December, 2012 RE: BASELINE WORKING GROUP Bylaw 12: Every member shall, at frequent intervals, compare the distance measuring equipment he uses in the field with a standard measure of length whose accuracy is certified by competent standardizing authority, and shall be prepared at all times to verify the accuracy of the measurements he made on the ground in relation to the standard measure of Canada. Group Members: Brian Wardrop, Parker Minard, Peter Goodier, Gordon Gamble, Robert Glass External Relations Committee Liaison: Shauna Goertzen The purpose of this work group was to investigate the status of official baselines and make recommendations as to how Bylaw 12 could be adequately adhered to by members.

1 BASELINE STATUS

There are five calibration baselines within the province of British Columbia although only 4 are mentioned on the Provincial website. EDM Baselines were originally established by the provinces and the Geodetic Surveys Division of Canada (GSD) provided their expertise for the measurement and analysis. A scale bias for their instrument was calculated on the National Geodetic Baseline in Ottawa and then applied to the measurements obtained on baselines. They would then perform calculations, adjustment and compare results to previous epochs to look for movement and determine values for the bases. The GSD effectively ended the program measuring calibration bases in 2006. Responsibility for the baselines calibration and maintenance fell to the individual provinces. The government of BC maintains on their Geo BC website four reports published by the GSD regarding Prince George, Vernon, Cranbrook, and Surrey baselines but do not mention Victoria.

1.1 Conditions and Constraints

Prince George Baseline: This is a linear baseline consisting of 6 concrete piers whose tops are about 1.5 m above ground, located on the north side of Highway 16 approximately 28km E of Prince George. Profile of this baseline is poor with interpier slopes exceeding Geodetic’s maximum criterion of 3 percent. The last recorded measurement and calibration by GSD was 1999.

Safety: Located on the north side of Highway 16, which can be very busy with industrial traffic and tourists in the summer months. Only Pier 3 can be accessed easily all others require vehicle to be parked on the narrow side/shoulder of the highway.

Inter-visibility: It is still open and MOTI trims any growth as regular maintenance of the right of way corridor. Ease of acquiring keys: McElhanney Office is the keeper of the force-centering bolts and wrench that opens up the hardware to place the instruments on. Easy to obtain with one phone call. Condition of piers: The concrete piers are generally in okay shape but it has been noted that some of the concrete is starting to weather and needs a bucket or something placed over the top of them to protect them from the weather. Piers are in a very isolated area, far from any potential or kind of current development. Ownership of land: As stated above, they are located within the road allowance so there are no access issues.

Cranbrook Baseline: This is a linear baseline consisting of 5 concrete piers whose tops are about 1.5 m above ground, located on the north side of Highway 95 approximately 10 km NE of Cranbrook. The last recorded measurement and calibration by GSD was 1996. Safety: Easy to access from the Highway. Easy to pull right off in the summer and drive along to all monuments with a 4x4 except the north one... have to park on the shoulder in winter. Inter-visibility: Very good no blockage. Some brush may come into play but it should be easy to keep clear. Ease of acquiring keys: Keys are kept at the Regional District of East Kootenay and can be easily obtained from the front desk. Condition of piers: piers are in good condition, no sign of deterioration. They are in a very isolated area, far from any potential or kind of current development. Ownership of land: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure Right of way for Hwy.#93/95

Surrey Baseline: This is a 6 pier linear baseline with a 7th offset pier (part of Surrey Basenet) added in 1994. The last recorded measurement and calibration by GSD was 1999. Safety: Easy to access each of six piers. Safe and secure off of road. Inter-visibility: A row of trees and bushes border the length of the baseline to the east, so trimming is required once in a while, especially in the growing season. The city arranges for slope-mowers to cut back the higher growth which cannot be handled with a machete Condition of piers: piers are in good condition, some deterioration of platforms. Ease of acquiring keys: Keys are kept at the City of Surrey office. Ownership of land: The City currently owns Lot 1, BCP43682, but it will be further subdivided and sold to create lots for future development. The City, in particular the Survey department will be involved in the talks with the developer to make sure that this baseline remains viable for future use. There is currently development occurring on the site. The baseline itself will remain in the road allowance, but the site to the west is being developed for commercial uses. There will be provisions for the future buildings so that they remain below a 15 degree horizon mask for GPS observations.

Vernon Baseline: do not have current conditions or photos of piers

This is a linear baseline consisting of 6 concrete piers whose tops are about 1.5 m above ground, located on the east and west side of Highway 97 approximately 6 km SW of Vernon. The last recorded measurement and calibration by GSD was 1997.

Safety: Access from the Highway. Inter-visibility: Several site lines blocked Condition of piers: no evaluation at this time. They are in road right of way so relatively safe from development. Ownership of land: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure Right of Way for Hwy Victoria Baseline: do not have current conditions or photos of piers This is a linear baseline consisting of 6 concrete piers. Provincial website has no GSD calibration reports that can be found. Safety: Easy to access from the Highway. Inter-visibility: Many lines are no longer inter visible due to tree growth and irregular maintenance Condition of piers: piers are in good condition, little deterioration. They are in road right of way but Saanich has potential for development. Ownership of land: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure Right of Way for Hwy

1.2 Calibration and Maintenance

As mentioned previously, the GSD ended the program of calibrating bases in 2006. In an attempt to keep the baselines viable, they developed a process and automated the calculation and analysis software to allow verification, maintenance of calibration bases by third parties using quality measurement instruments to allow millimetre precision (eliminating high precision instrumentation used in past requiring sophisticated metrology). Currently, the province will reduce any baseline observations if the information is sent to them (see EDM Calibration Form Appendix B) but they will not support the baselines for our needs ie. maintenance, or creation of new ones to increase density.

1.3 Service Area per Baseline

The individual baselines were established and spread about the province with the intent that they would be able to service all surveyors’ calibration needs. In practice, with only five created for the entire province, they are inaccessible to a majority of surveyors as the regions of coverage are far too large. The following map provides an illustrative reference of the area each baseline is intended to service.

1.4 Adequacy of Baselines

As part of this study, a survey of eight questions was put forth to the membership. 81 members replied. The questions and results are listed below (a complete copy of results is attached as Appendix A).

1. Do you regularly send your instruments to a Government Baseline for calibration? Y 21.3% N 78.8%

2. Do you feel the baseline for your region is easy for you to access/utilize? Y 25.9% N 74.1%

3. Do you feel it is an acceptable expectation that all members perform this duty? Y 55.6% N 44.4%

4. In your practice, do you feel you are meeting the requirements of Bylaw 12 as it is currently written? Y 55.7% N 44.3%

5. Would you like to see amendments to Bylaw 12 to bring it more in line with current conditions/affairs? Comments Y 69.7% N 30.3%

6. If not using government baseline, do you have some other means of checking instrument calibration? Comments Y 83.6% N 16.4%

7. Government will no longer spend money to upkeep or establish new baselines. Do you believe the Association should take over responsibility for baselines? Y 45.7% N 54.3%

8. Would you be willing to have some monetary fee (or increase to currents fees) to facilitate Association establishing new baselines, maintaining, calibrating, and generally up keeping baselines? Y 38.3% N 61.7%

It is our opinion that the baselines in their current state and limited number are not adequate to address the requirements of Bylaw 12. The time and monetary value for a majority of the members to get their instruments to a baseline for calibration basically prevents them from doing so.

2 Methodology currently in Practice

Comments from Question 6 of the survey would indicate that a majority of the respondents are performing some kind of a check on their instruments as means to assure themselves that equipment is in good operating condition and measurements are within their accepted tolerances. The main methods are summarized below with the first three being most prevalent:

Comparison of measured results to published distances between ISA monuments

Set up own local baseline, with certified tape, GPS, or recently calibrated total station

Sending in for yearly maintenance and servicing to factory tolerances by repair technicians

Checks between GPS positions

Closed traverse checks

Comparisons with other surveyor results…plan comparisons In most cases, it is some combination of the above listed methods that are being used on a routine basis for checks on equipment. It would appear that the province is riddled with “unofficial baselines” established outside of offices, within towns and rural areas and, as some consider, built into the Integrated Monument System. These private baselines have generally been established by individual practitioners or firms. Some have used certified tapes, instruments recently sent for calibration on government baseline or servicing by technician. However, as a professional body there is no way of knowing the quality or permanence of these baseline points. The purpose of a survey system validation is to evaluate the entire measuring system to ensure results will meet the defined accuracy requirements and the performance stated by the manufacturer. In modern practice distance measuring equipment cannot be confined to the total station (EDM), but should include accompanying equipment such as prisms, tribrachs, pogos etc. and GNSS Systems for which only one validation network exists (Surrey). These should be regularly checked as part of process and can be done with local baselines. This does not occur when occupying fixed concrete piers at baselines.

2.1 Other Associations

The Alberta Land Surveyors Association, (ALSA), is currently in very similar discussions as our selves. This is evidenced and finely described in a Calibration report dated May 17, 2012 which was presented at their Annual General Meeting. The Surveys Act for the province states that a surveyor shall verify all electronic measuring devices used, by comparison with base lines established by the Minister. They currently have four baselines maintained by the province. Further to this, in conjunction with NRCan, the province maintains two GNSS Validation networks. Both networks incorporate the EDM baseline in that area (Edmonton and Calgary). The province maintains well written documents detailing the baselines locations, guidelines to calibration, how and where to send data for reduction and pier establishment. However, from some simple polling of friends/members of ALSA we have surmised that in reality the situation is very similar to ours, the base lines have been neglected and are too far apart to service the entire province. Those near enough may still use them but the general consensus appears to

be maintenance and calibration by technicians combined with checks to integrated monuments is sufficient. In Saskatchewan, there appears not to be any legislature regarding calibration, however, it is alluded to in the Land Surveys Act, “measure of length used in surveys ….. must be determined on the basis of …Canadian units of measure”. The Saskatchewan Land Surveyors Association (SLSA) does not have any stipulations in their by-laws regarding calibration, but it is commonly a requirement for provincial or federal contracts. Similar to Alberta, the provincial government maintains two EDM base lines and one GPS validation network in conjunction with NRCan. The SLSA feels that generally the membership is using the calibration base lines but again it would appear those near it use it while others don’t. The situation in PEI is very different in that the provincial government has discontinued maintenance of their base lines and secondary network in favour of a GNSS system of 8 Active Control Monuments with Virtual Reference Station Capabilities. They appear not to have any stipulations to membership about calibration but general understanding is that if a surveyor had cause to think equipment was out of proper adjustment it would be sent in to technician for adjustment and calibration. In terms of federal lands, both the Canada Lands Surveys Act and the General Instructions for the Survey of Canada Lands speak about equipment that "must be in adjustment, in calibration and standardized". However both documents are silent on how this should be done as this is seen to be in the realm of professional practice. The professional practice of Canada Lands Surveyors is the responsibility of the Association of Canada Lands Surveyors (ACLS). The ACLS maintains a Practice Manual for their members that deals with the issue of equipment calibration similar to our bylaw 12. Excerpts from the specific sections are as follows: "4.15 General • Equipment should be in adjustment and tested regularly for calibration. • EDM equipment should be tested on a baseline. 4.16 Adjustment and Testing of Measuring Equipment All equipment used in the survey must be in adjustment, in calibration and standardized." Although not physically maintained by anyone, legal surveyors in the Yukon and the NWT are still able to use the GSD baselines in Whitehorse and Yellowknife for calibration purposes. In the south, almost all CLSs are also provincial land surveyors and the assumption is that these surveyors are using equipment that has been adjusted, calibrated and standardized in accordance with provincial association requirements. In all cases, both north and south, the Surveyor General Branch does not have any hard data on how surveyors are actually dealing with the issue of equipment adjustment and calibration in their practices.

3 Suggestions and Alternatives

Option 1: The Current Baselines solely remain as Calibration Basis The Federal and Provincial governing bodies have extinguished funds for the baseline program. The current lack of ownership, responsibility and maintenance of the existing baselines needs to be addressed if we, as a professional body, wish to utilize them in any fashion. In some form or another, the Association will have to step up and claim these for ourselves if we wish to continue using them for calibration. The mechanisms are in place which would allow the continued use and data reduction from these baselines. For the most part they are within road right of ways and MOTI keeps sight lines clear. Limited special clearing may be required for Victoria baseline. Some of the elements for success:

Association, through the Regional Groups, assumes responsibilities for baselines

Regional Groups become holders of the “keys” and designate where they are held

LST’s, students within Regional Groups “volunteer” for maintenance duty

One company near each baseline could accept and test instruments sent to them from other members on the baseline for a fee. (potential fee not fully investigated at this point)

Measurements sent to provincial government for calibration results Option 2: Keep existing baselines and Augment with other Methods A validation network should generally be established to standards of one order of magnitude better than the production survey requirements. The provincial validation baselines and GPS basenets are excellent primary validation networks. These need to be maintained and should be used whenever possible. However, as we know, these are limited and may not be practical for every land surveyor to regularly use. In many ways, the idea of local baselines easily accessible to all surveyors within a community makes the most sense. The easier and more economical it is to test and calibrate equipment the more likely it is to occur. The problem with current local baselines, however, is that there is no way of knowing how and to what order of accuracy they were established, how susceptible the points are to movement or how to quantify precision of the distances. These items would need to be addressed in a semi-controlled fashion which would satisfy our due diligence and duty to the public. The Association would have to set out a procedure to be followed for establishing local baselines. This could be written into the Professional Reference Manual or in the form of a circular letter. The initial data establishing the baselines could be analyzed and sanctified by a current authority. GeoBC or a trusted third Party could be consulted or contracted for this purpose. The final records for the secondary baselines could then be kept by the Association or the Regional Groups. Regional Groups, or members within the same community could then coordinate and combine resources, possibly supplemented by the Association, to establish local baselines. Maintenance could fall upon local LST’s or survey students. In some areas perhaps the baseline could be piggybacked on existing Geodetic Control Monuments. In this manner, Vancouver Island could have the provincial baseline in Victoria and secondary baselines in Nanaimo, Courtenay, and Campbell River. Baselines could be established in Kamploops, Smithers etc. Another advantage is that the local baseline could be established so that it also works as a basenet for testing GNSS equipment.

The basic concept is mentioned in the document “Best Practice Guidelines for the use of EDM and GPS for Cadastral Surveys, and Measuring System Validations”. We have come up with the following procedural guidelines which could be put to more detail at a later date if this policy is adopted. To begin with one would need equipment recently calibrated on one of the primary networks. For example, surveyor takes and EDM and two or more dual frequency GNSS receivers to an EDM baseline or basenet that is currently supported and observes between two or more monuments swapping the receivers during the observations so as to get a true double difference. Once this data is reduced, a relative precision can be determined between the observed distances and published distances. Verifying the accuracy of the GNSS receivers could also be accomplished using the same observed data by rigorously adjusting it against several ACP’s. Once we have two or more receivers whose precisions have been quantified and a Total Station, we can then use these to set up local baselines with distances, coordinates and standard deviations of error. A secondary baseline should consist of four or more points established in a straight line over distances that simulate normal project measurements in order to validate internal precision and performance for the EDM system. To augment this as a basenet and allow for angular and GNSS validation, two or more points established outward of the baseline should be included as well. The initial data from set up would need to be rigorously adjusted, analyzed and sanctioned by the Association. This is most likely the point that a trusted third party or GeoBC would need to be consulted and/or contracted to provide assistance. The surveyor then measures, reduces, analyzes the networks various combinations of distances and angles in a least squares network adjustment report and verifies the precision of the results. As part of the criteria, the precision of results should meet or exceed the manufacturers stated specifications after considering other systematic errors. Individuals could use the federal government program or a recommended least squares adjustment program to reduce the observations and verify precision of results. These Least Squares Network adjustment reports should be kept on file by members to be produced if required. Cansel also has an in-house baseline, only accessible in the winter, consisting of several distances. They can provide certification reports for $35. Baseline is not ISO certified but was set out with high precision Trimble. Perhaps could be checked with quantified receivers as described above and sanction as a local baseline. Members could then have the option of sending instruments here for validation. Option 3: Do Nothing What are our obligations as a professional body in regards to this matter? The bylaw was written with obvious assumptions that there would be some form of length/baseline certified by a competent standardizing authority available upon which to calibrate our instruments. If this is no longer the case due to Federal and Provincial government cutbacks are we still required to ensure calibration against something? Do we eliminate Bylaw 12 or simply not put any standards to it. Leave it up to the general practitioner to satisfy him or herself that their equipment is in proper working order as stated in 2-3 of the General Survey Instruction Rules?

4 Summary

Regardless of legislature, by-laws, provincial government involvement or not, there appears to be no common practice with EDM calibration. Some do, some don’t, and others won’t. The main limiting factor appears to be location and how close one is to a base line. We are not alone in our goal to develop a standard practice regarding instrument calibration but we could be leaders among our peers if we can achieve it. 70% of those polled believe Bylaw 12 is in need of amendment to bring it more in line with current conditions. As one member noted, “a vague bylaw promotes non-compliance”. Any amendments should be made to clarify or eliminate such ambiguities as:

“frequent” – what time frame is frequent/regular

“Standard measure of length”- does this refer to the National Geodetic Baseline in Ottawa which was used as the Scale Bias for other baselines or simply Canada’s unit of measure, the metre

“competent standardizing authority”- who or what is this Bylaw 12 (as written) is not being achieved and many feel cannot be achieved with the current state of the provincial baseline system. It is obvious that a majority of members do not currently use a government baseline to calibrate their instruments but rely on a variety of other mechanisms. However, as an Association, we still need to somehow quantify/verify that the mechanisms in place meet our responsibilities to the public as experts in measurement. This working group, believes that Option 2, is the best means of moving forward whilst making it possible and economical for a majority of the membership to regularly calibrate their equipment.

4.1 Bylaw 12 Recommendations

We recommend that Bylaw 12 be amended to read as follows:

“All equipment used in the survey must be in adjustment, in calibration and standardized. The surveyor must keep records of calibration and standardization results and carry out sufficient analysis of the data to prove that the equipment is operating to the manufacturer's specifications and meets criteria acceptable to the Association.”

Criteria Acceptable to the Association;

Equipment sent to repair technicians for servicing and one of the following,

Validated on one of the Primary Provincial Baselines or Basenet

Validated on a Secondary Local Baseline or Basenet In order to make the bylaw achievable to the membership the Association must:

Take ownership of current baselines , most likely through Regional Groups

Regional Groups become holders of the “keys” and designate where they are held

Develop a method of baseline maintenance, most likely through some form of volunteer by LST’s and survey students within Regional Groups

Adopt a policy of local baselines, define the process for establishment of these baselines similar to that described and a method of record keeping for any local baselines created

Decide upon an acceptable time period for validation (ie. Bi-annual servicing with annual baseline validation)

Develop some method of enforcement, checking procedure (perhaps as part of Practice Review)