California Surveyors Forums

Stamp 'em if ya got 'em!

I am a Forest Service surveyor and, while I am an agent of the Fedeal Government, all of my surveys are performed under State licensing authority, and subsequently all monuments set by my surveys are stamped per State requirements and per Federal (DOI) standards for PLSS corners.

Scott,

Most monuments set by public agencies are alum or brass cap. The crew should have a stamp set with them. No logistical issues for those types of monuments.

I can see your point when it comes to nail & tag mons. But several large private companies seem to be able to deal with identical logistics, so agencies should be able to as well.

Bryan-I only speak for my agency.

Dave Karoly, PLS wrote:Bryan-I only speak for my agency.

I actually found that type of control point, but I am thinking it was not an agency that set it. Just a WAG on my part.

Evan;

I agree with you. I have worked for large firms with the same logistic problems... have been working for the State for only 15 months. For the most part, we are still setting 3/4" iron pipe with a plastic plug in the Bay Area for RW mons though. There occasional exceptions to that. Aluminum monuments are being used for control and network surveys. Although not impossible, it would take a bit more effort, on my part, to control caps with my number on them. Of course we could get rid of the plastic all together and go all aluminum/brass. That would be my preference. All this is just wishful discussion until we can get someone to actually change the law.

If in fact this thread is about private surveyors doing surveys for agencies that do not have survey authority, then most definitely, they should stamp the monuments with their land surveyor stamp.

That is the only authority that is being used in these situations.

As I have said before, this does not include BLM surveyors as they have their Federal sole authority.

Keith

Part of the "logistical challenge" that Scott points out is that in my experience projects go on a long time at Caltrans, and due to that are often passed on to others as surveyors retire, move, change positions. That, plus the large number of LSs working there. If Caltrans had filed something on everything they set in the past we might not be having this discussion.

Keithwill wrote:If in fact this thread is about private surveyors doing surveys for agencies that do not have survey authority, then most definitely, they should stamp the monuments with their land surveyor stamp.

That is the only authority that is being used in these situations.

As I have said before, this does not include BLM surveyors as they have their Federal sole authority.

Keith

No Keith, not private surveyors, and yes Keith, not BLM surveyors.

The question is about surveyors who are employees of public agencies surveying under the authority of their State-issued licenses - as in surveyors working for cities, counties, etc.

Extended projects are not unique to Caltrans, nor is the question one that arises solely because of Caltrans.

Whenever a monument is set, there is, or at least we hope there is a licensed surveyor in responsible charge who either placed the monument or directed its placement. when it is shown on a map, and again, we hope that they are when required by 8762(b), or as allowed by 8765, a surveyor signs the map, and is thus in responsible charge of that portion.

I don't recall an exemption of the 90 day provision for agency work, so presumably, a map is being filed within 90 days of monument placement. That means that in the vast majority of cases, the LS in responsible charge of monument placement is available to sign the Surveyor's Statement.

When I see reasoning about the project being of such long duration that the surveyors responsible for the early work are no longer around, that raises concerns for me.

does that mean that the LSs who took up the project after the departure of the first to begin the project are not fully up to speed on the work that's been done and that they are performing additional project work based upon work they are unfamiliar with and do not have the confidence to claim responsible charge for?

Does that mean that the LS in responsible charge now is unsatisfied with how the previous work was performed and so refuses to accept responsibility for it?

Does that mean that the LS who was in responsible charge refuses to sign a map or otherwise acknowledge their position of responsibility on the work they performed?

Does it mean that nobody at the agency is able to determine who was in responsible charge of the survey work of a project at any given time?

If the answer to any of those questions is 'yes' an any more than very, very rare occassions, then that is a real problem that must be corrected by changing the law to prevent those occurrences.

The best illustration I can think of for what can, and almost certainly does regularly occur under the current law is someone coming into an agency office with a map or a picture of a monument, asking "Who is responsible for the survey on XYZ Road?", and 12 guys behind the counter each pointing to a different bureaucrat with one unseen bureaucrat in the back of the din yelling out "He retired!". All 12 each then shrug their shoulders and proceed back to their cubicle while the bewildered and frustrated member of the public in front of the counter is left standing there unanswered and unhelped.

Evan:

Isn't a better scenario one in which the counter person looks up the index for that location and produces the tie notes (or corner record). It may well be that the licensee is retired, but the record ought to be retrievable.

Warren Smith wrote:Evan:

Isn't a better scenario one in which the counter person looks up the index for that location and produces the tie notes (or corner record). It may well be that the licensee is retired, but the record ought to be retrievable.

Warren:

I'll offer my point of view. While that's a good scenario, I think what Evan was saying was more typical in Southern California. I think your experience or similar comes up about as many times as someone on here has seen Big Foot.

I do want to point out, that you should probably add Record of Survey to your scenario. A agency really can't follow all the laws and NOT file either a Record of Survey, like in kind map or in-lieu of map (whatever you would like to call it). They are exempted per Section 8765 (a) from filing a Record of Survey. What most people fail to notice, is that the map they can file instead is 99% the same thing, just remove the recorders statement.

I do not like either option of choice Mr. Pallamary.

I will offer the following thought: Should every professional engineer who played a role in the design and construction of say the Golden Gate bridge have stamped a sheet of paper containing his/her calculations, summaries of analysis, thoughts, etc.? Or should the signature requirements (for discussion sake) have fallen onto the man in charge?

Private sector folks I believe would say defer it to the boss, for the sake of efficiency and solidarity. Public sector folks might think differently (I've never held a public sector job). I personally would not want to sift through every set of field notes and what not to determine why a certain PLS stamped a monument for whatever reason in lieu of another. I'm happy with the County Surveyor's number on the monument. Then I can at least track down a time frame.

E_Page wrote:I don't recall an exemption of the 90 day provision for agency work, so presumably, a map is being filed within 90 days of monument placement. That means that in the vast majority of cases, the LS in responsible charge of monument placement is available to sign the Surveyor's Statement.

Evan, all I can say, is the agencies should be following 8762(d). I’ll have to dig it up. But I filed one or two of those letters while I had surveys being done under my responsible charge that were not going to meet the 90 day timeline.

E_Page wrote:does that mean that the LSs who took up the project after the departure of the first to begin the project are not fully up to speed on the work that's been done and that they are performing additional project work based upon work they are unfamiliar with and do not have the confidence to claim responsible charge for?
Does that mean that the LS in responsible charge now is unsatisfied with how the previous work was performed and so refuses to accept responsibility for it?
Does that mean that the LS who was in responsible charge refuses to sign a map or otherwise acknowledge their position of responsibility on the work they performed?

Evan:
I think there is a simple and easy solution to all of those, instead of the boondoggle many get themselves into. State the facts on the map. I have recorded two different maps where the surveyors both have died or retired while the map was still in play. One map had a brief statement of “This map was original done by xyz. I've taken over and review xyz’s work and in concurrence with it.” (See RS Change in Responsible Charge.jpg) That’s pretty unnecessary, but the original work was done before I was licensed, so I felt it was a prudent thing to do. Besides who ever got in trouble for stating the facts? The second survey had two predecessors before me who were either dead or retired. Not only did I add what I previously stated, the fact arose that I disagreed with what the one previous surveyor had established. This was covered by the various statements made on my map; documenting those facts and letting everyone know who all the players were in the project (See RS Change in Responsible Charge & Disagreement.jpg)

where we may be posting land line for several miles for a particular project, in terrain that is only accessible for maybe 3-5 months (weather and location). Often the work requires crossing township and/or range lines. More often than not, when we recover original corners, we will replace them (during the initial visit) with standard pipe monuments (including establishing new accessories), and acquire GPS positioning. Once the boundary line determination has been reviewed/approved, we will return and post/blaze/brush the boundary line.

Our field season is typically mid-May to early-November (lower elvations only); upper elevations maybe July thru September. The FS Land Surveyor (PLS) is 99% of the time the surveyor of record, and in they are in the field for the season. Final ROS platting is completed during the off-season (November through April). The complexity of a project does not always allow 'completing' the survey at the moment we recovered/monumented a corner, or sometimes not even in the same calendar year. Sometimes a project gets a late field start, say in September, and we cannot return until June the next year to complete the survey. And that's the trigger in my opinion: the survey is NOT compete, hence the 90-day trigger has not started.

However, because we stamp our caps with PLS numbers, should another survey need to utilize our survey information prior to the survey being filed, we will provide positional information, as well as field notes supporting a corner's recovery and/or establishment.

I recently recorded a survey in early 2012 of which I was NOT the original surveyor. The prior FS land surveyor retired prior to complteion of the field work. It was a three season project, over 7 miles, traversing the State line, spanning two different counties. There were monuments with his PLS stamping, as well the latter field work with mine. My certification included verbage detailing my assuming responsibility for his monuments. During the course of the field work, a private surveyor contacted us, and we provided the necessary information for him to complete his work.

Recently we had several contracted surveys that spanned multiple field seasons (2010 through 2012). Some were large projects that recovered/set hundreds of corners, surveying dozens of miles, and a few had 10-14 ROS plats per project!

Warren Smith wrote:Evan:

Isn't a better scenario one in which the counter person looks up the index for that location and produces the tie notes (or corner record). It may well be that the licensee is retired, but the record ought to be retrievable.

Yes Warren, that would be a much better scenario. And it undoubtedly is the norm at some agencies. What I described is something that could easily happen, and from posts I've read probably does happen all too often when an agency gets so big that it can't seem to keep track of which professional is responsible for what work, or where there are licensees who, for whatever reason, do not want to be in a position where they can be identified as being responsible for work they were involved with.

Josh pretty much got my meaning. I wasn't trying to define it as more or less of a problem in any given region, or trying to single out any particular agency. Nor was it my intent to paint all agencies with a broad brush.

My point is that such things happen often enough, in enough organizations, that it is recognizable as a problem. If it's not the problem that I perceive, then let's do away with the requirement for the license number on monuments for private surveyors as well and say that it's good enough that they just have their company name on the cap.

I mean, gee, if the cap says "Psomas", isn't that good enough? They've been around longer than several cities in CA. Shouldn't we just be able to go to the nearest Psomas office when we have a question about one of their monuments? If there is a problem with the monument location, there's no need to know which of the many licensees who work for or have worked for Psomas was in responsible charge of setting it is there?

(Nothing against Psomas. Just picked a name of a large firm that's been around a long time)

If an agency can't or won't identify who was in responsible charge, how do we know that any licensee actually was?

David,

If you've set monuments, my understanding is that the 90 day trigger has begun. You can extend that by notifying the County surveyor of the circumstances that will require a longer period.

The issue of responsible charge for extended projects is not unique to agency surveyors and engineers. The law makes provision for a successor licensee for instances wherein a project must be completed by a licensee other than the one who began it either due to death, retirement, or change in employment.

Clark uses a little reducere ad absurdum to challenge the practicality of engineers indicating responsible charge on extended length projects. But the fact is that acknowledgement of responsibility does occur on such projects at times, and there is no reason that it shouldn't.

As an example in a bridge design, although the overall design may not be completed for several months or years, a design for standard connectors, expansion joints, or seismic components may be complete well ahead of the rest of the design. There is no reason for the engineer who completed those designs to wait until the full bridge design is complete in order to create the plan sheets necessary for those design details.

The same may be true for extended duration survey projects. The surveyor in responsible charge for the control network does not need to wait for all of the RW to be acquired before filing a RS for the control. There is nothing precluding the filing of multiple maps for projects that acquire portions of RW over time. Interim-project RSs can be filed to reflect the acquisition of a few parcels, or even a single parcel.

If there is some reason that these plans and maps should not be prepared in the interim, indicating interim periods and portions of projects for which a particular licensee exercised responsible charge, then the organization can fall back on the provisions in the law for the successor licensee.

Either way, the important matter is that a succession of continuous responsible direction by an appropriate licensee is able to be demonstrated rather than just asserted and presumed.

Evan-

You've taken the time and energy to illustrate in very good detail several scenarios that represent the reality as I also see it, and the problems this presents. I would add even small, rural counties are subject to the same problems occasionally having difficulty producing the background information regarding the source of a monument. I stand here and pronounce my County "Guilty".

It can be very frustrating for a boundary surveyor who doesn't want to simply reject a monument as "no-record found", but is it asking too much for some history so it can at least be scutinized for its value and what it represents?

I've had to spend more time than I care to recount, having to dig through our old files scattered over several buildings attempting to find when a monument was set, by whom, and representing what. Give me an old RE number and I can tell you within minutes the time period probably within 5 to 10 years. That's a heck of a lot more to go on to hopefully find the source. Yes, they should have filed surveys on them, but didn't in many cases.

Let's get it right and tag our monuments. It's a responsibility that goes along with being licensed that shouldn't strike fear in anyone. No matter how big or small the organization.

Dave Ryan
Humboldt County

Let me try it this way. How many times has the state board investigated complaints against public agency surveyors versus private sector surveyors? If they do, which is rare, they go to the agency and not the individual. Why is that?

Public agency surveyors are in a much more critical role relative to establishing control, right of way lines and other baseline survey monuments. The issue comes down to one of "responsible charge." All surveyors must be able to defend their work. I have found that when someone puts their name or license number on something, they begin to pay attention and miraculously do a better job. Why is that? The problem is inherent in an agency and not in the people. Are we not all licensed under the same laws and are we not supposed to follow the same rules? If not, why not? Why can't I form a company and called it XYZ Surveying and then simply stamp everything "XYZ Surveying?" What is the difference?

At the end of day when evaluating the relative importance of survey monuments, in most cases, those set by a public agency to define a right of way or a section corner have more impact than a corner set by a private sector surveyor. And what about something like the monument preservation fund? All those hard earned transfer axes going to establish and reestablish primary control and the public doesn't even get a properly stamped monument out of it? In the end, who is responsible for the work? If a person working for a government agency is incompetent or does not do a proper job, we will all find out soon enough if their monuments were stamped. At present, such people simply hide behind an agency name and are never held accountable for their work. They can spend an entire career being lazy and incompetent and nothing is ever done. Do we really want these people practicing out there? Private sector competency is constantly under assault and subject to Board discipline while the public sector is not. Why is that? At the risk of ratcheting up the debate, one could argue that because of the scrutiny of Board monitoring of private surveyors who stamp their monuments versus public sector surveyors who do not, the private sector surveyors are more cautious and careful, perhaps making them much better surveyors. I am not criticizing my good friends in the public side; to the contrary. Again I ask: Are we all not subject to the same rules, laws and regulations and if not, why not? What does this mean when the State Board says: "Professional land surveyors licensed in California are required to have qualifying experience and to pass an examination before the Board licenses them. Land surveyors retrace property lines, perform boundary line adjustments, prepare topographic maps, prepare subdivision maps, and perform construction surveys, among other duties."

Why is there such an extraordinary exemption for public sector surveyors? I should probably add that the main reason this topic is important to me is because I have been in a dispute with a local agency over some improperly set "city engineer" monuments and they have created problems for some clients. No one at this city is taking responsibility for the work and if they did and if they were held to the same standards as their private sector peers, they could lose their license. I'd also know who to call to ask about the monuments. What is wrong with this picture and how is the public being served under this scheme?

Mike, thanks for your post. Read together the Board rules and the PLSA makes not distinction between licensees in private practice or working for an agency. The PLSA just requires that if the work is done by a local agency the agency info is stamped on the monument. I know many people read the section as an exception, but the word except is not used where it could have been if the legislature had intended an exception.Perhaps an AG opinion is in order.

I felt the latest language should have been fixed (or changed) to include the state employees. The most recent language excluded state employees and was only going to affect local agency employees. In a sense, this gives them a chance to change it back, but unfortunately it might have killed it in the process.

For those who voted “Noâ€￾ in the poll, I am curious to hear your reasoning.

For any surveyor that is using his/her license to survey legally for any agency, should stamp their work.

Period.

For those with BLM; they don't use their license.

but maybe they should, it seems like if private surveyors need to complete the CFEDS program, then ALL BLM surveyors should as well. Just saying

CFEDS is not a requirement, it's just a certification that you have received extra training and passed a test on the Public Land Survey System.

mpallamary wrote:Let me try it this way. How many times has the state board investigated complaints against public agency surveyors versus private sector surveyors? If they do, which is rare, they go to the agency and not the individual.

Let me try it THIS way. How many times has the state board RECEIVED complaints against public agency surveyors versus private sector surveyors? If they do, which IS rare, they go to the licensed INDIVIDUAL and not the agency FIRST!

Making statements that don't have a basis in fact diminish credibility.

Why is that?

Well, since you asked...usually because the complaint is submitted against the licensee and not the agency. Many times during the course of the investigation and depending on the scope of the complaint, it is discovered that the licensee is NOT the policy or decision maker that originally created the issues complained about. Forcing a licensee to put their license number on a public agency tag (while appropriate) is NOT necessarily going to fix the issue.

There are situations that require force and there are situations that require tact. And it is my experience when dealing with licensing issues and agencies, that both approaches may be appropriate when dealing with the multiple people required to effect change.