Hi folks - any suggestions for comprehensive study materials for the CA-specific PLS exam? I've read the standard materials and also viewed the CalTrans videos, wondering if I'm missing any nuggets. Thanks
PLS Act (Business & Professions Code å¤å¤8700 et seq.) - memorize the activities that constitute land survey practice (8726), the requirements of a written contract (8759), the conditions for which a record of survey is required (8762), the required content of a RS (8764 - 8768), when a Corner Record is required (8771, 8773).
have basic familiarity for when a Parcel Map or a Final (tract) Map is required and the exceptions to those requirements. For example, when creating up to 4 parcels, a PM is required, and when creating 5 or more, a FM (tract map) is required. Exceptions include when the parcels are intended for commercial use and are 20 acres or more, and lot line adjustments affecting up to 4 parcels. (the Subdivision Map Act, SMA is amended by the legislature regularly, so double check these things)
There is usually a land description component and typically, only about 30% of the examinees earn 30% or more of the points on it. If you have any doubts about your ability to interpret or write descriptions completely and accurately, spend a lot of time in Wattles with regard to writing descriptions. If you think you've got descriptions down cold, review Wattles anyway. Particularly strip descriptions, calling bounding lines/features.
Review Boundary Control and Legal Procedures and Evidence and Procedures for Boundary Location regarding the interpretation of descriptions. Last I was involved in the exam process, many of the exam writers and Board staff tended to create grading plans that stuck closely to the principles in those books, even when they conflicted with CA law. For example, one year, they deemed the correct answer to be an interpretation that held the measurements of one course, placing all of the error into the subsequent course because majority of grading team and one Board member misinterpreted principle of holding first of conflicting particulars as applying to recited dimensions and held that as a rigid rule. The texts, if read in whole rather than reading a particular paragraph in a vacuum, as well as CA case law are very clear that such discrepancies are to be resolved 1) as indicated by the circumstances of the subject matter, and 2) giving equal effect to otherwise equal terms. In other words given a latent conflict between dimensions, distribute the discrepancies equally among the courses between verified controlling corners.
There is usually a construction related problem. In addition to construction staking calcs & procedures, be very aware of the surveyors limitations with regard to design work. While minor field adjustments (i.e. adjusting an erroneous grade from the plans) to design are common practice, that is technically design work that falls under the practice of civil engineering. If you get a question that includes erroneous plan info, the multiple guess choices are likely to include the correct mathematical answer that would allow work to proceed as one of the choices, and contacting the engineer in responsible charge of the design work for correction or clarification as another choice. Choose wisely. The legally "correct" answer may not be the one an experienced chief in the field would exercise.
There is usually a state plane coordinate component to one of the problems. Get the CLSA tables for the California Coordinate System if you don't already have it. Review calcs to convert lat & lon to grid N&E, and to determine mapping angle given grid or geographic coordinates.
There is often a water boundaries question. Know Civil Code å¤830 and Code of Civil Procedure å¤2077 and the basic principles of the effects of shore movement on boundaries. Best general Water Boundaries reference is Water Boundaries by Cole. Best CA-specific reference for the practicing surveyor is Water Boundaries, Demystifying Land Boundaries Adjacent to Tidal or Navigable Waters, by Flushman. CA statutes addressing the effects of shore movement are found in Civil Code å¤å¤1014 - 1018. If you have the Water Boundaries Manual by Page that accompanies the review class presented at the State Conference or at some Chapter review sessions, keep last minute review to the first chapter (The Cliff Notes), and then study the rest after you pass the exam.
There is almost always (probably always, but I have to qualify the statement just in case) a PLSS problem. Know how to break down a standard section and how to break down a fractional section. Know how to do a double proportion. Know what to hold as controlling elements for re-establishing any exterior or aliquot interior corner. One common mistake is not recognizing a line tree as a valid controlling point when proportioning.
Don't overwhelm yourself by reviewing too much material in the last week or by studying very long hours. You should be doing only last minute review in a few areas during this week. Don't study anything the day before the test. Just make sure that you have everything you need during the exam ready to go so you don't have to think about it on exam morning.
To the extent that luck is involved, Good Luck.
eapls2708, post: 422780, member: 589 wrote: distribute the discrepancies equally among the courses between verified controlling corners
A bit off-topic, but I just submitted a Record of Survey for checking in which I did this and described it as the "broken boundary method," which is what I've always called it. But after submitting I checked the Manual, and don't find that term used. Is the term in common usage, or did I just get it stuck in my head decades ago on my own? (At worst it'll give the map reviewer something to bleed on.)
Jim Frame, post: 422803, member: 10 wrote: A bit off-topic, but I just submitted a Record of Survey for checking in which I did this and described it as the "broken boundary method," which is what I've always called it. But after submitting I checked the Manual, and don't find that term used. Is the term in common usage, or did I just get it stuck in my head decades ago on my own? (At worst it'll give the map reviewer something to bleed on.)
I think it is common for plss old timers.
I noticed the term is used in BLM's 1980 Mineral Survey Procedures Guide.
Evan gave you some excellent advice.
Oh yeah Jim I've heard of it and love it, also known as a grant boundary adjustment, show a tie line and co-efficient and you might win the checker over. A great way of applying record data to few found monuments, just got to make sure none in the middle weren't missed.
Evan nailed great points on the CA exam, I took mine 3 years ago, with the new format, don't over think the questions, know your material.
Read the WHOLE question before answering, and answer the question that is asked, not the one you studied up to answer. These questions are cleverly written in a way to lead you off on a tangent. My 2cents.
BK9196, post: 422834, member: 12217 wrote: Oh yeah Jim I've heard of it and love it, also known as a grant boundary adjustment,....
Broken boundary adustment = nonriparian boundary adjustment = compass rule adjustment. Grant boundary adjustment is not the same and can give significantly different results.
Mark Mayer, post: 422835, member: 424 wrote: ... These questions are cleverly written in a way to lead you off on a tangent. My 2cents.
As someone that has been part of the CA exam writing and grading for over 10 years I can tell you unequivocally that this is not the case. The questions are not written to lead you off on a tangent at all. The questions are written in as clear a manner as possible to ascertain if the examinee possesses the knowledge to be minimally qualified as a PLS. The questions are written by practicing surveyors from the public and private sectors and reviewed and refined many times before they are used. There are no "trick questions". Don't over-think it.
Edward Reading, post: 422848, member: 132 wrote: The questions are not written to lead you off on a tangent at all.
To be quite fair the questions I was thinking of were on the FS and PS tests. And I missed an easy one on the OK test because I failed to fully comprehend the question.
Jim Frame, post: 422803, member: 10 wrote: A bit off-topic, but I just submitted a Record of Survey for checking in which I did this and described it as the "broken boundary method," which is what I've always called it. But after submitting I checked the Manual, and don't find that term used. Is the term in common usage, or did I just get it stuck in my head decades ago on my own? (At worst it'll give the map reviewer something to bleed on.)
The broken boundary method (i.e. Compass Rule) is described in section 7-53, "Angle Points of Meander Lines" of the 2009 Manual. If the reviewer balks, you can point him to this study guide hosted by the CLSA Central Valley chapter. The exercise comes from Course 4 of the CFedS training program on restoration of lost corners. It compares it with the grant boundary method.
http://www.californiacentralvalleysurveyors.org/LSReview/Topics/documents/C4EX8.pdf
Chris may find other topics on their LS Review web page informative.
Gene Kooper, post: 422945, member: 9850 wrote: The broken boundary method (i.e. Compass Rule) is described in section 7-53, "Angle Points of Meander Lines" of the 2009 Manual. If the reviewer balks, you can point him to this study guide hosted by the CLSA Central Valley chapter. The exercise comes from Course 4 of the CFedS training program on restoration of lost corners. It compares it with the grant boundary method.
http://www.californiacentralvalleysurveyors.org/LSReview/Topics/documents/C4EX8.pdf
Chris may find other topics on their LS Review web page informative.
Do you know the rationale for adjusting meander courses by compass rule but adjusting grant boundaries by rotate and scale (grant boundary method)?
The CLSA Central Valley Chapter website is a great resource for both those studying for the exam and for practicing surveyors.
As to the topic of misleading questions, I don't think that it's the case that the questions are misleading, but in a multiple guess format, there will almost always be a "logical but wrong" and/or at least one "right but not as right as the correct answer" choices. These can seem like, and sometimes arguably are misleading answers, but that doesn't make the question misleading. Such questions with one or more nearly or seemingly correct but wrong answers are designed to separate the almost-competent from the truly competent. Although I have problems with an all multiple guess format for a professional level exam, I don't have a problem with multiple guess questions that have almost but not quite correct answers among the selection - as long as the question writer is competent enough to have identified the most correct answer as the proper answer.
Reading the 2009 Manual, it seems to favor holding interior angles when adjusting a grant boundary by determining a constant ratio, then translating. When retracing meander lines, the presumption is that angular error and distance errors are equivalent; hence the compass rule.
Dave Karoly, post: 422952, member: 94 wrote: Do you know the rationale for adjusting meander courses by compass rule but adjusting grant boundaries by rotate and scale (grant boundary method)?
The Compass rule assumes that the angles and distances have the same measurement precision. The BLM states in the last two manuals that it is the preferred method to adjust meander lines. IIRC, Jerry Wahl wrote many years ago on the old POB forum that the grant boundary method is a good choice when the basis of bearing is not known. The BLM manuals state that it is the preferred method to adjust grant boundaries that were run prior to the PLSS. The grant lines were often run by a compass, so the uniform rotation can be a means of correcting an erroneous magnetic deciination.
The 1975 BLM Casebook discusses the various proportionate methods. The introductory section Fundamentals of Corner Restoration states (page 15 of the PDF):
Attempts to emphasize various methods, capabilities of equipment, and existing regulations by which the original corners were established have led to the use of the following methods of restoring lost corners in order to protect bona fide rights:
a. Angle points of nonriparian meander lines. (Compass Rule)--based on the assumption that the angles and distances of the original were measured with equal precision.
b. Grant boundaries. A rotation and scale change which retains the form of the original survey being adjusted. The interior angles are unchanged and the increase or decrease in lengths of lines is constant.The use of the grant boundary adjustment (in the BLM) may have evolved from questions concerning original surveys such as:
[INDENT]What are the exact directions in terms of angular measure from a true north and south line?
What are the true lengths of lines when reduced to a common standard?
How, in the event of an obliteration of the marks of angle points, can the lines be recovered, holding to a uniform correction from record direction to that of true direction, and in the same process hold to a uniform proportional adjustment to the lengths of lines as reduced to a standard unit?[/INDENT]
The second is Completions near San Carlos Reservation (B2). See the section entitled, "Auxiliary Topic No. 1" (pages 8 & 9).
This is an example of where the default method (Grant Boundary) was rejected because the Broken Boundary Method gave a "better solution".
The above quote also notes that the method selected should protect the bony fried rice. 😉
Gene Kooper, post: 422970, member: 9850 wrote: The Compass rule assumes that the angles and distances have the same measurement precision. The BLM states in the last two manuals that it is the preferred method to adjust meander lines. IIRC, Jerry Wahl wrote many years ago on the old POB forum that the grant boundary method is a good choice when the basis of bearing is not known. The BLM manuals state that it is the preferred method to adjust grant boundaries that were run prior to the PLSS. The grant lines were often run by a compass, so the uniform rotation can be a means of correcting an erroneous magnetic deciination.
The 1975 BLM Casebook discusses the various proportionate methods. The introductory section Fundamentals of Corner Restoration states (page 15 of the PDF):
The second is Completions near San Carlos Reservation (B2). See the section entitled, "Auxiliary Topic No. 1" (pages 8 & 9).
This is an example of where the default method (Grant Boundary) was rejected because the Broken Boundary Method gave a "better solution".The above quote also notes that the method selected should protect the bony fried rice. 😉
i prefer to rotate to a common basis then do the compass rule adjustment.
disclaimer: don't do this on the exam, follow the manual precisely.
Dave Karoly, post: 422973, member: 94 wrote: i prefer to rotate to a common basis then do the compass rule adjustment.
disclaimer: don't do this on the exam, follow the manual precisely.
And I just finished rereading chapters 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the 2009 Manual for a CFedS continuing education course. I'm sure the quiz will ask me where I should use each method!
Chris Thompson, post: 422592, member: 12642 wrote: Hi folks - any suggestions for comprehensive study materials for the CA-specific PLS exam? I've read the standard materials and also viewed the CalTrans videos, wondering if I'm missing any nuggets. Thanks
Hey Chris,
I know it's a bit late, but this resource was just launched online: https://plsexamprep.com/
Has 38 hours of lecture and material to go along with it. Also includes 3 classes solely on CA Law. Pass along...
clearcut, post: 422847, member: 297 wrote: Broken boundary adustment = nonriparian boundary adjustment = compass rule adjustment. Grant boundary adjustment is not the same and can give significantly different results.
Don't forget there is also the irregular boundary method.