Identification Information

Title Public Land Survey System - Sections on USDA Forest Service Lands

Date 2009-07-26

Date Type Publication

Cited Responsible Party

Organization Name USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Regional Office

Role identify

Presentation Form vector digital data

Abstract This feature class depicts the boundaries of Land Survey features called sections, defined by the Public Lands Survey System Grid. Normally, 36 sections make up a township. The entire extent of each of these units should be collected, not just the portion on National Forest System lands. This dataset is derived from the USFS Southwestern Region ALP (Automated Lands Program) data Project. This is one of six layers derived from ALP for the purpose of supplying data layers for recourse GIS analysis and data needs within the Forest Service. The six layers are Surface Ownership, Administrative Forest Boundary, District Boundary, Townships, Sections, and Wilderness. There were some gapes in the ALP data so a small portion of this dataset comes from CCF (Cartographic Feature Files) datasets and the USFS Southwestern Region Core Data Project. ALP data is developed from data sources of differing accuracy, scales, and reliability. Where available it is developed from GCDB (Geographic Coordinate Data Base) data. GCDB data is maintained by the Bureau of Land Management in their State Offices. GCDB data is mostly corner data. Not all corners and not all boundaries are available in GCDB so ALP also utilizes many other data sources like CFF data to derive its boundaries. GCDB data is in a constant state of change because land corners are always getting resurveyed. The GCDB data used in this dataset represents a snapshot in time at the time the GCDB dataset was published by the BLM and may not reflect the most current GCDB dataset available. The Forest Service makes no expressed or implied warranty with respect to the character, function, or capabilities of these data. These data are intended to be used for planning and analyses purposes only and are not legally binding with regards to title or location of National Forest System lands.

Purpose The purpose of this feature class is to depict USFS administrative and ownership boundaries on this National Forest to be used in conjunction with the management activities.

Status Complete

Point of Contact

Individual Name

Organization Name USDA Forest Service, Southwest Regional Office

Position Name Forest Land Staff

Role Point of contact

Voice 505-842-3292

Facsimile 505-842-3855

Address

Delivery Point 333 Broadway SE
City Albuquerque
Administrative Area New Mexico
Postal Code 87102
Country

Electronic Mail Address Mailroom_R3@fs.fed.us

Maintenance and Update Frequency As needed

Descriptive Keywords Surface Ownership, Administrative Boundaries, Ranger District Boundaries, Townships, Sections, Wilderness, United States Forest Service, Proclaimed Boundary

Access Constraints None.

Use Constraints This product is geospatial information prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. These data has been developed from sources of differing accuracy, scales, and reliability and may not be spatially accurate. Public Land Survey, ownership, and administrative boundary lines are not definitive in their location and do not necessarily represent the location of legally surveyed boundaries. The Forest Service makes no expressed or implied warranty with respect to the character, function, or capabilities of these data. These data are intended to be used for planning and analyses purposes only and are not legally binding with regards to title or location of National Forest System lands. The Forest Service reserves the right to correct, update, modify, or replace this information without notification.

Language English

Topic Category planningCadastre

Extent

Geographic Bounding Box

West Bound -113.318731
East Bound -99.356139
North Bound 37.0717
South Bound 31.079174

Temporal Extent

DateTime 2007-03-01

Data Quality Information

Attribute Accuracy Report

Report Accuracy and completeness was checked by manually comparing this dataset with other datasets of similar subject with on-screen review.

Quantitative Attribute Accuracy Assessment

Attribute Accuracy Value
Attribute Accuracy Explanation

Horizontal Positional Accuracy Report

Report Based on accuracy statements made for USGS topographic quadrangle maps. Targeted to National Standard for Spatial Data Accuracy (NSSDA). The National Map Accuracy Standards for 7.5 minute 1:24,000 quadrangles applies to this feature class, which state that a feature will be within approximately 40 feet of its true position.

Quantitative Horizontal Positional Accuracy Assessment

Horizontal Positional Accuracy Value
Horizontal Positional Accuracy Explanation

Logical Consistency Report Polygon topology present.

Completeness Report Data set is complete.

Lineage

Source Information

Source Citation

Source Scale Denominator 24000

Type of Source Media electronic bulletin board

Source Time Period of Content

Beginning Position 1996
Ending Position 2000
Source Currentness Reference Most current data available within the stated time period.

Source Citation Abbreviation Unknown

Source Contribution Unknown

Source Information

Source Citation

Source Scale Denominator 24000

Type of Source Media electronic bulletin board

Source Time Period of Content

DateTime 2007-03-01
Source Currentness Reference Most current data available within the stated time period.

Source Citation Abbreviation ALP

Source Contribution data

Source Information

Source Citation

Source Scale Denominator 24000

Type of Source Media electronic bulletin board

Source Time Period of Content

DateTime 2000
Source Currentness Reference Most current data available within the stated time period.

Source Citation Abbreviation BLM

Source Contribution database

Process Step

Process Description These seven layers were derived from ALP: Administrative Boundary Proclaimed Boundary District Boundary Surface Ownership Sections Townships Wilderness Data for six of the seven feature classes was loaded from individual ALP coverages for each Forest using ArcCatalog. The ALP coverages for the forests break on township lines rather then forest boundaries. Although the ALP coverages were edged matched some additional edge matching was required. Topology rules were created for editing utilizing "Must not Overlap" and "Must not have gaps" rules. Forest Administrative Boundaries were created by dissolving the Ranger District Boundaries. Notes: 1. Forest Administrative Boundaries were created by dissolving the Ranger District Boundaries. 2. Townships and Sections were merged with "Union" in a separate Geodatabase before loading into the final Geodatabase. Sections and townships were edited together. Townships were dissolved from sections after editing. 3. The Prescott data came from the more recent Prescott Pilot Project. All other data mostly came from ALP. The Prescott Pilot originates from more recent GCDB data then the rest. The edge of the Prescott with the Kaibab, Coconino, and Tonto did not edge match. Edge matching was done alone the outside edge of the Prescott boundary making it a clean dataset. 4. District Boundaries for the Prescott Project were missing. Prescott District Boundaries were derived from the most recent CFF data. Used the same version of CFF that was used to fill in gapes in the Prescott Project. 5. District Boundaries on the Gila were incomplete in ALP. What District Boundaries did exist in ALP for the Gila were wrong particularly in the area of the Wilderness District. District Boundaries for the Gila were derived fro vintage 11 CFF, the same CFF used in ALP to fill in gaps of data. 6. Wilderness Areas for the Prescott were derived from a combination of Prescott Project data and very recent cartography data. The cartography data comes from very close examination of the actual wilderness legal descriptions. 7. Sycamore Canyon Wilderness has many conflicts in its descriptions. Two of the larger conflicts are labeled as Proposed Wilderness in this data set. The one on the Kaibab is in ALP but may be wrong (Jacks Canyon.) The other one on the Coconino was not in ALP and may not actually be Congressionally designated Wilderness yet but apparently is managed as wilderness by the Coconino. This one was mapped by cartography data in the RO. 8. The boundary between the Gila and Apache Forests along the Arizona and New Mexico border did not edge match. This is probably because the two states have different GCDB data sets. In this data set that line was edge matched using the Arizona or Apache ALP data. 9. The Gila has three locations where Townships overlap each other. Some of them by as much as a half mile. The overlaps were left as overlaps for both Townships and Sections on the Gila for this dataset. The error was clearly an error in the GCDB data that has never been resolved. There were no conflicts with Surface Ownership because of this. 10. Surface Ownership was derived by linking to the ALP database using the ALP CN numbers. There were a small hand full of polygons that did not link to ALP. Mostly because they were missing CN numbers. Ownership for these parcels was derived by comparing with other ownership data layers including older versions of ALP. 11. Most of the Grassland units did not link to ALP. The ALP data for these units appears to be missing in ALP. Ownership for theses units was derived from somewhat older ALP data then the rest. The exception to this was the "Black Kettle" Grass Land unit where a link to ALP was made 12. Many of the ALP coverages had small slivers and gaps. These slivers and gaps were mostly found using the topology rules "Must Not Have Gaps" and Must Not Overlap." An example of these slivers would be where the corner of a rectangular meats and bounds parcel barely crossed over a section line leaving a very small triangular sliver. These slivers were sometimes missed in the editing of the coverages in ALP but became obvious in Geodatabase with topology rules. In most cases it was obvious what parcel the sliver belonged to so theses slivers were merged with there appropriate parcel. 13. Some ALP data had overlapping in Surface Ownership and Section polygons. I all most all cases it was only editing error and the overlap had the same attributes. In only a few cases did the overlap actually need to be reconciled. All overlaps were eliminated except for those in Sections and Townships on the Gila mentioned before. 14. The "Escudilla Wilderness" on the Apache N.F. was not in ALP. The boundary of this wilderness was derived from vintage 11 CFF data 15. The "Bear Willow Wilderness" on the Apache was not in the wilderness feature class in the ALP cover but the line work was. Wilderness area created from line work. 16. The "Columbine-Hondo Wilderness Study Area" on the Carson was not was not in ALP. This wilderness study area was added using Southwester Regional GIS code data. 17. Townships and Sections have a gap on the "Magdalena" ranger district on the Cibola. This gap also showed up in Surface Ownership. The gap was filled as "USFS" owned land. 18. District and Forest Boundary for the "Mountanair" district of the Cibola N.F. were depicted differently in two different feature classes in ALP. The boundary in the ranger_district feature class was clearly wrong so the boundary in surf_own was used here. 19. Some last minute land status changes were made on the Santa Fe National Forest. Because Lands is still working on entering data into the tabular ALP theses parcels do not yet have CN numbers although the line work is from ALP and the ownership is correct. 20. ALP was not consistent with private ownership within wilderness areas. In some areas the private land was cut out of the wilderness and in others it was not. In this dataset we made it consistent by cutting out all private land out of wilderness. There is one place on the "Kachina Wilderness" on the Coconino where this was not able to be reconciled.
Process Date 2007-02-26
Process Time
Process Contact

Public Land Survey System - Sections on USDA Forest Service Lands

Metadata from the RGIS Metadata Repository

Identification Information

Distribution Information

Spatial Reference Information

Data Quality Information

Metadata Reference Information