About 7 years ago I did a topographic survey of a 900-foot stretch of creek in a densely-built urban area. The bank-to-bank width was around 60 feet, both tops were either fenced or occupied by building walls, and the vegetation was thick everywhere except in the bottom. The owner agency (my engineering client's client) wanted to rehabilitate the creekway and improve it for both recreation and floodwater conveyance.
The stretch wasn't straight, and distances between control points were in the 150-foot range. We were able to come out of the creek at one end (at a cross street) and loop around to an intermediate control point to close out about 600 feet of the control survey, which gave me enough confidence that the remainder of the control and topo was within acceptable accuracy limits. However, due to cost constraints, the owner decided not to have the survey related to property lines, deciding instead to have it stand on its own and to design improvements within the existing occupation lines. My contract clearly stated that the topo would be referenced only to the hard features shown. Because of the uncertain relationship to property lines, I omitted any information about survey control from the deliverable drawings (paper and CAD) except for a bench mark description, and my client didn't balk.
We finished the survey, turned it over to the client, and heard nothing more for several years. A couple of years ago I was asked if I was interested in bidding on the construction staking for the improvements, but that's generally not my thing and the 1-hour travel time added to my lack of interest, so I declined. The matter of survey control didn't cross my mind, and no one said anything about it to me.
I heard nothing more until last Wednesday (8/6), when I got email from my client asking about control. The engineer stated that the contractor's surveyor planned to start staking on Tuesday 8/12 and needed control information ASAP to set up his staking plan. Normally I would have provided information as to what we had left behind, even though many of the points were undoubtedly gone due to their temporary nature and location in the creek channel. However, this situation was a bit different: I was on vacation in the Yosemite high country and barely able to access email, let alone a 7-year-old CAD file. Being a near-solo operation, getting control info to my client within the desired time frame was out of the question.
I advised my client that since property lines weren't part of the deal anyway, the hard features shown on the topo would be adequate to orient the construction survey both horizontally and vertically. The engineer gulped (my inference) and said okay. He then related this information to the owner agency, and today I learned that a conversation ensued between the engineer and the contractor's surveyor that went something like this:
------------
Engineer: You'll have to use the existing topo to orient the staking control. The design is tight, and needs to be staked within 1/2 foot of the location shown in order to work.
Surveyor [direct quote]: "At best establishing survey control based on topographic features gets you an horizontal accuracy of 1’."
Engineer: Gulp. Okay, go ahead.
Surveyor [some days later]: We tied into 7 hardscape features distributed along the length of the topo. Holding the two corners of the longest building, we fit the remaining features within 0.06 foot.
-----------
Good enough, eh? The engineer this morning, in email only to me: "This is remarkable."
How 'bout dat!?
Life's full of little surprises.
Nice work Jim!
A possible behind the scene scenario:
> Surveyor [direct quote]: "At best establishing survey control based on topographic features gets you an horizontal accuracy of 1’."
translation: I didn't do my pre-bid homework and ASSUMED I would get the control
> Surveyor [some days later]: We tied into 7 hardscape features distributed along the length of the topo. Holding the two corners of the longest building, we fit the remaining features within 0.06 foot."
Translation: It cost me 4hrs of field time and 2hrs in the office to tie-in and because I didn't figure that in my bid, I need more $
and that folks is how low-bidders make up the diff.
> Translation: It cost me 4hrs of field time and 2hrs in the office to tie-in and because I didn't figure that in my bid, I need more $
In fact, they estimated $3,040 additional to run a new control line and reconcile it with the topo. Given the challenging sight lines in the creekway and the fact that it's a prevailing wage job, that's not unreasonable for the area.
Beautiful story!
> Surveyor [direct quote]: "At best establishing survey control based on topographic features gets you an horizontal accuracy of 1’."
>
Sounds like a dumb statement. Why 1'? Why not 3'? Why not 0.2'?
I can understand the surveyor explaining that until he makes ties to the hard topo, it would be impossible to say how closely he might be able to relate to the previous work. But to say at best he could get 1' sounds ignorant (which it apparently proved out to be). I might could understand if he was told to relate to your work using utility poles and trees perhaps.
Either way, great job. Even though that's how it's supposed to work, I always find it to be rewarding when it does work.
I am not at all a fan of surveyors that perform design surveys and don't set control or benchmarks for construction layout.
> I am not at all a fan of surveyors that perform design surveys and don't set control or benchmarks for construction layout.
I provided a cost estimate to optionally establish the relationship between the topo and the adjacent property lines, which in my opinion would have been the preferred solution, but the client's client didn't want to foot the bill for that. They opted instead for a self-referencing topo in the horizontal dimension. Under the circumstances, I didn't want to leave anything definitive behind because I didn't want anyone to infer that I was endorsing the existing improvements as being the property lines.
The actual control points we occupied were temporary points in the creek bottom that likely didn't survive the first good rain storm, so whoever followed behind me was going to have to run a new control line in any case. The hard points on the topo that were outside the creek banks constituted adequate control for the purpose of relating the topo to the new control line, and I did provide an offsite bench mark reference.
"I was on vacation in the Yosemite high country..."
Did you stop at P.J.'s again on the way home?
Seriously, very nice work (and story), Jim. You made us proud.
Don
> Did you stop at P.J.'s again on the way home?
With the advent of the Priest Station Cafe awhile back, we've altered our routine so that we stop at PJ's on the way up, and PSC on the way down. I enjoy them both, for different reasons.
Don, I think of you every year when we pass through Groveland. Unfortunately, we're always in a rush to get to the park or get home, so making the family sit through a professional get-together wouldn't go down very well with the troops, and thus I never try to arrange it. But I always eye Groveland as being Blameuser country. It's certainly a cute little town.
I'm afraid I have to agree with Tommy on this one. I don't quite understand your equating control and boundary. Control is control.
Nevertheless, not only did you do an excellent job of topo the construction surveyor seems to know his stuff, too.
> I'm afraid I have to agree with Tommy on this one. I don't quite understand your equating control and boundary. Control is control.
>
> Nevertheless, not only did you do an excellent job of topo the construction surveyor seems to know his stuff, too.
A construction or any surveyor would have thought 7 year old control would have been stale if it even existed.
It looks like the client's client is still trying to save a buck on one of the most important aspects of the project
I have to agree with Norm and Tommy, doing a topo for design and not including control because the client was too ignorant to know any different seems like funny business. - Kind of like doing a boundary and leaving no monuments. I have run into this a couple times on construction projects and trying to explain this to the inspectors is not always successful. These days with GPS allot of people expect that all you have to do is bring out the magic box and “poof” instant control. It is a tough way to start a job for a construction surveyor and you may or may not get reimbursed for the effort.
Kudos on the quality of topo though.
Priest Station is a wonderful and historic spot to dine. It's run by the Anker family, descendants of the Priests. One of the Anker sons is Conrad, a celebrated mountaineer. His brother Steve is a waiter at the restaurant; a very sweet guy, and a sister Denise works there as well who is also a commendable person.
It's quite a complex intersection there at the top of the Old Priest Grade where it meets Hwy 120 and also the Priest-Coulterville Road. Eyes must be peeled in all directions, especially in the summer. It's not like in the city, though, I don't want to give that impression. There's usually not that much traffic.
Nice of you to think of Groveland as Blameuser country. Many other locals would probably say "What the hell is a Blameuser?" I have in-laws that still wonder.
In any case, Jim, it's an honor to have you pass through our little burg and I certainly understand not stopping. I sometimes wonder why I ever stopped here myself.
🙂
Don
> I have to agree with Norm and Tommy, doing a topo for design and not including control because the client was too ignorant to know any different seems like funny business.
Funny business, yes, but perhaps not as funny as some seem to think. Referring back to the original circumstances, it's not that I planned to withhold control information, it's simply that I wanted to regulate the manner in which it was released so I could emphasize the caveat about there being no relationship between topo and boundary. Had my client contacted me even 1 day before I left on vacation, I would have packaged up the control info and emailed it along with a cautionary note and disclaimer. Unfortunately, they waited 7 years before deciding they needed control, and it had been months since I'd been contacted about the project at all, let alone been given even a suggestion of construction schedule. The matter quickly dropped off my radar, and it was only when I was in the high Sierra clambering up peaks and ridges that the desperate communique about control went out, at which point I was unable to do anything other than suggest tying in the topo with the new control line that had to be run anyway.
I completely understand about not wanting to release temporary control. Seven years is a long time for things to happen.
However, I try to not do a topo without some sort of permanent (or at least as permanent as rebar are) monuments of some sort that can be used for layout in the future.
What I typically do is print the survey with the control shown. I send that to the engineer, along with the CAD file. Now, if the engineer knows what he's doing, he'll produce a set of plans with that same control printed on the plans, because as we all know, that only control that matters is that shown on the plans. Also the layout surveyor should be able to take the CAD design file and the printed control and lay the site out. I am completely against getting the surveyor's point file and trying to find control points to use for layout. That will get you burned in a hurry. Obviously that doesn't work if the idiot engineer rotates the site to fit his sheet layout better. I've had that happen a few times.
So - Where did you go?
Beyond the control or not control debate, the real issue is:
Where did you go in the high country?
Last year we backpacked at Tuolumne Meadows, beginning at the trail up to Sunrise Lakes, then toward Sunrise High Camp (with offshoot to Matthes Lake, which was incredible), then to Upper Cathedral Lake, and ending at the TM Visitor Center.
So nice to get out of the high-traffic areas. We saw maybe 20 people over 5 days.
Where We Went (with Photos)
Where we went -- all day hikes out of TM, where we stayed in one of the tent cabins:
Day 1: The lodge. We arrived late in afternoon and it was rainy, so we just hung out. (For those unfamiliar with TM Lodge, it's mostly a big tent that gets taken down every fall. The attached kitchen and office are hard-roofed structures, but the dining area is tent. It's not the kind of grand stone-and-timber affair that most people think of when they hear the word "lodge," especially in the context of a National Park.)
The lodge entry:
Day 2: Drove up 120 and parked near the Tioga Lake campground. Hiked past Bennetville (an old mining town) to Fantail, Shell and Spuller Lakes. It was cold and a bit rainy, so we wanted to stay close to the car. It was about a 2-mile easy jaunt that was a good way to adjust to the altitude. My SoCal cousin arrived with his wife, twin 13-year-olds and their friends that evening.
Kari on the ridge above Spuller Lake. Peter's down there somewhere skipping rocks.
Peter, who's fastball I failed to catch the next day. The bruise on my leg is still quite colorful.
Me. Not sure if I'm talking or catching my breath. It must be after lunch, though, since I have a toothpick in my mouth (don't leave home without 'em!).
Day 3: Took the SoCal contingent to Spillway Lake, an easy 4-mile hike to get them acclimated. After lunch Kari, Peter and I left them there and went up to Helen Lake, the over the ridge with the idea of contouring around to Bingaman Lake. Unfortunately, the contour was occupied by big talus, which would have been very slow going, so we decided to drop down to the meadow below and then up to Bingaman. However, when we hit the meadow the skies that had been merely cloudy decided to get active, with hail across the canyon, then thunder and lightning. We were pretty exposed there, so we bailed off the side back to Spillway and then back to the car. We got back just in time to go through the most intense hailstorm I've ever experienced.
Kari and Peter at Helen Lake. Though only about 500' above Spillway Lake, I bet 90% or more of the visitors to Spillway never poke their noses up here.
Day 4: An easy day, went up Lembert Dome with the SoCal folks, then around the back side near Dog Lake and down to the road. My Bay Area cousin, her husband and son arrived that afternoon.
Day 5: May Lake and Mount Hoffman. This was my 4th visit to Hoffman in the last 15 years, but the younger kids had never been there, and it's a very nice outing. It's a good workout, too -- although it's only about 3 miles one-way, it starts at around 8,900' in the parking lot and goes to 10,800' or so at the top. Great views from up there -- just don't leave you pack unguarded, or one of the resident fat marmots will get into it -- and the plateau at the base of the peak is really beautiful and fun to explore.
One of my PM2s at the peak:
Peter looking off the edge of the plateau toward Tenaya Lake:
Day 6: The SoCal contingent went home that morning and the weather got kind of iffy again, so we took an easy walk from the lodge about 4 miles up the Lyle Fork, ate lunch and went back. It rained a bit just as we arrived at the lodge, so it worked out fine.
Day 7: With the younger kids gone we did some hiking more suited to the adults. I'd never seen Sunrise High Sierra Camp, so we took the shuttle to Tenaya Lake and headed south, lunching at upper Sunrise Lake. The Bay Area folks left from there to head home, leaving just Kari, Peter and me to drop down to the Sunrise camp to check it out. This is a pretty strenuous hike; starting at around 8,200' at the lake, it gets up around 9,800', then drops about 400' to the camp. It includes what I call the Staircase, a 1-mile stretch of rocky switchbacks that rises about 1,100'. I couldn't remember when the last shuttle was, so I left Sunrise HSC ahead of Kari and Peter to make sure we didn't get stranded. It was mostly downhill, and I got to the road about 45 minutes ahead of them. It turned out we had plenty of time, though, so as it turns out I could have eased upon my pace.
A typical tent cabin at Sunrise High Sierra Camp:
The view south toward Yosemite Valley from the top of the Staircase. Half Dome is poking up in left center:
Day 8: Peter wanted to take another crack at Mt. Conness. When we tried it a couple of years ago we flailed around trying to find the route, and wasted several hours picking our way through a bunch of talus, scree and brush before figuring out how to get up on the ridge. Kari and Peter ended up turning back, and I'm the only one who got to the summit. But on my way back I ran into a couple climbers who told me about an easier route, so this year Peter and I decided to scout it. The weather was threatening from the start, so I knew we wouldn't try the summit, but if we could nail down the route to the ridge I'd consider the day a success. We started out at Sawmill Campground near Saddlebag Lake, and the trail is basically flat for the first mile. Then it climbs from about 9,800' to around 10,800' in 1.8 miles to a cirque where the good trail ends. From there it gets steep on a sparse trail of about 0.3 mile to the ridge at 11,400' or so. We got up there as the clouds were getting dark, so we caught our breath and headed back down, stopping for lunch in the cirque. We got hailed on for maybe 15 minutes on the way back to the car, but then it let up and we didn't really get too wet or cold.
Peter standing in the cirque. The red arrow points to the chute we'd climb to gain the ridge.
Peter standing on the ridge. I'm looking up the chute, but mostly just catching my breath. Cameras provide good cover for that!
Looking southwest from the ridge toward an unnamed lakelet in the foreground and middle Young Lake in the distance.
Looking back down the chute toward the bottom of the cirque (not actually visible due to the intervening rock holding the little pondlet). The end of the meadow we started from is in the distance.
Day 9: Breakfast, pack up and go home. Kari always gets bummed when we leave, sometimes almost coming to tears. But we always stop for lunch in Don Blameuser's area (Groveland/Big Oak Flat), and that usually cheers her up some.
