag it? Sign it? Monogram it? Leave it alone! If you want to rehabilitate a wood hub fine. But the tagged point is not the original - it is a perpetuated point.

2). Once you tag it . . . then for the vast majority of surveyors - the provenance is lost. Example: Found old iron pipe with Kendall's tag PER 123 of Surveys at Page 45! Future surveyors will reference the Kendall point to their record of survey. Subsequent to that "reference" the "origins" of the point may be lost because subsequent surveys will call out the tagged point as the origin of that point. I can't tell you how many times I've seen records of surveys call out a FOUND point on a previous survey as though it came from that record of survey. IT IS NOT THE ORIGIN OF THE POINT - IT WAS FOUND (then tagged)!

3). As Kyle points out - hard to compete with surveyors that don't file ANYTHING, must less a Corner Record. I think this law may further exacerbate these poor (unlawful) practices.

Crazy Phil on his Friday Soapbox!

Have a good weekend, all . . .

[David Kendall]

2). Once you tag it . . . then for the vast majority of surveyors - the provenance is lost. Example: Found old iron pipe with Kendall's tag PER 123 of Surveys at Page 45! Future surveyors will reference the Kendall point to their record of survey. Subsequent to that "reference" the "origins" of the point may be lost because subsequent surveys will call out the tagged point as the origin of that point. I can't tell you how many times I've seen records of surveys call out a FOUND point on a previous survey as though it came from that record of survey. IT IS NOT THE ORIGIN OF THE POINT - IT WAS FOUND (then tagged)!

Tagging accepted control points seems to be a common practice. It is not unheard of for a map reviewer to request that found control points be tagged (even after the fact, they actually expect you to go back to the field and tag the monument, said with a straight face on more than one occasion and jurisdiction....).

As for the notation and trail to the origin... Generally I agree with Phil on this (although not quite to the level of equating an iron pipe to a masterpiece of art), however, Kendall will explain his procedure and the origin or provenance of the accepted and tagged pipe on his survey. The retracing surveyor who does not bother to pull my map and review the corner notes is the same one who does not concern themselves with origin of the monument in the first place. You know the one, every found monument is 'per' the last map that found it (likely the only map they reviewed)

It is kind of the same as leaving a trail of breadcrumbs, especially in the jurisdiction with a less functional map index.

The 8771.6 committee might care to note the tagged monument concern in their guide. Seems pretty straightforward to me but someone will avoid the liability if it is not explicitly stated

8772.
Any monument set by a licensed land surveyor or registered civil engineer to mark or reference a point on a property or land line shall be permanently and visibly marked or tagged with the certificate number of the surveyor or civil engineer setting it, each number to be preceeded by the letters “L.S.” or “R.C.E.,” respectively, as the case may be or, if the monument is set by a public agency, it shall be marked with the name of the agency and the political subdivision it serves.

Nothing in this section shall prevent the inclusion of other information on the tag which will assist in the tracing or location of the survey records which relate to the tagged monument.

[DWoolley]

I would disagree with tagging the point for the following reasons:

1). Leave it as you found it. Would you, after viewing the Mona Lisa - accepting it as: "I approve" . . . then tag it? Sign it? Monogram it? Leave it alone! If you want to rehabilitate a wood hub fine. But the tagged point is not the original - it is a perpetuated point.

2). Once you tag it . . . then for the vast majority of surveyors - the provenance is lost. Example: Found old iron pipe with Kendall's tag PER 123 of Surveys at Page 45! Future surveyors will reference the Kendall point to their record of survey. Subsequent to that "reference" the "origins" of the point may be lost because subsequent surveys will call out the tagged point as the origin of that point. I can't tell you how many times I've seen records of surveys call out a FOUND point on a previous survey as though it came from that record of survey. IT IS NOT THE ORIGIN OF THE POINT - IT WAS FOUND (then tagged)!
...
Crazy Phil on his Friday Soapbox!

Have a good weekend, all . . .

Business and Professions Code 8764. (a) The record of survey shall show the applicable provisions of the following consistent with the purpose of the survey:
(1) All monuments found, set, reset, replaced, or removed, describing their kind, size, and location, and giving other data relating thereto.

Many land surveyors and reviewing jurisdictions do no comply with citation shown.

For example, I have seen "Fd. SSM" -standard survey monument [which standard?] "Fd. Spk." - found spike, does not specify the type of spike and there is no less than 6 types and there is often no reference as to a washer [brass, aluminum, steel?], stamping, depth, etc., "Fd. 1" IP", and there is no reference as to a tag, stamping, depth, etc. The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard for steel pipe is inside diameter. Is the the 1" iron pipe the inside diameter or was it actually a 3/4" inside diameter/1" outside diameter? There is an endless list of examples of non-compliance for monument descriptions.

When resolving a problem boundary with the understanding monuments generally hold over maps and math it would be nice to know the monument being considered is the same monument referenced in 1975. How would the land surveyor know? Measurement? Pffft. By the tag number affixed at the time of the 1975 survey. I recently found two hard to find old pipes (1962). The pipe had concrete plugs with a brass nail, down about 3'. In 2075, how will a land surveyor know it was the same pipe I found? I wired my tag to the pipe with a heavy gauge of wire. I do this for monuments set deep in the ground.

Another tip, place a donut magnet in the pipe or under the cap for about $0.10 each and the locator will sing for the next person.

Remove the guess work, put a tag on it. Phil, what am I missing? This precisely why we need laws - the logic is not always there.

DWoolley

[DWoolley]

For a historical reference of "the harm" that can be caused, see the single sentence “offering clarification” in a 1968 CLSA newsletter touted about to this very day, by Marin and Sonoma County folks, as a basis for not filing records of survey for the last 50 years. Now ask yourself again, what could go wrong?

I prefer to think about the ways it should go right. I also expect people who are aiming to cheat to find a justification somewhere. If I let the fear of a nefarious bad actor using my work stop me, I would never do anything.

Suddenly, this will change 130 years of nefarious history? Pleeeeasssse. You have no evidence to believe it would suddenly go right or those land surveyors would go straight now.

I suspect my sample size is a little larger, do you think “most surveyors” are aware of the existing laws?

Nope. I think that is why most CLSA polls show that our members want education and outreach far more than they want new laws.

What CLSA polls are you reading? We have 3,850 California licensed land surveyors with approximately 2,500 in state. I think the annual conference yields about 200 (less than 10%) of the California land surveyors seeking education. I have personally taught many classes, seminars on many topics. I can "draw a crowd" which translates to 30-60 people typically - many of them are students, LSITs and a handful of the same licensees. The CLSA webinars yield no more and they are only one hour over a Friday lunch period. Bring in Kent, Lucas, Mouland, Pallamary, same small crowd.

Remember, land surveyors make up about 7% of the licensees under BPELSG and make up more than 50% of the illegal/negligent/incompetent activities. That is a hard fact. Although somewhat unwittingly for some of us, we fell in with a bad bunch.

No sir, "they want education" [ridiculous, lip service] rather than laws because they do not want to get busted, plausible deniability. The more gray the better for the scofflaws. Mobsters were against RICO, no doubt.

These folks do want any Glass Steagall equivalents for the land surveyors. After the Savings and Loan scandal in the mid-80s the bankers saw their cousins go to prison. The prevailing bankers' logic was not to go straight, but to repeal Glass Steagall (thanks, Gingrich and Clinton) - resulting in the 2008-09 financial meltdown, a $800B TARP bailout (actually it was $5T off the books), Gov't gave money to Oak Tree, Black Rock and Berkshire et al to purchase the bad assets i.e. here's the money, go buy houses to offset Wall Street loses and rent them like a sharecropper. The very best of all for the bankers? Everyone got rich and nobody went to prison. The difference is land surveyors aren't getting rich but damaging the public similarly. The land surveyors may not know the history or exactly why, but they certainly recognize a working model handed down by Grandpa Benson back in 1875.

DWoolley

[hellsangle]

For example, I have seen "Fd. SSM" -standard survey monument [which standard?] "Fd. Spk." - found spike, does not specify the type of spike and there is no less than 6 types and there is often no reference as to a washer [brass, aluminum, steel?], stamping, depth, etc., "Fd. 1" IP", and there is no reference as to a tag, stamping, depth, etc.

Probably because they don't carry a field book . . . nor have read "Pafford's" Note keeping, Dave.

Come on, boys and girls! If you're going to do a boundary survey, take notes! In your field notes write down what you found or set, ie "fnd 1" concrete-filled iron pipe with tag "LS 20000" buried 0.6" or "fnd std. st. monument with 2" bronze disk & PM stamped "LS 20000" 0.8 below ac". And . . . un-holster your cell-phone and take a picture of the thing! Take pix like you were going to submit a OPUS "share" - close up(s) and an away picture(s).

Boundaries are not to be done quick and cheap. EVER!

If a surveyor takes only "digital" notes I would also assume he/she also does not do "pre-field-work" before climbing in the field vehicle. In other words, "chop chop!, get movin''" with little planning.

Crazy Phil's two cents. Best to all

[Mike Mueller]

[Suddenly, this will change 130 years of nefarious history? Pleeeeasssse. You have no evidence to believe it would suddenly go right or those land surveyors would go straight now.

Nope, paradigm shift Max Planck style. Its already happening. Its one of the reasons I think you need to re-examine some of your positions. The cynical jaded stance you take on many issues would likely not be so bleak if you could reexamine the situation without your history coloring the new data.

What CLSA polls are you reading?

CLSA Industry Survey 2023 2022 and 2021 are on the webpage. 2023 results are:

Do you think the current LS legislation is adequate? 64% said yes.
How many violations have your seen question? 143 (45%) said zero. 122 said 1-5. 22 said 7-10, and 26 said 11 or more.
How many complaints have you made? 12% picked 1-5. The other 283 folks said zero.
What should CLSA be doing? 22% said legislative proposals.

What I see in those responses is a group of folks who do not want more laws, but want the laws on the books enforced more, but they want someone else to do it.

No sir, "they want education" [ridiculous, lip service] rather than laws because they do not want to get busted, plausible deniability. The more gray the better for the scofflaws. Mobsters were against RICO, no doubt.

See above about jaded cynicism. The folks in the poll are not the ones you are railing against. The poll was responded to by CLSA members. The overlap of scofflaws and CLSA membership is small in my experience. Perhaps your local mileage varies...

These folks do want any Glass Steagall equivalents for the land surveyors. ....The land surveyors may not know the history or exactly why, but they certainly recognize a working model handed down by Grandpa Benson back in 1875.

I think you are not seeing the forest here. Correct me if I am wrong, but the scheme that made the Benson Syndicate the richest was the mis categorization of land and then the subsequent buying up of good land cheap by his accomplices, the bankers. None of whom got in trouble btw. Its funny you bring up Glass Steagall as your example of corruption since it seems the through line is bankers NOT surveyors being the ones to not be trusted.

The bad surveys by the Benson Syndicate were a means to the end, not the end. The folks you complain about so much, who are not following the laws, are using the bad surveys as the END, not the means.

Regardless of how Benson operated, I do not see the connection between a guide to help surveyors navigate a new law and Benson. You bring out the same "Benson Bullseye" ad locum attack for pretty much everything you think is bad. I am starting to wait for it like Godwin's Law :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law perhaps it could be called "Reductio ad Bensonum"?

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[Mike Mueller]

If a surveyor takes only "digital" notes I would also assume he/she also does not do "pre-field-work" before climbing in the field vehicle. In other words, "chop chop!, get movin''" with little planning.

I might be a counter example Phil. I do not use paper for my survey notes, just like I don't sketch monument caps anymore. I take a photo or write a note into the raw file, or take videos with a narration. I also quite enjoy the pre field research that helps me develop the first round of search points :)

I would bet that once the paper notes are made, they are scanned into some sort of digital job file at the end of the day?

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076

[Mike Mueller]

The 8771.6 committee might care to note the tagged monument concern in their guide. Seems pretty straightforward to me but someone will avoid the liability if it is not explicitly stated

IIRC the guide mentions that any monument set needs to be tagged. While also mentioning that there is no place in the law that requires a tag to be placed on a found monument. The first three words of 8772 cover it : "Any monument set..."

Mikey Mueller PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[hellsangle]

I guess I'm "old school" . . .

https://amerisurv.com/2020/07/12/the-va ... eld-notes/

When taking notes for a topo . . . you can compare the raw-data, (RW5), with the field notes' hand written rods.

As Mr. Foose' article points out . . . a retracing surveyor can see if you doubled your angles/distances/how/where you traversed, etc. Extraneous "good stuff". When taking a "natural" back-sight . . a field note sketch is made, (unless it is something like Gardner Lookout atop Mt. Tam). Then the next field visit we have a long "natural" to back-sight (instead of setting a back-sight or having a crew member give you "string". I've seen some surveyors that don't even use a plumb bob!!!)

In construction: having a field book . . . you can easily document, right then and there, what was said and who is starting to point fingers at who. Or "delayed" 45 minutes due to delivery or back-sight obscured by delivery or minutiae that might come in handy in the future. (I realize you can do the same digitally . . . but I would suspect a court might like to see hand-written notes versus digital (which may be altered)).

Crazy Phil's two cents . . .

[DWoolley]

I guess I'm "old school" . . .
...
Crazy Phil's two cents . . .

That makes two of us, Phil. We still require handwritten field notes that include station setup information, monument descriptions, etc. The data collectors used to be limited to 16 characters. I believe this was a contributing factor in transitioning the profession to the nonsensical abbreviations and overall poor monument descriptions.

Business and Professions code 8764 (a) (1) and the NSPS standards provide guidelines for the minimum acceptable monument descriptions. Does anyone wonder way California law and a nationally adopted standard are so similar? Of course, the Bensonites will intentionally miss the broader point and rationalize poor or incomplete monument descriptions when they retort with they are "not preparing an ALTA (minimum standard detail) or record of survey (minimum required by law)" or "there is a complete description on the record reference" (which is seldom true).

Many years ago, I had an low 4000s, from two counties away, surveying in Orange County when his equipment failed. He called me to ask if I could help - we did not know each other, he was a friend of a friend. Our friend in common told me "you have to get a load of this guy". I met Mr. 4000s on the job. I was on the instrument when he asked me to record a monument location. I asked him for a description of the monument for my notes. He said "just write 'found record monument' ", I looked at the monument later in the day, you guessed it, it was not the record monument. I had never encountered that in my career - apparently, he had been doing it for nearly 50 years. Gawd must have looked at his field practices shortly thereafter and called him home - after paralyzing him for a minute - in a horrific car accident.

Mikey, I believe many professionals strongly oppose change to their own technical practices, including compliance with the existing laws, because changing would be an admission to having violated the law and/or the minimum standards or professional ethics for their entire careers. The avoidance of an indirect admission is not to avoid a liability or a fear of a BPELSG warning, no sir, it is simply the lack of character required to clean their room.

It is no small feat for a professional to admit errors and legal violations to peers, subordinates and more significantly, to oneself with little more purpose than to serve the future greater good (think Fauci). This is a bridge to far for many land surveyors. The indignant opposition is a much easier task than to conform to legal citations, legal treatise and state or nationally adopted minimum standards. Professionally, this will be their legacy rather than being of remarkable character by willingly steering the next generation onto another path.

You have taken my words as "jaded cynicism" and yet, reluctantly acknowledging 7% of the licensees (PLSs) make up more than 50% of the citations/warnings for illegal/negligent/incompetent practices. I have a wider social circle than my professional circle - the only folks (plural) I know currently facing serious felony (criminal) charges are land surveyors. Coincidence?

DWoolley

[RAM]

Random thoughts

when checking maps, 8771.6 will be the least of my concerns, complete is no. 1.

Want to reduce Map check fees, my peers are going to be pissed, ask for a public records request for the documentation that is basis of the current fee.
Want lower fees, as a practitioner, submit a complete map that is ready to record, review your own map before you submit, be your own spell checker, you are responsible for your map, the CS is not there to help you draft your map, the CS is responsible for 8766, nothing more, if there is a disagreement see 8768, have the CS provide the language of a Note, put it on your map and move on.
Change needs to come from both sides.

What was the source of 8771.6? who asked for the change? and how come nobody participated in the process before adopted?

Don't have time to prepare a CR or a Map! I don't buy it, part of doing business, don't under bid, put it in your contracts and move on. Some of us come form the times of hand printed maps. 8-10 hours per sheet if the drafter was good, today most maps can be done in less time and have an error, wow the reprint button is not that challenging.

Currently in my county, there are NO practicing Surveyor businesses within the County, wide open market. the ones whom survey here come from adjacent counties, and there is more work than they can do.

End rant.