California Surveyors Forums

Does a county chip seal project trigger the monument preservation requirements of Section 8771 of the California Business and Professions Code? Does anyone know if the BPELS has clarified this in writing?

Here is a recent scenario:

A local county receives a heap of stimulus funding. The local CLSA chapter learns they are going to chip seal lots of county roads as part of a big rubberized chip seal project. In a good faith effort, volunteers from the local chapter pull filed survey maps and identify monuments that will be impacted by the project. The county public works department is provided with a list of the monuments, which includes the character of each monument, filing numbers of the maps showing the monuments and their approximate locations.

County proceeds with the chip seal project. If a centerline monument is not in a monument well it is covered, even if it is exposed to the surface.

I've had some discussions with the county staff, and it sounds like their position is that a chip seal doesn't trigger the monument preservation requirements of Section 8771.

I'm trying to get some documentation I can take back to the county for some (hopefully) productive conversations with the County.

Thanks,

The Sunburned Surveyor
PLS 8489

What is it about

"...prior to the time when any STREETS, highways, other right-of-ways, or easements are IMPROVED, constructed, reconstructed, MAINTAINED, RESURFACED, or relocated..."

That they don't understand?

Just because that is written in the PLSA, does that mean it is the law? You mean people actually have to do some of that stuff? "Surely, you can't be serious? Yes I am, and don't call me Shirlely."

I've dealt with slurry seals quite a bit but not a chip seal. For a slurry we paint all our monuments so the contractor will see them and apply a piece of tape that sticks up a bit. After the slurry cures, he then removes the tape, same as a water valve or monument well. That might not work on a thicker application though.

I would say the Chapter went above and beyond the call of duty, and the County dropped the ball - big time. Apparently although they were notified, they chose to break the law.

"How thick is chip seal?" - thick enough to trigger this law.

By next Thursday, can you (the Chapter?) prepare individual complaint forms

http://www.pels.ca.gov/consumers/bpelscmf.pdf

based on your research for every monument that was not referenced, filed, and boxed per 8771? For the names of the "Subject" (of the investigation) mark it "see attached list." Request (via CPRA if necessary) the names, positions, classifications, and license/registration/certificate numbers of EVERY person who worked on (charged any time to) each of the projects from the lowest Engineering Aide to the Director of Public Works. If the DPW didn't charge any time to the projects, add his name to the list as a matter of principle. He IS the Director after all... The County Charter or Code probably indicate that the work was done under his authority. Same goes for any other higher ups... Attach the list of names to the complaint forms. Make copies of the complaint forms, along with copies of 8771, and bring them to the County Engineers Association of California (CEAC) next Thursday in Sacramento. It would make a great topic of discussion for the Survey Policyy Committee and icebreaker conversations at the reception Thursday evening. Drop the originals off at the BPELS Office when you have the list of names.

http://www.ceaccounties.org/Policy_Conference_2010.aspx

This is known as the Arnaud Amalric Approach...

The question I always get is. If the overlay is 0.10 how do you set something that will stay? Even if the original monument will not get disturbed.

I set a one inch mag nail or pk with washer, and if I am lucky, the point of that nail will be just above the monument that is now down a tenth.

Another thing is to set 4- two foot tangent over spike and washer ties to the monument that is down a tenth.

I just had a situation where I had about 100 monuments to perpetuate. Most of them were in areas that would receive an inch and a half cap. I located the monuments and I set ties prior to the cap. After the pavement was placed, I pulled the ties, making a little red x at their intersection. I then I set a one and a quarter inch pk and washer at that little red x.

Some places that did not work, then I set the tangent overs using a longer(hopefully more substantial) mag spikes and washer

I haven't had much luck setting the 1" Pk & washer. They just keep popping out of the pavement. As for X-ties I have used them till one or two get knocked out. Then someone comes along a uses the X-tie as the centerline point and then things get really wacky. I just usually set ties in the curb and go from there. I am not saying one thing is better than another just my opinion.

not a very durable monument, although I have seen some pks that were purported to be 20 or 30 years old. They didn't have a washer on them though. This is a long time ago.

I have seen the holes of recently set (last two or three years) pk's and washers. They is gone. Not all of them, but enough of them. It has been a common practice for a local surverying company that performs A LOT of monument perpetuations on pavement jobs to set pks and washers. They may have started to set something more substantial, but I don't know.

As to the tangent over 2 foot ties getting knocked out, I really don't know what to say, except that if the spikes set at the tangent overs are of a substantial length, I don't know why they would go anywhere, or get knocked out for that matter.

As to someone setting up on the tangent over and using it as the centerlinine, well I guess things happen and that is TFB. Better luck next time fella or fellett(don't want to leave anyone out).

I do know that if I do not reset the monument at the finish surface of the construction, but I have ties set to the original monument and a CR filed, I don't have to go back there. And that is within the limits of the law.

I can conceivably perpetuate the monument at a lessor fee cause I only have one move in. Or I can conceivably perpetuate the monument and make more money per monument cause I only have to visit the site once. I know this thread isn't about money, this is just an aside to task at hand, and that is perpetuating the monuments prior to a chip seal.

And that is really the ISSUE here. Some of these monuments that were covered may not have been found for 20 years or more. I don't know. Some of these monuements may not even have a reference, but they control stuff. Prior to covering up these monuments, we now have a recent record of these important markers. Even if the ties were not set, or the monument was not reset at the surface(and I am not suggesting not to set the monument at the surface or set the ties), a surveyor working in this neck of the woods in 2012, would know that there is stuff out there cause ole Sam Surveyor found this stuff two years ago. And I got a CR/RS that shows it. It may be a little chiseling, but it is there.

As it sets now we don't know what is out there, except what the records show, and it is gonna take us longer to find this stuff cause it's covered, which in turn should cost the land owner or developer or municipality more money to perform the survey. I read post #1 where the locals got together and gave a "spread sheet" on the monuments to be perpetuated, but that isn't gonna make it to the public counter for all to see.

One more item. Is a "seal coat" considered a resurfacing of a street? This is kinda like a thick oil, not the coat on the animals playing in the water at the zoo.

Good Luck Guys. This sounds like something for the local JPPC if you cannot get the powers that be to see the light. If no local JPPC, you don't have a choice but talk to someone else. In fact that someone else might be reading this thread right now. Who knows? besides the Shadow.

Gosh did I really talk that long? I have to do other stuff.

By the letter of the law, the County should have raised the mons. But what was the purpose of the law? It was to ensure that the monument positions be preserved and remain reasonably accessible. Anyone see it differently?

So the questions to ask yourself are 1) Does a 0.1' chip seal overlay significantly hinder access to the monuments?; 2) Is the time that would be added and the risk that some monuments will be inadvertently moved (or overlooked and not reset) a good investment of either the County's time and resources or yours?

IMO, for a chip seal project, it would be counterproductive to try to fight this battle. To everyone except to some surveyors, it will look like an overly legalistic and impractical demand and could possibly damage your chapter's credibility on future, more important matters. I would save this card for a more significant improvement project where damage to monuments is a real concern.

significantly hinder access? I wonder what distance is a depth that would significantly hinder this process of accessing the monuments? In my opinion that depth is 3 inches. Cause that is the distance I can reasonable chisel with the equipment that I have. You have to hear the tone of my typing as you read the above, and maybe even below. And of course, I would be in the road a lot longer digging this guy up, but that really isn't that risky.

I had a city engineer down here in the OC stating that they aren't gonna dig any holes to find any monuments. If they ain't on the surface or in a well, we don't want anyone looking for them. It's gonna be up to Bruce Hall to find that sucker on the next survey he does in the area.

Once the monument is covered, it ain't going anywhere, unless someone digs it up with backhoe putting in a water lateral or a grind or something along those lines. So I don't really see any risk in the monuments moving once they are covered except as noted.

As to the investment of time and resources, I guess that means money spent by somebody or some entity. The writers of the law should have put something like that in the law. They really should have!

Maybe 8771(b) should read something like this.."When monuments exist.......and a corner record or record of survey of the references shall be filed with the county surveyor UNLESS THE TIME THAT WOULD BE ADDED TO THE PROJECT AND THE RISK THAT SOME MONUMENTS WILL BE INADVERTENLY MOVED OR OVERLOOKED IS NOT A GOOD INVESTMENT OF THE GOVERNING AGENCIES TIME AND RESOURCES, THEN THE AFOREMENTIONED PROCESS NEED NOT BE COMPLETED. IF IT IS A GOOD INVESTMENT OF TIME AND RESOURCES, THEN SAID MONUMENTS SHALL BE LOCATED AS STATED ABOVE. They shall be reset in the surface................."

I think that this change to law(or something like it) should be looked into so that this type of a scenario doesn't come up again.

And don't call me Shirley.

that, It probably is not a bad idea to consider Evan's suggestion. The fella has more than likely been around the block more than two or three times, maybe two or three thousand would be closer to the "number". But can he really be that old? I digress.

Anyway, sometimes I have to draw the line in sand before the next wave hits. If the wave hits then I am gonna have to draw it again, and ask again "Who is with me?"

The 100 monuments that I located in LA County last year, about a third of them were not of record. Most all of them were tagged with a LS or RE number. Many were at offsets to the pl set into the alleys maybe 2 to 3 feet. Some were conc nails, or spikes or pipes-all with tags.

Why would anyone look there? Offset to the PL? Cause I was hired to find that stuff and I just stumbled upon them and they were visible. Once I found the first one offset, hey I better start looking not only at the corner but offset thereto.

That is what I have seen. If the monuments are not covered, they are easier to find. Whether that is a good investment of someones money, I think so, BWTFDIK.

All this talk about 1" PKs has me wondering if anyone reads §8771 beyond the "shall be located and referenced" part. Don't forget that it also says "[t]hey shall be reset in the surface of the new construction, a suitable monument box placed thereon, or permanent witness monuments set to perpetuate their location." Note the "monument box" requirement -- it's not enough to stick a nail over the original monument, the public agency is charged with seeing to it that either a can & cover or "suitable" (i.e., equally durable) monuments or witness monuments are installed.

The section doesn't require that every found monument be perpetuated, only that sufficient monuments be so treated. Personally, I think a road project like the one Bruce describes would tie everything found into a Record of Survey, and enough of those points would be preserved or durably remonumented to enable easy retracement of any monument found during the recon.

In response to Evan's comments about appropriate use of public funds, preserving monuments by placing boxes over them and/or setting durable witness monuments is a good investment. A chipseal project is just as good as a reconstruction project in that regard. Once a monument is lost, it's lost. Better to preserve it now than not have the opportunity to preserve it later. The costs of doing so adds relatively little to road projects on a percentage basis.

.

Or.....

We could utilize 21st century technology and give up on monuments in the roadways.

Back in the last century, if you needed to set or find monuments in a brushy hillside full of trees, you broke out the chain saw and hoped like h*ll that for the next 2 hours you brushed an accurate line to your goal.

Expending all the time, energy, and money--not to mention the dangers involved--fighting to preserve evidence out in traffic that could be easily and quickly reference (and preserved) OUT OF TRAFFIC.....it's a no-brainer, isn't it?

Is for me anyway. Isn't anyone else tired of kneeling down, scooping out water and sand and muck out of a mon well, all the while with 3 plastic cones feigning a protective barrier between you and the next distracted driver?

Does anyone really keep a chain saw in the rig anymore?

Just wondering.....

In this case, my client spent a lot of money to have me place and recover city-approved monuments in the center line of the street. Three weeks later, the City came through and paved them all over. I forced them to retrieve and resurface them.

"We could utilize 21st century technology and give up on monuments in the roadways."

I believe that §8771 provides for this by allowing the use of permanent witness monuments outside of the traveled way. The trick is to come up with a suitable monument. The one advantage a road monument in a well has is that road construction crews know how to preserve it. To them it's just like a water valve -- tie it out, remove the box, cover the monument, repave/rebuild the road, tie it back in, expose the monument, install a new box, done. Monuments outside of the pavement area, including those in the sidewalk, are harder to preserve, because construction crews aren't used to having them "in the way," and are more likely to remove them with one swipe of a backhoe bucket.

.

is talking about "Monuments set...."

Section (b) is talking about "When monuments exist..." Two different deals. At least in my brain. Although I am probably just reading the whole thing wrong. But, then again, I don't think that my charge is to locate and perpetuate only a "sufficient amount" of monuments.

As for the reseting of the monuments at the surface just above the old monument, I don't have to set jack as long as there are "permanent witness ties set to perpetuate their location". I normally set ties(LTT in curbs) and the monument. That is the correct thing to do. No monument box though.

Maybe if I didn't set permanent ties, I would then be required to set a monument box?

I will grant to everyone that a one inch pk is not that substantial of a monument. The spike and washer tangent overs are substantial as well as the LTT's in the curbs.

I don't carry a chain saw anymore, used to in the late 70's early 80's. Also moving the control and perpetuating it out of traffic is a great idea. Although Jim Frame has a good point regarding stuff that happens along the side of the road.

We have sidewalks and curbs here in the OC, and the LTT's are removed more that one would like because of some type of rehab or construction. Maybe setting a well monument in the sidewalk would be the way?

had a sherman and another cup of coffee. Realized that Jim's post regarding the setting of the monuments had to be SUFFICENT IN NUMBER.....

It makes sense to me that I could set up at one end of the block, site the other, locate the monuments down or offset to the line, file a record, and as long as the control that I used wasn't removed,or I reset them, that these control monuments would be sufficient to to perpetuate the monuments that I located and I am not required to reset the located monuments.

That makes sense to me-kinda. Although I still believe that the surveyor "should" reset the monuments that he located.

this stuff. That is no one's fault but mine.

I know that 8771 section (b) and (c) didn't exist before 1984 or 85 or somewhere around that time. Just (a). Many of the surveyors were getting miffed at the destruction of monuments in the streets, and they had the law revised. Just so happened the revision was added in 8771. I don't think that 8771 (a) pertains to (b). But I am sure that someone can provide the necessary clarification to show that I am full of it, or something along those lines.

As to the resetting of the monuments in section(b) I think that the law reads.."They shall be reset in the surface of the new construction OR a suitable monument box placed thereon, or permanent witness monuments set to perpetuate their location if any monument could be destroyed OR damaged OR covered, or otherwise obliterated..........."

I am trying to figure out how I would set a "monument in the surface AND then place a monument box theron"? There has to be a way to do it. Maybe someone could offer a class on how this is done? I know that I would attend.

"Sufficient controlling monuments" is mentioned in the next sentence of this section (b). I think that this is the sentence that Jim Frame is refering to. Although I am having a tough time getting around the sentence that reads "THEY SHALL BE RESET....."

I don't think that I am gonna say anything more about this for a while. And the congregation said "Amen".

With a chip seal project, what I had pictured were rural roads with no block corners, maybe PCs & PTs monumented, but more likely not. Our county recently had a summer of chip seal projects over several dozen miles of road across many parts of the county.

In most of these areas, the monuments in the roads would have been mostly PL corners at CL, and some CL intx points. The road crews came in, laid the tar, laid the chip, and rolled. No excavation, and no real danger of monument destruction. They were getting about 3 miles per day.

If the DOT survey crew had come in to find every mon in the roadway, tie them out, raise them 0.1', including placing a box which never previously existed, it would have added several weeks of research, several months of fieldwork, several weeks of preparing CRs or RSs, as the case may be, several thousands of dollars in hard costs for monument and well materials, and several tens of thousands in man hours. The resurfacing that took place over about 2 months likely would have dragged out to 2 years. It would have cost much more to accomplish as a result, meaning either more limited funds spent on the project to get ir done, or far fewer road miles being resurfaced.

All to raise monuments which were in no danger of destruction one tenth, barely more than an inch. How do you think that would play out in a public forum such as a BOS meeting? Taxpayer advocates and taxpayers would have a fit. And the chance that we would be taken seriously when a more extensive project is propesed, where monuments are likely or certain to be destroyed, would be greatly diminished.

If the resurfacing project were one which involved breaking up or scarifying the existing surface, I would be among the loudest voices calling for preservation efforts. But I don't want to be, nor do I want any surveyor to be seen as some ninny who starts hopping up and down, insisting upon measures that most people outside of our profession would consider unreasonable anytime a construction crew gets anywhere near a monument.

What is the reason for the law? Why was it enacted? Was it to make finding monuments more convenient for us so that it would be safer and less costly to our clients, or was it to preserve the positions from being destroyed or otherwise lost?

I don't think that the politicians under the dome really give a rat's rear end about our safety or convenience. But surveyors were able to convince them of the importance of preserving mon positions. You want to see something in the code like what Bruce posted with a heavy dose of sarcasm? Make a big deal about raising monuments an inch on projects in which there is no likelihood of there destruction. Do it every time you see a county c/s overlay project. We will be seen as obstructors because without likelihood of mon destruction, our argument will lack substance to the average taxpayer and the average politician.

In more urban settings, c/s is less likely to be utilized than an asphalt overlay. You are more likely to have the road surface torn up or at least scarified in the process. There will be more undergound utilities in the area, meaning that non visible monuments would be more at risk with regard to future road/utility projects. There is real concern about monument disturbance and destruction. The arguments for mon preservation efforts in those areas will have substance because of that.

"If the DOT survey crew had come in to find every mon in the roadway, tie them out, raise them 0.1', including placing a box which never previously existed, it would have added several weeks of research, several months of fieldwork, several weeks of preparing CRs or RSs, as the case may be, several thousands of dollars in hard costs for monument and well materials, and several tens of thousands in man hours."

Jokes about the cost difference between DOT and private crews aside, §8771 doesn't require all monuments to be raised, only "sufficient controlling monuments" to enable "boundaries to be reestablished without devious surveys."

Consider a typical rural road in my area (Yolo County): the roads generally run along the section lines, and the primary monuments are at the section and quarter-section corners. It's flat and open, so preserving monuments every half-mile arguably meets the "sufficient" test, especially since those are often the only monuments out there. Say it costs the County Surveyor about an hour of time to pull the maps to verify the controlling monument record for a mile of road, and another hour to run out there and wave a Schoenstedt over the spots. A total of 2 hours at $150 per hour = $300 per mile. Cost to hire a private surveyor to tie out 2 monuments per mile, install boxes and file a ROS or CRs: $2,050. Total $2,350 per mile.

What's the cost of a chipseal project, $20,000 per mile or so? For a 10% markup you not only improve the condition of the monument network, you also put a surveyor to work (isn't a lot of the chipseal work being done with stimulus dollars?) *and* you get to comply with the law. Such a deal!

I know that conditions in other counties aren't identical, and costs might run higher, but by how big a factor?

By the way, the survey cost I cited above reflects the actual winning bid to replace a monument with a new standard monument (6"x30" concrete cylinder with bronze disk set in a valve box with a concrete ring) from the last Yolo monument preservation project. It was substantially lower than my bid -- I think I was around $1,400 per monument -- but that's life on the private side these days.

.

Thank you for all of the discussion and information. It isn't really up to me to decide if this current chip seal project is the battle our chapter wants to fight. I'm just working as the monument preservation liaison for this agency. (Other chapter members are working with other agencies.)

I will take the board letters provided by Mr. Pallamary, my correspondence with the County, and this forum thread to my chapter meeting tonight. I will let the chapter members decide how they want to proceed.

I wish there was an easier solution to this problem. I must admit I am very frustrated with the destruction of monuments in my area.

Thank you again.

The Sunburned Surveyor

Landon,

When you have time, give a description of the types or nature of the roads and the monuments at issue (winding mtn roads with private corners, straight but rural roads with PLSS corners every 1/2 mile, or more urban setting).

I'd also be interested in what your chapter decided and the prevailing reasoning.

I agree with Evan. Covering a monument with 0.1' of asphalt probably won't disturb it. I would prefer have someone chisel out a little hole and just leave it that way than try to position a nail directly over the monument. Now grinding is another matter.

I have a project now where I am considering digging holes through asphalt to find concrete monuments that were set in 1973. The map does not call out having set any ferrous metal, so the lack of a metal detector tone tells me nothing. It's a real gamble.

to be done is for someone to go out there and find those little guys, cut a hole in the pavement, and be done with it. A monument box is not required IMO. Shouldn't be that much of a problem, as long as that stuff is where it says it is on the map.

(it's been only 3 days, I couldn't wait any longer. I really liked the Evan and Frame "point-counterpoint". I thought they both did a fine job in expressing their "take" on the subject. FWIW)

In fact, why even dig them up. Why don't we just use the record dimensions on the maps.

And no use in looking for that stuff that isn't of record. I mean, if it isn't of record, might as well leave it covered.

There are six sentences in 8771(b). They were written so that someone couldn't get around the locating and perpetuating of the monuments in the roads when construction of most any type would take place.

The writers of this section probably didn't want any loopholes so that the scenario that we are discussing would not come up. "It's only a tenth, what's the big deal? How do you set something above it? Why, it's gonna cost too much and take too long."

Be careful, the next wave may just cover up that line.